Not so. Did you not notice that you are commenting on a post by Steve Wozniak? Or do you not know who he is? And for him to say she is important? Do you have no idea who Evi actually is? How many lives she's touched through decades of teaching computing, mentoring system administrators (thanks, Woz), and traveling the world teaching system administration and networking? And those are just the people who know her personally. Then there are countless others who have relied on her many books and don't even know if she is she or he because they didn't get to hear her talk at a conference. Nonetheless, sites like slashdot don't function except by the graces of those who have probably used her books at some point.
Wow. Anonymous Coward, either you never met Evi or she called you on your bs and bruised your ego. I hope it makes you feel better to repeatedly trash someone who touched the lives of thousands, and trash those who do respect her and had her respect.
Interesting. But these were no amateurs. Evi sailed most of her life and exclusively the last 10 years with several open crossings under her belt. The captain was also an accomplished sailer who has owned and sailed the Nina for 25 years often with his wife and son. Even the Briton aboard had sailed the globe. So 4 of 7 crew were quite well-seasoned, not pleasure cruisers. They also knew the weather conditions and were expecting and prepared for tumult.
OSS is real software for people who know what they are doing. If you don't know anything about security and you want some, hire a professional (who may implement OSS for you) or buy a commercial closed product. The commercial product is likely to be more secure than an OSS product selected and implemented by someone who doesn't know anything about security. It's too easy to make a secure program very vulnerable by doing something stupid.
Sueing spammers, or ISPs, or those whom spam advertises is a waste of time (and money).
Various theories have been tried. None have worked. The principle reason is because spam is, by law, considered commercial free speech. Sorry folks. That's the real world, not our geek utopia. As such, it is protected by the constitution. Read Missouri v. Blastfax.
Because spam has already been found to be contitutionally protected free speech, any law restricting spam (or used in a case to try to restrict spam) must pass what is called the "Central Hudson test." One must prove that the government (via law) has a "substantial interest" in protecting the public from the offense. In order to prove that, you have to prove substantial harm or potential harm. Good luck.
For example, it used to be illegal for tabacco companies to advertise in certain cases and lawyers to advertise at all... because the gov't was supposedly protecting the public. However, BOTH of those restrictions have since been overturned. Can you prove spam more harmful than cigarettes or ambulance chasers?
The so-called anti-fax law has been determined in court to be unconstitutional. Why would anyone think it could work for spam?
Examples of other approaches:
1) theft. Do the math. Spam costs the recipient maybe $20 a year, and that's if you are getting ripped off by your ISP. Not "substantial." Your time is irrelevant. Suing for theft of your time is like suing the guy who wrecked his car and made you sit in traffic for three hours.
2) suing your ISP. You have a contract with your ISP, you can only sue for breach of that contract. Do you really think your ISP is going to leave the contract open to that?
3) intentional affliction of emotional distress - try to prove intent here. They claim ignorance and you're out legal fees.
4) unfair trade practices - these laws are pretty cut and dried. You'd have to prove the spam was either fraudulent or misleading. Some spam might fall into this category, but not much.
The only possible legal remedy for spam is a no-call sort of opt-out system. However, in states where no-call laws exist for telemarketing, they have not been effective at detering telemarketing calls.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so. Did you not notice that you are commenting on a post by Steve Wozniak? Or do you not know who he is? And for him to say she is important? Do you have no idea who Evi actually is? How many lives she's touched through decades of teaching computing, mentoring system administrators (thanks, Woz), and traveling the world teaching system administration and networking? And those are just the people who know her personally. Then there are countless others who have relied on her many books and don't even know if she is she or he because they didn't get to hear her talk at a conference. Nonetheless, sites like slashdot don't function except by the graces of those who have probably used her books at some point.
Wow. Anonymous Coward, either you never met Evi or she called you on your bs and bruised your ego. I hope it makes you feel better to repeatedly trash someone who touched the lives of thousands, and trash those who do respect her and had her respect.
Interesting. But these were no amateurs. Evi sailed most of her life and exclusively the last 10 years with several open crossings under her belt. The captain was also an accomplished sailer who has owned and sailed the Nina for 25 years often with his wife and son. Even the Briton aboard had sailed the globe. So 4 of 7 crew were quite well-seasoned, not pleasure cruisers. They also knew the weather conditions and were expecting and prepared for tumult.
OSS is real software for people who know what they are doing. If you don't know anything about security and you want some, hire a professional (who may implement OSS for you) or buy a commercial closed product. The commercial product is likely to be more secure than an OSS product selected and implemented by someone who doesn't know anything about security. It's too easy to make a secure program very vulnerable by doing something stupid.
Sueing spammers, or ISPs, or those whom spam advertises is a waste of time (and money). Various theories have been tried. None have worked. The principle reason is because spam is, by law, considered commercial free speech. Sorry folks. That's the real world, not our geek utopia. As such, it is protected by the constitution. Read Missouri v. Blastfax. Because spam has already been found to be contitutionally protected free speech, any law restricting spam (or used in a case to try to restrict spam) must pass what is called the "Central Hudson test." One must prove that the government (via law) has a "substantial interest" in protecting the public from the offense. In order to prove that, you have to prove substantial harm or potential harm. Good luck. For example, it used to be illegal for tabacco companies to advertise in certain cases and lawyers to advertise at all... because the gov't was supposedly protecting the public. However, BOTH of those restrictions have since been overturned. Can you prove spam more harmful than cigarettes or ambulance chasers? The so-called anti-fax law has been determined in court to be unconstitutional. Why would anyone think it could work for spam? Examples of other approaches: 1) theft. Do the math. Spam costs the recipient maybe $20 a year, and that's if you are getting ripped off by your ISP. Not "substantial." Your time is irrelevant. Suing for theft of your time is like suing the guy who wrecked his car and made you sit in traffic for three hours. 2) suing your ISP. You have a contract with your ISP, you can only sue for breach of that contract. Do you really think your ISP is going to leave the contract open to that? 3) intentional affliction of emotional distress - try to prove intent here. They claim ignorance and you're out legal fees. 4) unfair trade practices - these laws are pretty cut and dried. You'd have to prove the spam was either fraudulent or misleading. Some spam might fall into this category, but not much. The only possible legal remedy for spam is a no-call sort of opt-out system. However, in states where no-call laws exist for telemarketing, they have not been effective at detering telemarketing calls.