Actually, your legal existence doen't terminate when you're legally dead. Example - your will is still valid.
Another example: Some states have a long history of dead people voting. For many, its a family tradition. "Take away my right to vote? Over my dead body! My dead grandpa voted ___ and so did my dead father, and so will I!"
Downside: You can't murder a dead body. Therefore, you'd be fine to kill for fun. "Running Man" TV shows, perhaps?
Cool. How do we get lawyers declared dead?
"A bus-load of lawyers heading to a convention crashed at the outskirts of town. When rescue workers got there, they found that the locals had buried all the victims. One of the rescue workers said "The accident doesn't look THAT bad. Most of them should have survived."
One of the locals replied "Well, some of them SAID they were alive, but you know how them lawyers like to lie..."
- Checks - direct deposit - Won't work... If you are paying another person for services, then you either write them a check, of you send it via your bank's website (again, if they even have one). But even from the website, unless they have specifically setup an electronic transfer, which at least 1/3 of my bills have not done with my bank, then they get a paper check in the mail. I'd like to be damn sure that they get it in time and not charge me a late fee.
I don't know about your bank... maybe its time for you to move to Canada. I can send anyone up here an email with a unique banking code for that particular transfer, that will transfer $X to their bank account. They don't need to have their account set up for direct deposit from me, or anything else. They just forward the email to their bank, accepting the transfer, and the money is transferred from my account to their account.
No checks to write. No worrying about whether it will get lost in the mail, or delayed, or late fees. No worry about someone altering the amount, or the payee.
appointment notices - email - Won't work. You assume that people use their email daily, have outstanding filters so they only get toe good mail, and even have email in the first place.
...or, as I pointed out, there's always the option of a reminder phone call...lots of places do it to confirm appointments.
deliveries of meds - (summary) 1-2 days a week - So we should all suffer because to meet your whims?
How are you suffering if its on a Monday-Thursday schedule? You're not losing anything. Order a months' supply at a time - you should be doing that anyway, to save on costs and to make sure that any delay doesn't leave you with problems. Heck, I keep a month's extra supply of insulin and syringes around all the time. Stupid not to, so that if I'm busy, I don't have to take the time to phone the pharmacy for more "right away".
You gotta think LCD here. (not the TV...) Until every person in the US has email (which they don't), has good filters in place (which they really don't), users their email on a daily basis (I still cannot get my parents to read it more than once a month), and can move to a tech way of doing things (good luck getting the majority of the Baby Boomer generation to do that), then it ain't gonna happen.
Even the lowest common denominator can be forced to buy a clue. Twice-a-week mail delivery won't kill anyone, and will save money and resources.
And lets also think about commercial industry. Do you seriously think they are going to go for SLOWER mail delivery? Especially in this day and age where "Overnight Delivery" is considered too slow? Anything of any significance still have to be done with a real piece of paper and a signature. Not email.
Last time I looked, "commercial industry" delivers their mail to the post office in bulk, presorted, etc. Or they bypass the post office (UPS, FedEx, etc).
Who was most opposed to dropping Saturday delivery? The postal workers. Its extra income for them (hint - always, always follow the money). For a lot of people, Saturday delivery represents more of a hassle, esp. during vacation time or when they're gone for the weekend - it just sits there advertising "hey crooks - nobody's home!".
Besides, who wants to receive bills on the week-end?
Actually, those idiots who respond to the "I am...... give me your bank details" already pay quite the Idiot Tax.
The problem is we all end up paying for it, one way or another. People who fall for that sort of scam, after all the warnings that have been out there over the years, should be deprived of net access for everyone's good, just as we take away people's driving licenses when they proove to be incompetent.
Maybe restrict them to a "kid-safe internet" since they don't know how to behave as adults.
Everyone who thinks spamming is innocuous or justifiable
All your (usually older) relatives who get conned into ordering magazines they never read
All your (usually older) relatives who get conned by door-to-door salesmen to sign up for expensive "therapeutic beds", overpriced "home repairs", etc.
Heck, just go watch it. And The Sting. A certain amount of cynicism is healthy.
Fining people who directly support spammers by making purchases from them is certainly neither unreasonable nor cruel; neither is taking away their net access.
Your plan isn't even feasible, much less reasonable. One thing is certain. You are clearly unstable. Seek help.
Posted like the true clueless f$cktard you are... you make me laugh.
Read your ISP's TOS - you've ALREADY agreed to lose your internet access if you spam. What would be so hard to extend that to "encouraging the financial viability of spammers", which is what people who buy from spammers are doing?
BTW, you failed, again, to explain how I was promoting the violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment when I said that we cannot give spammers the death penalty, or bash their heads in with a baseball bat... BTW - how's that waterboarding going? You going to charge Bush? Its not like both he and Cheney don't already have criminal records (BTW - Bush is the first convicted criminal ever to be elected president - you people really have to do a better job screening of screening your candidates).
What's your next act - defending the seal hunt? The Exxon Valdes? Countrywide Financial?
We already cut back from 2x a week to once a week during the winter months in many areas, and there were no problems.
Twice-weekly mail delivery isn't the same as once-a-month.
Anyone who's had a teen-ager has already dealt with once-a-month garbage collection:-)
I would have no problem with garbage collection going to once a week, mail delivery twice a week (or even once a week), etc., if it means lower costs and less strain on the environment. Heck, I could probably get along with once a month garbage collection - the dogs happily eat any organic left-overs; physical spam (flyers, etc) represents the bulk of what I toss. My garbage bag? It's usually almost empty.
There was a scinece fiction short story recently about how religious wing-nuts won a "freedom of speech" lawsuit upholding their "right" to spam, and how quickly email became useless, because of people spamming for Jesus.
Fortunately, religious and political spam has no more protections than any other speech when it comes to the Terms of Service of private companies - vis. ISPs. Of course, if they want to argue differently, there's always the option to knock them off the net by replying 1,000 x to each piece of spam, using the same "protected speech" argument, and hoist them on their own cross.
This is the most effective way to live "off the grid!" No more taxes, etc.
Think of the legal implications.
Its against the law to "mistreat" a dead body. So, no death penalty for someone declared dead. Also, since you're dead, they can't stick you in a jail cell (the state won't to pay to jail a dead person, and other detainees would have a good complaint, cruel and unusual punishment and all that). Heck, they can't even put the cuffs on you without running afoul of the requirement to treat a dead body with all due respect and dignity.... someone should take this and really run with it.
Of course, there's the downside. No more sex, since necrophilia is also against the law...
No, we don't have unlimited resources, but we do have far more than we need. Cutting back on services like this is a false economy, because it encourages people to start cutting back on other things as well. Sooner or later, they start cutting back on essential services, and probably sooner.
By your own statement, daily mail service isn't an essential service, and cutting it back to twice a week, in and of itself, isn't a major issue.
The idea that we can't cut back anything because eventually we'll start cutting back on essentials isn't a long-term formula for success. Its like someone saying they won't cut back on their credit card spending on non-essentials, because if they did, they might eventually start cutting back on essential spending as well, whereas its more likely that cutting back on non-essentials will help them make their monthly nut.
Let me guess - you're the type that reads every piece of email "just in case."
It's my right to read any email I receive. I suppose not having control over what I read pisses you off too.
Nah, you presume too much.
As for punishing people for buying from spammers, yes, since we can't just give them the death penalty, and beating them senseless with a baseball bat won't work, since they're obviously already non compus menti - like the people who try to defend spamming on the grounds of freedom of speech.
So you're not only clearly insane, you're not a big fan of the 8th Amendment either. Perhaps you should consider relocating to China and see how you like living without certain rights for a while.
Read what I wrote. I specifically said we CANNOT give them the death penalty, and we CANNOT beat them with a baseball bat. How do you translate that into "cruel and unusual punishment?" You've been reading too much spam - its affected your ability to parse plain english.
Besides, I already live in a country where people have more rights than US citizens do. We consider waterboarding to be torture, unlike your president and your government. Clean up your own act before mistakenly accusing anyone else of advocating cruel and unusual punishment, or being insane.
Fining people who directly support spammers by making purchases from them is certainly neither unreasonable nor cruel; neither is taking away their net access.
Okay, but if it saves money and resources, and you *still* get your appointment reminders (or they can phone you), why wouldn't Monday and Thursday mail, or Tuesday and Friday mail, be all that bad?
We don't have unlimited resources, and the original idea was a good one. Better to cut back a bit now, rather than being forced to cut back much deeper in the future.
The increased profits are good for the taxpayer, the reduced demand on resources is good for everyone... the only downside I can see is that some people will get an extra day or two for the old "the check is in the mail" excuse.
There is precedent for fining people who buy from spammers.
We jail people who aid and abet other criminal activity all the time.
A $10 fine for a first offense (+ 1 week off the net), $100 for the second (+ 1 month off the net), $1000 for the third (+ 1 year off the net) would see a HUGE drop in spam, as it would quickly become unprofitable and/or the suckers just can't replay any more.
Educating people about the higher death rates from not wearing seat belts didn't work - a $92.00 fine got > 98% compliance real quick. Money talks - people tend to listen to it when it says "bye-bye!"
Or how about a tax? $300 excise tax for every spam product purchased, including penny stocks, and every "my name is [insert name] and I am the [insert bs position] of [insert whatever] and if you give meyour banking details..."
Bump it up to $1,000 for anyone who answers those get-rich-quick schemes asking people to be some business' collection agent and check casher/forwarder. It would give people an incentive not to be so quick to let their greed and laziness cloud their judgment.
There is no defense for sending out tens of millions of pieces of spam.
How do you know it is spam unless you are the intended recipient?
Let me guess - you're the type that reads every piece of email "just in case."
... do you drool over snail mail addressed to "Occupant"...
In this particular case, the spammer was paying $50,000 a month for his own connectivity. That didn't mean that what he was doing was an exercise in "protected free speech". He still violated the TOS of the many networks his spam was sent on. Its not now and has never been a free speech issue; What next? saying that there really were WMDs, or that the current presidents' and vice presidents' 4 criminal convictions were rightfully ignored by voters, or that people who lied on their mortgage applications deserve a bail-out... All these other dysfunctional behaviours are also inexcusable.
As for punishing people for buying from spammers, yes, since we can't just give them the death penalty, and beating them senseless with a baseball bat won't work, since they're obviously already non compus menti - like the people who try to defend spamming on the grounds of freedom of speech. They're part of the problem - punishing them is appropriate. Same as fining someone who parks in a no-parking zone.
I never said to deliver meds by email. However, snail mail, even twice a week, can work fine. I'm sure you're not receiving a new shipment every day. The scheduling problems would be minimal. If you're receiving it once a month, what's the problem with 2x a week mail delivery?
As far as direct deposit goes, not everybody I get checks from has that
I don't know about your bank, but mine allows me to send money from my account to anyone with just their email address, and vice versa if they have the same service. Maybe its time to change banks. Its not like they keep the physical check on hand any more anyway.
Daily mail service isn't needed. The original poster has a good point - moving it to once a week (or even twice a week) would save a LOT of energy and resources.
Up here, new streets don't get door-to-door mail delivery - they get a key to a lockbox within a block or two of their house. This was done as a cost-cutting measure, and it works.
Network intrusion is not a speech issue and is already illegal. Go after them with that and leave my right to speak freely alone.
Last I looked, the Internet isn't like "the public commons - most of the networks accessed by spammers are privately owned. You have no protections for "free speech" in the co-opting of others' private property against their terms of use, and to the detriment of their customers. So, in the "spirit of free speech," take your bullshit opinion and go fuck yourself round the rim with it. Twice.
There is no defense for sending out tens of millions of pieces of spam. Both the spammer and anyone who buys crap from them needs to be punished. This is no more a free speech issue than the "right to lie" in advertising is.
You knew of the existence of spam before you agreed to pay for the bandwidth you are using... strike one.
Blame the victim is SO '70s... "You knew the existence of rapists before you went to the club..."
Uploading uses just as much bandwidth as downloading, so the sender has spent at least as much as you have to send the message... strike two.
How long it takes someone is not justification for antisocial behaviour: "It takes just as much time for someone to break into your house and dump on your floor as it does for you to clean it up" is not a defense.
The nature of SMTP invites anyone to use the resource... strike three. You're out.
"The nature of a partially open window invites anyone to use your house... strike three. You're out." Trespassing is still trespassing. Its ot up to me to takes all precautionary measures possible, - its up to you not to be a jerk.
Your argument boils down to that if someone CAN do something, it should be legal, or that people who fail to protect themselves from every possible injury are the ones to blame.
IAAL and this is simplistic. the government gave a permit for that building. therefore, you do have some rights. for real world examples see the tall building in boston (prudential center?) which had to be constructed with mirrored glass since it was violating a churches right to daylight/natural light.
Be careful what you ask for. They could have constructed it so that it concentrated the light, and the church could have had burning bushes, etc...
That's what secondary accounts are for. You must be new here:-)
What really gets me is the ads you see when you look at the article itself - including at least one that promises to help you get your email past spam filters. Search for "bulletproof hosting" for more info (I won't say "google for it" because google is the one serving the ads) Interestingly enough, the ad didn't re-appear when I refreshed the page. Maybe their daily budget is used up...
Spammers don't pay for bandwidth like everyone else? What fairy land do you live in? ISP fees would be lower? How do you figure that?? Expense to the recipient? I pay a flat rate every month... it doesn't cost me a dime extra to receive spam... How does complete BS like this get an Insightful rating??
Because the original poster realizes that most spam is sent by p0wned computers running Windows, and that the US is the #1 spambot net. The costs of sending spam are kept low by Microsoft and its' user base..
I don't know about you, but I, at least, would not find one First Class delivery a week acceptable! I get checks, appointment notices and medicines from the VA through the mail and would prefer to continue to receive them in a fairly prompt and timely manner, TYVM.
checks - direct deposit
appointment notices - email (you're obviously on the net or you wuldn't be posting here)
deliveries of meds - you'd still get them every month.
What's the problem with 1 or 2 days a week delivery. Synchronize it with the garbage/recycling pickup, since that's where almost all mail ends up anyway.
Those little plastic games that came free in CrackerJacks boxes where you try to get all the balls to sit in holes at the same time, or get all the rings on the central peg - both one-handed games controlled by physically shaking/moving the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your legal existence doen't terminate when you're legally dead. Example - your will is still valid.
Another example: Some states have a long history of dead people voting. For many, its a family tradition. "Take away my right to vote? Over my dead body! My dead grandpa voted ___ and so did my dead father, and so will I!"
Cool. How do we get lawyers declared dead?
"A bus-load of lawyers heading to a convention crashed at the outskirts of town. When rescue workers got there, they found that the locals had buried all the victims. One of the rescue workers said "The accident doesn't look THAT bad. Most of them should have survived."
One of the locals replied "Well, some of them SAID they were alive, but you know how them lawyers like to lie ..."
I don't know about your bank ... maybe its time for you to move to Canada. I can send anyone up here an email with a unique banking code for that particular transfer, that will transfer $X to their bank account. They don't need to have their account set up for direct deposit from me, or anything else. They just forward the email to their bank, accepting the transfer, and the money is transferred from my account to their account.
No checks to write. No worrying about whether it will get lost in the mail, or delayed, or late fees. No worry about someone altering the amount, or the payee.
Who was most opposed to dropping Saturday delivery? The postal workers. Its extra income for them (hint - always, always follow the money). For a lot of people, Saturday delivery represents more of a hassle, esp. during vacation time or when they're gone for the weekend - it just sits there advertising "hey crooks - nobody's home!".
Besides, who wants to receive bills on the week-end?
The problem is we all end up paying for it, one way or another. People who fall for that sort of scam, after all the warnings that have been out there over the years, should be deprived of net access for everyone's good, just as we take away people's driving licenses when they proove to be incompetent.
Maybe restrict them to a "kid-safe internet" since they don't know how to behave as adults.
Who should you watch Matchstick Men with
Heck, just go watch it. And The Sting. A certain amount of cynicism is healthy.
Posted like the true clueless f$cktard you are ... you make me laugh.
Read your ISP's TOS - you've ALREADY agreed to lose your internet access if you spam. What would be so hard to extend that to "encouraging the financial viability of spammers", which is what people who buy from spammers are doing?
BTW, you failed, again, to explain how I was promoting the violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment when I said that we cannot give spammers the death penalty, or bash their heads in with a baseball bat ... BTW - how's that waterboarding going? You going to charge Bush? Its not like both he and Cheney don't already have criminal records (BTW - Bush is the first convicted criminal ever to be elected president - you people really have to do a better job screening of screening your candidates).
What's your next act - defending the seal hunt? The Exxon Valdes? Countrywide Financial?
Three points:
Twice-weekly mail delivery isn't the same as once-a-month.
I would have no problem with garbage collection going to once a week, mail delivery twice a week (or even once a week), etc., if it means lower costs and less strain on the environment. Heck, I could probably get along with once a month garbage collection - the dogs happily eat any organic left-overs; physical spam (flyers, etc) represents the bulk of what I toss. My garbage bag? It's usually almost empty.
There was a scinece fiction short story recently about how religious wing-nuts won a "freedom of speech" lawsuit upholding their "right" to spam, and how quickly email became useless, because of people spamming for Jesus.
Fortunately, religious and political spam has no more protections than any other speech when it comes to the Terms of Service of private companies - vis. ISPs. Of course, if they want to argue differently, there's always the option to knock them off the net by replying 1,000 x to each piece of spam, using the same "protected speech" argument, and hoist them on their own cross.
This is the most effective way to live "off the grid!" No more taxes, etc.
Think of the legal implications.
Its against the law to "mistreat" a dead body. So, no death penalty for someone declared dead. Also, since you're dead, they can't stick you in a jail cell (the state won't to pay to jail a dead person, and other detainees would have a good complaint, cruel and unusual punishment and all that). Heck, they can't even put the cuffs on you without running afoul of the requirement to treat a dead body with all due respect and dignity .... someone should take this and really run with it.
Of course, there's the downside. No more sex, since necrophilia is also against the law ...
By your own statement, daily mail service isn't an essential service, and cutting it back to twice a week, in and of itself, isn't a major issue.
The idea that we can't cut back anything because eventually we'll start cutting back on essentials isn't a long-term formula for success. Its like someone saying they won't cut back on their credit card spending on non-essentials, because if they did, they might eventually start cutting back on essential spending as well, whereas its more likely that cutting back on non-essentials will help them make their monthly nut.
Nah, you presume too much.
Read what I wrote. I specifically said we CANNOT give them the death penalty, and we CANNOT beat them with a baseball bat. How do you translate that into "cruel and unusual punishment?" You've been reading too much spam - its affected your ability to parse plain english.Besides, I already live in a country where people have more rights than US citizens do. We consider waterboarding to be torture, unlike your president and your government. Clean up your own act before mistakenly accusing anyone else of advocating cruel and unusual punishment, or being insane.
Fining people who directly support spammers by making purchases from them is certainly neither unreasonable nor cruel; neither is taking away their net access.
Okay, but if it saves money and resources, and you *still* get your appointment reminders (or they can phone you), why wouldn't Monday and Thursday mail, or Tuesday and Friday mail, be all that bad?
We don't have unlimited resources, and the original idea was a good one. Better to cut back a bit now, rather than being forced to cut back much deeper in the future.
The increased profits are good for the taxpayer, the reduced demand on resources is good for everyone ... the only downside I can see is that some people will get an extra day or two for the old "the check is in the mail" excuse.
There is precedent for fining people who buy from spammers.
We jail people who aid and abet other criminal activity all the time.
A $10 fine for a first offense (+ 1 week off the net), $100 for the second (+ 1 month off the net), $1000 for the third (+ 1 year off the net) would see a HUGE drop in spam, as it would quickly become unprofitable and/or the suckers just can't replay any more.
Educating people about the higher death rates from not wearing seat belts didn't work - a $92.00 fine got > 98% compliance real quick. Money talks - people tend to listen to it when it says "bye-bye!"
Or how about a tax? $300 excise tax for every spam product purchased, including penny stocks, and every "my name is [insert name] and I am the [insert bs position] of [insert whatever] and if you give meyour banking details ..."
Bump it up to $1,000 for anyone who answers those get-rich-quick schemes asking people to be some business' collection agent and check casher/forwarder. It would give people an incentive not to be so quick to let their greed and laziness cloud their judgment.
Let me guess - you're the type that reads every piece of email "just in case."
In this particular case, the spammer was paying $50,000 a month for his own connectivity. That didn't mean that what he was doing was an exercise in "protected free speech". He still violated the TOS of the many networks his spam was sent on. Its not now and has never been a free speech issue; What next? saying that there really were WMDs, or that the current presidents' and vice presidents' 4 criminal convictions were rightfully ignored by voters, or that people who lied on their mortgage applications deserve a bail-out ... All these other dysfunctional behaviours are also inexcusable.
As for punishing people for buying from spammers, yes, since we can't just give them the death penalty, and beating them senseless with a baseball bat won't work, since they're obviously already non compus menti - like the people who try to defend spamming on the grounds of freedom of speech. They're part of the problem - punishing them is appropriate. Same as fining someone who parks in a no-parking zone.
I never said to deliver meds by email. However, snail mail, even twice a week, can work fine. I'm sure you're not receiving a new shipment every day. The scheduling problems would be minimal. If you're receiving it once a month, what's the problem with 2x a week mail delivery?
I don't know about your bank, but mine allows me to send money from my account to anyone with just their email address, and vice versa if they have the same service. Maybe its time to change banks. Its not like they keep the physical check on hand any more anyway.Daily mail service isn't needed. The original poster has a good point - moving it to once a week (or even twice a week) would save a LOT of energy and resources.
Up here, new streets don't get door-to-door mail delivery - they get a key to a lockbox within a block or two of their house. This was done as a cost-cutting measure, and it works.
Last I looked, the Internet isn't like "the public commons - most of the networks accessed by spammers are privately owned. You have no protections for "free speech" in the co-opting of others' private property against their terms of use, and to the detriment of their customers. So, in the "spirit of free speech," take your bullshit opinion and go fuck yourself round the rim with it. Twice.
There is no defense for sending out tens of millions of pieces of spam. Both the spammer and anyone who buys crap from them needs to be punished. This is no more a free speech issue than the "right to lie" in advertising is.
Blame the victim is SO '70s ... "You knew the existence of rapists before you went to the club ..."
How long it takes someone is not justification for antisocial behaviour: "It takes just as much time for someone to break into your house and dump on your floor as it does for you to clean it up" is not a defense.
"The nature of a partially open window invites anyone to use your house ... strike three. You're out." Trespassing is still trespassing. Its ot up to me to takes all precautionary measures possible, - its up to you not to be a jerk.
Your argument boils down to that if someone CAN do something, it should be legal, or that people who fail to protect themselves from every possible injury are the ones to blame.
Be careful what you ask for. They could have constructed it so that it concentrated the light, and the church could have had burning bushes, etc ...
Lets see ... 9 years ... white collar crime ... he'll be on day release from club fed in 3 ... $24 million ... do the math ...
At $24,917 a day, its still profitable - and I'm sure that he won't mind spending a few bucks to buy himself any "protection" he might need.
In other words, unless they also confiscate the $$$$ he made, it wasn't a "successful prosecution" and it won't have much of a deterrent.
That's what secondary accounts are for. You must be new here :-)
What really gets me is the ads you see when you look at the article itself - including at least one that promises to help you get your email past spam filters. Search for "bulletproof hosting" for more info (I won't say "google for it" because google is the one serving the ads) Interestingly enough, the ad didn't re-appear when I refreshed the page. Maybe their daily budget is used up ...
Because the original poster realizes that most spam is sent by p0wned computers running Windows, and that the US is the #1 spambot net. The costs of sending spam are kept low by Microsoft and its' user base..
It's an "I wanted a mac but I can't figure out how the one button shit works and I don't want people to think I' gay" thing ...
FERRARI: From Envy, Retarted Redesigns Are Recycled Idiocies.
Welcome to our new, improved "Car names and what they really mean" game.
Those little plastic games that came free in CrackerJacks boxes where you try to get all the balls to sit in holes at the same time, or get all the rings on the central peg - both one-handed games controlled by physically shaking/moving the game.
Then there's smaller knock-offs of labyrinth.
"Remember, its game play has been patented too by the author, as he mentions @2:25 in the interview."
He says in the video that he's applied for a patent -doesn't mean he'll get it ...
Also, he says that one of the reasons he developed Trism is "I wanted a game I could play with one hand."
I think fapping and spank the monkey choke the chicken already have that covered.