You leave your "resource" open to be used. If you don't want random annoyomous poeple to be able to you them, then close off your "resources".
In which case I assume that either you have a large cage enclosing your house or you would have no problem with anyone visiting and leaving their trash behind:) Fed up with people using your lawn as a toilet then you need a better fence...
using a first amendment defense to spamming is more like stealing someone's printing press, publishing your book with it,
Using their paper, their ink, their glue/other binding materials together with their electricity to do the printing. Then delivering it using their trucks, powered by their fuel, to people who don't even want it in the first place.
Consider someone who wants to print up his own political or commercial speech on sheets of paper and distribute them. So he steals a printing press, paper, and ink, do do this.
A closer analogy would be if they were to break into someone else's print shop. Use their printer, paper, ink/toner & envelopes. Then put the result in that person's/company's outgoing mailbag, possibly after using their stamps/franking machine. The subtle difference is that the crook steals the use of someone else's machine. Physically stealing industrial printing hardware would probably be as hard as physically stealing thousands of computers and their network connections. In both cases it isn't so much that machines are taken but that someone without authority uses them at the expense of the legitimate owner.
Does his right to free speech prevail over the property rights of the owner of the press, paper, and ink? What if the owner bought these things to carry out his own right of free speech; the owner's right to free speech have now been trampled on by the thief.
Should it even matter what the owner intended to use their property for. Their "consumables" have been consumed without permission or compensation, which is likely to be considered "theft". Similarly their machines have been used without permission or compensation...
Does one's right to free speech allow them to write their message with paint on the windshields of parked cars?
Typically it dosn't even when the painter paid for his/her paint... Nor would painting messages on the windows of people's houses and offices.
If instead you want it to be hard for people who are selling stuff to contact you, but easy for people who just want to talk you into a date, then you face a technical challenge, and not even an insoluble one.
How often does anyone telephone or email someone at random for a date? Most typically this happens in response to the person being contacted having placed some sort of advertisment. Thus soliciting such contact. No doubt the very few people who would do this are apt to be locked up as "insane". It's the former group who tend to make completly unsolicited phone calls and send completly unsolicited emails. In the process also doing things which are legally questionably or even illegal. On the other hand there are plenty of businesses who do fine by putting out public advertisments and having customers come to them.
In your world, is it considered okay to use hire a dozen people with bullhorns to spew political rhetoric around someone's house at midnight?
In the real world such people would typically get told to shut up followed by being separated from their bullhorns by angry (and sleep deprived) residents. Though in some places the second step might involve automatic weapons fire followed by silence.
The federalist papers were originally published in three New York newspapers, then later paublished in other local papers, eventually across the Western World.
Thus either the authors paid for them to be published or the news paper editors considered them to be newsworthy.
If someone purchased the newspaper for a different purpose, that person still got 'spammed' with the Federalist Papers in their newspaper.
What proportion of newspaper readers read every article article? Even where the paper is not split into several "volumes"...
Even if they were, they'd just be tossed on the hearth, but the cost would be largely borne by the Federalists.
In the latter half of the 18th century you might actually want to get such "junk mail". Since it would actually be useful as fuel...
You have a right to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house saying whatever you want. You don't have a right to come onto my porch, use my paper and pen, and start writing whatever you want under the guise of 'Free Speech', you're consuming my resources and causing me to incur expenses.
But you are free to make use of notice boards intended for public use (even if they are actually privatly owned). On the Internet, as in the physical world, someone may allow you access to their property for specific reasons. If someone has a "yard sale" it's still trespass to be on their property before or after that sale. It also dosn't imply that you can bother them with some unrelated matter. Similarly if you employed a plumber you wouldn't expect them to then turn up every week asking if they could do more plumbing. Let alone crowds of construction workers to do this.
Mass spamming shifts the costs almost entirely to the receiver. What might cost the sender $20 can cost the receivers $200,000. That's why spam is evil.
If it even costs them that much. In many cases spammers use other people's machines illegally to send their stuff. This makes them crooks and means that law enforcement should be going after them.
My mail server gets 10,000 spams PER HOUR, while I only get about one legitimate mail message per hour.
If you would be accosted by 10,000 petitioners on the street, per hour (a few million per day!), then I'm sure that you would be mad as hell and would be buying a heavy machine gun or two.
Of course if they acted anything like email spammers they'd all start claiming to be arms dealers after the first couple of days.
Sure there is: door to door solicitation. For someone to come up to your door to sell you something, they have to enter on to your property, and waste your time talking to you. And society has deemed this to be acceptable. The onus is on you, the person who does not want solicitors at all, to make his wishes known, whether in response to a particular solicitor ("Go away") or to all solicitors in advance (e.g. a "no solicitors" sign, which reasonably puts them on notice).
You are also free to waste their time, be rude to them, threaten them, etc, etc.
Telephone solicitation works substantially the same way: telemarketers are using your resources and your time, and you've consented by default by having a phone attached to the public phone network. It's up to you to tell them to not call again, or to let them know in advance (e.g. with the Do-Not-Call list).
You can also waste their time, be abusive to them or take other actions to try and persuade them that bothering you was a bad idea.
Why should email be any different?
Email is different from the former two in that it does not involve any kind of real time dialogue. You can't waste the spammers time by pretending to be interested nor can you tell them to copulate with themselves or attempt to interview them.
Probably the best analogy would be telemarketing calls to cellphones, where the user pays for a call that they don't want. Oh, wait - that's ILLEGAL.
Possibly on top of that calls which were so frequent as to seriously impair the ability of your phone to be a useful communications device. Or something like frequent junk faxes. Though the difference is that with a phone call the person making the call is generally themselves paying at least something for the call, even if it's bundled with their service. Unless they are using someone else's phone lines (e.g. FEMA's).
The article mentions tests on mouse embryos, but if we are trying to find information about humans development and human DNA, then shouldn't we use human embryos?
Mice and humans share rather more than 80% of their DNA. For the kind of studies involved it may be a case of "any mammal will do". Since humans tend to be difficult (and expensive) to use as test subjects researchers tend not to do so unless they have to.
As long as the tests can be completed before the 24th week (Yale is in Connecticut) or 28th week (New York is nearby) then there shouldn't be a problem.
If you are using mice then you could easily be working with the grandchildren of the mice you started off with.
I'd love to see the results of removing Junk DNA from a human's genome, and then pump it into an egg and grow it up all normal like and see what kind of walking cancer emerges.
Unless you also modified the host's DNA as well it might well do nothing. Chickens have genes for growing teeth and long tails, which are simply switched off.
Junk DNA doesn't exist. It's just DNA we don't understand.
Some of it probably is actually junk. Where DNA performs no function at all there is no evolutionary effect to weed out harmful mutations. Though it's possible that many mutations of an "obsolete" gene may result in something useful. If DNA is observed which dosn't vary much between individuals (or even species) then that tends to imply that it functional (possibly even very important). Even if we currently have no idea what that function actually is.
I happen to believe that thinking hard- programming- writing- puzzle-solving for hours on end burns way more energy as opposed to sitting on your ass watching a sitcom. It just has to, right? Yeah it probably also involves some stress which may make you hungrier, although sometimes focused thought promotes meal-skipping when you get in that zone and lose track of time and thus skip meals...
Or it could be that rather than "energy" what is being consumed are specific chemicals. If the food you are eating is poor in terms of either these chemicals (or chemicals the human body can use to make what it needs) then you are going to have to eat a lot to get what you need. (There may also be a mechanism involved that such a situation tricks your body into "believing" that you are being starved even if whatever you are eating is rich in lots of stuff your body dosn't actually need at the time.)
When you are thinking hard, you are exhausting neurotransmitters at a greater rate, even if you are not using more energy. Several of these require sodium to produce, which needs therefore to be consumed from food. I find that low fat crisps or rice crackers are an excellent accompaniment to thinking hard about something - this gets rid of the hunger very quickly without providing much other than salt.
Remember it's currently fashionably to regard sodium as "bad". With KCl or even more exotic salts being used as a replacement for NaCl...
Without knowing what food the people consumed, this study is not very valuable.
This is an issue with many dietary studies. Together with the simple fact that measuring the "energy value" of food by burning it in pure oxygen is at best an approximation and at worst a complete fiction about what the human body will do with it. i.e. testing the same mass of glucose and cellulose in a calorimeter will give you the same results. But you'd get very different results from feeding them to a human (you probably wouldn't even get the same results if you used termites, which have bacterial symbiotes which enable the digestion of cellulose.)
Whether it's one day, or 5 days in the week, when I'm at work solving whatever problems show up on network/server/client side, I feel more hungry and eat something several times a day.
I'm much less hungry when I can relax during the day and don't have to sort out a chaos. In the past 3 weeks vacation I've eaten mostly 1 or 2 times a day and lost about 5 kgs. And I'm definitely eating a lot more healthy at work than in these weeks. I've also been a lot less active so that's no excuse either.
Or maybe current ideas about "healthy eating" are incorrect in some ways.
It isn't even a matter of clauses buried in fine print. The problem is that this is "standard practice" and it is anti-consumer. Even if the first line in the agreement was 48 point and said "note that when you use your phone internationally you could end up being assessed charges far in excess of normal" it wouldn't be fair.
Added to which there is the technical issue that radio signals do not follow lines drawn on maps. Even more so when these lines were drawn without reference to any physical geographic features (as is the case with parts of the US-Canadian border.)
Yeah, because police shoot people in the head (who they already have in their custody and in a police car) all the time. It just happens... right. I'm sure it's not just because he was stirring up unrest against the Russian government.
Of course we'd never see police in "The West" do anything like this, would we? Maybe we should wait to see what happens to the police concerned. After all in places such as the US and the UK police have literally got away with murdering members of the public.
I was hoping to see Adam and Jamie with a parabolic antenna reading people's CC tokens from a couple of blocks. No, seriously. RFID security ranks right up there with Congressional oversight in the list of the top oxymorons of all time... okay, not all RFID hardware---some actually do use crypto in the right way---but a large enough percentage that my level of trust for RFID CCs is somewhere between zero and negative infinity.
The interesting thing is that the Mythbusters may not have originally been thinking about credit cards. RFIDs have many applications. They'd orginally set up a conference call between a presenter, a producer and someone technical from the manufacturer. Then when it comes time for the call lawyers from 3 credit card companies show up. This strongly implies that the credit card companies know that they have a serious security hole involving RFID... A bit like the Boston Transit authority in the process of trying to shut up some MIT students manage to communicate more information about their lack of security in the papers they sent to court.
So after youtube puts it back up they send another DMCA takedown notice and it goes down for another 14 days, it gets put back up, they get another takedown notice,
Takedown and counter takedown notices are ment to be "one shot deals". If the second notice originated from the same entity you could probably sue Youtube for failing to follow the law if they didn't ignore it.
Talk about a market where DRM is going to be the least effective. The analog hole kind of sucks for music, because there is some amount of quality degradation which requires either hi-quality equipment to reduce, or haxor tools to strip the DRM digitally.
Unless you are talking "audiophiles" any degradation probably isn't an issue. Especially if people are going to be listening through headphones.
Slashdot Mirror
You leave your "resource" open to be used. If you don't want random annoyomous poeple to be able to you them, then close off your "resources".
:) Fed up with people using your lawn as a toilet then you need a better fence...
In which case I assume that either you have a large cage enclosing your house or you would have no problem with anyone visiting and leaving their trash behind
using a first amendment defense to spamming is more like stealing someone's printing press, publishing your book with it,
Using their paper, their ink, their glue/other binding materials together with their electricity to do the printing. Then delivering it using their trucks, powered by their fuel, to people who don't even want it in the first place.
Consider someone who wants to print up his own political or commercial speech on sheets of paper and distribute them. So he steals a printing press, paper, and ink, do do this.
A closer analogy would be if they were to break into someone else's print shop. Use their printer, paper, ink/toner & envelopes. Then put the result in that person's/company's outgoing mailbag, possibly after using their stamps/franking machine. The subtle difference is that the crook steals the use of someone else's machine.
Physically stealing industrial printing hardware would probably be as hard as physically stealing thousands of computers and their network connections. In both cases it isn't so much that machines are taken but that someone without authority uses them at the expense of the legitimate owner.
Does his right to free speech prevail over the property rights of the owner of the press, paper, and ink? What if the owner bought these things to carry out his own right of free speech; the owner's right to free speech have now been trampled on by the thief.
Should it even matter what the owner intended to use their property for. Their "consumables" have been consumed without permission or compensation, which is likely to be considered "theft". Similarly their machines have been used without permission or compensation...
Does one's right to free speech allow them to write their message with paint on the windshields of parked cars?
Typically it dosn't even when the painter paid for his/her paint... Nor would painting messages on the windows of people's houses and offices.
It is illegal to sell prescription drug without a prescription. Its also illegal to offer drugs to children in most states.
There may also be restrictions on exactly who can supply such drugs. Both in terms of their qualifications and their location.
If instead you want it to be hard for people who are selling stuff to contact you, but easy for people who just want to talk you into a date, then you face a technical challenge, and not even an insoluble one.
How often does anyone telephone or email someone at random for a date? Most typically this happens in response to the person being contacted having placed some sort of advertisment. Thus soliciting such contact. No doubt the very few people who would do this are apt to be locked up as "insane".
It's the former group who tend to make completly unsolicited phone calls and send completly unsolicited emails. In the process also doing things which are legally questionably or even illegal.
On the other hand there are plenty of businesses who do fine by putting out public advertisments and having customers come to them.
In your world, is it considered okay to use hire a dozen people with bullhorns to spew political rhetoric around someone's house at midnight?
In the real world such people would typically get told to shut up followed by being separated from their bullhorns by angry (and sleep deprived) residents. Though in some places the second step might involve automatic weapons fire followed by silence.
No. That is wrong. You can be anonymous without spoofing IP addresses or faking domain names.
Also pretending to be a "real" entity is something else entirely from inventing your own alias.
The federalist papers were originally published in three New York newspapers, then later paublished in other local papers, eventually across the Western World.
Thus either the authors paid for them to be published or the news paper editors considered them to be newsworthy.
If someone purchased the newspaper for a different purpose, that person still got 'spammed' with the Federalist Papers in their newspaper.
What proportion of newspaper readers read every article article? Even where the paper is not split into several "volumes"...
Even if they were, they'd just be tossed on the hearth, but the cost would be largely borne by the Federalists.
In the latter half of the 18th century you might actually want to get such "junk mail". Since it would actually be useful as fuel...
You have a right to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house saying whatever you want. You don't have a right to come onto my porch, use my paper and pen, and start writing whatever you want under the guise of 'Free Speech', you're consuming my resources and causing me to incur expenses.
But you are free to make use of notice boards intended for public use (even if they are actually privatly owned). On the Internet, as in the physical world, someone may allow you access to their property for specific reasons. If someone has a "yard sale" it's still trespass to be on their property before or after that sale. It also dosn't imply that you can bother them with some unrelated matter. Similarly if you employed a plumber you wouldn't expect them to then turn up every week asking if they could do more plumbing. Let alone crowds of construction workers to do this.
Mass spamming shifts the costs almost entirely to the receiver. What might cost the sender $20 can cost the receivers $200,000. That's why spam is evil.
If it even costs them that much. In many cases spammers use other people's machines illegally to send their stuff. This makes them crooks and means that law enforcement should be going after them.
My mail server gets 10,000 spams PER HOUR, while I only get about one legitimate mail message per hour.
If you would be accosted by 10,000 petitioners on the street, per hour (a few million per day!), then I'm sure that you would be mad as hell and would be buying a heavy machine gun or two.
Of course if they acted anything like email spammers they'd all start claiming to be arms dealers after the first couple of days.
Sure there is: door to door solicitation. For someone to come up to your door to sell you something, they have to enter on to your property, and waste your time talking to you. And society has deemed this to be acceptable. The onus is on you, the person who does not want solicitors at all, to make his wishes known, whether in response to a particular solicitor ("Go away") or to all solicitors in advance (e.g. a "no solicitors" sign, which reasonably puts them on notice).
You are also free to waste their time, be rude to them, threaten them, etc, etc.
Telephone solicitation works substantially the same way: telemarketers are using your resources and your time, and you've consented by default by having a phone attached to the public phone network. It's up to you to tell them to not call again, or to let them know in advance (e.g. with the Do-Not-Call list).
You can also waste their time, be abusive to them or take other actions to try and persuade them that bothering you was a bad idea.
Why should email be any different?
Email is different from the former two in that it does not involve any kind of real time dialogue. You can't waste the spammers time by pretending to be interested nor can you tell them to copulate with themselves or attempt to interview them.
Probably the best analogy would be telemarketing calls to cellphones, where the user pays for a call that they don't want. Oh, wait - that's ILLEGAL.
Possibly on top of that calls which were so frequent as to seriously impair the ability of your phone to be a useful communications device. Or something like frequent junk faxes. Though the difference is that with a phone call the person making the call is generally themselves paying at least something for the call, even if it's bundled with their service. Unless they are using someone else's phone lines (e.g. FEMA's).
You walk through the street, someone shoves a petition in your face. Do you lock them up as well?
If it actually ends up touching you then it's likely to be considered "assault"
The article mentions tests on mouse embryos, but if we are trying to find information about humans development and human DNA, then shouldn't we use human embryos?
Mice and humans share rather more than 80% of their DNA. For the kind of studies involved it may be a case of "any mammal will do". Since humans tend to be difficult (and expensive) to use as test subjects researchers tend not to do so unless they have to.
As long as the tests can be completed before the 24th week (Yale is in Connecticut) or 28th week (New York is nearby) then there shouldn't be a problem.
If you are using mice then you could easily be working with the grandchildren of the mice you started off with.
I'd love to see the results of removing Junk DNA from a human's genome, and then pump it into an egg and grow it up all normal like and see what kind of walking cancer emerges.
Unless you also modified the host's DNA as well it might well do nothing. Chickens have genes for growing teeth and long tails, which are simply switched off.
Junk DNA doesn't exist. It's just DNA we don't understand.
Some of it probably is actually junk. Where DNA performs no function at all there is no evolutionary effect to weed out harmful mutations. Though it's possible that many mutations of an "obsolete" gene may result in something useful.
If DNA is observed which dosn't vary much between individuals (or even species) then that tends to imply that it functional (possibly even very important). Even if we currently have no idea what that function actually is.
I happen to believe that thinking hard- programming- writing- puzzle-solving for hours on end burns way more energy as opposed to sitting on your ass watching a sitcom. It just has to, right? Yeah it probably also involves some stress which may make you hungrier, although sometimes focused thought promotes meal-skipping when you get in that zone and lose track of time and thus skip meals...
Or it could be that rather than "energy" what is being consumed are specific chemicals. If the food you are eating is poor in terms of either these chemicals (or chemicals the human body can use to make what it needs) then you are going to have to eat a lot to get what you need. (There may also be a mechanism involved that such a situation tricks your body into "believing" that you are being starved even if whatever you are eating is rich in lots of stuff your body dosn't actually need at the time.)
When you are thinking hard, you are exhausting neurotransmitters at a greater rate, even if you are not using more energy. Several of these require sodium to produce, which needs therefore to be consumed from food. I find that low fat crisps or rice crackers are an excellent accompaniment to thinking hard about something - this gets rid of the hunger very quickly without providing much other than salt.
Remember it's currently fashionably to regard sodium as "bad". With KCl or even more exotic salts being used as a replacement for NaCl...
Without knowing what food the people consumed, this study is not very valuable.
This is an issue with many dietary studies.
Together with the simple fact that measuring the "energy value" of food by burning it in pure oxygen is at best an approximation and at worst a complete fiction about what the human body will do with it. i.e. testing the same mass of glucose and cellulose in a calorimeter will give you the same results. But you'd get very different results from feeding them to a human (you probably wouldn't even get the same results if you used termites, which have bacterial symbiotes which enable the digestion of cellulose.)
Whether it's one day, or 5 days in the week, when I'm at work solving whatever problems show up on network/server/client side, I feel more hungry and eat something several times a day. I'm much less hungry when I can relax during the day and don't have to sort out a chaos. In the past 3 weeks vacation I've eaten mostly 1 or 2 times a day and lost about 5 kgs. And I'm definitely eating a lot more healthy at work than in these weeks. I've also been a lot less active so that's no excuse either.
Or maybe current ideas about "healthy eating" are incorrect in some ways.
Ok, I've been burned by a child on a phone plan not understanding the limits of an "unlimited" text messaging plan and running up a $500 bill.
It hardly seems fair to blame the child when it's the phone company which is trying to redefine the word "unlimited".
It isn't even a matter of clauses buried in fine print. The problem is that this is "standard practice" and it is anti-consumer. Even if the first line in the agreement was 48 point and said "note that when you use your phone internationally you could end up being assessed charges far in excess of normal" it wouldn't be fair.
Added to which there is the technical issue that radio signals do not follow lines drawn on maps. Even more so when these lines were drawn without reference to any physical geographic features (as is the case with parts of the US-Canadian border.)
Next, they waste an hour of your time, tell you they can't fix your connection, and then file criminal charges against you.
If they were only going to waste an hour of her time they'd have turned up at 8:00am. Rather than 12:30pm.
Yeah, because police shoot people in the head (who they already have in their custody and in a police car) all the time. It just happens... right. I'm sure it's not just because he was stirring up unrest against the Russian government.
Of course we'd never see police in "The West" do anything like this, would we?
Maybe we should wait to see what happens to the police concerned. After all in places such as the US and the UK police have literally got away with murdering members of the public.
I was hoping to see Adam and Jamie with a parabolic antenna reading people's CC tokens from a couple of blocks. No, seriously. RFID security ranks right up there with Congressional oversight in the list of the top oxymorons of all time... okay, not all RFID hardware---some actually do use crypto in the right way---but a large enough percentage that my level of trust for RFID CCs is somewhere between zero and negative infinity.
The interesting thing is that the Mythbusters may not have originally been thinking about credit cards. RFIDs have many applications. They'd orginally set up a conference call between a presenter, a producer and someone technical from the manufacturer. Then when it comes time for the call lawyers from 3 credit card companies show up. This strongly implies that the credit card companies know that they have a serious security hole involving RFID... A bit like the Boston Transit authority in the process of trying to shut up some MIT students manage to communicate more information about their lack of security in the papers they sent to court.
So after youtube puts it back up they send another DMCA takedown notice and it goes down for another 14 days, it gets put back up, they get another takedown notice,
Takedown and counter takedown notices are ment to be "one shot deals". If the second notice originated from the same entity you could probably sue Youtube for failing to follow the law if they didn't ignore it.
Talk about a market where DRM is going to be the least effective. The analog hole kind of sucks for music, because there is some amount of quality degradation which requires either hi-quality equipment to reduce, or haxor tools to strip the DRM digitally.
Unless you are talking "audiophiles" any degradation probably isn't an issue. Especially if people are going to be listening through headphones.