If this lame stock question that gets asked every time anyone in comics does anything gets asked and my pertinant and informative question about Miracleman gets ignored, I will cry. Mod Parent DOWN please.
What's the current status of Miracleman? When can those of us with human incomes actually get to read Miracleman? There's a huge market! Please, get those rights! Publish Miracleman!
It has been held over and over and over that the first amendment applies to the government at large, as the executive branch only acts through the empowerment of the legislature.
"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
MARSH v. ALABAMA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 326 U.S. 501
Lying under oath is not a felony. Lying about material fact is. Getting a blowjob is not material to a fraudlent real estate transaction.
Hope this quote from the USDOJ criminal resource manual helps:
"It has been held by at least one court that simple perjury, the assertion of a false affirmative statement by an individual testifying under oath, is not an obstruction of justice under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1503. See United States v. Faudman, 640 F.2d 20, 23 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1969). But see United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 203, 204 (5th Cir.) (dicta), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825 (1979); cf. Smith v. United States, 234 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1956) (submission of false affidavits of others violates omnibus clause). "
I have no problems with the Satelite Staff at the store. I have seen numerous people that do, however. Here are some hints on how to get good service.
1. You can be 1 of 2 people.
a. Aging Wannabe (That's me!)
b. Known
Attempting to be anything else will get you pigeonholed into the "going to listen to a lot, but not actually buy anything. Not worth my time" category.
Way's to clearly delineate yourself as an Aging Wannabe:
1. Look old
2. Ask easy opinion questions and/or obvious "where the hell is x" questions.
Anyone who goes in and asks "I really liked this and this, what do you reccomend" will get VIP treatment. If you go in there and try to be all "Hey, dood, got any slammin choonz in the newies pile" you've pegged yourself into the "not going to buy" category.
Nor did I claim you were. I was careful to say "someone" when replying to the AC poster. In fact, I used that pronoun twice in the response, didn't I?
All sarcasm aside, if someone can't spell simple words like "caliber", can't differentiate between a proposal and actions, and thinks that it's illegal to use the phone late at night, what's the point?
No, you didn't. Based on what I see, you have a single list seperated by "and," confusing actions 1 and 3 with action 2.
As an aside, in New York, it is illegal to make phone calls with the intent to harass. Article 240 of the New York State Penal Code, Section 240.30, Aggravated harassment in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor punishible by a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or a jail sentence not to exceed one year.
Some choice notes. Fred goes out of his way to track down individuals, and then harasses them at odd hours of the night. He's at odds with people that do actual work to stop spam, because he keeps emailing people that ask him to stop.
Fred's proposal is that he sends spam to everyone whose name is on any address for-sale database - in other words, spam, to tell them who is selling their address. See, he can spam because his cause is good and RILLY RILLY important.
In fact, much like I have done above, multiple people have commented that "you just want to brag about how big your balls are."
So, fred, why is it that you want to email everyone on a spam list again?
Honeypots are quality. You are not playing "whack-a-mole." You are blackholing millions of messages before they reach their intended recipiants, and shooting at the smart spammers.
Let's take a secomd and evaluate our "Mr. Roth," and determine if he is adding or subtracting value from the network.
Martin Roth aka lumbercartel@hotmail.com
Martin Roth aims to solve the spam problem by educating spammers about proper e-mail marketing practices. But to educate them, he first has to find them.
Well, that sounds like a plan.
With practiced ease, Roth launches software tools with names such as "SpamCop," "SpamKiller" and "Sam Spade." These, along with multiple online accounts, help Roth comb through the junk e-mail pile for clues to the spammers' identity.
It's embarassing to use these tools because of the raw number of false positives they generate. Of course, for click and drool "d00dz, d3l3t3 yur spammer NOW!" people like Roth, that's a-ok. Of course, let's note that he belongs to a group that calls itself "Spam Wranglers Action Team," which by naming itself something stupid has demonstrated idocy.
But others, such as spam messages that appear to have been sent by an Internet newcomer, may present a better opportunity. A rookie spammer may fail to disguise headers and return addresses, create an amateurish sales pitch or promote a common multilevel marketing scheme.
So, go after new spammers because it's easy? Well, I guess they are easier to convince to change their ways, but if he really wanted to stop spam he'd be going after the mega-houses.
"Here's a guy maybe you can educate," Roth said, pointing to one such message among the scores before him.
What kind of education do you think this guy is going to get?
With that information in hand, Roth then reports the abuse and asks that the spammer be cut off. Many Internet providers will comply, since the sending of spam is usually prohibited by their own user policies. Providers that don't comply could face the prospect of being added to the blacklist of companies that support spamming.
Oh, that's some quality education there, sir.
As he speaks, Roth's computer erupts with the sound of gunfire once more. Roth smiles broadly.
"Got another one," he said.
And that, my friends, is why these people do it. Because they enjoy the feeling of power that cutting people off the net gives them. They are like petty IRC dictators, typing "/kill.*@.*aol.com".
Martin Roth is doing nothing to help the spam problem, and he is a poor choice of people to profile. Martin Roth is yet anoter MaryanneKehoe
You don't think that allowing anyone to mail you is making your mailbox "freely accessible and freely used by the public in general?"
Please, leave my infrastructure intact. I'd rather that I get the mail and filter it than have random messages dropped because I couldn't let the public at large email me.
Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
Not that I think that spam is good, rather the argument that "My mail server is mine, thus spam is illegal" does not follow.
- Justice Black, U.S. Supreme Court, Marsh v. State of Ala., 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
The suing individual regularly posts to usenet and to the mailing lists. Here are some messages you can look at to evaluate his behavior. Or, read the article where he talks about his suing "hobby.". The mail to the list where he calls a defendant a bum and teases people with "PS: any monies collected will be the subject of a cause of action to have
those monies turned over to the Plaintiff--Give generously." is probably the best.
Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?
You seem to think I'm defending spamming. I'm not. Please stop fighting against the strawman. Try reading this carefully before responding.
This law explicitly allows spam that identifies correctly. Because every provider will cancel accounts that spam, and because the court defined "correctly" as "still exists" it is impossible to spam. This is not a bad thing.
What is a bad thing is that a law which is blatently overbroad has been passed. If the government wanted to ban spam, they have to come clean about it. There is sufficient legal precident for this.
Finally, the law and the court ruling had nothing to do with "sending to people who want it." It had to do with sending using false information. Perhpas you should read the link. I am not arguing that the ISP's are doing wrong in booting spammers, but that they court did wrong in equating "false" with "terminated."
If the reason your return e-mail address was cancelled is because you knowingly violated your e-mail
provider's terms of service, well, too bad, you're an idiot.
Being an idiot is not a criminal offense.
Yes, it is. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Ask your local police officer.
It is not against the law to violate your email providers terms of service. It is apprently agaist the law to send an email with a valid return address and then to have that address become invalid because of a third parties actions.
I am apparently liable for the actions my service provider takes. That is, untill this ruling is overturned.
Generating complaints is not against the law.
Violating private contracts is not against the law.
Spamming is not against the law.
However, the disengenuous law says that if you spam, and have your account canceled, you violate the law.
How can you be responsible for actions other people take (your ISP.) That's not fair. If the law wants to say "No UCE" it should say it, not beat around the bush with judicial interpretation and private-party actions.
Not true. It doesn't allow anything. If you don't forge your headers, you're not affected by this law. Any other laws that used to apply, still do.
But what if you spam with true information, and then have your email account canceled? That appears to be against the law as expressed by the court, and it makes it impossible to spam safely. Again, not that I think spam should be allowed, but I also think laws should be clearly stated with intention.
I'm all for placing an incredible burdon on spammers, personally. If the reason your return e-mail address
was cancelled is because you knowingly violated your e-mail provider's terms of service, well, too bad,
you're an idiot.
Being an idiot is not a criminal offense.
If you can find an ISP that ALLOWS you to send spam, great! They won't cancel your account for it! If your
ISP doesn't allow it, then you shouldn't be doing it. The law may not be perfect, but I have no complaints.
But should a civil action cause criminal penalties? This essentially allows private ISP's to cause me to violate Washington law - I send mail to a washington resident for a valid opt-in commercial purpose (say, a competing service to their DSL lines to my subscriber list). They cancel my account. That shouldn't be a violation of the law, but with this account was canceled clause, it is.
This is NOT a ban on spam. This law explicitly states that it is still legal to send unsolicited commercial
e-mail. You just can't hide behind forged headers. And again, if your ISP doesn't allow you to send spam,
and that's what you want to do, choose a different ISP that will allow you to send spam and not cancel your
account.
It is not the responsibility of the State AG to enforce my private contracts.
I've disliked the Washington law since they first passed it, for two main reasons.
1. It justifies and allows spams.
Just give a valid email address and a header that is true and you're good to go!
2. It creates an incredible burden on the spammers who were just sanctioned
According to the court in the ruling, the reason why the spammers addresses, which he gave, were not valid were because they were canceled.
Sorry, but that's just stepping on both sides of the fence. The court argues that real info makes buisness easier, but if spammers give their real info out, their accounts are canceled. Now, I'm not saying that spammers should be allowed to spam, but it's wrong for the government to have laws and rulings that say one thing and do another.
In effect, the Washington law reads as a ban on spam (You have to use your real info, and if your account goes away, your problem!). But, that's not what the court argues, and it's not the intention of the lawmaker.
I would much rather see a better more thought-out law. Additionally, it makes it impossible for the spammers (however bad they are) to comply - if you spam, you lose your account, and if you spam without account you violate the law. It's great from a logical way to ban spammers, which I love, but it's wrong from the premise that our legal system should be honest.
Just have the law say "spam is banned." It's bad that they have different more confusing words with the same effect. Boo.
This is the same kind of addiction book that comes in the downfall of every major fad. It seems clear to me that this is a book about real-time communications, about 2 years after RT communications was no longer the poster-child of the net. Remember the multiplicity of books regarding "hoarding warez" around 2 years after the death of large phone-dialup warez BBS's? I imagine we will get a tome of "hoarding music" in about two years (post napster.) Psychologists seem to have a compuslive need to define new problems when old problems (compulsive behavior) latch on to new things.
Perhaps the hype over this is only just the standard people with a pre-disposition to become obsessed finding a target of their obsession that is just becoming well-known in the technological backwaters of publishing (not researching) psycology? I imagine that anyone who gets addicted to IM would just as well get addicted to gambling, drugs, phone chat lines and what not if that was the oppourtunity that readily presented itself. Perhaps another book on addictive personalities is in ordeR?
Slashdot Mirror
If this lame stock question that gets asked every time anyone in comics does anything gets asked and my pertinant and informative question about Miracleman gets ignored, I will cry. Mod Parent DOWN please.
What's the current status of Miracleman? When can those of us with human incomes actually get to read Miracleman? There's a huge market! Please, get those rights! Publish Miracleman!
It has been held over and over and over that the first amendment applies to the government at large, as the executive branch only acts through the empowerment of the legislature.
States cannot vary based on the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Hope that helps.
Microsoft Market Cap ~ $284BN
Microsoft Cash&Marketable Securities on Balance Sheet ~ $38BN
You figure it out.
"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
MARSH v. ALABAMA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
326 U.S. 501
Lying under oath is not a felony. Lying about material fact is. Getting a blowjob is not material to a fraudlent real estate transaction.
Hope this quote from the USDOJ criminal resource manual helps:
"It has been held by at least one court that simple perjury, the assertion of a false affirmative statement by an individual testifying under oath, is not an obstruction of justice under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1503. See United States v. Faudman, 640 F.2d 20, 23 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1969). But see United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 203, 204 (5th Cir.) (dicta), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825 (1979); cf. Smith v. United States, 234 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1956) (submission of false affidavits of others violates omnibus clause). "
I have no problems with the Satelite Staff at the store. I have seen numerous people that do, however. Here are some hints on how to get good service.
1. You can be 1 of 2 people.
a. Aging Wannabe (That's me!)
b. Known
Attempting to be anything else will get you pigeonholed into the "going to listen to a lot, but not actually buy anything. Not worth my time" category.
Way's to clearly delineate yourself as an Aging Wannabe:
1. Look old
2. Ask easy opinion questions and/or obvious "where the hell is x" questions.
Anyone who goes in and asks "I really liked this and this, what do you reccomend" will get VIP treatment. If you go in there and try to be all "Hey, dood, got any slammin choonz in the newies pile" you've pegged yourself into the "not going to buy" category.
Again, I walked away from you. I don't play flamewar games, but I'm *STILL* not anonymous coward.
As usual, you are wrong. Of course, given your record, hardly a surprise.
Cable companies are regulated by the FCC and cannot currently decline to provide service to paying customers who abide by reasonable contracts.
Hope That Helps.
Nor did I claim you were. I was careful to say "someone" when replying to the AC poster. In fact, I used that pronoun twice in the response, didn't I?
All sarcasm aside, if someone can't spell simple words like "caliber", can't differentiate between a proposal and actions, and thinks that it's illegal to use the phone late at night, what's the point?
No, you didn't. Based on what I see, you have a single list seperated by "and," confusing actions 1 and 3 with action 2.
As an aside, in New York, it is illegal to make phone calls with the intent to harass. Article 240 of the New York State Penal Code, Section 240.30, Aggravated harassment in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor punishible by a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or a jail sentence not to exceed one year.
I eagerly await your apology and retraction.
I'm not anonymous coward. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
If it has no appreciable effect, and it does not cause you any pleasure, do you keep doing it because you are insane?
Insanity: Doing the same thing but expecting different results.
Wait, I know, you are an asshole spammer!
Some choice notes. Fred goes out of his way to track down individuals, and then harasses them at odd hours of the night. He's at odds with people that do actual work to stop spam, because he keeps emailing people that ask him to stop.
Fred's proposal is that he sends spam to everyone whose name is on any address for-sale database - in other words, spam, to tell them who is selling their address. See, he can spam because his cause is good and RILLY RILLY important.
In fact, much like I have done above, multiple people have commented that "you just want to brag about how big your balls are."
So, fred, why is it that you want to email everyone on a spam list again?
Honeypots are quality. You are not playing "whack-a-mole." You are blackholing millions of messages before they reach their intended recipiants, and shooting at the smart spammers.
Let's take a secomd and evaluate our "Mr. Roth," and determine if he is adding or subtracting value from the network.
.*@.*aol.com".
Martin Roth aka lumbercartel@hotmail.com
Martin Roth aims to solve the spam problem by educating spammers about proper e-mail marketing practices. But to educate them, he first has to find them.
Well, that sounds like a plan.
With practiced ease, Roth launches software tools with names such as "SpamCop," "SpamKiller" and "Sam Spade." These, along with multiple online accounts, help Roth comb through the junk e-mail pile for clues to the spammers' identity.
It's embarassing to use these tools because of the raw number of false positives they generate. Of course, for click and drool "d00dz, d3l3t3 yur spammer NOW!" people like Roth, that's a-ok. Of course, let's note that he belongs to a group that calls itself "Spam Wranglers Action Team," which by naming itself something stupid has demonstrated idocy.
But others, such as spam messages that appear to have been sent by an Internet newcomer, may present a better opportunity. A rookie spammer may fail to disguise headers and return addresses, create an amateurish sales pitch or promote a common multilevel marketing scheme.
So, go after new spammers because it's easy? Well, I guess they are easier to convince to change their ways, but if he really wanted to stop spam he'd be going after the mega-houses.
"Here's a guy maybe you can educate," Roth said, pointing to one such message among the scores before him.
What kind of education do you think this guy is going to get?
With that information in hand, Roth then reports the abuse and asks that the spammer be cut off. Many Internet providers will comply, since the sending of spam is usually prohibited by their own user policies. Providers that don't comply could face the prospect of being added to the blacklist of companies that support spamming.
Oh, that's some quality education there, sir.
As he speaks, Roth's computer erupts with the sound of gunfire once more. Roth
smiles broadly.
"Got another one," he said.
And that, my friends, is why these people do it. Because they enjoy the feeling of power that cutting people off the net gives them. They are like petty IRC dictators, typing "/kill
Martin Roth is doing nothing to help the spam problem, and he is a poor choice of people to profile. Martin Roth is yet anoter Maryanne Kehoe
You don't think that allowing anyone to mail you is making your mailbox "freely accessible and freely used by the public in general?"
Please, leave my infrastructure intact. I'd rather that I get the mail and filter it than have random messages dropped because I couldn't let the public at large email me.
I'll call your ruling:
Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
Not that I think that spam is good, rather the argument that "My mail server is mine, thus spam is illegal" does not follow.
- Justice Black, U.S. Supreme Court, Marsh v. State of Ala., 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
I will gladly picket the Petswarehouse store in Long Island if someone else will come with me.
The suing individual regularly posts to usenet and to the mailing lists. Here are some messages you can look at to evaluate his behavior. Or, read the article where he talks about his suing "hobby.". The mail to the list where he calls a defendant a bum and teases people with "PS: any monies collected will be the subject of a cause of action to have those monies turned over to the Plaintiff--Give generously." is probably the best.
Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?
You seem to think I'm defending spamming. I'm not. Please stop fighting against the strawman. Try reading this carefully before responding.
This law explicitly allows spam that identifies correctly. Because every provider will cancel accounts that spam, and because the court defined "correctly" as "still exists" it is impossible to spam. This is not a bad thing.
What is a bad thing is that a law which is blatently overbroad has been passed. If the government wanted to ban spam, they have to come clean about it. There is sufficient legal precident for this.
Finally, the law and the court ruling had nothing to do with "sending to people who want it." It had to do with sending using false information. Perhpas you should read the link. I am not arguing that the ISP's are doing wrong in booting spammers, but that they court did wrong in equating "false" with "terminated."
It is not against the law to violate your email providers terms of service. It is apprently agaist the law to send an email with a valid return address and then to have that address become invalid because of a third parties actions.
I am apparently liable for the actions my service provider takes. That is, untill this ruling is overturned.
Generating complaints is not against the law.
Violating private contracts is not against the law.
Spamming is not against the law.
However, the disengenuous law says that if you spam, and have your account canceled, you violate the law.
How can you be responsible for actions other people take (your ISP.) That's not fair. If the law wants to say "No UCE" it should say it, not beat around the bush with judicial interpretation and private-party actions.
But what if you spam with true information, and then have your email account canceled? That appears to be against the law as expressed by the court, and it makes it impossible to spam safely. Again, not that I think spam should be allowed, but I also think laws should be clearly stated with intention.
I'm all for placing an incredible burdon on spammers, personally. If the reason your return e-mail address was cancelled is because you knowingly violated your e-mail provider's terms of service, well, too bad, you're an idiot.
Being an idiot is not a criminal offense.
If you can find an ISP that ALLOWS you to send spam, great! They won't cancel your account for it! If your ISP doesn't allow it, then you shouldn't be doing it. The law may not be perfect, but I have no complaints.
But should a civil action cause criminal penalties? This essentially allows private ISP's to cause me to violate Washington law - I send mail to a washington resident for a valid opt-in commercial purpose (say, a competing service to their DSL lines to my subscriber list). They cancel my account. That shouldn't be a violation of the law, but with this account was canceled clause, it is.
This is NOT a ban on spam. This law explicitly states that it is still legal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail. You just can't hide behind forged headers. And again, if your ISP doesn't allow you to send spam, and that's what you want to do, choose a different ISP that will allow you to send spam and not cancel your account.
It is not the responsibility of the State AG to enforce my private contracts.
I've disliked the Washington law since they first passed it, for two main reasons.
1. It justifies and allows spams.
Just give a valid email address and a header that is true and you're good to go!
2. It creates an incredible burden on the spammers who were just sanctioned
According to the court in the ruling, the reason why the spammers addresses, which he gave, were not valid were because they were canceled.
Sorry, but that's just stepping on both sides of the fence. The court argues that real info makes buisness easier, but if spammers give their real info out, their accounts are canceled. Now, I'm not saying that spammers should be allowed to spam, but it's wrong for the government to have laws and rulings that say one thing and do another.
In effect, the Washington law reads as a ban on spam (You have to use your real info, and if your account goes away, your problem!). But, that's not what the court argues, and it's not the intention of the lawmaker.
I would much rather see a better more thought-out law. Additionally, it makes it impossible for the spammers (however bad they are) to comply - if you spam, you lose your account, and if you spam without account you violate the law. It's great from a logical way to ban spammers, which I love, but it's wrong from the premise that our legal system should be honest.
Just have the law say "spam is banned." It's bad that they have different more confusing words with the same effect. Boo.
This is the same kind of addiction book that comes in the downfall of every major fad. It seems clear to me that this is a book about real-time communications, about 2 years after RT communications was no longer the poster-child of the net. Remember the multiplicity of books regarding "hoarding warez" around 2 years after the death of large phone-dialup warez BBS's? I imagine we will get a tome of "hoarding music" in about two years (post napster.) Psychologists seem to have a compuslive need to define new problems when old problems (compulsive behavior) latch on to new things.
Perhaps the hype over this is only just the standard people with a pre-disposition to become obsessed finding a target of their obsession that is just becoming well-known in the technological backwaters of publishing (not researching) psycology? I imagine that anyone who gets addicted to IM would just as well get addicted to gambling, drugs, phone chat lines and what not if that was the oppourtunity that readily presented itself. Perhaps another book on addictive personalities is in ordeR?