Everyone wants to be suprised, which is why almost no one (the average Joe that is) is reading the books.
Really? I'm not reading the books because I hate reading books. A friend of mine highly recommended the books years ago, and after watching the first movie it's definately on the very top of my list of books to read. I'm actually thinking about holding off on watching the movie, because I want to be surprised. I guess I'm the opposite of the average Joe.
If everyone went to see the movie instead of checking a review then millions of people would go see a crapy movie.
Wow. You're right. That's never happened before. Millions of people never go see a crappy movie. The vast majority of people who go on opening weekend are going to go regardless of the reviews. The rest is guided by word of mouth, from people who actually know a little bit about you and your tastes, not some fat guy who gets paid to eat popcorn and watch movies all day.
In and of itself, it won't. But if a spammers are honest about who they are, then it'll make blacklists much easier to use.
I'm not even going to mention the bastards overseas who are under no obligation to follow these rules( like they would if they had to anyway).
And that might be the best part. If spammers can survive under US laws, then they won't have any incentive to move abroad. Sure, it's bad for the idiots who don't know how to use filters, but it's good for us techies who do know how to use them.
There's a part of the world where it's illegal to send junk mail? What part of the world would that be? After all, extortion means that you're threatening something illegal.
it's pro-business in the anti-spammer sense since the existence of spam will keep anti-spammers in business
Sorry. That's the broken window fallacy. If a different bill would eliminate spam, the savings to businesses in terms of increased productivity would far outweigh the loss in terms of a few filtering companies going out of business.
Of course, a different bill wouldn't eliminate spam. Spam is a global problem, it can only be solved by a global solution. If you're going to rely on laws, then we're talking about IANA. All spammers need IP addresses, after all.
What really aggravates me is the typical "There are blacklists available that you can subscribe to, and some are updated regularly, but these are noncommercial lists with no guarantees." I'd like to see what guarantees the commercial lists come with.
If you pay to subscribe to something, you automatically have a guarantee that it will be around for the period of time you have subscribed for. Noncommercial lists, on the other hand, could go down tomorrow, or begin charging tomorrow, and there would be no repercussions. Now if the list itself is public domain or under some free license, and is available to download in its entirety, that might give you a bit more certainty that they're going to stay around in one form or another.
Regarding some of the other comments that have been made, some of you have said that SA is not hard to install, taking no more than an hour or two to download, install, configure and begin using. That is consistent with the 10 times longer number I used, because the other installation and configuration times were all around 5-10 minutes.
You have also said that I should have taken into account the fact that it doesn't cost anything before making statements about it being harder to install, configure and manage than the commercial products. SA does cost - but in an administrator's time rather than money, which I did say in the article.
Hmm. Brightmail Anti-Spam - Enterprise Edition is $14,000 a year for up to 1000 users ($1500 for up to 50 users). Hiring a professional consultant to install Spamassassin (about an hour or two of work) would surely cost much less. And you wouldn't have to worry about the company going out of business or raising prices. So even if your administrator's time is worth more than $7,000 (or $750) an hour, there's an alternative solution, pay someone to install the damn thing.
If so, then you'd have a better defense than Joe Schmuck.
Yeah, I probably would.
Or do you think that looters, during a riot, can claim they're 'looking for people to warn?'
They could try, but if they were looting there would probably be a lot of evidence to suggest that they weren't just looking for people to warn. Ultimately it'd be for a jury to decide. Personally I wouldn't break into a complete stranger's house unless A) I was certain there was someone in danger and I was fairly certain that I wouldn't be putting myself in serious danger by breaking in or B) my chief or some other officer told me to (of course if I ever became an officer there would be some kind of C option). If I just see some random house on fire I'm going to call 911 and stay out just like everyone else.
Incidently, in Canada, you'd be pretty safe; we have some nice 'good samaratin' laws that protect people who really are just trying to help. In the States, though....
Here in NJ we have good samaratin laws too. Like I said, I'd win the case.
the following things are now illegal inside the store
And if the store is inside a mall, possibly would be illegal inside the entire mall. No more taking video of your friends in the food court.
As the store itself, recording images from their own security cameras.
I'm sure they'd be able to get written consent of the licensor of the motion picture, which they have to get in order to show the motion picture anyway.
I mean, the majority of sites that go under in less than 100 days are the one person operations that one should identify as bad sources anyway.
That go down, perhaps. But maybe they didn't go down. Maybe they just moved. A professor switches colleges. Bob's World of Great Scientific Insight is finally recognized as the masterpiece it really is, is given a 100 million dollar grant, and moves off of geocities...
Not nearly, if you factor in the cost of downtime caused by careless cable removal disrupting active cable in place. Beyond simple laziness, that's probably the reason I've seen the most for "It's not hurting anything, so just leave it in place."
Couldn't you just set up a temporary wireless bridge connection while removing the cable?
He's trying to prove that registering your address actually exposes that address to MORE spam.
Then he's going about it the wrong way. My address already gets spam. So the control would need to be an address that already gets spam, not one that gets zero spam.
This is the reason I haven't put my phone number on the national do-not-call list.
I haven't done it because its already illegal to call my phone number for a telephone solicitation. It's a cell phone.
I'll get calls from every non-profit/charity/political in the nation (immune) and if it gets overturned or circumvented I'll have given my number to a wad of telemarketers.
Apparently you have an unlisted number. Otherwise, these places already have your number, so you're not saving anything.
So i spend a year writing music, rehearsing, and then spend $100,000 recording a CD (a low-ball figure), try to sell it, people want it enough to go to the effort of "sharing" it but won't pay for it and nobody gets hurt? Give me a break.
Someone may have gotten hurt, but it's their own damn fault.
Why am I going to invest a fortune to produce software, games, movies or recorded music if everybody wants it but everybody is too cheap to actually pay for it and "shares" it because "it doesn't hurt anybody"?
Probably with the intention of making money. Unless you're already rich. Then maybe it's just pure altruism.
Why not just walk out of a supermarket with all your groceries without paying for them? Nobody gets hurt, right?
The owner of the grocery store is hurt.
Why don't you open a restaurant and call it McDonald's, and sell food that is exactly like McDonald's food?
Because I'd get arrested. Otherwise, there is no reason (if the food really is exactly like McDonald's food, otherwise it'd be fraud, which harms the customer).
I'm all for sharing, but as the owner, I want to establish the terms of the things I choose to share, just as you choose to do with the lawnmower.
Sure. You're greedy. It's not a problem. It's human nature to be greedy.
As the owner, I get to establish what will in fact "hurt" me. If I borrow your lawn mower, maybe I'll use it to clear a rocky field covered with 3-foot grass in a heavy rain, which I could think is a perfectly acceptable way to use a lawnmower and by my terms "doesn't hurt anybody" - simply saying sharing won't hurt anyone is vague and naive.
That's nonsense. Harm is objective. It is not subjective.
It's hard not to argue with someone who is plainly wrong.
why did you move next to the airport, Einstein, if you don't like engine noise?
Maybe they or their family lived there before the airport was built. Besides, just because it's already noisy doesn't mean it's ok to make it even worse. Nope, sorry, if the planes want to take off and land here, they need to compensate the people who have to deal with the noise. Otherwise we just have yet another example of the rich stealing from the poor.
It does not hurt the freedom of speach as far as I know, so what is the ground for deeming it unconstitutional?
Freedom of speech. It violates the first amendment for the government to say that certain types of speech (commercial email) must be explicitly requested, while other types of speech (non-commercial email) need not be. Of course, that's just my opinion. The Supreme Court may or may not agree, and hopefully we'll never know, because this law avoids the question altogether.
And there aren't any scenarion that come to your mind that could "scare the shit out of a person" from a mere theft of internet service?
Nope.
Like... err, surfing child pr0n, or perhaps only sending threats to spammers, warranting n years of jail time while all the evidence points out to the owner of the connection?
I wouldn't consider that "a mere theft of internet service."
Perhaps you wouldn't do those things. Perhaps you would.
For the record, I wouldn't.
Mere possibility is just as much scaring as someone breaking to your house.
LOL. You're a moron. I'm not even going to point out how stupid that statement was. Think about it.
You do not set the rules for other people's property.
Neither do you.
You can subscribe to this idea all you like, but if others do not, then you have no right to use their property in such a manner.
"Property" is a man-made concept, and has nothing to do with rights.
And, the only case I would use a pen "just lying there" would be in the situation where I was pretty sure it belonged there
Good for you. If I need a pen, and there's one lying in front of me, and no one seems to be using it, I'll use it.
In such cases, the pen was placed there for the purpose of being used by the public. Unintentionally leaving a wifi node open is not anywhere near the same thing.
It may or may not be, but that wasn't the point I was making anyway.
Dude, that's just fucking scary. I hope you're kidding.
I'm not kidding. But make sure you understand what I said. If I did it, there would be nothing morally wrong with it. I wouldn't do it, because I don't want to get shot or arrested or beat up or people pissed at me.
If you're not, then don't -ever- show up at my house because I will attack you on sight.
I don't expect you to tell me your address, so I can't promise you I'll never show up at your house. Sorry.
And then I will post the story of how you ended up in the hospital - and then jail - on slashdot.
If I ever showed up at your house I'm sure I'd have a good enough reason, and I'd bring protection, and would probably not wind up in the hospital. Certainly not in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone wants to be suprised, which is why almost no one (the average Joe that is) is reading the books.
Really? I'm not reading the books because I hate reading books. A friend of mine highly recommended the books years ago, and after watching the first movie it's definately on the very top of my list of books to read. I'm actually thinking about holding off on watching the movie, because I want to be surprised. I guess I'm the opposite of the average Joe.
If everyone went to see the movie instead of checking a review then millions of people would go see a crapy movie.
Wow. You're right. That's never happened before. Millions of people never go see a crappy movie. The vast majority of people who go on opening weekend are going to go regardless of the reviews. The rest is guided by word of mouth, from people who actually know a little bit about you and your tastes, not some fat guy who gets paid to eat popcorn and watch movies all day.
Many of use find reviews a useful tool for making these decisions.
Right, so if the Return of the King got bad reviews, you wouldn't go see it anyway?
How does this keep me from getting SPAM?
In and of itself, it won't. But if a spammers are honest about who they are, then it'll make blacklists much easier to use.
I'm not even going to mention the bastards overseas who are under no obligation to follow these rules( like they would if they had to anyway).
And that might be the best part. If spammers can survive under US laws, then they won't have any incentive to move abroad. Sure, it's bad for the idiots who don't know how to use filters, but it's good for us techies who do know how to use them.
There's a part of the world where it's illegal to send junk mail? What part of the world would that be? After all, extortion means that you're threatening something illegal.
Both of which are illegal in certain situations.
it's pro-business in the anti-spammer sense since the existence of spam will keep anti-spammers in business
Sorry. That's the broken window fallacy. If a different bill would eliminate spam, the savings to businesses in terms of increased productivity would far outweigh the loss in terms of a few filtering companies going out of business.
Of course, a different bill wouldn't eliminate spam. Spam is a global problem, it can only be solved by a global solution. If you're going to rely on laws, then we're talking about IANA. All spammers need IP addresses, after all.
What really aggravates me is the typical "There are blacklists available that you can subscribe to, and some are updated regularly, but these are noncommercial lists with no guarantees." I'd like to see what guarantees the commercial lists come with.
If you pay to subscribe to something, you automatically have a guarantee that it will be around for the period of time you have subscribed for. Noncommercial lists, on the other hand, could go down tomorrow, or begin charging tomorrow, and there would be no repercussions. Now if the list itself is public domain or under some free license, and is available to download in its entirety, that might give you a bit more certainty that they're going to stay around in one form or another.
Hmm. Brightmail Anti-Spam - Enterprise Edition is $14,000 a year for up to 1000 users ($1500 for up to 50 users). Hiring a professional consultant to install Spamassassin (about an hour or two of work) would surely cost much less. And you wouldn't have to worry about the company going out of business or raising prices. So even if your administrator's time is worth more than $7,000 (or $750) an hour, there's an alternative solution, pay someone to install the damn thing.
Why not create SlashAssassin ?
Cause in order to do so you'd need to scrape Slashdot's pages. And that would violate their oh so important intellectual property rights.
So we should be calling them the Primary Primary drive?
What's wrong with hda?
Will now be replaced with Slave/Master
Fire School...are you a fireman?
Yeah.
If so, then you'd have a better defense than Joe Schmuck.
Yeah, I probably would.
Or do you think that looters, during a riot, can claim they're 'looking for people to warn?'
They could try, but if they were looting there would probably be a lot of evidence to suggest that they weren't just looking for people to warn. Ultimately it'd be for a jury to decide. Personally I wouldn't break into a complete stranger's house unless A) I was certain there was someone in danger and I was fairly certain that I wouldn't be putting myself in serious danger by breaking in or B) my chief or some other officer told me to (of course if I ever became an officer there would be some kind of C option). If I just see some random house on fire I'm going to call 911 and stay out just like everyone else.
Incidently, in Canada, you'd be pretty safe; we have some nice 'good samaratin' laws that protect people who really are just trying to help. In the States, though....
Here in NJ we have good samaratin laws too. Like I said, I'd win the case.
Recycle this ad to sell anything from breakfast cereals to Pentium-4 chips
Or you could use it for a public service announcement. "It's spring break. Do you know where your children are?"
the following things are now illegal inside the store
And if the store is inside a mall, possibly would be illegal inside the entire mall. No more taking video of your friends in the food court.
As the store itself, recording images from their own security cameras.
I'm sure they'd be able to get written consent of the licensor of the motion picture, which they have to get in order to show the motion picture anyway.
I mean, the majority of sites that go under in less than 100 days are the one person operations that one should identify as bad sources anyway.
That go down, perhaps. But maybe they didn't go down. Maybe they just moved. A professor switches colleges. Bob's World of Great Scientific Insight is finally recognized as the masterpiece it really is, is given a 100 million dollar grant, and moves off of geocities...
Not nearly, if you factor in the cost of downtime caused by careless cable removal disrupting active cable in place. Beyond simple laziness, that's probably the reason I've seen the most for "It's not hurting anything, so just leave it in place."
Couldn't you just set up a temporary wireless bridge connection while removing the cable?
Wouldn't that be cable theft. Don't you have to contact the cable company before you're allowed to resell your cable?
He's trying to prove that registering your address actually exposes that address to MORE spam.
Then he's going about it the wrong way. My address already gets spam. So the control would need to be an address that already gets spam, not one that gets zero spam.
This is the reason I haven't put my phone number on the national do-not-call list.
I haven't done it because its already illegal to call my phone number for a telephone solicitation. It's a cell phone.
I'll get calls from every non-profit/charity/political in the nation (immune) and if it gets overturned or circumvented I'll have given my number to a wad of telemarketers.
Apparently you have an unlisted number. Otherwise, these places already have your number, so you're not saving anything.
So i spend a year writing music, rehearsing, and then spend $100,000 recording a CD (a low-ball figure), try to sell it, people want it enough to go to the effort of "sharing" it but won't pay for it and nobody gets hurt? Give me a break.
Someone may have gotten hurt, but it's their own damn fault.
Why am I going to invest a fortune to produce software, games, movies or recorded music if everybody wants it but everybody is too cheap to actually pay for it and "shares" it because "it doesn't hurt anybody"?
Probably with the intention of making money. Unless you're already rich. Then maybe it's just pure altruism.
Why not just walk out of a supermarket with all your groceries without paying for them? Nobody gets hurt, right?
The owner of the grocery store is hurt.
Why don't you open a restaurant and call it McDonald's, and sell food that is exactly like McDonald's food?
Because I'd get arrested. Otherwise, there is no reason (if the food really is exactly like McDonald's food, otherwise it'd be fraud, which harms the customer).
I'm all for sharing, but as the owner, I want to establish the terms of the things I choose to share, just as you choose to do with the lawnmower.
Sure. You're greedy. It's not a problem. It's human nature to be greedy.
As the owner, I get to establish what will in fact "hurt" me. If I borrow your lawn mower, maybe I'll use it to clear a rocky field covered with 3-foot grass in a heavy rain, which I could think is a perfectly acceptable way to use a lawnmower and by my terms "doesn't hurt anybody" - simply saying sharing won't hurt anyone is vague and naive.
That's nonsense. Harm is objective. It is not subjective.
It's hard not to argue with someone who is plainly wrong.
I know.
why did you move next to the airport, Einstein, if you don't like engine noise?
Maybe they or their family lived there before the airport was built. Besides, just because it's already noisy doesn't mean it's ok to make it even worse. Nope, sorry, if the planes want to take off and land here, they need to compensate the people who have to deal with the noise. Otherwise we just have yet another example of the rich stealing from the poor.
It does not hurt the freedom of speach as far as I know, so what is the ground for deeming it unconstitutional?
Freedom of speech. It violates the first amendment for the government to say that certain types of speech (commercial email) must be explicitly requested, while other types of speech (non-commercial email) need not be. Of course, that's just my opinion. The Supreme Court may or may not agree, and hopefully we'll never know, because this law avoids the question altogether.
And there aren't any scenarion that come to your mind that could "scare the shit out of a person" from a mere theft of internet service?
Nope.
Like... err, surfing child pr0n, or perhaps only sending threats to spammers, warranting n years of jail time while all the evidence points out to the owner of the connection?
I wouldn't consider that "a mere theft of internet service."
Perhaps you wouldn't do those things. Perhaps you would.
For the record, I wouldn't.
Mere possibility is just as much scaring as someone breaking to your house.
LOL. You're a moron. I'm not even going to point out how stupid that statement was. Think about it.
You do not set the rules for other people's property.
Neither do you.
You can subscribe to this idea all you like, but if others do not, then you have no right to use their property in such a manner.
"Property" is a man-made concept, and has nothing to do with rights.
And, the only case I would use a pen "just lying there" would be in the situation where I was pretty sure it belonged there
Good for you. If I need a pen, and there's one lying in front of me, and no one seems to be using it, I'll use it.
In such cases, the pen was placed there for the purpose of being used by the public. Unintentionally leaving a wifi node open is not anywhere near the same thing.
It may or may not be, but that wasn't the point I was making anyway.
Dude, that's just fucking scary. I hope you're kidding.
I'm not kidding. But make sure you understand what I said. If I did it, there would be nothing morally wrong with it. I wouldn't do it, because I don't want to get shot or arrested or beat up or people pissed at me.
If you're not, then don't -ever- show up at my house because I will attack you on sight.
I don't expect you to tell me your address, so I can't promise you I'll never show up at your house. Sorry.
And then I will post the story of how you ended up in the hospital - and then jail - on slashdot.
If I ever showed up at your house I'm sure I'd have a good enough reason, and I'd bring protection, and would probably not wind up in the hospital. Certainly not in jail.