Clueless doesn't due justice to the Garland store.
I bought an inkjet there a while ago. Found the printer I wanted, everything on display had the lovely "returned" sticker on it. I finally dig someone up and they go back to get me one out of the stock. I also pick up 2 ink refills, one color, one black.
I get up front, the cashier sees different prices on the refills (well, DUH! they were different) and spends 15 minutes doing a price check. She finally comes back, satisified that the prices were right. Then she gets to the printer, which isn't marked. She wants me to go back and exchange it for one that is. Let's see, you just did a price check you didn't need to, and I'm supposed to go back and exchange something that took me extra time to get in the first place? I don't think so. At that point we said "forget it" and simply walked out.
You are correct, but when was the last time you heard someone refer to a Mozilla bug as a Linux bug? If there is a bug in IE, it is usually considered a windows bug
Yes, because MS stated, under oath, that IE is part of the OS. Why shouldn't the bugs count towards Windows?
If there's a critical bug in Mozilla, I can easily strip it out. Now try the same with IE.
It has more control over the local system - even Administrator can't kill System processes. Win32 itself is a System process, as well as many of the services.
Compiling under Windows does not require any special privilege, you only need Administrator level to install software, and some software doesn't need even that.
This doesn't even make sense to me. The analogy doesn't work. If I code a game made to work in windows 98, Microsoft can not (at this point) block your game from being run at the OS level (aka "taking away land") but really only through suing you to stop the game from being distributed
You can only say that after March of next year. As long as patches get released (for 98 or IE on 98, or DX), you can't say they aren't going to block you technically.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No Restricted Users? MAKE ONE. You still have full access to create groups with whatever power you want. It's not any different from Win 2K in that respect.
You don't seem to give consequences a thought. How many ex-employees does Intel have? 10,000? 100,000? Let each of those e-mail all 30,000 current ones bitching about their boss. What happens to the Intel system?
However, for most people, CONTENT matters. And any law based on content and any attempt to regulate based on content WILL FAIL. It doesn't work Constitutionally, nor does it scale.
First, it was NON commercial, So? Neither are the Jesus Saves spams or the timecube spam. They're still spam. Consent, not content.
Third it wasn't bulk 30,000 isn't bulk????? It's not up to Ralsky's level, but it's still bulk.
If you are going to insist that people are only allowed to send e-mail to people after getting explicit approval to use every computer the bits pass through, e-mail is going to significantly different than it is today.
This is no different than him walking in and posting messages on the Intel bulletin board after being fired. If permission was revoked, he has no right to be let in.
This is a case involving an individual using e-mail exactly as it was intended, not a a mailbomber causing harm to the server.
And no (err, relatively rarely) individual spammer causes harm to a server. Therefore spam is fine then, right?
If the individual provably went around said filters, we would be discussing a different case. Comments from an earlier Wired article state that Intel put up filters and blocks. The time of the sysadmins was one of the damages in the case, AFAIK.
Again, we are not dealing with a spammer, but with someone who sent PERSONAL e-mail to employees of a company. On company property. If the e-mail went to employees' home addresses, Intel should get lost. For their own server, they write the rules.
Which right exactly did we give up? Would that be the right to sue someone and win, because they talked to you and you didn't like it?
Not quite.
How would you like salesmen/Jehovah's witnesses/Political campaigners to be on your front door step constantly? You tell them to shut up and go away and they do neither? This ruling says you can't do squat about that, you have to live with it.
You listen to them for a minute, then throw them out and sue for trespassing.
That's not what happened. It's more you threw them out, and they came back again and again and again and again and again after being told to stay away the first time. How is that *NOT* trespassing? He was given clear notice that he was not welcome.
No judge or jury in the world would call that trespassing.
The Supreme Court already has with respect to e-mail.
The second example is a situation where private property is being affected, which can't be the case for an email server whose purpose it is to be open to receive random email from around the world.
Except that is *NOT* the purpose of an e-mail server. See AOL v. Cyperpromotions. The owner of a mail server can refuse any e-mail for any reason.
Slashdot Mirror
ESA == IDSA. There was a recent name change.
Clueless doesn't due justice to the Garland store.
I bought an inkjet there a while ago. Found the printer I wanted, everything on display had the lovely "returned" sticker on it. I finally dig someone up and they go back to get me one out of the stock. I also pick up 2 ink refills, one color, one black.
I get up front, the cashier sees different prices on the refills (well, DUH! they were different) and spends 15 minutes doing a price check. She finally comes back, satisified that the prices were right. Then she gets to the printer, which isn't marked. She wants me to go back and exchange it for one that is. Let's see, you just did a price check you didn't need to, and I'm supposed to go back and exchange something that took me extra time to get in the first place? I don't think so. At that point we said "forget it" and simply walked out.
What is RIP then?
Check the stats for NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email) that get regularly posted. More than half is OE.
Everything is going toward POSIX compliance?
XP and Win Server 2003 aren't compliant.The POSIX subsytem was removed in XP and everything after.
But when asked to put up or shut up by the German government, they shut up. Sounds like they aren't too sure about their own evidence
Considering your ip is attached to everything you post it would be simple for them to sue usenet posters also.
Not true. That depends on the news server
Nope. Just saying "always" with evidence is a fallacy, true for any given evidence type. It needs to be part of a well defined case
Riiiggght.
Evidence never, ever gets planted.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Exactly what I'm saying. If it's an IE bug, it's a Windows bug. If it's a Mozilla bug, it's a Mozilla bug.
You are correct, but when was the last time you heard someone refer to a Mozilla bug as a Linux bug? If there is a bug in IE, it is usually considered a windows bug
Yes, because MS stated, under oath, that IE is part of the OS. Why shouldn't the bugs count towards Windows?
If there's a critical bug in Mozilla, I can easily strip it out. Now try the same with IE.
It's more and less.
It has diddleysquat for network access.
It has more control over the local system - even Administrator can't kill System processes. Win32 itself is a System process, as well as many of the services.
Compiling under Windows does not require any special privilege, you only need Administrator level to install software, and some software doesn't need even that.
This doesn't even make sense to me. The analogy doesn't work. If I code a game made to work in windows 98, Microsoft can not (at this point) block your game from being run at the OS level (aka "taking away land") but really only through suing you to stop the game from being distributed
You can only say that after March of next year. As long as patches get released (for 98 or IE on 98, or DX), you can't say they aren't going to block you technically.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Spam isn't a grievance?
No Restricted Users? MAKE ONE. You still have full access to create groups with whatever power you want. It's not any different from Win 2K in that respect.
That bill is more along the lines of "spamming is what we don't do"
There are some blocklists already.
blackholes.us has some country based ones, and there is another one that returns an IP based on the country code.
You don't seem to give consequences a thought. How many ex-employees does Intel have? 10,000? 100,000? Let each of those e-mail all 30,000 current ones bitching about their boss. What happens to the Intel system?
However, for most people, CONTENT matters.
And any law based on content and any attempt to regulate based on content WILL FAIL. It doesn't work Constitutionally, nor does it scale.
First, it was NON commercial,
So? Neither are the Jesus Saves spams or the timecube spam. They're still spam. Consent, not content.
Third it wasn't bulk
30,000 isn't bulk????? It's not up to Ralsky's level, but it's still bulk.
If you are going to insist that people are only allowed to send e-mail to people after getting explicit approval to use every computer the bits pass through, e-mail is going to significantly different than it is today.
This is no different than him walking in and posting messages on the Intel bulletin board after being fired. If permission was revoked, he has no right to be let in.
This is a case involving an individual using e-mail exactly as it was intended, not a a mailbomber causing harm to the server.
And no (err, relatively rarely) individual spammer causes harm to a server. Therefore spam is fine then, right?
If the individual provably went around said filters, we would be discussing a different case.
Comments from an earlier Wired article state that Intel put up filters and blocks. The time of the sysadmins was one of the damages in the case, AFAIK.
Again, we are not dealing with a spammer, but with someone who sent PERSONAL e-mail to employees of a company.
On company property. If the e-mail went to employees' home addresses, Intel should get lost. For their own server, they write the rules.
That forces the onus and cost onto the recipient. Why is that correct?
If the individual provably went around said filters, why shouldn't the courts be involved? Why play whack-a-mole technically?
Which right exactly did we give up? Would that be the right to sue someone and win, because they talked to you and you didn't like it?
Not quite.
How would you like salesmen/Jehovah's witnesses/Political campaigners to be on your front door step constantly? You tell them to shut up and go away and they do neither? This ruling says you can't do squat about that, you have to live with it.
You listen to them for a minute, then throw them out and sue for trespassing.
That's not what happened. It's more you threw them out, and they came back again and again and again and again and again after being told to stay away the first time. How is that *NOT* trespassing? He was given clear notice that he was not welcome.
No judge or jury in the world would call that trespassing.
The Supreme Court already has with respect to e-mail.
And I want to be able to do the same to those that show up on my virtual property without my permission.
2/3 of the voters in 2/3 of the states. That's what's required for an Amendment IIRC.
The second example is a situation where private property is being affected, which can't be the case for an email server whose purpose it is to be open to receive random email from around the world.
Except that is *NOT* the purpose of an e-mail server. See AOL v. Cyperpromotions. The owner of a mail server can refuse any e-mail for any reason.