it's interesting how in barry's answers he tries to push the responsibility of providing an effective communication mechanism from the provider (ISP) on to the spammer or system abuser.
whitelisting, as many mailing lists use are an effective way to combat spam. i've subscribed to many mailing lists, and haven't seem much spam come through those channels. if whitelisting could be implemented by the ISP's (which I really think it could and barry does a bad job of skirting around the question), are there ways around the whitelisting? it would seem like too much work on the spammers behalf to circumvent that type of a system. have any ISP's tried this type of service?
in short. barry, your idea of "making the bad guy pay for the spam" is a really crowd cheering idea and i'm sure there will be tons of supporters here from the/. crowd. but, if you taks a step back and look at it, there's no real solution proposed. are you suggesting all our SMTP traffic contains a valid CC number in the headers so all the servers that bounce the message can collect their toll for the message i send?
would you pay an extra 1$ per month for an ISP that alows whitelisting email? if my spam were uncontrolable, i sure as hell would.
The idea this is going to hurt Microsoft and move people to Open Source is something I question. Microsoft is well-hated enough anyway, and not enough companies pay attention to Open Source - The latest SQL Server migration I've seen is to Oracle, not Open Source.
wait till they see the Oracle bill;). people use SQL server because it's cheaper and because it's easy to find people to admininstate and use the product. oracle is for EXTREMELY SERIOUS people about housing their data. people who bring big checkbooks to the table. Postgresql/MySQL and may countless other databases are available that with a week of training can easily have an admin. and a little training on the developers and you're up in business.
there's a point where you fix your broken car and a point where you take it to the salvage yard. if you're the type of person/company that gets a shiny new lease every two years or so then getting an oracle.vs. Sql server isn't going to be a big difference. there's lots of people who buy a 2-4k $ vehicle every couple years. those people will not go the oracle route
pointing to the article of course. microsoft released a press release in 99 stating that their customers didn't need to worry about the Timeline patent issues. It basically stated that their customers were free to use Timeline's patented product
sure you can control what goes out, force people to use your proxy filters. but once a valid request goes out... you've got traffic. so you setup a middleman proxy type server. now all my requests go to www.mysecretdomain.edu/site1, and that will feed you traffic from site 1. next thing to do is to setup the mysecretdomain to switch ip's frequently if needed.
i guess some one's got look like the dunce, might as well be a commonwealth and not a state.
why don't they create a pensylvania mail trafficing sytem to block porn from entering their state via snail mail?
ok, yes, I didn't realize that the OP was talking about forged headers from spammers.
regarding the identy theft. i'm not sure the federal law would agree that there's identify theft here. the federal law states: In October 1998, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 (Identity Theft Act) to address the problem of identity theft. Specifically, the Act amended 18 U.S.C. 1028 to make it a federal crime when anyone:
knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law.
there has to be a crime committed with the impresonation. merely offering to sell subscriptions to a web-cam doesn't meet the criminal requirements needed for this federal law.
state laws differ much, and they're so filled with lawyer muck that i won't paste my state's here, but here's the link: http://ohioacts.avv.com/123/sb7/sec-2913.49 .htm
it's basically the same thing. you can't pretend to be someone else to fsck up their credit or to clean yours up. you also can't pretend someone else to commit a crime or to help someone else play with credit or commit a crime.
irregardless, forging spam reply-to headers can be arguably less damaging than stealing someone's wallet, pretending to be them and mucking up their credit. this type of offense would hopefully land the offender some time in the federal pen. i'm not sure i would agree that castration would be appropriate here. i certainly would favor castration for rape/child molestation crimes in most cases.
i obviously didn't get that the OP was talking about a joe job.
but a joe job sounds like an impressionist, or an actor, someone pretending to be someone they're not. in the emailing world we'll call it fraud, in the entertainment world they call it good acting. go figure.
if we want our message to be authentic, then why are we using a protocol that allows anybody to sign anything for the "reply-to" portion of the email header? i use to try to keep my yahoo/hotmail box clean of spam by clicking on the remove me buttons or replying to the messages. complete waste of time. now i've got a private email that seems to work ok.
i'm not sure i follow that logic. if i've got a piece of software that uses libX, and links either statically or dynamically with libX. if my software is being updated, but libX isn't, then i wouldn't want to recompile libX "just to be safe". to me rebuilding libX throws another wrench into the fire. when libX source changes, then rebuild it and re-test all the software the uses it, but not till then.
breaking into one's computer is another crime, sending spam isn't. the spam is merely a motivation for the crime. holding up a liquor store is a crime, drinking liquor isn't, but is a motivation for the crime.
if my mailings are to sell you a groin enlarger, or a student loan consolidation, or a visa card, or a service to find all the public information on your long lost "friend", then it's a legitimite business. no fraud. no mail fraud. yes, some people choose to walk the fine line between fraud and a legitimate business.
in any case i believe that spam mailing (sending an unsolicted email message) should not be regulated by congress. hacking into someone elses computer, physically gaining access to their resources should be highly illegal and we shoudl send folks to jail without bail for a long time and not let them make any phone calls for fear that they could send off a nuclear wepon from the phone. seriously, hacking anothers computer should be a serious offense that congress should regulate. the constitution allows people to have private property. congress has the authority to protect that right with laws that punish people for violating others rights.
i hate spam to, but i don't think there is or should be anything illegal about it. i certainly don't think the spammer is abusing your email address, they're merely using their address/servers/whatever.
if i send the same messages via snail mail is it illegal abuse of your home address? if i ask the same question personally to people on the street ("hey, you.. wanna larger groin/chest?"), is it abusing their personal address?
spam is a technological problem to a technoligocal system that warrants a technological solution. it does not and should not warrant a legislative solution. the legislature is not a playground supervisor.
again, yes, spam is annoying. yes, the spammers could find more appealing ways to earn a living. no, congress does not need to be involved (unless other crimes are being committed "send 5$ to me to save for my kidney transplant that is needed")
well, i did look, and it's dated 1992, but it might be current. i didn't want to spend too much time researching. basically, here's the relevant part: A: The 1992 Cable Act created new rights for television broadcast stations and new responsibilities for cable operators. As a result, the new FCC regulations require a cable operator to get permission from the broadcast station to put the station on cable. A local broadcast station may give permission by choosing mandatory carriage (must-carry) on the cable system, or by negotiating an agreement for carriage of its signal by the cable company (retransmission consent). A broadcast station which chooses retransmission consent may request some form of payment for the use of its broadcast signal on the cable system, and must negotiate for both its carriage on that system and its channel position. A broadcast station choosing must-carry can generally select (from a set of limited options) its channel position.
i guess what happened here in columbus is that the local channel and the cable co. opted against the must carry and instead used the "agreement" piece of the legislation (contract). when their contract was up, the local tv wanted to force the cable co into providing another channel (ONN ohio news network) and wouldn't sign a new contract until the cable co agreed to put that channel on their service. the cable co didn't want to be bullied and held out until the local channel caved in and signed a new contract.
also, i interpret this as the cable co doesn't have to carry the local channels as is implied in the "must carry". they have to only have permission from the local channel to carry their signal in one of two ways outlined above.
ISTR, satalite having to be able to provide (and charge their customers) local channels. most people i know with satelite have an a/b switch and use rabbit ears to tune in the local channels.
Remember, these are the people who got the government to make a rule that said cable companies have to carry their signal and have to pay them to carry that signal.
which rule is that? a local thing perhaps? i recall a couple years back, here in cow town, OH, the contract between 10TV and warner cable was about to expire. warner held fast and didn't want to carry the channel under the terms of 10TV. 10TV started legal battles, to force warner to carry the channel. warner anounced to all its customers that it would be providing A/B switchboxes for anyone who wanted them. i didn't give a rats arse, since i don't really watch the local channels much, and loosing one is no big deal. finally 10TV caved in and there was no interruption of service, but it was a big story around town for a few weeks.
The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.
it stops being their content the moment it reaches my property.
DirectTV has a flawed business model and wants to use laws to keep it going. They have a serious technological problem that they need to correct somehow, not punish people for taking advantage of their failed delivery mechanism.
just because it might seem wrong doesn't make it stealing. they're giving the signal to lots of people with the hope that you'll buy their dish and pay them monthly. i'm sorry, but that signal becomes mine the instant it enters my property. by the same logic, if you drive your car into my driveway, does it become mine? no, but i can tell you to get the fsck outta my driveway and have it towed away if i want to. how's about these folks just get their signal off my land if it's theirs.
this is not fraud. i think a browser can do whatever the hell it wants to with the HTTP response stream it receives. and any website can send whatever it wants in those http packets.
as much as i don't like the blink tag, a server sending it to me (i don't think lynx blinks does it?) isn't committing fraud.
i agree that i don't see dvd's replacing cd's anytime in my life (there will probably be a few more uber huge mediums by then).
regarding the encryption, which came first the decryption or the compression? i've used lots of the free dvd2vcd software, and they're really nice. i think the encryption was an important milestone for this software. i don't know, maybe they could compress the encrypted stream, but i'll venture to say otherwise.
i agree the size/medium is a problem. people don't have dvd players in their cars (most of us anyway). people have TONS of consumer portable cd players for music. we have only one or two DVD players in the house and they're stuck to the tube. DVD needs more than to dominate the home market, it needs to dominate the consumer market. It'll need to replace home stereo systems, and car audio systems and portable walkman systems, etc, etc, etc.
yeah, and "don't talk to me" t-shirts that people can wear as they stroll around town.
absolutely none if this has anything to do with the federal government. why the hell they make assinine laws to make the general population happy, i'll never know. laws are needed to protect peoples constitutional rights. exactly which rights are violated via spam/telemarketing or any other unsolicited communication?
SpamAssassin has filtered out 90MB of spam in the past 8 months for me)
that's some serious HDD usage there too! or at least degradation of the HDD from having to temporarily store the messages there. no body forces you to log into your email server or answer your phone. you get the messages and then you deal with the conquenses.
postal mail does not work that way. a return address is not required to deliver a postal address and to my knowledge you can put any address you want for the return address (what does the uspostal service specifications state on this?). the sender is also free to send the mail from any post office of their choosing. i can send mail postmarked from detroit rock city if i want to drive up there.
it's too expensive to replace, eh? another big business whine whine whine.
i would also say that SMTP works the same way as postal mail in that it can be as anonymous as anyone wants. we're alway out to get the people in society that show exploits in a system, but not so quick to change the system to plug the exploits. if this were a Microsoft web server the issue would be different, microsoft should release a patch as soon as an exploit is found, and their email client application needs to be overhauled.
my point was that laws cannot be the answer here, but rather a new or different communication mechanism is needed. clearly with all the cries of spam on this email communication system the system has problems. it is inheriantly a stupid communication system.
i keep hearing the mantra here on/. that legislation is needed to control spam when in reality it's peoples desire to avoid change from a failed system to one that works is the root of the problem in my opinion.
and i can stand up and claim to be brad pitt too. trying to force some babe to finally listen.
spammers are not forcing you to log into the email server and check messages on a flawed communication system. try to start using a new communication system instead of making weird laws about how people should communicate. don't talk to me unless you have signed this written permission slip and attached a drop of blood to the slip.
ok. one example... it costs relatively nothing (maybe some electricity and a few big speakers) to send oral communication over the entire Central Park. on the other hand, the recipiants spend their time listening to the message. time is of value. if you didn't like the message or want to hear it, then you've wasted your time (in your opinion). if you did like the message then the time wasn't wasted (email from spammer.vs. email from a friend).
it could also easily be argued that in the case of spam email, the recipiants costs are extremely questionable. hardware resources? ISP bill? network administration? these are all normal things you have any way. spam is just something you also get because you contine to log into an email server and check messages. maybe use a communication medium that isn't so flawed to allow such abuse.
it's now illegal to provide any false information while using oral communication. specifically related to, but not limited to, false information regarding the name of the communicator.
spam spam spam. if spam should be illegal, so should any form of unsolicited communication. that includes conversing to persons without their permission at the local pub.
i'm personally in favor of a more liberated government system, but if we want our legislatures to make rules, let's make it a level playing field , not just fix the annoying problem we have of spam (that is created because of a technical deficiency in the overall system of itself).
that's freaking schweet. i would work for nearly 1/2 my current salary to be able to work abroad (my personal choice is the yuccatan) and still make out ahead. employers???
in ideal situations the project manager comes to the team or people and says, "hey, we've got x project coming up and here's what it seems to involve. can you get back to me with an estimate of the effort needed?" even then those are flexable, but at least you had input. some days/. has some good issues that... no wait, reading/. is done on personal time. or is it part of training and building career depth?
that's a great idea, except HR would have a huge fit over the whole thing. more employees working less hours means more HR overhead, and more benefits overhead. i would be just fine working 28 hours per week, 4-7hour days. it's quite too bad i can't draw from my 401k until i'm half dead and worthless so that'll most likely never happen. i could easily work for 1/2 my salary for those kind of hours.
Slashdot Mirror
it's interesting how in barry's answers he tries to push the responsibility of providing an effective communication mechanism from the provider (ISP) on to the spammer or system abuser.
/. crowd. but, if you taks a step back and look at it, there's no real solution proposed. are you suggesting all our SMTP traffic contains a valid CC number in the headers so all the servers that bounce the message can collect their toll for the message i send?
whitelisting, as many mailing lists use are an effective way to combat spam. i've subscribed to many mailing lists, and haven't seem much spam come through those channels. if whitelisting could be implemented by the ISP's (which I really think it could and barry does a bad job of skirting around the question), are there ways around the whitelisting? it would seem like too much work on the spammers behalf to circumvent that type of a system. have any ISP's tried this type of service?
in short. barry, your idea of "making the bad guy pay for the spam" is a really crowd cheering idea and i'm sure there will be tons of supporters here from the
would you pay an extra 1$ per month for an ISP that alows whitelisting email? if my spam were uncontrolable, i sure as hell would.
yeah, i would think so. Timeline is certainly going to go after some people to get some $$ because as I read it, they're really hurting for $$.
it's going to take a bug suit to go against MS.
The idea this is going to hurt Microsoft and move people to Open Source is something I question. Microsoft is well-hated enough anyway, and not enough companies pay attention to Open Source - The latest SQL Server migration I've seen is to Oracle, not Open Source.
;). people use SQL server because it's cheaper and because it's easy to find people to admininstate and use the product. oracle is for EXTREMELY SERIOUS people about housing their data. people who bring big checkbooks to the table. Postgresql/MySQL and may countless other databases are available that with a week of training can easily have an admin. and a little training on the developers and you're up in business.
.vs. Sql server isn't going to be a big difference. there's lots of people who buy a 2-4k $ vehicle every couple years. those people will not go the oracle route
wait till they see the Oracle bill
there's a point where you fix your broken car and a point where you take it to the salvage yard. if you're the type of person/company that gets a shiny new lease every two years or so then getting an oracle
pointing to the article of course. microsoft released a press release in 99 stating that their customers didn't need to worry about the Timeline patent issues. It basically stated that their customers were free to use Timeline's patented product
sure you can control what goes out, force people to use your proxy filters. but once a valid request goes out... you've got traffic. so you setup a middleman proxy type server. now all my requests go to www.mysecretdomain.edu/site1, and that will feed you traffic from site 1. next thing to do is to setup the mysecretdomain to switch ip's frequently if needed.
i guess some one's got look like the dunce, might as well be a commonwealth and not a state.
why don't they create a pensylvania mail trafficing sytem to block porn from entering their state via snail mail?
ok, yes, I didn't realize that the OP was talking about forged headers from spammers.
9 .htm
regarding the identy theft. i'm not sure the federal law would agree that there's identify theft here. the federal law states:
In October 1998, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 (Identity Theft Act) to address the problem of identity theft. Specifically, the Act amended 18 U.S.C. 1028 to make it a federal crime when anyone:
knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law.
there has to be a crime committed with the impresonation. merely offering to sell subscriptions to a web-cam doesn't meet the criminal requirements needed for this federal law.
state laws differ much, and they're so filled with lawyer muck that i won't paste my state's here, but here's the link:
http://ohioacts.avv.com/123/sb7/sec-2913.4
it's basically the same thing. you can't pretend to be someone else to fsck up their credit or to clean yours up. you also can't pretend someone else to commit a crime or to help someone else play with credit or commit a crime.
irregardless, forging spam reply-to headers can be arguably less damaging than stealing someone's wallet, pretending to be them and mucking up their credit. this type of offense would hopefully land the offender some time in the federal pen. i'm not sure i would agree that castration would be appropriate here. i certainly would favor castration for rape/child molestation crimes in most cases.
i obviously didn't get that the OP was talking about a joe job.
but a joe job sounds like an impressionist, or an actor, someone pretending to be someone they're not. in the emailing world we'll call it fraud, in the entertainment world they call it good acting. go figure.
if we want our message to be authentic, then why are we using a protocol that allows anybody to sign anything for the "reply-to" portion of the email header? i use to try to keep my yahoo/hotmail box clean of spam by clicking on the remove me buttons or replying to the messages. complete waste of time. now i've got a private email that seems to work ok.
i'm not sure i follow that logic. if i've got a piece of software that uses libX, and links either statically or dynamically with libX. if my software is being updated, but libX isn't, then i wouldn't want to recompile libX "just to be safe". to me rebuilding libX throws another wrench into the fire. when libX source changes, then rebuild it and re-test all the software the uses it, but not till then.
breaking into one's computer is another crime, sending spam isn't. the spam is merely a motivation for the crime. holding up a liquor store is a crime, drinking liquor isn't, but is a motivation for the crime.
if my mailings are to sell you a groin enlarger, or a student loan consolidation, or a visa card, or a service to find all the public information on your long lost "friend", then it's a legitimite business. no fraud. no mail fraud. yes, some people choose to walk the fine line between fraud and a legitimate business.
in any case i believe that spam mailing (sending an unsolicted email message) should not be regulated by congress. hacking into someone elses computer, physically gaining access to their resources should be highly illegal and we shoudl send folks to jail without bail for a long time and not let them make any phone calls for fear that they could send off a nuclear wepon from the phone. seriously, hacking anothers computer should be a serious offense that congress should regulate. the constitution allows people to have private property. congress has the authority to protect that right with laws that punish people for violating others rights.
i hate spam to, but i don't think there is or should be anything illegal about it. i certainly don't think the spammer is abusing your email address, they're merely using their address/servers/whatever.
if i send the same messages via snail mail is it illegal abuse of your home address? if i ask the same question personally to people on the street ("hey, you.. wanna larger groin/chest?"), is it abusing their personal address?
spam is a technological problem to a technoligocal system that warrants a technological solution. it does not and should not warrant a legislative solution. the legislature is not a playground supervisor.
again, yes, spam is annoying. yes, the spammers could find more appealing ways to earn a living. no, congress does not need to be involved (unless other crimes are being committed "send 5$ to me to save for my kidney transplant that is needed")
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/nrc b4009.txt
well, i did look, and it's dated 1992, but it might be current. i didn't want to spend too much time researching. basically, here's the relevant part:
A: The 1992 Cable Act created new rights for television broadcast stations and new
responsibilities for cable operators. As a result, the new FCC regulations require a cable
operator to get permission from the broadcast station to put the station on cable. A local
broadcast station may give permission by choosing mandatory carriage (must-carry) on the
cable system, or by negotiating an agreement for carriage of its signal by the cable company
(retransmission consent). A broadcast station which chooses retransmission consent may
request some form of payment for the use of its broadcast signal on the cable system, and
must negotiate for both its carriage on that system and its channel position. A broadcast
station choosing must-carry can generally select (from a set of limited options) its channel
position.
i guess what happened here in columbus is that the local channel and the cable co. opted against the must carry and instead used the "agreement" piece of the legislation (contract). when their contract was up, the local tv wanted to force the cable co into providing another channel (ONN ohio news network) and wouldn't sign a new contract until the cable co agreed to put that channel on their service. the cable co didn't want to be bullied and held out until the local channel caved in and signed a new contract.
also, i interpret this as the cable co doesn't have to carry the local channels as is implied in the "must carry". they have to only have permission from the local channel to carry their signal in one of two ways outlined above.
ISTR, satalite having to be able to provide (and charge their customers) local channels. most people i know with satelite have an a/b switch and use rabbit ears to tune in the local channels.
Remember, these are the people who got the government to make a rule that said cable companies have to carry their signal and have to pay them to carry that signal.
which rule is that? a local thing perhaps? i recall a couple years back, here in cow town, OH, the contract between 10TV and warner cable was about to expire. warner held fast and didn't want to carry the channel under the terms of 10TV. 10TV started legal battles, to force warner to carry the channel. warner anounced to all its customers that it would be providing A/B switchboxes for anyone who wanted them. i didn't give a rats arse, since i don't really watch the local channels much, and loosing one is no big deal. finally 10TV caved in and there was no interruption of service, but it was a big story around town for a few weeks.
The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.
it stops being their content the moment it reaches my property.
DirectTV has a flawed business model and wants to use laws to keep it going. They have a serious technological problem that they need to correct somehow, not punish people for taking advantage of their failed delivery mechanism.
just because it might seem wrong doesn't make it stealing. they're giving the signal to lots of people with the hope that you'll buy their dish and pay them monthly. i'm sorry, but that signal becomes mine the instant it enters my property. by the same logic, if you drive your car into my driveway, does it become mine? no, but i can tell you to get the fsck outta my driveway and have it towed away if i want to. how's about these folks just get their signal off my land if it's theirs.
this is not fraud. i think a browser can do whatever the hell it wants to with the HTTP response stream it receives. and any website can send whatever it wants in those http packets.
as much as i don't like the blink tag, a server sending it to me (i don't think lynx blinks does it?) isn't committing fraud.
i agree that i don't see dvd's replacing cd's anytime in my life (there will probably be a few more uber huge mediums by then).
regarding the encryption, which came first the decryption or the compression? i've used lots of the free dvd2vcd software, and they're really nice. i think the encryption was an important milestone for this software. i don't know, maybe they could compress the encrypted stream, but i'll venture to say otherwise.
i agree the size/medium is a problem. people don't have dvd players in their cars (most of us anyway). people have TONS of consumer portable cd players for music. we have only one or two DVD players in the house and they're stuck to the tube. DVD needs more than to dominate the home market, it needs to dominate the consumer market. It'll need to replace home stereo systems, and car audio systems and portable walkman systems, etc, etc, etc.
yeah, and "don't talk to me" t-shirts that people can wear as they stroll around town.
absolutely none if this has anything to do with the federal government. why the hell they make assinine laws to make the general population happy, i'll never know. laws are needed to protect peoples constitutional rights. exactly which rights are violated via spam/telemarketing or any other unsolicited communication?
SpamAssassin has filtered out 90MB of spam in the past 8 months for me)
that's some serious HDD usage there too! or at least degradation of the HDD from having to temporarily store the messages there. no body forces you to log into your email server or answer your phone. you get the messages and then you deal with the conquenses.
postal mail does not work that way. a return address is not required to deliver a postal address and to my knowledge you can put any address you want for the return address (what does the uspostal service specifications state on this?). the sender is also free to send the mail from any post office of their choosing. i can send mail postmarked from detroit rock city if i want to drive up there.
it's too expensive to replace, eh? another big business whine whine whine.
i would also say that SMTP works the same way as postal mail in that it can be as anonymous as anyone wants. we're alway out to get the people in society that show exploits in a system, but not so quick to change the system to plug the exploits. if this were a Microsoft web server the issue would be different, microsoft should release a patch as soon as an exploit is found, and their email client application needs to be overhauled.
my point was that laws cannot be the answer here, but rather a new or different communication mechanism is needed. clearly with all the cries of spam on this email communication system the system has problems. it is inheriantly a stupid communication system.
/. that legislation is needed to control spam when in reality it's peoples desire to avoid change from a failed system to one that works is the root of the problem in my opinion.
i keep hearing the mantra here on
and i can stand up and claim to be brad pitt too. trying to force some babe to finally listen.
spammers are not forcing you to log into the email server and check messages on a flawed communication system. try to start using a new communication system instead of making weird laws about how people should communicate. don't talk to me unless you have signed this written permission slip and attached a drop of blood to the slip.
ok. one example... it costs relatively nothing (maybe some electricity and a few big speakers) to send oral communication over the entire Central Park. on the other hand, the recipiants spend their time listening to the message. time is of value. if you didn't like the message or want to hear it, then you've wasted your time (in your opinion). if you did like the message then the time wasn't wasted (email from spammer .vs. email from a friend).
it could also easily be argued that in the case of spam email, the recipiants costs are extremely questionable. hardware resources? ISP bill? network administration? these are all normal things you have any way. spam is just something you also get because you contine to log into an email server and check messages. maybe use a communication medium that isn't so flawed to allow such abuse.
it's now illegal to provide any false information while using oral communication. specifically related to, but not limited to, false information regarding the name of the communicator.
spam spam spam. if spam should be illegal, so should any form of unsolicited communication. that includes conversing to persons without their permission at the local pub.
i'm personally in favor of a more liberated
government system, but if we want our legislatures to make rules, let's make it a level playing field , not just fix the annoying problem we have of spam (that is created because of a technical deficiency in the overall system of itself).
that's freaking schweet. i would work for nearly 1/2 my current salary to be able to work abroad (my personal choice is the yuccatan) and still make out ahead. employers???
in ideal situations the project manager comes to the team or people and says, "hey, we've got x project coming up and here's what it seems to involve. can you get back to me with an estimate of the effort needed?" even then those are flexable, but at least you had input. some days /. has some good issues that... no wait, reading /. is done on personal time. or is it part of training and building career depth?
that's a great idea, except HR would have a huge fit over the whole thing. more employees working less hours means more HR overhead, and more benefits overhead. i would be just fine working 28 hours per week, 4-7hour days. it's quite too bad i can't draw from my 401k until i'm half dead and worthless so that'll most likely never happen. i could easily work for 1/2 my salary for those kind of hours.