>I was saying the argument of interleved memory and heat is a retarded basis for disliking RDRAM.
And as someone who build systems where reliability is a major issue - I am saying that heat is a damn good reason for disliking RDRAM.
If a component runs hot - that means it is using more power than a component which runs cool.
Fans create Noise
Fans are unreliable
Heat itself lowers reliability - a good "rule of thumb" is that every 10C rise in temperature halves the life of a component.
So Rambus = larger power supply, more cooling, more heat, more noise, less reliability.
Disclaimer - I am a bit biased - I mainly build systems which sit in racks in places like Telehouse, systems which are used for Telecomms therefore they must be seriously reliable. Heat and Fans matter more for me than they probably do for most desktop users. But the same basic principles still apply to everyone.
>My favorite was the poor, pathetic depressed robot. Some days I take after him just a wee bit too much:)
According to DNA, Marvin (the Robot) was heavily based on a real person - the script writer Andrew Marshall. "2point4 Children" (UK TV series) is probably his best known work.
The market is more complex than you suggest. Many people using "retail" services are business users at home or on the move. Apart from that the general level of knowledge is growing fast - along with expectations - even in the "domestic" market.
>and therefore must sell a cheap,
Yep.
>reliable,
Yep.
>acceptable service
Nope. "Accecptable" is not enough. If margins are tight it has to be an excellently crafted, superbly-planned service. The reasoning is simple - the single, biggest marginal cost for many ISPs is providing support services.
The consumer market (at least in the UK) is fast learning the realities of what "premium rate" help lines actually mean in practice. Likewise they're also learning fast about other quality of service issues. So the little scams used by ISPs to reduce their support costs without actually providing decent services are all starting to unwind. The more succesful ISPs are learning that the only sustainable way to avoid crippling support costs is to run a service which doesn't generate the calls in the first place. The "no support" model has already been tried - and most of the customers are not coming back for more.
When a large ISP offers shite service and lies to its customers about it - it now becomes something that get discussed on "prime time" TV in front of millions of people - several times if need be.
The TV stations can, will and do hire their own experts and just love demolishing ISPS and their bullshit for the patronising crap that it actually is. No ISP can afford to stone-wall, annoy or patronise the mass-media.
This actually happened here only a couple of weeks ago when one of our biggest ISPS was found out as being very economical with the truth regarding their quality of service. They got taken apart over the course of about ten minutes on a top-ratings TV show. The following week they came back, exposed some more lies, and did it all again.
This kind of coverage will undo the benefits of huge amounts of expensive advertising.
The overall effect of this is probably going to be a raising of the "base cost" and a raising of the base service level. Simple competition based solely on price become less effective as the market starts growing up
There's nothing inherently wrong with dynamic ISP, HTTP caching and the like - provided everything has to be clear, documented and explained (and it generally is in the UK). It must also work and not create spurious problems. Spews is not going to fit in will there - because of the lack of accountability.
Spews is also going to have serious problems coping with media scrutiny. I can just imagine the interview where some "Screeching Anne Robinson Wannabe" demolishes the PR bod trying and failing to justify SPEWS - and what happens next when his bosses see the interview on prime time TV. If they're on tight margins they can't AFFORD to loose the potential custom and they can't afford that kind of coverage.
If Spews limits blocking to the extent neccesary to avoid such problems then its going to fail to meet its own objectives.
I had a major run-in with an arrogant, patronising BOFH from a certain UK ISP earlier this year. The little twat pissed me off and wasted much time when he decided he knew better than me about how I wanted a leased-line firewalled. Ultimately he was sacked while I got an apology and compensation. The Internet is growing up and attitudes to customers are being forced to change.
The techies who remain in work will be the ones who understand that customers are what ensure regular pay-cheques. There won't be much space for the patonising of customers which underlies your whole message.
There isn't going to be enough space for SPEWS etc to do anything beyond feeding the EGOs of a few techies.
I agree. For the reasons I've already given they I don't think they can go much further than that.
>Rather, they ask that ISPs react to spam complaints in a reasonable timeframe and shut down the offending sites if appropriate.
"Reasonable" is going to have to be defined in terms of what's practical for an ISP. In practice this is going to mean the website is going to be up for a day or two after the spams start arriving in mail boxes. Is that quick enough to ruin the businesses of the spammers ? I don't think it is.
A further problem is that we can't simply assume that any website mentioned in a spam actually belongs to the spammer - to do so would be creating a fool-proof and horribly effective method for DOS attacks.
>SPEWS does not meet any of your proposed criteria for a spam-block list: they are neither fair nor accountable.
Which means that I will NEVER use an ISP which uses spews - and nor will most other business users. It's tricky enough making the case for blocking when the blocking is done openly and accountably - loose that and most ISPs will not be able to justify it to their customers. (No business can dictate such things to its customers for very long, ISPs are no exception.)
Pacbell may do it now, but I doubt it will last beyond the first time that Pacbell feels a backlash when Spews (inevitably) screws something up. The mere fact spews feels they have to self-censor to avoid such problems means they're irrelevant.
For blocking lists to actually make a real difference (which means preventing spammers) they have to
1) achieve widespread acceptance. A few ISPS isn't enough - even if one of them is a major one.
2) have very hard, fast policies, with no fear of anyone.
I reckon those two are mutually exclusive. From your message it appears that even Spews can't actually manage even one of those two. It doesn't have anything like enough support to carry real clout and it doesn't feel free to list every spam site.
An essential, fundamental requirement for any blocking/listing system is that it fair, reasonable and accountable and perceived as such by customers, lawyers, ISPs - everyone.
Maps is somewhere close to that meeting that test - IE respected by a significant number of the relevant, informed people. while also being reviled by significant number of the same group.
Most of the time MAPS "gets away with it". But MAPS has problems, makes mistakes, their techniques are not perfect - and they admit it too! Also they have made some decisions which must objectively be described as being controversial (if it creates controversey, especially amongst MAPS supporters, - then, by definition, it is controversial).
Spammers are cunning. They hide themselves, they are devious, they will deliberately calculate and seek-out services, connections and locations to maximise the practical problems, dificulties, confusion and embarrasment for MAPS et al. The spammers also enjoy the continuing possession of the initiative whereas the ISPs and Webhosts are limited to the realms of the practical and the possible when fighting back.
Ultimately I don't think it is possible for web hosting companies to offer economically viable "user" services which are also completely incapable of being exploited by spammers.
The big problem MAPs et al must face is that the futility of demanding anything beyond the possible from ISPs, Web hosting companies and the like, and such attempts to demand the impossible will severely damage the credibility and usage of MAPS or any similar service.
So anything harder-line than Maps will fail in the market place. The collateral damage will be too great, the perceived and actual damage to the integrity of the internet will be too severe - whilst the justification for when customers start asking awkward questions will be too thin. ISPs which don't use the service will be seen by customers as having a meaningful advantage - and that will mean lost customers for the ISPs that do filter.
So while it is theoretically possible for "hard line" "underground services" to replace the likes of MAPs, they will never amount to more than a bit of swaggering by a few hard-line techies who want to apear macho in the War Against Spam.
When governments, cities, public organisations start using GNU software, then other large companies will have to ensure they can deal with them - that they can exchange emails, documents, spreadsheets etc.
This will go a long way to unpicking the control over file formats that Microsoft currently has.
My experiences are totally different I know from repeated personal experience that TPS works and they have never once to reply to a letter from me. They are certainly not a "waste of time, space and effort".
Are you sure that you're not complaining about "market research" calls or calls from a companies you are dealing with. Both are (currently) beyond the remit of the TPS ?
If you're quite certain about all the above then complain to the DPR - who oversea how the DMA administer the TPS. You will need to complain in writing and you should enclose copies of all letters sent to the DMA which have not received a satisfactory reply.
The DPR in the UK is *REALLY* strict - which is why they, rather than OFTEL were given oversight of the TPS scheme when it became statutory.
1) Are you sure you registered the correct number ? Including dialling code and code changes ?
If you have a bypass number or a number which diverts to your number - the rules say you have to register them seperately.
2) Is your phone registered as a business line or a private line ? The TPS cannot and will not prevent sales calls to business lines
3) Did you complain to the TPS in WRITING ? This step also seems to be essential. They will not act on complaints unless confirmed in writing.
4) Do you have the letter the TPS sent you confirming registration ? They do not accept complaints unless you give the reference from this letter.
5) If in doubt - register again. Make sure you get the letter confirming your registration.
I've had quite a lot of experience with junk calls, TPS, DPR and ICTHIS - and I've found their record to be little short of perfect. It if isn't working for you then something, somewhere like the above is wrong. Persevere.
AIUI This loophole is known about - and is being actively addressed.
The intention is to allow GENUINE market research calls - defined as calls where there is absolutely no posibility of the caller being led to buy anything (genuine market research companies are already very careful on this point). Anything else would be categorised as marketing calls with all that implies.
>It is only used by those companies who wish to use it - it is not compulsory to use.
You are out of date. The TPS was "optional" when it first started. It now has the force of law behind it and it is rigorously enforced by the DPR.
If you regsiter now then the companies making the calls have 28 days from the date of your regsitration to sort themselves out. If they call you after that then the excuses like "Oh, wre have not had the latest update yet" will not be accepted.
However it is up to you to complain to make it work properly. Go to the TPS site
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tpsr/html/default.as p
And read all about it. Note the "complaint" button on the left. The complaints system works. Companies who break the rules are prosecuted and fined - and the TPS will write to you telling you about the fine resulting from your complaint. BTDTGTTS.
>You are forbidden by law to make calls to people (who have publicly accessible phone numbers), calls for which you are paying.
Nice bit of sophistry - but it is rubbish.
The UK law on this is fair reflection of the relevant EU directives.
Firstly - not all calls are barred - merely calls for marketing purposes. A distinction which does not cause too many problems in practice (even if there are some issues with market research calls - which are currently being worked on)
Secondly - the people it is against the law to call are people who have registered that they do not want to receive this kind of call. They have a telephone in their house, they are willing for their number listed but they are not willing to have companies waste their time and disturb their peace with aggravating marketing calls.
In practice "rights" almost always amount to a balancing exercise between competing rights. My "right" to make music may damage my neighbours "right" to peace and quiet.
The Balance we have chosen here is that you can make marketing calls - but not to people who have chosen to opt out. This seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to me. It's worth remembering that the right to "free speech" should never equate to a right to demand that people must listen. I get one or two junk calls every YEAR - and when I do get them - the organisation which made them invariably ends up being sorry (and a lot poorer).
NB - the above is only about telephone calls. I believe there are some very signficant differences between email spam and junk calls - differences which mean that an "opt out" is workable and reasonable for one but not for the other.
When people in Europe look at America certain "themes" keep appearing. One of them being that we frequently regard the "rights" of individuals a little higher relative to the "rights" of corporate bodies. Which works best depends on what criteria you judge the results by.
From the POV of the corporation - does it really make sense for them to waste time and money on people who are quite determined that they do not wish to talk to them ?
A "dead granny" story which may be relevant :
A man kept receiving calls from a company who wanted to sell him a Conservatory (What we call a single story extension - usually large made of glass and invariably built at ground level.
He asked them really nicely to "go away" and told them he just wasn't interested. None of it made any different. They stilled phoned him every two weeks - usually during his quality time.
One day they phone and he tried a different approach. He was keen. He WANTED a consevatory. He chatted at great length with the salesman. An appointment was made for a representative to call to make a proper presentation.
At the appointed time the bloke make absolutely certain he was out. When he came come to his third-floor flat he opened his front door to find a business card from the consvatory company. On the back it said "Ha bloody ha!"
; -)
Re:First minute free is NOT ubiquitous in the US
on
GPS Meets PCS
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In the UK the number of deals and tarriffs are huge.
At one extreme you can pay a fairly high monthly rental (many tens of uk£) and get a large number of "free" (ie inclusive" minutes) - with extra minutes getting billed at a very low rate.
At the other extreme you can have a tariff with "no contract", no monthly fee, no minimum spend, calls paid for in advance - and expensive calls.
In between there are a large number of different plans.
Generally calls are charged to the nearest second - but with a minimum charge - typically 1 miute. Some networks and tariffs have a very brief "free" period - something like two or four seconds. The idea is you don't get charged if you get answered by voicemail and don't want to leave a message.
Incoming calls are always free for the person receiving the call. Expensive for the person making the call - but OFTEL are controlling this and forcing charges down - and have been for some time.
Sometimes you have to pay for retreiving voicemails, frequently this is free.
Receiving SMS is free - but sending can be free or can be charged for.
Network to Network calls can be hugely expensive - but OFTEL have just stamped on our mobile companies and are forcing them to reduce their charges.
We have number portability - which means that if you change network (or tariff) you can take your number with you. This does cause problems because you are charged according to the network which receives the call - but portability means you can't determine which network you are dialling from the number dialled.
Getting the right tariff can be tricky - but if you get it right the total cost can be very low. I currently pay £20 per phone per month - and get free voicemail, Calls I make when I am within about 5 miles of where I live are about £0.02 / minute billed by the second with a 1 minute minimum. Calls I make when I am outside this area are £0.09 / minute, billed by the second and with a free £16 included in the rental.
Oh Dear! I don't really know where to start putting the facts right here.
>Polish intelligence was using a device called the "Bombe" to automate (to some extent) cracking a 3-wheel Enigma.
Polish intelligence knew about Enigma and smuggled a copied machine to the British. Subsequently the British managed to get hold of some genuine machines. This is how they started their attempts to crack the code. The detailed wiring of the rotas was a very important factor.
Initially the British intelligences used a a variety of manual methods to break Enigma. mostly based on squared paper and paper strips. These were based on the weakness that a letter would never be encoded as itself - they also took advantage of some sloppy operating procedures by the German encryption clerks.
Latter the British built Bombes to routinely crack enigma.
Colosus was not invented to crack Enigma - but was built to crack a different system of encryption - the one used by the German High command.
Those wanting to know more should read "The Ultra Secret" - which gives a history of what went on at Bletchly park from a historical POV - with limited details about how the code was cracked - but a lot of information about what was obtained and how it was used.
-------------
My facts come from :
1) Bletchly Park is 30 miles north of here and the exhibition there is very informative.
2) My aunt was one of the WRENS who maintained and operated the Bombes at Bletchly Park during WW2. It annoyed by Grandfather until his dying day that my Aunt always refused to discuss anything at all about what she did during the war.She only told the rest of the family when "The Ultra Secret" was published.
>However, what it will do is allow law enforcement to stop, interrogate, hold and arrest a suspected terrorist on the grounds that the person has a cryptography program on their computer
Yet another flawed idea. It may work on the brain dead. But is easily avoided by everyone anyone else.
You take someone's computer, anyone's computer. They likely to have hundreds of thousands or even several million files on it - with thousands or maybe tens of thousands of executables. Somewhere in that lot is an executable which contains the "illegal" encryption and decryption routines. An exectuable with a misleading name, which also does something entirely legitimate, which may itself be compressed or encrypted.
You're going to have to scan every file to see if it is exectuable, or a compressed or encrypted executable. When you find your executable you're going to have to do some very detailed analysis to see if it offers any "forbidden" functions.
Analysis of a system for unauthourised crypto programs is going to take serious time and serious resources.
If you have a strong suspect, by the time you've unscrambled what's on their computer the result is pretty academic - it's going to be far too late to assist any ongoing investigation - the trail to the next link will have gone cold.
If you don't have a strong suspect this is going to be useless as an investigation - you can't use it for screening - ANYONE you care to check is going to take so much time and money before you can eliminate the suspect as to make the techinique worthless.
Even at its absolute best, The proposed restrictions will achieve little more that provide an extra, technical offence to charge the obviously guilty with.
The test isn't "does it serve ANY purpose" - it is "does it serve any USEFUL purpose" - and the answer is that it doesn't.
You may think that it is still worth the cost to the rest of us. I don't.
Your argument is one I have seen before. But it is fundamentally flawed.
The first thing to consider is the "trust" question. Do people trust their governments? The unavoidable answer is that here in the UK, in the USA and in many other countries, a very significant part of the population very obviously do not fully trust their governments.
Arguments about whether this attitude is well founded aren't relevant. All that counts is the existence of enough such people.
The next thing to consider is the praticalities - can it be made practically dificult for those who distrust their governments to obtain software without backdoors. Even in a "closed source" world this is going to be very dificult or even impossible - too many people already have the tools and the knowledge and it is very easy to spread the information around. In a world where "Open source" software is permitted I reckon it is simply impossible.
So we have a number of people who wish to prevent government snooping - or simply wish to reach the maximum level of security they can achieve. If those people choose to use techniques without backdoors - they can do so.
Can you "persuade" such people not to use encpryption without back doors ?
I don't think you can do it by force. The first problem is detecting them. Such People will simply encrypt their files securely and then encrypt the results again using an "approved" method.
How are you going to tell that people are using "double" encryption ?
Maybe the security services will be allowed to do audits - use their backdoors on randomly selected messages to check that people aren't hiding unapproved encryption ? Do you think that would be publically acceptable ?
What happens when security services encounter a file format they don't understand ? Can they demand that all file formats be explained to them to ensure you're not encrypting data ? Will that be universally publically acceptable ? Is it even practical ?
So if you enfore encryption with back doors all the security services will see is an apparent mass of files encrypted using the approved methods - with no practical, publically acceptable or easy method of picking out the interesting messages or recipients.
>If everyone out there is using nearly unbreakable encryption they simply don't have the resources to sift through everything they want to look at.
... and because of the above they still won't have the resources to sift it.
The only way to tell which of your 100 Million people are using unapproved crypto is to routinely open the "back door" to the privacy of all 100 million - with all the practical and political problems that follows. Even then you aren't much further forward.
What's even worse is that the REAL terrorists will be busy uploading and downloading beautiful, original, high definition photos of huge flower arrangements and landscapes - with the real (heavily encrypted) messages hidden within using stego. So while the security services are busying trying to determine which of their 100 million make it onto the next list and then the next list - they've already eliminated from further study the ones they're after. Use stego correctly and it is near to mathematically undetectable as really makes no difference.
>But 16 week lead times and minimum quantities of 5000 are fun!;-)
16 weeks I can (just about) cope with. When they routinely start looking at next year's calender - then I get worried.
What's worse is when they've promised you 32 weeks or whatever, you've waited 30 weeks and you've only got two weeks to go - and they suddenly phone you to say that they're not going to deliver for another 12 weeks.
The best comment I ever saw goes "Maxim won't deliver this year - LT won't deliver this decade"
>The risetimes of static can generally be handled just fine with good diodes
Very true. But there are plenty of crap parts out there - which certain manufacturers suggest are suitable for this kind of application when they aren't. And because many designers regard this kind of thing as a "black art" and don't seem to know when they're been offered rubbish.
>Most companies opt for an all-MOS technology these days
Indeed. However even that need not be a problem.
I agree about the bipolar stuff BTW - its just that sometimes you want/need to use the MOS stuff - and with good reason.
You can now find Manufacturers who boast of serial interface chips with 15kV ESD tolerance - and better - and using a more relaistic test model.
Maxim are one example. They do some nice application notes on the subject too.
Go to http://www.maxim-ic.com/
Look for "interface and interconnect" under "products" - then click on "product trees"
You'll see several Tx and Rx families boasting of 15kV protection. Follow the links and you will find data sheets and app notes which go into quite a lot of detail.
NB - I will never again design another single-sourced Maxim chip into one of my designs ever again. And if the alternate source is Linear Technology then it might as well be single-sourced. I am not alone in thinking like this!
You are confusing ESD (electrostatic discharge) with EMC (electromagnetic compatibility). They are very seperate issues.
is a serious problem. It IS possible to design interfaces which offer useful resistance. But it is suprisingly hard to design and build in practice and it causes problems throughout the electronics industry. To build a Port (USB, serial, whatever) which can resist electrostic discharges requires that you use most of the following :
Protective devices which can dissipate the energy. The risetime from Static discharges is very fast and overwhelms all but the best protective devices.
Drivers/receivers which are hardened against static (the major semi manufacturers who do such chips do now make some - but they tend to cost more
Careful mechanical design to further reduce the problem - arrange that the "grounds" always touch first - preferably through a few hundred thousand ohms of resistance.
Optical isolation (although many people fail to understand the limitations of this technique - the stray capacitance between the isolated section and everything else is almost always high enough to allow static damage to happen.
More importantly manufacturers need to test their designs properly using realistic test models. Much equipment - including from the big name manufacturers pays little or no attention to this issue. Presumably for cost reasons - although if the right measures are "designed in" from the start the premium is going to be pretty small. It's interesting to compare the serial interface from a top branded PC with a functionally-identical interface from some serious telecomms kit.
I'm an engineer - not a lawyer. But I do know that I'd hate to have to do the finger pointing in the "Palm v motherboards" issue. If forced to comment I'd say that both sides should share the responsibility.
( I'm one of the people quoted in the recent EEtimes article about Axis and Linux :
see http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07 -07-005-21-OS-BZ-EM )
You can have SCSI / IDE etc - you just need to add some resistors and cheap buffers.
The rules about what can be combined with what are complicated and you have to work through them.
I've managed to lay my board out so it can be I built with :
4 serial + 1 IDE
or
4 serial + 1 parallel + 1 USB
or
3 Serial + 1 IDE + 1 USB
or
3 Serial + 2 USB
I could have got some SCSI options in there too - but didn't bother because I don't need them.
It's a very flexible chip and very capable at what it was designed for - doing I/O
>Well, now, isn't that what I've been arguing all
along? That individuals should take sensible steps on their own to protect their privacy?
Those "sensible steps" are only available to individuals and effective because of the Data Protection Act.
>So other countries are going for a free market >solution to the problem of junk calls.
The "other countries" are mainly the "less developed world"... and the USA.
The technical solutions work reasonably well - but they have limitiations side effects which are undesirable - for some people so undesirable as to make them completely impractical.
To give a brief summary :
The data protection legislation passed in the 1980s offered a fairly comprehensive solution to one problem (maintaining privacy) and a partial solution to another (letting people keep their phone number off junk call lists).
Many people would prefer to have a listed phone number provided only that the information in that listing cannot be abused. They want friends to be able to find their number. But they object to (EG) corporations using the directory as a basis for a cold-calling list or linking the data in the directory with other data.
The old data protection act solves part of the problem by controlling how the data published in directories can be republished (giving some protection to listed numbers) and by forcing companies to respect requests to keep your phone number private ( which makes having an unlisted number a meaningful, effective choice for those people who prefer that route ).
More recently, additional legislation provides the rest of the solution by making it a criminal offence to cold-call domestic phone lines which have said they don't want to receive cold calls. (with similar provisions for junk faxes).
>I'm in London, loser buys the first round. Deal?
Hmmm. London is twenty two, slow, tiresome, expensive miles away. I live near Hatfield (The place which had the big Rail crash last year) and my rail service is still currently pretty fucked.
Beer in London is universally expensively and far too frequently horrible. So this might not work out in practice. Unless you want to try some proper country pubs.
It's also worth remembering that the EU does genuinely want a solution - a solution based on complete respect for the "Data Protection Principles" (that is not up for negoiation). However I think they will listen to any sensible suggestions as to how this can be done. One key criterion is that whatever method of chosen must be effective. Anything which seems to allow US companies to do whatever they choose without fear of meaningful sanction will be rejected.
But, within that criterion these, is plenty of room for maneuvre provided the US companies get it into their heads that the EU is serious on this - they are going to demand a system which actually works and can be seen to be workable.
That last bit seems to be the concept which bothers some US companies. Is it so unreasonable that Companies which break the rules should have to face a meaningful penalty?
> If junk phone calls simply don't happen in Europe as a result of stringent privacy protection, why does your slashdot info say that you work on junk call blocking systems?
Because :
1) I haven't updated it in ages. I don't do much in that area any more - the market has shrunk. I'll give you one guess why!. Anyway - I'll probably update my entry in the next few days.
2) Different rules apply for businesses - and businesses are the major UK customers for such call blocking equipment. There are also a very few individuals in the UK who buy the stuff to block malicious calls.
3) My customer (they bought me out) also exports stuff overseas to countries where different rules apply.
It's an interesting point though. I used to have two phone lines - one where I took sensible steps to prevent the number getting onto the wrong lists - and the other where I didn't because I needed "real" junk calls to test my designs and see what the seedier end of the industry was getting up to. The difference in junk call rates between the two lines was simply staggering. Now I mainly work in ISDN, PABX and remote automation So I've dumped the "dummy" line and kept the secured one.
Another interesting factor is junk mail. I have a few personal mail boxes which I am very careful with - and those mail boxes remain spam free. I also have two other "sacrificial" mail boxes - exclusively used when signing up to internet sites which insist on a working email address for registration. One of these is exclusively used for EU regulated sites. the other for the rest of world - substantially the USA. I *ALWAYS* tick the "don't send me any email" options.
One of those mail boxes gets very little spam. The little that I do get results from a company in Sweden who made a genuine mistake and (briefly) published A web page showing the email addresses subsribed to a certain mailing list.
The other one mail box is stuffed full of spam. Have a guess which one is which ?
Slashdot Mirror
>I was saying the argument of interleved memory and heat is a retarded basis for disliking RDRAM.
And as someone who build systems where reliability is a major issue - I am saying that heat is a damn good reason for disliking RDRAM.
If a component runs hot - that means it is using more power than a component which runs cool.
Fans create Noise
Fans are unreliable
Heat itself lowers reliability - a good "rule of thumb" is that every 10C rise in temperature halves the life of a component.
So Rambus = larger power supply, more cooling, more heat, more noise, less reliability.
Disclaimer - I am a bit biased - I mainly build systems which sit in racks in places like Telehouse, systems which are used for Telecomms therefore they must be seriously reliable. Heat and Fans matter more for me than they probably do for most desktop users. But the same basic principles still apply to everyone.
>My favorite was the poor, pathetic depressed robot. Some days I take after him just a wee bit too much :)
According to DNA, Marvin (the Robot) was heavily based on a real person - the script writer Andrew Marshall. "2point4 Children" (UK TV series) is probably his best known work.
You can see the rest listed at imdb.com
The market is more complex than you suggest. Many people using "retail" services are business users at home or on the move. Apart from that the general level of knowledge is growing fast - along with expectations - even in the "domestic" market.
>and therefore must sell a cheap,
Yep.
>reliable,
Yep.
>acceptable service
Nope. "Accecptable" is not enough. If margins are tight it has to be an excellently crafted, superbly-planned service. The reasoning is simple - the single, biggest marginal cost for many ISPs is providing support services.
The consumer market (at least in the UK) is fast learning the realities of what "premium rate" help lines actually mean in practice. Likewise they're also learning fast about other quality of service issues. So the little scams used by ISPs to reduce their support costs without actually providing decent services are all starting to unwind. The more succesful ISPs are learning that the only sustainable way to avoid crippling support costs is to run a service which doesn't generate the calls in the first place. The "no support" model has already been tried - and most of the customers are not coming back for more.
When a large ISP offers shite service and lies to its customers about it - it now becomes something that get discussed on "prime time" TV in front of millions of people - several times if need be.
The TV stations can, will and do hire their own experts and just love demolishing ISPS and their bullshit for the patronising crap that it actually is. No ISP can afford to stone-wall, annoy or patronise the mass-media.
This actually happened here only a couple of weeks ago when one of our biggest ISPS was found out as being very economical with the truth regarding their quality of service. They got taken apart over the course of about ten minutes on a top-ratings TV show. The following week they came back, exposed some more lies, and did it all again.
This kind of coverage will undo the benefits of huge amounts of expensive advertising.
The overall effect of this is probably going to be a raising of the "base cost" and a raising of the base service level. Simple competition based solely on price become less effective as the market starts growing up
There's nothing inherently wrong with dynamic ISP, HTTP caching and the like - provided everything has to be clear, documented and explained (and it generally is in the UK). It must also work and not create spurious problems. Spews is not going to fit in will there - because of the lack of accountability.
Spews is also going to have serious problems coping with media scrutiny. I can just imagine the interview where some "Screeching Anne Robinson Wannabe" demolishes the PR bod trying and failing to justify SPEWS - and what happens next when his bosses see the interview on prime time TV. If they're on tight margins they can't AFFORD to loose the potential custom and they can't afford that kind of coverage.
If Spews limits blocking to the extent neccesary to avoid such problems then its going to fail to meet its own objectives.
I had a major run-in with an arrogant, patronising BOFH from a certain UK ISP earlier this year. The little twat pissed me off and wasted much time when he decided he knew better than me about how I wanted a leased-line firewalled. Ultimately he was sacked while I got an apology and compensation. The Internet is growing up and attitudes to customers are being forced to change.
The techies who remain in work will be the ones who understand that customers are what ensure regular pay-cheques. There won't be much space for the patonising of customers which underlies your whole message.
There isn't going to be enough space for SPEWS etc to do anything beyond feeding the EGOs of a few techies.
>I don't think MAPS is expecting this.
I agree. For the reasons I've already given they I don't think they can go much further than that.
>Rather, they ask that ISPs react to spam complaints in a reasonable timeframe and shut down the offending sites if appropriate.
"Reasonable" is going to have to be defined in terms of what's practical for an ISP. In practice this is going to mean the website is going to be up for a day or two after the spams start arriving in mail boxes. Is that quick enough to ruin the businesses of the spammers ? I don't think it is.
A further problem is that we can't simply assume that any website mentioned in a spam actually belongs to the spammer - to do so would be creating a fool-proof and horribly effective method for DOS attacks.
>SPEWS does not meet any of your proposed criteria for a spam-block list: they are neither fair nor accountable.
Which means that I will NEVER use an ISP which uses spews - and nor will most other business users. It's tricky enough making the case for blocking when the blocking is done openly and accountably - loose that and most ISPs will not be able to justify it to their customers. (No business can dictate such things to its customers for very long, ISPs are no exception.)
Pacbell may do it now, but I doubt it will last beyond the first time that Pacbell feels a backlash when Spews (inevitably) screws something up. The mere fact spews feels they have to self-censor to avoid such problems means they're irrelevant.
For blocking lists to actually make a real difference (which means preventing spammers) they have to
1) achieve widespread acceptance. A few ISPS isn't enough - even if one of them is a major one.
2) have very hard, fast policies, with no fear of anyone.
I reckon those two are mutually exclusive. From your message it appears that even Spews can't actually manage even one of those two. It doesn't have anything like enough support to carry real clout and it doesn't feel free to list every spam site.
.
An essential, fundamental requirement for any blocking/listing system is that it fair, reasonable and accountable and perceived as such by customers, lawyers, ISPs - everyone.
Maps is somewhere close to that meeting that test - IE respected by a significant number of the relevant, informed people. while also being reviled by significant number of the same group.
Most of the time MAPS "gets away with it". But MAPS has problems, makes mistakes, their techniques are not perfect - and they admit it too! Also they have made some decisions which must objectively be described as being controversial (if it creates controversey, especially amongst MAPS supporters, - then, by definition, it is controversial).
Spammers are cunning. They hide themselves, they are devious, they will deliberately calculate and seek-out services, connections and locations to maximise the practical problems, dificulties, confusion and embarrasment for MAPS et al. The spammers also enjoy the continuing possession of the initiative whereas the ISPs and Webhosts are limited to the realms of the practical and the possible when fighting back.
Ultimately I don't think it is possible for web hosting companies to offer economically viable "user" services which are also completely incapable of being exploited by spammers.
The big problem MAPs et al must face is that the futility of demanding anything beyond the possible from ISPs, Web hosting companies and the like, and such attempts to demand the impossible will severely damage the credibility and usage of MAPS or any similar service.
So anything harder-line than Maps will fail in the market place. The collateral damage will be too great, the perceived and actual damage to the integrity of the internet will be too severe - whilst the justification for when customers start asking awkward questions will be too thin. ISPs which don't use the service will be seen by customers as having a meaningful advantage - and that will mean lost customers for the ISPs that do filter.
So while it is theoretically possible for "hard line" "underground services" to replace the likes of MAPs, they will never amount to more than a bit of swaggering by a few hard-line techies who want to apear macho in the War Against Spam.
There is another benefit too.
When governments, cities, public organisations start using GNU software, then other large companies will have to ensure they can deal with them - that they can exchange emails, documents, spreadsheets etc.
This will go a long way to unpicking the control over file formats that Microsoft currently has.
The information is on the UK TPS website :
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tpsr/html/Links.asp
You can try OFTEL as well - although in my experience they are as much use as a chocolate teapot.
If you don't get anything from TPS then you need to complain to the DTI - probably best done via you MP. Good luck.
My experiences are totally different I know from repeated personal experience that TPS works and they have never once to reply to a letter from me. They are certainly not a "waste of time, space and effort".
Are you sure that you're not complaining about "market research" calls or calls from a companies you are dealing with. Both are (currently) beyond the remit of the TPS ?
If you're quite certain about all the above then complain to the DPR - who oversea how the DMA administer the TPS. You will need to complain in writing and you should enclose copies of all letters sent to the DMA which have not received a satisfactory reply.
The DPR in the UK is *REALLY* strict - which is why they, rather than OFTEL were given oversight of the TPS scheme when it became statutory.
1) Are you sure you registered the correct number ? Including dialling code and code changes ?
If you have a bypass number or a number which diverts to your number - the rules say you have to register them seperately.
2) Is your phone registered as a business line or a private line ? The TPS cannot and will not prevent sales calls to business lines
3) Did you complain to the TPS in WRITING ? This step also seems to be essential. They will not act on complaints unless confirmed in writing.
4) Do you have the letter the TPS sent you confirming registration ? They do not accept complaints unless you give the reference from this letter.
5) If in doubt - register again. Make sure you get the letter confirming your registration.
I've had quite a lot of experience with junk calls, TPS, DPR and ICTHIS - and I've found their record to be little short of perfect. It if isn't working for you then something, somewhere like the above is wrong. Persevere.
AIUI This loophole is known about - and is being actively addressed.
The intention is to allow GENUINE market research calls - defined as calls where there is absolutely no posibility of the caller being led to buy anything (genuine market research companies are already very careful on this point). Anything else would be categorised as marketing calls with all that implies.
>It is only used by those companies who wish to use it - it is not compulsory to use.
s p
You are out of date. The TPS was "optional" when it first started. It now has the force of law behind it and it is rigorously enforced by the DPR.
If you regsiter now then the companies making the calls have 28 days from the date of your regsitration to sort themselves out. If they call you after that then the excuses like "Oh, wre have not had the latest update yet" will not be accepted.
However it is up to you to complain to make it work properly. Go to the TPS site
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tpsr/html/default.a
And read all about it. Note the "complaint" button on the left. The complaints system works. Companies who break the rules are prosecuted and fined - and the TPS will write to you telling you about the fine resulting from your complaint. BTDTGTTS.
>You are forbidden by law to make calls to people (who have publicly accessible phone numbers), calls for which you are paying.
Nice bit of sophistry - but it is rubbish.
The UK law on this is fair reflection of the relevant EU directives.
Firstly - not all calls are barred - merely calls for marketing purposes. A distinction which does not cause too many problems in practice (even if there are some issues with market research calls - which are currently being worked on)
Secondly - the people it is against the law to call are people who have registered that they do not want to receive this kind of call. They have a telephone in their house, they are willing for their number listed but they are not willing to have companies waste their time and disturb their peace with aggravating marketing calls.
In practice "rights" almost always amount to a balancing exercise between competing rights. My "right" to make music may damage my neighbours "right" to peace and quiet.
The Balance we have chosen here is that you can make marketing calls - but not to people who have chosen to opt out. This seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to me. It's worth remembering that the right to "free speech" should never equate to a right to demand that people must listen. I get one or two junk calls every YEAR - and when I do get them - the organisation which made them invariably ends up being sorry (and a lot poorer).
NB - the above is only about telephone calls. I believe there are some very signficant differences between email spam and junk calls - differences which mean that an "opt out" is workable and reasonable for one but not for the other.
When people in Europe look at America certain "themes" keep appearing. One of them being that we frequently regard the "rights" of individuals a little higher relative to the "rights" of corporate bodies. Which works best depends on what criteria you judge the results by.
From the POV of the corporation - does it really make sense for them to waste time and money on people who are quite determined that they do not wish to talk to them ?
A "dead granny" story which may be relevant :
A man kept receiving calls from a company who wanted to sell him a Conservatory (What we call a single story extension - usually large made of glass and invariably built at ground level.
He asked them really nicely to "go away" and told them he just wasn't interested. None of it made any different. They stilled phoned him every two weeks - usually during his quality time.
One day they phone and he tried a different approach. He was keen. He WANTED a consevatory. He chatted at great length with the salesman. An appointment was made for a representative to call to make a proper presentation.
At the appointed time the bloke make absolutely certain he was out. When he came come to his third-floor flat he opened his front door to find a business card from the consvatory company. On the back it said "Ha bloody ha!"
; -)
In the UK the number of deals and tarriffs are huge.
At one extreme you can pay a fairly high monthly rental (many tens of uk£) and get a large number of "free" (ie inclusive" minutes) - with extra minutes getting billed at a very low rate.
At the other extreme you can have a tariff with "no contract", no monthly fee, no minimum spend, calls paid for in advance - and expensive calls.
In between there are a large number of different plans.
Generally calls are charged to the nearest second - but with a minimum charge - typically 1 miute. Some networks and tariffs have a very brief "free" period - something like two or four seconds. The idea is you don't get charged if you get answered by voicemail and don't want to leave a message.
Incoming calls are always free for the person receiving the call. Expensive for the person making the call - but OFTEL are controlling this and forcing charges down - and have been for some time.
Sometimes you have to pay for retreiving voicemails, frequently this is free.
Receiving SMS is free - but sending can be free or can be charged for.
Network to Network calls can be hugely expensive - but OFTEL have just stamped on our mobile companies and are forcing them to reduce their charges.
We have number portability - which means that if you change network (or tariff) you can take your number with you. This does cause problems because you are charged according to the network which receives the call - but portability means you can't determine which network you are dialling from the number dialled.
Getting the right tariff can be tricky - but if you get it right the total cost can be very low. I currently pay £20 per phone per month - and get free voicemail, Calls I make when I am within about 5 miles of where I live are about £0.02 / minute billed by the second with a 1 minute minimum. Calls I make when I am outside this area are £0.09 / minute, billed by the second and with a free £16 included in the rental.
Oh Dear! I don't really know where to start putting the facts right here.
>Polish intelligence was using a device called the "Bombe" to automate (to some extent) cracking a 3-wheel Enigma.
Polish intelligence knew about Enigma and smuggled a copied machine to the British. Subsequently the British managed to get hold of some genuine machines. This is how they started their attempts to crack the code. The detailed wiring of the rotas was a very important factor.
Initially the British intelligences used a a variety of manual methods to break Enigma. mostly based on squared paper and paper strips. These were based on the weakness that a letter would never be encoded as itself - they also took advantage of some sloppy operating procedures by the German encryption clerks.
Latter the British built Bombes to routinely crack enigma.
Colosus was not invented to crack Enigma - but was built to crack a different system of encryption - the one used by the German High command.
Those wanting to know more should read "The Ultra Secret" - which gives a history of what went on at Bletchly park from a historical POV - with limited details about how the code was cracked - but a lot of information about what was obtained and how it was used.
-------------
My facts come from :
1) Bletchly Park is 30 miles north of here and the exhibition there is very informative.
2) My aunt was one of the WRENS who maintained and operated the Bombes at Bletchly Park during WW2. It annoyed by Grandfather until his dying day that my Aunt always refused to discuss anything at all about what she did during the war.She only told the rest of the family when "The Ultra Secret" was published.
>However, what it will do is allow law enforcement to stop, interrogate, hold and arrest a suspected terrorist on the grounds that the person has a cryptography program on their computer
Yet another flawed idea. It may work on the brain dead. But is easily avoided by everyone anyone else.
You take someone's computer, anyone's computer. They likely to have hundreds of thousands or even several million files on it - with thousands or maybe tens of thousands of executables. Somewhere in that lot is an executable which contains the "illegal" encryption and decryption routines. An exectuable with a misleading name, which also does something entirely legitimate, which may itself be compressed or encrypted.
You're going to have to scan every file to see if it is exectuable, or a compressed or encrypted executable. When you find your executable you're going to have to do some very detailed analysis to see if it offers any "forbidden" functions.
Analysis of a system for unauthourised crypto programs is going to take serious time and serious resources.
If you have a strong suspect, by the time you've unscrambled what's on their computer the result is pretty academic - it's going to be far too late to assist any ongoing investigation - the trail to the next link will have gone cold.
If you don't have a strong suspect this is going to be useless as an investigation - you can't use it for screening - ANYONE you care to check is going to take so much time and money before you can eliminate the suspect as to make the techinique worthless.
Even at its absolute best, The proposed restrictions will achieve little more that provide an extra, technical offence to charge the obviously guilty with.
The test isn't "does it serve ANY purpose" - it is "does it serve any USEFUL purpose" - and the answer is that it doesn't.
You may think that it is still worth the cost to the rest of us. I don't.
Your argument is one I have seen before. But it is fundamentally flawed.
The first thing to consider is the "trust" question. Do people trust their governments? The unavoidable answer is that here in the UK, in the USA and in many other countries, a very significant part of the population very obviously do not fully trust their governments.
Arguments about whether this attitude is well founded aren't relevant. All that counts is the existence of enough such people.
The next thing to consider is the praticalities - can it be made practically dificult for those who distrust their governments to obtain software without backdoors. Even in a "closed source" world this is going to be very dificult or even impossible - too many people already have the tools and the knowledge and it is very easy to spread the information around. In a world where "Open source" software is permitted I reckon it is simply impossible.
So we have a number of people who wish to prevent government snooping - or simply wish to reach the maximum level of security they can achieve. If those people choose to use techniques without backdoors - they can do so.
Can you "persuade" such people not to use encpryption without back doors ?
I don't think you can do it by force. The first problem is detecting them. Such People will simply encrypt their files securely and then encrypt the results again using an "approved" method.
How are you going to tell that people are using "double" encryption ?
Maybe the security services will be allowed to do audits - use their backdoors on randomly selected messages to check that people aren't hiding unapproved encryption ? Do you think that would be publically acceptable ?
What happens when security services encounter a file format they don't understand ? Can they demand that all file formats be explained to them to ensure you're not encrypting data ? Will that be universally publically acceptable ? Is it even practical ?
So if you enfore encryption with back doors all the security services will see is an apparent mass of files encrypted using the approved methods - with no practical, publically acceptable or easy method of picking out the interesting messages or recipients.
>If everyone out there is using nearly unbreakable encryption they simply don't have the resources to sift through everything they want to look at.
... and because of the above they still won't have the resources to sift it.
The only way to tell which of your 100 Million people are using unapproved crypto is to routinely open the "back door" to the privacy of all 100 million - with all the practical and political problems that follows. Even then you aren't much further forward.
What's even worse is that the REAL terrorists will be busy uploading and downloading beautiful, original, high definition photos of huge flower arrangements and landscapes - with the real (heavily encrypted) messages hidden within using stego. So while the security services are busying trying to determine which of their 100 million make it onto the next list and then the next list - they've already eliminated from further study the ones they're after. Use stego correctly and it is near to mathematically undetectable as really makes no difference.
>But 16 week lead times and minimum quantities of 5000 are fun! ;-)
16 weeks I can (just about) cope with. When they routinely start looking at next year's calender - then I get worried.
What's worse is when they've promised you 32 weeks or whatever, you've waited 30 weeks and you've only got two weeks to go - and they suddenly phone you to say that they're not going to deliver for another 12 weeks.
The best comment I ever saw goes "Maxim won't deliver this year - LT won't deliver this decade"
>The risetimes of static can generally be handled just fine with good diodes
Very true. But there are plenty of crap parts out there - which certain manufacturers suggest are suitable for this kind of application when they aren't. And because many designers regard this kind of thing as a "black art" and don't seem to know when they're been offered rubbish.
>Most companies opt for an all-MOS technology these days
Indeed. However even that need not be a problem.
I agree about the bipolar stuff BTW - its just that sometimes you want/need to use the MOS stuff - and with good reason.
You can now find Manufacturers who boast of serial interface chips with 15kV ESD tolerance - and better - and using a more relaistic test model.
Maxim are one example. They do some nice application notes on the subject too.
Go to http://www.maxim-ic.com/
Look for "interface and interconnect" under "products" - then click on "product trees"
You'll see several Tx and Rx families boasting of 15kV protection. Follow the links and you will find data sheets and app notes which go into quite a lot of detail.
NB - I will never again design another single-sourced Maxim chip into one of my designs ever again. And if the alternate source is Linear Technology then it might as well be single-sourced. I am not alone in thinking like this!
It's only a "transient" state during the mating process. Once fully mated you want the impedance to be as low as normal.
But ideally you want the "first touch" to be a high impedance. That dramtically slows down the rise time - which is likely to prevent damage.
Most likely static "sources" can be effectively discharged to safe levels by a leakage impedance of megohm or so - and within a few ms.
You are confusing ESD (electrostatic discharge) with EMC (electromagnetic compatibility). They are very seperate issues.
is a serious problem. It IS possible to design interfaces which offer useful resistance. But it is suprisingly hard to design and build in practice and it causes problems throughout the electronics industry. To build a Port (USB, serial, whatever) which can resist electrostic discharges requires that you use most of the following :
Protective devices which can dissipate the energy. The risetime from Static discharges is very fast and overwhelms all but the best protective devices.
Drivers/receivers which are hardened against static (the major semi manufacturers who do such chips do now make some - but they tend to cost more
Careful mechanical design to further reduce the problem - arrange that the "grounds" always touch first - preferably through a few hundred thousand ohms of resistance.
Optical isolation (although many people fail to understand the limitations of this technique - the stray capacitance between the isolated section and everything else is almost always high enough to allow static damage to happen.
More importantly manufacturers need to test their designs properly using realistic test models. Much equipment - including from the big name manufacturers pays little or no attention to this issue. Presumably for cost reasons - although if the right measures are "designed in" from the start the premium is going to be pretty small. It's interesting to compare the serial interface from a top branded PC with a functionally-identical interface from some serious telecomms kit.
I'm an engineer - not a lawyer. But I do know that I'd hate to have to do the finger pointing in the "Palm v motherboards" issue. If forced to comment I'd say that both sides should share the responsibility.
I've just finished a design using the LX100.
7 -07-005-21-OS-BZ-EM )
( I'm one of the people quoted in the recent EEtimes article about Axis and Linux :
see http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-0
You can have SCSI / IDE etc - you just need to add some resistors and cheap buffers.
The rules about what can be combined with what are complicated and you have to work through them.
I've managed to lay my board out so it can be I built with :
4 serial + 1 IDE
or
4 serial + 1 parallel + 1 USB
or
3 Serial + 1 IDE + 1 USB
or
3 Serial + 2 USB
I could have got some SCSI options in there too - but didn't bother because I don't need them.
It's a very flexible chip and very capable at what it was designed for - doing I/O
>Well, now, isn't that what I've been arguing all
along? That individuals should take sensible steps on their own to protect their privacy?
Those "sensible steps" are only available to individuals and effective because of the Data Protection Act.
>So other countries are going for a free market >solution to the problem of junk calls.
The "other countries" are mainly the "less developed world"... and the USA.
The technical solutions work reasonably well - but they have limitiations side effects which are undesirable - for some people so undesirable as to make them completely impractical.
To give a brief summary :
The data protection legislation passed in the 1980s offered a fairly comprehensive solution to one problem (maintaining privacy) and a partial solution to another (letting people keep their phone number off junk call lists).
Many people would prefer to have a listed phone number provided only that the information in that listing cannot be abused. They want friends to be able to find their number. But they object to (EG) corporations using the directory as a basis for a cold-calling list or linking the data in the directory with other data.
The old data protection act solves part of the problem by controlling how the data published in directories can be republished (giving some protection to listed numbers) and by forcing companies to respect requests to keep your phone number private ( which makes having an unlisted number a meaningful, effective choice for those people who prefer that route ).
More recently, additional legislation provides the rest of the solution by making it a criminal offence to cold-call domestic phone lines which have said they don't want to receive cold calls. (with similar provisions for junk faxes).
>I'm in London, loser buys the first round. Deal?
Hmmm. London is twenty two, slow, tiresome, expensive miles away. I live near Hatfield (The place which had the big Rail crash last year) and my rail service is still currently pretty fucked.
Beer in London is universally expensively and far too frequently horrible. So this might not work out in practice. Unless you want to try some proper country pubs.
It's also worth remembering that the EU does genuinely want a solution - a solution based on complete respect for the "Data Protection Principles" (that is not up for negoiation). However I think they will listen to any sensible suggestions as to how this can be done. One key criterion is that whatever method of chosen must be effective. Anything which seems to allow US companies to do whatever they choose without fear of meaningful sanction will be rejected.
But, within that criterion these, is plenty of room for maneuvre provided the US companies get it into their heads that the EU is serious on this - they are going to demand a system which actually works and can be seen to be workable.
That last bit seems to be the concept which bothers some US companies. Is it so unreasonable that Companies which break the rules should have to face a meaningful penalty?
> If junk phone calls simply don't happen in Europe as a result of stringent privacy protection, why does your slashdot info say that you work on junk call blocking systems?
Because :
1) I haven't updated it in ages. I don't do much in that area any more - the market has shrunk. I'll give you one guess why!. Anyway - I'll probably update my entry in the next few days.
2) Different rules apply for businesses - and businesses are the major UK customers for such call blocking equipment. There are also a very few individuals in the UK who buy the stuff to block malicious calls.
3) My customer (they bought me out) also exports stuff overseas to countries where different rules apply.
It's an interesting point though. I used to have two phone lines - one where I took sensible steps to prevent the number getting onto the wrong lists - and the other where I didn't because I needed "real" junk calls to test my designs and see what the seedier end of the industry was getting up to. The difference in junk call rates between the two lines was simply staggering. Now I mainly work in ISDN, PABX and remote automation So I've dumped the "dummy" line and kept the secured one.
Another interesting factor is junk mail. I have a few personal mail boxes which I am very careful with - and those mail boxes remain spam free. I also have two other "sacrificial" mail boxes - exclusively used when signing up to internet sites which insist on a working email address for registration. One of these is exclusively used for EU regulated sites. the other for the rest of world - substantially the USA. I *ALWAYS* tick the "don't send me any email" options.
One of those mail boxes gets very little spam. The little that I do get results from a company in Sweden who made a genuine mistake and (briefly) published A web page showing the email addresses subsribed to a certain mailing list.
The other one mail box is stuffed full of spam. Have a guess which one is which ?