You attempted to contradict my statements with your opinions.
I did no such thing. I asserted that the spam volume of the murdered spammer had dropped, and claimed that the fact that his volume had dropped may provide proof for the hypothesis that killing spammers reduces spam volume. In fact, I haven't really given my personal opinion on anything during this discussion except that I don't think that people should go around murdering each other.
Care to suggest how you could make that possible?
If that were known then we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that I can say is that since the current set of punishments have not been successful in reducing spam volume, that harsher punishments are called for.
I am pointing out that murder is not a possible solution.
Well then you're simply wrong. Murder exists in the set of all possible solutions. Issues such as morals and ethics do not enter into things that are or are not possible. Morals and ethics involve things that are or are not acceptable to society, not what may or may not be possible.
So then if we replace "each other" with "spammers", is your statement still true?
More often than not. Typically I don't think that it is reasonable for regular citizens to take the law into their own hands. There are extreme cases where justice is unserved where I feel a bit more lenient.
however the truth of the matter is that spammers are not in business simply to "damage society".
Correct. Spammers, and other "social parasites", are in business to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can. The defining characteristic that sets those people apart from most other members of society is that social parasites typically don't care who or how many people they burden or hurt in their quest to collect wealth. For them, the detriment of society is not a factor that they take into account in their business dealings. Because of this, one could argue that removing those individuals from society would be better for everyone else. The extreme of this position is that since those people show a disregard for the welfare of society in general, then society should similarly show a disregard for them.
So that obviously leads to the question: "who the h*ll is still watching the commercials"?
Keep in mind that "the DVR playing the commercials" is not the same thing as "someone watching the commercials". My DVR plays commercials all the time, but I'm not necessarily sitting there watching it.
I'm not sure how a PVR differs from a DVR, but I don't think the ratings detect when I leave a show running while I'm doing something else, and come back later to rewind and end up skipping the commercials.
So then we are in agreement that you are arguing in favor of murdering more people. I'm glad we can at least agree on something.
I'm in favor of reducing the total number of spammers. I never claimed that murder was the solution nor the only way to accomplish that goal.
Your assumption that murder will solve the problem is based upon the assumption that there is a small and finite supply of people who want to make money as spammers.
The only thing that I'm assuming is that right now the risk associated with spamming is far lower than the possible rewards. That is what needs to change. The risk that spammers face needs to be higher than the possible gains that they might see. You're fixated on murder being the only possible solution, but that's not the case either.
If you are opposed to murder, feel free to say so. But so far your argument has been staunchly pro-murder.
My argument has been in favor of reducing the total number of spammers. You're starting to sound like Glenn Beck. If I don't explicitly state that murder is not an option then you're going to assume that murder is my #1 option. Those aren't the only two possibilities.
And on what side are you?
Since you asked, I think that people just running around murdering each other is not a good thing.
I suspect if you were to talk to someone involved in spam they would very strongly disagree with an assertion that they "only exists to damage society".
Yes, I am sure they would disagree with that. Much like Tony Soprano would say that he performs a valuable garbage disposal service.
No evidence whatsoever has been presented to support the notion that the assassination of a spam king reduced global spam volume.
And exactly how many studies were commissioned to study the impact of this specific murder on the global spam volume?
So then are you suggesting that if a little bit of criminal activity didn't solve the problem, somehow it could be aided by more criminal activity?
I'm suggesting that removing a single spammer isn't going to have a large impact on global spam, but if you remove many more spammers, then you will see more of an impact. It's some tough logic to follow, I understand.
And are you aware of the fact that while much of the world's spam comes from systems within the US, many of the spammers are themselves in other countries?
Yes, I am aware of that.
how many people do you know who would be willing to pull off an assassination in another country for your cause?
Considering that "my cause" is playing the Devil's advocate, I doubt many people would be willing to kill someone for the sake of argument. But I'm also not trying to recruit people for assassination missions, I'm just having a theoretical argument with you.
Some people see outright murder as just simply wrong.
Actually, I would say that the majority of people think that outright murder is wrong. But I would also say that there are several people who think that it's not morally acceptable to allow someone who only exists to damage society to continue damaging society. In other words, sacrifice one for the greater good of everyone else. There are several world governments that subscribe to that ideal.
Electronic "evidence" is extremely easy to kludge together. Should not be allowed in courts.
One could say the exact same thing about witness testimony. Evidence presented in court is not seen as incontrovertible fact, it's evidence in support of a theory. It's up the judge or jury to decide if the evidence is credible and relevant to the case. The ability to manipulate evidence is not unique to electronic media.
This isn't Wallace's business model, it's Facebook's (notice steps 4 and 5). Facebook isn't going to jail, they get to put $700 million on their books.
If Facebook users want compensation then they can file a class-action suit, Facebook itself doesn't really have a responsibility to file a class-action suit for it's users, Facebook is able to go after him with bigger guns in criminal court.
Spammers have been killed in the past, and that didn't work either.
Sort of depends on how you define "work", doesn't it? Did one spammer dying stop the global spam problem? No. But that one guy's spam output has fallen quite a bit.
Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours. On the other hand, even a year or two of Wallace's normal behavior causes the rest of society to lose far more time. We should consider a death penalty
I've always read it the other way, a shallow learning curve is a lower barrier to entry because you can do a lot with a little knowledge - I see the curve as the amount of knowledge required to do certain tasks, so a shallower curve would equate to less knowledge required for more tasks (X axis = tasks, Y axis = knowledge required). A steep curve that shoots straight up means that you need a lot of knowledge to accomplish most tasks.
This isn't about interacting with traffic and obeying laws, it's about maintaining control of the vehicle.
The driving test was taken by 29 people - 22 without the gene variant and seven with it. They were asked to drive 15 laps on a simulator that required them to learn the nuances of a track programmed to have difficult curves and turns. Researchers recorded how well they stayed on the course over time. Four days later, the test was repeated.
Economic policies are not authoritarian, social policies are. The democrats are authoritarian (towards the top of the map), just not as authoritarian as the republicans. The social scale goes north-south, the economic scale is east-west. The democrats are farther left economically and more libertarian than republicans, but both parties are still authoritarian/right relative to the rest of the world.
Also, I'm not real sure if exhaust regulation, which is never a bad thing, qualifies as "taking over our cars".
And this isn't "my" political compass, it's just a web site.
My point is that at this time either outcome is just as likely, neither outcome can be favored. Frankly, arguing about which of two events is going to happen is an exercise in futility anyway, either Apple will or will not implement this in their OS and it doesn't matter what either of us thinks about that. In fact, the decision has probably already been made and we just aren't aware.
The big difference is that Apple doesn't sell advertising.
Not yet. They sure do a lot of advertising on their own though.
M$ and Google make their money from advertising
No, Microsoft makes its money primarily from selling Windows and Office. They are a software company, not an advertising company.
If I have an idea first, and patent it with the intent of getting paid for it by other companies that want to use it- I am not a patent troll.
If you patent an idea with no intent to implement it, I think you're a patent troll. Simply having an idea and patenting it does not contribute anything to society, it's parasitic. Which is exactly what patent trolls are. Implementing the patent does contribute, even if you're not the patent holder.
I used the M$ cause it's easier to type.
M$ is no easier to type than MS, you just want to show your anti-Microsoft agenda.
Just because they patent something does not imply they are going to implement it as evidenced by the many patents they file which never see implementation.
Right. So, the theory that Apple is going to implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they've implemented. Also, the theory that they will not implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they have not implemented. Both assumptions are supported, although only one will be true.
They won't block anything, Microsoft has plenty of money to use for royalties if they want to. So does Google, in fact. Regardless, Apple is just looking to cash in, probably by implementing their own advertising in addition to accepting royalties from anyone else who wants to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You attempted to contradict my statements with your opinions.
I did no such thing. I asserted that the spam volume of the murdered spammer had dropped, and claimed that the fact that his volume had dropped may provide proof for the hypothesis that killing spammers reduces spam volume. In fact, I haven't really given my personal opinion on anything during this discussion except that I don't think that people should go around murdering each other.
Care to suggest how you could make that possible?
If that were known then we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that I can say is that since the current set of punishments have not been successful in reducing spam volume, that harsher punishments are called for.
I am pointing out that murder is not a possible solution.
Well then you're simply wrong. Murder exists in the set of all possible solutions. Issues such as morals and ethics do not enter into things that are or are not possible. Morals and ethics involve things that are or are not acceptable to society, not what may or may not be possible.
So then if we replace "each other" with "spammers", is your statement still true?
More often than not. Typically I don't think that it is reasonable for regular citizens to take the law into their own hands. There are extreme cases where justice is unserved where I feel a bit more lenient.
however the truth of the matter is that spammers are not in business simply to "damage society".
Correct. Spammers, and other "social parasites", are in business to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can. The defining characteristic that sets those people apart from most other members of society is that social parasites typically don't care who or how many people they burden or hurt in their quest to collect wealth. For them, the detriment of society is not a factor that they take into account in their business dealings. Because of this, one could argue that removing those individuals from society would be better for everyone else. The extreme of this position is that since those people show a disregard for the welfare of society in general, then society should similarly show a disregard for them.
So that obviously leads to the question: "who the h*ll is still watching the commercials"?
Keep in mind that "the DVR playing the commercials" is not the same thing as "someone watching the commercials". My DVR plays commercials all the time, but I'm not necessarily sitting there watching it.
I'm not sure how a PVR differs from a DVR, but I don't think the ratings detect when I leave a show running while I'm doing something else, and come back later to rewind and end up skipping the commercials.
So then we are in agreement that you are arguing in favor of murdering more people. I'm glad we can at least agree on something.
I'm in favor of reducing the total number of spammers. I never claimed that murder was the solution nor the only way to accomplish that goal.
Your assumption that murder will solve the problem is based upon the assumption that there is a small and finite supply of people who want to make money as spammers.
The only thing that I'm assuming is that right now the risk associated with spamming is far lower than the possible rewards. That is what needs to change. The risk that spammers face needs to be higher than the possible gains that they might see. You're fixated on murder being the only possible solution, but that's not the case either.
If you are opposed to murder, feel free to say so. But so far your argument has been staunchly pro-murder.
My argument has been in favor of reducing the total number of spammers. You're starting to sound like Glenn Beck. If I don't explicitly state that murder is not an option then you're going to assume that murder is my #1 option. Those aren't the only two possibilities.
And on what side are you?
Since you asked, I think that people just running around murdering each other is not a good thing.
I suspect if you were to talk to someone involved in spam they would very strongly disagree with an assertion that they "only exists to damage society".
Yes, I am sure they would disagree with that. Much like Tony Soprano would say that he performs a valuable garbage disposal service.
No evidence whatsoever has been presented to support the notion that the assassination of a spam king reduced global spam volume.
And exactly how many studies were commissioned to study the impact of this specific murder on the global spam volume?
So then are you suggesting that if a little bit of criminal activity didn't solve the problem, somehow it could be aided by more criminal activity?
I'm suggesting that removing a single spammer isn't going to have a large impact on global spam, but if you remove many more spammers, then you will see more of an impact. It's some tough logic to follow, I understand.
And are you aware of the fact that while much of the world's spam comes from systems within the US, many of the spammers are themselves in other countries?
Yes, I am aware of that.
how many people do you know who would be willing to pull off an assassination in another country for your cause?
Considering that "my cause" is playing the Devil's advocate, I doubt many people would be willing to kill someone for the sake of argument. But I'm also not trying to recruit people for assassination missions, I'm just having a theoretical argument with you.
Some people see outright murder as just simply wrong.
Actually, I would say that the majority of people think that outright murder is wrong. But I would also say that there are several people who think that it's not morally acceptable to allow someone who only exists to damage society to continue damaging society. In other words, sacrifice one for the greater good of everyone else. There are several world governments that subscribe to that ideal.
Electronic "evidence" is extremely easy to kludge together. Should not be allowed in courts.
One could say the exact same thing about witness testimony. Evidence presented in court is not seen as incontrovertible fact, it's evidence in support of a theory. It's up the judge or jury to decide if the evidence is credible and relevant to the case. The ability to manipulate evidence is not unique to electronic media.
Which made no noticeable change in the global spam problem whatsoever.
You can't really prove that, maybe spam volume would have been larger if the guy remained alive.
Hence it did not work if the goal was to make a difference in regards to the greater spamming problem;
Maybe the problem was that not enough spammers were given the same fate.
why someone would ever feel killing is justified either way is beyond me.
Some things are just for the sake of argument.
This isn't Wallace's business model, it's Facebook's (notice steps 4 and 5). Facebook isn't going to jail, they get to put $700 million on their books.
If Facebook users want compensation then they can file a class-action suit, Facebook itself doesn't really have a responsibility to file a class-action suit for it's users, Facebook is able to go after him with bigger guns in criminal court.
Spammers have been killed in the past, and that didn't work either.
Sort of depends on how you define "work", doesn't it? Did one spammer dying stop the global spam problem? No. But that one guy's spam output has fallen quite a bit.
Well just wait until the Gopher Rights bill gets passed, it's coming..
steel buildings fall at the speed of gravity
Does gravity not act on steel buildings in other countries?
Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours. On the other hand, even a year or two of Wallace's normal behavior causes the rest of society to lose far more time. We should consider a death penalty
Chairman Mao, is that you?
Ah, you must be the lawyer.
I don't know whether to be more surprised that my state is actually the first to do something meaningful, or that the law is actually that far behind.
Quoth the lawyer:
'This is at the cutting edge — it's the law trying to catch up with technology'
So it's not really the cutting edge then, is it? It's the law only now trying to cope with decades-old technology.
I've always read it the other way, a shallow learning curve is a lower barrier to entry because you can do a lot with a little knowledge - I see the curve as the amount of knowledge required to do certain tasks, so a shallower curve would equate to less knowledge required for more tasks (X axis = tasks, Y axis = knowledge required). A steep curve that shoots straight up means that you need a lot of knowledge to accomplish most tasks.
Really? You can alter how your brain and body react to various proteins just by practice?
This isn't about interacting with traffic and obeying laws, it's about maintaining control of the vehicle.
The driving test was taken by 29 people - 22 without the gene variant and seven with it. They were asked to drive 15 laps on a simulator that required them to learn the nuances of a track programmed to have difficult curves and turns. Researchers recorded how well they stayed on the course over time. Four days later, the test was repeated.
Tell that to Glenn Beck and the lawyer defending gb1990.com, troll.
Economic policies are not authoritarian, social policies are. The democrats are authoritarian (towards the top of the map), just not as authoritarian as the republicans. The social scale goes north-south, the economic scale is east-west. The democrats are farther left economically and more libertarian than republicans, but both parties are still authoritarian/right relative to the rest of the world.
Also, I'm not real sure if exhaust regulation, which is never a bad thing, qualifies as "taking over our cars".
And this isn't "my" political compass, it's just a web site.
My point is that at this time either outcome is just as likely, neither outcome can be favored. Frankly, arguing about which of two events is going to happen is an exercise in futility anyway, either Apple will or will not implement this in their OS and it doesn't matter what either of us thinks about that. In fact, the decision has probably already been made and we just aren't aware.
I'm not defending Apple.
But..
I think this is a great move by Apple
The big difference is that Apple doesn't sell advertising.
Not yet. They sure do a lot of advertising on their own though.
M$ and Google make their money from advertising
No, Microsoft makes its money primarily from selling Windows and Office. They are a software company, not an advertising company.
If I have an idea first, and patent it with the intent of getting paid for it by other companies that want to use it- I am not a patent troll.
If you patent an idea with no intent to implement it, I think you're a patent troll. Simply having an idea and patenting it does not contribute anything to society, it's parasitic. Which is exactly what patent trolls are. Implementing the patent does contribute, even if you're not the patent holder.
I used the M$ cause it's easier to type.
M$ is no easier to type than MS, you just want to show your anti-Microsoft agenda.
Just because they patent something does not imply they are going to implement it as evidenced by the many patents they file which never see implementation.
Right. So, the theory that Apple is going to implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they've implemented. Also, the theory that they will not implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they have not implemented. Both assumptions are supported, although only one will be true.
They won't block anything, Microsoft has plenty of money to use for royalties if they want to. So does Google, in fact. Regardless, Apple is just looking to cash in, probably by implementing their own advertising in addition to accepting royalties from anyone else who wants to do the same.