Your analogy fails because the Ford Festiva is not obviously overpriced, where the de100c obviously is. Next time try "Ferrari Testarossa." Besides, to build something like the de100c you (and for that matter HP as well) do not have to design your own microprocessor or memory chips or hard drive. So instead of "Ferrari Testarossa" think "AC Cobra" or some other expensive collection of off-the-shelf parts.
OK, here's the thing: I'm not really competent to comment on kernel internals. However, I am competent to ask questions, and I fail to see that any of your complaints are directly attributable to the VM code. Couldn't some of what you're experiencing be due to other code in the AC series, not the VM code? I'd really be interested to hear what about the Linus kernel's VM code is affecting your performance, especially since you have pleanty of RAM and the article clearly states the performance differences between the Linux kernel VM and the AC kernel VM appear in memory-limited situations. Am I missing something obvious, or did you miss something subtle?
And only Microsoft would be so arrogant to state that theirs is an "industry standard" browser! In other words, "We made it so it must be standard." In other words, "It's only 'standard' if we say it's standard; W3C have no say in the matter." Typical.
Keep in mind, if you house already has a security system, or an take one, you already have a dead POTS. That also means that most everyone else on your street already has one too (probably).
Yeah, but it's DEAD. As in DOES NOT WORK.
There are twelve twisted pairs running down our street; the two neighbors each have one, and we have another. That leaves nine "available" lines, right? Wrong. Ask the phone company for a 2nd line and their answer is that the switch is full so there's no port available even though there are nine non-used lines running from the switch all the way to our house.
If anyone builds on the remaining empty lot I suspect the telco could find a free port for their primary line, but there are no ports for the luxury of a 2nd phone line (and it is a luxury -- the state taxes it as such so your 2nd costs more than your 1st).
A couple of years ago I was on a weekend trip and had only one carry-on bag. While I was visiting my friend, my portable CD player broke and I had to carry back a broken one. I thought nothing of it, but I guess if it happened today...
If it happened today, you would put it in your checked suitcase; today (depending on the airline and airport) you probably cannot have a carry-on bag. Used to be women could have both a carry-on and a purse; now the carry-on must be checked and the purse must be tiny and mostly empty. Men are allowed a wallet and comb and that's about it.
They will probably sell 100,000 of these to parents. If they followed the Lego Mindstorms model by publishing internal details and encouraging hacking they would probably sell another 100,000 of them. But Matell is probably afraid that if they published the specs then someone they haven't yet bought out might release something similar. As if any competitor would need published specs to copy this idea.
How long before software that does this same thing is available for the Palm OS?
Read theses facts and then decide if this [PETA] is the type of organization that you want to support.
From November of 1996 until October of 1999 the Animal Liberation Front, part of the PETA organization, has been responsible for, but not limited too, the following;
1) The kidnapping, torture , and branding of Mr. Graham Hall.
2) Chaining a 62 year old woman to a fence and terrorizing her for owning a cattery.
3) Threatening a man they believed to be an animal researcher, telling him he was a marked man, and they were going to kill him.
4) More than 16 establishments firebombed. Estimated damages of more than $20,000,000.00.
5) Vandalizing business and research facilities. Estimated damages are more than $30,000,000.00.
6) Vandalizing research laboratories resulting in millions of dollars of lost equipment and research, some of which was for a cure for Alzheimer's.
7) At least two dozen or more, terrorist mailings with poisoned razorblades designed to cut, and or, kill the recipients. Some of the razor blades had been coated with rat poison.
8) Releasing over 41,500 animals to the wild. It must be stated here that these animals were bred in captivity, and did not have the necessary survival skills to live on their own outside of protection. Many have been killed by other predators, cars, and starved to death.
9) On many occasions, staged a very well coordinated release of Pure Bred Dogs at Dog Shows. Many of which engaged in fights with each other, becoming injured; and many others ran into traffic and were killed.
Imagine if you had to stand helplessly by and watch your beloved pet be deliberately killed.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many more incidents that go unreported. The point is, PETA is working to control how, when and where animals are bred, kept, used and eaten, by being nothing more than terrorist.
Just imagine if that was your home, business or your life's work, or your beloved pet, that had been ruined, or killed, due to a gang of thugs, and that's just what they are, nothing more, who do not agree with your point of view.
It is only by the grace of God, that no one person has been killed in the fires that have been set by, what most informed people believe is a faction of PETA, which goes by the name of The Animal Liberation Front. Will that change your mind about PETA then? However, PETA and the ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT (ALF), have succeeded in killing, or being responsible for the death of the cherished beloved pets of many people who look upon their pets as though they were their children.
(as reported from the NAIA website: http://www.naiaonline.org/)
PETA is to the ALF what the IRA is to the Real IRA. PETA want you to think they're more like Shinn Fein, but they're the IRA of the pet world. PETA are terrorists. And if you're a member, then you're supporting terrorism. Period.
PETA goes way, way beyond to make animals life morally equivalent to human life.
That makes them complete wackos. Not terrorists necessarily, but definitely wackos.
Wrong. It makes them terrorists, in my book. They euthanize (i.e., kill) animals and they equate animals to humans; ergo, they advocate killing humans. Ask them, they don't deny it.
They also steal pets from pet shows then kill them. Those are terrorist acts. Their aim is to terrorize people into no longer owning animals. Ask them, they don't deny it.
There just simply isn't a big overlap between the types of people who use AOL and the types of people who traditionally run Linux.
Everything you say is true (I did't quote your entire post, but I mostly agree with all of it). There is one point you and many others overlook: @Home is bankrupt. What will thousands of Linux users do when their always-on, high-speed ISP goes away and is replaced by AOL? Switch to Windows? Perhaps so, either that or go back to a dial-up ISP. If I were faced with that choice, I'd prefer to figure out how to make AOL work with Linux. Or rather, figure out how to make Linux work with AOL. There may not be much overlap between Linux users and AOL subscribers now, but in the near future there may well be quite a bit of overlap as the "types who traditionally run Linux" are given few alternatives.
Unless you think it might be easer to get MSN to play with Linux.
I see your point. One last comment. I see your point. I really do. You fail to see mine. Since you refuse to acknowlege that I have a right to a point of view different from yours, I quit as well. I just hope that one day you are burned by MAPS and begin to see how it looks to be on the receiving end of their actions. You claim I was not intimidated. I disagree, and since I'm the one who was affected -- not you -- I fail to see how you can claim I was not intimidated. MAPS caused a real problem for me, and they refused to help me solve it. Their only "solution" was to switch ISPs.
As for my refusal to name names, I fail to see the point. If you must know, I am no longer with that particular ISP because they went out of business. So what? What you fail to recognize is that I am -- we all are -- under the constant threat that MAPS will blacklist our current ISP, with no recourse except to find another. Which means that MAPS becomes the sole arbiter of who you may or may not do business with. I personally resent that. What's worse, they have set themselves up as the sole judge of which ISP is "worthy" of the Internet, but they are not in the business of "blessing" the good ones, only condemning the ones they don't like. In other words, MAPS will not tell me I'm safe if I choose ISP X. I could waste a lot of money on ISPs as MAPS condemns them one by one. I personally dislike the big guys and wish to support local, little guys, but with MAPS out there the only safe ISPs are the ones too big for MAPS to threaten, basically just MSN and AOL. Woo, great choice there! Is this the world you wish to live in, one where everyone is either with MSN or AOL because some punk in California realized that he could throw his weight around on the Internet simply because bits are harder to regulate than atoms?
If I disagree with Consumer Reports I can ignore them. If they claim the Beltchfire 3000 is a death trap I am free to ignore them and buy one anyway. I am not free to ignore MAPS. If MAPS decided the Beltchfire 3000 is a death trap MAPS would prevent me from using one by remote control, and there's nothing I can do about that. But MAPS won't tell me what they consider safe, just that I should buy something else. And they won't tell me not to buy the Belchfire 3000 until after I own one and find it no longer works. That's denial of service, and as far as I'm concerned that should be illegal. You can disagree, and I understand why you do. I just wish you were open minded enough to understand my motives here. But then, experience has taught me that vigilanties have a pretty closed minded approach to just about everything.
I'd say "see you later" but I honestly hope we never meet again.
That's extortion to me: Using a threat to change someone else's behavior. What word would you use?
It's called a boycott. It has a long and honorable history, and it is not extortion. Look it up.
Main Entry: extort Pronunciation: ik-'stort Function: transitive verb Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE Date: 1529 : to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power
Main Entry: boycott Pronunciation: 'boi-"kät Function: transitive verb Etymology: Charles C. Boycott died 1897 English land agent in Ireland who was ostracized for refusing to reduce rents Date: 1880 : to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
Sounds to me like extort is the right word. The only boycott involved is my boycott of MAPS; they certainly did not boycott me, they extorted me.
Privacy is only a concern for those who are under the illusion that anyone else would care to know what they write in their emails.
As a victim of identity theft I can assure you the threat of other people reading your email is no illusion. So far they've managed to charge over $10,000 to our credit cards in three months, and I suspect the sum is that low only because they maxed them out. We know our email is compromised because we got an email confirmation for one of the bogus orders.
Those of you who guard your email address to ward off spam are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and I pray you never learn what can happen when you truely lose your privacy. If my wife knew I posted here she'd kill me, she's become so paranoid over this.
You keep flinging around terms with reckless disregard for their meaning. Extortion implies that MAPS intended to reap some tangible benefit from you, backed up by a threat of violence.
Sorry if I misled you. Please suggest an alternate word. What I meant was this: MAPS expected me to change ISPs to suit them. The tangible benefit to them is increased legitimacy and an increased sense of power ("we cost someone another subscriber!"). The threat to me was not physical, it was a threat to continue to have my mail blocked. That's extortion to me: Using a threat to change someone else's behavior. What word would you use?
You raise some good points, but let's start with your really bad one:
I don't have the details (specific IP addresses) at hand, but they're on file if needed.
Uh huh. Put up or shut up.
Sorry, but they are not here, I do not have them at hand. And even if I did, I would not post my IP address -- I'm not stupid. If I ever need to, I will produce the evidence. Need to in the sense of providing evidence to a court to support a denial-of-service lawsuit against MAPS.
And this bears repeating: MAPS never "filtered" anything. MAPS published a list of IP addresses
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that, OK? I knew that years ago. But my brother's ISP -- the ones actually using the RBL to block my email -- denied any responsibility and referred me to MAPS. If it wasn't for MAPS and the way they and they alone decide who is and is not labled a spammer -- and their lack of any appeal process or any form of mediation outside the courts -- I would not have had problems sending email to my brother.
MAPS has always been very clear that they will eventually list all known addresses for a given company if that company persisted in antisocial behavior.
Two points. Three, really. 1) Yes, I know they don't actually filter by domain name. What they do is find out all the addresses under a domain name and filter them. Same difference. So they don't go through DNS, so what? The effect is the same. 2) MAPS has not "always" been clear about this. They did not make any such claim to me, personally. To me, personally, over the telephone, they claimed only to block individual IP addresses. They denied blocking entire sets of IP addresses, but that is exactly what they did then and do now. They lied to me. 3) MAPS is the sole arbiter of "antisocial behavior"? I don't think so. Not in a free society. That's my primary complaint against MAPS. If they had listed my IP address because someone else in the same subnet was spamming, I would understand that. But even if that's what happened -- even if what they said were true, which it is not -- they did not have any mechanism for me to prove that I was not a spammer and get my IP address taken off the RBL. Their only solution was for me to change ISPs. That's extortion. What's worse, the entity they claimed was spamming was from another state, in another subnet, but they blocked (excuse me, listed) me because I had the same ISP. That's mistaken identity, and that's forgivable too, if they have a process for removing non-spammers from their list. But they have no such process, and have no interest in considering one. That's what makes them vigilanties, and thus vermin to be exterminated.
You claim that there is no problem and reject countermeasures, yet take action to avoid unwanted mail, and that is hypocrisy.
Wrong. I do not claim there is no problem. I do not reject countermeasures. I reject ineffective vigilante countermeasures. I claim that MAPS does not help, at least not as much as they would have us believe. I'm not alone in this claim. I claim that my ISP does not use MAPS and I have no spam problem. That's not because there is no spam problem, it's because I take action to avoid unwanted email. Why is that so awful? Why am I villified for being careful about how I share my email address?
the scorched earth approach is the only thing keeping the Internet usable.
I disagree. That's the bottom line. That's where we disagree. It doesn't make me an ogre. It doesn't make you an ogre. However, if you block my email based solely on my IP address and nothing else, simply because some self-appointed other person decided to list my IP address as evil, then in my opinion you are indeed an ogre.
What everyone on your side of the arguement fails to realize is that IP address alone is not sufficient evidence of spam. Period. I support a legal definition of spam that we can all agree really targets spam; I will never agree to IP address alone as the sole identifier. I offer to work to define spam -- do you? No. You already know spam when you see it: anything on the MAPS list is spam. Period. No question. No appeal. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. Who died and left the Internet in the care of MAPS?
Once we have that definition we can enact laws to protect us from spam and punish those to send it. Until then, the vigilanties like MAPS are simply lawless tyrant bullies trying to tell everyone else how to live. You obviously like that, but I don't. Especially when they tell me I can't send email to my brother but won't tell me why.
If your ISP is on the MAPS list, then they have an active spammer as one of their other customers
Wrong. If my ISP is on the MAPS list, it's because MAPS claims they have an active spammer as one of their customers. MAPS does not offer proof of the spamming, they want proof of a negative -- that there is no spamming. How can an ISP prove that? Apparantly, my ISP could not provide convincing proof to MAPS. My ISP told me that the account in question was no longer active, but I only have their word on that, just as we only have MAPS's word that this account was used to spam once upon a time. Who should I believe? My ISP, who has been quite open and honest with me, or MAPS, who would not even talk to me at first (have you tried actually reaching a human being there?). I know you all believe MAPS, and I understand why. Please understand why I don't believe them.
I don't have the details (specific IP addresses) at hand, but they're on file if needed. MAPS claimed they did not filter by domain name, just specific IP addresses. As several pro-MAPS people have explained here in/., this is a lie. They do not filter specific IP addresses, they filter whole blocks. MAPS sent me the IP address they claim was used by a spammer. Guess what? My blocked IP addresses were not even in the same subnet. They were not filtering specific IP addresses, or even whole blocks of addresses; they filtered my ISP's domain name. That's the lie.
Either post your non-spamproofed email address in a message here on Slashdot or shut the fuck up.
Having a public email address is an absolute necessity for those of us who actually want to meet new people on the Internet. As opposed to those sacks of shit that only want to have a secret little communications club.
Followed by:
P.S. You'll notice I no longer list an email address for this account. The resulting spam was, and still is, overwhelming.
OK, so following your own instructions, you will now "shut the fuck up" like the "sack of shit" that you are, right? Because your admitted refusal to post your real email address here puts you in the same boat with me, buddy.
"Either walk the walk or get the hell off my Internet."
Geeze, AC, don't you think you've posted enough? Maybe I'm a fuckwit, but I'm sticking my karma out there for all to mod down, unlike some who argue against me. I respect your opinion, and it doesn't bother me that you don't respect mine. It doesn't bother me that you call me names and make up lies about me. What bothers me is that you hide to save your 3 or 4 points. Coward indeed.
"Troll bastards" -- so when I'm in jail, you'll be in the next cell? That's cruel and unusual punishment! I'll sue the warden! I refuse to serve my time in the company of Anonymous Cowards! (oh, then I guess I'd better leave/.)
How about decentralized P2P email, so I can email my brother directly without MAPS blocking me because they claim another of my ISP's customers sent some spam once upon a time.
As a victim of MAPS, I know quite a bit about it. I'm not a spammer, I just noticed one day that my brother wasn't getting any of my email. Turns out his ISP was using MAPS's "service" and my ISP got on MAPS's shit list. When I contacted MAPS about it to find out what happened and how to fix it, the bottom line was this: MAPS lied to me about what they did and how it worked. They left me with one choice: find a new ISP. I refused; my brother found a new ISP, one that would allow him to receive my mail. My ISP does not use MAPS and guess what? I am not flooded with spam. Not one bit. You do not need MAPS to avoid spam.
P.S. I did not get "flamebaited," I got modded down. Go ahead, mod this down, too. I'm not a karma whore.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Go ahead and mod me down; why did I earn that Karma if I can't blow some once in a while?
Yeah, but it's DEAD. As in DOES NOT WORK.
There are twelve twisted pairs running down our street; the two neighbors each have one, and we have another. That leaves nine "available" lines, right? Wrong. Ask the phone company for a 2nd line and their answer is that the switch is full so there's no port available even though there are nine non-used lines running from the switch all the way to our house.
If anyone builds on the remaining empty lot I suspect the telco could find a free port for their primary line, but there are no ports for the luxury of a 2nd phone line (and it is a luxury -- the state taxes it as such so your 2nd costs more than your 1st).
If it happened today, you would put it in your checked suitcase; today (depending on the airline and airport) you probably cannot have a carry-on bag. Used to be women could have both a carry-on and a purse; now the carry-on must be checked and the purse must be tiny and mostly empty. Men are allowed a wallet and comb and that's about it.
How long before software that does this same thing is available for the Palm OS?
PETA is to the ALF what the IRA is to the Real IRA. PETA want you to think they're more like Shinn Fein, but they're the IRA of the pet world. PETA are terrorists. And if you're a member, then you're supporting terrorism. Period.
Wrong. It makes them terrorists, in my book. They euthanize (i.e., kill) animals and they equate animals to humans; ergo, they advocate killing humans. Ask them, they don't deny it.
They also steal pets from pet shows then kill them. Those are terrorist acts. Their aim is to terrorize people into no longer owning animals. Ask them, they don't deny it.
Everything you say is true (I did't quote your entire post, but I mostly agree with all of it). There is one point you and many others overlook: @Home is bankrupt. What will thousands of Linux users do when their always-on, high-speed ISP goes away and is replaced by AOL? Switch to Windows? Perhaps so, either that or go back to a dial-up ISP. If I were faced with that choice, I'd prefer to figure out how to make AOL work with Linux. Or rather, figure out how to make Linux work with AOL. There may not be much overlap between Linux users and AOL subscribers now, but in the near future there may well be quite a bit of overlap as the "types who traditionally run Linux" are given few alternatives.
Unless you think it might be easer to get MSN to play with Linux.
I see your point. One last comment. I see your point. I really do. You fail to see mine. Since you refuse to acknowlege that I have a right to a point of view different from yours, I quit as well. I just hope that one day you are burned by MAPS and begin to see how it looks to be on the receiving end of their actions. You claim I was not intimidated. I disagree, and since I'm the one who was affected -- not you -- I fail to see how you can claim I was not intimidated. MAPS caused a real problem for me, and they refused to help me solve it. Their only "solution" was to switch ISPs.
As for my refusal to name names, I fail to see the point. If you must know, I am no longer with that particular ISP because they went out of business. So what? What you fail to recognize is that I am -- we all are -- under the constant threat that MAPS will blacklist our current ISP, with no recourse except to find another. Which means that MAPS becomes the sole arbiter of who you may or may not do business with. I personally resent that. What's worse, they have set themselves up as the sole judge of which ISP is "worthy" of the Internet, but they are not in the business of "blessing" the good ones, only condemning the ones they don't like. In other words, MAPS will not tell me I'm safe if I choose ISP X. I could waste a lot of money on ISPs as MAPS condemns them one by one. I personally dislike the big guys and wish to support local, little guys, but with MAPS out there the only safe ISPs are the ones too big for MAPS to threaten, basically just MSN and AOL. Woo, great choice there! Is this the world you wish to live in, one where everyone is either with MSN or AOL because some punk in California realized that he could throw his weight around on the Internet simply because bits are harder to regulate than atoms?
If I disagree with Consumer Reports I can ignore them. If they claim the Beltchfire 3000 is a death trap I am free to ignore them and buy one anyway. I am not free to ignore MAPS. If MAPS decided the Beltchfire 3000 is a death trap MAPS would prevent me from using one by remote control, and there's nothing I can do about that. But MAPS won't tell me what they consider safe, just that I should buy something else. And they won't tell me not to buy the Belchfire 3000 until after I own one and find it no longer works. That's denial of service, and as far as I'm concerned that should be illegal. You can disagree, and I understand why you do. I just wish you were open minded enough to understand my motives here. But then, experience has taught me that vigilanties have a pretty closed minded approach to just about everything.
I'd say "see you later" but I honestly hope we never meet again.
Main Entry: extort
Pronunciation: ik-'stort
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE
Date: 1529
: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power
Main Entry: boycott
Pronunciation: 'boi-"kät
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Charles C. Boycott died 1897 English land agent in Ireland who was ostracized for refusing to reduce rents
Date: 1880
: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
Sounds to me like extort is the right word. The only boycott involved is my boycott of MAPS; they certainly did not boycott me, they extorted me.
As a victim of identity theft I can assure you the threat of other people reading your email is no illusion. So far they've managed to charge over $10,000 to our credit cards in three months, and I suspect the sum is that low only because they maxed them out. We know our email is compromised because we got an email confirmation for one of the bogus orders.
Those of you who guard your email address to ward off spam are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and I pray you never learn what can happen when you truely lose your privacy. If my wife knew I posted here she'd kill me, she's become so paranoid over this.
Sorry if I misled you. Please suggest an alternate word. What I meant was this: MAPS expected me to change ISPs to suit them. The tangible benefit to them is increased legitimacy and an increased sense of power ("we cost someone another subscriber!"). The threat to me was not physical, it was a threat to continue to have my mail blocked. That's extortion to me: Using a threat to change someone else's behavior. What word would you use?
Sorry, but they are not here, I do not have them at hand. And even if I did, I would not post my IP address -- I'm not stupid. If I ever need to, I will produce the evidence. Need to in the sense of providing evidence to a court to support a denial-of-service lawsuit against MAPS.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that, OK? I knew that years ago. But my brother's ISP -- the ones actually using the RBL to block my email -- denied any responsibility and referred me to MAPS. If it wasn't for MAPS and the way they and they alone decide who is and is not labled a spammer -- and their lack of any appeal process or any form of mediation outside the courts -- I would not have had problems sending email to my brother.
Two points. Three, really. 1) Yes, I know they don't actually filter by domain name. What they do is find out all the addresses under a domain name and filter them. Same difference. So they don't go through DNS, so what? The effect is the same. 2) MAPS has not "always" been clear about this. They did not make any such claim to me, personally. To me, personally, over the telephone, they claimed only to block individual IP addresses. They denied blocking entire sets of IP addresses, but that is exactly what they did then and do now. They lied to me. 3) MAPS is the sole arbiter of "antisocial behavior"? I don't think so. Not in a free society. That's my primary complaint against MAPS. If they had listed my IP address because someone else in the same subnet was spamming, I would understand that. But even if that's what happened -- even if what they said were true, which it is not -- they did not have any mechanism for me to prove that I was not a spammer and get my IP address taken off the RBL. Their only solution was for me to change ISPs. That's extortion. What's worse, the entity they claimed was spamming was from another state, in another subnet, but they blocked (excuse me, listed) me because I had the same ISP. That's mistaken identity, and that's forgivable too, if they have a process for removing non-spammers from their list. But they have no such process, and have no interest in considering one. That's what makes them vigilanties, and thus vermin to be exterminated.
Wrong. I do not claim there is no problem. I do not reject countermeasures. I reject ineffective vigilante countermeasures. I claim that MAPS does not help, at least not as much as they would have us believe. I'm not alone in this claim. I claim that my ISP does not use MAPS and I have no spam problem. That's not because there is no spam problem, it's because I take action to avoid unwanted email. Why is that so awful? Why am I villified for being careful about how I share my email address?
I disagree. That's the bottom line. That's where we disagree. It doesn't make me an ogre. It doesn't make you an ogre. However, if you block my email based solely on my IP address and nothing else, simply because some self-appointed other person decided to list my IP address as evil, then in my opinion you are indeed an ogre.
What everyone on your side of the arguement fails to realize is that IP address alone is not sufficient evidence of spam. Period. I support a legal definition of spam that we can all agree really targets spam; I will never agree to IP address alone as the sole identifier. I offer to work to define spam -- do you? No. You already know spam when you see it: anything on the MAPS list is spam. Period. No question. No appeal. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. Who died and left the Internet in the care of MAPS?
Once we have that definition we can enact laws to protect us from spam and punish those to send it. Until then, the vigilanties like MAPS are simply lawless tyrant bullies trying to tell everyone else how to live. You obviously like that, but I don't. Especially when they tell me I can't send email to my brother but won't tell me why.
Wrong. If my ISP is on the MAPS list, it's because MAPS claims they have an active spammer as one of their customers. MAPS does not offer proof of the spamming, they want proof of a negative -- that there is no spamming. How can an ISP prove that? Apparantly, my ISP could not provide convincing proof to MAPS. My ISP told me that the account in question was no longer active, but I only have their word on that, just as we only have MAPS's word that this account was used to spam once upon a time. Who should I believe? My ISP, who has been quite open and honest with me, or MAPS, who would not even talk to me at first (have you tried actually reaching a human being there?). I know you all believe MAPS, and I understand why. Please understand why I don't believe them.
Followed by:
OK, so following your own instructions, you will now "shut the fuck up" like the "sack of shit" that you are, right? Because your admitted refusal to post your real email address here puts you in the same boat with me, buddy.
"Either walk the walk or get the hell off my Internet."
P.S. I did not get "flamebaited," I got modded down. Go ahead, mod this down, too. I'm not a karma whore.
I'd mod you up if I had the points. Had 'em last week, but not today. Damn.