I think it's going to take both laws and technical solution, as you suggested. I want the endless spewage shut off at the source, not just diverted away. I want to be able to post contact addresses on my Web sites and not worry about them getting harvested and spambombed within hours of posting. I want to be able to spend my time and energy on constructive pursuits, instead of continually refining my spam defenses.
Laws alone are not enough, legal recourse is slow and expensive. Having both legal and technical means is a dynamite combination.
Where in the Constitution does it say we must subsidize spam? Which every Internet user does. Where does it say we must be forced to receive their spew? Where does it say we must allow junk to be downloaded to our private computers? There are no Constitutional issues here, except perhaps the rights of Internet users to control their own private property, and not fund spammers.
Thank the Spammers http://www.spamreaper.com/thankspammers.html
-This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam.
That's the first step. Make a small amount of spam "legitimate" and the rest clearly and obviously illegal, then start suing those responsible for the illegal spam.
And what do we do with spam from other countries? They are not bound by US law.
-It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source.
True, filtering spam doesn't help ISPs with bandwidth concerns, but it does help end users, and besides, that's not the point.
Yes, that is the point. When your provider is shutdown by an avalanche of spam, it's your problem. When you pay inflated rates for service because of spam, that's your problem. When your service is impaired because of spam, that is your problem. Anything upstream of you is your problem.
You didn't read the essay, did you. It says it better than anyone.
Spam is theft of services; every Internet user subsidizes spammers. We pay for our bandwidth, connectivity, storage, and processing power. Spammers pay minimal fees for sending their crap to millions of unwilling recipients. They do not pay the true cost of distributing their crap, as do senders of paper junk mail.
Spammers do not pay for the millions of dollars spent by ISPs and network admins who have to deal with the floods of spew.
Spam is a denial of service attack; anyone who runs their own mail servers sees relentless probes and re-sends. It's also DOS when you have to wait for a bunch of shit to download before you can get to your legitimate mail.
Spammers are vandals; they ruin every goddam thing they touch.
There are no Constitutional issues here; none of us are required to listen to anyone's speech, none of us are required to fund the distribution of their speech.
This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam. It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source. Bigger and better spam filters is like bigger and better water filters; wouldn't it be better to get clean water from the source?
Please read this excellent essay, "Thank The Spammers" http://www.spamreaper.com/thankspammers.html
Liberal? You must lead a sheltered life. This is the state that only narrowly defeated professional Christian bigot Lon Mabon's ballot measures against gay people. That almost elected professional twit Kevin Mannix as governor. You know Kevin Mannix, the lead man responsible for making prisons Oregon's #1 growth industry. Outside of the Portland area, it's like being south of the Mason-Dixon line.
I am moderately happy with Sen Wyden, don't forget he voted for all those DMCA and Patriot Act and Homeland Security acts, and thinks the 'under god' part of the Pledge of Allegiance is fine n dandy. However if it weren't for him Sen Gordon Smith would be a full-time right-wing religious asshole, instead of only part-time, Wyden works hard to keep a good relationship between the two, and reminds him he's supposed to represent all of his constituents, not just the rich white male Christian ones.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek. I'd still love to hear your explanation of this current 'conservative' administration, which has moved faster and farther than any previous to seize and consolidate the power of the Federal govt., and especially the White House. Which has shit all over state's rights. (examples: opposing Oregon's Death With Dignity act, ramming offshore oil wells down Florida's throat, rafts of executive orders overturning local resource management rules in many states and rolling out the red carpet to polluters). Which has once again driven the economy of this country straight into the toilet and racked up massive deficits. Shades of the Reagan years.
'Conservatism' seems to mean owning guns, make wars, and ignore the other nine amendments. Is it conservative to want to control people's sex lives and religious values? Is it conservative to piss on the Bill of Rights? It would appear so, which is why I spit on the very notion of 'conservative'. A more correct term would be 'fascist'. If these are not conservative values, then it is not correct to call the current dictator I mean president, and his homies 'conservative'.
You whining liberal wussies make me sick. The only way to protect our freedoms is to allow Herr Asscroft unlimited powers to do whatever he wants. He is an honest, moral, ethical Christian man who loves, nay, reveres the US Constitution. He and pres shrub will not rest until all of our rights are suspended, in order to protect our liberties. God bless America.
Sorry, until you actually park yourself in a wheelchair and navigate around your town for day, your opinion is worthless.
Until you actually seriously consider the needs of blind or deaf people who want to visit your Website, your opinions are worthless. It's easy to dismiss and ignore people- but it is not good business, nor is it humane.
keep in mind that many families of disabled people, like mine, will not do business with companies that refuse to cater to disabled people. So you lose more than just the disabled person's trade.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to spend a huge amount of money to capture a tiny market. But refusing to even look at ways to make your business more accessible, as so many do, is foolish, and hardhearted. First it takes the will, then the means follow. And, don't forget that disabled persons are a growing demographic.
Have you even done any research on who your customers are, and who you are losing through poor site design? I bet you haven't. Most small businesses don't. That is why they make incorrect assumptions, like "Oh, it's only one or two customers I'm losing, who needs them." When actually they're chasing away a lot more than they think.
yes it is worth it. You not seeing wheelchair users on buses means nothing. The world is very hostile to disabled people. Perhaps the buses are accessible, but there is no good way to get to the bus stop. Perhaps it is not publicized. Maybe the buses are not as accessible as you think they are. Most 'accessible' designs are very poor. Obviously not tested by real disabled people.
Anyone can do a quick Google search for statistics on the numbers of disabled people. In the US, about one-third of citizens have a physical impairment of some kind.
I challenge you to spend one day in a wheelchair. Then come back and tell me how accessibility for disabled people is not important.
Whining about 6-7% unemployment? Even a college kid should be able to do simple arithmetic- that's 93-94% employment. Full of angst and sadness because overinflated dot-com jobs no longer exist? Stop it already. Sheesh. This does not even compare to the Depression!
Yeah, I know, it sucks to be 22, and not able to purchase a Ford Exorbitant, and a 4000-square foot house, and have your 401k fully funded. What a pity that anyone would have to settle for less job and paycheck than they really "deserve". Try no job and no paycheck for a while, then you'll have something to whine about.
Anyone who wants it I'm happy to email it you, topics areallat bratgrrl.com, replace areallat with @ (which you already knew to do) I don't believe Google is obligated to be the truth police for the entire Web- nevertheless all these instant, silent revisions are interesting.
Do you carefully excise the Red Hat-funded code from your Debian? Perhaps you've forgotten who pays Alan Cox's salary, and who funds all manner of Linux development.
Love the underdog until he becomes successful, then try to pull him down.
These same losers who bitch about Red Hat being successful lap up all the freebies they can get their hands on, but of course must themselves be paid handsomely for whatever vocation they practice.
Go away. You are annoying and useless. Get out of the way of the people doing useful work.
There's still jurisdictions where judges don't even have to be lawyers, or have any legal background. Might be good to start with requiring them to know their jobs. Then teach them technology. First quiz question: explain memory and storage.
What a crock of shit. There's an abundance of able developers right here in the good old US of A. I hate this kind of crap, it doesn't work anyway, you'll spend the same or more money, with ten times the headaches. I've been through this twice- never ever again. It does not work.
Expecting ordinary employees, and even receptionists, to function as guards is absurd. There's no way to know who is supposed to belong in a big company, and who the hell has time to play company cop? give me a break. Put guards at the doors you don't want the wrong people going through.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's going to take both laws and technical solution, as you suggested. I want the endless spewage shut off at the source, not just diverted away. I want to be able to post contact addresses on my Web sites and not worry about them getting harvested and spambombed within hours of posting. I want to be able to spend my time and energy on constructive pursuits, instead of continually refining my spam defenses.
Laws alone are not enough, legal recourse is slow and expensive. Having both legal and technical means is a dynamite combination.
Where in the Constitution does it say we must subsidize spam? Which every Internet user does. Where does it say we must be forced to receive their spew? Where does it say we must allow junk to be downloaded to our private computers? There are no Constitutional issues here, except perhaps the rights of Internet users to control their own private property, and not fund spammers.
Thank the Spammers http://www.spamreaper.com/thankspammers.html
-This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam.
That's the first step. Make a small amount of spam "legitimate" and the rest clearly and obviously illegal, then start suing those responsible for the illegal spam.
And what do we do with spam from other countries? They are not bound by US law.
-It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source.
True, filtering spam doesn't help ISPs with bandwidth concerns, but it does help end users, and besides, that's not the point.
Yes, that is the point. When your provider is shutdown by an avalanche of spam, it's your problem. When you pay inflated rates for service because of spam, that's your problem. When your service is impaired because of spam, that is your problem. Anything upstream of you is your problem.
You didn't read the essay, did you. It says it better than anyone.
Spam is theft of services; every Internet user subsidizes spammers. We pay for our bandwidth, connectivity, storage, and processing power. Spammers pay minimal fees for sending their crap to millions of unwilling recipients. They do not pay the true cost of distributing their crap, as do senders of paper junk mail.
Spammers do not pay for the millions of dollars spent by ISPs and network admins who have to deal with the floods of spew.
Spam is a denial of service attack; anyone who runs their own mail servers sees relentless probes and re-sends. It's also DOS when you have to wait for a bunch of shit to download before you can get to your legitimate mail.
Spammers are vandals; they ruin every goddam thing they touch.
There are no Constitutional issues here; none of us are required to listen to anyone's speech, none of us are required to fund the distribution of their speech.
This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam. It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source. Bigger and better spam filters is like bigger and better water filters; wouldn't it be better to get clean water from the source?
Please read this excellent essay, "Thank The Spammers" http://www.spamreaper.com/thankspammers.html
No, Dvorak can't write that long an article, and there is no spittle.
Liberal? You must lead a sheltered life. This is the state that only narrowly defeated professional Christian bigot Lon Mabon's ballot measures against gay people. That almost elected professional twit Kevin Mannix as governor. You know Kevin Mannix, the lead man responsible for making prisons Oregon's #1 growth industry. Outside of the Portland area, it's like being south of the Mason-Dixon line.
I am moderately happy with Sen Wyden, don't forget he voted for all those DMCA and Patriot Act and Homeland Security acts, and thinks the 'under god' part of the Pledge of Allegiance is fine n dandy. However if it weren't for him Sen Gordon Smith would be a full-time right-wing religious asshole, instead of only part-time, Wyden works hard to keep a good relationship between the two, and reminds him he's supposed to represent all of his constituents, not just the rich white male Christian ones.
... that distributes documentation in Windows Media Player, PowerPoint, .pdf...
http://www.sco.com/scosource/
Yeah, I'm whining and nitpicking. This is a stupid lawsuit.
'Conservatism' seems to mean owning guns, make wars, and ignore the other nine amendments. Is it conservative to want to control people's sex lives and religious values? Is it conservative to piss on the Bill of Rights? It would appear so, which is why I spit on the very notion of 'conservative'. A more correct term would be 'fascist'. If these are not conservative values, then it is not correct to call the current dictator I mean president, and his homies 'conservative'.
You whining liberal wussies make me sick. The only way to protect our freedoms is to allow Herr Asscroft unlimited powers to do whatever he wants. He is an honest, moral, ethical Christian man who loves, nay, reveres the US Constitution. He and pres shrub will not rest until all of our rights are suspended, in order to protect our liberties. God bless America.
I weep for the BSA. This is a tragedy. A sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, sad day for the freedom-loving peoples of the BSA.
Sorry, until you actually park yourself in a wheelchair and navigate around your town for day, your opinion is worthless.
Until you actually seriously consider the needs of blind or deaf people who want to visit your Website, your opinions are worthless. It's easy to dismiss and ignore people- but it is not good business, nor is it humane.
keep in mind that many families of disabled people, like mine, will not do business with companies that refuse to cater to disabled people. So you lose more than just the disabled person's trade.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to spend a huge amount of money to capture a tiny market. But refusing to even look at ways to make your business more accessible, as so many do, is foolish, and hardhearted. First it takes the will, then the means follow. And, don't forget that disabled persons are a growing demographic.
Have you even done any research on who your customers are, and who you are losing through poor site design? I bet you haven't. Most small businesses don't. That is why they make incorrect assumptions, like "Oh, it's only one or two customers I'm losing, who needs them." When actually they're chasing away a lot more than they think.
yes it is worth it. You not seeing wheelchair users on buses means nothing. The world is very hostile to disabled people. Perhaps the buses are accessible, but there is no good way to get to the bus stop. Perhaps it is not publicized. Maybe the buses are not as accessible as you think they are. Most 'accessible' designs are very poor. Obviously not tested by real disabled people.
Anyone can do a quick Google search for statistics on the numbers of disabled people. In the US, about one-third of citizens have a physical impairment of some kind.
I challenge you to spend one day in a wheelchair. Then come back and tell me how accessibility for disabled people is not important.
Whining about 6-7% unemployment? Even a college kid should be able to do simple arithmetic- that's 93-94% employment. Full of angst and sadness because overinflated dot-com jobs no longer exist? Stop it already. Sheesh. This does not even compare to the Depression!
Yeah, I know, it sucks to be 22, and not able to purchase a Ford Exorbitant, and a 4000-square foot house, and have your 401k fully funded. What a pity that anyone would have to settle for less job and paycheck than they really "deserve". Try no job and no paycheck for a while, then you'll have something to whine about.
Just more FUD from Forbes.
Ha! my vote for best comment!
I agree. Beats the hell out of trashing Jon Katz, which I still don't understand. Why do so many slashdotters make a career out of slamming Katz?
I'm pretty bored with RMS and ESR too. Neither one has said anything new in a long time. More Cringely, less RMS and ESR.
I'm thankful no mention of Natalie Portman has occured in a long time. Since when did Block o Wood become an acting style?
That is hilarious! best thing that ever came out of Slashdot.
Hint for the spelling impaired, it's definitely.
"Use Linux! it makes your smart!"
Anyone who wants it I'm happy to email it you, topics areallat bratgrrl.com, replace areallat with @ (which you already knew to do) I don't believe Google is obligated to be the truth police for the entire Web- nevertheless all these instant, silent revisions are interesting.
Do you carefully excise the Red Hat-funded code from your Debian? Perhaps you've forgotten who pays Alan Cox's salary, and who funds all manner of Linux development.
These same losers who bitch about Red Hat being successful lap up all the freebies they can get their hands on, but of course must themselves be paid handsomely for whatever vocation they practice.
Go away. You are annoying and useless. Get out of the way of the people doing useful work.
There's still jurisdictions where judges don't even have to be lawyers, or have any legal background. Might be good to start with requiring them to know their jobs. Then teach them technology. First quiz question: explain memory and storage.
what the hell's wrong with ojr.org? It looks like crap in Galeon, Mozilla, and Konqueror. The fonts are tiny and all squished together.
Expecting ordinary employees, and even receptionists, to function as guards is absurd. There's no way to know who is supposed to belong in a big company, and who the hell has time to play company cop? give me a break. Put guards at the doors you don't want the wrong people going through.