Who cares if you get a 100 compiler errors at the end when you compile once, vs. getting 1 error each time, but having to compile 100 times?
Well, almost all subsequent errors are usually the result of the first; I've seen multiple screenfulls of one-line error messages go away after fixing the first problem: A missing ". When the token state machine in a compiler gets out of sync the compilation result is unpredicable at best, and often just plain useless...
The only one that I've seen get through (and it's not really spyware) is changing a person's homepage. I'm not sure why IE even allows this.
This one is easy to avoid - just don't use IE!
There are plenty of other alternatives, most are even free and none of them allow a website to change the homepage (or anything else) without explicit confirmation.
I have not used IE for several years now and cannot see why anybody would still be firing up that bugtrap-failure for anything.
But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):
(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;
Rumours in the hallway... That's a method - banned.
(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;
"If they shoot at us, shoot back" - will ban just about every war record ever.
(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.
"Bush and Blair have agreed to..." - that's an international agreement so ban everything related to that.
I can understand six figure rewards for those on the ten most wanted list, but for spammers?
Do you have any idea how much money gets wasted due to spam?!
I think six figures are too little. Eight would do it and the funds should come from both the spammers and their suppliers (from ISPs hosting them, their emails or their sites, to the stupid people allowing their PCs to be turned into spam-spewing zombies).
Yes, if people had to pay a hefty fine (like $500 for each spam estimated to have been sent through their PC) for not patching their PCs they'd either put more effort into doing it (the process can be completely automated these days), or stop using a PC, both of which would solve a lot of problems on the net today.
Yes, stupidity should cost money when it costs everybody else money. Too bad it isn't painful...
They'll buy an old building already on campus, slap a bit of paint and window dressing on it, then fence it in with a high electric fence and charge a massive fee just to look at the building (let alone using it). Then they proceed to send a bill to all the people using all the other buildings, claiming they own the concept of a building and that their buildings are based on methods found in SCO's building...
Sure, SCO's building and all the other buildings are based on far older principles and methods, but still they insist on owning the concepts because they were in the building they bought and thus it is theirs forever.....
Who do you think pays for wiretapping, already? Magical fairies?
Something like that.
But it's the convicted that really should pay for all the resources going into their prosecution; if not in money then in blood, sweat and lots of tears...
In several countries felons already gets to pay for their stay at the prisons, which keeps that part of the system costless for the taxpayers. Now they should also be forced to pay for the investigative work and the legal process and we're in business!
That way the pirates would only have those who can't or won't pay the full price as customers. Everybody else will be able to watch it where and when they want with a clean conscience because they paid for it.
As long as they continue to discriminate based on geographical location and format, there will be pirates filling those huge gaps in availability. What part of supply and demand don't MPAA understand?
Just sell the movie to moviegoers on the way out of the cinema!
The overwhelming reason why pirates can sell their crappy recordings is the insanely stupid idea that US moviegoers should get first dibs, then overseas moviegoers, then US rental customers, then overseas rental customers and only then can people in the US *buy* the movie (as can the rest of the world with code-free DVD-players).
This leaves a several month gap which the pirates can - and will - fill.
Therefore: Drop the gap and sell the movie as well as screen it everywhere from day one. Problem solved!
One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants.
They are advocating outright sabotage and scaring people by secretly releasing 'mutant flies' (which could be just as dangerous as any GMO produced by a biotech company according to themselves) into restaurants! - How is this different from blowing up these biotech retsaurants or biotech companies with explosives?
Art may be art but this is much more than that. Their motives are clearly political and their advocated methods firmly planted in the realm of terrorism.
Let me begin by repeating myself - They never asked for a delisting from SpamHaus, only that the record be corrected so that blatantly incorrect info is removed.
Maybe that'll teach ISPs to more carefully scrutinize who they give blocks to...
First of all, most startup ISPs will not know how to research the hats of potential customers and will thus be innocent in assigning an IP block to a spammer. And in the western world any customer must be presumed innocent until proved otherwise (to the ISP that is).
The point is that services like SpamHaus should become as universally known as Google to anyone, even people starting out as ISP salesdroids. That way spammers won't be signed up out of ignorance/inexperience.
The ISP I mentioned started out in 2001 and they had zero knowledge of ROKSO, SpamHaus, SPEWS and all that. They happily signed up customers that would pay the setup fee upfront. The contracts were all long-term and while they had provisions against spamming they only covered abuse of the ISPs networks, not abuse elsewhere. This means that their contracts cannot be terminated just because they spam from elsewhere for sites elsewhere, and that's exactly why Wild Rhino still has a nameserver there.
Being a small startup ISP they would be driven out of business from just a single lawsuit, and terminating a customer without due course in the contract will result in a lawsuit (both spammers and their lawyers are greedy in the worst sense of the word).
So my point is that some ISPs may look like their hat is black but if you look closely you'll see that it's actually a doofus-hat awarded for cluelessness. They will learn and not renew those spammers contracts but until that time they'll have to let them live - or themselves be killed by lawsuits.
One can wonder whether additional funding will have the effect of actually having the records reflect the realities. The trouble is that I know of at least one record (SBL6024) that is filled with errors and despite several attempts at having Steve correct them, all that happened was a bunch of insults in response.
All content in that record except *one* line is completely wrong and/or severely outdated. The bad content reflects an old customer long gone (booted late 2002) whose IP-ranges were mixed up with Dynamic Pipe. All that remains valid is a single nameserver (freya.wildrhino.com) belonging to a different customer/alledged spammer: Wild Rhino.
If the info should be correct that entire record should be removed and the/29 belonging to Wild Rhinos nameserver moved to their record (SBL14379) - or similar. I know it would not delist anything (that's not the issue) but it would correct the information and that's what's important here.
But Steve does not want to admit his mistakes here, and one can wonder just how many other records in his system are equally flawed, mislisted or plain false. If the incorrectness is rampant throughout, one can wonder just what these businesses would be buying. I think Steve needs to learn a bit about humility and responsibility before he starts making money big-time on this. Because making money off lies and false pretenses has always been the domain of those he claims to hate the most: SPAMMERS.
The Al-Queda version, which takes command of air traffic control and sends jetliners into buildings in some randomly selected country that Bin Laden in his insanity dislikes. This action doesn't stop the DDoS of course but killing thousands of innocent people doesn't make sense either, and two wrongs do make a right... in Bin Ladens mind anyway.
The music is owned by its copyright holder. if they don't want to offer it to you, you can't get it legally.
Wrong. If they offer it to someone, somewhere, just go there and buy it. There are no laws prohibiting transport of intellectual property across borders so you can take it home with you. You bought it, you own it - just like if they had offered it to you directly.
Now, the real mystery is why they wouldn't want you to buy their product in the first place. A sale is a sale and profit is profit, right? - So why not embrace the global economy and let everyone buy whatever they want?
Sometimes I suspect those cocaine-soaked VIP-parties have caused serious brain damage to those record execs... They sure behave like they they're seriously retarded in any case.
If spamming is profitable, a simple law banning UCE (both sending it and using it) featuring huge rewards taken out of caught spammers' funds for capturing them (dead or alive?) will quickly kill off all spamming (and the spammers themselves?). They'll be outlaws hunted by billions of greedy people who want a share of their money, and they won't last long that way. It's easy, simple and efficient.
Sharing music and movies is illegal, ethically wrong etc etc. Please, accept the fact.
Please accept the fact that 'illegal downloads' promotes as much as it infringes and that the balance is positive in the artists favour. I know this from own experience.
The ability to check out a new album in full in a decent quality in the comfort of home makes it more likely that I'll buy it than if I have to listen in a crowded shop using crappy, dirty headphones with a bunch of people waiting on their turn to listen to something, poking me and asking every 5 seconds: "are you done yet?".
Sure there are people only downloading, never buying. Well, they're just thieves or leeches and they should be dealt with by the law.
Don't kill P2P just because some people can't handle it. Punish them and be done with it.
The girl was illegally sharing copyrighted materials.
Really? - Did the matter go to court? Was evidence seized from her computer?
She has been accused of sharing copyrighted materials, but as we know very well the RIAA has previously made grave errors in identifying their suspects and I'm sure similar errors will be found in the alledged shared stuff.
But regardless of whether she did it or not, the idea to persecute kids for these offenses is obscene. Copyright law is a very complex beast and I find it hard to believe that it is possible to prove that this girl understood the law well enough to know that by placing files in a certain folder they'd be shared with the net and that this was illigal. That means that the violation was unintentional and thus that damages should not be awarded at all.
Sometimes I think the best defence against RIAA and similar organisations is to advocate massive sharing on a scale that makes certain two objectives are reached:
The RIAA's funding is eliminated by driving sales into oblivion.
Complete overload of all legal entities engaged in the efforts to prosecute, bringing them to a complete standstill.
If RIAA and all similar organisations were destroyed and the cost of running them were returned to both the artists and the customers through lower prices, the entire business would benefit immensely.
There are not - and should not be - room in the world for such obscenely greedy organisations that will stop at nothing to bleed everybody dry -even children - just for a few dollars more.
And other RBLs require usually multiple reports from multiple sources. And you have fairly straightforward way of getting de-listed, too.
In theory... Getting delisted from SPEWS.org and SpamHaus.org is almost impossible in real life.
Getting an insulting reply from these 'organisations' is exceedingly easy on the other hand... I've never seen a 'yes, of course you should be delisted' reply in NANAE; the reply is usually something along these lines: "Go fuck a chicken you stupid spamlover!! - You will remain listed till Hell freezes over!"
They never check reality, they never take pity on innocent victims (99% of those IPs listed are not involved in any kind of spamming) and they never, ever acknowledge their faults.
... of course nobody likes banners, but for many sites it is a large part of or the only means of revenue...
That is blatantly not true and one of the reasons everybody hates banners... because everybody uses (and abuses) them... for a few dollars more.
Why is it not true? - Because ads are used as a supplementary income to some other business which is usually the primary business of the company. If you have a webpage where people can order some item, you don't need any ads in addition to the promotion of the item itself. The cost of the webpage should be covered by the revenue on the item sale, not by additional ads. And similar for any other sale, whether the item is a tangible object or a service.
The only type of page not covered by either the above or the standard publication cost of research institutions are the personal webpages usually offered by ISPs, but there the cost of these should be a part of the fee, not a 'free' ad-ridden service.
Actually only specialized 'free' services like free webspace and similar should have a need for ads. Those ads would have been much more efficient if people didn't hate ads so much and thus didn't utilize ad-blocking software.
I myself use Mozilla Firebird with The Proxomitron for that ad-free web experience. I've had my attention and focus hijacked once too many times to tolerate ads when I surf the web. Sorry people, but life's too short to waste on wading through gazillions of flashing, lying and annoying ads.
IANAL, but as far as I know the verdict doesn't apply outside the US so why not set up a militant anti-Gator site outside the US?
If we get everybody on/. to link to such a site, Google will have to list it pretty high and then Gator will again be in the deep shit where they deserve to be.
Oh, and to me 'adware' is a worse label than 'spyware'... I hate ads and go to great lengths using The Proxomitron and similar to remove *all* ads from my internet experience. As an internet user since 1988 I remember and miss the good old days where the net was completely free from all commercial crap. Now email is useless due to spam and usenet likewise. At least most webpages can be cleaned so they are somewhat usable.
By playing dirty like this they force us to play dirty as well.
I suggest that the always-eager-to-serve antispam vigilantees simply set up a network to do DDoS against all the trojan proxies. Remember, they run Windows and they will crash/die if you blast them with a few Gbit/s of evil traffic. Sure, it'll hurt the legitimate owners of those computers but after all it's their own fault by allowing the trojans onto their systems in the first place. Maybe they'll learn and fix their machines. If not, they are quickly taken off the net - for our safety.
With this we both remove these proxies, hurt the spamvertizers and prevent the proxies from being used for DDoS against RBLs and similar! - Not a bad outcome at all!:)
I used to be an avid Opera fan but when they became militant about registering or be force-fed a gazillion obnoxious ads (I hate ads!), I looked around and found the Mozilla Firebird. It is free, ad-free and it just plain work for me and the places I frequent.
Now, for that ad-free surfing experience I never go anywhere without The Proxomitron. It can be tuned so that almost everything works but those pesky ads are completely removed. In addition it kills many pop-up ad-windows while leaving those real pop-up windows working, and it also takes care of troublesome javascript, webbugs and much, much more!
Works with all browsers! Don't leave home without it!:)
Again taken something that does not belong to you is THEFT.
No, that's sematically incorrect. If you DEPRIEVE someone of something it's theft. You imply that making a virtual copy is the same as removing a physical object - it isn't.
A theft involves a loss and a gain. The loss of the owner and the gain of the theif. But most P2P sharing doesn't even satisfy one of these!
The owner doesn't loose anything. The downloader usually wouldn't buy the song for various reasons if downloading wasn't available, so there's no loss of sale or anything else. And the downloader doesn't profit in the monetary sense from his downloaded song. Sure he gains a cultural/emotional experience when listiening to it, but then so would he is he listened to it on the radio and that's free, so that doesn't apply.
So theft is a most incorrect term to use for this. You might as well call it drunk driving or murder. The relation is about the same as theft to the actual offense being committed.
I recently bought two EMI releases, both labelled with "Copy Control" logos and disclaimers: Kraftwerk's "Tour De France Soundtracks 2003" and Delerium's "Chimera".
I have no idea whether these actually were protected but I was able to fire up my Exact Audio Copy, load the disks and make a flawless rip of everything without the slightest problem or need for tweaks.
Both disks held the data track at the end which seems to be omnipresent on these disks so I guess they were something besides a normal CD, but the copy protection was worthless to say the least - it didn't even slow me down.
The CD drive used was a regular A-Open CD-RW/DVD combo drive, about 3 months old.
The rips are to be used by myself at work (nobody wants to drag along thousands of CDs just to be able to have a decent selection of music to listen to), so they are perfectly legal under danish law, even with the stupid european DMCA in effect, according to CONSOLIDATED ACT ON COPYRIGHT 2003 (Consolidated Act No. 164 of March 12, 2003), paragraph 12, section 2, subsection (v):
"The provision of subsection (1) does not provide the right to... make single copies in digital form of other works than computer programs and databases unless this is done exclusively for the personal use of the copying person himself or his household."
SPEWS may listen but they rarely (if ever) unblock anyone except those precious few that they like, asks the right way or just catches the resident I-am-not-SPEWS guy in a good mood.
I work for an ISP that *had* a spammer on the net but kicked him out back in March. We're still listed because we host a subsidiary of a company who has another subsidiary that has used spam in the past. That's the only spam-relation but we're still listed at max. due to that. Our customer has never used spam anywhere so we can't throw them out, and why should we? - But SPEWS calls us spam-friendly and refuses to de-list us.
Sigh. SPEWS must either go or come around. Instead of making enemies of everyone they should unite people in the fight against the spammers. Hurting and blackmailing innocent people to turn against their ISP isn't the best way to make friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares if you get a 100 compiler errors at the end when you compile once, vs. getting 1 error each time, but having to compile 100 times?
Well, almost all subsequent errors are usually the result of the first; I've seen multiple screenfulls of one-line error messages go away after fixing the first problem: A missing ". When the token state machine in a compiler gets out of sync the compilation result is unpredicable at best, and often just plain useless...
The only one that I've seen get through (and it's not really spyware) is changing a person's homepage. I'm not sure why IE even allows this.
This one is easy to avoid - just don't use IE!
There are plenty of other alternatives, most are even free and none of them allow a website to change the homepage (or anything else) without explicit confirmation.
I have not used IE for several years now and cannot see why anybody would still be firing up that bugtrap-failure for anything.
But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):
(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;
Rumours in the hallway... That's a method - banned.
(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;
"If they shoot at us, shoot back" - will ban just about every war record ever.
(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.
"Bush and Blair have agreed to..." - that's an international agreement so ban everything related to that.
It's a wonder that anything ever gets released.
I can understand six figure rewards for those on the ten most wanted list, but for spammers?
Do you have any idea how much money gets wasted due to spam?!
I think six figures are too little. Eight would do it and the funds should come from both the spammers and their suppliers (from ISPs hosting them, their emails or their sites, to the stupid people allowing their PCs to be turned into spam-spewing zombies).
Yes, if people had to pay a hefty fine (like $500 for each spam estimated to have been sent through their PC) for not patching their PCs they'd either put more effort into doing it (the process can be completely automated these days), or stop using a PC, both of which would solve a lot of problems on the net today.
Yes, stupidity should cost money when it costs everybody else money. Too bad it isn't painful...
They'll buy an old building already on campus, slap a bit of paint and window dressing on it, then fence it in with a high electric fence and charge a massive fee just to look at the building (let alone using it). Then they proceed to send a bill to all the people using all the other buildings, claiming they own the concept of a building and that their buildings are based on methods found in SCO's building...
Sure, SCO's building and all the other buildings are based on far older principles and methods, but still they insist on owning the concepts because they were in the building they bought and thus it is theirs forever.....
Who do you think pays for wiretapping, already? Magical fairies?
Something like that.
But it's the convicted that really should pay for all the resources going into their prosecution; if not in money then in blood, sweat and lots of tears...
In several countries felons already gets to pay for their stay at the prisons, which keeps that part of the system costless for the taxpayers. Now they should also be forced to pay for the investigative work and the legal process and we're in business!
...everywhere on every format simultanously!
That way the pirates would only have those who can't or won't pay the full price as customers. Everybody else will be able to watch it where and when they want with a clean conscience because they paid for it.
As long as they continue to discriminate based on geographical location and format, there will be pirates filling those huge gaps in availability. What part of supply and demand don't MPAA understand?
Just sell the movie to moviegoers on the way out of the cinema!
The overwhelming reason why pirates can sell their crappy recordings is the insanely stupid idea that US moviegoers should get first dibs, then overseas moviegoers, then US rental customers, then overseas rental customers and only then can people in the US *buy* the movie (as can the rest of the world with code-free DVD-players).
This leaves a several month gap which the pirates can - and will - fill.
Therefore: Drop the gap and sell the movie as well as screen it everywhere from day one. Problem solved!
A quote from the Wired article:
One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants.
They are advocating outright sabotage and scaring people by secretly releasing 'mutant flies' (which could be just as dangerous as any GMO produced by a biotech company according to themselves) into restaurants! - How is this different from blowing up these biotech retsaurants or biotech companies with explosives?
Art may be art but this is much more than that. Their motives are clearly political and their advocated methods firmly planted in the realm of terrorism.
Let me begin by repeating myself - They never asked for a delisting from SpamHaus, only that the record be corrected so that blatantly incorrect info is removed.
Maybe that'll teach ISPs to more carefully scrutinize who they give blocks to...
First of all, most startup ISPs will not know how to research the hats of potential customers and will thus be innocent in assigning an IP block to a spammer. And in the western world any customer must be presumed innocent until proved otherwise (to the ISP that is).
The point is that services like SpamHaus should become as universally known as Google to anyone, even people starting out as ISP salesdroids. That way spammers won't be signed up out of ignorance/inexperience.
The ISP I mentioned started out in 2001 and they had zero knowledge of ROKSO, SpamHaus, SPEWS and all that. They happily signed up customers that would pay the setup fee upfront. The contracts were all long-term and while they had provisions against spamming they only covered abuse of the ISPs networks, not abuse elsewhere. This means that their contracts cannot be terminated just because they spam from elsewhere for sites elsewhere, and that's exactly why Wild Rhino still has a nameserver there.
Being a small startup ISP they would be driven out of business from just a single lawsuit, and terminating a customer without due course in the contract will result in a lawsuit (both spammers and their lawyers are greedy in the worst sense of the word).
So my point is that some ISPs may look like their hat is black but if you look closely you'll see that it's actually a doofus-hat awarded for cluelessness. They will learn and not renew those spammers contracts but until that time they'll have to let them live - or themselves be killed by lawsuits.
One can wonder whether additional funding will have the effect of actually having the records reflect the realities. The trouble is that I know of at least one record (SBL6024) that is filled with errors and despite several attempts at having Steve correct them, all that happened was a bunch of insults in response.
/29 belonging to Wild Rhinos nameserver moved to their record (SBL14379) - or similar. I know it would not delist anything (that's not the issue) but it would correct the information and that's what's important here.
All content in that record except *one* line is completely wrong and/or severely outdated. The bad content reflects an old customer long gone (booted late 2002) whose IP-ranges were mixed up with Dynamic Pipe. All that remains valid is a single nameserver (freya.wildrhino.com) belonging to a different customer/alledged spammer: Wild Rhino.
If the info should be correct that entire record should be removed and the
But Steve does not want to admit his mistakes here, and one can wonder just how many other records in his system are equally flawed, mislisted or plain false. If the incorrectness is rampant throughout, one can wonder just what these businesses would be buying. I think Steve needs to learn a bit about humility and responsibility before he starts making money big-time on this. Because making money off lies and false pretenses has always been the domain of those he claims to hate the most: SPAMMERS.
You forget:
The Al-Queda version, which takes command of air traffic control and sends jetliners into buildings in some randomly selected country that Bin Laden in his insanity dislikes. This action doesn't stop the DDoS of course but killing thousands of innocent people doesn't make sense either, and two wrongs do make a right... in Bin Ladens mind anyway.
The music is owned by its copyright holder. if they don't want to offer it to you, you can't get it legally.
Wrong. If they offer it to someone, somewhere, just go there and buy it. There are no laws prohibiting transport of intellectual property across borders so you can take it home with you. You bought it, you own it - just like if they had offered it to you directly.
Now, the real mystery is why they wouldn't want you to buy their product in the first place. A sale is a sale and profit is profit, right? - So why not embrace the global economy and let everyone buy whatever they want?
Sometimes I suspect those cocaine-soaked VIP-parties have caused serious brain damage to those record execs... They sure behave like they they're seriously retarded in any case.
There's nothing wrong with good old SMTP!
If spamming is profitable, a simple law banning UCE (both sending it and using it) featuring huge rewards taken out of caught spammers' funds for capturing them (dead or alive?) will quickly kill off all spamming (and the spammers themselves?). They'll be outlaws hunted by billions of greedy people who want a share of their money, and they won't last long that way. It's easy, simple and efficient.
Sharing music and movies is illegal, ethically wrong etc etc. Please, accept the fact.
Please accept the fact that 'illegal downloads' promotes as much as it infringes and that the balance is positive in the artists favour. I know this from own experience.
The ability to check out a new album in full in a decent quality in the comfort of home makes it more likely that I'll buy it than if I have to listen in a crowded shop using crappy, dirty headphones with a bunch of people waiting on their turn to listen to something, poking me and asking every 5 seconds: "are you done yet?".
Sure there are people only downloading, never buying. Well, they're just thieves or leeches and they should be dealt with by the law.
Don't kill P2P just because some people can't handle it. Punish them and be done with it.
The girl was illegally sharing copyrighted materials.
Really? - Did the matter go to court? Was evidence seized from her computer?
She has been accused of sharing copyrighted materials, but as we know very well the RIAA has previously made grave errors in identifying their suspects and I'm sure similar errors will be found in the alledged shared stuff.
But regardless of whether she did it or not, the idea to persecute kids for these offenses is obscene. Copyright law is a very complex beast and I find it hard to believe that it is possible to prove that this girl understood the law well enough to know that by placing files in a certain folder they'd be shared with the net and that this was illigal. That means that the violation was unintentional and thus that damages should not be awarded at all.
Sometimes I think the best defence against RIAA and similar organisations is to advocate massive sharing on a scale that makes certain two objectives are reached:
If RIAA and all similar organisations were destroyed and the cost of running them were returned to both the artists and the customers through lower prices, the entire business would benefit immensely.
There are not - and should not be - room in the world for such obscenely greedy organisations that will stop at nothing to bleed everybody dry -even children - just for a few dollars more.
He is a theif. He deserves to be in jail.
Hello? - He's charged with breach of copyright, not theft. One is a civil offence, the other a criminal offence. They are not the same.
Get your facts straight, coward. Thank you.
And other RBLs require usually multiple reports from multiple sources. And you have fairly straightforward way of getting de-listed, too.
In theory... Getting delisted from SPEWS.org and SpamHaus.org is almost impossible in real life.
Getting an insulting reply from these 'organisations' is exceedingly easy on the other hand... I've never seen a 'yes, of course you should be delisted' reply in NANAE; the reply is usually something along these lines: "Go fuck a chicken you stupid spamlover!! - You will remain listed till Hell freezes over!"
They never check reality, they never take pity on innocent victims (99% of those IPs listed are not involved in any kind of spamming) and they never, ever acknowledge their faults.
... of course nobody likes banners, but for many sites it is a large part of or the only means of revenue ...
That is blatantly not true and one of the reasons everybody hates banners... because everybody uses (and abuses) them... for a few dollars more.
Why is it not true? - Because ads are used as a supplementary income to some other business which is usually the primary business of the company. If you have a webpage where people can order some item, you don't need any ads in addition to the promotion of the item itself. The cost of the webpage should be covered by the revenue on the item sale, not by additional ads. And similar for any other sale, whether the item is a tangible object or a service.
The only type of page not covered by either the above or the standard publication cost of research institutions are the personal webpages usually offered by ISPs, but there the cost of these should be a part of the fee, not a 'free' ad-ridden service.
Actually only specialized 'free' services like free webspace and similar should have a need for ads. Those ads would have been much more efficient if people didn't hate ads so much and thus didn't utilize ad-blocking software.
I myself use Mozilla Firebird with The Proxomitron for that ad-free web experience. I've had my attention and focus hijacked once too many times to tolerate ads when I surf the web. Sorry people, but life's too short to waste on wading through gazillions of flashing, lying and annoying ads.
IANAL, but as far as I know the verdict doesn't apply outside the US so why not set up a militant anti-Gator site outside the US?
/. to link to such a site, Google will have to list it pretty high and then Gator will again be in the deep shit where they deserve to be.
If we get everybody on
Oh, and to me 'adware' is a worse label than 'spyware'... I hate ads and go to great lengths using The Proxomitron and similar to remove *all* ads from my internet experience. As an internet user since 1988 I remember and miss the good old days where the net was completely free from all commercial crap. Now email is useless due to spam and usenet likewise. At least most webpages can be cleaned so they are somewhat usable.
Spammers are winning.
:)
The battle, yes, but not the war.
By playing dirty like this they force us to play dirty as well.
I suggest that the always-eager-to-serve antispam vigilantees simply set up a network to do DDoS against all the trojan proxies. Remember, they run Windows and they will crash/die if you blast them with a few Gbit/s of evil traffic. Sure, it'll hurt the legitimate owners of those computers but after all it's their own fault by allowing the trojans onto their systems in the first place. Maybe they'll learn and fix their machines. If not, they are quickly taken off the net - for our safety.
With this we both remove these proxies, hurt the spamvertizers and prevent the proxies from being used for DDoS against RBLs and similar! - Not a bad outcome at all!
I used to be an avid Opera fan but when they became militant about registering or be force-fed a gazillion obnoxious ads (I hate ads!), I looked around and found the Mozilla Firebird. It is free, ad-free and it just plain work for me and the places I frequent.
:)
Now, for that ad-free surfing experience I never go anywhere without The Proxomitron. It can be tuned so that almost everything works but those pesky ads are completely removed. In addition it kills many pop-up ad-windows while leaving those real pop-up windows working, and it also takes care of troublesome javascript, webbugs and much, much more!
Works with all browsers! Don't leave home without it!
Again taken something that does not belong to you is THEFT.
No, that's sematically incorrect. If you DEPRIEVE someone of something it's theft. You imply that making a virtual copy is the same as removing a physical object - it isn't.
A theft involves a loss and a gain. The loss of the owner and the gain of the theif.
But most P2P sharing doesn't even satisfy one of these!
The owner doesn't loose anything. The downloader usually wouldn't buy the song for various reasons if downloading wasn't available, so there's no loss of sale or anything else. And the downloader doesn't profit in the monetary sense from his downloaded song. Sure he gains a cultural/emotional experience when listiening to it, but then so would he is he listened to it on the radio and that's free, so that doesn't apply.
So theft is a most incorrect term to use for this. You might as well call it drunk driving or murder. The relation is about the same as theft to the actual offense being committed.
I have no idea whether these actually were protected but I was able to fire up my Exact Audio Copy, load the disks and make a flawless rip of everything without the slightest problem or need for tweaks.
Both disks held the data track at the end which seems to be omnipresent on these disks so I guess they were something besides a normal CD, but the copy protection was worthless to say the least - it didn't even slow me down.
The CD drive used was a regular A-Open CD-RW/DVD combo drive, about 3 months old.
The rips are to be used by myself at work (nobody wants to drag along thousands of CDs just to be able to have a decent selection of music to listen to), so they are perfectly legal under danish law, even with the stupid european DMCA in effect, according to CONSOLIDATED ACT ON COPYRIGHT 2003 (Consolidated Act No. 164 of March 12, 2003), paragraph 12, section 2, subsection (v):
Source: http://www.kum.dk/sw4550.asp
SPEWS may listen but they rarely (if ever) unblock anyone except those precious few that they like, asks the right way or just catches the resident I-am-not-SPEWS guy in a good mood.
I work for an ISP that *had* a spammer on the net but kicked him out back in March. We're still listed because we host a subsidiary of a company who has another subsidiary that has used spam in the past. That's the only spam-relation but we're still listed at max. due to that. Our customer has never used spam anywhere so we can't throw them out, and why should we? - But SPEWS calls us spam-friendly and refuses to de-list us.
Sigh. SPEWS must either go or come around. Instead of making enemies of everyone they should unite people in the fight against the spammers. Hurting and blackmailing innocent people to turn against their ISP isn't the best way to make friends.