The government has already realized that people are very upset about spam and tried (albeit worthlessly) to deal with the problem.
More precisely, Congresscritters have tried to deal with the problem as it exists from their perspective (i.e. "How do I address the voters' anger about spam without losing my bri^H^H^Hcampaign contributions from the DMA?").
And if you knew shit, you would know that prior art has to be ONE YEAR prior to count.
It's not that simple. Prior art counts if it's, well, prior -- but if the date difference is less than one year, the applicant can submit evidence that he actually invented the subject matter of the application before the date of the prior art.
Prior art more than one year earlier than the filing date of the application is stronger because this option does not exist -- if something was published (even by you) more than a year before you apply for a patent, you're out of luck even if you show that you did invent it earlier.
I have clearly explained the difference. There is a basic difference between someone who has been dragged kicking and screaming into following the basic principles of Anglo-American law (the RIAA) and someone who is willing to work within that system (the anti-spammers). It's like the difference between a kid who cleans his room with Mom pulling him by the ear every step of the way and a kid who cleans his room without being asked -- the actions are identical, but only the latter deserves the slightest bit of respect.
Buy a paperback for $8 and you can be easily entertained for 10-20 hours depending on how fast you read.
Kombat's calculations are based on the assumption that a CD purchaser will listen to it 20-50 times. Obviously, to draw a valid comparison to books you must use the assumption that a book purchaser will re-read it 20-50 times. That gives a total entertainment time (and corresponding value) at least an order of magnitude higher than your estimate.
Someone tell me how this is different than what the RIAA has been trying to do with the ISPs getting John Doe warrants to find out who's behind the P2P violations?
Because the RIAA fights tooth and nail against being held to antiquated legal concepts like having to prove that somebody is a violator before having his anonymity breached, as opposed to the illegal spam investigators who are willing to work within the rule of law set forth by the Constitution.
Unlike the music industry's widely publicized lawsuit campaign, this anti-piracy measure does not cause any harm or inconvenience to ordinary patrons.
I predict that the policy will last until the first story about it being used to catch people who sneak in outside food. That will cross the line, in the general public's perception, between defending their legitimate business interests and protecting unreasonable greed.
sex in a public place (actual offence in the UK, if the public place is viewable by the general public without effort)
Er, the whole point is that that back seat of a darkened theater is not "viewable by the general public without effort". You have to use special technology (night vision goggles) to view it.
I challenge you to find me any other form of entertainment that is so cheap.... Name me one other friggin thing that only costs 50 cents an hour to entertain you. I DARE YOU.
A new paperback costs $6-$7. A used one can often be had for $1-$2.
Who moderates this sort of obvious nonsense as "Insightful"??
Re:The DMA hates spammers (true)
on
NYT on Spam Cops
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While we all hate commercial e-mail in general, the DMA is made up of companies who want to play by the rules. True, they want to have a hand in writing the rules as well, but the rules are pretty good ones.
Not unless and until they accept that the rules must be based on opt-in, not opt-out. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the only way there is any chance of getting them to accept this is to make it clear that an unsolicited opt-out advertisement from a "legitimate" business will be considered equivalent to the sleaziest "p3n!s pill" spewing.
How is banning SPAM any different than banning VoIP
Spam is theft of services. VoIP is not theft of services. Duh.
I'd rather have a Free internet
Freedom requires a justice system for punishing those who are found (after due process) to have violated the freedoms of others (e.g. by using their property without permission).
But when the Chinese government "cracked down" on Google, that was bad.
So when it's for our convenience, it's OK?
This is the most inane statement I've read on/. for months, and that's saying something.
Of course it's bad when the government "cracks down" on peaceful people going about their legitimate business and good when the government "cracks down" on thieves and con artists. The latter is one of the reason we put up with having a government in the first place; the former is evil power-mongering.
If nobody has gotten the government's attention with the obvious fact that the filter-cracking junk appended to spam is a perfect terrorist comm channel (you can't do traffic analysis on a signal that is going to practically everybody), what would it take to get their attention? Another 9-11 in which such a communication is one of the dots that were not connected?
Yeah, but the purpose of punishing people isn't to get payback, but secure liberties. Why have some massive central federal authority to do that when we can do it ourselves?
If the government is willing to get out of the way for real (i.e. make spammers "outlaws" in the old-fashioned sense of the term, meaning "one outside the protection of the law", so that their spamboxen could be cracked and disabled without legal recourse), fine. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
The money is there, and I hate to break it to you but a few MILLION US Dollars is a LOT of money in some parts of the world.
First, a typical successful spammer doesn't make that much money (more likely the high four to low five digit range). Second, it's irrelevant how much a US dollar is worth is Elbonia (or that US jurisdiction does not extend to Elbonia) unless the spammer is willing to spend the rest of his wretched life living in Elbonia.
I think people need to stop waiting for the government to solve all their problems for them.
Precisely; the government should focus on those problems that fall within the proper scope of government -- such as punishing people who violate my private property rights. It's not a perfect solution (the government won't return Al Ghirab to its pre-expose conditions and send spammers there), but it will do.
If you don't like spam, don't give out your email address to anyone but those you trust.
This is not a practical solution for anyone who needs to maintain a public contact.
Would you go around telling everyone in the world your real, physical address?
This analogy shows the silliness of your suggestion. The street addresses of most people are readily available, because for most people it is more a benefit than a nuisance to be accessible.
he reason why cracking down on drugs is so ineffective is the huge demand. People want drugs, and are willing to go to great lenghts to get them. Not the same case with spam
The basic difference is that the alternative to continuing to spam (legitimate advertising or abandonment of a business) is a lot easier than the alternative to continuing to use drugs (addicition withdrawl). Thus, a relatively modest penalty for spamming will drive out most spammers (not all, because some people are just plain stupid assholes).
Soldiers who abuse prisoners receive a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison.
Er, no. Soliders prosecuted under a "special court martial" can receive a maximum of one year imprisonment (and busting to buck private and dishonorable discharge), whatever the crime. Presumably, the reason this case was sent to a special court martial (rather than the type that could have sentenced him far more severely) is that he sang like a canary. That sort of deal is SOP for both military and civilian law enforcement.
The regulations specifically rule out these tricks. Unfortunately, it's a special case limited to the "SEXUALLY EXPLICIT" header requirement -- the government needs a bit more pressure to do the right thing and treat all such filter-bypass schemes as a technique for illegal intrusion subject to prosecution under the existing computer crime laws.
For it to work, you would need:
an agreed-upon set of code words -- could fall into enemy hands.
No, you don't -- all you need is a fairly simple steganography program to hide a few bits in each word (for each string of, say, four bits, randomly generate a word that checksums to that target).
the ability to send spam reliably -- if you test, you risk getting shut down; if you don't test, you risk failure at an important moment.
Put your real recipients fairly early in the queue (but still far enough down that they'll be untraceable; number 27,347 or thereabouts out of millions ought to be good enough). If spammers were being shut down fast enough to cut the flow before that point, spam wouldn't be the problem it is.
And, just in case, have a couple of backup throwaway accounts.
an excuse to send spam -- probably not a major problem, since a ficticious product or some random Web site would presumably suffice.
As you say, this one is trivial.
the ability to receive spam reliably -- if your operatives don't see the encoded message, they can't act on it.
You gotta be kidding me. The difficult thing is not receiving spam.
John Ashcroft should lay off the Internet bong sellers and the purveyors of porn. If he wants to hit the terrorists in the wallet, he'll close down all the money laundering possibilities that exist. Spam operations are a huge gaping hole that everyone seems to be ignoring.
That's the least of the problem. The filter-poisoning junk appended to spam messages (which ought to be prosecuted under the computer crime laws as an attack in and of itself... but I digress) is a perfect terrorist comm channel that is effectively immune to traffic analysis (i.e. there's no way to identify the intended recipient).
I was reluctant to mention this when it first occurred to me, but after thinking it through I'm morally certain that terrorists have already figured this out.
Maybe the FBI has also figured it out, and is already planning to scoop up some spammers and use their violations of existing laws to lean on them and anal-probe their business records... and maybe not. If this turns out to be the next failure to "connect the dots"... well, you heard it here first.
Stricly speaking, the Japanese-Americans (some were actual citizens, some weren't) in WW2 were held in internment camps, not concentration camps. There's a world of difference between the two.
Er, no. A "concentration" camp is just that -- a place to hold a large concentration of people. The term goes back at least to the camps used by the British to hold Afrikaners during the Boer War. Either "internment camp" or "concentration camp" is a correct description of the facilities used to imprison Japanese-Americans during WWII.
The distinction you are attempting to draw is between "concentration camp" and "extermination camp".
I am reminded of my undergraduate geology professor's first lecture to our class. He took a candle and covered it with a jar. Then he asked the class for a show of hands, how many people thought the candle went out because all of the available oxygen had been consumed, and how many people thought the flame ceased because (if memory serves) the jar had become saturated with phogistan. Of course the vote was 100% for the oxygen answer. He then explained that 100 years ago, we all would have failed the exam.
For our next problem: if people still believed in phlogiston 100 years before Thunderstruck was an undergraduate, what is Thunderstruck's approximate current age?
New clues to 2bn-year-old murder
A buried crater off Australia could be the first direct evidence of a celestial assassin that wiped out more than 80% of life on Earth 250m years ago.
Obviously, Guardian headline writers follow the/. habit of not bothering to RTFA.
Slashdot Mirror
More precisely, Congresscritters have tried to deal with the problem as it exists from their perspective (i.e. "How do I address the voters' anger about spam without losing my bri^H^H^Hcampaign contributions from the DMA?").
It's not that simple. Prior art counts if it's, well, prior -- but if the date difference is less than one year, the applicant can submit evidence that he actually invented the subject matter of the application before the date of the prior art.
Prior art more than one year earlier than the filing date of the application is stronger because this option does not exist -- if something was published (even by you) more than a year before you apply for a patent, you're out of luck even if you show that you did invent it earlier.
The relevant statute is 35 USC 102.
If they want to shed the stigma of e-mail marketing, they must embrace opt-in. End of discussion.
I have clearly explained the difference. There is a basic difference between someone who has been dragged kicking and screaming into following the basic principles of Anglo-American law (the RIAA) and someone who is willing to work within that system (the anti-spammers). It's like the difference between a kid who cleans his room with Mom pulling him by the ear every step of the way and a kid who cleans his room without being asked -- the actions are identical, but only the latter deserves the slightest bit of respect.
Kombat's calculations are based on the assumption that a CD purchaser will listen to it 20-50 times. Obviously, to draw a valid comparison to books you must use the assumption that a book purchaser will re-read it 20-50 times. That gives a total entertainment time (and corresponding value) at least an order of magnitude higher than your estimate.
Because the RIAA fights tooth and nail against being held to antiquated legal concepts like having to prove that somebody is a violator before having his anonymity breached, as opposed to the illegal spam investigators who are willing to work within the rule of law set forth by the Constitution.
I predict that the policy will last until the first story about it being used to catch people who sneak in outside food. That will cross the line, in the general public's perception, between defending their legitimate business interests and protecting unreasonable greed.
Er, the whole point is that that back seat of a darkened theater is not "viewable by the general public without effort". You have to use special technology (night vision goggles) to view it.
A new paperback costs $6-$7. A used one can often be had for $1-$2.
Who moderates this sort of obvious nonsense as "Insightful"??
Not unless and until they accept that the rules must be based on opt-in, not opt-out. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the only way there is any chance of getting them to accept this is to make it clear that an unsolicited opt-out advertisement from a "legitimate" business will be considered equivalent to the sleaziest "p3n!s pill" spewing.
Spam is theft of services. VoIP is not theft of services. Duh. I'd rather have a Free internet
Freedom requires a justice system for punishing those who are found (after due process) to have violated the freedoms of others (e.g. by using their property without permission).
So when it's for our convenience, it's OK?
This is the most inane statement I've read on /. for months, and that's saying something.
Of course it's bad when the government "cracks down" on peaceful people going about their legitimate business and good when the government "cracks down" on thieves and con artists. The latter is one of the reason we put up with having a government in the first place; the former is evil power-mongering.
If nobody has gotten the government's attention with the obvious fact that the filter-cracking junk appended to spam is a perfect terrorist comm channel (you can't do traffic analysis on a signal that is going to practically everybody), what would it take to get their attention? Another 9-11 in which such a communication is one of the dots that were not connected?
If the government is willing to get out of the way for real (i.e. make spammers "outlaws" in the old-fashioned sense of the term, meaning "one outside the protection of the law", so that their spamboxen could be cracked and disabled without legal recourse), fine. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
First, a typical successful spammer doesn't make that much money (more likely the high four to low five digit range). Second, it's irrelevant how much a US dollar is worth is Elbonia (or that US jurisdiction does not extend to Elbonia) unless the spammer is willing to spend the rest of his wretched life living in Elbonia.
I think people need to stop waiting for the government to solve all their problems for them.
Precisely; the government should focus on those problems that fall within the proper scope of government -- such as punishing people who violate my private property rights. It's not a perfect solution (the government won't return Al Ghirab to its pre-expose conditions and send spammers there), but it will do.
If you don't like spam, don't give out your email address to anyone but those you trust.
This is not a practical solution for anyone who needs to maintain a public contact.
Would you go around telling everyone in the world your real, physical address?
This analogy shows the silliness of your suggestion. The street addresses of most people are readily available, because for most people it is more a benefit than a nuisance to be accessible.
The basic difference is that the alternative to continuing to spam (legitimate advertising or abandonment of a business) is a lot easier than the alternative to continuing to use drugs (addicition withdrawl). Thus, a relatively modest penalty for spamming will drive out most spammers (not all, because some people are just plain stupid assholes).
Er, no. Soliders prosecuted under a "special court martial" can receive a maximum of one year imprisonment (and busting to buck private and dishonorable discharge), whatever the crime. Presumably, the reason this case was sent to a special court martial (rather than the type that could have sentenced him far more severely) is that he sang like a canary. That sort of deal is SOP for both military and civilian law enforcement.
Punishing people who violate my private property rights is the government's place. Duh.
The regulations specifically rule out these tricks. Unfortunately, it's a special case limited to the "SEXUALLY EXPLICIT" header requirement -- the government needs a bit more pressure to do the right thing and treat all such filter-bypass schemes as a technique for illegal intrusion subject to prosecution under the existing computer crime laws.
If you want to see Jar-Jar's clothes fall in, you need help.
an agreed-upon set of code words -- could fall into enemy hands.
No, you don't -- all you need is a fairly simple steganography program to hide a few bits in each word (for each string of, say, four bits, randomly generate a word that checksums to that target).
the ability to send spam reliably -- if you test, you risk getting shut down; if you don't test, you risk failure at an important moment.
Put your real recipients fairly early in the queue (but still far enough down that they'll be untraceable; number 27,347 or thereabouts out of millions ought to be good enough). If spammers were being shut down fast enough to cut the flow before that point, spam wouldn't be the problem it is.
And, just in case, have a couple of backup throwaway accounts.
an excuse to send spam -- probably not a major problem, since a ficticious product or some random Web site would presumably suffice.
As you say, this one is trivial.
the ability to receive spam reliably -- if your operatives don't see the encoded message, they can't act on it.
You gotta be kidding me. The difficult thing is not receiving spam.
That's the least of the problem. The filter-poisoning junk appended to spam messages (which ought to be prosecuted under the computer crime laws as an attack in and of itself... but I digress) is a perfect terrorist comm channel that is effectively immune to traffic analysis (i.e. there's no way to identify the intended recipient).
I was reluctant to mention this when it first occurred to me, but after thinking it through I'm morally certain that terrorists have already figured this out.
Maybe the FBI has also figured it out, and is already planning to scoop up some spammers and use their violations of existing laws to lean on them and anal-probe their business records... and maybe not. If this turns out to be the next failure to "connect the dots"... well, you heard it here first.
Er, no. A "concentration" camp is just that -- a place to hold a large concentration of people. The term goes back at least to the camps used by the British to hold Afrikaners during the Boer War. Either "internment camp" or "concentration camp" is a correct description of the facilities used to imprison Japanese-Americans during WWII.
The distinction you are attempting to draw is between "concentration camp" and "extermination camp".
For our next problem: if people still believed in phlogiston 100 years before Thunderstruck was an undergraduate, what is Thunderstruck's approximate current age?
New clues to 2bn-year-old murder /. habit of not bothering to RTFA.
A buried crater off Australia could be the first direct evidence of a celestial assassin that wiped out more than 80% of life on Earth 250m years ago. Obviously, Guardian headline writers follow the