I thought that the suit was over Nintendo's exclusivity contract killing off all competition (which allowed them to inflate prices, as they effectively prevented any competition).
The first amendment does not imply a right to be heard. The DMA has often argued that the first amendment means that they can do whatever they want to pitch an advertisement even to people who don't want it. That's like arguing that I have the legal right to break into your home so that I can argue a political point.
The DMA is run by crooks and thieves. They're just rich enough to bribe the right Congresscritters.
Yes, but it's kind of like e-mail spammers. They don't care if it is illegal, because they don't care about anything but their bottom line. If there's little chance of you pressing charges, they'll do it anyway.
This is why you should always press charges if a telemarketer calls your cell phone. Bleed 'em dry.
Clearing Level 9 Height 5 in Type B earned a space shuttle takeoff.
Type A gave you various rockets based upon your score. I don't remember the best rocket that I saw, but the best level I reached (starting from 9) was either 20 or 21 (I cleared enough lines to get to level 21, but I don't recall if the game actually went to it).
If you are absolutely forced to do it, try sabotaging it in the most innocous way possible. Look for known anti-spam fighters, and make sure that it is VERY clear the company being advertised. Also, try to include the e-mail address of the individual who authorized the spam run (even after you explained that spamming is a Bad Thing(tm) and that it gives the impression that the company doing it is a sleazy outfit run by crooks).
When you are told by your employers to initiate a spam run, you should NEVER accept that assignment. The ethical and moral thing to do is determine just who in the company decided upon the spam run and speak to them regarding spamming and explain why it is a bad thing. If, after you explain the situation to them, they refuse to relent and inist upon going through with it, you should have them killed.
The DMA is open to the idea of the government saying that some forms of theft of service by conversion and trespass to chattel is unaccaptable, so long as the theft of service, theft by conversion and trespass to chattel that their members want to commit is still legal.
You've got a good point. Only when we have FEDERAL laws with tough penalties (why so few advocate torture and death is a mystery to me) the flow of spam might slow down somewhat.
Know what? SPEWS isn't causing any disruption of your service. SPEWS isn't blocking any of your mail. SPEWS just maintains a list of known spam-tolerant ISP IP blocks, and yours might happen to be there. It's up to individual ISPs to use that block. They're not disrupting your service either.
Blame the spammers and blame your ISP for supporting them. If it weren't for them, your ISP wouldn't be be listed. If your ISP kicks spammers off quickly (it should take no more than three days to terminate a spammer) and you find yourself blocked anyway, then you're probably dealing with a trigger happy ISP that is running their own filter, and SPEWS has nothing to do with it.
Spammers should be tortured and killed. Until that becomes legal, this is the best solution available.
Spammers trick ISPs all the time, and get booted after a short time. The blacklist maintainers (using that word lightly) are "trigger happy".
I must take issue with this.
SPEWS isn't as slow to act as the now defunt RBL, but SPEWS does not automatically add an entry after a single spam.
SPEWS acts when a spammer is not kicked off of their ISP after a history of spamming. One spam run that was an admitted mistake might not make it to SPEWS but when it's a clear case of career spammers whose ISP isn't kicking them offline, their IP range is listed.
If, after a time, their connectivity still isn't cut, the/24 blocks above and below their IP space get added. After another time the list is expanded with more/24 blocks. The idea is to punish spam-friendly ISPs by making it known that NOTHING from their network is welcome if they are going to welcome spammers. Yes, 'innocents' are being affected but the punishment goes to the ISP for being spam-friendly. If the innocents get fed up, they should leave, because it's not wise to financially support an ISP that willingly provides connectivity to spammers (because that automatically means that the ISP is prone to tolerance of criminal activity).
When a call went to Congress to regulate spam, Congress effectively said to let the internet regulate itself. SPEWS is the internet regulating itself. It's not always nice, and it may not seem fair, but spammers are a scummy lot who all deserve death and some ISPs, like Qwest and Verio have put greed over morals, ethics and the law. SPEWS is the answer.
If you're claiming to have had correspondence with the blacklist maintainers then you were not dealing with SPEWS. There is no way to contact SPEWS directly. The only way to get any correspondence is through posting on news.admin.net-abuse.email, and even then you will never receive a personal response because all SPEWS maintainers are anonymous so that there can be no SLAPP suits filed against them.
Back in the day of the RBL, the RBL could get legal threats and they would remove listings because fighting said challenges was costly. As a result, individual ISPs would take that remvoed RBL entry and add it to their own permanent filters, never to be removed until the heat death of the universe. SPEWS, because it cannot be sued, doesn't have that problem. It's actually a much better means of handling things because it is a central resource that cannot be smacked around with frivilous legal filings. With SPEWS there is a much lower chance that an ISP will find themselves permanently blocked by hundreds of individual blacklists because they let a spammer persist for too long.
I'm not ignorant of the collateral damage of blacklists. The lists were created specifically to cause collateral damage. The idea is that if you are paying for connectivity from an ISP that willingly supports criminals and criminal activity (again, Qwest, Verio, Cable and Wireless, Concentric, Hurricane Electric) and your service is blocked because some people have decided not to communicate with ISPs that openly tolerate illegal acts, your complaint is with your ISP and the spammer, because they are the ultimate cause of the blocakge. Bitch to your ISP, sue them for providing you with damaged goods (possibly knowing that said goods were damaged) or sue the spammers for the resulting loss of connectivity, but do not blame someone for not wanting to assocaite with criminals.
It's kind of like a pizza place that refuses delivery to neighbourhoods known for high levels of violent crime. Yes, innocents will end up suffering as a result but 1) pizza delivery and internet services are not 'rights', and private businesses have the right to refuse service based upon known dangerous situations and 2) the residents of the neighbourhood who want service should understand the reason for the refusal and either work to remove their crackhouses/spammers or move somewhere else.
It is not the responsibility of my ISP to deal with another ISP's spammers. If the only way to stem the flood of garbage is in a method that keeps out some legitimate traffic, then that's what should be done. Innocents who are adversely affected should reconsider giving their money to an ISP that openly harbors criminals.
Acclaim has announced that the refusal of some retailers to carry the game would have no impact on sales, as no one has planned to buy the worthless piece of crap anyway.
Actually, the effect on innocents is intentional. The desire is to blacklist entire IP ranges because the ISP owning them is spam-friendly to encourage innocents who are hit by the blacklisting to either pressure the ISP into taking action against spammers or leaving when the ISP does nothing, reducing the ISP's revenues.
It may sound unfair, but given that spammers are despicable scum who deserve horrible, painful death, I don't see an easier or more effective means of dealing with ISPs who have the gall to support them.
Not too far from the truth. Quite a few UT2k3 owners have complained that they cannot run the game due to the copy protection. Only workaround for them is a CD crack (which is illegal, thanks to the DMCA).
I was thinking that myself. He is putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation by pissing off so many people. Then again, Rober Novak is obviously such an arrogant, obnoxious prick that he just doesn't consider it.
Sony did not buy out Square. Square decided to make games exclusively for the Playstation because they preferred the console's CD-based format over Nintendo's cartridges and because Sega was hardly a player with the Saturn being so far behind in the console war.
Honestly, Microsoft fanboys are the ones most excited about the idea of the makers of their favourite console buying out other companies. Other game console fanboys typically aren't as interested in Nintendo or Sony completely taking over interesting game companies while on XBox forums fanboys drool at speculation that MS might buy out Capcom.
Don't get me wrong. Every console has its share of fanboys (I saw on a PS2 forum some moron saying that Sony should require PS2 developers to not develop games for any other console -- ie, engage in the exact same anti-trust behaviour that got Nintendo into lots of trouble many years ago), but Microsoft's are the most die-hard in their interest in their console becoming an outright monopoly.
If you were to take the ten most notorious spammers and bathe them in low-molar sulfuric acid, then inject broken glass into them via an extra-thick enema tube before crucifying them in a public field, that might be a deterrant to other spammers.
Why this has not yet been done is a mystery to me.
No, dumbass, a crook named Clark Mankin (most ten year olds are smarter than he) signed up my e-mail address to hundreds of FFA links, resulting in a deluge of e-mail to my account.
Hey, I'd pay if someone caused (and then demonstrated responsibility) the complete thermal annihilation of Level3's HQ.
Or Qwest. A Qwest customer used Qwest's network to commit fraud, trespass, harassment and denial of service. Qwest's response was to give him a *WARNING*. Qwest openly tolerates criminal activity from their customers (Which shouldn't be surprising as Qwest has demonstratably engage in criminal activity in the past).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that the suit was over Nintendo's exclusivity contract killing off all competition (which allowed them to inflate prices, as they effectively prevented any competition).
The first amendment does not imply a right to be heard. The DMA has often argued that the first amendment means that they can do whatever they want to pitch an advertisement even to people who don't want it. That's like arguing that I have the legal right to break into your home so that I can argue a political point.
The DMA is run by crooks and thieves. They're just rich enough to bribe the right Congresscritters.
Yes, but it's kind of like e-mail spammers. They don't care if it is illegal, because they don't care about anything but their bottom line. If there's little chance of you pressing charges, they'll do it anyway.
This is why you should always press charges if a telemarketer calls your cell phone. Bleed 'em dry.
Clearing Level 9 Height 5 in Type B earned a space shuttle takeoff.
Type A gave you various rockets based upon your score. I don't remember the best rocket that I saw, but the best level I reached (starting from 9) was either 20 or 21 (I cleared enough lines to get to level 21, but I don't recall if the game actually went to it).
If you are absolutely forced to do it, try sabotaging it in the most innocous way possible. Look for known anti-spam fighters, and make sure that it is VERY clear the company being advertised. Also, try to include the e-mail address of the individual who authorized the spam run (even after you explained that spamming is a Bad Thing(tm) and that it gives the impression that the company doing it is a sleazy outfit run by crooks).
When you are told by your employers to initiate a spam run, you should NEVER accept that assignment. The ethical and moral thing to do is determine just who in the company decided upon the spam run and speak to them regarding spamming and explain why it is a bad thing. If, after you explain the situation to them, they refuse to relent and inist upon going through with it, you should have them killed.
It really is for the best for society.
Considering that spammers always break the law when they spam, no. Note that many even cite nonexistent laws to claim 'compliance'.
The DMA is open to the idea of the government saying that some forms of theft of service by conversion and trespass to chattel is unaccaptable, so long as the theft of service, theft by conversion and trespass to chattel that their members want to commit is still legal.
Did I get that right?
We fine someone $2000, they use the gulag... hmmm.. spammers in the gulag. That I'd like to see.
Perhaps we could petition them to set up webcams. I'd pay to see it.
You've got a good point. Only when we have FEDERAL laws with tough penalties (why so few advocate torture and death is a mystery to me) the flow of spam might slow down somewhat.
International sanctions against countries that do not work to stop spammers. If those don't work, nuclear weapons.
My TV is only 57"! Waah!
Rule #1: Spammers lie.
Also, Rule #3 is that spammers are stupid. As a result, spammers lies are always stupid.
Know what? SPEWS isn't causing any disruption of your service. SPEWS isn't blocking any of your mail. SPEWS just maintains a list of known spam-tolerant ISP IP blocks, and yours might happen to be there. It's up to individual ISPs to use that block. They're not disrupting your service either.
Blame the spammers and blame your ISP for supporting them. If it weren't for them, your ISP wouldn't be be listed. If your ISP kicks spammers off quickly (it should take no more than three days to terminate a spammer) and you find yourself blocked anyway, then you're probably dealing with a trigger happy ISP that is running their own filter, and SPEWS has nothing to do with it.
Spammers should be tortured and killed. Until that becomes legal, this is the best solution available.
Spammers trick ISPs all the time, and get booted after a short time. The blacklist maintainers (using that word lightly) are "trigger happy".
/24 blocks above and below their IP space get added. After another time the list is expanded with more /24 blocks. The idea is to punish spam-friendly ISPs by making it known that NOTHING from their network is welcome if they are going to welcome spammers. Yes, 'innocents' are being affected but the punishment goes to the ISP for being spam-friendly. If the innocents get fed up, they should leave, because it's not wise to financially support an ISP that willingly provides connectivity to spammers (because that automatically means that the ISP is prone to tolerance of criminal activity).
I must take issue with this.
SPEWS isn't as slow to act as the now defunt RBL, but SPEWS does not automatically add an entry after a single spam.
SPEWS acts when a spammer is not kicked off of their ISP after a history of spamming. One spam run that was an admitted mistake might not make it to SPEWS but when it's a clear case of career spammers whose ISP isn't kicking them offline, their IP range is listed.
If, after a time, their connectivity still isn't cut, the
When a call went to Congress to regulate spam, Congress effectively said to let the internet regulate itself. SPEWS is the internet regulating itself. It's not always nice, and it may not seem fair, but spammers are a scummy lot who all deserve death and some ISPs, like Qwest and Verio have put greed over morals, ethics and the law. SPEWS is the answer.
If you're claiming to have had correspondence with the blacklist maintainers then you were not dealing with SPEWS. There is no way to contact SPEWS directly. The only way to get any correspondence is through posting on news.admin.net-abuse.email, and even then you will never receive a personal response because all SPEWS maintainers are anonymous so that there can be no SLAPP suits filed against them.
Back in the day of the RBL, the RBL could get legal threats and they would remove listings because fighting said challenges was costly. As a result, individual ISPs would take that remvoed RBL entry and add it to their own permanent filters, never to be removed until the heat death of the universe. SPEWS, because it cannot be sued, doesn't have that problem. It's actually a much better means of handling things because it is a central resource that cannot be smacked around with frivilous legal filings. With SPEWS there is a much lower chance that an ISP will find themselves permanently blocked by hundreds of individual blacklists because they let a spammer persist for too long.
I'm not ignorant of the collateral damage of blacklists. The lists were created specifically to cause collateral damage. The idea is that if you are paying for connectivity from an ISP that willingly supports criminals and criminal activity (again, Qwest, Verio, Cable and Wireless, Concentric, Hurricane Electric) and your service is blocked because some people have decided not to communicate with ISPs that openly tolerate illegal acts, your complaint is with your ISP and the spammer, because they are the ultimate cause of the blocakge. Bitch to your ISP, sue them for providing you with damaged goods (possibly knowing that said goods were damaged) or sue the spammers for the resulting loss of connectivity, but do not blame someone for not wanting to assocaite with criminals.
It's kind of like a pizza place that refuses delivery to neighbourhoods known for high levels of violent crime. Yes, innocents will end up suffering as a result but 1) pizza delivery and internet services are not 'rights', and private businesses have the right to refuse service based upon known dangerous situations and 2) the residents of the neighbourhood who want service should understand the reason for the refusal and either work to remove their crackhouses/spammers or move somewhere else.
It is not the responsibility of my ISP to deal with another ISP's spammers. If the only way to stem the flood of garbage is in a method that keeps out some legitimate traffic, then that's what should be done. Innocents who are adversely affected should reconsider giving their money to an ISP that openly harbors criminals.
Acclaim has announced that the refusal of some retailers to carry the game would have no impact on sales, as no one has planned to buy the worthless piece of crap anyway.
Actually, the effect on innocents is intentional. The desire is to blacklist entire IP ranges because the ISP owning them is spam-friendly to encourage innocents who are hit by the blacklisting to either pressure the ISP into taking action against spammers or leaving when the ISP does nothing, reducing the ISP's revenues.
It may sound unfair, but given that spammers are despicable scum who deserve horrible, painful death, I don't see an easier or more effective means of dealing with ISPs who have the gall to support them.
Not too far from the truth. Quite a few UT2k3 owners have complained that they cannot run the game due to the copy protection. Only workaround for them is a CD crack (which is illegal, thanks to the DMCA).
1. before the hour of 8 A.M. or after 9 P.M. (local time at the called party's location), and
I had a telemarketer argue with me that she wasn't calling after 21:00EST. Apparently she couldn't tell time or she did not know about time zones.
I was thinking that myself. He is putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation by pissing off so many people. Then again, Rober Novak is obviously such an arrogant, obnoxious prick that he just doesn't consider it.
Sony did not buy out Square. Square decided to make games exclusively for the Playstation because they preferred the console's CD-based format over Nintendo's cartridges and because Sega was hardly a player with the Saturn being so far behind in the console war.
Honestly, Microsoft fanboys are the ones most excited about the idea of the makers of their favourite console buying out other companies. Other game console fanboys typically aren't as interested in Nintendo or Sony completely taking over interesting game companies while on XBox forums fanboys drool at speculation that MS might buy out Capcom.
Don't get me wrong. Every console has its share of fanboys (I saw on a PS2 forum some moron saying that Sony should require PS2 developers to not develop games for any other console -- ie, engage in the exact same anti-trust behaviour that got Nintendo into lots of trouble many years ago), but Microsoft's are the most die-hard in their interest in their console becoming an outright monopoly.
If you were to take the ten most notorious spammers and bathe them in low-molar sulfuric acid, then inject broken glass into them via an extra-thick enema tube before crucifying them in a public field, that might be a deterrant to other spammers.
Why this has not yet been done is a mystery to me.
No, dumbass, a crook named Clark Mankin (most ten year olds are smarter than he) signed up my e-mail address to hundreds of FFA links, resulting in a deluge of e-mail to my account.
Hey, I'd pay if someone caused (and then demonstrated responsibility) the complete thermal annihilation of Level3's HQ.
Or Qwest. A Qwest customer used Qwest's network to commit fraud, trespass, harassment and denial of service. Qwest's response was to give him a *WARNING*. Qwest openly tolerates criminal activity from their customers (Which shouldn't be surprising as Qwest has demonstratably engage in criminal activity in the past).