We aren't computers, yet we sometimes look at the wall or the ceiling or the stars and pick out faces. Many people have scared themselves badly seeing a face in the dark woods or looking in a window at night.
Younger users growing up with computers are much more willing to learn. It may take 15-20 years to work, but educating children who will be the future workforce is more likely to solve the problem eventually than trying to teach the current workforce of people who don't want to learn.
In the meantime, "Joe, this is the same problem you have reported twice before. I have been helping you as a favor. However, I have explained how to avoid the problem. I will explain it again right now. If you need help with this again, it will cost you an extra US$150 (some outrageous amount they won't want to pay or that you'd be happy to earn to do this repeatedly)." or some similar response that affects their wallet directly may force a few brain cells into action.
Who answers these polls anyway?
on
Evoting in the News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If a completely random selection of several thousand people occurs for every one of these polls, why is it that no one I know of has ever been a participant? I suspect it is more like the Nielsen ratings, where specific individuals who are supposed to be representative are involved each time.
The other thing that wasn't clear is whether trusting e-voting in general means anything related to trusting companies like Diebold. The very action California took to reject Diebold, while not rejecting e-voting in general, sends the message that it is possible to have trustworthy e-voting.
We have come a long way toward getting paper voting to be relatively secure and reliable. In spite of that, we heard all about dimples and miscounts in 2000. We can't expect the first few trial runs of e-voting to instantly be problem free.
A single long story isn't really necessary, IMHO. Having blown hours without realizing it trying to beat higher levels of Tetris on the original Game Boy and knowing many people who do the same with Minesweeper, Frozen Bubble, Nethack, and so on, I can say it doesn't even have to have a story. It can be short and addictive.
One of the major games behind the success of the Game Boy Color was the Pokemon series. It can have a blah predictable story if it can tap that kind of a following (Yu-Gi-Oh, Dragon Ball Z, and other games bear that out).
========
In going for a more adult audience, we may break past the single handheld holding the majority of the market. As much time as I spend away from home, offering a remake of Final Fantasy Tactics on a PSP would be enough to get me to buy one. I've bought GameBoy Advances, GameBoy Colors, GameBoy Pockets for my kids and myself (as well as owned an original GameBoy). I see no reason why I won't buy the DS once enough interesting games are available. Car trips have never been "Are we there yet?" in my family. They are more like "Can I have some more batteries?"
She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.
Personally, I think Sci-fi does a better job of presenting the many possible hypes and fears about nano-machine than she did, and the many ways of handling the issues. It seemed like she was trying to prevent public rejection of nano-technology by providing the most minimal information possible. What sort of controls is the FDA looking at? How does she propose to prevent the problems the public fears most?
What's the odds that Microsoft will continue to seek a way to push their concept of trusted computing onto the consumer -- by giving it another new name? Palladium got too much bad PR, so they changed the name. Enough people caught on, so now they are abandoning that name (not the project, for sure).
NOTE: I am only comparing the FREE accounts here, not the paid which have other services.
Yahoo does not force a "white list" on you. I have both a Yahoo account and a hotmail account. I have never received a "special" spam from a Yahoo partner. As ecklesweb states, this is a user preference (like the hotmail automatic subscriptions to newsletters) that can be turned off. I turned it off early on.
More importantly, Yahoo does have three levels of spam filtering - none, some, and strong. At the strong level, I have yet to have anything filtered that shouldn't be and I only come across about four a month that get through, which I can easily report as spam to improve Yahoo's filtering. This actually filters spam I have never before received based on other's reporting.
OTOH, hotmail's spam filtering is not really that -- it is a matter of filtering any emails not from a known contact or your safe list and blocking any emails from a black list you have to create. EXCEPT that they have this wonderfully small limit on the free accounts. Of course, I only use this account for registering, so it is nothing but a spam filter and I don't have to provide addresses that are safe or not safe.
Whoa. Had a wacked thought which may be totally off the map, but do any of these free email sites have access to your contact lists - basically the online version of your address book? How well secured is it from outside access? That would be a spammer's wet dream - a list of valid emails. (Okay, that could be taking conspiracy too far, but I also know just how insecure MS software has been.)
If you have a hotmail account, you already know you can't block or filter to the trash any email from "staff@hotmail.com". It just isn't allowed. Of course, if you're like me, you only have the hotmail account for registering and you know it will only ever have spam, therefore you have everything go to the junk mail folder which will empty automatically. Only pitfall is I have to access it about once a month to prove it is "active".
Unfortunately no, because they get enough clickers who buy to show value. These ones that pay just to click (with no cash return) are fly-by-night because nothing comes in to pay for them.
Advertisers? Definitely won't last long. Marketing loves to spend money on new ideas, but any business that lets them run amok without any cost to results will go bankrupt.
I wonder if this click-happy group also clicks on virus-laden emails. To me, that would be far more frightening -- hundreds of thousands of infected machines in India pouring spam through a multitude of ISPs. Yuck.
From the article:
The complaint alleges that "prior to sending solicited complaints by consumers to the Optin's originating ISP's, Spamcop alters the complaints it receives by removing the email address of the person or entity seeking to be taken off a mailing list thereby rendering the email anonymous."
So what is he suing them for? Removing email addresses from the complaints so he can't verify they are in his databases? Or not providing the emails so he can remove the complainers who are most likely to get him in trouble?
=============
Okay, just for a split second assume that this guy actually is trying to comply with the CAN-SPAM requirements. Does SpamCop verify whether or not a person originally opted in (and thus an "existing business relationship" is supposedly involved)? Do they verify whether any attempt was made to request removal of their email address? (Yes, I know most of us wouldn't touch those with a ten-foot pole because of the sleazier practices engaged in by spammers.) Does Spamcop make any attempt to request removal of addresses themselves and determine whether the spammer intentionally ignores such requests? Maybe, just maybe, there is some validity to his argument that his less-slimy practices are being vilified because of the slimier practices of others. But, you can't walk in the gutter without getting brown gunk all over your shoes, Mr. Richter. Find a higher ground or accept that you really aren't any better than the other sewer-dwellers around you.
"Why is the RFID industry so scared of this lady?"
Because enough people will take what she says as absolute truth and not actually look into the issue themselves. Particular to this is using derogatory terms -- you mentioned the use of "God's work" as an epithet, but what else would you call "spy chips". Mob mentality -- if you convince enough people that some object or power is evil and dangerous, even the safest, most harmless devices will get banned in the backlash.
There are definitely scary, privacy-invading uses of RFID tags -- but there are also beneficial uses that don't invade privacy. The problem is not the tags, in and of themselves. It is in the data that can be stored on them and who can access that data. She does have valid points, and the RFID industry would do well to heed her concerns. Her aim does not appear to be working to find the optimal path that works for both sides -- it is totally consumer oriented.
The FTC is off their rocker. What legitimate software out there is unable or unwilling to comply with this legislation? Seems to me that simply notifying the customer of the exact actions of the software and making removal of the software a normal process would be sufficient.
When I load software, and it includes components that may contact a website and send information, I want to be told this and EXACTLY what will be sent and choose yes or no to this specifically. A good example is WinAmp. After installation, I was asked to register and decide if I wanted usage information to be sent periodically.
Self-correction has never worked with slimy businesses. The good businesses do change so that the distinction is clearer (no good business wants to be seen as slimy). However, the slime won't stop until it is made difficult to impossible for them to proceed.
I find it intriguing that the majority of the examples in the article were not trying to put forward a political agenda. They have storylines that depend on disasters caused by political issues currently unresolved. Most science fiction (books, TV, movies) do this -- because the whole point is to extrapolate a future world from our current world.
The writers of video games are as human as the rest of us and certainly have their opinions of the political state in the world around us. Not many of these games actually push a political agenda. They just use topics that are hot in the political world.
Riots on earth and complete banning of nanotechnology when it is learned by the masses that it is possible to engineer them to harm humans. Of course, on the up-side was improving the ability of humans to withstand more natural threats.
Okay, it looks like the offense has possible penalties of a fine and limited jail time. Based on the average spammer, the maximum imprisonment time would be 3 years for the first offense and 5 years for subsequent convictions. What I find more likely to have an impact is forfeiture. The convicted spammer will be ordered to forfeit any property traceable to proceeds from their spamming and any equipment, software or technology used therein. This is much more likely to have an impact than the fine and imprisonment, IF it is applied fully.
The real solution goes beyond ad blocking software. It lies in a willingness to completely boycott any site willing to allow advertising of this style. When enough of your readership complains and walks away, and your hits drop astronomically, you definitely re-evaluate your policy (especially since your advertisers do too).
I say let those sites that want to cater to sheep serve up as much as they want and get paid by advertisers to ignore the desires of their readers. I will get my data from sites that listen to their readers over their advertisers. (Reminds me of www.techreport.com which once had an advertiser whose animated image seriously sucked system resources. Readers posted complaints and the advertiser was asked to revise the image. Win/Win because the readers got a simple unobtrusive ad, the site got the advertising cash flow, and the advertiser adjusted to something that actually appealed to those readers who might be interested).
Without making excuses, I have to protest the obvious bias here. It is clear from the wording of the referenced article (more commentary than article, I'd say) that it was only licensed after finding out about its mis-us. Many have noted this, and have mentioned that copyright law protects automatically even if it had not been licensed.
However, at no point is any mention made of any effort to advise the makers of Lindows that the images being used are copyrighted and need to be removed or permission obtained. Isn't the first logical action to NOTIFY to offender and ask them to remove (or pay for) the use of the images? Why defame them for what could be a foolish error or an unknowing offense?
Now, IF Lindows was notified and deliberately ignored that notification and continued to use the images, we can be outraged. But until then, this is clearly more smear than news.
Snail mail does not have the same problem (in the US, at least). The most important reason is the cost per piece mailed. At nearly 40 cents per item, sending out the massive quantities spam is known for is prohibitive. If they want bulk discounts, they must be legitimately registered with a permit. That permit can easily be revoked and there is no other service waiting in the wings to pick up the business. Air mail doesn't sneak past - in fact, it costs more and still must move through the US postal service. There is no competing postal service within the US. The US postal service is a federal entity and there is a fairly good-sized body of federal law related to posted mail. This also means it has federal entities (FBI comes to mind) in place to handle investigation and enforcement when violations occur.
The only "spam" I get through snail mail is 1) local business ads (grocery store sheets that are not addressed, but delivered to EVERY mailbox), 2) political pamphlets (but this is because I don't ask off), and 3) those with whom I have had a relationship (BofA's many offers, SBC's nonsense, and so on). I have only twice in my life received chain letters. I have never seen a "Nigerian scam" or pornographic materials (that I didn't personally request).
==========
Until we have a system in which every person is accountable for the email they send and an international body of enforceable laws to prevent abuses, we will not have protection from spam. I prefer not to go the way of charging for emails just to stop spammers -- because that enriches one group at the expense of another to combat a third, when the first group could have come up with better options.
===========
On a side note, what filters out there can scan the content of the images embedded in the email for pornography? What filters can find every single misspelling of every term considered offensive? (Not to mention one I ran into trouble with. Trying to trim spam offering stock tips I tried filtering out the word stock. Unfortunately, stock has other meanings that various customers use it for.)
The only way for an employer to really cover their ass would be to review every email that comes in -- and this is guaranteed to get privacy fanatics up in arms. Of course, if it comes in on company email lines and is supposed to only pertain to company business, but that still puts at least one employee in the unenviable position of having to review every email and make a judgment call. (Hey, maybe that's the next big employment opportunity - email reviewer.)
In closing, I haven't read the actual text of the legislation, but I would think there is a pretty wide gray area here. Are the "online pharmacies" spams considered pornographic if they offer viagra? Or would only those with images or explicit text count?
The reason there is such a backlash against GM is that it often involves inter-splicing pieces of gene THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE in this particular plant species. Careful breeding can only enhance or bring out pre-existing characteristics. The "Flavr Savr" bombed -- not just because it was genetically engineered, but because it didn't taste that great. Firm cardboard doesn't sell as tomatoes, no matter how bright red. The texture was an unexpected side effect.
I am curious about one thing, however. I get the impression from these careful breeders that they are bringing out recessive traits. (Believers in evolution should have fun explaining why traits that are more pro-survival are recessive than those that are not.) Won't this result in plants that must be carefully prevented from pollinating with "mutts" - or less carefully bred varieties?
This is definitely a step to improve the many things people have brought up:
Weighty backpacks - I remember coming home from high school one day and putting my backpack on a scale. Binder and books only and the thing weighed over 35 pounds!
Material resources - For a school with 6 periods, at least two teachers covering a subject, and approximately 30 teens per class, it requires 360 textbooks for a single subject. That doesn't take into account unavoidable damage (floods one year caused about 1/3 of the class to need replacement books).
Revision / new data - Chemistry textbooks still teach the atom with nice even rings of protons around a clump of electrons and neutrons. That was out-of-date how many centuries ago?
However, the biggest problem is what many here have mentioned -- theft. The only way to make theft unrealistic would be to have the ThinkPads be so completely customized that they have no value to anyone but the student. Pink cases with 60's-style flowers wouldn't stop every thief - though it might be more quickly found and returned, stripped of anything of value. Serial numbers are easily removed. Even if the equipment is restored, the innards may have been ransacked or the data stripped or damaged.
Providing students with a home computer/system and a portable disk (or even better a USB key) for each textbook is better. However, you are now putting a valuable piece of equipment in homes without the security to keep it there. All it takes is someone who decides that old clunker would pawn for at least another hit or two. Penalizing the student or parents would do nothing to prevent it happening again.
We're going the right way, but there are an awful lot of roadblocks (mostly criminal minds determined to ruin any good thing) before we get where we need to be.
Art is very hard to define clearly (much like humor) because it depends on the reaction of the audience as much as the creativity of the originator. However, a dictionary definition is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". Certainly there is a conscious use of skill and creative imagination in video games. Some games have even felt like more attention was put on the aesthetics than on the gameplay -- putting these even closer to the definition of art while losing out as games.
REFUSE to accept credit card transactions for non-U.S. customers (primarily those in nations well-known as scamming bases). If they want $30,000 in laptops, they can handle the banking necessary to get a loan and make a wire transfer. Also, the symptoms of these scammers is that they seldom have clear descriptions of what they want. I don't know a single legitimate business that would fork out $30,000 for "whatever your most expensive laptop is".
I don't handle the finance end of things, but I would suggest calling the bank and reporting such a suspicious transaction. The bank then calls the customer and verifies that the intended purchase is legitimate. This would hamper these guys in two ways: You wouldn't accept the card and now the legitimate card-holder knows the number is stolen.
BTW -- what are credit card companies doing to deal with these scammers? How can that many stolen credit card numbers (with those kinds of balances) exist and not have MasterCard or Visa heavily on the tails of the perps?
Slashdot Mirror
We aren't computers, yet we sometimes look at the wall or the ceiling or the stars and pick out faces. Many people have scared themselves badly seeing a face in the dark woods or looking in a window at night.
Younger users growing up with computers are much more willing to learn. It may take 15-20 years to work, but educating children who will be the future workforce is more likely to solve the problem eventually than trying to teach the current workforce of people who don't want to learn.
In the meantime, "Joe, this is the same problem you have reported twice before. I have been helping you as a favor. However, I have explained how to avoid the problem. I will explain it again right now. If you need help with this again, it will cost you an extra US$150 (some outrageous amount they won't want to pay or that you'd be happy to earn to do this repeatedly)." or some similar response that affects their wallet directly may force a few brain cells into action.
If a completely random selection of several thousand people occurs for every one of these polls, why is it that no one I know of has ever been a participant? I suspect it is more like the Nielsen ratings, where specific individuals who are supposed to be representative are involved each time.
The other thing that wasn't clear is whether trusting e-voting in general means anything related to trusting companies like Diebold. The very action California took to reject Diebold, while not rejecting e-voting in general, sends the message that it is possible to have trustworthy e-voting.
We have come a long way toward getting paper voting to be relatively secure and reliable. In spite of that, we heard all about dimples and miscounts in 2000. We can't expect the first few trial runs of e-voting to instantly be problem free.
A jock who lovingly polishes the fins of his 60's Chevy and talks to it.
A gamer who still has the Atari 2600 and speaks about it as a person.
For some people, the more attention, care, and money put into something, the greater the emotional investment - such that a failure or death "hurts".
A single long story isn't really necessary, IMHO. Having blown hours without realizing it trying to beat higher levels of Tetris on the original Game Boy and knowing many people who do the same with Minesweeper, Frozen Bubble, Nethack, and so on, I can say it doesn't even have to have a story. It can be short and addictive.
One of the major games behind the success of the Game Boy Color was the Pokemon series. It can have a blah predictable story if it can tap that kind of a following (Yu-Gi-Oh, Dragon Ball Z, and other games bear that out).
========
In going for a more adult audience, we may break past the single handheld holding the majority of the market. As much time as I spend away from home, offering a remake of Final Fantasy Tactics on a PSP would be enough to get me to buy one. I've bought GameBoy Advances, GameBoy Colors, GameBoy Pockets for my kids and myself (as well as owned an original GameBoy). I see no reason why I won't buy the DS once enough interesting games are available. Car trips have never been "Are we there yet?" in my family. They are more like "Can I have some more batteries?"
She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.
Personally, I think Sci-fi does a better job of presenting the many possible hypes and fears about nano-machine than she did, and the many ways of handling the issues. It seemed like she was trying to prevent public rejection of nano-technology by providing the most minimal information possible. What sort of controls is the FDA looking at? How does she propose to prevent the problems the public fears most?
Horn, funnel, whatever shape it was. Maybe the dark matter is really the "nothingness" that exists beyond the shape of the universe.
What's the odds that Microsoft will continue to seek a way to push their concept of trusted computing onto the consumer -- by giving it another new name? Palladium got too much bad PR, so they changed the name. Enough people caught on, so now they are abandoning that name (not the project, for sure).
NOTE: I am only comparing the FREE accounts here, not the paid which have other services.
Yahoo does not force a "white list" on you. I have both a Yahoo account and a hotmail account. I have never received a "special" spam from a Yahoo partner. As ecklesweb states, this is a user preference (like the hotmail automatic subscriptions to newsletters) that can be turned off. I turned it off early on.
More importantly, Yahoo does have three levels of spam filtering - none, some, and strong. At the strong level, I have yet to have anything filtered that shouldn't be and I only come across about four a month that get through, which I can easily report as spam to improve Yahoo's filtering. This actually filters spam I have never before received based on other's reporting.
OTOH, hotmail's spam filtering is not really that -- it is a matter of filtering any emails not from a known contact or your safe list and blocking any emails from a black list you have to create. EXCEPT that they have this wonderfully small limit on the free accounts. Of course, I only use this account for registering, so it is nothing but a spam filter and I don't have to provide addresses that are safe or not safe.
Whoa. Had a wacked thought which may be totally off the map, but do any of these free email sites have access to your contact lists - basically the online version of your address book? How well secured is it from outside access? That would be a spammer's wet dream - a list of valid emails. (Okay, that could be taking conspiracy too far, but I also know just how insecure MS software has been.)
If you have a hotmail account, you already know you can't block or filter to the trash any email from "staff@hotmail.com". It just isn't allowed. Of course, if you're like me, you only have the hotmail account for registering and you know it will only ever have spam, therefore you have everything go to the junk mail folder which will empty automatically. Only pitfall is I have to access it about once a month to prove it is "active".
Unfortunately no, because they get enough clickers who buy to show value. These ones that pay just to click (with no cash return) are fly-by-night because nothing comes in to pay for them.
Advertisers? Definitely won't last long. Marketing loves to spend money on new ideas, but any business that lets them run amok without any cost to results will go bankrupt.
I wonder if this click-happy group also clicks on virus-laden emails. To me, that would be far more frightening -- hundreds of thousands of infected machines in India pouring spam through a multitude of ISPs. Yuck.
From the article: The complaint alleges that "prior to sending solicited complaints by consumers to the Optin's originating ISP's, Spamcop alters the complaints it receives by removing the email address of the person or entity seeking to be taken off a mailing list thereby rendering the email anonymous." So what is he suing them for? Removing email addresses from the complaints so he can't verify they are in his databases? Or not providing the emails so he can remove the complainers who are most likely to get him in trouble? ============= Okay, just for a split second assume that this guy actually is trying to comply with the CAN-SPAM requirements. Does SpamCop verify whether or not a person originally opted in (and thus an "existing business relationship" is supposedly involved)? Do they verify whether any attempt was made to request removal of their email address? (Yes, I know most of us wouldn't touch those with a ten-foot pole because of the sleazier practices engaged in by spammers.) Does Spamcop make any attempt to request removal of addresses themselves and determine whether the spammer intentionally ignores such requests? Maybe, just maybe, there is some validity to his argument that his less-slimy practices are being vilified because of the slimier practices of others. But, you can't walk in the gutter without getting brown gunk all over your shoes, Mr. Richter. Find a higher ground or accept that you really aren't any better than the other sewer-dwellers around you.
"Why is the RFID industry so scared of this lady?"
Because enough people will take what she says as absolute truth and not actually look into the issue themselves. Particular to this is using derogatory terms -- you mentioned the use of "God's work" as an epithet, but what else would you call "spy chips". Mob mentality -- if you convince enough people that some object or power is evil and dangerous, even the safest, most harmless devices will get banned in the backlash.
There are definitely scary, privacy-invading uses of RFID tags -- but there are also beneficial uses that don't invade privacy. The problem is not the tags, in and of themselves. It is in the data that can be stored on them and who can access that data. She does have valid points, and the RFID industry would do well to heed her concerns. Her aim does not appear to be working to find the optimal path that works for both sides -- it is totally consumer oriented.
The FTC is off their rocker. What legitimate software out there is unable or unwilling to comply with this legislation? Seems to me that simply notifying the customer of the exact actions of the software and making removal of the software a normal process would be sufficient. When I load software, and it includes components that may contact a website and send information, I want to be told this and EXACTLY what will be sent and choose yes or no to this specifically. A good example is WinAmp. After installation, I was asked to register and decide if I wanted usage information to be sent periodically. Self-correction has never worked with slimy businesses. The good businesses do change so that the distinction is clearer (no good business wants to be seen as slimy). However, the slime won't stop until it is made difficult to impossible for them to proceed.
I find it intriguing that the majority of the examples in the article were not trying to put forward a political agenda. They have storylines that depend on disasters caused by political issues currently unresolved. Most science fiction (books, TV, movies) do this -- because the whole point is to extrapolate a future world from our current world. The writers of video games are as human as the rest of us and certainly have their opinions of the political state in the world around us. Not many of these games actually push a political agenda. They just use topics that are hot in the political world.
Riots on earth and complete banning of nanotechnology when it is learned by the masses that it is possible to engineer them to harm humans. Of course, on the up-side was improving the ability of humans to withstand more natural threats.
Okay, it looks like the offense has possible penalties of a fine and limited jail time. Based on the average spammer, the maximum imprisonment time would be 3 years for the first offense and 5 years for subsequent convictions. What I find more likely to have an impact is forfeiture. The convicted spammer will be ordered to forfeit any property traceable to proceeds from their spamming and any equipment, software or technology used therein. This is much more likely to have an impact than the fine and imprisonment, IF it is applied fully.
The real solution goes beyond ad blocking software. It lies in a willingness to completely boycott any site willing to allow advertising of this style. When enough of your readership complains and walks away, and your hits drop astronomically, you definitely re-evaluate your policy (especially since your advertisers do too).
I say let those sites that want to cater to sheep serve up as much as they want and get paid by advertisers to ignore the desires of their readers. I will get my data from sites that listen to their readers over their advertisers. (Reminds me of www.techreport.com which once had an advertiser whose animated image seriously sucked system resources. Readers posted complaints and the advertiser was asked to revise the image. Win/Win because the readers got a simple unobtrusive ad, the site got the advertising cash flow, and the advertiser adjusted to something that actually appealed to those readers who might be interested).
Without making excuses, I have to protest the obvious bias here. It is clear from the wording of the referenced article (more commentary than article, I'd say) that it was only licensed after finding out about its mis-us. Many have noted this, and have mentioned that copyright law protects automatically even if it had not been licensed.
However, at no point is any mention made of any effort to advise the makers of Lindows that the images being used are copyrighted and need to be removed or permission obtained. Isn't the first logical action to NOTIFY to offender and ask them to remove (or pay for) the use of the images? Why defame them for what could be a foolish error or an unknowing offense?
Now, IF Lindows was notified and deliberately ignored that notification and continued to use the images, we can be outraged. But until then, this is clearly more smear than news.
Snail mail does not have the same problem (in the US, at least). The most important reason is the cost per piece mailed. At nearly 40 cents per item, sending out the massive quantities spam is known for is prohibitive. If they want bulk discounts, they must be legitimately registered with a permit. That permit can easily be revoked and there is no other service waiting in the wings to pick up the business. Air mail doesn't sneak past - in fact, it costs more and still must move through the US postal service. There is no competing postal service within the US. The US postal service is a federal entity and there is a fairly good-sized body of federal law related to posted mail. This also means it has federal entities (FBI comes to mind) in place to handle investigation and enforcement when violations occur.
The only "spam" I get through snail mail is 1) local business ads (grocery store sheets that are not addressed, but delivered to EVERY mailbox), 2) political pamphlets (but this is because I don't ask off), and 3) those with whom I have had a relationship (BofA's many offers, SBC's nonsense, and so on). I have only twice in my life received chain letters. I have never seen a "Nigerian scam" or pornographic materials (that I didn't personally request).
==========
Until we have a system in which every person is accountable for the email they send and an international body of enforceable laws to prevent abuses, we will not have protection from spam. I prefer not to go the way of charging for emails just to stop spammers -- because that enriches one group at the expense of another to combat a third, when the first group could have come up with better options.
===========
On a side note, what filters out there can scan the content of the images embedded in the email for pornography? What filters can find every single misspelling of every term considered offensive? (Not to mention one I ran into trouble with. Trying to trim spam offering stock tips I tried filtering out the word stock. Unfortunately, stock has other meanings that various customers use it for.)
The only way for an employer to really cover their ass would be to review every email that comes in -- and this is guaranteed to get privacy fanatics up in arms. Of course, if it comes in on company email lines and is supposed to only pertain to company business, but that still puts at least one employee in the unenviable position of having to review every email and make a judgment call. (Hey, maybe that's the next big employment opportunity - email reviewer.)
In closing, I haven't read the actual text of the legislation, but I would think there is a pretty wide gray area here. Are the "online pharmacies" spams considered pornographic if they offer viagra? Or would only those with images or explicit text count?
The reason there is such a backlash against GM is that it often involves inter-splicing pieces of gene THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE in this particular plant species. Careful breeding can only enhance or bring out pre-existing characteristics. The "Flavr Savr" bombed -- not just because it was genetically engineered, but because it didn't taste that great. Firm cardboard doesn't sell as tomatoes, no matter how bright red. The texture was an unexpected side effect. I am curious about one thing, however. I get the impression from these careful breeders that they are bringing out recessive traits. (Believers in evolution should have fun explaining why traits that are more pro-survival are recessive than those that are not.) Won't this result in plants that must be carefully prevented from pollinating with "mutts" - or less carefully bred varieties?
This is definitely a step to improve the many things people have brought up:
Weighty backpacks - I remember coming home from high school one day and putting my backpack on a scale. Binder and books only and the thing weighed over 35 pounds!
Material resources - For a school with 6 periods, at least two teachers covering a subject, and approximately 30 teens per class, it requires 360 textbooks for a single subject. That doesn't take into account unavoidable damage (floods one year caused about 1/3 of the class to need replacement books).
Revision / new data - Chemistry textbooks still teach the atom with nice even rings of protons around a clump of electrons and neutrons. That was out-of-date how many centuries ago?
However, the biggest problem is what many here have mentioned -- theft. The only way to make theft unrealistic would be to have the ThinkPads be so completely customized that they have no value to anyone but the student. Pink cases with 60's-style flowers wouldn't stop every thief - though it might be more quickly found and returned, stripped of anything of value. Serial numbers are easily removed. Even if the equipment is restored, the innards may have been ransacked or the data stripped or damaged.
Providing students with a home computer/system and a portable disk (or even better a USB key) for each textbook is better. However, you are now putting a valuable piece of equipment in homes without the security to keep it there. All it takes is someone who decides that old clunker would pawn for at least another hit or two. Penalizing the student or parents would do nothing to prevent it happening again.
We're going the right way, but there are an awful lot of roadblocks (mostly criminal minds determined to ruin any good thing) before we get where we need to be.
Art is very hard to define clearly (much like humor) because it depends on the reaction of the audience as much as the creativity of the originator. However, a dictionary definition is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". Certainly there is a conscious use of skill and creative imagination in video games. Some games have even felt like more attention was put on the aesthetics than on the gameplay -- putting these even closer to the definition of art while losing out as games.
REFUSE to accept credit card transactions for non-U.S. customers (primarily those in nations well-known as scamming bases). If they want $30,000 in laptops, they can handle the banking necessary to get a loan and make a wire transfer. Also, the symptoms of these scammers is that they seldom have clear descriptions of what they want. I don't know a single legitimate business that would fork out $30,000 for "whatever your most expensive laptop is".
I don't handle the finance end of things, but I would suggest calling the bank and reporting such a suspicious transaction. The bank then calls the customer and verifies that the intended purchase is legitimate. This would hamper these guys in two ways: You wouldn't accept the card and now the legitimate card-holder knows the number is stolen.
BTW -- what are credit card companies doing to deal with these scammers? How can that many stolen credit card numbers (with those kinds of balances) exist and not have MasterCard or Visa heavily on the tails of the perps?