Harris polls were NOT opt-in. That's what got them blacklisted. Also, MAPS is not an ISP, so it does not count. The ruling did not set any prescedents as to whehter or not an ISP could block Harris Marketing's mailings. Also, the corporate executives of Harris Marketing all deserve to be killed.
24. Kill them brutally and painfully, and make it a public display so that all know that the penalty for spamming shall involve a most horrible fate involving at some point a good flaying.
No, I don't see a distinction. All are using a method of advertising that unfairly shifts the burden of cost onto the recipient. All are unsolicited. All deserve the same treatment: complaints to the hosting ISP to have the company's domains terminated.
If you didn't ask for it, it is spam. Asking for it means submitting your e-mail address and specifically requesting the information. If you don't ask for it, even if it is "of interest" to you and you don't mind it, it's spam. Spam is about consent, not content.
I don't care at all about the nature or origin of the junk e-mail I receive. If I don't ask for it, I raise hell with the companies that sent it. My e-mail box is NOT meant to be a dumping ground for unsolicited advertising. All spammers should be killed, regardless of what crap they are peddling.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it isn't spam because the source is 'legitimate', or because it's actual opt-in? And opt-in ONLY means that a user never received ANY e-mail from the company until they specifically requested it. ANY e-mail that is sent without solicitation is spam, regardless of the content and regardless of the source. If I post an article on USENET where I mention a passing interest in findning a new lawn mower and Sears sends me an e-mail advertising their new selection, that is still spam and I will raise hell and fury onto them and their ISP until sears.com is destroyed or until they have me arrested for trespassing and terroristic threatening.
It's not just that they're being conned into willingly spamming -- some of them are lied to by the spammers who claim to be using a valid opt-in method. I've heard from companies who were duped as such, and I've always recommended purusing fraud charges against the marketing company involved. Either that or hand out the home address of the CEO of that company so that the slimeballs can be hunted down and killed as they deserve.
Spammers will try to work around filters, as they don't care that no one wants their crap. Further, filtering it doesn't solve the bandwidth situation, as the lines are still tied up with the bits running through the system until it hits the filter.
There is only one good solution for spam: killing spammers. It should be done, and it should be done brutally and painfully. When known criminal spammers like Ralsky (who ran a child pornography site at one point) are brutally murdered, others may think twice before firing up "EmailBlaster 2002".
I have to wonder if MS can even get away with requiring that Dell include a MS operating system with every computer system they sell. It would be an interesting case in court...
Well, the HDTV spec involves the method of delivering the signal. "HDTV-compatable" televisions have no HD signal decoders, so they would rely on an external decoder for the work. The end result of any HD spec, however, is a HD-type video image which is either 1080i or 720p. "HDTV-compatable" refers to a television's ability to display an image of that resolution. As such, the spec itself shouldn't affect a TV's ability to display the image. The problem is going to be with the MPAA demanding that no one build a set-top box that can send a 1080i or 720p image through analogue inputs (component), which will screw over existing digital TV owners no matter what the final HD spec is.
Any responsible ISP will prohibit spamming, because they understand that allowing spammers will gain them a reputation of harboring criminals and it will get them blocked at the router level by a number of more responsibly run ISPs. I don't know what Cowles was smoking, because a spammer's business is typically not worth keeping: spammers are crooks by definition, and it's not good business sense to trust your income to criminals.
Hrmm...I tried 2.4.19-rc3 and my 120GB drive on my ATA100 Promise controller went to shit. Went back to 2.4.18 and all was well. I do hope that was just a problem with that rc.
A lot of the problems with Transgaming source is that they've had to license certain technologies, such as Macrovision's SafeDisc for CD copy protection. They cannot lease such code out, because it's not theirs and even making available would get them into a lot of trouble.
Of course, they could have tried to reverse engineer the specs, but since that's illegal under the DMCA (since Herr Kaplan ruled that the provision for compatability doesn't count when it's used for Linux), they're kind of stuck.
I've been eagerly anticipating support for GTA3. It's what I'll go to once I finish Baldur's Gate 2 until Neverwinter Nights is released (which will probably be in 2004).
I was updating two of my boxes from home while at work. I ssh into one box from work and from that ssh session I ssh into the other box (due to firewall configuration).
On the "main" box -- the one to which I go in from work -- updating openssl was smooth and efficient, as was updating ssh. Download source, compile and go.
On the "workstation" box -- the one I go in from the main box -- I had a problem when trying to run the configure script for openssh after compiling openssl. Turns out that it is looking for a shared libssl rather than a static one! I don't know why this happened (both machines use openssh source from the same tarball!), but I recompiled openssl with shared support enabled, and the connection dropped as soon as I tried to install.
Openssh shouldn't be using shared openssl libs (in fact, nothing should use shared openssl libs according to the readme), so I suspect I'll need to check that when I recompile it. I know that the ssh compile on my "main" box isn't using shared libs because I have no libssl.so, only libssl.a. I suspect that the presence of an existing shared openssl library ($#@$ing default install) triggered a detection in the configure script.
I think that he wanted to assert that a law that prevented a user from modifying their own legally purchased hardware so that it would operate outside of its normal specifications is itself absurd. Kind of like a law that would legally prevent you from adding sufficient parts to a cassette deck to make it play CDs. Not sure how well that would go over in court, though.
Slashdot Mirror
MAPS had (and likely still has) documentation on their website. Harris was blacklisted for a reason.
Harris polls were NOT opt-in. That's what got them blacklisted. Also, MAPS is not an ISP, so it does not count. The ruling did not set any prescedents as to whehter or not an ISP could block Harris Marketing's mailings. Also, the corporate executives of Harris Marketing all deserve to be killed.
Yeah, but by doing this, are they risking their status as a common carrier?
ISPs are not common carriers. That much has been well-establshed.
Many ISPs block known spammer domains at the router level, this is no different except that the RIAA's abuse is of a slightly different nature.
24. Kill them brutally and painfully, and make it a public display so that all know that the penalty for spamming shall involve a most horrible fate involving at some point a good flaying.
No, I don't see a distinction. All are using a method of advertising that unfairly shifts the burden of cost onto the recipient. All are unsolicited. All deserve the same treatment: complaints to the hosting ISP to have the company's domains terminated.
The problem is, what do you want to do with them once they're caught?
Kill them.
Uh, no.
If you didn't ask for it, it is spam. Asking for it means submitting your e-mail address and specifically requesting the information. If you don't ask for it, even if it is "of interest" to you and you don't mind it, it's spam. Spam is about consent, not content.
I don't care at all about the nature or origin of the junk e-mail I receive. If I don't ask for it, I raise hell with the companies that sent it. My e-mail box is NOT meant to be a dumping ground for unsolicited advertising. All spammers should be killed, regardless of what crap they are peddling.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it isn't spam because the source is 'legitimate', or because it's actual opt-in? And opt-in ONLY means that a user never received ANY e-mail from the company until they specifically requested it. ANY e-mail that is sent without solicitation is spam, regardless of the content and regardless of the source. If I post an article on USENET where I mention a passing interest in findning a new lawn mower and Sears sends me an e-mail advertising their new selection, that is still spam and I will raise hell and fury onto them and their ISP until sears.com is destroyed or until they have me arrested for trespassing and terroristic threatening.
It's not just that they're being conned into willingly spamming -- some of them are lied to by the spammers who claim to be using a valid opt-in method. I've heard from companies who were duped as such, and I've always recommended purusing fraud charges against the marketing company involved. Either that or hand out the home address of the CEO of that company so that the slimeballs can be hunted down and killed as they deserve.
Spammers will try to work around filters, as they don't care that no one wants their crap. Further, filtering it doesn't solve the bandwidth situation, as the lines are still tied up with the bits running through the system until it hits the filter.
There is only one good solution for spam: killing spammers. It should be done, and it should be done brutally and painfully. When known criminal spammers like Ralsky (who ran a child pornography site at one point) are brutally murdered, others may think twice before firing up "EmailBlaster 2002".
I used open-source programs to create more standardized and non-DRMed files. Never had a problem.
I have to wonder if MS can even get away with requiring that Dell include a MS operating system with every computer system they sell. It would be an interesting case in court...
You forgot "Sony blames their losses on music piracy, purchases Congressmen to enact laws against people having any control over their computers.
I'm shocked! Totally shocked! A spammer who is a dishonest crook? Who could have anticipated such a thing?!
Well, the HDTV spec involves the method of delivering the signal. "HDTV-compatable" televisions have no HD signal decoders, so they would rely on an external decoder for the work. The end result of any HD spec, however, is a HD-type video image which is either 1080i or 720p. "HDTV-compatable" refers to a television's ability to display an image of that resolution. As such, the spec itself shouldn't affect a TV's ability to display the image. The problem is going to be with the MPAA demanding that no one build a set-top box that can send a 1080i or 720p image through analogue inputs (component), which will screw over existing digital TV owners no matter what the final HD spec is.
Any responsible ISP will prohibit spamming, because they understand that allowing spammers will gain them a reputation of harboring criminals and it will get them blocked at the router level by a number of more responsibly run ISPs. I don't know what Cowles was smoking, because a spammer's business is typically not worth keeping: spammers are crooks by definition, and it's not good business sense to trust your income to criminals.
Hrmm...I tried 2.4.19-rc3 and my 120GB drive on my ATA100 Promise controller went to shit. Went back to 2.4.18 and all was well. I do hope that was just a problem with that rc.
I'm referring to the native Linux client, which originally was going to be released with the Windows version.
A lot of the problems with Transgaming source is that they've had to license certain technologies, such as Macrovision's SafeDisc for CD copy protection. They cannot lease such code out, because it's not theirs and even making available would get them into a lot of trouble.
Of course, they could have tried to reverse engineer the specs, but since that's illegal under the DMCA (since Herr Kaplan ruled that the provision for compatability doesn't count when it's used for Linux), they're kind of stuck.
I've been eagerly anticipating support for GTA3. It's what I'll go to once I finish Baldur's Gate 2 until Neverwinter Nights is released (which will probably be in 2004).
~$100 (actually a little less) will get you a Dreamcast and the BBA. It's just that the BBA isn't built-in.
I found something.
I was updating two of my boxes from home while at work. I ssh into one box from work and from that ssh session I ssh into the other box (due to firewall configuration).
On the "main" box -- the one to which I go in from work -- updating openssl was smooth and efficient, as was updating ssh. Download source, compile and go.
On the "workstation" box -- the one I go in from the main box -- I had a problem when trying to run the configure script for openssh after compiling openssl. Turns out that it is looking for a shared libssl rather than a static one! I don't know why this happened (both machines use openssh source from the same tarball!), but I recompiled openssl with shared support enabled, and the connection dropped as soon as I tried to install.
Openssh shouldn't be using shared openssl libs (in fact, nothing should use shared openssl libs according to the readme), so I suspect I'll need to check that when I recompile it. I know that the ssh compile on my "main" box isn't using shared libs because I have no libssl.so, only libssl.a. I suspect that the presence of an existing shared openssl library ($#@$ing default install) triggered a detection in the configure script.
Odd, I just updated ssl remotely via an ssh connection (compiled against the previous libs). I then recompiled ssh without problem.
I think that he wanted to assert that a law that prevented a user from modifying their own legally purchased hardware so that it would operate outside of its normal specifications is itself absurd. Kind of like a law that would legally prevent you from adding sufficient parts to a cassette deck to make it play CDs. Not sure how well that would go over in court, though.
One of my Dreamcast games went missing. Only way I can play it now is via a CD-R copy.