Fining people who directly support spammers by making purchases from them is certainly neither unreasonable nor cruel; neither is taking away their net access.
Your plan isn't even feasible, much less reasonable. One thing is certain. You are clearly unstable. Seek help.
Let me guess - you're the type that reads every piece of email "just in case."
It's my right to read any email I receive. I suppose not having control over what I read pisses you off too.
As for punishing people for buying from spammers, yes, since we can't just give them the death penalty, and beating them senseless with a baseball bat won't work, since they're obviously already non compus menti - like the people who try to defend spamming on the grounds of freedom of speech.
So you're not only clearly insane, you're not a big fan of the 8th Amendment either. Perhaps you should consider relocating to China and see how you like living without certain rights for a while.
Sure, you can delete it. You can only read whitelisted email. You can close your email account. You're free to do any of that. That's missing the point though... you also have the right to listen. The government doesn't have the right to dictate what you can read via the vague definition of spam. How the hell do they know an email is unsolicited? Are they mind readers? The only person who truly knows if an email was unsolicited is the recipient.
I'm going to "foe" you so it puts your posts at -1 and ignore all your future posts.
That's what those tools are there for. Use them as you wish. Personally, I'm an open minded person that reads at +6 Troll/Flamebait/Redundant/OffTopic. That could have probably gone without saying though...
You have no protections for "free speech" in the co-opting of others' private property
Thank you captain obvious... allow me to repeat myself in case you missed it the first time: Network intrusion is not a speech issue and is already illegal.
There is no defense for sending out tens of millions of pieces of spam.
How do you know it is spam unless you are the intended recipient?
Both the spammer and anyone who buys crap from them needs to be punished.
And we should punish people for buying perfectly legal goods and services?
Someone certainly has a vested, emotional interest in the legality of junk e-mail...
You either with us or you're against us, eh el presidente? You know the deal... just shout terrorist^W spammer and everyone will vote for you with their mod points. I have a vested interest in the right to speak freely.
News flash; you can always close your browser window and not read Slashdot. Do the comments come directly to your inbox?
News flash, you can close your email account and not read email too. I think I'll keep both, spam, stupid comments, and all. Feel free to become a hermit if you like.
Then nail 'em on computer intrusion. Leave my free speech alone.
Yes, no need to set up complex antispam systems, fund independent systems that keep blacklists of hosts, use spamtraps etc etc. Most professional installations of mailservers do use paid RBL sites.
No need for that anyway. I can handle my own whitelist just fine, thank you very much. Charge the suckers who need managed internet more and give be a bare pipe.... oh... That's the way it works already. Ain't free market capitalism great?
To go back at my work example
Your work example demonstrates damage done by virus... computer intrusion. Computer intrusion is illegal and not a free speech issue.
Until you figure out what the costs of a real world ISP are, please, stop posting on the subject.
Hmmm, let's see... Oh wow, email: < 2% of bandwidth. Bittorrent 33%. What were you saying about what really costs ISPs money? Do you really expect anyone to believe that 1% bandwidth is a deal breaker for ISPs?
Except spammers frequently forge headers, use zombie computers, and their unwanted e-mail makes up a huge percent of e-mail now -- and someone ELSE is paying for it. They're profiting on someone else, for something that neither the ISP nor the ISP users want.
Spamming with your FUD eh Khaed? Perhaps you should go to jail? Forged headers: free speech doesn't protect lying. Zombie computers: network intrusion is already illegal and not a speech issue. A huge percentage huh? Gotta real number? Spammers pay for the upload just like recipients pay for the download. As for what the ISP or user wants, are you a mind reader? Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I do and do not want myself.
Also, you have a right to free speech, but not harassment... and the amount of time spam wastes could be considered harassment.
According to whom? The US Supreme Court? Link please.
I don't WANT to receive your e-mail and you're still sending it to me? That's harassment, not speech. And it costs me money and time.
I didn't want to read your bullshit drivel, and it certainly took me far longer to respond to it than simply ignore it. That said, I'm not going to go all scientologist on you, hunt you down, and have you jailed for saying it just because you're acting like an annoying fucking prick. That's because I respect your right to say it. Wanker.
The big problem with spam is that it doesn't cost the spammer anything to send, the costs are spread out among everybody receiving it and ISP fees would be lower if there weren't spam. It's not that it's junk that makes it so bad, it's the expense to the recipient.
Spammers don't pay for bandwidth like everyone else? What fairy land do you live in? ISP fees would be lower? How do you figure that?? Expense to the recipient? I pay a flat rate every month... it doesn't cost me a dime extra to receive spam... How does complete BS like this get an Insightful rating??
You know what pisses me off? People who "actively clean this shit" for everyone they host. I'm in the process of setting up my own mail server because I can't even get email from my girlfriend in Japan, yet actual spam continues to make in through. I can't even email certain friends because of brain dead spam filtering. You assholes are killing email. So you can go fuck yourself with that gavel and stop infringing on my freedom to associate with who I please. I can manage my own whitelist and it's truly none of your goddamned business in deciding what is and isn't spam to ME.
I have the right to slam the door in their face and choose not to "receive the message".
Sure you do. Just like you can delete your own unwanted email. It remains unconstitutional to jail them for merely making their pitch in your presence.
$42.95 a month, huh? Every month? As in flat rate... like most people... who will pay the same rate every month... whether they receive one email or 100... How are you paying for that spam again???
It's a cost I willingly incur. Unsolicited e-mail uses resources that the sender does not pay for, and has not been invited to use.
You knew of the existence of spam before you agreed to pay for the bandwidth you are using... strike one. Uploading uses just as much bandwidth as downloading, so the sender has spent at least as much as you have to send the message... strike two. The nature of SMTP invites anyone to use the resource... strike three. You're out.
Also, my correspondents don't create bot-nets to hide the origin of their e-mails
Botnets are already illegal and rightfully so. Outlawing botnets isn't a free speech issue.
When you're sending millions of messages a day to people who don't want them and other people (usually the ones footing the bandwidth bill) are paying for the connection, you are guilty of stealing at the very least...
When the subject is bittorrent, it's the ISPs' fault for not building out their infrastructure. Bittorrent accounts for roughly one third of internet traffic. ALL email accounts for less than 2%. In both cases, the one footing the bill for extra bandwidth is generally not the end user.
No, you didn't point to any evidence. You shouted scientific consensus, linked to "proof" of that at realclimate.org, and I proceeded to completely dismantle it. You've been reeling since.
I claimed your evidence that further warming is good was flawed.
I stated that warming had been good for the last 12000 years and challenged you to produce evidence that further warming would depart from that. That's how these things work. If you want change from the status quo, you have to provide reasoning for it. You're waving around a global warming bogey man, yet the big bad warming has been anything but bad in the last 12000 years. I see no reason for that to be changing any time soon, and you've yet to produce anything that remotely looks like science to back up your religious belief that mankind has been bad and will be punished for it soon.
I strongly suspect that more global warming is bad... I suspect that a higher global temperatures would probably a good thing
Well there you have it. Global warmers are never wrong, because they've got all their bases covered.
Ya know, back in high school and my various science and math classes there were a lot of cases where I thought I was smarter than the teacher (heck, in a lot of cases I probably was), and thus every once in a while I would try to prove one of the teachers wrong. With one lonely exception you know how I would describe myself in those situations? Wrong.
When I started in high school calculus, my teacher accused me of cheating because I never showed any of my work. I did all of the problems in my head. I explained to her that I didn't show my work because writing it slowed me down and caused me to loose my train of thought. She actually stood over me on the following test while I proved my case. That test was completed 20 minutes before any other student and I had every answer correct. She had no problems with me just giving answers following that. I never felt the need to prove a teacher wrong, but she did (^_^) When she was absent, I was the teacher. The substitute didn't know what to do anyway, and the other students would ask me to teach the class. She later recommended me as a tutor for a friend of hers in college.
It doesn't matter if I was smarter than the teachers, compared to me they were experts in those areas and if we disagreed I was almost certainly the one in the wrong.
It sounds to me like you had a question about their teaching. Rather than pose it as a question, you challenged them with what appeared to you as an inconsistency. They elaborated, thus clarifying the conflict for you. I'm sure they didn't mind. They probably thought you were quite precocious and appreciated that you were paying attention. Asking questions is a good thing. It leads to finding and verifying answers. In my experience, global warmers shout you down and insist your questioning is heresy. That's not science, it's religion.
Seriously, if someone came up to you and said "pi is a transcendental number, a whole room full of math profs told me!" would you then turn around and say "that's an appeal to belief, that proves nothing!".
No, I'd explain to them that pi is a simple ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle.
I'm sorry but scientists know CO2 isn't the biggest single factor in global warming.
I think you just agreed with me on point 3. It would seem we've found a middle ground (^_^)
as detailed in the IPCC report, it doesn't, well, appear to be statistically significant.
I see a major problem with your IPCC article already:
Note that all data sets are adjusted to have zero anomaly when averaged over the period 1961 to 1990.
Why is that 30 year period a shining example of our planet's climate? If you know anything about statistics, you know that your sample can be biased. You "proof" doesn't pass the smell test without providing a really good explanation as to why they decided that 30 year period was indicative of "normal" Earth climate. I could easily take the same data, choose a different 30 year period to "normalize" the data, and produce an entirely different graph. Any statistician will tell you if they fail to provide that bit of info, the graphs they produce are rubbish. Exactly the kind of ruse I would expect from the IPCC though... lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.
Conspicuously missing... what was that low? According to the graph I provided, 4000 PPM. Still an order of magnitude higher than it is today. Your argument is crumbling here.
Dude...are you being deliberately obtuse?
I was about to ask you the same thing...
Potential consequences also include droughts, heat waves, disruption of various ecosystems, increased oceanic acidification due to greater CO2 absorption (up to a limit) and so many others.
No evidence to back up these predictions from your crystal ball? Why am I not surprised?
If you were genuinely interested, I could go into the details.
Given the quality of your other sources... I'll pass.
Yeah, logic based on supporting evidence. It's a great thing. That's how real science works (^_^) You claim further warming is definitely bad, but even your cult leaders over at realclimate.org admit their point 4 is highly contentious.
Some people aren't learning.... They simply take whatever their political party happens to push and parrot it. Take intelligent design or global warming for instance.
Except in the case of global warming, where the scientific climatologist community has a consensus as strong as evolutionary theory is to the scientific biological community.
Considering that the anti-global-warming campaign is a purely political and corporate-interest maneuver, looks like you're going to have to eat your own words.
That's too bad, because you almost had a point.
Actually, it appears you just made my point for me... (^_^)
Slashdot Mirror
Your plan isn't even feasible, much less reasonable. One thing is certain. You are clearly unstable. Seek help.
It's my right to read any email I receive. I suppose not having control over what I read pisses you off too.
As for punishing people for buying from spammers, yes, since we can't just give them the death penalty, and beating them senseless with a baseball bat won't work, since they're obviously already non compus menti - like the people who try to defend spamming on the grounds of freedom of speech.So you're not only clearly insane, you're not a big fan of the 8th Amendment either. Perhaps you should consider relocating to China and see how you like living without certain rights for a while.
Sure, you can delete it. You can only read whitelisted email. You can close your email account. You're free to do any of that. That's missing the point though... you also have the right to listen. The government doesn't have the right to dictate what you can read via the vague definition of spam. How the hell do they know an email is unsolicited? Are they mind readers? The only person who truly knows if an email was unsolicited is the recipient.
That's what those tools are there for. Use them as you wish. Personally, I'm an open minded person that reads at +6 Troll/Flamebait/Redundant/OffTopic. That could have probably gone without saying though...
It is my right to read email sent to me and decide what is and is not spam for myself.
Ahh, we have a proponent of free speech zones. Obviously the kind of person who would arrest someone for reading the constitution.
Thank you captain obvious... allow me to repeat myself in case you missed it the first time: Network intrusion is not a speech issue and is already illegal.
There is no defense for sending out tens of millions of pieces of spam.How do you know it is spam unless you are the intended recipient?
Both the spammer and anyone who buys crap from them needs to be punished.And we should punish people for buying perfectly legal goods and services?
You either with us or you're against us, eh el presidente? You know the deal... just shout terrorist^W spammer and everyone will vote for you with their mod points. I have a vested interest in the right to speak freely.
News flash, you can close your email account and not read email too. I think I'll keep both, spam, stupid comments, and all. Feel free to become a hermit if you like.
Then nail 'em on computer intrusion. Leave my free speech alone.
Yes, no need to set up complex antispam systems, fund independent systems that keep blacklists of hosts, use spamtraps etc etc. Most professional installations of mailservers do use paid RBL sites.No need for that anyway. I can handle my own whitelist just fine, thank you very much. Charge the suckers who need managed internet more and give be a bare pipe.... oh... That's the way it works already. Ain't free market capitalism great?
To go back at my work exampleYour work example demonstrates damage done by virus... computer intrusion. Computer intrusion is illegal and not a free speech issue.
Hmmm, let's see... Oh wow, email: < 2% of bandwidth. Bittorrent 33%. What were you saying about what really costs ISPs money? Do you really expect anyone to believe that 1% bandwidth is a deal breaker for ISPs?
Network intrusion is not a speech issue and is already illegal. Go after them with that and leave my right to speak freely alone.
Spamming with your FUD eh Khaed? Perhaps you should go to jail? Forged headers: free speech doesn't protect lying. Zombie computers: network intrusion is already illegal and not a speech issue. A huge percentage huh? Gotta real number? Spammers pay for the upload just like recipients pay for the download. As for what the ISP or user wants, are you a mind reader? Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I do and do not want myself.
Also, you have a right to free speech, but not harassment... and the amount of time spam wastes could be considered harassment.According to whom? The US Supreme Court? Link please.
I don't WANT to receive your e-mail and you're still sending it to me? That's harassment, not speech. And it costs me money and time.I didn't want to read your bullshit drivel, and it certainly took me far longer to respond to it than simply ignore it. That said, I'm not going to go all scientologist on you, hunt you down, and have you jailed for saying it just because you're acting like an annoying fucking prick. That's because I respect your right to say it. Wanker.
Spammers don't pay for bandwidth like everyone else? What fairy land do you live in? ISP fees would be lower? How do you figure that?? Expense to the recipient? I pay a flat rate every month... it doesn't cost me a dime extra to receive spam... How does complete BS like this get an Insightful rating??
I didn't realize spam interrupted a process that is biologically necessary to live... Oh, it doesn't? Wow.... then your analogy sucks balls!
The right to communicate without going to jail or receiving fines for doing so is very much a free speech issue.
You know what pisses me off? People who "actively clean this shit" for everyone they host. I'm in the process of setting up my own mail server because I can't even get email from my girlfriend in Japan, yet actual spam continues to make in through. I can't even email certain friends because of brain dead spam filtering. You assholes are killing email. So you can go fuck yourself with that gavel and stop infringing on my freedom to associate with who I please. I can manage my own whitelist and it's truly none of your goddamned business in deciding what is and isn't spam to ME.
I have the right to slam the door in their face and choose not to "receive the message".Sure you do. Just like you can delete your own unwanted email. It remains unconstitutional to jail them for merely making their pitch in your presence.
$42.95 a month, huh? Every month? As in flat rate... like most people... who will pay the same rate every month... whether they receive one email or 100... How are you paying for that spam again???
You knew of the existence of spam before you agreed to pay for the bandwidth you are using... strike one. Uploading uses just as much bandwidth as downloading, so the sender has spent at least as much as you have to send the message... strike two. The nature of SMTP invites anyone to use the resource... strike three. You're out.
Also, my correspondents don't create bot-nets to hide the origin of their e-mailsBotnets are already illegal and rightfully so. Outlawing botnets isn't a free speech issue.
When the subject is bittorrent, it's the ISPs' fault for not building out their infrastructure. Bittorrent accounts for roughly one third of internet traffic. ALL email accounts for less than 2%. In both cases, the one footing the bill for extra bandwidth is generally not the end user.
Ahh, so you bill the senders of legitimate email that you receive? No? Then that's an extremely weak argument.
No, you didn't point to any evidence. You shouted scientific consensus, linked to "proof" of that at realclimate.org, and I proceeded to completely dismantle it. You've been reeling since.
I claimed your evidence that further warming is good was flawed.I stated that warming had been good for the last 12000 years and challenged you to produce evidence that further warming would depart from that. That's how these things work. If you want change from the status quo, you have to provide reasoning for it. You're waving around a global warming bogey man, yet the big bad warming has been anything but bad in the last 12000 years. I see no reason for that to be changing any time soon, and you've yet to produce anything that remotely looks like science to back up your religious belief that mankind has been bad and will be punished for it soon.
I strongly suspect that more global warming is badWell there you have it. Global warmers are never wrong, because they've got all their bases covered.
When I started in high school calculus, my teacher accused me of cheating because I never showed any of my work. I did all of the problems in my head. I explained to her that I didn't show my work because writing it slowed me down and caused me to loose my train of thought. She actually stood over me on the following test while I proved my case. That test was completed 20 minutes before any other student and I had every answer correct. She had no problems with me just giving answers following that. I never felt the need to prove a teacher wrong, but she did (^_^) When she was absent, I was the teacher. The substitute didn't know what to do anyway, and the other students would ask me to teach the class. She later recommended me as a tutor for a friend of hers in college.
It doesn't matter if I was smarter than the teachers, compared to me they were experts in those areas and if we disagreed I was almost certainly the one in the wrong.It sounds to me like you had a question about their teaching. Rather than pose it as a question, you challenged them with what appeared to you as an inconsistency. They elaborated, thus clarifying the conflict for you. I'm sure they didn't mind. They probably thought you were quite precocious and appreciated that you were paying attention. Asking questions is a good thing. It leads to finding and verifying answers. In my experience, global warmers shout you down and insist your questioning is heresy. That's not science, it's religion.
Seriously, if someone came up to you and said "pi is a transcendental number, a whole room full of math profs told me!" would you then turn around and say "that's an appeal to belief, that proves nothing!".No, I'd explain to them that pi is a simple ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle.
I'm sorry but scientists know CO2 isn't the biggest single factor in global warming.I think you just agreed with me on point 3. It would seem we've found a middle ground (^_^)
I see a major problem with your IPCC article already:
Why is that 30 year period a shining example of our planet's climate? If you know anything about statistics, you know that your sample can be biased. You "proof" doesn't pass the smell test without providing a really good explanation as to why they decided that 30 year period was indicative of "normal" Earth climate. I could easily take the same data, choose a different 30 year period to "normalize" the data, and produce an entirely different graph. Any statistician will tell you if they fail to provide that bit of info, the graphs they produce are rubbish. Exactly the kind of ruse I would expect from the IPCC though... lies, damned lies, and statistics. This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.Conspicuously missing... what was that low? According to the graph I provided, 4000 PPM. Still an order of magnitude higher than it is today. Your argument is crumbling here.
Dude...are you being deliberately obtuse?I was about to ask you the same thing...
Potential consequences also include droughts, heat waves, disruption of various ecosystems, increased oceanic acidification due to greater CO2 absorption (up to a limit) and so many others.No evidence to back up these predictions from your crystal ball? Why am I not surprised?
If you were genuinely interested, I could go into the details.Given the quality of your other sources... I'll pass.
Yeah, logic based on supporting evidence. It's a great thing. That's how real science works (^_^) You claim further warming is definitely bad, but even your cult leaders over at realclimate.org admit their point 4 is highly contentious.
Except in the case of global warming, where the scientific climatologist community has a consensus as strong as evolutionary theory is to the scientific biological community.
Considering that the anti-global-warming campaign is a purely political and corporate-interest maneuver, looks like you're going to have to eat your own words.
That's too bad, because you almost had a point.
Actually, it appears you just made my point for me... (^_^)