No, they're accepting their email (since they own the domain, it's not yours until you collect it.)
not providing the senders with any way to know whether it got to you or not
Hate to break it to you, but how is this any different from the way email works normally? Email delivery isn't guaranteed - it makes a best effort, but there is no guarantee that email will reach you. Just like there is also no guarantee of security - if your email was read by a third party, would you sue then too?
even after your account has been *cancelled*
Speaking as an ISP, if you cancel your account with us, we delete your mailbox. I don't know any ISP that doesn't work this way.
If you use email as your only method of communication, you deserve everything you get.
Obviosuly, if a customer wants 300Gb of webspace, and unlimited bandwidth for $1 a month, then they are not right, (unless you can supply that for 99c a month) but if they want to send a 6Mb email, then they are.
Your opinion only.
I consider 6MB of email over a dial-up link to be unreasonable.
We have a 4MB limit for emails - one of our customers called us up and demanded that it be raised, because she couldn't send a 3MB file to her sister's work email...
Turns out that her sister's work email had a 2MB limit.
So, according to you, is this still 'reasonale'? (Remember, YOU set the "reasonable" limit to 6MB)
FTP is a lousy way to send a spreadsheet to someone.... SMTP is, in fact, meant to assist in dealing with transfers of this nature
No, it isn't.
SMTP was never designed to handle binary files at all, which is why binary files are encoded into text, which increases their size by 30%.
In Internet terms that means some facility to add connection retraining / resume between clients and servers, and between servers and servers, in the SMTP network.
Well, this is neither the infrastructure or the users, it's the protocols..
You're right, there needs to be a new protocol
Something that will split an attachment from an email, and store it separately.. then transmit a key of some kind which would allow the recipient (whether the user, or the user's MTA) to move the file to a new location, and delete it from it's old location once it's there.
An EULA could grant you tons of rights, and still be an eula
No, it couldn't.
By definition, and EULA affects the End User. When you buy something covered by copyright law that does not have an EULA, you are free to use that product any way you see fit... there are no rights left to grant
The only thing you can't do is copy it and give it away... and if you DID do that, you are no longer the End User of that copy - the person you give the copy to becomes the End User.
EULA's affect how you can use the software... the GPL is not an EULA, because it doesn't say anything about use, only distribution.
They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board.
In other news, Vint Cerf was heard to remark "Let them eat cake!"
I suggest you read a little history about what working class life was like before unions. Or what such life is like in non-unionized countries. Or what's been happening in the US as the power of the unions has been undermined by the plutocrats who run our country.
And I suggest YOU read a little bit about labour laws in those countries, and compare them with ones in first world countries.
Yes, I realize that many of these laws are the result of union lobbying, but once we have them, there really is no need for unions anymore.
At one time, Unions were a neccessity, but no longer.
When you find yourself paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline to a giant oil conglomorate, you will be doing so because there was no powerful force like organized labor to counterbalance the power of oil company campaign contributions.
I'm sorry, but WHAT!?!?!
Are you implying that the price of oil is regulated by the government? And that the only reason that gas is the price it is today, and not more, is because organized labour are paying the government to keep the price 'low'?
Whatever you've been smoking, you should seriously talk to your dealer, because he's cutting it with something nasty!
It's too bad unions are that way, because they are a natural response to the kind of exploitation that can occur sometimes (cf 19th century industrial revolution)
Yes, and you'll note that today (in first world countries), other things that appeared in the 19th century aren't around either - things like child labour and unsafe working environments...
Unions were a response to unfair working conditions at that time because there were no labour laws... fortunately, society has evolved to recognize that chaining children to sewing machines isn't a civilzed thing to do, and we've passed laws against it... just like we've passed laws regarding minimum wage, and workplace safety.
Unions had their place at one time, but they serve no useful purpose today, except to drive up the cost of doing business. Just because an idea was useful at one time, does not mean we need to keep it around once other, more effective, methods are available.
Seriously though, I think you're right - there's no way they'd admit that the stole the whole Jesus thing from the Zeus/Alcmene/Hercules myth.. (There are WAY too many similarities for it to just be coincidence..)
You're saying that if a foreign country doesn't like what your company is doing, then they should be allowed to extradite you to their country and punish you as they see fit?
I don't know which post you think you're replying to, but I didn't see the word "extradite" anywhere in what you quoted.
But to answer your question, yes, if a company was selling something in Libya, and Libya decided that the product violated their laws, then they are perfectly within their rights to bring charges against the principals of the company, to the fullest extent of their laws.
Extradition is another matter entirely. If the CEO ever goes there, (when he knows there is a price on his head) then he deserves to be thrown in jail.
You know, kind of like why the head of DeBeers can't set foot in the USA without being thrown in jail.
I normally don't respond to trolls, but I have a few minutes to kill.
I wasn't aware any of these corporations are non-profit charities.
Nobody said, or implied, that they were. I have no idea where you got that.
What's wrong with maximizing profits by adjusting prices in different countries?
It's called price gouging. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's morally repugnant. There is a difference between making a tidy profit, and gouging the consumer.
I'd imagine that if, when you called, you asked them to take stronger actions against those who do damage to the symaptico.ca name, their representative would say: "Huh? What's IRC? Have you plugged your modem in, sir?"
Yes, and if the IRCOps got a similar response, then that's why the block is in place.
If an ISP isn't willing to take action to curb malicious use by it's customers, it deserves to be blocked.
Disclaimer: I work for a small ISP in Canada, and have dealt with this sort of thing before (although with email, not IRC.)
I've been archiving Good Eats with XviD for a little while now...the quality is good enough for reference usage, and fitting ~4 hours of video (12 episodes) and all of the accompanying recipes (in HTML) on one CD is cool.)
Cool - could I snag a copy of that? I had a bunch of video tapes with Good Eats on it, but my VCR kept eating them..
Thing is, Reuters didn't just "look". They published. Which, using the same analogy, would be looking into your house, and reporting to any and all passers-by what was going on inside.
Except that my house isn't a public place.
The report was put in a PUBLIC location. Therefore it's up to them to restrict access. Simply "not telling anyone" isn't restricting access.
But most of us are taught one good thing in childhood (usually). I'll never forget one of my 4th or 5th grade teachers telling us that competition is good, that competition built this country (the good along with the bad, but competition is not itself bad). He said that competition is the foundation for capitalism (not is so many words), and that it brings out the best in people.
While I find your points very interesting and insightful, this one kind of sticks out at me.. You should read the book a href="http://www.curledup.com/sideshow.htm">Sidesh ow by Sheri S. Tepper.. she takes this point of view (and the corresponding one of Diversity) and takes them to their ultimate conclusion.. She provides remarkable insight into modern western civilization (Just like the other books in the series, Grass and Raising the Stones - you don't need to read them to enjoy Sideshow though; although you might get more out of it..)
as I said in my reply to one of your previous posts alleging same, you are incorrect.
No, he's not. You are.
The GPL grants rights you normally wouldn't have (the right to distribute a copyrighted work - it's explicit permission to distribute the work, subject to certain conditions - under normal copyright law, you do not have the right to do this.)
EULAs attempt to restrict rights you normally have (the right of first sale, fair use rights - sometimes even your right to free speech.)
Slashdot Mirror
They are accepting your email
No, they're accepting their email (since they own the domain, it's not yours until you collect it.)
not providing the senders with any way to know whether it got to you or not
Hate to break it to you, but how is this any different from the way email works normally? Email delivery isn't guaranteed - it makes a best effort, but there is no guarantee that email will reach you. Just like there is also no guarantee of security - if your email was read by a third party, would you sue then too?
even after your account has been *cancelled*
Speaking as an ISP, if you cancel your account with us, we delete your mailbox. I don't know any ISP that doesn't work this way.
If you use email as your only method of communication, you deserve everything you get.
Obviosuly, if a customer wants 300Gb of webspace, and unlimited bandwidth for $1 a month, then they are not right, (unless you can supply that for 99c a month) but if they want to send a 6Mb email, then they are.
Your opinion only.
I consider 6MB of email over a dial-up link to be unreasonable.
We have a 4MB limit for emails - one of our customers called us up and demanded that it be raised, because she couldn't send a 3MB file to her sister's work email...
Turns out that her sister's work email had a 2MB limit.
So, according to you, is this still 'reasonale'? (Remember, YOU set the "reasonable" limit to 6MB)
FTP is a lousy way to send a spreadsheet to someone. ... SMTP is, in fact, meant to assist in dealing with transfers of this nature
No, it isn't.
SMTP was never designed to handle binary files at all, which is why binary files are encoded into text, which increases their size by 30%.
In Internet terms that means some facility to add connection retraining / resume between clients and servers, and between servers and servers, in the SMTP network.
Well, this is neither the infrastructure or the users, it's the protocols..
You're right, there needs to be a new protocol
Something that will split an attachment from an email, and store it separately.. then transmit a key of some kind which would allow the recipient (whether the user, or the user's MTA) to move the file to a new location, and delete it from it's old location once it's there.
Such a beast wouldn't be SMTP though.
An EULA could grant you tons of rights, and still be an eula
No, it couldn't.
By definition, and EULA affects the End User. When you buy something covered by copyright law that does not have an EULA, you are free to use that product any way you see fit... there are no rights left to grant
The only thing you can't do is copy it and give it away... and if you DID do that, you are no longer the End User of that copy - the person you give the copy to becomes the End User.
EULA's affect how you can use the software... the GPL is not an EULA, because it doesn't say anything about use, only distribution.
You'll undoubtedly find several other idiots such as yourself there.
Ahh, so I'll be there with other people who post rational, well-thought-out answers to questions?
I did turn it around
No, you didn't - you just proved that you're an idiot.
See, managing the workforce is managements' job (see why they're called management?)
If someone fucks up, it's management's job to fire them.
They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board.
In other news, Vint Cerf was heard to remark "Let them eat cake!"
Just because Brits call it a milliard
:o)
I thought that was a duck?
I could easily turn that around:
So why don't you?
Once management is there, it has too much power and will never dissapear.
Gee, you mean the people who own the company have too much power because they get to decide who to hire or fire?
Jebus, get a grip!
I suggest you read a little history about what working class life was like before unions. Or what such life is like in non-unionized countries. Or what's been happening in the US as the power of the unions has been undermined by the plutocrats who run our country.
And I suggest YOU read a little bit about labour laws in those countries, and compare them with ones in first world countries.
Yes, I realize that many of these laws are the result of union lobbying, but once we have them, there really is no need for unions anymore.
At one time, Unions were a neccessity, but no longer.
When you find yourself paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline to a giant oil conglomorate, you will be doing so because there was no powerful force like organized labor to counterbalance the power of oil company campaign contributions.
I'm sorry, but WHAT!?!?!
Are you implying that the price of oil is regulated by the government? And that the only reason that gas is the price it is today, and not more, is because organized labour are paying the government to keep the price 'low'?
Whatever you've been smoking, you should seriously talk to your dealer, because he's cutting it with something nasty!
It's too bad unions are that way, because they are a natural response to the kind of exploitation that can occur sometimes (cf 19th century industrial revolution)
Yes, and you'll note that today (in first world countries), other things that appeared in the 19th century aren't around either - things like child labour and unsafe working environments...
Unions were a response to unfair working conditions at that time because there were no labour laws... fortunately, society has evolved to recognize that chaining children to sewing machines isn't a civilzed thing to do, and we've passed laws against it... just like we've passed laws regarding minimum wage, and workplace safety.
Unions had their place at one time, but they serve no useful purpose today, except to drive up the cost of doing business. Just because an idea was useful at one time, does not mean we need to keep it around once other, more effective, methods are available.
Isn't the Web "the largest collection of erotica in the world"?
No, it's not a collection.. more of a loose colaboration
maybe his brother really was a half brother
You mean Bob?
Seriously though, I think you're right - there's no way they'd admit that the stole the whole Jesus thing from the Zeus/Alcmene/Hercules myth.. (There are WAY too many similarities for it to just be coincidence..)
You're saying that if a foreign country doesn't like what your company is doing, then they should be allowed to extradite you to their country and punish you as they see fit?
I don't know which post you think you're replying to, but I didn't see the word "extradite" anywhere in what you quoted.
But to answer your question, yes, if a company was selling something in Libya, and Libya decided that the product violated their laws, then they are perfectly within their rights to bring charges against the principals of the company, to the fullest extent of their laws.
Extradition is another matter entirely. If the CEO ever goes there, (when he knows there is a price on his head) then he deserves to be thrown in jail.
You know, kind of like why the head of DeBeers can't set foot in the USA without being thrown in jail.
You got free shit, dont' complain.
Ahh, no he didn't - perhaps you didn't read his post all the way through (all 3 lines of it.)
He didn't get 'free' anything, he got a coupon that allows him to get a slightly lower price if he purchases another overpriced product.
I wouldn't call that "free" (either as in beer or in speech.)
I normally don't respond to trolls, but I have a few minutes to kill.
I wasn't aware any of these corporations are non-profit charities.
Nobody said, or implied, that they were. I have no idea where you got that.
What's wrong with maximizing profits by adjusting prices in different countries?
It's called price gouging. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's morally repugnant. There is a difference between making a tidy profit, and gouging the consumer.
I'd imagine that if, when you called, you asked them to take stronger actions against those who do damage to the symaptico.ca name, their representative would say: "Huh? What's IRC? Have you plugged your modem in, sir?"
Yes, and if the IRCOps got a similar response, then that's why the block is in place.
If an ISP isn't willing to take action to curb malicious use by it's customers, it deserves to be blocked.
Disclaimer: I work for a small ISP in Canada, and have dealt with this sort of thing before (although with email, not IRC.)
Regulating email will only result in higher cost and incomprehensible rules which hinder normal use.
hmm, you mean just like regulating fax spam (which is in the damn question!) resulted in higher cost and incomprehensible rules?
Sorry, your argument doesn't wash.
I've been archiving Good Eats with XviD for a little while now...the quality is good enough for reference usage, and fitting ~4 hours of video (12 episodes) and all of the accompanying recipes (in HTML) on one CD is cool.)
Cool - could I snag a copy of that? I had a bunch of video tapes with Good Eats on it, but my VCR kept eating them..
Thing is, Reuters didn't just "look". They published. Which, using the same analogy, would be looking into your house, and reporting to any and all passers-by what was going on inside.
Except that my house isn't a public place.
The report was put in a PUBLIC location. Therefore it's up to them to restrict access. Simply "not telling anyone" isn't restricting access.
But most of us are taught one good thing in childhood (usually). I'll never forget one of my 4th or 5th grade teachers telling us that competition is good, that competition built this country (the good along with the bad, but competition is not itself bad). He said that competition is the foundation for capitalism (not is so many words), and that it brings out the best in people.
h ow by Sheri S. Tepper.. she takes this point of view (and the corresponding one of Diversity) and takes them to their ultimate conclusion.. She provides remarkable insight into modern western civilization (Just like the other books in the series, Grass and Raising the Stones - you don't need to read them to enjoy Sideshow though; although you might get more out of it..)
While I find your points very interesting and insightful, this one kind of sticks out at me.. You should read the book a href="http://www.curledup.com/sideshow.htm">Sides
the americans sometimes cry!
I've always felt that if you're going to commit to something, then commit yourself to doing the best job you can.
And then cry when your best isn't good enough?
as I said in my reply to one of your previous posts alleging same, you are incorrect.
No, he's not. You are.
The GPL grants rights you normally wouldn't have (the right to distribute a copyrighted work - it's explicit permission to distribute the work, subject to certain conditions - under normal copyright law, you do not have the right to do this.)
EULAs attempt to restrict rights you normally have (the right of first sale, fair use rights - sometimes even your right to free speech.)
Don't try to lump the two together.
does it not prevent you from using the code in code which is subsequently released not-under-GPL?
No, because that's distribution, not use.
The GPL grants the right to distribute the code, provided you adhere to certain restrictions.
Without the GPL (just getting straight source), you have no right to distribute the code.