However it won't catch on because everybody's used to the ABC layout, and somebody's already come up with T9 which works well enough for most people for entering large amounts of text instead of numbers.
If it were otherwise, computer keyboards would be Dvorak instead of Qwerty.
Your life expectancy is longer than the average Ugandan, as it is for most Americans. I'm surprised you'd want to trade it for a price cut.
Then again, as the products you buy are unlabeled, you won't know one way or the other unless you make several phone calls to check the contents of your shopping trolly every time you go shopping. So how would prices fall anyway?
Labelling does work, if the government is willing to implement its own laws, as has been shown in the EU.
It seems to me the only interest you have in food is price and possibly taste. Unfortunately this is a sentiment held by many people in western countries, and explains the current obesity rate.
The point being they should have gone to the UK courts as Spamhaus is a British organisation based in the UK.
If Spamhaus decided to fly all over the world to whatever country a spammer decided to sue them in, they would soon run out of money.
The fact they didn't sue them in the UK shows their case is weak. They have to take advantage of a loophole which means Spamhaus' domain can be pulled because ICANN is also a US organisation, taking advantage of Spamhaus's stated policy which is they don't go all over the world (including the US) on wild goose chases when the only jurisdiction that counts (or should count) is the one in the country they're based in.
You can make any program run with administrator privileges with PolicyMaker Application Security or ProtectionManager, neither of which ask for the admin password. The first if free if you don't use remote administration, don't know about the second.
Considering that RAW can change between camera manufacturers, the same manufacturer but different models, or even the same models but different firmware, I'm not really surprised.
The only thing that stands a change of understanding it is the camera manufacturer's own software that comes with the camera (which is usually bloated anyway).
Even Photoshop treats it as a plugin which has to have regular updates, and only then it only works for really popular cameras.
As regards to a simple title, can I leave you to guess which multinational new-technology company would be the first to sue if its lawyers thought it saw someone ripping off its title?
I doubt that Google could get away with slapping a bitmap representation of a copyrighted font or something very close to a copyrighted font on its front page, any particular reason why an artist should be any different? He only died 23 years ago too; there's no room for confusion as to the length of copyright on his works.
In Spain you can buy the ticket at home on the Internet and insert your bank card into a cash machine or a special ticket machine in the cinema and you get your tickets printed out. Or you can just buy them straight at the cash machine.
There was a two-stage process of reform to be brought in by the current government. Stage one was to remove most of the hereditary peers which gained their position due to accident birth and was completed in 1999. Stage two was to ask for opinions on whether to go for an appointed or elected house of Lords and started in 2001 but didn't get anywhere.
This leaves us in the curious position today where Blair can appoint new members to the House of Lords through the new-year honours list. As has been found out in the past week, in return for soft loans totalling up to GBP 14 million (or possibly more).
Ironically it's the unelected House of Lords that's causing the most trouble for the government over the compulsary ID card and database bill.
Which shows an amendment the opposition proposed to protect the British constitution and civil liberties (nothing to do with business reform) from this bill and was rejected in its entirety by the government.
Which begs the question is why would the government want the ability to change the constitution without parliamentary approval?
In the UK, if there's any increase in prices above the Retail Price Index, the company must inform you at least a month before they happen. You're entitled to cancel or port out from your contract there and then, even if you're only in e.g. month 4 of a 12 month minimum contract. Or you can threaten to cancel or port out and they may waive the charge.
But now you've missed the boat (you didn't cancel in that month so it's understood that you've accepted the charge).
The best thing you can do now is go to the website and sign up to My Account for itimised bills through their website and then cancel the paper bills and you won't be charged any more.
By the way, a good way of getting a cheap phone you've always wanted is keeping an eye on the mobile trade press for info about upcoming charges before they're officially announced, take out the contract with a ludicrously high monthly line rental so the phone's subsidised down to free or nearly free, get officially notified of the change in prices, and cancel.
It seems that everything's gone quiet as soon as anybody asks for the e-mails exchanged with Telefónica.
"It is our policy for full disclosure" indeed.
Perhaps you should have started by blocking addresses from Telefónica's IP space that repeatedly come up as these will probably be the Internet cafés?
Would love to. But I can't because TDE has yet to provide me with that info.
I said that perhaps you should start by blocking addresses from Telefónica's IP space that repeatedly come up in the 419 e-mails. Have you just admitted you don't even have enough e-mails to extract IP numbers from? If so, how can you justify blocking Telefónica? How many e-mails have you received from their IP space? 1000? 100? 10? You don't know, but you're sure it's them?
I had several e-mails back and forth with TDE, all in english. It is not my job to play translator. I have bigger things to worry about then playing these kinds of stupid games. I can not, and will not waste my money calling these people. To expect me to make a international call to discuss THEIR problem, is laughable.
You claim that you "had several e-mails back and forth all in English" yet your press release contradicts this. So far from the scant information available all I can tell is you sent one e-mail, you received one reply saying that Telefónica was working with the police, you sent another e-mail, you received no reply, then cut them off a month later. Will you publish all the e-mails you've had with Telefónica? (Remember, later on you go on to say that 'it is our policy for full disclosure'.)
A responsible organisation must make every effort to contact monopoly ISPs for the reasons I've outlined previously. It is clear that your organisation does not.
Its not a 'venture' you dolt. We make $0 off of the AHBL. Your opinion means nothing, your comments mean nothing. Why? Because you are not one of my users.
Are you seriously telling me that you're unaware that everyone, inside and outside of Spain, affected by your adding Telefónica to the blacklist is de facto one of your users?
I take questions and concerns from my users very seriously, and I actively poll people on our announcements list for their feelings on things. If they are happy, I am happy. If you are unhappy, go jump off a bridge and leave me alone.
Very mature, I must say. You are obviously someone who is capable of comprehending the responsibility of their position.
Linford means nothing to me. He is not part of the AHBL, nor is he a user of the AHBL. I may have respect for what the man has done, but thats as far as it goes.
Let me get this straight, you're saying he has a point but as he's not part of your organisation then you're going to ignore him?
Just because you, or other blacklist maintainers don't have the balls to take a stand and try and force a change, doesn't mean you have a right to judge my actions. Remember, my list, my rules. You want to play in my sandbox? You play by my rules. As long as my users are happy, I am happy.
I'm not a blacklist maintainer, I'm just an ordinary Internet user that would like to use e-mail without it disappearing into a black hole due to someone who will not be held accountable. I've got no problem with blacklist services if they are answerable for what they do. Every person who is affected by what you do has the right to judge you. You have forced your sandbox upon everybody else, ordered everyone inside it to play by your rules, then when you've decided that they don't, unplugged them.
I put it to you that 'other blacklist maintainers' who you say 'don't have the balls' understand what their position entails and act more responsibility.
They are welcome to try and sue me, but don't forget, the CAN-SPAM act has provisions which give me the right to decide what mail goes in and out my systems. They would have to sue all of my users to get anywhere, and they would fail at that due to protections in place thanks to the CAN-SPAM act.
They may sue you, they may not. I'm just pointing out that
Like I said, in a case like this, I dont give a flying f*** that they are public or privately owned. It does not absolve them from their responsibilities to deal with abuse and illegal activities.
My point wasn't that their being state-owned or publicly-owned having a bearing on how to tackle the spam, my point was your press release had this fact as the very first thing mentioned and you couldn't even take the effort to read the English website to verify it this most basic fact. So based on this observation, it's clear you were unaware of other important pieces of information such as by blocking their IP space you've just disrupted practically the entire country.
Websites lie, people lie, companies lie.
One person or company lying to you in the past does not give you carte blanche to treat others how you see fit.
Do not take me for an idiot. I understand perfectly what it [the company] is like.
You've failed to show that so far.
That was never intended to be a press release. If I had any idea that the AHBL would be put on the spot like that, you can sure bet your ass I would have written up something more formal.
I suspect the reason why you've been put on the spot is because your response is unjustified and completely inappropriate to the problem. The unprofessional press release with what amounts to a set of ransom demands is perhaps one more symptom of the way your organisation functions.
Perhaps you should have started by blocking addresses from Telefónica's IP space that repeatedly come up as these will probably be the Internet cafés?
And letting illegal activities come from your network, specifically ones that have gotten people murdered is irresponsible. TDE could have easily cut off the problem at the knees before it got this far by doing something as simple as blocking outbound port 25 connections from their dialup or Internet Cafe customers.
But they chose not to. That is not my problem.
They could have given us their dynamic blocks like I had asked.
But they chose not to.
Point being that I have seriously lost patience dealing with them, since I have better things to do then play their little games.
Did you first explain what your organisation does in your e-mails? Explain exactly what the problem was and what should be done to fix it? Or did you just say 'give me your dynamic IP blocks?' Did you find the correct contact e-mail address? Get it translated into Spanish if there was no reply? If there was still no reply, find the correct phone number and ring them up on that if all else failed? Perhaps there were no games, perhaps you took what amounts to an entire country's e-mail off the Internet because you were unable to get through to the right department?
It's entirely your problem. Your organisation must take all possible steps before pulling the plug on a country as what you do affects people and trade. If you do not, your organisation will lose credibility, ISPs will find others which at least operate with a modicum of professionalism and accountability, and that will be the end of your venture.
Nobody would stand for this if it happened with another method of communication like telephones or post and that's only because relatively few people know that realtime blacklist organisations actually exist and what they do, let alone how some of them operate.
If Telefónica is so guilty, why has Steve Linford of Spamhaus stated that he doesn't believe there's that much of a problem with Telefónica since they cracked down at the end of 2003 in the New Scientist? If Telefónica is so guilty, why has your organisation just taken a battering in Comms World
but I'll point out that just because a company has private investors doesn't mean that it isn't govt. owned/controlled.
Frankly, I could care less if they are govt or privately owned. Doesn't absolve them from their responsibilities to control the abuse that comes from their network.
All I am trying to do is make sure I have accurate information, because what I have been told is that they are govt owned/operated.
Well perhaps the person who told you told you wrong? Why are you putting inaccurate information above that supplied to investors by the company's website? Now why don't you now go and read the investor information to find out that they are indeed a private company. On the About Telefónica page you will find "Telefónica is a 100% public company, with almost 1.7 million direct shareholders."
If you cannot get basic information like this right then you have shown that you do not understand what you are dealing with. You have to understand what you are dealing with before you pull the plug on it to understand the social impact it will have.
You are dealing with the ex-state monopoly that still has the majority of the Spanish market. There are other, smaller, Internet providers, however most of those (with the exception of Auna and ONO for the customer market) simply resell Telefónica's supply.
It is not simply a case of customers changing ISPs because it people are locked into contracts with a minimum commitment of one year. There is a high probability that end users would need to buy themselves out of their contracts, rip-out Telefónica's (or their reseller's) old feeds, and get new ones installed. As for dial-up, again it's resold except for a few notable exceptions like Wanadoo.
Let me put it in a context that you may be able to understand. It is like Bell's position in the US before it was broken up. It's a huge country-wide corporation with a practical monopoly on telephone and Internet services.
You have a responsibility to make every effort to avoid this situation where you simply blacklist the vast majority of a country through it's ex-monopoly provider's IP space. You have to get it into your head that your actions can have social repercussions that go beyond the mere '419 bad, must block'.
However, should it become known that TDE is ignoring complaints, or playing games with the spam fighting community, their netspace will be relisted and not removed for a minimum of 6 months.
If you block it for six months then you are utterly irresponsible.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why you'd need to wait for Apple's phone. Symbian Nokias can already do this (mine's a 6680 with the Nokia Music Player installed).
However it won't catch on because everybody's used to the ABC layout, and somebody's already come up with T9 which works well enough for most people for entering large amounts of text instead of numbers.
If it were otherwise, computer keyboards would be Dvorak instead of Qwerty.
Don't you mean the politicians?
Why are you making a generalisation about a whole continent from one country in that continent?
Your life expectancy is longer than the average Ugandan, as it is for most Americans. I'm surprised you'd want to trade it for a price cut.
Then again, as the products you buy are unlabeled, you won't know one way or the other unless you make several phone calls to check the contents of your shopping trolly every time you go shopping. So how would prices fall anyway?
Labelling does work, if the government is willing to implement its own laws, as has been shown in the EU.
It seems to me the only interest you have in food is price and possibly taste. Unfortunately this is a sentiment held by many people in western countries, and explains the current obesity rate.
The point being they should have gone to the UK courts as Spamhaus is a British organisation based in the UK.
If Spamhaus decided to fly all over the world to whatever country a spammer decided to sue them in, they would soon run out of money.
The fact they didn't sue them in the UK shows their case is weak. They have to take advantage of a loophole which means Spamhaus' domain can be pulled because ICANN is also a US organisation, taking advantage of Spamhaus's stated policy which is they don't go all over the world (including the US) on wild goose chases when the only jurisdiction that counts (or should count) is the one in the country they're based in.
You can make any program run with administrator privileges with PolicyMaker Application Security or ProtectionManager, neither of which ask for the admin password. The first if free if you don't use remote administration, don't know about the second.
Considering that RAW can change between camera manufacturers, the same manufacturer but different models, or even the same models but different firmware, I'm not really surprised.
The only thing that stands a change of understanding it is the camera manufacturer's own software that comes with the camera (which is usually bloated anyway).
Even Photoshop treats it as a plugin which has to have regular updates, and only then it only works for really popular cameras.
As regards to a simple title, can I leave you to guess which multinational new-technology company would be the first to sue if its lawyers thought it saw someone ripping off its title?
I doubt that Google could get away with slapping a bitmap representation of a copyrighted font or something very close to a copyrighted font on its front page, any particular reason why an artist should be any different? He only died 23 years ago too; there's no room for confusion as to the length of copyright on his works.
In Spain you can buy the ticket at home on the Internet and insert your bank card into a cash machine or a special ticket machine in the cinema and you get your tickets printed out. Or you can just buy them straight at the cash machine.
http://www.serviticket.com
There was a two-stage process of reform to be brought in by the current government. Stage one was to remove most of the hereditary peers which gained their position due to accident birth and was completed in 1999. Stage two was to ask for opinions on whether to go for an appointed or elected house of Lords and started in 2001 but didn't get anywhere.
This leaves us in the curious position today where Blair can appoint new members to the House of Lords through the new-year honours list. As has been found out in the past week, in return for soft loans totalling up to GBP 14 million (or possibly more).
Ironically it's the unelected House of Lords that's causing the most trouble for the government over the compulsary ID card and database bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Reform
See also...
http://www.libertycentral.org.uk/content/view/395/ index.php
Which shows an amendment the opposition proposed to protect the British constitution and civil liberties (nothing to do with business reform) from this bill and was rejected in its entirety by the government.
Which begs the question is why would the government want the ability to change the constitution without parliamentary approval?
"No one has ever gone to jail for not showing his/hers ID card, and policemen don't go around asking "PAPERS!" and beating everyone they come around."
As they were an invention of Franco's dictatorship (who incidently reserved ID number 1 for himself and 2 for his wife), I really doubt this.
"The problem comes when they claim it will stop terrorism."
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=227442006
"any alternatives?"
SeaMonkey?
The European Yahoos offer it for free. If you sign up for a .ie or .co.uk address you'll get POP3.
Not if you untick all your interests - I've never received a single advertising mail since I did that (two years ago).
Can any informed Europeans tell us why the Comission can just ignore what they've been told to do?
It just seems really odd that when the elected groups say "game over" the other group can just say "too bad, we're doing it".
Because there's they're not legally binded to and they don't want to create a precedent for the future.
In the UK, if there's any increase in prices above the Retail Price Index, the company must inform you at least a month before they happen. You're entitled to cancel or port out from your contract there and then, even if you're only in e.g. month 4 of a 12 month minimum contract. Or you can threaten to cancel or port out and they may waive the charge.
But now you've missed the boat (you didn't cancel in that month so it's understood that you've accepted the charge).
The best thing you can do now is go to the website and sign up to My Account for itimised bills through their website and then cancel the paper bills and you won't be charged any more.
By the way, a good way of getting a cheap phone you've always wanted is keeping an eye on the mobile trade press for info about upcoming charges before they're officially announced, take out the contract with a ludicrously high monthly line rental so the phone's subsidised down to free or nearly free, get officially notified of the change in prices, and cancel.
I don't have to justify our policies to you.
The fact that you repeatedly haven't indicates you can't, not that you don't have to.
I get the feeling you're only doing this for a spot of cheap publicity for your organisation and to fuel your own ego.
It seems that everything's gone quiet as soon as anybody asks for the e-mails exchanged with Telefónica. "It is our policy for full disclosure" indeed.
Perhaps you should have started by blocking addresses from Telefónica's IP space that repeatedly come up as these will probably be the Internet cafés?
Would love to. But I can't because TDE has yet to provide me with that info.
I said that perhaps you should start by blocking addresses from Telefónica's IP space that repeatedly come up in the 419 e-mails. Have you just admitted you don't even have enough e-mails to extract IP numbers from? If so, how can you justify blocking Telefónica? How many e-mails have you received from their IP space? 1000? 100? 10? You don't know, but you're sure it's them?
I had several e-mails back and forth with TDE, all in english. It is not my job to play translator. I have bigger things to worry about then playing these kinds of stupid games. I can not, and will not waste my money calling these people. To expect me to make a international call to discuss THEIR problem, is laughable.
You claim that you "had several e-mails back and forth all in English" yet your press release contradicts this. So far from the scant information available all I can tell is you sent one e-mail, you received one reply saying that Telefónica was working with the police, you sent another e-mail, you received no reply, then cut them off a month later. Will you publish all the e-mails you've had with Telefónica? (Remember, later on you go on to say that 'it is our policy for full disclosure'.)
A responsible organisation must make every effort to contact monopoly ISPs for the reasons I've outlined previously. It is clear that your organisation does not.
Its not a 'venture' you dolt. We make $0 off of the AHBL. Your opinion means nothing, your comments mean nothing. Why? Because you are not one of my users.
Are you seriously telling me that you're unaware that everyone, inside and outside of Spain, affected by your adding Telefónica to the blacklist is de facto one of your users?
I take questions and concerns from my users very seriously, and I actively poll people on our announcements list for their feelings on things. If they are happy, I am happy. If you are unhappy, go jump off a bridge and leave me alone.
Very mature, I must say. You are obviously someone who is capable of comprehending the responsibility of their position.
Linford means nothing to me. He is not part of the AHBL, nor is he a user of the AHBL. I may have respect for what the man has done, but thats as far as it goes.
Let me get this straight, you're saying he has a point but as he's not part of your organisation then you're going to ignore him?
Just because you, or other blacklist maintainers don't have the balls to take a stand and try and force a change, doesn't mean you have a right to judge my actions. Remember, my list, my rules. You want to play in my sandbox? You play by my rules. As long as my users are happy, I am happy.
I'm not a blacklist maintainer, I'm just an ordinary Internet user that would like to use e-mail without it disappearing into a black hole due to someone who will not be held accountable. I've got no problem with blacklist services if they are answerable for what they do. Every person who is affected by what you do has the right to judge you. You have forced your sandbox upon everybody else, ordered everyone inside it to play by your rules, then when you've decided that they don't, unplugged them.
I put it to you that 'other blacklist maintainers' who you say 'don't have the balls' understand what their position entails and act more responsibility.
They are welcome to try and sue me, but don't forget, the CAN-SPAM act has provisions which give me the right to decide what mail goes in and out my systems. They would have to sue all of my users to get anywhere, and they would fail at that due to protections in place thanks to the CAN-SPAM act.
They may sue you, they may not. I'm just pointing out that
Like I said, in a case like this, I dont give a flying f*** that they are public or privately owned. It does not absolve them from their responsibilities to deal with abuse and illegal activities.
My point wasn't that their being state-owned or publicly-owned having a bearing on how to tackle the spam, my point was your press release had this fact as the very first thing mentioned and you couldn't even take the effort to read the English website to verify it this most basic fact. So based on this observation, it's clear you were unaware of other important pieces of information such as by blocking their IP space you've just disrupted practically the entire country.
Websites lie, people lie, companies lie.
One person or company lying to you in the past does not give you carte blanche to treat others how you see fit.
Do not take me for an idiot. I understand perfectly what it [the company] is like.
You've failed to show that so far.
That was never intended to be a press release. If I had any idea that the AHBL would be put on the spot like that, you can sure bet your ass I would have written up something more formal.
I suspect the reason why you've been put on the spot is because your response is unjustified and completely inappropriate to the problem. The unprofessional press release with what amounts to a set of ransom demands is perhaps one more symptom of the way your organisation functions.
Perhaps you should have started by blocking addresses from Telefónica's IP space that repeatedly come up as these will probably be the Internet cafés?
And letting illegal activities come from your network, specifically ones that have gotten people murdered is irresponsible. TDE could have easily cut off the problem at the knees before it got this far by doing something as simple as blocking outbound port 25 connections from their dialup or Internet Cafe customers.
But they chose not to. That is not my problem.
They could have given us their dynamic blocks like I had asked.
But they chose not to.
Point being that I have seriously lost patience dealing with them, since I have better things to do then play their little games.
Did you first explain what your organisation does in your e-mails? Explain exactly what the problem was and what should be done to fix it? Or did you just say 'give me your dynamic IP blocks?' Did you find the correct contact e-mail address? Get it translated into Spanish if there was no reply? If there was still no reply, find the correct phone number and ring them up on that if all else failed? Perhaps there were no games, perhaps you took what amounts to an entire country's e-mail off the Internet because you were unable to get through to the right department?
It's entirely your problem. Your organisation must take all possible steps before pulling the plug on a country as what you do affects people and trade. If you do not, your organisation will lose credibility, ISPs will find others which at least operate with a modicum of professionalism and accountability, and that will be the end of your venture.
Nobody would stand for this if it happened with another method of communication like telephones or post and that's only because relatively few people know that realtime blacklist organisations actually exist and what they do, let alone how some of them operate.
If Telefónica is so guilty, why has Steve Linford of Spamhaus stated that he doesn't believe there's that much of a problem with Telefónica since they cracked down at the end of 2003 in the New Scientist? If Telefónica is so guilty, why has your organisation just taken a battering in Comms World
ISPs like Telef
Not that I need to justify/explain myself to you
You've justified yourself to others, why not me?
but I'll point out that just because a company has private investors doesn't mean that it isn't govt. owned/controlled.
Frankly, I could care less if they are govt or privately owned. Doesn't absolve them from their responsibilities to control the abuse that comes from their network.
All I am trying to do is make sure I have accurate information, because what I have been told is that they are govt owned/operated.
Well perhaps the person who told you told you wrong? Why are you putting inaccurate information above that supplied to investors by the company's website? Now why don't you now go and read the investor information to find out that they are indeed a private company. On the About Telefónica page you will find "Telefónica is a 100% public company, with almost 1.7 million direct shareholders."
If you cannot get basic information like this right then you have shown that you do not understand what you are dealing with. You have to understand what you are dealing with before you pull the plug on it to understand the social impact it will have.
You are dealing with the ex-state monopoly that still has the majority of the Spanish market. There are other, smaller, Internet providers, however most of those (with the exception of Auna and ONO for the customer market) simply resell Telefónica's supply.
It is not simply a case of customers changing ISPs because it people are locked into contracts with a minimum commitment of one year. There is a high probability that end users would need to buy themselves out of their contracts, rip-out Telefónica's (or their reseller's) old feeds, and get new ones installed. As for dial-up, again it's resold except for a few notable exceptions like Wanadoo.
Let me put it in a context that you may be able to understand. It is like Bell's position in the US before it was broken up. It's a huge country-wide corporation with a practical monopoly on telephone and Internet services.
You have a responsibility to make every effort to avoid this situation where you simply blacklist the vast majority of a country through it's ex-monopoly provider's IP space. You have to get it into your head that your actions can have social repercussions that go beyond the mere '419 bad, must block'.
Allow me to quote another line from the press release:
However, should it become known that TDE is ignoring complaints, or playing games with the spam fighting community, their netspace will be relisted and not removed for a minimum of 6 months.
If you block it for six months then you are utterly irresponsible.