Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics.
on
Sealand Put Up For Sale
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think it's more of an oversimplification than wrong. Canada could probably disband its entire military without threat from the US because the US has no interest in expanding its borders. In fact, it's conceivable that the US would protect Canada from any other potential invaders for no reason other than the US considering this to be the right thing to do. If South Korea disbanded its army then it would quickly become part of North Korea.
I believe It's empty right now. Sail up there with a paper knife. occupy the terriroty. Kill all zero people who resist. Declare yourself the revolutionary government.
Of course, the declaration of what makes for statehood is a little arbitrary. So rather than go to the effort, I declare myself King of Antarctica.
It was outside territorial waters at the time, and was occupied by the current owners who then declared it an independent state. When it was abandoned it probably belonged to nobody.
It's all a bit speculaative. It owes its sort-of-existence as a state to vagueness in international law about what makes a nation a nation.
It's not a fine. It's a charge of some other sort that is identical for all practical purposes but legally isn't a fine. They probably call it a service cancellation charge or something.
In a similar way, UK banks operate in a slightly grey area when it comes to unauthorised overdraft fees. Many people have complained that this is a fine for going overdrawn. The banks insist that it's just an administration charge. At the moment they've settled every single one of these out of court so there has been no legal judgement on the matter.
Most junk mail is bulk rate. It won't be returned, it will just be destroyed. If you get junk mail at the first-class rate, that would be returned.
Do they really? I'd have thought they companies would want to know who really doesn't want to receive their junk.
Personally, I tend to just stuff everything they send me in the pre-paid reply envelope (Including the envelope they used) and send it back. Not sure if it works. I never received a lot of junk but I don't receive any any more.
I got a little upset withy Which? Magazine (The UK consumer magazine) a few years ago. They set up an ISP. I checked the T&Cs, and the only way to cancel was by writing them a letter! They offered a free subscription but this automatically became a paid for sub after 3 months unless you made the effort to cancel.
Certainly this doesn;t make them the worst offenders, but I really expected a consumer organisation to be substantially more consumer friendly.
That's not my point. The point is that the EULA gives you the right to accept your purchase or reject it. But the purchase wasn't Windows. It was the purchase of a complete system that incorporates Windows. Where do you get the right to reverse only part of the transaction? Can I return only the Nero burning software that came with my DVD Drive? How about the driver? How about returning the copy of Windows XP I purchased but keeping the hardware (i.e. the box and manuals)?
I agree. There was ongoing crime on your network. You should have responded immediately. Running the abuse desk at a sizeable ISP is not a 9-5 job.
I agree with you there, but crime enforcement is not what Spamhaus is there for. If this was just a website, and the phishng mail was being sent from elsewhere, then the listing would have no effect, apart from applying extra pressure to deal with this more quickly.
I have no problem with pressuring network providers to deal with crime in general, but using a spam blocking list to do it is not the right way to do things. Unless I misunderstand, the list exists only to block spam. Doing anything else with it is an abuse of trust.
You bought the hardware as a unit but the software is not really part of that unit. The software also has a licensing agreement that does not apply to that hardware.
It's only fairly recently thast the OS has been seen as separate from the hardware. The OS was definitely part of my Amiga, and is generally considered a key part of a Palm, or a Sun workstation. Granted, the Palm and the Amiga didn't have an EULA (and I have no idea about the Sun), but in that case doesn't this mean I should be able to get a refund on the driver for my printer? Can I get a refund from Apple for the OS? Perhaps I could in both cases.
I see the argument but I'm still not sure I 100% agree that you should be able to get a refund for just the OS. Dell were happy(ish) to oblige but it's not something that's been really tested in court, and most people want the OS as part of their computer so it's probably not something that anyone wants to make a big deal over.
Point take. Although I've never really understood why the refund can apply only to the software. If they were obliged to take back and refund the entire computer then it makes sense, but with the bulk licencing agreement they probably have, I'm not sure how they decide how much of the price is for the computer and how much is for the OS.
I think they will block an entire ISP if the ISP is particularly bad with spam. This is rare, and is typically only when they're pretty certain that they only support spammers. But it does happen.
If I'm in danger of successfully suing one company, do you think the other companies in the same industry are going to line up with signs saying "Sue us too!"?
Honestly? - YES. Or at least I consider it enough of a risk. I genuinely rate their fanaticism that highly. Oh, Not all of them and those that do will probably add a weaselly disclaimer of the sort that computer nerds think provide legal protection, or create a separate list that doesn't include me, but I wouldn't take the risk.
It would take a brave man to sue a blocking list. Or at least a man that has no desire ever to send an email ever again. If there's a single legal threat then there's a definite risk that every other blocking list in the world will block you.
Spews doesn't seem to be working for me right now so I can't provide numbers. However, I have seen an IP address that appears to be listed for a popular and quasi legal scam (reprehensible - yes but they're not spammers). I've also seen a few listings for companies that haven't existed for some time and listings where the only apparent spamming from the IP address was one which had sent spam for a total of 2 weeks some years ago, and then been stopped.
You know, I don't think many people really have a problem with people using SPEWS just as a blocking mechanism. They might think it's a crappy list, but there are other pretty hopeless lists that don't offend anyone nearly as much.
What gets people upset is when it changes from a blocking tool to some sort of police service, and people use it to bully ISPs to behave in a certain manner, or bully their customers to change, or various other irritating things that a lot of SPEWS advocates (but not SPEWS itself) do.
I'm not going to answer any posts about how actually it's just a list and no-one has to use it bla bla - save it for the bar-room barristers.
Indeed. It's pedantry. And a rather cowardly refusal to accept responsibility for their actions. If I had a blocking list, then I'd say with pride that I block spam, and some list maintainers do this.
Some people do use SPEWS simply as a preventative spam blocking system. SPEWS itself doesn't claim to be any more than this. It's a bit heavy on the false positives but if people prefer things that way then who are we to criticise? The problem comes from the NANAE fanatics who insist that SPEWS is a punishment mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think the US would expend expensive military resources purely to do "the right thing," do you?
Yes. Just because you don't either means I'm hopelessly naive or you're hopelessly cynical.
No, but the position of Emperor of the United States has been open for 127 years today.
I think it's more of an oversimplification than wrong. Canada could probably disband its entire military without threat from the US because the US has no interest in expanding its borders. In fact, it's conceivable that the US would protect Canada from any other potential invaders for no reason other than the US considering this to be the right thing to do. If South Korea disbanded its army then it would quickly become part of North Korea.
I believe It's empty right now. Sail up there with a paper knife. occupy the terriroty. Kill all zero people who resist. Declare yourself the revolutionary government.
Of course, the declaration of what makes for statehood is a little arbitrary. So rather than go to the effort, I declare myself King of Antarctica.
It was outside territorial waters at the time, and was occupied by the current owners who then declared it an independent state. When it was abandoned it probably belonged to nobody.
It's all a bit speculaative. It owes its sort-of-existence as a state to vagueness in international law about what makes a nation a nation.
It's not a fine. It's a charge of some other sort that is identical for all practical purposes but legally isn't a fine. They probably call it a service cancellation charge or something.
In a similar way, UK banks operate in a slightly grey area when it comes to unauthorised overdraft fees. Many people have complained that this is a fine for going overdrawn. The banks insist that it's just an administration charge. At the moment they've settled every single one of these out of court so there has been no legal judgement on the matter.
Most junk mail is bulk rate. It won't be returned, it will just be destroyed. If you get junk mail at the first-class rate, that would be returned.
Do they really? I'd have thought they companies would want to know who really doesn't want to receive their junk.
Personally, I tend to just stuff everything they send me in the pre-paid reply envelope (Including the envelope they used) and send it back. Not sure if it works. I never received a lot of junk but I don't receive any any more.
I got a little upset withy Which? Magazine (The UK consumer magazine) a few years ago. They set up an ISP. I checked the T&Cs, and the only way to cancel was by writing them a letter! They offered a free subscription but this automatically became a paid for sub after 3 months unless you made the effort to cancel.
Certainly this doesn;t make them the worst offenders, but I really expected a consumer organisation to be substantially more consumer friendly.
I doubt that $1000 fine would be considered lawful anywhere with any consumer protection laws.
It's a fine, pure and simple, and governments really don't like other organisations fining people.
They probably object to the competition or something:)
That's not my point. The point is that the EULA gives you the right to accept your purchase or reject it. But the purchase wasn't Windows. It was the purchase of a complete system that incorporates Windows. Where do you get the right to reverse only part of the transaction? Can I return only the Nero burning software that came with my DVD Drive? How about the driver? How about returning the copy of Windows XP I purchased but keeping the hardware (i.e. the box and manuals)?
I agree. There was ongoing crime on your network. You should have responded immediately. Running the abuse desk at a sizeable ISP is not a 9-5 job.
I agree with you there, but crime enforcement is not what Spamhaus is there for. If this was just a website, and the phishng mail was being sent from elsewhere, then the listing would have no effect, apart from applying extra pressure to deal with this more quickly.
I have no problem with pressuring network providers to deal with crime in general, but using a spam blocking list to do it is not the right way to do things. Unless I misunderstand, the list exists only to block spam. Doing anything else with it is an abuse of trust.
Then the contract has been written in a clown. A proper contract would have a terminate for cause clause, for causing a listing on a blocklist.
Really? That would be a tricky clause to get right. What do these usually look like? What does this clause in your contract say?
I hate them both.
I'm not popular amongst Unix users.
One suggestion I liked though was to put a sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel.
Problem is that safety campaigners would demand that it retracts into the steering wheel as soon as you hit anything.
He gains some kudos for admitting he was wrong about OSX running on generic hardware. Other pundits would have insisted they were right.
You bought the hardware as a unit but the software is not really part of that unit. The software also has a licensing agreement that does not apply to that hardware.
It's only fairly recently thast the OS has been seen as separate from the hardware. The OS was definitely part of my Amiga, and is generally considered a key part of a Palm, or a Sun workstation. Granted, the Palm and the Amiga didn't have an EULA (and I have no idea about the Sun), but in that case doesn't this mean I should be able to get a refund on the driver for my printer? Can I get a refund from Apple for the OS? Perhaps I could in both cases.
I see the argument but I'm still not sure I 100% agree that you should be able to get a refund for just the OS. Dell were happy(ish) to oblige but it's not something that's been really tested in court, and most people want the OS as part of their computer so it's probably not something that anyone wants to make a big deal over.
Point take. Although I've never really understood why the refund can apply only to the software. If they were obliged to take back and refund the entire computer then it makes sense, but with the bulk licencing agreement they probably have, I'm not sure how they decide how much of the price is for the computer and how much is for the OS.
As it happens, I don't want the hard drive they bundled with the machine either. Can I get a refund on that?
I think they will block an entire ISP if the ISP is particularly bad with spam. This is rare, and is typically only when they're pretty certain that they only support spammers. But it does happen.
If I'm in danger of successfully suing one company, do you think the other companies in the same industry are going to line up with signs saying "Sue us too!"?
Honestly? - YES. Or at least I consider it enough of a risk. I genuinely rate their fanaticism that highly. Oh, Not all of them and those that do will probably add a weaselly disclaimer of the sort that computer nerds think provide legal protection, or create a separate list that doesn't include me, but I wouldn't take the risk.
It would take a brave man to sue a blocking list. Or at least a man that has no desire ever to send an email ever again. If there's a single legal threat then there's a definite risk that every other blocking list in the world will block you.
Spews doesn't seem to be working for me right now so I can't provide numbers. However, I have seen an IP address that appears to be listed for a popular and quasi legal scam (reprehensible - yes but they're not spammers). I've also seen a few listings for companies that haven't existed for some time and listings where the only apparent spamming from the IP address was one which had sent spam for a total of 2 weeks some years ago, and then been stopped.
You know, I don't think many people really have a problem with people using SPEWS just as a blocking mechanism. They might think it's a crappy list, but there are other pretty hopeless lists that don't offend anyone nearly as much.
What gets people upset is when it changes from a blocking tool to some sort of police service, and people use it to bully ISPs to behave in a certain manner, or bully their customers to change, or various other irritating things that a lot of SPEWS advocates (but not SPEWS itself) do.
Interesting. Why do you think this matters? Is there some shame in blocking IP addresses?
I'm not going to answer any posts about how actually it's just a list and no-one has to use it bla bla - save it for the bar-room barristers.
Indeed. It's pedantry. And a rather cowardly refusal to accept responsibility for their actions. If I had a blocking list, then I'd say with pride that I block spam, and some list maintainers do this.
Some people do use SPEWS simply as a preventative spam blocking system. SPEWS itself doesn't claim to be any more than this. It's a bit heavy on the false positives but if people prefer things that way then who are we to criticise? The problem comes from the NANAE fanatics who insist that SPEWS is a punishment mechanism.