Doesn't have to be big.. our Border Collie wakes us up at 6AM like clockwork.
If it's big enough to jump onto your bed, it's big enough to wake you up - just make sure it's got lots of energy, and you won't have worry about waking up late ever again.:o)
THere is nothing wrong with this law as far as I can tell.
Then you're not looking hard enough.
Why should it be illegal to carry a camcorder?
Someone, somewhere says "Hey, some people are recording movies in theatres. There outta be a law against that!"
Response: "But there already is."
"oh? Well in that case there outta be another law against it, because the first one isn't working. Because we all know that if someone is breaking one law, then they'll certainly think twice if they have to break two laws!"
They blacklist people regardless of if the user tried to unsubscribe.
I'm sorry, I just can't parse that. Spamcop doesn't blacklist users, it blacklists server IP addresses (typically mail servers that send mail to spamtrap addresses - and these IP addresses are removed once the spam stops.) It also lists mail relays who's admins are not responsive to spam reports.
And what (exactly) is the user unsubscribing from?
Some services actually do get your *your name* legitly and do run a *valid* unsubscribe service.
What exactly is an "unsubscribe service" (valid or invalid)? And how does a 'service' 'legitly' get 'my name'?
Spamcop doesn't differeniate between this and bans you regardless.
Again, I'm having trouble parsing your sentence. The word 'differentiate' implies two options, but you only give one (which is undefined).
That's why we bitbucket every piece of spamcop.net email.
If you ignore spam reports, you shouldn't be surprised if your servers get blacklisted. I have no sympathy for you if you ignore the problem.
If no-one ever responded to spam, then there wouldn't be anyone willing to pay to have it sent on their behalf!
Wrong. Totally wrong.
Even if nobody ever responded to spam (and there really is no hard evidence that anyone does) spammers would still be able to find victims, because there are people who believe "well, they wouldn't be sending it if it didn't work."
Spammers are con men. They con victims into believing that spam is effective, regardless of whether it's effective or not.
The only real way to solve the spam problem is to make spam expensive for spammers to send.
First, it's not the only way to deal with the problem, and that 'solution' causes another problem of its' own: if you make spam 'expensive' to send, how do you differentiate between spam and email from a mailing list?
There is no technical solution to spam - spam is a social problem (ie. spammers want something for nothing, and don't care who they steal from or harrass to get it), and like all social problems, it will require a social solution.
Having run an opt in mailing list for a previous employer I can tell you that some people sign up then go complain to spamcop when they actually get the email.
I don't run a mailing list, but some of our customers do - and you're correct, this part does happen.
then the mail server gets an Instant blacklist thanks to the automated system
Never seen this happen. In every spamcop case, we were always given the chance to respond - we've never been blacklisted. (A simple response showing the opt-in confirmation clears things up.)
The problem gets worse when they black out the email addresses so it becomes impossible to tell who actually wanted off.
Blacking out the email address doesn't make it impossible to check the recipient - unless you have the (bad) habit of deleting your mail logs too soon (IMHO a month is pretty much a minimum to keep logs - which shouldn't be a problem, as spamcop rejects submissions that are over 3 days old.)
You'll have the destination server and the SMTP ID - both of which are in your logs. (If you don't have access to the logs, your ISP should be more than willing to provide them - especially if your claims about being blacklisted are true.)
No, my logic is quite sound. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.
It assumes, first of all, that all commercial email is in the same category,
No, I never mentioned "commercial email" - at all.
I said spam. Spam is widely defined as "unsolicited commercial email". And yes, all spam is in the same category.
a filter is capable of determining for certain that a certain message is or is not spam
Whether a filter is capable of determining "for certain" (or even "for probable") is entirely beside the point. The point is A PERSON WHO EMPLOYS A SPAM FILTER DOES NOT WANT SPAM. I don't know how much clearer I can say this.
Spammers who attempt to circumvent spam filters, and then make claims like "I don't want to send to people who don't want it" are therefore by definition liars.
He even went so far as to say, if you dont want my stuff, I dont want to send it to you.
Every spammer says this, but remember the first rule of dealing with spammers: Spammers lie.
Spammers say they don't want to send spam to people who don't want it, then come up with ways to subvert spam filters. If the really didn't want to send spam to people who didn't want it, then why subvert a spam filter? Someone using a filter obviously doesn't want spam (by definition), yet spammers keep bitching about filters, and how they're making their line of work difficult.
businesses wouldn't be interested if they don't make money using spam
That's known as 'specious reasoning'. It makes sense as long as you don't actually think about it.
obsimpsons quote:
Lisa: "By that logic, I could say that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Really, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't. It's just a rock! But you don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "I would like to buy your rock!"
Here's what's really happening:
Spammer finds moron, says "I can advertise your product for a fraction of the cost of legit^h^h^h^h^hconventional marketing companies."
Moron thinks "hey, this stuff must really work, after all, if it didn't work, they'd be out of business." And says "OK, here's my money."
NOBODY buys any of Moron's stuff. Moron is out $X. Spammer finds new moron, says "I can advertise your product for a fraction of the cost of legit^h^h^h^h^hconventional marketing companies."
Moron thinks "hey, this stuff must really work, after all, if it didn't work, they'd be out of business." and says "OK, here's my money."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It is NOT necessary for spam to be effective for it to continue - all that's required is for someone to think it's effective.
No, it isn't. Three years ago it might have been a solution, but right now, it's just a colossal waste of time.
The problem with this is that it operates on the assumtion that spammers work within the same boundaries as everyone else. Anyone who has spent even a tiny fraction of their time fighting spam knows this is simply not true.
The days of spammers sending spam from a single server are long gone - nowadays, they use thousands of trojaned machines to do their work. How many machines do spammers control? Enough to launch effective DDoS'es on some of the largest pipes out there.
The effectiveness of this 'solution' would be marginal at best.
Now compare the effect it would have on legitimate users - an individual sending mail wouldn't notice 10 seconds.. but email is not only used by individuals.
Something to keep in mind when assessing any anti-spam 'solution' such as this is the following:
From a receiver's standpoint, the only difference between a legitimate mailing list and a spammer is that the user asked to be part of a mailing list.
Now think about how this would affect legitimate mailing lists: How many mail servers do most mailing lists have? One? Two? Six? Some large mailing lists might have a dozen.
So how does this affect those mailing lists?
It would shut them down, is how. They would cease to be useful, as it would take days for their mails to get through.
So the 'obvious' solution to this problem would be to whitelist legitimate mailing lists, right? Wrong. That's not a solution either (and we'll ignore the point that any 'solution' that requires exceptions is probably not very well thought out.)
I maintian a mail server for a few thousand people. I have no idea which mailing lists they would subscribe to. It would probably become a full-time job to keep such a whitelist up to date. (And most users wouldn't have any idea to notify me in the first place - so the end effect is that they would subscribe, and then bitch about how they're not getting the stuff they signed up for.)
This 'solution' does not solve anything, and will create more and worse problems than it attempts to solve.
It may not be the end all be all solution, but obviously we haven't found that yet.
Maybe because people keep misidentifying the problem.
The problem isn't that email is easy to send. The problem is that there are people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they harrass or steal from in order to get it.
What is the real value of that $1 to you? Probably not a whole lot. It's not even a hamburger. Maybe a small coke.
Funny story - I used to carpool with a guy who's nickname was "Prozak" (because he was always "happy", even when it was apparent that he wasn't.) One day, I ask Prozak to pick me up at the 7-11 near my place, instead of from my house.. he asks why, and I tell him "I wanna buy a lottery ticket."
He goes off on a rant about how big of a waste of money it was, and how I should be saving my money, or investing it, blah blah blah.
So I tell him "Look, it's $1. I can either use it to buy a chocolate bar, or I can buy a lottery ticket... know what? since I have two dollars, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket AND a chocolate bar."
The really funny thing about it was - he kept trying to sell me Amway.
I'm sorry, but I honestly can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone who got scammed via the most well-known ploy on the planet, and then refuses to believe he was scammed.
Darl C. McBride, the chief executive of SCO, said he stood by the company's assertions. He said that a Linux expert who will testify in the SCO suit against I.B.M.
I'm Sorry, but WHAT!?!?!?!?!!??!?!
First off, how the hell is anyone more of an expert on Linux than Linus?
Secondly, why would SCO's "linux expert" need to talk about copyright infringement? As SCO has said (repeatedly) their case against IBM is about contract violations, not copyright infringement.
Is it just me, or doesn't he at least have to get elected somewhere? He can't just step off the street and become PM.. He needs to be vote in by the people in 1 riding somewhere, doesn't he?
Technically yes, but it's very rare for a PM to not be an elected MP (Member of Parliament).. typically what happens is that an elected party member will step down so that the PM can assume his/her riding (after a byelection - typically this is just a formality, because the party will choose a riding where the electorate heavily favours the party.)
Probably not. In order to assess damages, you determine how much damage was caused (in this case, ~$0). Then you look at how quickly the plaintiff addressed the issue (more than two years, in this case.) Then you look at how quickly the plaintiff notified the infringer, and attempted settlement. In this case - well, we're still waiting on that (Linus, Eben Moglen, and others have contacted SCO attempting to find out the specifics of their claims - all were rebuffed. SCO released this "evidence" to third parties, they never once sent it to the actual alleged infringers.)
SCO can't collect damages because they have declared (through their actions) that they value the alleged stolen code at $0.
For starters, the take the assumption that Windows is better than Linux, and that the only reason someone would use Linux over Windows is because of some political/moral stance.
Where is "because Linux is technically superior"?
Or "because Linux is more secure"?
or "because I prefer the way Linux acts"?
All of these are just as valid as the ones given, but don't show some sort of political bias.
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
So - they're saying that the files themselves have been copied "verbatim" - not that the files contain code that had been copied verbatim..
If this is true (and not a misinterpretation, or the result of judicious editing), then it would be pretty simple to call SCO's bluff, no? You just get a copy of the letter, and take a look at the files in question.
Now the question is: Did the reporter (or editor) do some doctoring, or is SCO actually identifying the alleged stolen code?
The problem is that anyone can create bogus emails, thereby masking their own identity.
First of all, define "bogus" - is that "anyone can write anything they want" or "anyone can forge headers"?
No, the problem is that there are people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they annoy or steal from to get it.
There is no technical solution to this problem.
Take your perception to it's conclusion: there is a way to prevent spammers from forging headers - then what? How exactly will it stop spam? What's to stop spammers from moving from host to host, just like they do right now? Do we start blacklisting hosts, just like we do right now?
There really is no technical solution to a social problem, and spam is a social problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The author was just using SCOs stock as an indicator that the company is not going to lose the court case like everyone else assumes will happen.
OBSimpsons Quote:
Disco Stu: "Did you know that in the year 1976, disco sales were up 300%? If this trend continues... Aye!"
Homer: "Those goldfish in your shoes are dead."
Disco Stu: "Yeah, I don't know how to get them out of there."
Get a dog.... a BIG dog.
:o)
Doesn't have to be big.. our Border Collie wakes us up at 6AM like clockwork.
If it's big enough to jump onto your bed, it's big enough to wake you up - just make sure it's got lots of energy, and you won't have worry about waking up late ever again.
After 35 minutes of me repeating the question "Can you please just tell me the model of my NIC or not"
Is there a reason you couldn't just boot into Slackware and get the results of lspci -vv?
THere is nothing wrong with this law as far as I can tell.
Then you're not looking hard enough.
Why should it be illegal to carry a camcorder?
Someone, somewhere says "Hey, some people are recording movies in theatres. There outta be a law against that!"
Response: "But there already is."
"oh? Well in that case there outta be another law against it, because the first one isn't working. Because we all know that if someone is breaking one law, then they'll certainly think twice if they have to break two laws!"
They blacklist people regardless of if the user tried to unsubscribe.
I'm sorry, I just can't parse that. Spamcop doesn't blacklist users, it blacklists server IP addresses (typically mail servers that send mail to spamtrap addresses - and these IP addresses are removed once the spam stops.) It also lists mail relays who's admins are not responsive to spam reports.
And what (exactly) is the user unsubscribing from?
Some services actually do get your *your name* legitly and do run a *valid* unsubscribe service.
What exactly is an "unsubscribe service" (valid or invalid)? And how does a 'service' 'legitly' get 'my name'?
Spamcop doesn't differeniate between this and bans you regardless.
Again, I'm having trouble parsing your sentence. The word 'differentiate' implies two options, but you only give one (which is undefined).
That's why we bitbucket every piece of spamcop.net email.
If you ignore spam reports, you shouldn't be surprised if your servers get blacklisted. I have no sympathy for you if you ignore the problem.
Congratulations, Mr. Kreskin.
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the word 'prediction' means that you have to say it before it happens.
Reciting a list of stuff that happened last year (items 1,2, and 3) doesn't count.
If no-one ever responded to spam, then there wouldn't be anyone willing to pay to have it sent on their behalf!
Wrong. Totally wrong.
Even if nobody ever responded to spam (and there really is no hard evidence that anyone does) spammers would still be able to find victims, because there are people who believe "well, they wouldn't be sending it if it didn't work."
Spammers are con men. They con victims into believing that spam is effective, regardless of whether it's effective or not.
The only real way to solve the spam problem is to make spam expensive for spammers to send.
First, it's not the only way to deal with the problem, and that 'solution' causes another problem of its' own: if you make spam 'expensive' to send, how do you differentiate between spam and email from a mailing list?
There is no technical solution to spam - spam is a social problem (ie. spammers want something for nothing, and don't care who they steal from or harrass to get it), and like all social problems, it will require a social solution.
Having run an opt in mailing list for a previous employer I can tell you that some people sign up then go complain to spamcop when they actually get the email.
I don't run a mailing list, but some of our customers do - and you're correct, this part does happen.
then the mail server gets an Instant blacklist thanks to the automated system
Never seen this happen. In every spamcop case, we were always given the chance to respond - we've never been blacklisted. (A simple response showing the opt-in confirmation clears things up.)
The problem gets worse when they black out the email addresses so it becomes impossible to tell who actually wanted off.
Blacking out the email address doesn't make it impossible to check the recipient - unless you have the (bad) habit of deleting your mail logs too soon (IMHO a month is pretty much a minimum to keep logs - which shouldn't be a problem, as spamcop rejects submissions that are over 3 days old.)
You'll have the destination server and the SMTP ID - both of which are in your logs. (If you don't have access to the logs, your ISP should be more than willing to provide them - especially if your claims about being blacklisted are true.)
All in all, spamcop does a pretty good job.
but your logic is mistaken.
No, my logic is quite sound. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.
It assumes, first of all, that all commercial email is in the same category,
No, I never mentioned "commercial email" - at all.
I said spam. Spam is widely defined as "unsolicited commercial email". And yes, all spam is in the same category.
a filter is capable of determining for certain that a certain message is or is not spam
Whether a filter is capable of determining "for certain" (or even "for probable") is entirely beside the point. The point is A PERSON WHO EMPLOYS A SPAM FILTER DOES NOT WANT SPAM. I don't know how much clearer I can say this.
Spammers who attempt to circumvent spam filters, and then make claims like "I don't want to send to people who don't want it" are therefore by definition liars.
Please take your straw man somewhere else.
He even went so far as to say, if you dont want my stuff, I dont want to send it to you.
Every spammer says this, but remember the first rule of dealing with spammers: Spammers lie.
Spammers say they don't want to send spam to people who don't want it, then come up with ways to subvert spam filters. If the really didn't want to send spam to people who didn't want it, then why subvert a spam filter? Someone using a filter obviously doesn't want spam (by definition), yet spammers keep bitching about filters, and how they're making their line of work difficult.
businesses wouldn't be interested if they don't make money using spam
That's known as 'specious reasoning'. It makes sense as long as you don't actually think about it.
obsimpsons quote:
Lisa: "By that logic, I could say that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Really, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't. It's just a rock! But you don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "I would like to buy your rock!"
Here's what's really happening:
Spammer finds moron, says "I can advertise your product for a fraction of the cost of legit^h^h^h^h^hconventional marketing companies."
Moron thinks "hey, this stuff must really work, after all, if it didn't work, they'd be out of business." And says "OK, here's my money."
NOBODY buys any of Moron's stuff. Moron is out $X. Spammer finds new moron, says "I can advertise your product for a fraction of the cost of legit^h^h^h^h^hconventional marketing companies."
Moron thinks "hey, this stuff must really work, after all, if it didn't work, they'd be out of business." and says "OK, here's my money."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It is NOT necessary for spam to be effective for it to continue - all that's required is for someone to think it's effective.
No, it *is* a solution...
No, it isn't. Three years ago it might have been a solution, but right now, it's just a colossal waste of time.
The problem with this is that it operates on the assumtion that spammers work within the same boundaries as everyone else. Anyone who has spent even a tiny fraction of their time fighting spam knows this is simply not true.
The days of spammers sending spam from a single server are long gone - nowadays, they use thousands of trojaned machines to do their work. How many machines do spammers control? Enough to launch effective DDoS'es on some of the largest pipes out there.
The effectiveness of this 'solution' would be marginal at best.
Now compare the effect it would have on legitimate users - an individual sending mail wouldn't notice 10 seconds.. but email is not only used by individuals.
Something to keep in mind when assessing any anti-spam 'solution' such as this is the following:
From a receiver's standpoint, the only difference between a legitimate mailing list and a spammer is that the user asked to be part of a mailing list.
Now think about how this would affect legitimate mailing lists: How many mail servers do most mailing lists have? One? Two? Six? Some large mailing lists might have a dozen.
So how does this affect those mailing lists?
It would shut them down, is how. They would cease to be useful, as it would take days for their mails to get through.
So the 'obvious' solution to this problem would be to whitelist legitimate mailing lists, right? Wrong. That's not a solution either (and we'll ignore the point that any 'solution' that requires exceptions is probably not very well thought out.)
I maintian a mail server for a few thousand people. I have no idea which mailing lists they would subscribe to. It would probably become a full-time job to keep such a whitelist up to date. (And most users wouldn't have any idea to notify me in the first place - so the end effect is that they would subscribe, and then bitch about how they're not getting the stuff they signed up for.)
This 'solution' does not solve anything, and will create more and worse problems than it attempts to solve.
I suggest it's easier to find a computing science solution to the problem of spam than to find a phychological solution to the problem of greed.
Except that spam exists because of greed. You won't find a solution unless you solve that problem.
There is no such thing as a technological solution to a social problem.
It may not be the end all be all solution, but obviously we haven't found that yet.
Maybe because people keep misidentifying the problem.
The problem isn't that email is easy to send. The problem is that there are people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they harrass or steal from in order to get it.
Solve that problem, and spam will go away!
What is the real value of that $1 to you? Probably not a whole lot. It's not even a hamburger. Maybe a small coke.
Funny story - I used to carpool with a guy who's nickname was "Prozak" (because he was always "happy", even when it was apparent that he wasn't.) One day, I ask Prozak to pick me up at the 7-11 near my place, instead of from my house.. he asks why, and I tell him "I wanna buy a lottery ticket."
He goes off on a rant about how big of a waste of money it was, and how I should be saving my money, or investing it, blah blah blah.
So I tell him "Look, it's $1. I can either use it to buy a chocolate bar, or I can buy a lottery ticket... know what? since I have two dollars, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket AND a chocolate bar."
The really funny thing about it was - he kept trying to sell me Amway.
his is a heartbreaking story
And they have nobody to blame but themselves.
I'm sorry, but I honestly can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone who got scammed via the most well-known ploy on the planet, and then refuses to believe he was scammed.
Darl C. McBride, the chief executive of SCO, said he stood by the company's assertions. He said that a Linux expert who will testify in the SCO suit against I.B.M.
I'm Sorry, but WHAT!?!?!?!?! !??!?!
First off, how the hell is anyone more of an expert on Linux than Linus?
Secondly, why would SCO's "linux expert" need to talk about copyright infringement? As SCO has said (repeatedly) their case against IBM is about contract violations, not copyright infringement.
Can't this guy make up his mind?
Paul Martin was elected by the people of the LaSalle-Emard riding in Quebec, on November 27, 2000.
He is NOT unelected.
Is it just me, or doesn't he at least have to get elected somewhere? He can't just step off the street and become PM.. He needs to be vote in by the people in 1 riding somewhere, doesn't he?
Technically yes, but it's very rare for a PM to not be an elected MP (Member of Parliament).. typically what happens is that an elected party member will step down so that the PM can assume his/her riding (after a byelection - typically this is just a formality, because the party will choose a riding where the electorate heavily favours the party.)
In this case, Mr Martin has been elected.
I've got better things to do with my money.
:o)
You mean like the lottery?
Can SCO collect damages?
Probably not. In order to assess damages, you determine how much damage was caused (in this case, ~$0). Then you look at how quickly the plaintiff addressed the issue (more than two years, in this case.) Then you look at how quickly the plaintiff notified the infringer, and attempted settlement. In this case - well, we're still waiting on that (Linus, Eben Moglen, and others have contacted SCO attempting to find out the specifics of their claims - all were rebuffed. SCO released this "evidence" to third parties, they never once sent it to the actual alleged infringers.)
SCO can't collect damages because they have declared (through their actions) that they value the alleged stolen code at $0.
They seem like valid answers,
Seem like, but aren't.
For starters, the take the assumption that Windows is better than Linux, and that the only reason someone would use Linux over Windows is because of some political/moral stance.
Where is "because Linux is technically superior"?
Or "because Linux is more secure"?
or "because I prefer the way Linux acts"?
All of these are just as valid as the ones given, but don't show some sort of political bias.
OK, so here's what I found interesting:
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
So - they're saying that the files themselves have been copied "verbatim" - not that the files contain code that had been copied verbatim..
If this is true (and not a misinterpretation, or the result of judicious editing), then it would be pretty simple to call SCO's bluff, no? You just get a copy of the letter, and take a look at the files in question.
Now the question is: Did the reporter (or editor) do some doctoring, or is SCO actually identifying the alleged stolen code?
And can anyone get a copy of that letter?
The problem is that anyone can create bogus emails, thereby masking their own identity.
First of all, define "bogus" - is that "anyone can write anything they want" or "anyone can forge headers"?
No, the problem is that there are people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they annoy or steal from to get it.
There is no technical solution to this problem.
Take your perception to it's conclusion: there is a way to prevent spammers from forging headers - then what? How exactly will it stop spam? What's to stop spammers from moving from host to host, just like they do right now? Do we start blacklisting hosts, just like we do right now?
There really is no technical solution to a social problem, and spam is a social problem.