How about running a SECURE system at home? simply having the PC with logins and auto lock-out would have stopped this idiot sociopath in his tracks. Yes you can crack the passwords with physical access to the machine but I highly doubt the idiot had enough time to crack it without getting caught.
The article said he had "repeatedly" broken into their home. Plenty of chances to plant a hardware keystroke logged and get their passwords.
Probably because they're very likely to be forced to work together with the minority anyway and know that if they don't, it will make their jobs even harder.
If they stood up and reported (and testified against) the bad cops and got them kicked off the force, they wouldn't have to work together with them. AND they wouldn't have to face moral challenges daily. AND the public would treat them better, resulting in less stress. AND....
And perhaps there is a group sort of between the decent and honest cops and the assholes and the decent and honest ones know that if they break rank, the in-betweens will side with those who don't break it.
As someone else said "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
That phrase bugs me. It really should be "Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right".
As a simple example, imagine a card game. Say, blackjack. Assuming the cards are reasonably randomized, each player (assume 2 players) has the same chance of winning/losing. This is the way the game should be- this is 'Right'.
If one person does a 'wrong' and marks the cards, they have given themselves an unfair advantage.
If the other person then marks the cards (a 'wrong'), then they have given themselves the same advantage the first player has. This means both players again have the same chance of winning/losing. As as stated above, this is 'Right'.
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Wrong.
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
How?
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email,
No need for one.
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
No one has tried it before, that's true.
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (X) Sending email should be free
Email Certification meets both these conditions: Users who have certification-complaint email programs would see the benefits, but non-certification-complaint clients would still work perfectly well. Sending email would still be free. It's just the Certification (only needed for Servers, not users) that would cost a nominal amount.
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
I think it would. If you disagree, why not post why, instead of an annoying and inaccurate 'form letter'?
Cool. If any of the people they certify send spam, then people will complain to them. If they refuse to stop it, they get their certificates blacklisted, just like there are IP blacklists now.
That's certainly possible. But it only helps You, not everyone else. Reporting the spam to the certifier means the certificate will get pulled, meaning NO ONE gets that spam. And that's what will result in less/no spam for everyone.
Long story short, everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified' by their ISP. (UN-certified mail would still be possible, if you wish.) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you, and costs a nominal fee.
In return, you create a public/private key pair, and give the public one to the certifier. The private key goes into your email server, which adds some headers to each outgoing email. One of these is encrypted with the private key. When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email, the program reads the headers, connects to the certifer's certification server, and downloads the public key. It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header. If successful, it proves that email came from the specified server, and no one else.
If you get spam, your email client has a big 'report certified spam' button. Click it, and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender. The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation. If sender was hacked, they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so. If spam was not spam, or a misunderstanding, they explain.
If, OTOH, the sender does not reply, then the certifier revokes their certification, and from that moment on, all their (the 'sender's) emails are UN-certified.
What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil'? Well, it's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now, but, instead of blacklisting IP addressed, which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners, it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.
Eventually, it'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified' almost immediately. That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all (depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails. Most people will probably auto-trash them.)
However, white lists are still possible. If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources, just white-list them, and you'll continue to get them. You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.
TL;DR: By proving who send the email (or, more precisely, which server did), Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible. If they send spam, they get de-certified, which means in all likely hood, they lose the ability to email anyone at all. Spammers who can't get certified can't send emails anyone will see.
I also found it rather silly that, while there were only 12 models of human-appearing Cylon, there were at least three "sleepers" on board the Galactica. That might have made sense in the original, where the Galactica was the best ship in the fleet (and Adama was a revered figure). But one of the things I liked best about the new show was that the Galactica was an old ship, the last of the old Battlestars; and Adama was just some stubborn old guy who would be retiring soon. The reason the Galactica escaped the Cylon Trojan Horse was that Adama had successfully resisted all new computer upgrades; and he got away with that because it was an old ship that nobody really cared about.
Hence the need for 'sleepers'. The Cylons could take over the other ships computer networks with little to no problems, but the Galactica didn't have networked computers, so the Cylons needed agents in place.
You don't need to recognize individuals. You just need to recognize what direction they are moving in. If they are moving 'out', no problem. If they are moving 'in', set off the alarms. (And perhaps dim the lights and hit the person with a spotlight to ease identification.)
Not really. The grounds don't have a very high mass, so their cooling effect is small. Also, many coffee pots have the coffee leave the basket and drip right into the carafe, thus no "dripped it through room-temperature air". And many carafes are insulated.
The national Coffee Association says
"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction"
and
"Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!"
but
"If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. "...which is right where McDonalds had it!
Oh, and many coffee makers have a feature such as this:
"Pause ‘n Serve – Allows you up to 30 seconds to pour a cup of coffee while the coffeemaker is still brewing. Carefully remove the decanter and the Pause ’n Serve feature will be automatically activated, temporarily stopping the flow of coffee into the decanter."... where you can pour a cup as it is still brewing, therefore allowing no time for it to cool.
The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns."
Should be
The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."
The link I provided goes to a coffeemaker that has a "Stainless steel vacuum insulated carafe" to keep the coffee hot. It's basically a thermos.
So much for "the liquid previously collected will give off heat".
Also, many coffee makers have a 'brew interrupt' feature, where you can remove the carafe during brewing to pour yourself a cup right away. Therefore, there's no significant time for cooling.
The manual also contains some "Do's and Don'ts". One "Don't" is "Reheating for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175". This means that coffee below 175 is TOO COLD to even re-heat. (McDonalds had theirs at 180-185)
McDonalds was reheating their coffee to 200F, and serving that.
Incorrect. They had theirs at 180-185.
Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns.
The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns." and that "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!" "If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."... which is right where McDonlds had it.
So, either the National Coffee Association is giving out bad directions for it's own product, or McDonalds did nothing wrong.
It says: "The water is approximately 50F hotter than what’s available from your hot water faucet". Hot faucet water is 130-140, so the coffee maker water is 180-190.
It also says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200F."
That's 200 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.
Besides, as has been pointed out, this was coffee at a DRIVE THRU. it was expected that customers purchase the coffee, then drive to work, then drink. To be hot at the destination, it needs to be hotter when made/served.
It says: "The water is approximately 50F hotter than what’s available from your hot water faucet". Hot faucet water is 130-140, so the coffee maker water is 180-190.
It also says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200F."
That's 200 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.
Even a little research will find lots more coffee makers like this.
In preparation for the trial, the plaintiff measured temperatures at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald’s, and “McDonald’s was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings.”
Without knowing the actual temperatures involved, this 'fact' is useless. 89,89,89,89,89,90- Oh, my god, that last one has "the Highest Temperature!!!1!111", but it's only a single degree hotter.
The McDonald's QA Manager testified that the corporation realized that burns would occur,
Actually, he said "that ALL foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers". (Please Note that all 'hot' food must be held at 140 or higher for health reasons. Therefore, ALL 'hot' food is technically a burn hazard.)
but maintained the "holding temperature" of 180-190(1) of its coffee because their research indicated customers buy coffee on their way to work or home and so wanted the coffee to be at an appropriate temperature up to thirty minutes later.
McDonalds are bastards, aren't they? I mean, giving the customers what they want! No company ever stayed in business doing that!!
Wiki: "Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns"
In fact, "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 C (176–194 F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability..."
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
They won't. If the sender is Certified, they get the email. If the sender is not certified,they just have to look in their 'spam' folder, or white list them... just like people do now.
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
Like I said, your ISP certifies you. no need for a 'central authority'.
(X) Asshats
?
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
And what happens when no one sees the spam anymore? Spammers quit spamming. And that lowers bandwidth usage.
(X) Outlook
Of course, getting MS to support Certification would help. So?
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
None have ever been tried.
(X) Blacklists suck
People use them today.
(X) Sending email should be free
True. And it will be. Either go through your (presumably certified) ISP's server, or send uncertified emails.
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Sorry dude, but I don't think your form-letter checklist addresses any real issues with my idea.
Long story short, everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified' by their ISP. (UN-certified mail would still be possible, if you wish.) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you, and costs a nominal fee.
In return, you create a public/private key pair, and give the public one to the certifier. The private key goes into your email server, which adds some headers to each outgoing email. One of these is encrypted with the private key. When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email, the program reads the headers, connects to the certifer's certification server, and downloads the public key. It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header. If successful, it proves that email came from the specified server, and no one else.
If you get spam, your email client has a big 'report certified spam' button. Click it, and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender. The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation. If sender was hacked, they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so. If spam was not spam, or a misunderstanding, they explain.
If, OTOH, the sender does not reply, then the certifier revokes their certification, and from that moment on, all their (the 'sender's) emails are UN-certified.
What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil'? Well, it's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now, but, instead of blacklisting IP addressed, which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners, it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.
Eventually, it'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified' almost immediately. That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all (depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails. Most people will probably auto-trash them.)
However, white lists are still possible. If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources, just white-list them, and you'll continue to get them. You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.
TL;DR: By proving who send the email (or, more precisely, which server did), Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible. If they send spam, they get de-certified, which means in all likely hood, they lose the ability to email anyone at all. Spammers who can't get certified can't send emails anyone will see.
Slashdot Mirror
How about running a SECURE system at home? simply having the PC with logins and auto lock-out would have stopped this idiot sociopath in his tracks. Yes you can crack the passwords with physical access to the machine but I highly doubt the idiot had enough time to crack it without getting caught.
The article said he had "repeatedly" broken into their home. Plenty of chances to plant a hardware keystroke logged and get their passwords.
Probably because they're very likely to be forced to work together with the minority anyway and know that if they don't, it will make their jobs even harder.
If they stood up and reported (and testified against) the bad cops and got them kicked off the force, they wouldn't have to work together with them. AND they wouldn't have to face moral challenges daily. AND the public would treat them better, resulting in less stress. AND....
And perhaps there is a group sort of between the decent and honest cops and the assholes and the decent and honest ones know that if they break rank, the in-betweens will side with those who don't break it.
As someone else said "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
Actually, I believe it was that a second House could repeal laws with a 1/3 minority. I mean if 1 out of every 3 people doesn't want the law....
That phrase bugs me. It really should be "Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right".
As a simple example, imagine a card game. Say, blackjack. Assuming the cards are reasonably randomized, each player (assume 2 players) has the same chance of winning/losing. This is the way the game should be- this is 'Right'.
If one person does a 'wrong' and marks the cards, they have given themselves an unfair advantage.
If the other person then marks the cards (a 'wrong'), then they have given themselves the same advantage the first player has. This means both players again have the same chance of winning/losing. As as stated above, this is 'Right'.
So, two 'wrongs' can make a 'right'. QED
Did it go 88mph?
::sigh::
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
There is nothing to 'put up with'.
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Wrong.
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
How?
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email,
No need for one.
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
No one has tried it before, that's true.
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
Email Certification meets both these conditions: Users who have certification-complaint email programs would see the benefits, but non-certification-complaint clients would still work perfectly well.
Sending email would still be free. It's just the Certification (only needed for Servers, not users) that would cost a nominal amount.
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
I think it would. If you disagree, why not post why, instead of an annoying and inaccurate 'form letter'?
Cool. If any of the people they certify send spam, then people will complain to them. If they refuse to stop it, they get their certificates blacklisted, just like there are IP blacklists now.
Once all the Chinese ISP are blacklisted....
That's certainly possible. But it only helps You, not everyone else. Reporting the spam to the certifier means the certificate will get pulled, meaning NO ONE gets that spam. And that's what will result in less/no spam for everyone.
... or if they use Email Certification.
Long story short, everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified' by their ISP. (UN-certified mail would still be possible, if you wish.) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you, and costs a nominal fee.
In return, you create a public/private key pair, and give the public one to the certifier. The private key goes into your email server, which adds some headers to each outgoing email. One of these is encrypted with the private key. When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email, the program reads the headers, connects to the certifer's certification server, and downloads the public key. It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header. If successful, it proves that email came from the specified server, and no one else.
If you get spam, your email client has a big 'report certified spam' button. Click it, and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender. The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation. If sender was hacked, they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so. If spam was not spam, or a misunderstanding, they explain.
If, OTOH, the sender does not reply, then the certifier revokes their certification, and from that moment on, all their (the 'sender's) emails are UN-certified.
What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil'? Well, it's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now, but, instead of blacklisting IP addressed, which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners, it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.
Eventually, it'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified' almost immediately. That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all (depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails. Most people will probably auto-trash them.)
However, white lists are still possible. If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources, just white-list them, and you'll continue to get them. You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.
TL;DR:
By proving who send the email (or, more precisely, which server did), Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible. If they send spam, they get de-certified, which means in all likely hood, they lose the ability to email anyone at all. Spammers who can't get certified can't send emails anyone will see.
I also found it rather silly that, while there were only 12 models of human-appearing Cylon, there were at least three "sleepers" on board the Galactica. That might have made sense in the original, where the Galactica was the best ship in the fleet (and Adama was a revered figure). But one of the things I liked best about the new show was that the Galactica was an old ship, the last of the old Battlestars; and Adama was just some stubborn old guy who would be retiring soon. The reason the Galactica escaped the Cylon Trojan Horse was that Adama had successfully resisted all new computer upgrades; and he got away with that because it was an old ship that nobody really cared about.
Hence the need for 'sleepers'. The Cylons could take over the other ships computer networks with little to no problems, but the Galactica didn't have networked computers, so the Cylons needed agents in place.
1) Airlines lose checked bags. At least, if you have a carry-on, you have a change of clothes and some essentials.
2) Babies. They need things like diapers, milk, wipes, etc.
3) Valuables. There's enough theft from checked luggage nowadays, imagine if passengers couldn't bring their laptop/camera/etc with them.
4) Entertainment. You wanna spend a 5 hour flight with nothing to read, no games to play, no movie to watch??
You don't need to recognize individuals. You just need to recognize what direction they are moving in. If they are moving 'out', no problem. If they are moving 'in', set off the alarms. (And perhaps dim the lights and hit the person with a spotlight to ease identification.)
Okay. How do we reliably determine who is "arab/muslim"??
Not really. The grounds don't have a very high mass, so their cooling effect is small. Also, many coffee pots have the coffee leave the basket and drip right into the carafe, thus no "dripped it through room-temperature air". And many carafes are insulated.
The national Coffee Association says
"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction"
and
"Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!"
but
"If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. " ...which is right where McDonalds had it!
Oh, and many coffee makers have a feature such as this:
"Pause ‘n Serve – Allows you up to 30 seconds to pour a cup of coffee while the coffeemaker is ... where you can pour a cup as it is still brewing, therefore allowing no time for it to cool.
still brewing. Carefully remove the decanter and the Pause ’n Serve feature will be automatically
activated, temporarily stopping the flow of coffee into the decanter."
OOPS.
The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns."
Should be
The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."
The link I provided goes to a coffeemaker that has a "Stainless steel vacuum insulated carafe" to keep the coffee hot. It's basically a thermos.
So much for "the liquid previously collected will give off heat".
Also, many coffee makers have a 'brew interrupt' feature, where you can remove the carafe during brewing to pour yourself a cup right away. Therefore, there's no significant time for cooling.
The manual also contains some "Do's and Don'ts". One "Don't" is "Reheating for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175". This means that coffee below 175 is TOO COLD to even re-heat. (McDonalds had theirs at 180-185)
McDonalds was reheating their coffee to 200F, and serving that.
Incorrect. They had theirs at 180-185.
Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns.
The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns." and that "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!" "If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."... which is right where McDonlds had it.
So, either the National Coffee Association is giving out bad directions for it's own product, or McDonalds did nothing wrong.
Take a swig of 140F coffee -- the temperature your home coffee maker produces.
Um, no. Here's a link to the User manual of a HOME coffee maker; http://bunn.com/pdfs/retail/usecare/38864.0000_BTX_U_C_English.pdf
It says: "The water is approximately
50F hotter than what’s available from your hot water faucet". Hot faucet water is 130-140, so the coffee maker water is 180-190.
It also says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing
temperature of approximately 200F."
That's 200 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.
Besides, as has been pointed out, this was coffee at a DRIVE THRU. it was expected that customers purchase the coffee, then drive to work, then drink. To be hot at the destination, it needs to be hotter when made/served.
but McDonald's served their coffee at a higher temperature than their peers.
Incorrect. Check out the Wiki article references.
Hell, here's a link to the User manual of a HOME coffee maker; http://bunn.com/pdfs/retail/usecare/38864.0000_BTX_U_C_English.pdf
It says: "The water is approximately
50F hotter than what’s available from your hot water faucet". Hot faucet water is 130-140, so the coffee maker water is 180-190.
It also says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing
temperature of approximately 200F."
That's 200 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.
Even a little research will find lots more coffee makers like this.
In preparation for the trial, the plaintiff measured temperatures at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald’s, and “McDonald’s was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings.”
Without knowing the actual temperatures involved, this 'fact' is useless. 89,89,89,89,89,90- Oh, my god, that last one has "the Highest Temperature!!!1!111", but it's only a single degree hotter.
The McDonald's QA Manager testified that the corporation realized that burns would occur,
Actually, he said "that ALL foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers". (Please Note that all 'hot' food must be held at 140 or higher for health reasons. Therefore, ALL 'hot' food is technically a burn hazard.)
but maintained the "holding temperature" of 180-190(1) of its coffee because their research indicated customers buy coffee on their way to work or home and so wanted the coffee to be at an appropriate temperature up to thirty minutes later.
McDonalds are bastards, aren't they? I mean, giving the customers what they want! No company ever stayed in business doing that!!
Back atcha.
Wiki:
"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns"
In fact, "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 C (176–194 F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability..."
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam.
God, I hate this shit. ::sigh::
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
There's nothing to 'put up with'.
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
They won't. If the sender is Certified, they get the email. If the sender is not certified,they just have to look in their 'spam' folder, or white list them... just like people do now.
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
Like I said, your ISP certifies you. no need for a 'central authority'.
(X) Asshats
?
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
And what happens when no one sees the spam anymore? Spammers quit spamming. And that lowers bandwidth usage.
(X) Outlook
Of course, getting MS to support Certification would help. So?
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
None have ever been tried.
(X) Blacklists suck
People use them today.
(X) Sending email should be free
True. And it will be. Either go through your (presumably certified) ISP's server, or send uncertified emails.
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Sorry dude, but I don't think your form-letter checklist addresses any real issues with my idea.
Or just use Email Certification.
Long story short, everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified' by their ISP. (UN-certified mail would still be possible, if you wish.) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you, and costs a nominal fee.
In return, you create a public/private key pair, and give the public one to the certifier. The private key goes into your email server, which adds some headers to each outgoing email. One of these is encrypted with the private key. When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email, the program reads the headers, connects to the certifer's certification server, and downloads the public key. It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header. If successful, it proves that email came from the specified server, and no one else.
If you get spam, your email client has a big 'report certified spam' button. Click it, and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender. The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation. If sender was hacked, they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so. If spam was not spam, or a misunderstanding, they explain.
If, OTOH, the sender does not reply, then the certifier revokes their certification, and from that moment on, all their (the 'sender's) emails are UN-certified.
What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil'? Well, it's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now, but, instead of blacklisting IP addressed, which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners, it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.
Eventually, it'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified' almost immediately. That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all (depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails. Most people will probably auto-trash them.)
However, white lists are still possible. If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources, just white-list them, and you'll continue to get them. You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.
TL;DR:
By proving who send the email (or, more precisely, which server did), Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible. If they send spam, they get de-certified, which means in all likely hood, they lose the ability to email anyone at all. Spammers who can't get certified can't send emails anyone will see.
Unfortunately not when the entire 'sex ed' is "sex; don't do it", like some people want.
Aren't the "participants" the voters?
The kind of idiot that wants their Netflix DVDs to reach their letterbox
It's called a PO box. Look into it.
(for all I know, netflix won't deliver to one)
their credit card verification to pass
Requires neither Gender, nor birthdate.
and their mail to not be addressed to "Mrs John Smith".
I prefer "occupant". Oh, and an accurate name again requires neither Gender, nor birthdate.
Do you also give your Gender and Birthdate in order to get stuff delivered?
So...yeah.