"With that said, the Mailboxes, Etc. approach is among the best overall"
Wanted to address this as well.
It is not the best overall approach, because it would cost me money. I do not own a business, probably never will. I have no use for a Mailboxes, Etc. mailbox, other than to circumvent.us TLD requirements for non-anonymity.
"I guess you missed the news about a recent bill that passed the other day that, from what I recall, adds upwards of 7 YEARS to offenses committed using a domain name with bogus contact information; do a Google news search for more details."
No, I didn't.
That law would only applies, if I commit a felony crime and use a domain registered with fake contact information in some way while committing the crime.
"Besides the tin-foil hat folks who really wants to hide who runs a domain?"
Ever ran an anti-spam site and had a spammer visit you?
No? Well, good for you, but others haven't been so lucky.
There are reasons not to plaster your home address all over the net. If that makes me one of the tin-foil hat folks, then I'll be proud to wear mine, shiny side out, of course.
A Mailboxes, Etc. address is just as anonymous as a fake address.
If you really need to know the contact information, you can subpoena the billing information for the domain. That can NOT be forged, unless the owner also wants to do time for credit card fraud.
These sort of rules only inconvenience ordinary people, who wish to remain anonymous for one reason or another.
My reason to always put fake info (it looks real though) in my domain registrations is that I don't want the net.kooks come knock on my door every time they get upset about what I publish on the websites. If they want to contact me, they either use email or subpoena the billing info (which is not fake).
What it means though is that the higher taxes in New York State trump the taxes of the state the telecommuter works in.
What's ridiculous about this interpretation though is that if the worker is strictly telecommuting, s/he is not using any services of New York state at all, but yet is expected to pay for the "use" of those services.
Phonelines, network connection and any other service the telecommuter is using to "access" New York State is privately owned, so I fail to see why the state should get taxes for it especially since the cost of those services already includes taxes.
He won't, of course, stop spamming, because he's a career spammer, a sociopath and a conman. Scamming people is the only thing he CAN do, so he will continue doing it.
"I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary."
Temporary as in the Dark Ages (ca. 500 years) or temporary as in two presidential terms?
I also disagree a bit about how the next generation is going to be better because they grow up with the change. The children of the fundies are being indoctrinated at an early age to be even more fundamental in their beliefs than their parents. They will continue carrying on the torch.
First, never quit if you don't have another job lined up, assuming you're not quitting to go to school or to take a round-the-world trip.
Personally I have always quit my job because opportunities for career and personal growth at the current job have ceased to exist for reason or another.
I have never quit a job for getting better pay, although I have received a pay rise every time I did change jobs.
Nice out of context snip. Let's put that in context to see what it really means:
"The contents of any email you send will be subject to these Terms of Use and to the Yahoo! TOS, and you grant to Yahoo! all rights to use and incorporate such contents in the Yahoo! APIs or any other Yahoo! product or service without compensation to you and without further recourse by you."
So, if you send a question to Yahoo regarding the Yahoo APIs, you grant Yahoo all rights to the content of that email.
If I want to use one of these APIs to create something cool for my own website or my own education and entertainment, should I ask Yahoo/Google for money? Wake up.
...when phone and cable companies in US are trying to make municipal broadband development. While they're quite as brazen as their Costa Rican brothers, they certainly are trying just as hard.
Spam is a global problem. It would make sense to fight in a global manner instead of every tom and dick ISP and.tv country doing it individually on their own.
The problem with the US dictating the direction of such efforts is that the US measures to combat spam are watered down due to the DMA lobbyists and other such vermin.
So what you're saying, you'd rather have ONE country and its ideals control what is and what is not acceptable in the Internet?
Okay.
May I remind you that while spam is an entirely American invention, it still is a worldwide problem. As such it would probably make sense to fight it globally rather than individually in national levels, which is exactly what is happening and not working right now.
For a man that was so instrumental in creating the underlying technology the Internet is based on, he sure has come a long way since then.
He works for MCI, the only US network that refuses to terminate spammers, spamware peddlers and bulletproof hosting facilities. Vint Cerf is claiming they can't do that, because of 1st Amendment issues. For someone as smart as him, he sure can be clueless; 1st Amendment does not apply to anyone but the US Government.
This is what Steve Linford of spamhaus.org wrote on SPAM-L yesterday about Vint Cerf's role, among other things, in all this:
MCI, right up to Vint Cerf, are insisting that Send Safe is just ordinary software with no illegal features, and that it "could" be used for spamming only in the way a crowbar could be used for breaking and entering, or an innocent tobacco pipe could used for smoking dope. Our reply to these analogies is that if you sell pipes specifically designed for use with marijuana, with features only for marijuana use, and the pipe is designed to contact the pusher and download the marijuana into it's bowl, and designed to hijack innocent people (proxies) to pass the marijuana smoke through before inhaling to implicate them, while anonymising the smoker from the police by rotating the smoker's name, and even comes packaged with lists of innocent people pre-infected to be used for this purpose, you can bet you're going to jail.
I reminded Vint Cerf of his "spam is bad for the net" quote displayed on the CAUCE site, and asked for his help in getting the MCI spamware issue solved. He said he'd look into it, but got back to me saying the 1st Amendment made MCI not terminate spamware vendors no matter how illegal... so I gave him a link to the LINX BCP document and quoted the LINX text to him, he replied that the LINX BCP document was "probably illegal" in the USA (and hence MCI was ignoring it). Basically, MCI is trying every excuse under the sun to keep Send Safe and the many spam gangs they're servicing.
MCI says Send Safe is not the MCI customer, their customer 'MTI' is an "ISP" who is in turn reselling to Send Safe and it's therefore out of their control. They know perfectly well (and are lying to the press that they don't) that ROKSO-listed MTI is Rusty Campbell's (DesktopServer) spamware outfit, not an ISP by any stretch of imagination, and that ISPs don't normally have only 6 IPs, and that the Send Safe website is directly on the end of the MCI line, one IP away from Rusty's router.
John St. Clair and the rest of the 'abuse' droids at MCI have known perfectly well for over a year that MTI's sole business is spamming and that the sole things hosted on Rusty Campbell's web server at 65.210.168.34 are 25 web sites, which are:
MCI says these are all normal customers of the "ISP" Rusty Campbell who just happens to be the author of DesktopServer and to MCI it's all good paying business and nobody's going to stop them, least of all those darn anti-spammers.
Amazingly, in 2003 we had kicked Send-safe.com off 4 Chinese "bullet-proof hosts" before they found safe haven at MCI in the US. MCI makes even the worst Chinese network look clean.
Steve Linford
The Spamhaus Project
http://www.spamhaus.org
This is not an issue of rights. Fundamentally it's all about costs.
What do you think it'll cost to fix all the problems caused by a lack of a social security program (whether due to "incompetence" of citizens or by the government not providing one in the first place)?
I'll bet my social security benefits on that not having a social security program of the current type is more expensive than having one.
It's the same thing as when you cut social programs to save money in the city/state level, as has been happening ever since the federal government has been cutting funding to cities/states, more money starts bleeding from elsewhere (e.g. emergency care costs, law enforcement costs, mental health care costs, family services, etc.).
Let's see how quickly Karl Rove gets a few NY Times reporters fired over this "flawed" and "slanderous" article. That or start a slander campaign against the "pinko communist", who wrote the article.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to register the domain with a bit more belieavable contact info.
The website is pretty funny though.
Why would anyone try .com, .aero or .net? Just enter the name in Google and you'll have your site MUCH faster.
"With that said, the Mailboxes, Etc. approach is among the best overall"
.us TLD requirements for non-anonymity.
Wanted to address this as well.
It is not the best overall approach, because it would cost me money. I do not own a business, probably never will. I have no use for a Mailboxes, Etc. mailbox, other than to circumvent
"I guess you missed the news about a recent bill that passed the other day that, from what I recall, adds upwards of 7 YEARS to offenses committed using a domain name with bogus contact information; do a Google news search for more details."
No, I didn't.
That law would only applies, if I commit a felony crime and use a domain registered with fake contact information in some way while committing the crime.
"Besides the tin-foil hat folks who really wants to hide who runs a domain?"
Ever ran an anti-spam site and had a spammer visit you?
No? Well, good for you, but others haven't been so lucky.
There are reasons not to plaster your home address all over the net. If that makes me one of the tin-foil hat folks, then I'll be proud to wear mine, shiny side out, of course.
This has NOTHING to do with spam or spammers.
A Mailboxes, Etc. address is just as anonymous as a fake address.
If you really need to know the contact information, you can subpoena the billing information for the domain. That can NOT be forged, unless the owner also wants to do time for credit card fraud.
These sort of rules only inconvenience ordinary people, who wish to remain anonymous for one reason or another.
My reason to always put fake info (it looks real though) in my domain registrations is that I don't want the net.kooks come knock on my door every time they get upset about what I publish on the websites. If they want to contact me, they either use email or subpoena the billing info (which is not fake).
http://www.mpcfaculty.net/jill_zande/Explorer_scor es.pdf
Interesting scores.
The MIT team gets 3rd lowest score on engineering, but the highest score on actually performing the competition tasks.
The illegal immigrants' team gets 2nd highest score on engineering and highest score on technical report.
How does a bunch of spanish speaking illegal immigrants write a better technical report than MIT students?
What it means though is that the higher taxes in New York State trump the taxes of the state the telecommuter works in.
What's ridiculous about this interpretation though is that if the worker is strictly telecommuting, s/he is not using any services of New York state at all, but yet is expected to pay for the "use" of those services.
Phonelines, network connection and any other service the telecommuter is using to "access" New York State is privately owned, so I fail to see why the state should get taxes for it especially since the cost of those services already includes taxes.
Up yours, spammer scum!
He won't, of course, stop spamming, because he's a career spammer, a sociopath and a conman. Scamming people is the only thing he CAN do, so he will continue doing it.
Excellent post.
"I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary."
Temporary as in the Dark Ages (ca. 500 years) or temporary as in two presidential terms?
I also disagree a bit about how the next generation is going to be better because they grow up with the change. The children of the fundies are being indoctrinated at an early age to be even more fundamental in their beliefs than their parents. They will continue carrying on the torch.
First, never quit if you don't have another job lined up, assuming you're not quitting to go to school or to take a round-the-world trip.
Personally I have always quit my job because opportunities for career and personal growth at the current job have ceased to exist for reason or another.
I have never quit a job for getting better pay, although I have received a pay rise every time I did change jobs.
Did Craigslist start the April fools season a bit early?
Nice out of context snip. Let's put that in context to see what it really means:
"The contents of any email you send will be subject to these Terms of Use and to the Yahoo! TOS, and you grant to Yahoo! all rights to use and incorporate such contents in the Yahoo! APIs or any other Yahoo! product or service without compensation to you and without further recourse by you."
So, if you send a question to Yahoo regarding the Yahoo APIs, you grant Yahoo all rights to the content of that email.
If I want to use one of these APIs to create something cool for my own website or my own education and entertainment, should I ask Yahoo/Google for money? Wake up.
...when phone and cable companies in US are trying to make municipal broadband development. While they're quite as brazen as their Costa Rican brothers, they certainly are trying just as hard.
PR and FUD???
Nobody I know is taking that offer seriously. In fact, they're straight out laughing at it. $5??? It's not even worth filing the claim for God's sake.
Obviously it was way too sophisticated for PayMaxx and their "security" experts.
I was checking a bunch of reviews and I didn't see any score on the original, yet Google displays a 4 out of 5 score on the review.
All the replies are missing the point completely.
.tv country doing it individually on their own.
Lets try again:
Spam is a global problem. It would make sense to fight in a global manner instead of every tom and dick ISP and
The problem with the US dictating the direction of such efforts is that the US measures to combat spam are watered down due to the DMA lobbyists and other such vermin.
It's kinda hard to have UN solve anything when its biggest member:
a) is not paying its dues
b) does not want to respond to genocide w/in a year or two of its happening
c) has veto on all votes of the security council
Get a clue.
So what you're saying, you'd rather have ONE country and its ideals control what is and what is not acceptable in the Internet?
Okay.
May I remind you that while spam is an entirely American invention, it still is a worldwide problem. As such it would probably make sense to fight it globally rather than individually in national levels, which is exactly what is happening and not working right now.
For a man that was so instrumental in creating the underlying technology the Internet is based on, he sure has come a long way since then.
He works for MCI, the only US network that refuses to terminate spammers, spamware peddlers and bulletproof hosting facilities. Vint Cerf is claiming they can't do that, because of 1st Amendment issues. For someone as smart as him, he sure can be clueless; 1st Amendment does not apply to anyone but the US Government.
This is what Steve Linford of spamhaus.org wrote on SPAM-L yesterday about Vint Cerf's role, among other things, in all this:
A few out-of-context statements from a bunch of financial analysts is in depth analysis now?
This is not an issue of rights. Fundamentally it's all about costs.
What do you think it'll cost to fix all the problems caused by a lack of a social security program (whether due to "incompetence" of citizens or by the government not providing one in the first place)?
I'll bet my social security benefits on that not having a social security program of the current type is more expensive than having one.
It's the same thing as when you cut social programs to save money in the city/state level, as has been happening ever since the federal government has been cutting funding to cities/states, more money starts bleeding from elsewhere (e.g. emergency care costs, law enforcement costs, mental health care costs, family services, etc.).
Nothing to see, move along now.
Let's see how quickly Karl Rove gets a few NY Times reporters fired over this "flawed" and "slanderous" article. That or start a slander campaign against the "pinko communist", who wrote the article.