If they had asked the court to drop the charges because they were a UK entity and a US court doesn't have jurisdiction, the court probably would have agreed.
Don't count on it. This court is listed among the top judicial hellholes in the country.
Nowhere have I indicated that my service provider's customers are spammers
You've done everything but.
From direct firsthand experience with several such issues at several organisations over several years, that's a load of crap.
Prove it. I'm not going to just take your word.
RBLs have no code of conduct and are not regulated, and they frequently act like the kind of bully who has no supervision and throws their weight around with impunity. The sooner you realise this, the more sense you'll make in this discussion.
RBLs have no obligation to protect your silly feelings or make life easy for you. They exist for various stated purposes and people choose to use them.
What it comes down to is that you're a self-important jerk who thinks, "How dare someone refuse email from me!"
You're not citing a case where your ISP was unjustly blacklisted. You actually haven't gone into any detail as to why they were/are. You're just bitching because something's inconvenient for you.
Tough shit. SPAM is a problem. Blacklists are part of the solution. Whiny people who think that the entire problem should be pushed onto the poor end-user are not.
That is not quite accurate, as I have had email blocked that was not spam and did not come from an bad ISP.
This article is about Spamhaus, a listing of bad networks. There are other methods that people apply to block spam, but these are not relevant to the discussion at hand.
They did, aren't you paying attention?
Perhaps they didn't COMPLETELY ignore it, but if you compare that simple mistake with the scope of the misconduct going on across the ocean they look great in comparison.
Because they started to.
Why? They have the freedom to ignore it at any time, since the court simply has no authority over them. They could go all the way through the appeals process, loose and still ignore the ruling.
Putting your comments in bold or capitals doesn't make them any more true, you know.
Nor does it make them untrue. I was just hoping you'd pull your head out of your ass and listen.
Do you really not appreciate the difference between a service that originates spam, and a service that is a mere conduit acting on the explicit request of its legitimate customers?
This is simply a lie. Spammers are not "legitimate customers". Customers yes, legitimate no.
By your argument, we should either shut down the entire Internet, or require every mid-stream service provider who carries e-mail to filter it
Actually, all that needs to be done is for your ISP to properly respond to reports of abuse on their network. It's that simple. Your argument can easily be disproven by looking at all the ISPs that: A) Don't actively filter and B) aren't on the blacklist.
You are choosing to assosciate yourself with a disreputable ISP. This means other networks can and do flag your traffic as such. If you don't like the results, don't do it. All this pissing and moaning about how it's not fair is just stupid. You know what's going on here. You know spam is pouring out of that network. You choose to be a part of it. You pay the price.
Which is something that is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
Spamhaus does not have operations in the US. The court is in the US.
How much are you supposed to respect a judge who is obviously dishonest/incompetent? Not only does the court not have jurisdiction, there are indications they might not receive a fair trial.
Isn't there some point at which a court no longer deserves your respect?
This court is listed among the top judicial hellholes in the country. I would contend that as soon as they figured this out, they made the right choice by cutting off contact.
The right resolution for this case is for the judge to spend a few days in jail. His actions are a grevious abuse of the public trust that has been placed in him. For fuck's sake, Spamhaus wasn't even properly served. They sent a freakin EMAIL. Any mistakes on Spamhaus' part pales in comparison to that single fact.
Try looking at it from their perspective. You get an email that you're being sued frivilously in a disrepuatble court in a foreign country that doesn't respect the rights of non-citizens.
I'm amazed at the knee-jerk reaction of so many people here. I hate spam as much as the next person, but claiming that the judge is ignorant, stupid, or malicious is ridiculous.
Why?
Even the most trivial investigation would have shown that the court had no jurisdiction of a UK entity.
Perhaps you were not aware that this court is listed among the top judicial hellholes in the country?
Spamhaus should either have challenged the court's jurisdiction from the outset or, having accepted it, complied with its orders and defended the suit.
Why should a UK organization bear the costs of the broken US legal system? They made the right choice by leaving us to wallow in our own feces. Let the court pull a UK TLD over a frivilous lawsuit. It will make us look terrible and maybe we'll finally loose control over ICANN. Maybe if enough bad things happen, we'll even decide to fix our court system.
The only reason this system is broken is because of an arbitrary decision by a big name provider to throw their weight around, by blocking all incoming mail from a small provider
Get frickin real, any sane person would admit that your ISP bears at least SOME responsibility for the traffic that is coming out of their network.
If you choose to get in bed with these people, expect there to be consquences. If you want your mail to be treated as if it is important, THEN SEND IT FROM A REPUTABLE NETWORK!
the simple fact is that these organisations are screwing their own customers
Actually, they are probably helping their customers. Missing your newletter pales in comparision to getting their bank account hijacked.
What it comes down to is that you're lazy and shortsighted. You want to be able to do business with disreputable groups and somehow have that not reflect on you. Sorry man, but it does, and that's the way it is in general, not just on tha intarweb. Who you assosciate with affects your reputation.
That's just wrong. The RAV4-EV requires around 30KWh for a full charge and has a range of around 110 miles. PG&E's highest tier for energy usage is $0.21 per KWh, meaning it costs $6.30 to "fill up" your vehicle. At the current national average gas price, $2.27/gal, that's equal to 2.76 gallons of gas. Thus, the RAV4-EV gets 39.9 equiv miles to the gallon, which is significantly higher than the gas-powered variant (28-30MPG).
Most engineers I know use neither. Numerical computation can be better accomplished using purpose-driven software. Many EEs would be absolutely lost without Matlab, a SPICE simulator, and countless other software packages.
Actually, as an EE, I use all of it. I use Matlab for large simulations. I use spice for simple stuff and low frequency AC work, and I use "Virtual TI" for back of the envelope calculations.
The CAS inside the TI-89 and 92 is actually pretty powerful and quite useful.
In short, I use what fits and I'm always learning and trying new tools. I collect software the way an auto mechanic collects wrenches.
As a side note, I'm a product of a CU myself, in my case CU is "Cornell University". I think they do a good job teaching math. The math classes are all about the theory and the EE classes build on this, assuming that since you passed the math class, you know the theory. There is very little use of computers in the math classes. There is lots in subsequent classes. I think this works well.
It seems pretty clear that you missed the point of my last post.
The models are there as an attempt to explain reality. The are just models. They aren't real.
You propose a ridiculously expensive and poorly controlled experiment and act as though a failure of the result to come out within your own narrowly defined criteria is an automatic vindication of your viewpoint.
This is why economics has a relatively poor reputation in the scientific communitity. What you're suggesting is the stuff of political posturing, nor respectable inquiry.
What a suprise, you failed to discredit any statements is the report, while giving no specific reasons why they are to be completely disregarded.
Your claim of using logic is quite a funny double standard.
You own "absence of evidence" nonsense applies equally to you claims regarding Bush's discharge. As in: "Absence of evidence" (honorable discharge) for Bush doing breaking the law is not "evidence of absence" that it happend.
Ah, economics the science of half-truths and crazy theories treated as laws of nature.
Option value is real, it's the price of risk.
This is one of the classic traps people then to fall into. They take an economic theory and treat it as a law that reality must follow.
If I can find a single instance where the option value doesn't equal the actual risk, you are discredited. Are you confident that I cannot find a single instance where this is the case?
To put it another way, what you're doing is like assuming that every market functions like the classic double aution exaple from an intro econ class. It's just a model. It's not real. People can and do engage in actions that are not explained by the model.
There's plenty of evidence in the article.
What you're doing is a classic dodge.
Rather than actually examining the real evidence that's there, you keep demanding more evidence, without giving any substative reason why the evidence presented is insufficient.
Meanwhile, the best you can do in support of Bush is to say that he was honorably discharged. To claim this is proof positive that there was no wrongdoing on his part is a far more flimsy argument than those you are claiming are insufficient.
I defy you to discredit any of the statements made in that article.
Take a statement about a green door and extend it to mean somehow that the entire neighborhood is a shanty town. Now add in a lame insult and you've got a blowhard, who fails to comprehend the words he wrote himself.
Your statement: Um, no. It's not just "because they think it lowers property values". It's because it probably will lower the value.
Is a silly tautology. Since it's a given that we're talking about people buying property as opposed to space aliens, OBVIOUSLY if they think the property is worth less, it's worth less.
In short, it raises concern that the homeowner who would paint their door a clashing color might do something that would more directly impact the peace and comfort of your fine abode.
See: "raises concern" "might do"
It's all hypotheticals and perception.
One might interpret their neighbor's purchase of a cat as indication that they are actually a witch. If this perception was widespread, it would create "negative option value", but that does not mean it isn't retarded.
Additionally, searching for "sweex usb" showed no returns on buy.com, cdw.com or even amazon.com, so my guess is that availability is rather limited in the US.
Perhaps you should read the page more closely. The driver covers over a dozen actual manufacturers.
It took me about 2 minutes to find this driver in the lernel and get that link. I wouldn't be suprised if there were more supported chipsets out there. It also only took two google searches to find a place to buy a card with this chipset.
You give up too easily.
I can't even get my USB wireless ethernet cards to work in Linux
Did you check to see if they even *should* work before you bought them?
Linux has pretty good hardware support these days, but it not fair to go buy ANYTHING and expect it to work. I've found that checking for support before you buy something basically eliminates this issue. Typically there is at least one vendor out there that is supported.
Basically there are some things you can dismiss, and the claim I was responding to was one of those things you can simply dismiss out of hand because it does not make much sense.
This is a really funny things for you to day. Go back and read my original post.
I am simply stating that you do not know what Apple execs are thinking. Your claim otherwise is less than honest.
You claimed to have knowedge of Apple's internal decision making process. You don't.
Your response to being confronted about this is to make up more theories without actual evidence behind them.
Slashdot Mirror
Two minutes with Google will turn up ample evidence of RBLs blacklisting people who aren't really spammers at all
Just as you've failed to actually assert that your ISP is actually an innocent victim, you fail to provide evidence to back this up.
A two minute Google search will also tell me that the moon landing was faked.
If they had asked the court to drop the charges because they were a UK entity and a US court doesn't have jurisdiction, the court probably would have agreed.
Don't count on it.
This court is listed among the top judicial hellholes in the country.
Nowhere have I indicated that my service provider's customers are spammers
You've done everything but.
From direct firsthand experience with several such issues at several organisations over several years, that's a load of crap.
Prove it. I'm not going to just take your word.
RBLs have no code of conduct and are not regulated, and they frequently act like the kind of bully who has no supervision and throws their weight around with impunity. The sooner you realise this, the more sense you'll make in this discussion.
RBLs have no obligation to protect your silly feelings or make life easy for you. They exist for various stated purposes and people choose to use them.
What it comes down to is that you're a self-important jerk who thinks, "How dare someone refuse email from me!"
You're not citing a case where your ISP was unjustly blacklisted. You actually haven't gone into any detail as to why they were/are. You're just bitching because something's inconvenient for you.
Tough shit. SPAM is a problem. Blacklists are part of the solution. Whiny people who think that the entire problem should be pushed onto the poor end-user are not.
That is not quite accurate, as I have had email blocked that was not spam and did not come from an bad ISP.
This article is about Spamhaus, a listing of bad networks. There are other methods that people apply to block spam, but these are not relevant to the discussion at hand.
So, why didn't spamhaus simply ignore it.
They did, aren't you paying attention?
Perhaps they didn't COMPLETELY ignore it, but if you compare that simple mistake with the scope of the misconduct going on across the ocean they look great in comparison.
Because they started to.
Why? They have the freedom to ignore it at any time, since the court simply has no authority over them. They could go all the way through the appeals process, loose and still ignore the ruling.
Putting your comments in bold or capitals doesn't make them any more true, you know.
Nor does it make them untrue. I was just hoping you'd pull your head out of your ass and listen.
Do you really not appreciate the difference between a service that originates spam, and a service that is a mere conduit acting on the explicit request of its legitimate customers?
This is simply a lie. Spammers are not "legitimate customers". Customers yes, legitimate no.
By your argument, we should either shut down the entire Internet, or require every mid-stream service provider who carries e-mail to filter it
Actually, all that needs to be done is for your ISP to properly respond to reports of abuse on their network. It's that simple. Your argument can easily be disproven by looking at all the ISPs that: A) Don't actively filter and B) aren't on the blacklist.
You are choosing to assosciate yourself with a disreputable ISP. This means other networks can and do flag your traffic as such. If you don't like the results, don't do it. All this pissing and moaning about how it's not fair is just stupid. You know what's going on here. You know spam is pouring out of that network. You choose to be a part of it. You pay the price.
Then they claimed it didn't.
Which is something that is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
Spamhaus does not have operations in the US. The court is in the US.
How much are you supposed to respect a judge who is obviously dishonest/incompetent? Not only does the court not have jurisdiction, there are indications they might not receive a fair trial.
Isn't there some point at which a court no longer deserves your respect?
This court is listed among the top judicial hellholes in the country. I would contend that as soon as they figured this out, they made the right choice by cutting off contact.
The right resolution for this case is for the judge to spend a few days in jail. His actions are a grevious abuse of the public trust that has been placed in him. For fuck's sake, Spamhaus wasn't even properly served. They sent a freakin EMAIL. Any mistakes on Spamhaus' part pales in comparison to that single fact.
Try looking at it from their perspective. You get an email that you're being sued frivilously in a disrepuatble court in a foreign country that doesn't respect the rights of non-citizens.
I'm amazed at the knee-jerk reaction of so many people here. I hate spam as much as the next person, but claiming that the judge is ignorant, stupid, or malicious is ridiculous.
Why?
Even the most trivial investigation would have shown that the court had no jurisdiction of a UK entity.
Perhaps you were not aware that this court is listed among the top judicial hellholes in the country?
Spamhaus should either have challenged the court's jurisdiction from the outset or, having accepted it, complied with its orders and defended the suit.
Why should a UK organization bear the costs of the broken US legal system? They made the right choice by leaving us to wallow in our own feces. Let the court pull a UK TLD over a frivilous lawsuit. It will make us look terrible and maybe we'll finally loose control over ICANN. Maybe if enough bad things happen, we'll even decide to fix our court system.
The only reason this system is broken is because of an arbitrary decision by a big name provider to throw their weight around, by blocking all incoming mail from a small provider
Get frickin real, any sane person would admit that your ISP bears at least SOME responsibility for the traffic that is coming out of their network.
If you choose to get in bed with these people, expect there to be consquences. If you want your mail to be treated as if it is important, THEN SEND IT FROM A REPUTABLE NETWORK!
the simple fact is that these organisations are screwing their own customers
Actually, they are probably helping their customers. Missing your newletter pales in comparision to getting their bank account hijacked.
What it comes down to is that you're lazy and shortsighted. You want to be able to do business with disreputable groups and somehow have that not reflect on you. Sorry man, but it does, and that's the way it is in general, not just on tha intarweb. Who you assosciate with affects your reputation.
That's just wrong. The RAV4-EV requires around 30KWh for a full charge and has a range of around 110 miles. PG&E's highest tier for energy usage is $0.21 per KWh, meaning it costs $6.30 to "fill up" your vehicle. At the current national average gas price, $2.27/gal, that's equal to 2.76 gallons of gas. Thus, the RAV4-EV gets 39.9 equiv miles to the gallon, which is significantly higher than the gas-powered variant (28-30MPG).
Now figure in $26,000 cost of the battery pack and try again.
At $2.60/gallon, that's 10,000 gallons of gasoline or 300,000 miles you could drive the gas powered version for the price of ONE battery pack.
Most engineers I know use neither. Numerical computation can be better accomplished using purpose-driven software. Many EEs would be absolutely lost without Matlab, a SPICE simulator, and countless other software packages.
Actually, as an EE, I use all of it. I use Matlab for large simulations. I use spice for simple stuff and low frequency AC work, and I use "Virtual TI" for back of the envelope calculations.
The CAS inside the TI-89 and 92 is actually pretty powerful and quite useful.
In short, I use what fits and I'm always learning and trying new tools. I collect software the way an auto mechanic collects wrenches.
As a side note, I'm a product of a CU myself, in my case CU is "Cornell University". I think they do a good job teaching math. The math classes are all about the theory and the EE classes build on this, assuming that since you passed the math class, you know the theory. There is very little use of computers in the math classes. There is lots in subsequent classes. I think this works well.
This is why progress sucks. With everything on MPEG and no more tapes, what will the h4x0r3d robot claws fight over?
Angelina Jolie?
It seems pretty clear that you missed the point of my last post.
The models are there as an attempt to explain reality. The are just models. They aren't real.
You propose a ridiculously expensive and poorly controlled experiment and act as though a failure of the result to come out within your own narrowly defined criteria is an automatic vindication of your viewpoint.
This is why economics has a relatively poor reputation in the scientific communitity. What you're suggesting is the stuff of political posturing, nor respectable inquiry.
What a suprise, you failed to discredit any statements is the report, while giving no specific reasons why they are to be completely disregarded.
Your claim of using logic is quite a funny double standard.
You own "absence of evidence" nonsense applies equally to you claims regarding Bush's discharge. As in: "Absence of evidence" (honorable discharge) for Bush doing breaking the law is not "evidence of absence" that it happend.
Ah, economics the science of half-truths and crazy theories treated as laws of nature.
Option value is real, it's the price of risk.
This is one of the classic traps people then to fall into. They take an economic theory and treat it as a law that reality must follow.
If I can find a single instance where the option value doesn't equal the actual risk, you are discredited. Are you confident that I cannot find a single instance where this is the case?
To put it another way, what you're doing is like assuming that every market functions like the classic double aution exaple from an intro econ class. It's just a model. It's not real. People can and do engage in actions that are not explained by the model.
At this point, you're just being silly.
There's plenty of evidence in the article.
What you're doing is a classic dodge.
Rather than actually examining the real evidence that's there, you keep demanding more evidence, without giving any substative reason why the evidence presented is insufficient.
Meanwhile, the best you can do in support of Bush is to say that he was honorably discharged. To claim this is proof positive that there was no wrongdoing on his part is a far more flimsy argument than those you are claiming are insufficient.
I defy you to discredit any of the statements made in that article.
Take a statement about a green door and extend it to mean somehow that the entire neighborhood is a shanty town. Now add in a lame insult and you've got a blowhard, who fails to comprehend the words he wrote himself.
Your statement:
Um, no. It's not just "because they think it lowers property values". It's because it probably will lower the value.
Is a silly tautology. Since it's a given that we're talking about people buying property as opposed to space aliens, OBVIOUSLY if they think the property is worth less, it's worth less.
Economicaly, it creates negative option value.
This is not something I was disputing.
In short, it raises concern that the homeowner who would paint their door a clashing color might do something that would more directly impact the peace and comfort of your fine abode.
See: "raises concern" "might do"
It's all hypotheticals and perception.
One might interpret their neighbor's purchase of a cat as indication that they are actually a witch. If this perception was widespread, it would create "negative option value", but that does not mean it isn't retarded.
Additionally, searching for "sweex usb" showed no returns on buy.com, cdw.com or even amazon.com, so my guess is that availability is rather limited in the US.
Perhaps you should read the page more closely. The driver covers over a dozen actual manufacturers.
It took me about 2 minutes to find this driver in the lernel and get that link. I wouldn't be suprised if there were more supported chipsets out there. It also only took two google searches to find a place to buy a card with this chipset.
You give up too easily.
No wireless USB ethernet cards work out of the box.
I just checked, and my kernel includes a driver for USB wifi cards with a "ZD1201" chipset.
I can't even get my USB wireless ethernet cards to work in Linux
Did you check to see if they even *should* work before you bought them?
Linux has pretty good hardware support these days, but it not fair to go buy ANYTHING and expect it to work. I've found that checking for support before you buy something basically eliminates this issue. Typically there is at least one vendor out there that is supported.
Um, no. It's not just "because they think it lowers property values". It's because it probably will lower the value.
And why does it lower the value?
Because people think it lowers the value.
It's amazing how quickly you've basically repeated my post. I never claimed the effect wasn't real, just that the cause is rather ridiculous.
You can, of course, got into more detailed rationalizations for this line of thought, but in the end it's still just circular logic.
Basically there are some things you can dismiss, and the claim I was responding to was one of those things you can simply dismiss out of hand because it does not make much sense.
This is a really funny things for you to day. Go back and read my original post.
I am simply stating that you do not know what Apple execs are thinking. Your claim otherwise is less than honest.
It's also important to point out that the whole thing is based on circular logic.
"His green door lowers my property value!"
"Why?"
"Because people think green doors lower property values!
It's all based on perception.
You've just offered zero proof.
You claimed to have knowedge of Apple's internal decision making process. You don't.
Your response to being confronted about this is to make up more theories without actual evidence behind them.