Uh... to gain insight on how we can live on other planets. Life on earth is doomed, but it just won't happen (sun expanding) for a long long time. Take into account the chance of life extinguishing asteriods hitting earth, and I'd think that people would want to ensure the survivability of the species.
Face it, the earth is fragile and life on it only temporary until we figure out how to live without it.
Not to mention that humans doing experiments on mars GREATLY reduces the latency. How long does a round trip signal take? I could go on and on about why we want humans on mars.
My prognostication potion ran out today. A such I can not envision a senario currently. Linux is simply too advantageous to IBM. However, IBM is not a software company and it will go with whatever solution allows it to sell more hardware and services. IBM was a "bad guy" in the past, and I see no reason why they can't become such in the future.
Here's one possible scenario. The Open Software movement leads to open hardware design. Distinction between the two becomes blurred, as the distinction between software and hardware blurs as well. IBM, who is granted the lion's share of patents, and after several quarters in the red, decides to "protect" its IP. Since IBM has a patent on just about everything imanaginable, wins in court thereby souring relations in the Open community. The community starts targeting IBM main sources of business, IBM declares the Open community its largest competitor and goes about trying to trounce the compentition.
It's hard to imagine now, but that doesn't mean its not feasable 20 years down the line. Just remember that corporations support their bottom line first, their customers real need second.
Quite right. Even though IBM has seen that it is better to be loved than feared, it wasn't too long ago when they took the Machiavellian stance.
Remeber when the term "FUD" was invented, that it was in reference to IBM. Remember that IBM agressively takes advantage of the lax patent system, procuring IP whenever and wherever possible. Just because the Gaint is stepping on our enemies doesn't mean he'll won't accidentally (or not) step on us later.
Except that they would probably win a motions to suspend until they have the resources to put up a resonable defense. If the whole country sues you at once, I believe that you have the right to postpone lawsuits to deal with them at a managable pace. Futhermore you couldn't have more than a few on the same topic without them claiming 'baratry' - a legal term meaning malicious lawsuits - even if you wind up winning. This is why there are class law suits: to protect the defendant from dozens of individual suits.
Also take into account that the SCO lawsuit is still in very preliminary stages. The actual court dates aren't going to start for a long time.
It's kinda hard to keep up your FUD when the opposition papers fall right next to your website on a general search. Too bad Groklaw isn't up there at #3.
Seriously. Talk about rallying the troops of the other side. Go after Google? Every nerd's best friend?
Anyway, SCO's timing on this matter is very suspect, with its notice so close to a Google IPO. If SCO keeps making noise, I would expect a Google counter-suit claiming defamation, especially if the IPO doesn't go as well as planed.
What the hell are we missing here? SCO hired the "best" lawyers in the country. There has to be some sort of strategy behind all of this. Or meybe the just want us to think that; keep everybody guessing. All I know is I keep a daily eye on Groklaw
In some markets maybe, but in Pittsburgh we have WYEP if you like eclectic rock (which when used to listening to normal radio, is pretty much anyvariation), and I believe three other public radio stations with good Jazz, Classical, and NPR.
Support good music. WYEP is an example of how good music still makes it to the airwaves, whilst being relatively corporation free.
However, if they get these mini-iPods at a price point of around $120-150, they will crush the competition because of what the competition is selling pricewise.
Seriously. Everybody is talking about how Apple is used to having a large margin, but if you corner the market like this and sell 10 million worldwide (hell at ~$125 you could sell 10 million is the US alone after a couple years) while still making maybe $20 dollars per unit, that $200 million dollars profit that Apple was not making before.
Take away even 20% of sales from people who would have bought more expensive iPods, and that's still $160 million dollars profit.
Consider that Apple probably made
$30+ Million and a ~5% gross income/net profit last year, they could raise profits by 25%. That's an easy easy decision by Jobs. Maybe 10 million is too much to conjecture on, but they would sell a lot of them.
I don't know many people that have spent that kind of money on music. Possibly none.
If you've been collecting cd's for 12 years, that's 30720 / 12 years = 2560 minutes per year
2560 / 45 minute per alubum = 56 albums
I know a few people that buy more than one CD per week, and a $30/wk habbit is certainly sustainable. Therefore it is certainly resonable that somebody has 30 gigs worth of music. But audiophilies like to encode at more than 1meg/min, uncompressed can run up to 30meg/min. Say the average encoding for an audiophile is three/four megs per minute.
But my belief is that any industry that sues its customers DOES NOT DESERVE TO EXIST.
By no means is the RIAA the 'good guy' but you can't honestly think that there is no reason a company is justified in suing its customers. Face it, people are stealing from them. They are justified in suing poeple. It just so happens that they are going about it in the completely wrong way public-relations wise. Thier fines are much too harsh, and they often sue first and ask questions later, (amoungst other very morally dubious actions).
It doesn't matter that their profit model is evaporating and there isn't much use for them anymore (i.e. bands can now record/distribute themselves, radio stations/TV will still try and find popular stuff), and they take far too much of a cut from artists and charge consumers too much. They don't seem to realize you can't revamp a profit model through litigation, when you are distributing mediocre material, and people are not replacing old media anymore (tapes/records->cds).
They are,however, justified in seeking compensation for what they spent money on. How could they not be?
Most people don't download entire albums. They (forgive me for this gross generalization) just download the stuff that is popular and hear on the radio. Thus most people just buy one or two songs from a particular album. $1-2 per album will never offset costs to anybody. An alternive, however would be "bulk" pricing i.e. if you pay $1 for the first three songs on an album, you can get the rest for $5.
Furthermore there are artists (though you don't find many in the mainstream) who still write albums as a whole entitity (ie themes, stories, related songs, continuity) aren't too keen on selling just one/two songs. But $8 per album (15+ songs with cover art etc.) is certainly resonable.
I hate it when people pull out this excuse. I guess this is why you posted anonymously. If all you downloaded is stuff you wouldn't have listened to/watch/played anyway, what would you listen to/watch/play? Obviously you do like what you download otherwise you wouldn't download it.
No matter your intentions you are still stealing from them. You are using their stuff that cost them money. Unless you already own it or somebody legally transfered ownership of what they both, then their is no argument for piracy.
If you want to protest prices, then don't listen to/watch/play at all. If you want to just try out some music, then buy it if you like it and delete it if you don't. If you do want to this, then buck up the money.
That said I'm also a proponent of fair use, and alot of what the RIAA/MPAA would like to do is infringe on my fair use rights, such as putting the music I buy on every device I own, and watching DVD's on Linux (no matter where I what country I legitimatly buy them from.) But piracy will never be justifiable.
Yes, but they still spend money on the outgoing mail which is not going to generate any hits. Things start getting expensive when you age using several gigs of bandwidth per month and not getting any hits.
My point is that continued employment with SCO shouldn't be lead to automatic dismissal of job prospects. Let us not forget that the term FUD started with IBM, whose agressive IP stance (in the form of patents) is looked down upon by much of the software community. Some of what IBM has done was downright immoral.
Should people get up quit IBM or Microsoft or Intel? Maybe. But as a prospective employer your should at least ask why they stayed in the face of so much opposition. Their answer may betray more good qualities than bad.
Unethical: they stay because they value their income above personal ethics
My personal ethics would put feeding my children above working for a lying, litigatious employer. Idealism only goes so far when the house and college educations are on the line. It's only been some months since SCO has started to persue its new business model, and with a job market like todays it's not easy to find a job even in that period of time. Also, It's not like SCO is killing people. SCO is not that bad.
Many software people develop deep business relationships over the years. SCO still has clients.
If you were key to the continuing operation of SCO software in many places, would you just up and quit and screw the people that depend on you?
Or if do you quit and force more workload onto your coworkers that may be in a position that they can't quit?
What happens if you are three months away from a pension?
What if you have a disabled family member and the risk of losing health insurance factors significantly into their longevity?
What if you thought there would be a change that the execs would be axed and SCO turned once again into a respectable Linux develeper(like the old Caldera)?
What if, what if, what if???
To think this issue is black and white is hopelessly nieve.
I totally agree. If I'm doing serious server work, I'd get a sun sparc, hp 9000, or an IBM. In all those cases, (IIRC) you pay for the box and the support and the software is "free". If I'm looking for commodity (x86) hardward, I'd put together a linux farm either single proc or SMP, maybe say Redhat Enterprise, or if I also have a Solaris codebase then SunOS.
As it says in the article, you are paying at least 4 times and as much as ten (!) times more for Unixware. So to rehash his conclusion, there's no reason to move to Unixware unless your apps are already stuck there. In that case, you may want to spend the money porting to some system thats easier to develop on, one that GNU software compiles easily, has a larger community base etc. etc. ad ifinitum.
And running on x86 is the only serious advantage Unixware has over other "real" Unixes.
An AC, posted "Uh, Solaris?" as a reply and since I don't have any mod points, I'd like to make that point visible.
AFAIK Solaris x86 has been stable for quite some time, is a "real" unix and even is free for personal use. This is great becuase people can get familiar with SunOS at home, rather than needing employment to list Solaris experience.
I'm young, but in the few shops I've worked in the only unix considerations we've ever given creedance to are Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX (listed here in order of my personal preference). Even before the current SCO crazyness, why trust your UNIX's development to a few millions of dollars business when you have multi-billion dollar businesses in IBM, Sun, and HP? In terms of features,scalibility, community, and support there is no comparison between the "big three" and SCO unix.
The cost of sending spam is higher for the sender than it is for the ISP. Providers only have to store spam.
Err... spammers make money dealing with spam. If they didn't they wouldn't be spammers. ISPs loose money on spam. Therefore, by definition, the cost of dealing with spam is higher for those trying to block spam than those who send it.
Enough ranting. You anti-spammers are doing a good job... But you really need to quit spreading FUD.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but i'd hardly call what anti-spam advocates (at least the legit ones) are doing fear, uncertainty and doubt.(Well maybe the first, but not the next two)
Re:Spam by Any Other name will not sound so Odius
on
The Life of a Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Do you mean to say that if the amount of spam on the Internet was reduced, AOL would reduce your monthly access fee ? I don't think so.
Errr, um, yeah... I quote from the article.
Many private companies filter spam before it reaches employees' in boxes, but the cost of doing that is enormous. U.S. businesses spend an estimated $10 billion a year managing spam.
$10 Billion dollars is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere. It may not lower fees, but it may put off increases, provide better support/services, allow for access to more people.
As cited in the article she's doing it to make a living, not to make big bucks - completely understandable in her situation (and for everybody who's been in a similar situation). Heck, I wouldn't complain once if I could "do some good" deleting my daily dose of spam.
The ends do not justify the means. Spammers are thieves by definition. They offload the cost of doing business to ISPs and their customers. I don't care if the pope was doing it. It's still wrong. Furthermore, most spammers are also liars (forged headers) and criminals (many states now have anti-spam legislation). I feel no sympathy for even moderate income grandma spammers. It costs the country millions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on closing the digital divide.
If you apply the same reasoning to people sharing files you're making a very strong case for the copyright holders
What a nieve assertion. Sharing files of copyrighted material is also wrong. But the system of sharing files is legit. Some criminals use roads as their getaway means. Let's ban roads.
Who marked this as a troll? What's trollish about it? Solaris is the industry standard for high performance unix. I've worked on solaris, AIX,HP-UX, and Redhat, and I'd say that solaris gives me the least headaches. Any why did grandparent even mention support? No support in linux, aside from mailing lists. One can pay for support, a la Redhat, but that debunks that argument now doesn't it.
Sun makes money off of selling sun systems and support. I've found that they are as responsive as asking questions on a open source mailing list, without the RTFM comments. They make programming on their platform a really good experience. The documentation on their website is light years from microsoft and (though it is very dear to me) the linux documentation project.
As somebody else said, use the right tool for the job. I like linux alot. I run it at home. But it is not the catch-all solve-all operating system. I has its uses and weaknesses, but the reasons why to use solaris over linux are very numberous.
err... what about mailing lists that have thousands of users? Whitelist them? Well that's a resonable enough answer.
But what about hijacked machines? Far-east open (and free) relays? What if the spammer opens 10,000 accounts? Then you would have to charge for accounts also. End of free mail accounts. In the end spammers would get around it anyway.
Who would the money go to? The ISP? Who forces the ISP to charge for e-mail? FTC? FCC? What about overseas? UN? Ha. This solution has been proposed thousands of times and rejected each time because it can't be implemented properly. Good enough idea in theory though.
perl -pe 's/My name is (\w)\w* (\w)\w* (\w)\w*. What are my initials\?/$1$2$3/g'
(Try it on your question. Be sure to type the question precisely.)
What is the perl code for arbitrary questions? The spam programmer doesn't have access to your question. Nobody has programmed a bot that can correctly answer arbitrary question. There is no current way to de-obfuscate (er.. clarify?) this problem. All everybody has to do is write a unique question the a normal person would understand.
Then you are on the leading edge of the spam war. You don't apdapt to spamming tactics, spamming tactics adapt to you. Except they can't
Also, there is no way that spammers can adapt to Bayesian filtering. It's different for everybody. You can't overcome an arbitrary filter, unless your spam looks exactly (including headers) like the mail that gets by most filters. But then a human probably couldn't discern the mail as spam either and throw it away, thus losing all its value.
Perhaps the microwave transmission would be limitted to a low orbit satellite that is teathered to the ground along the lines of a space elevator, but it could be much thinner, as it would only have to be a conductor. Still very difficult to do, but ultimatly safer then massive ammount of microwaves entering the atmosphere.
Placing conditionals and alternatives greatly increases search time of the harvestor, especially when almost all e-mail addresses are not obfuscated.
Regular expression wise: Searching for.*@.* is much easier than searching for.*@.* |.* at.* dot.* |.* (at).* (dot).* |.*removethis.*@.* etc... and these conditionals are very expensive and not high yeilding.
Why would you want to wait several times longer for your spambot to return the same number of addresses?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... to gain insight on how we can live on other planets. Life on earth is doomed, but it just won't happen (sun expanding) for a long long time. Take into account the chance of life extinguishing asteriods hitting earth, and I'd think that people would want to ensure the survivability of the species.
Face it, the earth is fragile and life on it only temporary until we figure out how to live without it.
Not to mention that humans doing experiments on mars GREATLY reduces the latency. How long does a round trip signal take? I could go on and on about why we want humans on mars.
My prognostication potion ran out today. A such I can not envision a senario currently. Linux is simply too advantageous to IBM. However, IBM is not a software company and it will go with whatever solution allows it to sell more hardware and services. IBM was a "bad guy" in the past, and I see no reason why they can't become such in the future.
Here's one possible scenario. The Open Software movement leads to open hardware design. Distinction between the two becomes blurred, as the distinction between software and hardware blurs as well. IBM, who is granted the lion's share of patents, and after several quarters in the red, decides to "protect" its IP. Since IBM has a patent on just about everything imanaginable, wins in court thereby souring relations in the Open community. The community starts targeting IBM main sources of business, IBM declares the Open community its largest competitor and goes about trying to trounce the compentition.
It's hard to imagine now, but that doesn't mean its not feasable 20 years down the line. Just remember that corporations support their bottom line first, their customers real need second.
Quite right. Even though IBM has seen that it is better to be loved than feared, it wasn't too long ago when they took the Machiavellian stance.
Remeber when the term "FUD" was invented, that it was in reference to IBM. Remember that IBM agressively takes advantage of the lax patent system, procuring IP whenever and wherever possible. Just because the Gaint is stepping on our enemies doesn't mean he'll won't accidentally (or not) step on us later.
Except that they would probably win a motions to suspend until they have the resources to put up a resonable defense. If the whole country sues you at once, I believe that you have the right to postpone lawsuits to deal with them at a managable pace. Futhermore you couldn't have more than a few on the same topic without them claiming 'baratry' - a legal term meaning malicious lawsuits - even if you wind up winning. This is why there are class law suits: to protect the defendant from dozens of individual suits.
Also take into account that the SCO lawsuit is still in very preliminary stages. The actual court dates aren't going to start for a long time.
Funny, but interestingly enough, hit #2 is the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint.
It's kinda hard to keep up your FUD when the opposition papers fall right next to your website on a general search. Too bad Groklaw isn't up there at #3.
Seriously. Talk about rallying the troops of the other side. Go after Google? Every nerd's best friend?
Anyway, SCO's timing on this matter is very suspect, with its notice so close to a Google IPO. If SCO keeps making noise, I would expect a Google counter-suit claiming defamation, especially if the IPO doesn't go as well as planed.
What the hell are we missing here? SCO hired the "best" lawyers in the country. There has to be some sort of strategy behind all of this. Or meybe the just want us to think that; keep everybody guessing. All I know is I keep a daily eye on Groklaw
In some markets maybe, but in Pittsburgh we have WYEP if you like eclectic rock (which when used to listening to normal radio, is pretty much anyvariation), and I believe three other public radio stations with good Jazz, Classical, and NPR.
Support good music. WYEP is an example of how good music still makes it to the airwaves, whilst being relatively corporation free.
However, if they get these mini-iPods at a price point of around $120-150, they will crush the competition because of what the competition is selling pricewise.
Seriously. Everybody is talking about how Apple is used to having a large margin, but if you corner the market like this and sell 10 million worldwide (hell at ~$125 you could sell 10 million is the US alone after a couple years) while still making maybe $20 dollars per unit, that $200 million dollars profit that Apple was not making before.
Take away even 20% of sales from people who would have bought more expensive iPods, and that's still $160 million dollars profit.
Consider that Apple probably made $30+ Million and a ~5% gross income/net profit last year, they could raise profits by 25%. That's an easy easy decision by Jobs. Maybe 10 million is too much to conjecture on, but they would sell a lot of them.
I don't know many people that have spent that kind of money on music. Possibly none. If you've been collecting cd's for 12 years, that's 30720 / 12 years = 2560 minutes per year
2560 / 45 minute per alubum = 56 albums
I know a few people that buy more than one CD per week, and a $30/wk habbit is certainly sustainable. Therefore it is certainly resonable that somebody has 30 gigs worth of music. But audiophilies like to encode at more than 1meg/min, uncompressed can run up to 30meg/min. Say the average encoding for an audiophile is three/four megs per minute.
Then 90-120+ gigs is certainly not unresonable.
But my belief is that any industry that sues its customers DOES NOT DESERVE TO EXIST.
By no means is the RIAA the 'good guy' but you can't honestly think that there is no reason a company is justified in suing its customers. Face it, people are stealing from them. They are justified in suing poeple. It just so happens that they are going about it in the completely wrong way public-relations wise. Thier fines are much too harsh, and they often sue first and ask questions later, (amoungst other very morally dubious actions).
It doesn't matter that their profit model is evaporating and there isn't much use for them anymore (i.e. bands can now record/distribute themselves, radio stations/TV will still try and find popular stuff), and they take far too much of a cut from artists and charge consumers too much. They don't seem to realize you can't revamp a profit model through litigation, when you are distributing mediocre material, and people are not replacing old media anymore (tapes/records->cds).
They are,however, justified in seeking compensation for what they spent money on. How could they not be?
Most people don't download entire albums. They (forgive me for this gross generalization) just download the stuff that is popular and hear on the radio. Thus most people just buy one or two songs from a particular album. $1-2 per album will never offset costs to anybody. An alternive, however would be "bulk" pricing i.e. if you pay $1 for the first three songs on an album, you can get the rest for $5.
Furthermore there are artists (though you don't find many in the mainstream) who still write albums as a whole entitity (ie themes, stories, related songs, continuity) aren't too keen on selling just one/two songs. But $8 per album (15+ songs with cover art etc.) is certainly resonable.
I hate it when people pull out this excuse. I guess this is why you posted anonymously. If all you downloaded is stuff you wouldn't have listened to/watch/played anyway, what would you listen to/watch/play? Obviously you do like what you download otherwise you wouldn't download it.
No matter your intentions you are still stealing from them. You are using their stuff that cost them money. Unless you already own it or somebody legally transfered ownership of what they both, then their is no argument for piracy.
If you want to protest prices, then don't listen to/watch/play at all. If you want to just try out some music, then buy it if you like it and delete it if you don't. If you do want to this, then buck up the money.
That said I'm also a proponent of fair use, and alot of what the RIAA/MPAA would like to do is infringe on my fair use rights, such as putting the music I buy on every device I own, and watching DVD's on Linux (no matter where I what country I legitimatly buy them from.) But piracy will never be justifiable.
Yes, but they still spend money on the outgoing mail which is not going to generate any hits. Things start getting expensive when you age using several gigs of bandwidth per month and not getting any hits.
My point is that continued employment with SCO shouldn't be lead to automatic dismissal of job prospects. Let us not forget that the term FUD started with IBM, whose agressive IP stance (in the form of patents) is looked down upon by much of the software community. Some of what IBM has done was downright immoral.
Should people get up quit IBM or Microsoft or Intel? Maybe. But as a prospective employer your should at least ask why they stayed in the face of so much opposition. Their answer may betray more good qualities than bad.
My personal ethics would put feeding my children above working for a lying, litigatious employer. Idealism only goes so far when the house and college educations are on the line. It's only been some months since SCO has started to persue its new business model, and with a job market like todays it's not easy to find a job even in that period of time. Also, It's not like SCO is killing people. SCO is not that bad.
Many software people develop deep business relationships over the years. SCO still has clients.
What if, what if, what if??? To think this issue is black and white is hopelessly nieve.
I totally agree. If I'm doing serious server work, I'd get a sun sparc, hp 9000, or an IBM. In all those cases, (IIRC) you pay for the box and the support and the software is "free". If I'm looking for commodity (x86) hardward, I'd put together a linux farm either single proc or SMP, maybe say Redhat Enterprise, or if I also have a Solaris codebase then SunOS.
As it says in the article, you are paying at least 4 times and as much as ten (!) times more for Unixware. So to rehash his conclusion, there's no reason to move to Unixware unless your apps are already stuck there. In that case, you may want to spend the money porting to some system thats easier to develop on, one that GNU software compiles easily, has a larger community base etc. etc. ad ifinitum.
And running on x86 is the only serious advantage Unixware has over other "real" Unixes.
An AC, posted "Uh, Solaris?" as a reply and since I don't have any mod points, I'd like to make that point visible.
AFAIK Solaris x86 has been stable for quite some time, is a "real" unix and even is free for personal use. This is great becuase people can get familiar with SunOS at home, rather than needing employment to list Solaris experience.
I'm young, but in the few shops I've worked in the only unix considerations we've ever given creedance to are Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX (listed here in order of my personal preference). Even before the current SCO crazyness, why trust your UNIX's development to a few millions of dollars business when you have multi-billion dollar businesses in IBM, Sun, and HP? In terms of features,scalibility, community, and support there is no comparison between the "big three" and SCO unix.
The cost of sending spam is higher for the sender than it is for the ISP. Providers only have to store spam.
... But you really need to quit spreading FUD.
Err... spammers make money dealing with spam. If they didn't they wouldn't be spammers. ISPs loose money on spam. Therefore, by definition, the cost of dealing with spam is higher for those trying to block spam than those who send it.
Enough ranting. You anti-spammers are doing a good job
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but i'd hardly call what anti-spam advocates (at least the legit ones) are doing fear, uncertainty and doubt.(Well maybe the first, but not the next two)
Do you mean to say that if the amount of spam on the Internet was reduced, AOL would reduce your monthly access fee ? I don't think so.
Errr, um, yeah... I quote from the article.
Many private companies filter spam before it reaches employees' in boxes, but the cost of doing that is enormous. U.S. businesses spend an estimated $10 billion a year managing spam.
$10 Billion dollars is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere. It may not lower fees, but it may put off increases, provide better support/services, allow for access to more people.
As cited in the article she's doing it to make a living, not to make big bucks - completely understandable in her situation (and for everybody who's been in a similar situation). Heck, I wouldn't complain once if I could "do some good" deleting my daily dose of spam.
The ends do not justify the means. Spammers are thieves by definition. They offload the cost of doing business to ISPs and their customers. I don't care if the pope was doing it. It's still wrong. Furthermore, most spammers are also liars (forged headers) and criminals (many states now have anti-spam legislation). I feel no sympathy for even moderate income grandma spammers. It costs the country millions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on closing the digital divide.
If you apply the same reasoning to people sharing files you're making a very strong case for the copyright holders
What a nieve assertion. Sharing files of copyrighted material is also wrong. But the system of sharing files is legit. Some criminals use roads as their getaway means. Let's ban roads.
Spam == Wrong, Illegal, Immoral. Get over it.
Who marked this as a troll? What's trollish about it? Solaris is the industry standard for high performance unix. I've worked on solaris, AIX,HP-UX, and Redhat, and I'd say that solaris gives me the least headaches. Any why did grandparent even mention support? No support in linux, aside from mailing lists. One can pay for support, a la Redhat, but that debunks that argument now doesn't it.
Sun makes money off of selling sun systems and support. I've found that they are as responsive as asking questions on a open source mailing list, without the RTFM comments. They make programming on their platform a really good experience. The documentation on their website is light years from microsoft and (though it is very dear to me) the linux documentation project.
As somebody else said, use the right tool for the job. I like linux alot. I run it at home. But it is not the catch-all solve-all operating system. I has its uses and weaknesses, but the reasons why to use solaris over linux are very numberous.
err... what about mailing lists that have thousands of users? Whitelist them? Well that's a resonable enough answer.
But what about hijacked machines? Far-east open (and free) relays? What if the spammer opens 10,000 accounts? Then you would have to charge for accounts also. End of free mail accounts. In the end spammers would get around it anyway.
Who would the money go to? The ISP? Who forces the ISP to charge for e-mail? FTC? FCC? What about overseas? UN? Ha. This solution has been proposed thousands of times and rejected each time because it can't be implemented properly. Good enough idea in theory though.
perl -pe 's/My name is (\w)\w* (\w)\w* (\w)\w*. What are my initials\?/$1$2$3/g'
(Try it on your question. Be sure to type the question precisely.)
What is the perl code for arbitrary questions? The spam programmer doesn't have access to your question. Nobody has programmed a bot that can correctly answer arbitrary question. There is no current way to de-obfuscate (er.. clarify?) this problem. All everybody has to do is write a unique question the a normal person would understand.
Then you are on the leading edge of the spam war. You don't apdapt to spamming tactics, spamming tactics adapt to you. Except they can't
Also, there is no way that spammers can adapt to Bayesian filtering. It's different for everybody. You can't overcome an arbitrary filter, unless your spam looks exactly (including headers) like the mail that gets by most filters. But then a human probably couldn't discern the mail as spam either and throw it away, thus losing all its value.
Perhaps the microwave transmission would be limitted to a low orbit satellite that is teathered to the ground along the lines of a space elevator, but it could be much thinner, as it would only have to be a conductor. Still very difficult to do, but ultimatly safer then massive ammount of microwaves entering the atmosphere.
Placing conditionals and alternatives greatly increases search time of the harvestor, especially when almost all e-mail addresses are not obfuscated.
.*@.* is much easier than searching for .*@.* | .* at .* dot .* | .* (at) .* (dot) .* | .*removethis.*@.* etc... and these conditionals are very expensive and not high yeilding.
Regular expression wise: Searching for
Why would you want to wait several times longer for your spambot to return the same number of addresses?