The "Environmentalists are luddites" argument is stupidity. Environmentalists want balance. Technology can help achieve that balance.
Environmentalists want control.
Environmentalists are often portrayed as selfless idealists who fight for a good cause. For many of the environmentalists, this is true (whether or not their good cause is a misguided one, is another matter). But I do not trust the environmentalists that matter: the ones in political parties, in lobbyists groups, or the loudest individuals in the green movements. They are not selfless, although it may seem so because they aren't after money. It is power, influence and control over other people's lives that they want.
Environmentalists are seen as luddites, because the top dog environmentalists often dismiss technological solutions to environmental problems out of hand. They would prefer a dirty factory to close or to produce less, rather than have its smokestacks fitted with scrubbers. Why? Selfish reasons. If the factory closes, they have shown themselves to be influential and caring for the environment. They'll garner the credits for the positive impact on the environment. And with any luck, they get to tell who can be allowed to use the now scarce products of this factory. In contrast, if the factory is fitted with scrubbers, they do not gain a lot of power, or even recognition: it's the factory owners who will, as 'responsible businessmen'. You can see this behaviour anywhere. The more rabiat environmentalists do not want cleaner cars, they want us to drive less. They don't want cheap energy, they want us using less of it.
I do realise that it might seem that I lump all environmentalists together, but that is not my intention. My point is that the label 'luddite' for environmentalists, is earned for then by the loudest few amongst them. It may also seem that I paint a rather sinister image of these environmentalists. Again, I do not include all of them; I am sure the majority of them are well-meaning individuals. But I do not trust the kind of environmentalists who dismisses solutions for vague reasons, because they are 'impractical', 'only postpone the inevitable', or are 'only seemingly clean', and try to push their preferred measures 'for our own good'. If you hear anyone utter those 4 words, you can be sure that it's their own good they are after.
By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness.
It is a simple economic principle that if you raise prices of a certain good, the interest in cheaper alternatives also increases. But you have to take into consideration the cost of switching to those alternatives, and in the case of oil, that cost is daunting indeed. For starters, you have to develop the alternatives first.
If raising taxes alone was the answer, you'd expect a lot of research into and use of alternative fuels to go on in Europe, where petrol is 2 to 4 times as expensive as it is in the USA. We Europeans might be a bit more energy-consciencious than our friends from the US, but so far a widespread use of alternative fuels has failed to materialise.
In Holland, fuel companies get 25 cents for every liter of petrol sold, the remaining 1 euro goes to the state as tax. (You can imagine why the president of Shell was pissed off when our government suggested that oil companies are rersponsible for high fuel prices). In addition there's a 32% special levy (on top of the 18% VAT) on new cars. Personally I would not mind this tax, if the billions(!) of Euros in revenue would be spent on actual research and development of alternative fuels. In reality, less than half of this money is spent on roads and public transport, the rest of it disappears in the great black hole of the general budget. Only a pittance is spent on research and development.
That is the problem I see with increased tax on fuels in the US. Like their European counterparts, the US government will discover that higher prices for petrol will most definitely not result in people driving less, and thus they will rejoice in their discovery of a 'milk cow' that brings much new revenues. If such a tax is ever proposed, I would hope that the revenues are spent on research, and not on other unrelated issues. Europe has shown that the tax does not contribute to cleaner fuels in that case.
Let's see: We're Linux zealots, say. There's two possibilities:
Bzzzzzt, wrong. You are reacting much like many members of minority groups will, when another member of their minority is insulted, threatened, likened to a terrorist, or whatever. In your two possibilities, you say 'we', assuming that all Linux zealots are a homogenous mass, and thus you make the same mistake as anyone who would call all Linux zealots terrorists.
In any group of people who are very passionate about a certain cause, you can find a few crackpots who'll step over the line and go too far to defend their cause. This is true for animal rights activists, pro-lifers, muslems, and I guess Linux zealots. It is wrong to call the whole group terrorists because of a few bad apples, but it is just as wrong to indignantly deny that there may be certain members of the group who will go to far, and just assume that everyone in the group (especially when it's your own group) is a peace-loving, stable individual.
I fully support the notion that there be a few 'Linux terrorists', who can make life very difficult for the Linux or the Open Source Communicy. I don't like it, but I'm not blind to it either.
... these Monday morning quarterbacks like this Mary Goldring? Bah...
"It's nice to be proved right. I knew it wasn't going to sell because I was told it wasn't going to sell."
So she believed whomever told her it wasn't going to sell, and on the strength of that, the rest of us should have believed her? What kind of logic is that?
Both Yahoo and Hotmail use filters as well as blacklists. My Yahoo account is mostly spam-free, but I have received several complaints about legitimate mail from certain domains being rejected.
All true, even though staying on one particular version might not be a viable option sometimes. If you use a suite of packages, perhaps you can maintain interoperability only by keeping them all at similar versions. The manufacturer might force you to upgrade some components to a higher version, by dropping support or stopping the release of security patches for older versions. You may find that by being forced to upgrade a few components, you'll be forced to upgrade everything.
The cost of switching software is daunting, not in the least since your users and support team will have to build up knowledge of the new software. But, as a certain CIO put it, "Switching from MS to something else may be a big hassle, but Microsoft are making it more and more attractive for us!".
The European institutions are about throwing large amounts of money at people who's only real skill is to be good candidates for large subsidies.
Wrong! The candidates for subsidies don't even need that skill. An acquaintance of mine works for a consulting firm, which has the sole purpose of leeching as much subsidies as possible out of the EU and Holland for their clients. Apparently it's good business: these people work in posh offices and drive in very nice cars.
But you're right, certain people have come to believe that it's their god-given right to live on public largesse. Others take a more cynical approach and commit blatant fraud to get these subsidies. It's not hard: set up a firm to research, well, cold fusion for instance, and get the inevitable subsidy. Spend lavish amounts of cash on equipment and consultants' fees, which of course you purchase through your other firm (or a friends', if you're careful). When people start expecting results from your research, declare the whole thing a failure and file for bankruptcy. Then start all over again. It's easy and low-risk.
The heart of the problem is lack of oversight of all these EU committies and bureaus, which leads to a tendency for these bodies to bloat and increase their span of control. One way of doing that is, yes, increasing your budget and extending the range of causes you spend it on. The USA has the same problems, though to a lesser extend. Read P.J. O'Rourke if you don't believe me.
These machines require safeguarding against tampering by outsiders and insiders. Having a secure OS, certified software and whatnot doesn't protect against a sysadmin installing his own doctored version of the software after the machine is audited.
The whole system of paper elections relies on having two or more pairs of eyes present during every step of the process. Such a system of having everyone under the watchful eye of someone else, is much harder to achieve when using computers, since much of the actual voting and tallying takes place 'under the hood'. Even if you could device a bulletproof system, with CRC checks on the software, electronic certification, audits and double-checks, the process of ensuring correct voting would be well beyond the understanding of most mere mortals.
A voting system needs to be transparent if it is to be respected by the populace. The only use I see for electronic ballot systems is a way to get a quick preliminary tally. You can use the machines to register votes correctly, then print off an anonymous paper ballot which the voter (and no one else) inspects, then deposits into a regular ballot box. These paper ballots are then counted to produce the final results.
Incidentally, we in Holland have had interesting problems with out voting machines. In the past, people might go to vote and leave their ballot blank or invalidate it by making a mark on it, out of protest. These invalid votes showed up in the polls. But on the voting machines there is no way to make an invalid or blank vote! You can pick one, and only one candidate, and the vote won't register when you've picked no candidates.
That comes down to about 685kB/s. You can get that on an uncapped ADSL connection if you're close to the exchange.
If I get a good source, I can manage 800kB/s *huge grin*
With the exception of the stylish and practical Burton Amp jacket (also mentioned on/. some time back), the rest of the stuff is gaudy at best. I'll stick with my low-tech jeans and T-shirts for now, thank you.
True, but at least people are finally coming up with some useful applications of smart clothing. Clothing that changes its properties (and not just the color or lighting) according to the body or the environment. Clothing that monitors your heart. That Amp jacket is quite handy as well, I suppose.
Or, as mentioned, a jacket that will monitor and correct your golf swing. At least on the golf course you don't really have to worry what clothes you wear, now do you?
I found Windows XP to be the friendliest OS I have had installed on my home computer to date. Previously I have had Windows 95, 98, NT, and various flavours of Linux (BSD and RedHat are the ones I think). Especially the installation of XP went quick and very painless. No driver issues; all hardware present was recognised in one go, and subsequent hardware installations no longer required a reboot like in previous versions of Windows. Be honest: Linux installers are getting there, but they don't meet the Windows XP standard (yet).
As for usability: I use my home box mainly for games, word processing, email and surfing. XP performs admirably for that: no crashes, and I've been free of virii and worms so far. I suppose it all depends on what you use the system for. Other users may find that another OS will better suit their needs and level of expertise.
The area in which the competition definitely measures up to MS, is in the application area: for almost every MS application, there is a viable alternative. The area where the competition might be lacking somewhat is office/groupware. That is to some extend due to MS monopolies and closed formats.
And no, this is not a troll. Instead of keeping up our disdain of Microsoft, the Open Source community should take a look at what Microsoft is doing right, and not be afraid to copy them. Hell, that's what Microsoft themselves did, and (for a time) even taught in their GUI design course.
Eventually a court ruled the police demand was not allowed.
But this case is different: it's set in the wondrous world of whimsy called the Internet, and those magical mysterious toold called Computers.
It's just like patents: you can obtain a patent on any silly or obvious thing, or on something that already has been used or even patented, just by tacking on the words 'computer' and 'internet'. By the same token, any 'undesirable' activity involving computers or the internet, prompts those in power to come up with all sorts of outrageous police methods, moronic laws and draconic sentences.
Eeehm... but doesn't their DRM solution consist of a bit of software that installs itself on my computer through Autorun? Holding down shift while inserting a CD does nothing besides disabling Autorun, right?
So, they have written a piece of software that installs itself on my computer without my knowledge or consent, and impairs the normal operation of that computer. Such programs are called trojans and there is a law against knowingly distributing such software, or installing it without my prior consent. Hmmm... maybe it's time to countersue, maybe not these guys, but the record companies that make use of this software.
If a store owner has a shoplifter arrested, would you say he's "harassing his customers"?
I thought not.
By the same token, people who download music without paying are hardly customers of the RIAA's members. Worse: if they pass on their illicit copies of music to other people, they might convince more people not to pay for their music and pirate it instead.
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly of the belief that the RIAA's business model is outdated, and that the RIAA should get the hell out of the way instead of trying to maintain their stranglehold on music distribution. Or, they can stay and keep peddling their mass-marketed rubbish to thosse inclined to buy it. But downloading their music without paying is against the law, no matter how you slice it. If you do not agree with that law, you can work to have it changed... one such way is to break the law and duke it out in court. But to break the law and then whine about being sued is just stupid.
I'm not talking about the RIAA's outdated business model, or how they seem to be losing the fight for public opinion, or how America's court system is broken, or how stealing music isn't really stealing, or why information wants to be free. But if you do the crime, be prepared to do the time as well.... and don't call yourself a 'valued customer' of the people you are stealing from.
Isn't the real issue that we have poor cost metrics and service agreements on the Internet?
Cost metrics are poor, for a reason, one that economists call 'market failure'. For each transmitted email, view of a webpage, downloaded file or transported byte, there is a fee that users would be willing to pay. The problem is that tallying and collecting these fees is impractical, or the cost of doing so would far exceed the revenue. That's why peer agreements between ISPs exist: they just agree to 'call it even' and won't bother to count bytes. This is nothing new either, snail mail agencies have been doing this for centuries.
Shifting cost back to the spammer might be possible, but there are two problems:
- Already, spammers often operate using temporary untracable accounts. They are cut off when the ISP gets wise to them, and they simply move on to the next account. In some cases they will use a hacked account of an unsuspected user. So, if they are willing to commit fraud or break into unprotected systems to get their spam out, you can be quite sure that they will find ways to avoid any costs being charged back to them. What we might achieve is that certain ISPs will change their policy of lenient to spammers
- Implementing a charging model will come at a price, both a monetary one and one of added inconvenience. The current model of most ISPs who will sell you an unlimited (or a capped) data volume at a fixed price, works out cheaper both for the ISP and for the customer.
As for the cost of spam in bandwidth: I don't recall the exact figures, but spam is supposed to make up a very significant portion of total traffic. We're not talking 1% or 2% here.
He doesn't want all his spam automatically deleted he said, because sometimes something interesting comes!
And that is the crux of the problem I have with the notion that we can cure spam by acting like responsible users. As long as there is the possibility of one single potential customer who might be interested in penis enlargement pills, spammers will continue to inundate the world with their emails.
The solution is indeed to make spam unprofitable, but I do not think that the way to achieve that is to ask everyone to stop buying penis enlargers. Making spam illegal helps a little, but the well-known spammers out there aren't exactly known as law-abiding mr. Squeeky Clean. It should be illegal to advertise through spam. For one, it may give some of the avertisers pause, and in addition these culprits may be a lot easier to find, since they need some address to send their wares from and receive payments.
And yes, they can always move abroad... but more and more countries are considering legislation against spam. And since many countries follow the US' lead when drafting trade and economic legislation, it would be nice if the US would take the lead and implement a decent law for once, against spam and against those hiring spammers.
why should software be treated differently than other products? And I have yet to see a lucid argument that it should.
Should software producers be held responsible for damages resulting from bugs, as is the case for other products? Probably. Should Microsoft be sued for damages resulting from the security holes in their software? Probably not, it's not the same thing.
To use an analogy: A car manufacturer is held responsible if a flaw in their design causes an accident, or results in more damage than necessary when an accident happens (like ruptured/exploding petrol tanks). But, if someone cuts your brake lines for shits and giggles, and you have a bad accident, should the car maker be held responsible? If someone steals your car and wreaks havoc with it all over town, is the car maker responsible? This is similar what happens when a hacker trashes your box, or when a worm finds its way onto your system, launching attacks on other systems. But what about the case where MS Word just crashes and you lose a day's work? Well... if you miss an important meeting (a job interview perhaps) because your car breaks down, will you sue the company that makes it? Probably not.
Software shouldn't be treated differently... If the software itself causes damages, the creator might be held responsible. But most damage is not caused by the software itself, but by malicious use of the software. In that case, the manufacturer isn't held responsible, just like they aren't in case of 'regular' products.
For example, what if you had a little speech translator that fit in your ear, recognized nearby spoken speech in foreign languages, traslated it to your language, and used a voice synthesizer to repeat it back to you in your native tongue. Just wait a few years and you'll be saying "damn, I need one of those".
Or how about a tiny HUD in my specs, combined with a camera and face recognition to display people's names over their heads so I don't have to remember them? I'd buy one of them!
But please don't call these 'wearable'... What you describe is just a fancy hearing aid... since when do we call them 'wearable'? Is my bluetooth wireless headset a 'wearable telecoms device'? Are my headset and Glasstron a 'wearable entertainment centre'? The problem that I (and others, I guess) have with the term 'wearable' is that it is something that sounds like a hype, and implies merging electronics into clothes... for which I cannot imagine any advantageous use whatsoever unless the electronics involved are really cheap. In all cases the electronics are best left separate from the clothing, and made small so they can be carried around. We already did this with cellphones, PDAs, and walkmans, and we didn't start calling these 'wearable' just because our coat has a special pocket for them, did we?
Slashdot Mirror
Environmentalists are often portrayed as selfless idealists who fight for a good cause. For many of the environmentalists, this is true (whether or not their good cause is a misguided one, is another matter). But I do not trust the environmentalists that matter: the ones in political parties, in lobbyists groups, or the loudest individuals in the green movements. They are not selfless, although it may seem so because they aren't after money. It is power, influence and control over other people's lives that they want.
Environmentalists are seen as luddites, because the top dog environmentalists often dismiss technological solutions to environmental problems out of hand. They would prefer a dirty factory to close or to produce less, rather than have its smokestacks fitted with scrubbers. Why? Selfish reasons. If the factory closes, they have shown themselves to be influential and caring for the environment. They'll garner the credits for the positive impact on the environment. And with any luck, they get to tell who can be allowed to use the now scarce products of this factory. In contrast, if the factory is fitted with scrubbers, they do not gain a lot of power, or even recognition: it's the factory owners who will, as 'responsible businessmen'. You can see this behaviour anywhere. The more rabiat environmentalists do not want cleaner cars, they want us to drive less. They don't want cheap energy, they want us using less of it.
I do realise that it might seem that I lump all environmentalists together, but that is not my intention. My point is that the label 'luddite' for environmentalists, is earned for then by the loudest few amongst them. It may also seem that I paint a rather sinister image of these environmentalists. Again, I do not include all of them; I am sure the majority of them are well-meaning individuals. But I do not trust the kind of environmentalists who dismisses solutions for vague reasons, because they are 'impractical', 'only postpone the inevitable', or are 'only seemingly clean', and try to push their preferred measures 'for our own good'. If you hear anyone utter those 4 words, you can be sure that it's their own good they are after.
If raising taxes alone was the answer, you'd expect a lot of research into and use of alternative fuels to go on in Europe, where petrol is 2 to 4 times as expensive as it is in the USA. We Europeans might be a bit more energy-consciencious than our friends from the US, but so far a widespread use of alternative fuels has failed to materialise.
In Holland, fuel companies get 25 cents for every liter of petrol sold, the remaining 1 euro goes to the state as tax. (You can imagine why the president of Shell was pissed off when our government suggested that oil companies are rersponsible for high fuel prices). In addition there's a 32% special levy (on top of the 18% VAT) on new cars. Personally I would not mind this tax, if the billions(!) of Euros in revenue would be spent on actual research and development of alternative fuels. In reality, less than half of this money is spent on roads and public transport, the rest of it disappears in the great black hole of the general budget. Only a pittance is spent on research and development.
That is the problem I see with increased tax on fuels in the US. Like their European counterparts, the US government will discover that higher prices for petrol will most definitely not result in people driving less, and thus they will rejoice in their discovery of a 'milk cow' that brings much new revenues. If such a tax is ever proposed, I would hope that the revenues are spent on research, and not on other unrelated issues. Europe has shown that the tax does not contribute to cleaner fuels in that case.
In any group of people who are very passionate about a certain cause, you can find a few crackpots who'll step over the line and go too far to defend their cause. This is true for animal rights activists, pro-lifers, muslems, and I guess Linux zealots. It is wrong to call the whole group terrorists because of a few bad apples, but it is just as wrong to indignantly deny that there may be certain members of the group who will go to far, and just assume that everyone in the group (especially when it's your own group) is a peace-loving, stable individual.
I fully support the notion that there be a few 'Linux terrorists', who can make life very difficult for the Linux or the Open Source Communicy. I don't like it, but I'm not blind to it either.
Both Yahoo and Hotmail use filters as well as blacklists. My Yahoo account is mostly spam-free, but I have received several complaints about legitimate mail from certain domains being rejected.
The cost of switching software is daunting, not in the least since your users and support team will have to build up knowledge of the new software. But, as a certain CIO put it, "Switching from MS to something else may be a big hassle, but Microsoft are making it more and more attractive for us!".
But you're right, certain people have come to believe that it's their god-given right to live on public largesse. Others take a more cynical approach and commit blatant fraud to get these subsidies. It's not hard: set up a firm to research, well, cold fusion for instance, and get the inevitable subsidy. Spend lavish amounts of cash on equipment and consultants' fees, which of course you purchase through your other firm (or a friends', if you're careful). When people start expecting results from your research, declare the whole thing a failure and file for bankruptcy. Then start all over again. It's easy and low-risk.
The heart of the problem is lack of oversight of all these EU committies and bureaus, which leads to a tendency for these bodies to bloat and increase their span of control. One way of doing that is, yes, increasing your budget and extending the range of causes you spend it on. The USA has the same problems, though to a lesser extend. Read P.J. O'Rourke if you don't believe me.
These machines require safeguarding against tampering by outsiders and insiders. Having a secure OS, certified software and whatnot doesn't protect against a sysadmin installing his own doctored version of the software after the machine is audited.
The whole system of paper elections relies on having two or more pairs of eyes present during every step of the process. Such a system of having everyone under the watchful eye of someone else, is much harder to achieve when using computers, since much of the actual voting and tallying takes place 'under the hood'. Even if you could device a bulletproof system, with CRC checks on the software, electronic certification, audits and double-checks, the process of ensuring correct voting would be well beyond the understanding of most mere mortals.
A voting system needs to be transparent if it is to be respected by the populace. The only use I see for electronic ballot systems is a way to get a quick preliminary tally. You can use the machines to register votes correctly, then print off an anonymous paper ballot which the voter (and no one else) inspects, then deposits into a regular ballot box. These paper ballots are then counted to produce the final results.
Incidentally, we in Holland have had interesting problems with out voting machines. In the past, people might go to vote and leave their ballot blank or invalidate it by making a mark on it, out of protest. These invalid votes showed up in the polls. But on the voting machines there is no way to make an invalid or blank vote! You can pick one, and only one candidate, and the vote won't register when you've picked no candidates.
That comes down to about 685kB/s. You can get that on an uncapped ADSL connection if you're close to the exchange. If I get a good source, I can manage 800kB/s *huge grin*
Or, as mentioned, a jacket that will monitor and correct your golf swing. At least on the golf course you don't really have to worry what clothes you wear, now do you?
I found Windows XP to be the friendliest OS I have had installed on my home computer to date. Previously I have had Windows 95, 98, NT, and various flavours of Linux (BSD and RedHat are the ones I think). Especially the installation of XP went quick and very painless. No driver issues; all hardware present was recognised in one go, and subsequent hardware installations no longer required a reboot like in previous versions of Windows. Be honest: Linux installers are getting there, but they don't meet the Windows XP standard (yet).
As for usability: I use my home box mainly for games, word processing, email and surfing. XP performs admirably for that: no crashes, and I've been free of virii and worms so far. I suppose it all depends on what you use the system for. Other users may find that another OS will better suit their needs and level of expertise.
The area in which the competition definitely measures up to MS, is in the application area: for almost every MS application, there is a viable alternative. The area where the competition might be lacking somewhat is office/groupware. That is to some extend due to MS monopolies and closed formats.
And no, this is not a troll. Instead of keeping up our disdain of Microsoft, the Open Source community should take a look at what Microsoft is doing right, and not be afraid to copy them. Hell, that's what Microsoft themselves did, and (for a time) even taught in their GUI design course.
It's just like patents: you can obtain a patent on any silly or obvious thing, or on something that already has been used or even patented, just by tacking on the words 'computer' and 'internet'. By the same token, any 'undesirable' activity involving computers or the internet, prompts those in power to come up with all sorts of outrageous police methods, moronic laws and draconic sentences.
Eeehm... but doesn't their DRM solution consist of a bit of software that installs itself on my computer through Autorun? Holding down shift while inserting a CD does nothing besides disabling Autorun, right?
So, they have written a piece of software that installs itself on my computer without my knowledge or consent, and impairs the normal operation of that computer. Such programs are called trojans and there is a law against knowingly distributing such software, or installing it without my prior consent. Hmmm... maybe it's time to countersue, maybe not these guys, but the record companies that make use of this software.
I thought the original dollar sign (the S with a double bar through it) was derived from the monogram of the new nation: a U and an S superimposed.
If a store owner has a shoplifter arrested, would you say he's "harassing his customers"?
I thought not.
By the same token, people who download music without paying are hardly customers of the RIAA's members. Worse: if they pass on their illicit copies of music to other people, they might convince more people not to pay for their music and pirate it instead.
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly of the belief that the RIAA's business model is outdated, and that the RIAA should get the hell out of the way instead of trying to maintain their stranglehold on music distribution. Or, they can stay and keep peddling their mass-marketed rubbish to thosse inclined to buy it. But downloading their music without paying is against the law, no matter how you slice it. If you do not agree with that law, you can work to have it changed... one such way is to break the law and duke it out in court. But to break the law and then whine about being sued is just stupid.
I'm not talking about the RIAA's outdated business model, or how they seem to be losing the fight for public opinion, or how America's court system is broken, or how stealing music isn't really stealing, or why information wants to be free. But if you do the crime, be prepared to do the time as well.... and don't call yourself a 'valued customer' of the people you are stealing from.
Can we get rid of the Caps Lock key, please. It's utterly pointless, I never ever have a use for it, but I freQUENTLY ENGAGE IT ACCIDENTALLY.
Whoops, sorry.
Take a look at a Mac: the computer case itself and the desktop. Now take a look at your average Windows box.
Any questions?
Shifting cost back to the spammer might be possible, but there are two problems:
- Already, spammers often operate using temporary untracable accounts. They are cut off when the ISP gets wise to them, and they simply move on to the next account. In some cases they will use a hacked account of an unsuspected user. So, if they are willing to commit fraud or break into unprotected systems to get their spam out, you can be quite sure that they will find ways to avoid any costs being charged back to them. What we might achieve is that certain ISPs will change their policy of lenient to spammers
- Implementing a charging model will come at a price, both a monetary one and one of added inconvenience. The current model of most ISPs who will sell you an unlimited (or a capped) data volume at a fixed price, works out cheaper both for the ISP and for the customer.
As for the cost of spam in bandwidth: I don't recall the exact figures, but spam is supposed to make up a very significant portion of total traffic. We're not talking 1% or 2% here.
The solution is indeed to make spam unprofitable, but I do not think that the way to achieve that is to ask everyone to stop buying penis enlargers. Making spam illegal helps a little, but the well-known spammers out there aren't exactly known as law-abiding mr. Squeeky Clean. It should be illegal to advertise through spam. For one, it may give some of the avertisers pause, and in addition these culprits may be a lot easier to find, since they need some address to send their wares from and receive payments.
And yes, they can always move abroad... but more and more countries are considering legislation against spam. And since many countries follow the US' lead when drafting trade and economic legislation, it would be nice if the US would take the lead and implement a decent law for once, against spam and against those hiring spammers.
To use an analogy: A car manufacturer is held responsible if a flaw in their design causes an accident, or results in more damage than necessary when an accident happens (like ruptured/exploding petrol tanks). But, if someone cuts your brake lines for shits and giggles, and you have a bad accident, should the car maker be held responsible? If someone steals your car and wreaks havoc with it all over town, is the car maker responsible? This is similar what happens when a hacker trashes your box, or when a worm finds its way onto your system, launching attacks on other systems. But what about the case where MS Word just crashes and you lose a day's work? Well... if you miss an important meeting (a job interview perhaps) because your car breaks down, will you sue the company that makes it? Probably not.
Software shouldn't be treated differently... If the software itself causes damages, the creator might be held responsible. But most damage is not caused by the software itself, but by malicious use of the software. In that case, the manufacturer isn't held responsible, just like they aren't in case of 'regular' products.
But please don't call these 'wearable'... What you describe is just a fancy hearing aid... since when do we call them 'wearable'? Is my bluetooth wireless headset a 'wearable telecoms device'? Are my headset and Glasstron a 'wearable entertainment centre'? The problem that I (and others, I guess) have with the term 'wearable' is that it is something that sounds like a hype, and implies merging electronics into clothes... for which I cannot imagine any advantageous use whatsoever unless the electronics involved are really cheap. In all cases the electronics are best left separate from the clothing, and made small so they can be carried around. We already did this with cellphones, PDAs, and walkmans, and we didn't start calling these 'wearable' just because our coat has a special pocket for them, did we?