A source claiming inside knowledge of SCO legal strategy reports that Darl McBride's head, or the likeness thereof, will be cited as company "Intellectual" Property
Well, then, you're safe as long as your model doesn't incorporate the hollow earth theory.
Now when you face someone who appears to be talking to you, you won't see a headset and think they may be on a call.
I recall Scott Adams predict that this would be used as an excuse to insult people with impunity (claim to be talking to somebody on the phone rather than the hulking brute in front of you).
And if you are stupid enough to fall for the pie-in-the-sky computer deal, you deserve what you get.
I recall that back when Penn Jilette had a column in PC Computing, he ran an April Fool ad for a computer with all sorts of amazing if not downright impossible features. If you called the number in the "ad", you got a tape of Penn razzing you for being a sucker.
In response to the flak he got, he ran an even more obviously bogus ad the following April, offering an even further beyond-the-envelope computer and color laser printer for $999.
There's no reason to think that every war worth fighting can be fought with volunteers.
Every war considered worth fighting by the people can most certainly be fought with volunteers.
Every war considered worth fighting by the politicians may or may not be fightable with volunteers -- but since the people are the boss of the politicians in a free society, that's just too darn bad in the latter case.
And what exactly is with the idea of giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible?
I'm giving the government (which is an entity profoundly alienated from my country) more than enough as it is (and I need to get around to documenting it sometime in the next thirty-three days).
If you are not accepting all comers then you have a white list
Wrong. A spam filter is a refusal to accept email from all comers. The evasion of a spam filter is deliberate (because the use of any filter evasion technique is prima facie proof that the mailer knew that his message had been prohibited by at least some recipients) trespass.
A better analogy would be....
Nope; my analogy is the correct one. You either believe in private property rights or you don't; I do, therefore I understand that spammers are trespassers deserving of the usual punishment for that offense.
But I cannot hold that sending an unwanted email is illegal, even if it has masked the headers.
Sure you can. All you have to do is think it through rationally.
The use of filter-evasion techniques to get spam into a mailbox is equivalent to the use of a disguise to enter private property after being told to stay off. It is obvious that the latter is, and should be, illegal. QED.
To outlaw something, you usually need to show that someone is violating someone elses rights
My computer and ISP are my private property. You are not authorized to use them for spamming. QED.
A mail system by nature invites all comers.
Nope, any more than a front door by nature invites all comers. It is long overdue for the law to treat circumvention of spam filtering as severely as it treats the meatspace version of breaking and entering.
We are talking about somebody put some 1's and 0's where they shouldn't. Is this really a crime?
Yes, if it's done with the intent of gaining unauthorized access to other people's property (e.g. computer cracking, evasion of spam filtering, fraudulent electronic bank transactions, etc).
So for any spam that has a forged header or a misleading subject, California's new law, with the $1000 per spam penalty, will still apply.
Actually, any feature designed to defeat spam filtering inherently consitutes "falsity or deception" (its entire purpose makes spam appear to be non-spam). Proper enforcement of this law would give spammers the choice of insuring that their spew is trivially easy to filter or paying the penalties.
One component of freedom is a basic rule-of-law framework that protects one's person and property. Punishing spammers who steal other people's resources is perfectly consistent with that concept -- indeed, one can reasonably argue that it is positively required (everyone's freedom of communication is denied when spammers destroy the entire e-mail system).
As always, suppression of crime must be done in a manner that avoids damage to the innocent. Others here have already pointed out that the notion floated by Gates fails in this regard.
It's not hard to come up with better ideas for suppressing spam while maintaining the rights of legitimate e-mail users:
1. Treat the use of zombie spamboxes and the evasion of spam filters as what they are -- a form of computer cracking -- and punish them accordingly.
2. Apply the general doctrine that debts arising out of illegal activity are non-collectable to any transactions arising from spamvertising.
Either of these would choke off spammers' air supply: they can't get through if forged headers and "herb2l v1agra" munging is worth 5-10 years in the pokey, and they can't get paid if their customers can cancel payments at will.
Do that have one that keeps saying in a sultry voice, "Honey, please come back to bed, we weren't finished yet!"? I'd want to use that when my ex calls...
The implication that you stopped to answer the phone in that situation will just confirm that becoming your ex was the right thing to do.
The restrictions placed on radio and broadcast television are based on the concept of "limited spectrum."
Head to the downtown area of your nearest major city. Count the number of different local newspapers. Count the number of different local radio and TV stations.
Which medium has the most "limited spectrum"?
So, how do we decide who gets to broadcast? Do we play first come, first serve? Highest bidder?
Works for me. One of the two has generally worked for dividing up other limited commodities.
No, we go by content. What content? Content that is in the PUBLIC INTEREST.
As decided by politicians, who generally couldn't find the "public interest" during the public interest mating season if you doused them with public interest scent. Not that it matters, since they simply use this term as a synonym for their own interests.
How do you excercise your voice as a member of the public to determine what is in your best interests?
You twiddle one of those two knobs mentioned at the beginning of this thread, of course.
They are a large company, if it is cheaper to settle/buy licence as opposed to going to court, wouldn't AutoZone do this?
No, because in the long run it is not cheaper to settle:
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
The legal solution for the problem is already mostly in place (and arguably completely in place, waiting for some DA to get off his butt, depending on precise definitions).
Spam filter evasion is an attempt to gain access to other people's computers without their consent, and indeed against their express prohibition as implemented in a security system. In any other context, this is known as "computer cracking", is unambiguously illegal, and carries severe penalties.
The original Melissa email virus (enabled by idiotic default settings in OE)
Windows in general, and Outlook/OE in particular, have generally shipped with default settings that make them as receptive to outside entry as the lead starlet of a porn flick.
For that matter, it could be a Kerry ally seeking to discredit the real photo linking Kerry and Fonda by distributing a fake and making it famous enough that people will simply assume that both are fake.
while the interviewer was attempting to illustrate the fear people may feel about the patriot act, it hardly at all actually specifically cites the offending sections. Except for section 215, the interviewer doesn't specifically say the parts of the patriot act that are damning.... I for one thought Viet's response to the one accusation, section 215, was actually reasonable.
Well, duh. If a dozen aspects of your position are indefensible but one aspect of your position is actually half-decent, which one are you going to talk up and which ones are you going to try to ignore?
Here's a better idea: If you present your grievances in a civilized manner, we will address them. If you engage in terrorism, we will not only make sure you don't get what you want, but also take away what you already have along those lines (e.g. the Taliban regime).
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such right. If there were, I could do any old thing that I cared to define as "work" and demand that somebody pay me to do it.
Sounds like Darl & Co. think they'll be safer if there is no remnant of SCO left behind after they finish pumping and dumping.
Well, then, you're safe as long as your model doesn't incorporate the hollow earth theory.
I recall Scott Adams predict that this would be used as an excuse to insult people with impunity (claim to be talking to somebody on the phone rather than the hulking brute in front of you).
I recall that back when Penn Jilette had a column in PC Computing, he ran an April Fool ad for a computer with all sorts of amazing if not downright impossible features. If you called the number in the "ad", you got a tape of Penn razzing you for being a sucker.
In response to the flak he got, he ran an even more obviously bogus ad the following April, offering an even further beyond-the-envelope computer and color laser printer for $999.
Every war considered worth fighting by the people can most certainly be fought with volunteers.
Every war considered worth fighting by the politicians may or may not be fightable with volunteers -- but since the people are the boss of the politicians in a free society, that's just too darn bad in the latter case.
I'm giving the government (which is an entity profoundly alienated from my country) more than enough as it is (and I need to get around to documenting it sometime in the next thirty-three days).
Wrong. A spam filter is a refusal to accept email from all comers. The evasion of a spam filter is deliberate (because the use of any filter evasion technique is prima facie proof that the mailer knew that his message had been prohibited by at least some recipients) trespass.
A better analogy would be....
Nope; my analogy is the correct one. You either believe in private property rights or you don't; I do, therefore I understand that spammers are trespassers deserving of the usual punishment for that offense.
But I cannot hold that sending an unwanted email is illegal, even if it has masked the headers.
Sure you can. All you have to do is think it through rationally.
The use of filter-evasion techniques to get spam into a mailbox is equivalent to the use of a disguise to enter private property after being told to stay off. It is obvious that the latter is, and should be, illegal. QED.
My computer and ISP are my private property. You are not authorized to use them for spamming. QED.
A mail system by nature invites all comers.
Nope, any more than a front door by nature invites all comers. It is long overdue for the law to treat circumvention of spam filtering as severely as it treats the meatspace version of breaking and entering.
Yes, if it's done with the intent of gaining unauthorized access to other people's property (e.g. computer cracking, evasion of spam filtering, fraudulent electronic bank transactions, etc).
Actually, any feature designed to defeat spam filtering inherently consitutes "falsity or deception" (its entire purpose makes spam appear to be non-spam). Proper enforcement of this law would give spammers the choice of insuring that their spew is trivially easy to filter or paying the penalties.
No charge for the fact checking.
If you look at a tail as a leg, how many legs does a cow have?
(Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.)
One component of freedom is a basic rule-of-law framework that protects one's person and property. Punishing spammers who steal other people's resources is perfectly consistent with that concept -- indeed, one can reasonably argue that it is positively required (everyone's freedom of communication is denied when spammers destroy the entire e-mail system).
As always, suppression of crime must be done in a manner that avoids damage to the innocent. Others here have already pointed out that the notion floated by Gates fails in this regard.
It's not hard to come up with better ideas for suppressing spam while maintaining the rights of legitimate e-mail users:
1. Treat the use of zombie spamboxes and the evasion of spam filters as what they are -- a form of computer cracking -- and punish them accordingly.
2. Apply the general doctrine that debts arising out of illegal activity are non-collectable to any transactions arising from spamvertising.
Either of these would choke off spammers' air supply: they can't get through if forged headers and "herb2l v1agra" munging is worth 5-10 years in the pokey, and they can't get paid if their customers can cancel payments at will.
The implication that you stopped to answer the phone in that situation will just confirm that becoming your ex was the right thing to do.
That would hardly be innovative, though -- it was predicted nearly two thousand years ago.
Head to the downtown area of your nearest major city. Count the number of different local newspapers. Count the number of different local radio and TV stations.
Which medium has the most "limited spectrum"?
So, how do we decide who gets to broadcast? Do we play first come, first serve? Highest bidder?
Works for me. One of the two has generally worked for dividing up other limited commodities.
No, we go by content. What content? Content that is in the PUBLIC INTEREST.
As decided by politicians, who generally couldn't find the "public interest" during the public interest mating season if you doused them with public interest scent. Not that it matters, since they simply use this term as a synonym for their own interests.
How do you excercise your voice as a member of the public to determine what is in your best interests?
You twiddle one of those two knobs mentioned at the beginning of this thread, of course.
No, because in the long run it is not cheaper to settle:
Just a minor correction.
Spam filter evasion is an attempt to gain access to other people's computers without their consent, and indeed against their express prohibition as implemented in a security system. In any other context, this is known as "computer cracking", is unambiguously illegal, and carries severe penalties.
Windows in general, and Outlook/OE in particular, have generally shipped with default settings that make them as receptive to outside entry as the lead starlet of a porn flick.
For that matter, it could be a Kerry ally seeking to discredit the real photo linking Kerry and Fonda by distributing a fake and making it famous enough that people will simply assume that both are fake.
Well, duh. If a dozen aspects of your position are indefensible but one aspect of your position is actually half-decent, which one are you going to talk up and which ones are you going to try to ignore?
Here's a better idea: If you present your grievances in a civilized manner, we will address them. If you engage in terrorism, we will not only make sure you don't get what you want, but also take away what you already have along those lines (e.g. the Taliban regime).