I don't believe them, simple as that. I have received spam from US companies since CAN-SPAM saying "you are receiving this mail because you have opted in... to opt-out click here...". I certainly haven't, after all I'm in the UK, so why would I?!
IMO all they have done since CAN-SPAM is carry on with their existing spam lists and convert any new entries via the loosest opt-in rules they can define under the act.
In which case, of course, why should anyone have to follow their opt-out procedures? Just telling them a list of domains and saying 'get rid of anyone on those lists' doesn't seem unreasonable, if they don't provide a block removal method. He might have dozens of email addresses to type in otherwise, and as he points out, that might well confirm them as 'live' and cause them to get more spam.
Mind you, I'm pretty sure he's a gold digger too, but it's spammers gold he's digging, so he can carry on with my best wishes.
What makes you say he opted in? I've read the whole thing, and the only bit where he mentions filling in forms in in response to spam, with unique information, so that he can prove 'x is working with y'.
He says that when you get spam (completely unsolicited), click on it and fill in unique (thus fake) details. Then when you are contacted you can link the company to the spam.
Next: why should he comply with their opt-out procedure. Had you read the article carefully, you would see that he talking about spam that he certainly did not opt in to, merely responded to.
I have no idea why some idiot's modded you flamebait, but yes, all of SWT's and Southern's trains have guards. They open and close the doors, make sure everyone is playing nicely, and lend me pens when I forget mine.
Telesales people are annoying dozens of people for every one that is pleased with the call. They know it. They are accepting money for pissing people off. I don't care if the person on the other end needs the money. A hitman would give exactly the same reason!
Fuck 'em. I don't care if they need the money, they are being paid to waste my time, and I will abuse them, waste their time, annoy them, in whatever way I can. And that includes your mother.
I commute 2 hours into London a lot of the time, and I always sit in the QZ, because I don't want to listen to the crappy conversations. Most of them are only phoning people because they are bored having failed to bring anything to do/read.
Please, always, always, always, ask people to stop when they talk on their phones. I have asked loads of people, and about 90% have apologised immediately. The best bit is when someone argues with you, and the other commuters back you up;-)
In the worst case, the guard will tell them to stop if you ask him/her to.
...recognise that, and don't give them a big profit!
If the movie houses give us a decent mechanism (DVDs with lovely artwork, delived promptly to the door), which we can then loan to our friends without DRM crap, we'll pay the fifteen quid/twenty-five dollars they want. If they want to take advantage of cheap distribution costs and expect us not to loan them around (DRM), then they'd better expect much less money!
As the guy in the article about music downloads was saying: when the price goes below a certain amount and the store works well, it's easier to dl legally than to steal.
If Debian and others are putting their ISOs out on BT and I and others are relying on them, then it's hardly 'token'.
BT is becoming the distribution method of choice for plenty of legitimate stuff. Sure there's vastly more illegal stuff, but the legal stuff is definitely not 'token'.
...could one of you chaps out there with more time than me please brute-force the password to these IRC servers and update these bot machines with a file which throws up a popup saying "You have been hacked you idiot, get someone to help you secure this box (or I will steal your credit card details").
You do know that oracle gives you the choice between b-tree and hashed indexes don't you? You need to be a database designer to take advantage of any database engine properly, no matter which one it is.
Apart from that, you're bang on about the rest of it, especially the rest of it. The only difference between net-enabled businesses and others is communication. If the company can't explain how they leverage that, they're a no-hoper.
I think we have a difference in terminology only, here. In the UK, a company is afforded certain legal rights and privileges (limited liability, reduced tax) as it is intended to foster co-operative productivity and thus eventually employment. Perhaps that maps better to corporation?
Taking your second example to the extreme, would it be an issue if the dealer was an individual, offering lower prices if the customer doesn't buy from another individual? I don't know.
TiVo could roll up a Linux distro with all free software, managed images, and (and this is the clever bit) either dial up backups of the contents of/home or a simple 'backup to CD' option for root.
How cool would that be? They have the technology...
For comparison: there are no objective grounds for making monopolies illegal.
What I think you are not considering is that in, as far as I am aware, every country the notion of forming a company is a privilege. It is contingent on behaving in a way that is not detrimental to the consumer at large.
Otherwise, why would we even have audits?! What is objectively reasonable about forcing people to declare their accounts? Why not just make them declare their profits as that is the basis of tax (and what happens to ordinary mortals)?
I should point out I have the perspective of one who runs his own company, no matter how small. YMMV.
Mo, that's the point. This chap didn't have to sue the Washington Post in Washington, he sued the part of the company that is incorporated in Ontario, for the actions of the part in Washington.
After I've thought about it for a while, I think his actions were quite correct.
One could argue that the data was visible in Canada only because someone requested that a copy of it was made and sent there and the Washington Post (web server) did so. The judge may be taking a fairly extreme view of 'publishing'.
So what would have happened if the Washington Post wasn't also incorporated in Canada? Well, that's the deal: if you want the privileges of incorporation then you must take the hit of liability. Effectively the rule says that any arm of a corporation must take responsibility for all of its arms actions that can have a local effect.
Thank you, yes, that was my point! All the people going 'if the firewall's not there it serves you right' have just failed to secure their environment, for exactly the reasons you mention.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe them, simple as that. I have received spam from US companies since CAN-SPAM saying "you are receiving this mail because you have opted in... to opt-out click here...". I certainly haven't, after all I'm in the UK, so why would I?!
IMO all they have done since CAN-SPAM is carry on with their existing spam lists and convert any new entries via the loosest opt-in rules they can define under the act.
In which case, of course, why should anyone have to follow their opt-out procedures? Just telling them a list of domains and saying 'get rid of anyone on those lists' doesn't seem unreasonable, if they don't provide a block removal method. He might have dozens of email addresses to type in otherwise, and as he points out, that might well confirm them as 'live' and cause them to get more spam.
Mind you, I'm pretty sure he's a gold digger too, but it's spammers gold he's digging, so he can carry on with my best wishes.
Justin.
What makes you say he opted in? I've read the whole thing, and the only bit where he mentions filling in forms in in response to spam, with unique information, so that he can prove 'x is working with y'.
J.
Next: why should he comply with their opt-out procedure. Had you read the article carefully, you would see that he talking about spam that he certainly did not opt in to, merely responded to.
I hope and expect he will win.
Justin.
I have no idea why some idiot's modded you flamebait, but yes, all of SWT's and Southern's trains have guards. They open and close the doors, make sure everyone is playing nicely, and lend me pens when I forget mine.
J.
Telesales people are annoying dozens of people for every one that is pleased with the call. They know it. They are accepting money for pissing people off. I don't care if the person on the other end needs the money. A hitman would give exactly the same reason!
Fuck 'em. I don't care if they need the money, they are being paid to waste my time, and I will abuse them, waste their time, annoy them, in whatever way I can. And that includes your mother.
Justin.
I commute 2 hours into London a lot of the time, and I always sit in the QZ, because I don't want to listen to the crappy conversations. Most of them are only phoning people because they are bored having failed to bring anything to do/read.
;-)
;-)
Please, always, always, always, ask people to stop when they talk on their phones. I have asked loads of people, and about 90% have apologised immediately. The best bit is when someone argues with you, and the other commuters back you up
In the worst case, the guard will tell them to stop if you ask him/her to.
Justin.
Silence Nazi
For fuck's sake, it's the word 'token' I am pointing out is crap, not the word minority! See other replies to my grandparent post.
J.
...recognise that, and don't give them a big profit!
If the movie houses give us a decent mechanism (DVDs with lovely artwork, delived promptly to the door), which we can then loan to our friends without DRM crap, we'll pay the fifteen quid/twenty-five dollars they want. If they want to take advantage of cheap distribution costs and expect us not to loan them around (DRM), then they'd better expect much less money!
As the guy in the article about music downloads was saying: when the price goes below a certain amount and the store works well, it's easier to dl legally than to steal.
Justin.
If Debian and others are putting their ISOs out on BT and I and others are relying on them, then it's hardly 'token'.
BT is becoming the distribution method of choice for plenty of legitimate stuff. Sure there's vastly more illegal stuff, but the legal stuff is definitely not 'token'.
Justin.
J.
I recommend that the blogosphere starts implementing Bayesian comment filtering (like the slashdot lameness filter, but useful).
J.
And even if we do block them, it just means that the paper has to host the ads too.
Personally I just block anything that moves, and all flash on the grounds it is going to move.
J.
Yeah, but I've seen The Sopranos and I for one welcome our new crimi^H^H^H^H^HMass Turnpike overlords.
Jus^H^H^HDavid.
Ah, that's exactly what we mean by a company - an incorporated legal entity with limited liability (just like bankrupcy protection for individuals).
J.
You do know that oracle gives you the choice between b-tree and hashed indexes don't you? You need to be a database designer to take advantage of any database engine properly, no matter which one it is.
Apart from that, you're bang on about the rest of it, especially the rest of it. The only difference between net-enabled businesses and others is communication. If the company can't explain how they leverage that, they're a no-hoper.
Justin.
I think we have a difference in terminology only, here. In the UK, a company is afforded certain legal rights and privileges (limited liability, reduced tax) as it is intended to foster co-operative productivity and thus eventually employment. Perhaps that maps better to corporation?
Taking your second example to the extreme, would it be an issue if the dealer was an individual, offering lower prices if the customer doesn't buy from another individual? I don't know.
J.
Made here on /. but I can't be arsed to find it...
/home or a simple 'backup to CD' option for root.
TiVo could roll up a Linux distro with all free software, managed images, and (and this is the clever bit) either dial up backups of the contents of
How cool would that be? They have the technology...
J.
What I think you are not considering is that in, as far as I am aware, every country the notion of forming a company is a privilege. It is contingent on behaving in a way that is not detrimental to the consumer at large.
Otherwise, why would we even have audits?! What is objectively reasonable about forcing people to declare their accounts? Why not just make them declare their profits as that is the basis of tax (and what happens to ordinary mortals)?
I should point out I have the perspective of one who runs his own company, no matter how small. YMMV.
Justin.
Then they better not go to that country. No change, nothing to see here, move along.
J.
I can't believe that the US government is so cheap to buy, to be honest. Is that all?
J.
After I've thought about it for a while, I think his actions were quite correct.
Justin.
One could argue that the data was visible in Canada only because someone requested that a copy of it was made and sent there and the Washington Post (web server) did so. The judge may be taking a fairly extreme view of 'publishing'.
So what would have happened if the Washington Post wasn't also incorporated in Canada? Well, that's the deal: if you want the privileges of incorporation then you must take the hit of liability. Effectively the rule says that any arm of a corporation must take responsibility for all of its arms actions that can have a local effect.
Yeah, on the whole I think you are right.
Justin.
Mod you damned right! IMO this was the point where the DoJ dropped the ball. How the hell can that be acceptable?!
J.
They gave their customers lower prices if they guaranteed not to buy their rival's chips. To my mind, that is unfair.
Justin.
Thank you, yes, that was my point! All the people going 'if the firewall's not there it serves you right' have just failed to secure their environment, for exactly the reasons you mention.