I pay my ISP for mail service for my personal use not for people to send me garbage that I don't want.
Really? I want a provider that will agree to send me only email that I want. Who are you with? My agreement says that the ISP will deliver messages that are addressed to me.
Very few people want this type of email or commercial phone messages.
Some people do though.
The only people who defend these practices are profiting from it.
Yeah that's right, I do believe to 99% that you are a spammer, or that you LOVE spam.
Well, you're wrong then. I don't love spam. I don't love SUV's either. I simply choose not to buy an SUV, or any car from a company that targets these things to the general public. I don't love the exploitation of workers in third world coutries, which is why I make sure I only buy products that I can be reasonably sure are exploitation free.
By refusing to pay for a service that sends you text messages in exchange for a fee. You don't know what's in a receiver paid-for letter before you pay for it
No it would not. There would be the costs associated with processing credit cards, getting the sender to agree to a click-thru contract, etc....It looks very unprofessional to have a colleague, client, or employer pay to send you a message.
Yikes! Talk about over-complicating matters. How about simply charging it to their bill. People don't object to paying to call you on the telephone or fax, why wll they object to paying to send any other message?
Did you even read the article? The spammer used a dictionary attack.
Did you read my comment? I said that it was the company's fault for forcing the spammer to use a dictionary attack. If they didn't want them to do this, they should have supplied the addresses. If you don't want that, you go unlisted.
So all I have to do is emigrate from the U.S. to some foreign country,
If it means that much to you, yes. Alternatively, you could ask the telephone company to implement a similar billing method, and point to every other country to prove that this is viable.
My point was that charging the sender works everywhere else.
When they send their ad "postage due", they are stealing your money to pay for the delivery.
Refuse delivery then. Nobody is forcing you to receive the ad. Just reject any message that you are charged for.
There is none. It costs the provider money to deliver the message and they charge the users.
This is because people are willing to pay for this service. It would be just as viable a business model for the telephone companies to charge the sender.
No, it is not implicit. Why would they offer an "unlisted number" service if that was the case?
There's your better contract. Go for an unlisted number.
And where do you find such fairy-land contracts as you keep making up?
What, you mean the ones that don;t charge you to receive messages? Every contry except the US.
And people have chosen to pay this money for the service. If they don't want to be used in this way, cancel the service. People want to eat their cake and have it too.
They'r not. The money goes to the telephoj company. If you don't like that find a provider that doesn't charge you to receive messages
Why? Tell me why you have to get messages that you don't want. What was it in the contract that said "random third parties will be legally permitted to send you ads at your expense"?
It's implicit. The phone company would be in breach of contract if they didn't deliver the message. If you have a problem with this, get a better contract.
You pay for a phone, I assume, or your mommy and daddy do. Do you think that each person on Slashdot has a right to call you on that phone, day or night, and tell you what an idiot they think you are? If so, what's the phone number.
If that's how you feel, then I'm going to advertise my auto glass service by tying an ad to a brick and throwing it through your car's windshield.
!? Mobile phone spam breaks the phone? Wow! This is seriuous heavyweight stuff.
If I was paying someone to provide a service of throwing messages wrapped round bricks through my car window, I wouldn't complain if they did this. I would have cause to complain if they didn't.
I choose whether or not to receive messages. The choice is all or nothing, but I have that choice. If I want to receive messages I want I have to get messages I don't. The company provides the service if and only if I ask for it. If I ask for it, I pay for it.
Robbery involves my property going to the criminal. Text messaging involves my money going to a third party. The spammer isn't going to get a penny of that. The phone company is. This is just reward for providing a service that I requested - the delivery of all calls that are sent to me.
I hate them. I also hate tightfisted pwople. I do accept they have ar right to exist though
If your theory held, then people wouldn't get spammed with crap like penis/breast enlarging cream, ugoslavian tractor deals, or offers to become ordained ministers - they would get spam about things that INTERESTED THEM, 100% of the time.
No other advertising is 100% accurately targetted.
You are confusing the issue, by assuming that all businesses have a right to free (as in beer) advertising, which as common sence dictates, is totally 180 from the true.
They are free to use whatever sources are available. If this is email, then they are free to use it.
I work for a fortune 500. We send e-mail. We ONLY send email to folks who have opted into our mailing lists (by default, we are, across the board, and opt-out company - meaning we will assume you wanted to opt-out before we send you a lick of e-mail.)
That's nice. Doesn't mean everyone else has to.
So, my long rambling has this point : Advertising is targeted communication with your audiance.
Why do I keep seeing ads that assume I'm a 60 year old woman then?
You chose to have a phone. You knew the risks when you signed up. It's your choice whether to pay for these messages, not mine.
If you don't like paying for it, find a provider that doesn't charge you to receive a message. If none of them offer this, cancel the contract and tell them why.
The "spammer" has a legitimate business activity. You may not like it, but he has a right to advertise. If you don't want to receive his advertisements, then stop being so tight fisted and get some blocking software.
All this company had to do was publically list all valid email addresses. Then the spammer would be able to read that, and only send to names on the list. This would benefit both parties, due to there being fewer lost emails for DoCoMo, and the advertiser would be sure that every one of his messages went to a valid account. This way everyone wins.
Don't underestimate the power of hard sell. The psychological mindgames they play are very effective. They rely on general politeness of most people not to leave in the middle of a conversation. Walking away doesn't actually occur ro most people.
Wow. I'm really impressed. You came up with that witty retort all by yourself! Come on, be honest - someone helped you with the punctuation at least didn't they?
Firstly - Lexmark won an injunction. This just means that there is merit to the case. It doesn't mean that the DMCA makes copying the cartridges illegal.
Secondly - a main point to this is that the people who broke the code are copying. they are making an identical cartridge, and using copies of their proprietry software to make it work. Overclocking has nothing to do with copying at all.
Thirdly - Intel has no problem with hobbiest overclockers. This is simply a consumer protection measure. The problem is that some retailers will overclock the CPU, and sell it as a faster machine than it actually is, even though overclocked chips are less reliable. This reflects badly on Intel. Hobbiests know that regular crashes are a risk.
I'm not so sure. Professionals choose the platform based on software, not the other way round. Switching to PC does give a lower total cost of ownership if Adobe keeps their prices the same, but if the other tools that people want are available only for Mac, then they will choose mac.
Most console games don't have an EULA, and are sold on pretty much the same basis that DVDs and CDs are.
The restrictiuons that they can place on what you can do with the software is quite limited. I don't know whether this includes rental. Logically, I don't see any difference between renting videos and renting power tools, but the media cartels see things differently
Considering the only people you know are pasty-white sweaty nerds like you, that isn't saying much.
That's not very original. I mean can't you come up with something slightly imaginitive? You are offensively inoffensive
Females don't care if your DVD player is multi-region or not.
That's right. This is why I bought a DVD player for myself. I tend to rely on my good looks, charm, and charisma to attract members of the opposite sex. Presumably you have none of these attribute, which is a shame. Nevertheless, don't lose hope. You'll find a girl who likes you for who you are one of these days.
Sure, but their competitors offer everything that MS lets them have, and everything they don't.
People don't like restrictions. If they know the restrictions are there, they'll go elsewhere. Office depot isn't supplying what these people need. It's like DVD players, I couldn't get a multi-region one in any large electrical store. They lost out because I got it from a smaller retailer instead. Quite a lot of people I know buy them from smaller retailers and supermarkets because they don't like being artificailly limited.
Walmart vs. Microsoft - Always interesting when an unstoppable force comes up against an imovable object:)
It's true. Both are big campanies, capable of and willing to use exactly the same dirty tricks as each other.
Office depot sounds like they're onto a loser here. If the customer wants goods that MS would prefer they didn't have, the customer will get it from somewhere else. It's in the interests of retailers to satisfy the customer, not their supplier. The customer is the only one that will give them money after all.
Slashdot Mirror
I pay my ISP for mail service for my personal use not for people to send me garbage that I don't want.
Really? I want a provider that will agree to send me only email that I want. Who are you with? My agreement says that the ISP will deliver messages that are addressed to me.
Very few people want this type of email or commercial phone messages.
Some people do though.
The only people who defend these practices are profiting from it.
I never made any profit from spam.
Yeah that's right, I do believe to 99% that you are a spammer, or that you LOVE spam.
Well, you're wrong then. I don't love spam. I don't love SUV's either. I simply choose not to buy an SUV, or any car from a company that targets these things to the general public. I don't love the exploitation of workers in third world coutries, which is why I make sure I only buy products that I can be reasonably sure are exploitation free.
I just happen to like the free market.
How? How do I refuse delivery of a text message?
By refusing to pay for a service that sends you text messages in exchange for a fee. You don't know what's in a receiver paid-for letter before you pay for it
No it would not. There would be the costs associated with processing credit cards, getting the sender to agree to a click-thru contract, etc....It looks very unprofessional to have a colleague, client, or employer pay to send you a message.
Yikes! Talk about over-complicating matters. How about simply charging it to their bill. People don't object to paying to call you on the telephone or fax, why wll they object to paying to send any other message?
Did you even read the article? The spammer used a dictionary attack.
Did you read my comment? I said that it was the company's fault for forcing the spammer to use a dictionary attack. If they didn't want them to do this, they should have supplied the addresses. If you don't want that, you go unlisted.
So all I have to do is emigrate from the U.S. to some foreign country,
If it means that much to you, yes. Alternatively, you could ask the telephone company to implement a similar billing method, and point to every other country to prove that this is viable.
My point was that charging the sender works everywhere else.
I agree with this guy
When they send their ad "postage due", they are stealing your money to pay for the delivery.
Refuse delivery then. Nobody is forcing you to receive the ad. Just reject any message that you are charged for.
There is none. It costs the provider money to deliver the message and they charge the users.
This is because people are willing to pay for this service. It would be just as viable a business model for the telephone companies to charge the sender.
No, it is not implicit. Why would they offer an "unlisted number" service if that was the case?
There's your better contract. Go for an unlisted number.
And where do you find such fairy-land contracts as you keep making up?
What, you mean the ones that don;t charge you to receive messages? Every contry except the US.
And people have chosen to pay this money for the service. If they don't want to be used in this way, cancel the service. People want to eat their cake and have it too.
Note to moderators - You should focus on modding up good posts, rather than modding down posts you disagree with.
Why should some spammer get to steal your money?
They'r not. The money goes to the telephoj company. If you don't like that find a provider that doesn't charge you to receive messages
Why? Tell me why you have to get messages that you don't want. What was it in the contract that said "random third parties will be legally permitted to send you ads at your expense"?
It's implicit. The phone company would be in breach of contract if they didn't deliver the message. If you have a problem with this, get a better contract.
You pay for a phone, I assume, or your mommy and daddy do. Do you think that each person on Slashdot has a right to call you on that phone, day or night, and tell you what an idiot they think you are? If so, what's the phone number.
+44 209 993 243
If that's how you feel, then I'm going to advertise my auto glass service by tying an ad to a brick and throwing it through your car's windshield.
!? Mobile phone spam breaks the phone? Wow! This is seriuous heavyweight stuff.
If I was paying someone to provide a service of throwing messages wrapped round bricks through my car window, I wouldn't complain if they did this. I would have cause to complain if they didn't.
I choose whether or not to receive messages. The choice is all or nothing, but I have that choice. If I want to receive messages I want I have to get messages I don't. The company provides the service if and only if I ask for it. If I ask for it, I pay for it.
Robbery involves my property going to the criminal. Text messaging involves my money going to a third party. The spammer isn't going to get a penny of that. The phone company is. This is just reward for providing a service that I requested - the delivery of all calls that are sent to me.
I'm operating on the same business model as the spammer, so you have to pay for this reply.
No I don't. slashdot provides it for free. I would have to if I subscribed.
Do you like telemarketers too ?
I hate them. I also hate tightfisted pwople. I do accept they have ar right to exist though
If your theory held, then people wouldn't get spammed with crap like penis/breast enlarging cream, ugoslavian tractor deals, or offers to become ordained ministers - they would get spam about things that INTERESTED THEM, 100% of the time.
No other advertising is 100% accurately targetted.
You are confusing the issue, by assuming that all businesses have a right to free (as in beer) advertising, which as common sence dictates, is totally 180 from the true.
They are free to use whatever sources are available. If this is email, then they are free to use it.
I work for a fortune 500. We send e-mail. We ONLY send email to folks who have opted into our mailing lists (by default, we are, across the board, and opt-out company - meaning we will assume you wanted to opt-out before we send you a lick of e-mail.)
That's nice. Doesn't mean everyone else has to.
So, my long rambling has this point : Advertising is targeted communication with your audiance.
Why do I keep seeing ads that assume I'm a 60 year old woman then?
You chose to have a phone. You knew the risks when you signed up. It's your choice whether to pay for these messages, not mine.
If you don't like paying for it, find a provider that doesn't charge you to receive a message. If none of them offer this, cancel the contract and tell them why.
The "spammer" has a legitimate business activity. You may not like it, but he has a right to advertise. If you don't want to receive his advertisements, then stop being so tight fisted and get some blocking software.
All this company had to do was publically list all valid email addresses. Then the spammer would be able to read that, and only send to names on the list. This would benefit both parties, due to there being fewer lost emails for DoCoMo, and the advertiser would be sure that every one of his messages went to a valid account. This way everyone wins.
Don't underestimate the power of hard sell. The psychological mindgames they play are very effective. They rely on general politeness of most people not to leave in the middle of a conversation. Walking away doesn't actually occur ro most people.
Wow. I'm really impressed. You came up with that witty retort all by yourself! Come on, be honest - someone helped you with the punctuation at least didn't they?
Firstly - Lexmark won an injunction. This just means that there is merit to the case. It doesn't mean that the DMCA makes copying the cartridges illegal.
Secondly - a main point to this is that the people who broke the code are copying. they are making an identical cartridge, and using copies of their proprietry software to make it work. Overclocking has nothing to do with copying at all.
Thirdly - Intel has no problem with hobbiest overclockers. This is simply a consumer protection measure. The problem is that some retailers will overclock the CPU, and sell it as a faster machine than it actually is, even though overclocked chips are less reliable. This reflects badly on Intel. Hobbiests know that regular crashes are a risk.
Nope.
Perhaps I should have said lower total purchase cost. (for hardware and software)
I'm not so sure. Professionals choose the platform based on software, not the other way round. Switching to PC does give a lower total cost of ownership if Adobe keeps their prices the same, but if the other tools that people want are available only for Mac, then they will choose mac.
Most console games don't have an EULA, and are sold on pretty much the same basis that DVDs and CDs are.
The restrictiuons that they can place on what you can do with the software is quite limited. I don't know whether this includes rental. Logically, I don't see any difference between renting videos and renting power tools, but the media cartels see things differently
Considering the only people you know are pasty-white sweaty nerds like you, that isn't saying much.
That's not very original. I mean can't you come up with something slightly imaginitive? You are offensively inoffensive
Females don't care if your DVD player is multi-region or not.
That's right. This is why I bought a DVD player for myself. I tend to rely on my good looks, charm, and charisma to attract members of the opposite sex. Presumably you have none of these attribute, which is a shame. Nevertheless, don't lose hope. You'll find a girl who likes you for who you are one of these days.
You would if you got to know me.
Sure, but their competitors offer everything that MS lets them have, and everything they don't.
People don't like restrictions. If they know the restrictions are there, they'll go elsewhere. Office depot isn't supplying what these people need. It's like DVD players, I couldn't get a multi-region one in any large electrical store. They lost out because I got it from a smaller retailer instead. Quite a lot of people I know buy them from smaller retailers and supermarkets because they don't like being artificailly limited.
Walmart vs. Microsoft - Always interesting when an unstoppable force comes up against an imovable object:)
It's true. Both are big campanies, capable of and willing to use exactly the same dirty tricks as each other.
Office depot sounds like they're onto a loser here. If the customer wants goods that MS would prefer they didn't have, the customer will get it from somewhere else. It's in the interests of retailers to satisfy the customer, not their supplier. The customer is the only one that will give them money after all.