How does that make any sense?
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Look, the Beatles were arguably the greatest band ever. Their music is amazing. But I have never confussed their record company with the guys in Cupertino who make computers.
NOT EVEN ONCE!
This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards. They sued because Apple computers couple play music over external speakers - and won? I suspect that they are looking for another payday, and given past history, will probably get it.
I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...
Unfortunately nslookup won't help for 192.168 addresses as they are private IP addresses and are owned by nobody.
So where is the problem? If the reverse records do not map the address space to the same domain that the mail server claims to represent, the MTA should drop the connection. RFC 1918 addresses do not route on the Internet anyways.
And how do you verify that the "FROM:" address is actually in the network being served? There is currently no resource that can affirmatively state that 192.168.1.2 belongs to mydomain.com
Have you ever heard of nslookup? Subnet(s) are registered to the organizations and domains that own them. The downside of what you are proposing is that not everyone owns their own IP space...
i won't be happy until there is no spam at all....
Then I guess you won't be happy.
Look at the articles that show that there are enough gullible people out there to give the spammers a viable (if repugnant) business model.
I figure the bogus lawsuits against spamhaus present a good way for us to fight back. If we can take down some of the main offenders, it won't necessarily reduce the amount of spam we get, but it might act as a bit of a deterrent for some of the other pond scum.
We need to fix the SMTP protocol to put these guys out of business for good. That, or a bullet...
Microsoft's monopoly is not protected by any governmental body.
Oh really? How many politicans have indicated that they support the "right to innovate" - which is a reference (in support of microsoft) to the recent anti-trust battles between microsoft and the US department of justice?
Let us not forget the US department of justice for that matter. Although microsoft was found to have violated anti-trust regulations, the outcome was heavily tilted in microsoft's favour. Somehow, I suspect that Ashcroft supports the freedom to innovate as well!
The monopoly being talked about here is a government enforced monopoly. The government will dictate "you must use product x, no matter what." You aren't allowed to use anything else other than what the government monopoly provides, even if an alternative is available.
Which article did you read?
All that is being proposed is that three governments are going to fund research into an open, secure operating system because the ones provided by microsoft are not. Since when did publicly funded research become/imply a government enforced monopoly?
Microsoft would in effect be trying to compete with a legal monopoly.
IIRC, microsoft is also a monopoly, and they had (and continue to have) no problems in using that monopoly in order to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.
Was it just me, or did Windows 95/98/ME look exactly the same?
Did anyone actually purchase ME to find out what it looked like?
From what I heard, ME was a buggy mess that was shipped because they want to have something for the consumers to upgrade to every other year. I have read that ME ranks up there as one of m$' bigger mistakes, right up there with micro$oft bob.
A new 'SyncManager' screenshot is up there (copying of iSync?)
What a disappointment it must be for m$ that Apple has not come out with a new desktop for them to copy. Still, if they keep pushing back the release date of this OS, Apple might release something in time for them to imitate it.
It never fails to amaze me that although m$ tries to copy the look of the Apple UI, they are unable to copy the intuitiveness that Apple seems to have down pat. We are all used to the windows UI and everyone has become accustomed to it, but it is far from obvious that I should click on the start bar when I want to shut my computer off.
Mod me as a troll if you must, but it's still true.
I think it can be safely assumed that terrorists are usually homeless people - nomadic in the sense that they dont have any registered place of stay.
Even if that were true, I am not sure how it applies to homeless people in the US. Timothy McVeigh was not homeless. The 9/11 attackers from Saudi Arabia were not homeless. They had the coin to pay for flight lessons, and that seems to be beyond the reach of most of the street people I have seen.
This could ultimately be a plan to keep track of illegal imigrants/ possible suspects without stepping into the subject of racial profiling.
I hadn't thought of that. But if that is one of the possible intentions behind this plan, it really misses the point. I doubt that the bad guys the police are really after are the homeless people. Perhaps street people commit some petty crimes, but these aren't the ones that the cops focus on. They want the people higher up the criminal food chain.
The note is just to make sure that if the letter gets to the wrong recipient, that recipient cannot disseminate the information in the letter.
I suppose that all depends on what country you live in. I have been seeing disclaimers like this on email quite a bit lately and I asked our legal department about them. They told me it depends on whether there is a pre-existing NDA between me (or the company I work for) and the sender (or the company they work for). If there is, then I must abide by the terms and conditions of that NDA. However, if there is no NDA in place and I receive information that I did not request or was not intended for me specifically, from a legal perspective I am free to do whatever I want with that information. I may be subject to ethical and moral restraints, but legally, I can act as I please.
So, if someone sends me confidential information by accident or their workstation is running the latest microsoft trojan and it sends me confidential information that was never intended for me, there is no legal requirement (here in Canada at least) for me to inform the sender about it or delete the message unless I choose to do so.
I could also legally act on that information as well (e.g. buy/sell stocks based on the quarterly financial reports I received before they go public). Presumably, I could forward that information to other people and not be committing any crime, although I did not ask that question specifically, so take that part with a grain of salt.
The lawyers reminded me that it may not be ethical to do any of those things, but from a strictly legal perspective, I would have done nothing wrong.
Is there a sonyesque powerstruggle going on inside IBM that results in left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?
This is IBM we are talking about here people. It has thousands of employees worldwide working in dozens and dozens of divisions. It is not reasonable to assume that there is so much as one person at IBM who knows everything that the company is working on at any given time. It seems quite reasonable that different groups within IBM would have different opinions about any number of subjects including this one.
It's a huge multinational corporation. There are lots of divisions driving their own agendas. Unless the statement condemning the GPL came directly from the CEO or one of the top executives, do not consider this announcement to be official IBM policy...
This "argument" is moot. Your migration to OSS will be the last migration your company ever makes.
Spoken like someone who fails to grasp the enormity of what he has just proposed!
In my region, there are more than 100 UNIX servers. Globally, I would estimate that we have at least three thousand UNIX servers and they run a variety of different applications. Migrating them all to Linux would be a massive project in terms of time and complexity.
What would be the incentive for such an undertaking? Would Linux servers give me higher service availability figures? Would my TCO be any lower compared to my partially and fully depreciated Sun servers? Would my support costs be any lower? Could my team manage more Linux servers with the same effort and headcount? What if key applications are not ported over to Linux - why fragment our install base any further when it makes economic sense to consolidate to as few platforms as possible in order to minimize support costs?
My "argument" has a lot more bearing in reality than your casual dismissal...
If you are willing to pay IBM for AIX support, why aren't you willing to pay IBM for Linux support?
Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. I should have mentioned in the original post that my support from IBM/Sun is for both hardware and the OS. In the case of IBM, they provide application support as well, since our AIX servers only run IBM-specific applications.
It is quite expensive, but we only have to make one telephone call for support and IBM does the rest. That simplifies a whole lot of support issues and it cuts down on a lot of finger pointing between the OS vendor and the application vendor because it is all the same company.
Now, if IBM (or Sun) were to roll their own distribution and run it on their own hardware, I would have a pretty good chance of being able to deploy more Linux servers.
Assuming of course that the applications we need have been ported to that version of Linux...
Sun Fire V480
Four 900-MHz UltraSparc III Cu processors,16 Gbytes RAM, Solaris 8: $46,995
IBM eServer pSeries 630 Model 6C4
2 x 2-way 1.2-GHz Power4+ processor, 8 Gbytes RAM, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8: $35,944
Dell PowerEdge 6650
Four 1.5-GHz Intel Xeon processors, 16 Gbytes RAM, Red Hat Linux 8 Professional: $24,421
Please do not deceive yourself into thinking that the Dell system has equivalent processing power to the Sun/IBM offering...
The issue of support is not addressed in this price comparison. My group managed approximately UNIX servers (70% Solaris, 30% AIX) and it is really difficult to get management to take Linux seriously in this environment. Hardware cost is not really an issue, because hardware is a one-time-cost which can be depreciated over a few years. BTW - for the class of server we purchase, Sun hardware is significantly cheaper than equivalent IBM hardware.
The real concern management has with Linux is support. If there is a hardware or software problem, we can call Sun/IBM 24x7 and they will work on the problem and if necessary call in people with specific expertise to resolve the issue. Those maintenance contracts cost a lot of money, but that is part of the cost of doing business when you have SLAs to maintain. I cannot get that kind of support for Linux. Checking Google for a fix is simply not an alternative.
The other issue that the article does not consider is that some of the applications we use do not run on Linux, and that really limits the possibilities for Linux in future deployments.
You know what? All of that oil money is going to go to the Iraqi people
Not necessarily. IIRC, Haliburton (you know, the company Cheney used to be the VP of) has received untendered contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq worth a few billion dollars. Sure, the oil "belongs" to the Iraqi people, but the money from selling that oil will be leaving the country and it appears that a fair bit of it is destined for GWB's cronies...
It's kind of hard to pick sides in tribal warfare with each side doing unto each other over the years. A brutal dictator on the other hand...
So much for not standing by and letting innocent people get slaughtered...
BTW in the 80's, when Rumsfeld was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons for use against Iran, Saddam was a trusted ALLY. Isn't it funny how circumstances change, especially since he was just as brutal a dictator then as he was a few months ago...
I suspect that if you check a reputable source, Saddam Hussein would not rate as the worst dictator on the planet in recent history. Can't imagine why it was deemed so necessary to get rid of him. Surely it has nothing to do with oil...
So that's your argument? "We didn't liberate France right away."
Liberating France was a good thing. I just have to wonder why the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WWII in the first place. For more than two years people fought and died in that war and the US did not see any need for "regime change" in Nazi Germany...
Today however, based on lies and distortions, it seems perfectly admissible to fight a war and occupy a foreign nation simply because they have something GWB wants...
But we damn sure ain't gonna stand around while innocents get slaughtered and call it peace.
Good thing that Iraq is the only place in the world that innocents were being slaughtered. Yup, that has not happened anywhere else since GWB put himself in charge. Certainly not in the Congo for example. Of course the Congo does not have significant oil reserves, nor would it be a strategic location for permanent US military bases.
Apparently, as with the genocide in Rawanda, the lives of the people in the Congo aren't worth much.
BTW - in case you forgot, the US deliberately stayed out of WWII for more than two years. The war was seen as a purely European conflict. The moral imperative to fight the Axis only came into being after the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbour.
Who is Robert Kagan and why should his opinion matter?
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, there are no authorities, at best there may be experts. The "experts" were unable to find any WMD in Iraq. As Hans Blix has suggested, perhaps the Iraquis were telling the truth, despite their many flaws and shortcomings.
Groundless? Get your head out of your ass!
You know, you toss up a bunch of quotes, but at the end of the day, the US and UK have had unrestricted access to all of Iraq for almost a month and they have not found any of the WMD that posed such an immediate threat to the rest of the world that this pre-emptive war was justified as being essentially in self defense. I would humbly suggest that you follow your own advise. Thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what CNN and Fox tell you would be a good idea as well.
That said, successful politicians seldom tell outright lies to the public - it's too risky. They don't tell us the honest truth either - that would be even riskier. Most likely GWB believed what he was told, and the civil servants provided information to further justify those beliefs. Tony Blair and John Howard went along for the ride not because of any moral imperative, but because there was money to be made in the clean-up. Howard admitted as much!
It's too bad, because GWB has virtually no credibility on the world stage now. He is still the biggest bully in the schoolyard, and will continue to get his way, but nobody will believe...
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
That means that a national opt-out list, coupled with a spambounty (or some other kill-the-spammer type legislation) *would* matter, and it would *not* be business as usual.
Assuming of course that both the spammer (plus spamboxen) and the company that paid for the spamming reside in the US...
Slashdot Mirror
Look, the Beatles were arguably the greatest band ever. Their music is amazing. But I have never confussed their record company with the guys in Cupertino who make computers.
NOT EVEN ONCE!
This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards. They sued because Apple computers couple play music over external speakers - and won? I suspect that they are looking for another payday, and given past history, will probably get it.
I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...
Unfortunately nslookup won't help for 192.168 addresses as they are private IP addresses and are owned by nobody.
So where is the problem? If the reverse records do not map the address space to the same domain that the mail server claims to represent, the MTA should drop the connection. RFC 1918 addresses do not route on the Internet anyways.
And how do you verify that the "FROM:" address is actually in the network being served? There is currently no resource that can affirmatively state that 192.168.1.2 belongs to mydomain.com
Have you ever heard of nslookup? Subnet(s) are registered to the organizations and domains that own them. The downside of what you are proposing is that not everyone owns their own IP space...
i won't be happy until there is no spam at all....
Then I guess you won't be happy.
Look at the articles that show that there are enough gullible people out there to give the spammers a viable (if repugnant) business model.
I figure the bogus lawsuits against spamhaus present a good way for us to fight back. If we can take down some of the main offenders, it won't necessarily reduce the amount of spam we get, but it might act as a bit of a deterrent for some of the other pond scum.
We need to fix the SMTP protocol to put these guys out of business for good. That, or a bullet...
Microsoft's monopoly is not protected by any governmental body.
Oh really? How many politicans have indicated that they support the "right to innovate" - which is a reference (in support of microsoft) to the recent anti-trust battles between microsoft and the US department of justice?
Let us not forget the US department of justice for that matter. Although microsoft was found to have violated anti-trust regulations, the outcome was heavily tilted in microsoft's favour. Somehow, I suspect that Ashcroft supports the freedom to innovate as well!
The monopoly being talked about here is a government enforced monopoly. The government will dictate "you must use product x, no matter what." You aren't allowed to use anything else other than what the government monopoly provides, even if an alternative is available.
Which article did you read?
All that is being proposed is that three governments are going to fund research into an open, secure operating system because the ones provided by microsoft are not. Since when did publicly funded research become/imply a government enforced monopoly?
RIAA Parses 'P2P' As 'Peer 2 Porn'
Actually, the relevant quote from the article is:
"P2p stands for piracy to pornography," quipped Mr. Lack.
Good to know that like many other people here, the editors don't bother to RTFA either!
Microsoft would in effect be trying to compete with a legal monopoly.
IIRC, microsoft is also a monopoly, and they had (and continue to have) no problems in using that monopoly in order to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
Team Fortress 2... And seemingly Half-life 2
Don't forget Nuke Nukem Forever - which is the time it will take to develop and not the working title as many people mistakenly assume...
Was it just me, or did Windows 95/98/ME look exactly the same?
Did anyone actually purchase ME to find out what it looked like?
From what I heard, ME was a buggy mess that was shipped because they want to have something for the consumers to upgrade to every other year. I have read that ME ranks up there as one of m$' bigger mistakes, right up there with micro$oft bob.
A new 'SyncManager' screenshot is up there (copying of iSync?)
What a disappointment it must be for m$ that Apple has not come out with a new desktop for them to copy. Still, if they keep pushing back the release date of this OS, Apple might release something in time for them to imitate it.
It never fails to amaze me that although m$ tries to copy the look of the Apple UI, they are unable to copy the intuitiveness that Apple seems to have down pat. We are all used to the windows UI and everyone has become accustomed to it, but it is far from obvious that I should click on the start bar when I want to shut my computer off.
Mod me as a troll if you must, but it's still true.
I think it can be safely assumed that terrorists are usually homeless people - nomadic in the sense that they dont have any registered place of stay.
Even if that were true, I am not sure how it applies to homeless people in the US. Timothy McVeigh was not homeless. The 9/11 attackers from Saudi Arabia were not homeless. They had the coin to pay for flight lessons, and that seems to be beyond the reach of most of the street people I have seen.
This could ultimately be a plan to keep track of illegal imigrants/ possible suspects without stepping into the subject of racial profiling.
I hadn't thought of that. But if that is one of the possible intentions behind this plan, it really misses the point. I doubt that the bad guys the police are really after are the homeless people. Perhaps street people commit some petty crimes, but these aren't the ones that the cops focus on. They want the people higher up the criminal food chain.
Secret Service and national security agents can gain access to the database by just asking for it!
I wasn't aware that (homeless people == terrorists)
Why not use this money than to do something productive - like provide affordable housing, psychological counselling and medical care for them?
The note is just to make sure that if the letter gets to the wrong recipient, that recipient cannot disseminate the information in the letter.
I suppose that all depends on what country you live in. I have been seeing disclaimers like this on email quite a bit lately and I asked our legal department about them. They told me it depends on whether there is a pre-existing NDA between me (or the company I work for) and the sender (or the company they work for). If there is, then I must abide by the terms and conditions of that NDA. However, if there is no NDA in place and I receive information that I did not request or was not intended for me specifically, from a legal perspective I am free to do whatever I want with that information. I may be subject to ethical and moral restraints, but legally, I can act as I please.
So, if someone sends me confidential information by accident or their workstation is running the latest microsoft trojan and it sends me confidential information that was never intended for me, there is no legal requirement (here in Canada at least) for me to inform the sender about it or delete the message unless I choose to do so. I could also legally act on that information as well (e.g. buy/sell stocks based on the quarterly financial reports I received before they go public). Presumably, I could forward that information to other people and not be committing any crime, although I did not ask that question specifically, so take that part with a grain of salt.
The lawyers reminded me that it may not be ethical to do any of those things, but from a strictly legal perspective, I would have done nothing wrong.
The innovation means that users will be able to scroll vertically as well as horizontally without using on-screen navigation bars."
BFD. I have an IBM scroll-point mouse that can do the same today. I've had this mouse since 1999.
Innovation? Feh!
Apart from that, you have pretty much mastered
Is there a sonyesque powerstruggle going on inside IBM that results in left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?
This is IBM we are talking about here people. It has thousands of employees worldwide working in dozens and dozens of divisions. It is not reasonable to assume that there is so much as one person at IBM who knows everything that the company is working on at any given time. It seems quite reasonable that different groups within IBM would have different opinions about any number of subjects including this one.
It's a huge multinational corporation. There are lots of divisions driving their own agendas. Unless the statement condemning the GPL came directly from the CEO or one of the top executives, do not consider this announcement to be official IBM policy...
This "argument" is moot. Your migration to OSS will be the last migration your company ever makes.
Spoken like someone who fails to grasp the enormity of what he has just proposed!
In my region, there are more than 100 UNIX servers. Globally, I would estimate that we have at least three thousand UNIX servers and they run a variety of different applications. Migrating them all to Linux would be a massive project in terms of time and complexity.
What would be the incentive for such an undertaking? Would Linux servers give me higher service availability figures? Would my TCO be any lower compared to my partially and fully depreciated Sun servers? Would my support costs be any lower? Could my team manage more Linux servers with the same effort and headcount? What if key applications are not ported over to Linux - why fragment our install base any further when it makes economic sense to consolidate to as few platforms as possible in order to minimize support costs?
My "argument" has a lot more bearing in reality than your casual dismissal...
If you are willing to pay IBM for AIX support, why aren't you willing to pay IBM for Linux support?
Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. I should have mentioned in the original post that my support from IBM/Sun is for both hardware and the OS. In the case of IBM, they provide application support as well, since our AIX servers only run IBM-specific applications.
It is quite expensive, but we only have to make one telephone call for support and IBM does the rest. That simplifies a whole lot of support issues and it cuts down on a lot of finger pointing between the OS vendor and the application vendor because it is all the same company.
Now, if IBM (or Sun) were to roll their own distribution and run it on their own hardware, I would have a pretty good chance of being able to deploy more Linux servers.
Assuming of course that the applications we need have been ported to that version of Linux...
Sun Fire V480
Four 900-MHz UltraSparc III Cu processors,16
Gbytes RAM, Solaris 8: $46,995
IBM eServer pSeries 630 Model 6C4
2 x 2-way 1.2-GHz Power4+ processor, 8 Gbytes RAM,
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8: $35,944
Dell PowerEdge 6650
Four 1.5-GHz Intel Xeon processors, 16 Gbytes RAM,
Red Hat Linux 8 Professional: $24,421
Please do not deceive yourself into thinking that the Dell system has equivalent processing power to the Sun/IBM offering...
The issue of support is not addressed in this price comparison. My group managed approximately UNIX servers (70% Solaris, 30% AIX) and it is really difficult to get management to take Linux seriously in this environment. Hardware cost is not really an issue, because hardware is a one-time-cost which can be depreciated over a few years. BTW - for the class of server we purchase, Sun hardware is significantly cheaper than equivalent IBM hardware.
The real concern management has with Linux is support. If there is a hardware or software problem, we can call Sun/IBM 24x7 and they will work on the problem and if necessary call in people with specific expertise to resolve the issue. Those maintenance contracts cost a lot of money, but that is part of the cost of doing business when you have SLAs to maintain. I cannot get that kind of support for Linux. Checking Google for a fix is simply not an alternative.
The other issue that the article does not consider is that some of the applications we use do not run on Linux, and that really limits the possibilities for Linux in future deployments.
Kind of reminds me of that old saying:
I don't think that there is enough bandwidth at
You know what? All of that oil money is going to go to the Iraqi people
Not necessarily. IIRC, Haliburton (you know, the company Cheney used to be the VP of) has received untendered contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq worth a few billion dollars. Sure, the oil "belongs" to the Iraqi people, but the money from selling that oil will be leaving the country and it appears that a fair bit of it is destined for GWB's cronies...
Coincidence?
It's kind of hard to pick sides in tribal warfare with each side doing unto each other over the years. A brutal dictator on the other hand...
So much for not standing by and letting innocent people get slaughtered...
BTW in the 80's, when Rumsfeld was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons for use against Iran, Saddam was a trusted ALLY. Isn't it funny how circumstances change, especially since he was just as brutal a dictator then as he was a few months ago...
I suspect that if you check a reputable source, Saddam Hussein would not rate as the worst dictator on the planet in recent history. Can't imagine why it was deemed so necessary to get rid of him. Surely it has nothing to do with oil...
So that's your argument? "We didn't liberate France right away."
Liberating France was a good thing. I just have to wonder why the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WWII in the first place. For more than two years people fought and died in that war and the US did not see any need for "regime change" in Nazi Germany...
Today however, based on lies and distortions, it seems perfectly admissible to fight a war and occupy a foreign nation simply because they have something GWB wants...
But we damn sure ain't gonna stand around while innocents get slaughtered and call it peace.
Good thing that Iraq is the only place in the world that innocents were being slaughtered. Yup, that has not happened anywhere else since GWB put himself in charge. Certainly not in the Congo for example. Of course the Congo does not have significant oil reserves, nor would it be a strategic location for permanent US military bases.
Apparently, as with the genocide in Rawanda, the lives of the people in the Congo aren't worth much.
BTW - in case you forgot, the US deliberately stayed out of WWII for more than two years. The war was seen as a purely European conflict. The moral imperative to fight the Axis only came into being after the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbour.
I think Robert Kagan said it best:
Who is Robert Kagan and why should his opinion matter?
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, there are no authorities, at best there may be experts. The "experts" were unable to find any WMD in Iraq. As Hans Blix has suggested, perhaps the Iraquis were telling the truth, despite their many flaws and shortcomings.
Groundless? Get your head out of your ass!
You know, you toss up a bunch of quotes, but at the end of the day, the US and UK have had unrestricted access to all of Iraq for almost a month and they have not found any of the WMD that posed such an immediate threat to the rest of the world that this pre-emptive war was justified as being essentially in self defense. I would humbly suggest that you follow your own advise. Thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what CNN and Fox tell you would be a good idea as well.
That said, successful politicians seldom tell outright lies to the public - it's too risky. They don't tell us the honest truth either - that would be even riskier. Most likely GWB believed what he was told, and the civil servants provided information to further justify those beliefs. Tony Blair and John Howard went along for the ride not because of any moral imperative, but because there was money to be made in the clean-up. Howard admitted as much!
It's too bad, because GWB has virtually no credibility on the world stage now. He is still the biggest bully in the schoolyard, and will continue to get his way, but nobody will believe...
That means that a national opt-out list, coupled with a spambounty (or some other kill-the-spammer type legislation) *would* matter, and it would *not* be business as usual.
Assuming of course that both the spammer (plus spamboxen) and the company that paid for the spamming reside in the US...