I've had my work plagerized countless times. I have even had a teacher at a community college take a 2 page PDF document I wrote (it was on my website), and hand it out as her own work (to a class my mother was in no less).
Today, the majority of the things I write that people may have a reason to use (circus arts scripts mostly) are placed under the creative commons.
So their in lies the question:
What happens when a student uses parts of a CC work? Is it still plagerism, since this use is clearly within the scope of the CC? And what happens when someone starts a website wherehouse of CC liceanced HS and college papers?
was it just me, or was that a completely unfounded blanket statement?
No, your right, that was a completely unfounded blanket statement. Even if I were to answer it (and I would do so in great detail if I thought it had a snowballs chance in hell of making a difrence), the responce would likely be just more of the same.
But, since I am a bit of a glutton, here is a brief example from a realestate law office:
Client calls up (system brings up customer record via CID/PBX link, or manual search)
Select matter (closing)
Select correct forms for this clients closing (can be 10 or more multipage forms)
Fill in details of each form automatically from client records in this matter
Fill in any needed information that is not in the clients record (and add it to the record)
Submit each form to correct people in the correct mannor (email, fax, web form, registered mail, courier, etc)
Schedule closing with the broker, lawyer, client and banks lawyer
Add property to the list for a title search
Submit billing form to billing software based on work done this phone call
Oh, and you work in a high volume envornment, so you only have 8 minutes to get this all done (including licking the envelopes). With Outlook set up for this enviornment, it could be done in 3-4 minutes flat. This is not the only example, its just one of many. Like it or not, this is why outlook survives and thrives. Evolution won't do this. It might be possible to do with a host of database tools, but again, how many OSS tools would we need to do exactly the same thing? And how long would it take the 19 year old secretary (who usually only lasts 18 months) to do with the OSS tools that are avalible? If it's longer than 8 minutes, Outlook stays.
I think that Outlook is a tool that has not really been replicated in the OSS community. Yes, you can point to Evolution, yes, you can point to 20 or so utilities that between them do the same things, but it's not the same. For people who live on Outlook, whoes daily buisness and productivity is built around Outlook, these tools that are so often pointed to are just not an answer that works. If I had to switch between even just 5 tools to get done what I used to do in Outlook in my last job, my productivity would have dropped to unaceptable levels.
Like it or not, with Outlook Microsoft built a product that works for a lot of people, that helps people get real work done. Could it be done better? I think that it could, but it would take a major OSS undertaking to do. One that would have to start by looking beyond the obvious, and into what keeps people using Outlook.t
"Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams."
You know, for a moment there I thought they were saying that pirated movies were going to become less common. Glad to know this copyright stuff works as well as the war on drugs does.
See, I think that having to have a LAW DEGREE to even just BEGIN to understand the law is wrong. So what do we do? Here, let me give you a proposal so oof the wal it could only come from the circus:
Mandate that every law passed that effects non-liceanced individuals fit in a 180 hour class (90 hours for state/local, 90 hours for federal), 9th grade level class. And then requier that class for HS graduation, or as a pre req to obtain any liceance. Also, allow ignorance of the law to be an absolute defence if a law is not covered in the class.
Laws that do not fit must then be tied to a state or federal liceance, and are then only aplicable to those that have such liceances. And we find some way to prevent the legislatures from requiring liceances for anything that is not buisness related.
In theroy that would sure seem to bring this country back into the real world.
I could potentially see Corel's software as an alternative to Sun's supported software for business use. Howver, it is very doubtful that Corel will be able to persuade people to use this
WP has a huge following in the legal community. I know a few legal offices that would convert over to an LTSP setup IF WP were avalible (and no, 5.1 in a dosbox doesn't cut it for them).
The bottom line is that WP is designed for getting work done. MSO, SO, OOo and many others just don't keep up as well. Thats why WP is so entrenched in the legal community, it just works in that kind of environment.
I tend to agree that the existing toolkits leave a lot to be desired. But, what I would really like to know is what direction you (and others in the know) see toolkits going in?
The only other thing I could think of is maybe put a note in the messages of your AOL users asking them to contact AOL and fix their policy. The chances of this working are beyond slim, but it will make it appear to your users that you are trying to serve them the best that you can.
I have found having 20 or 30 AOL users call AOL's tech support screaming about AOL bouncing importiant mail as spam gets you off the list fairly quickly.
The point you are missing is that Mass laws in question are not going to change any time soon. Right or wrong (and I think its very wrong...), its the reality that we must live with, at least for now.
The people doing this are not in a position to change the law to allow comenwealth employees to contribute to GPL (and many other F/OSS licenced) projects, but they want the benifits of it, and they want to have a nice way of documenting the need to change this in the future.
While I have not seen this system in action, I suspect that for now, projects that are used by various govenments can be downloaded from the project. Citations of who else is using it, discussions about it (etc.) are going to be avalible in one place. For software that is released under a lic. that they approve, contributions can be made to the project directly through this site.
In the future, they could point to things like OOo and say "We have these 50 patches that we can't contribute back to the community at large due to this law, but these would make the world work better", and use that to push for change in the law. It can be a long, and slow process, but its a process that seems to be underway.
One of the many hats I wear is that of the direcor of Simply Circus (www.simplycircus.com), a youth circus program in the Boston area. As such this is something I have more than a little first hand experiance with. I am going to list a number of bullet points for you. Not all will apply, but they should be a good place for you to start.
Do not make the mistake of trying to diagnose the students problem. Let the doctors and other experts in the field do that.
The basis of most social skills is found in play. You often need to teach kids (especially young kids) how to play in order to teach them social skills (look for "You Can't Say You Can't Play" by Vivian Gussen Pailey(sp?))
Don't stop with the basic social skills. The toughest kids I have ever worked with were also some of the smartest kids I have ever worked with. Teaching popularity skills in addition to basic social skills can make a world of difrence to many kids.
Teach physical skills too. Far too often the physical side is left out, and smart kids end up falling far behind there peers. This only further hurts there social skills.
I really must protest. This new product from Simedia aims to give circuses everywhere a black eye. This product (if you can call it that) works with the popular Nokia 7650 and 3650 series of phones to provide callers with fake background noise. Now, this alone does not bother me. If people what to lie about where they are, thats up to them. What bothers me is the company is encouraging people to pretend that they are caught at a circus parade. Don't circuses get blaimed for enoughtrafficmesses?
Oh, wait. I could use this. Every one would think I was at the show when I called. Maybe it's not such a bad idea...
SounderCover is available for immediate purchase for the price of 14.95 and a demo version is available for download.
What I don't understand is why this situation is not corrected. What I mean is, why have we not yet moved to a programing methodology that deals with this right from the start?
Why don't we have a programing method that encourages a predicable UI?
Why isn't it easier for programmers to default to having all configuration done through a single, predictable configuration interface?
No, code that is released under these licences may be included in GPL projects:
GPL (duh) LGPL (duh) Guile's GNU ADA compiler runtimes' X11 (not to be confused with the XFree 4.4 licence) Expat (aka "MIT") Standard ML of New Jersey public domain Cryptix General current BSD Zlib iMatix Standard Function Library W3C Sleepycat/Berkeley DB current OpenLDAP current (and early) Python Perl (when not Artistic 1.0) Artistic 2.0 Zope 2.0 Intel Open Source Netscape Javascript eCos 2.0 Eiffel 2.0 current Vim
Code released under the GPL may be included in projects with thse liceances:
Sometimes its a matter of asking the right question. Try asking you readers this:
Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.
Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?
Why not?
Now, why it is OK for a cop to do this to an adult?
For the sake of argument, lets assume that this guy wants to become a mini ISP for his building in order to generate some extra income. He wants to offer both wired broadband internet via eathernet, and building wide WIFI to his offering. Lets assume (again for the sake of argument) that he will get a buisness grade internet connection for this project.
He has 48 apartments (6 apartments on each side, 2 sides, and four floors). He has $7k to spend. What does he need to do in order to make this work?
Assuming he gets 24 people to sign up, what do you see as the ongoing costs?
Why do it? For starters if your right, you will start a landslide of suits that would eventually kill off all spammers.
You expect me to attack something I support so that when I fail it will have been proven valid?
What is it you suport? SPAM or SPAM friendly ISPs? I sugested that you sign a contract with a SPAM friendly ISP before it gets listed with SPEWS, and then sue the ISP when it gets listed. If you win in court, you prove your theroy valid and set a precident that others can use to help force ISPs not to sell to spamers. You loose, the ruling can be examined to determin if the judge found the theroy flawed or the facts of the case to not support a judgement in your favor.
If you loose, your out the lawyer fees (it is only fair that some one that supports SPEWS be the one to take the risk with a theroy put forth by SPEWS supporters after all). You win, your out nothing, you may have made some money in damages, and you set a president that others can follow. The trick is, you have to believe in your theroy to do it.
Either the resoning works, or its time to stop presenting this as a viable option.
I do feel it is a position that could be succesfully argued, however, I have no standing as I have not been damaged. I'm the one blocking the spam and my ISP does not support spammers so I don't have any reason to test it in court.
I am sure there have been other SPEWS suporters that have gotten caught up in the colateral damage that would have standing, why have they not made this case?
Or if you feel so strongly about it, why not sign up with a service you know will get hit, and sue them when it happens?
I don't think you would have a chance in hell of proving such a case in court. I see the ISP claiming that is is a problem on the receiving servers end, and that they have no control over the receiving station or its use of SPEWS. I can't see them loosing on this point, they have no direct control over the servers of either the receiving ISP or SPEWS.
So you would then have to (1) prove to a judge/jury that the ISP is liable for the acts of 3rd and 4th parties (SPEWS and the receiving ISP), which I see as next to impossible or (2) prove that the ISP should have known that they were going to be listed on SPEWS and that SPEWS is an industry accepted method for blocking SPAM. This has even less of a chance of sucess - SPEWS does not notify the ISP prior to listing them. And don't even start with the garbage responces about the people behind SPEWS making the complaints, the undisputed fact is that SPEWS as an orginization does not notify the ISP, and this in and of itself kills any chance or proving that the ISP had proper notification prior to listing. Without this notice and at least a few other steps on SPEWS part I can't see how you would not be laughed out of court. If your legal people see it difrently I would love to see there legal theroy complete with citations.
But again, since you feel so strongly that it can be won, go and prove me wrong. Know that until at least one of SPEWS suporters actually goes and proves this theroy of yours in court, any one who is not a hard core supporter of SPEWS is going to look on this theroy much as I do.
My car manual didn't come with a warning instructing me not to drive my vehicle into large crowds of people. Is the manufacturer of my car to blame if someone uses one of their cars to do that?
If driving into large crowds were a problem for a fraction of the number of people SPEWS is a problem for I have no doubts it would be included as a direct warning in all car owners manuals. Even so, intentionally striking some one with your car is a crime in all 50 states. Page 8 of my Geos owners manual states very clearly that I should "...operate this vehicle in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws...". So yes, it does seem to be there.
You, and every other SPEWS defender can try to duck it all you want, in the end the fact is that SPEWS is as irresponsible, if not more so than the spammers they are fighting.
Tell me, why is it that this fine upstanding netizen, providing such a valuable service to the community has taken such pains to hide its true identity?
Why doesn't SPEWS take the very logical step of identifying themselves as SPEWS to the ISP when they make a complaint about a spammer? For that matter, why don't they provide any way for those accused to contact them directly?
Why doesn't SPEWS have a page on there web site explaining to people why they are not receiving legit mail? (I will point out that they have one for those whos sent mail gets bounced because of the 'service')
Why don't they include a recommended warning for admins to give to users on there web site? OR don't you think that the users of systems using SPEWS should know about it?
Why isn't a list of SPEWS subscribers available? After all, if you truly believe that its the mail admins doing the blocking, why not provide a means for an admin who feel they were wrongly affected by a SPEWS listing to contact all of the admins and ask them to fix it?
I can go on and on about the steps a responsible organization would and should take (or, as in the case of other lists, do take), but in the end it doesn't much matter, we all know that SPEWS is anything but a responsible organization.
I have to agree with this. Among the various other things I do, I run a youth circus program called Simply Circus (www.simplycircus.com). We use 8 of the talkabout 2 way radios, and have not had any problem with them.
Before a show we will use the pair of T5710's we have to scan for others in the area and to find a pair of clear channels. Once we find a pair of channels that works (primary and backup), we set the rest of the radios to the same channel, and make sure every one knows he backup. The system works well for us. While the T5710's are a bit more expensive, the other radios run about $40/pair, including rechargable bateries and charger.
I am planning to have the radios / chargers mounted in my van (same one we use to transport equipment) so that they will always be charged and ready to go.
It may or may not be succesfull in a court of law, but the lgoic os most certainly not "seriously flawed".
You are correct that the issue boils down to if refusing to disconnect spammers constitutes "willful negligence". What you seem to gloss over is that for some one to try and follow this logic they would alsmot certenly have to go to court over it. That is (and I am being generous here) a tough sell to say the least. If the logic won't stand up in a court of law, what use is it?
If you, as a SPEWS supporter, feel it is a position that can be won in court, why don't you test it out and see if it works?
Now answer my question: Is SPEWS aware how many ISP's are not informing there customers of this? [details of who/what is blocked]
A/C SPEWS defender answer:
I decline to answer your question due to the following reason: It is clearly dumb. Thanks for playing.
Hmm. Typical SPEWS defender responce. Flame instead of answering. By answering (and admiting) this you also are forced to admit that SPEWS is irisponcible for NOT doing something about it (such as providing a recomeded warning for admins to give to users). But no, that would force us to discuss why SPEWS does not take responcibility for a problem that they helped to create, yet at the same time demand other take responcibility for the actions of third (or 4th, 5th... 100th) parties.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had my work plagerized countless times. I have even had a teacher at a community college take a 2 page PDF document I wrote (it was on my website), and hand it out as her own work (to a class my mother was in no less).
Today, the majority of the things I write that people may have a reason to use (circus arts scripts mostly) are placed under the creative commons.
So their in lies the question:
What happens when a student uses parts of a CC work? Is it still plagerism, since this use is clearly within the scope of the CC? And what happens when someone starts a website wherehouse of CC liceanced HS and college papers?
No, your right, that was a completely unfounded blanket statement. Even if I were to answer it (and I would do so in great detail if I thought it had a snowballs chance in hell of making a difrence), the responce would likely be just more of the same.
But, since I am a bit of a glutton, here is a brief example from a realestate law office:
Client calls up (system brings up customer record via CID/PBX link, or manual search)
Select matter (closing)
Select correct forms for this clients closing (can be 10 or more multipage forms)
Fill in details of each form automatically from client records in this matter
Fill in any needed information that is not in the clients record (and add it to the record)
Submit each form to correct people in the correct mannor (email, fax, web form, registered mail, courier, etc)
Schedule closing with the broker, lawyer, client and banks lawyer
Add property to the list for a title search
Submit billing form to billing software based on work done this phone call
Oh, and you work in a high volume envornment, so you only have 8 minutes to get this all done (including licking the envelopes). With Outlook set up for this enviornment, it could be done in 3-4 minutes flat. This is not the only example, its just one of many. Like it or not, this is why outlook survives and thrives. Evolution won't do this. It might be possible to do with a host of database tools, but again, how many OSS tools would we need to do exactly the same thing? And how long would it take the 19 year old secretary (who usually only lasts 18 months) to do with the OSS tools that are avalible? If it's longer than 8 minutes, Outlook stays.
At the risk of being moderated a troll...
I think that Outlook is a tool that has not really been replicated in the OSS community. Yes, you can point to Evolution, yes, you can point to 20 or so utilities that between them do the same things, but it's not the same. For people who live on Outlook, whoes daily buisness and productivity is built around Outlook, these tools that are so often pointed to are just not an answer that works. If I had to switch between even just 5 tools to get done what I used to do in Outlook in my last job, my productivity would have dropped to unaceptable levels.
Like it or not, with Outlook Microsoft built a product that works for a lot of people, that helps people get real work done. Could it be done better? I think that it could, but it would take a major OSS undertaking to do. One that would have to start by looking beyond the obvious, and into what keeps people using Outlook.t
You know, for a moment there I thought they were saying that pirated movies were going to become less common. Glad to know this copyright stuff works as well as the war on drugs does.
Mandate that every law passed that effects non-liceanced individuals fit in a 180 hour class (90 hours for state/local, 90 hours for federal), 9th grade level class. And then requier that class for HS graduation, or as a pre req to obtain any liceance. Also, allow ignorance of the law to be an absolute defence if a law is not covered in the class.
Laws that do not fit must then be tied to a state or federal liceance, and are then only aplicable to those that have such liceances. And we find some way to prevent the legislatures from requiring liceances for anything that is not buisness related.
In theroy that would sure seem to bring this country back into the real world.
thoughts?
WP has a huge following in the legal community. I know a few legal offices that would convert over to an LTSP setup IF WP were avalible (and no, 5.1 in a dosbox doesn't cut it for them).
The bottom line is that WP is designed for getting work done. MSO, SO, OOo and many others just don't keep up as well. Thats why WP is so entrenched in the legal community, it just works in that kind of environment.
Miguel,
I tend to agree that the existing toolkits leave a lot to be desired. But, what I would really like to know is what direction you (and others in the know) see toolkits going in?
Are we looking more towards things like gnustep or Y Windows?
Should we be looking to take the best aspects of each of these toolkits and create something new? (and if so, what do you see being included?)
I have found having 20 or 30 AOL users call AOL's tech support screaming about AOL bouncing importiant mail as spam gets you off the list fairly quickly.
If thats the case, then why not give your students what they seem to be asking for and include new.net in your schools DNS system?
The point you are missing is that Mass laws in question are not going to change any time soon. Right or wrong (and I think its very wrong...), its the reality that we must live with, at least for now.
The people doing this are not in a position to change the law to allow comenwealth employees to contribute to GPL (and many other F/OSS licenced) projects, but they want the benifits of it, and they want to have a nice way of documenting the need to change this in the future.
While I have not seen this system in action, I suspect that for now, projects that are used by various govenments can be downloaded from the project. Citations of who else is using it, discussions about it (etc.) are going to be avalible in one place. For software that is released under a lic. that they approve, contributions can be made to the project directly through this site.
In the future, they could point to things like OOo and say "We have these 50 patches that we can't contribute back to the community at large due to this law, but these would make the world work better", and use that to push for change in the law. It can be a long, and slow process, but its a process that seems to be underway.
They do have a core of volunteer lawyers. They usually do (c) research, but I am sure they will take action.
I really must protest. This new product from Simedia aims to give circuses everywhere a black eye. This product (if you can call it that) works with the popular Nokia 7650 and 3650 series of phones to provide callers with fake background noise. Now, this alone does not bother me. If people what to lie about where they are, thats up to them. What bothers me is the company is encouraging people to pretend that they are caught at a circus parade. Don't circuses get blaimed for enough traffic messes?
Oh, wait. I could use this. Every one would think I was at the show when I called. Maybe it's not such a bad idea...
SounderCover is available for immediate purchase for the price of 14.95 and a demo version is available for download.
Why don't we have a programing method that encourages a predicable UI?
Why isn't it easier for programmers to default to having all configuration done through a single, predictable configuration interface?
Why does this subject come up so often on /.?
No, code that is released under these licences may be included in GPL projects:
GPL (duh)
LGPL (duh)
Guile's
GNU ADA compiler runtimes'
X11 (not to be confused with the XFree 4.4 licence)
Expat (aka "MIT")
Standard ML of New Jersey
public domain
Cryptix General
current BSD
Zlib
iMatix Standard Function Library
W3C
Sleepycat/Berkeley DB
current OpenLDAP
current (and early) Python
Perl (when not Artistic 1.0)
Artistic 2.0
Zope 2.0
Intel Open Source
Netscape Javascript
eCos 2.0
Eiffel 2.0
current Vim
Code released under the GPL may be included in projects with thse liceances:
GPL
Sometimes its a matter of asking the right question. Try asking you readers this:
Assume you live in the typical suburban neighborhood. Now assume your 10 year old son and 2 of his 10 year old friends went on a ride to the local park to play on the swings on Sunday afternoon.
Would be OK for a cop to arrest these 12 year old for not producing an ID?
Why not?
Now, why it is OK for a cop to do this to an adult?
For the sake of argument, lets assume that this guy wants to become a mini ISP for his building in order to generate some extra income. He wants to offer both wired broadband internet via eathernet, and building wide WIFI to his offering. Lets assume (again for the sake of argument) that he will get a buisness grade internet connection for this project.
He has 48 apartments (6 apartments on each side, 2 sides, and four floors). He has $7k to spend.
What does he need to do in order to make this work?
Assuming he gets 24 people to sign up, what do you see as the ongoing costs?
With all of the debate the other day over SPEWS, anyone care to talk about what reaction SPEWS will have to those infected with this virus?
Why do it? For starters if your right, you will start a landslide of suits that would eventually kill off all spammers.
You expect me to attack something I support so that when I fail it will have been proven valid?
What is it you suport? SPAM or SPAM friendly ISPs? I sugested that you sign a contract with a SPAM friendly ISP before it gets listed with SPEWS, and then sue the ISP when it gets listed. If you win in court, you prove your theroy valid and set a precident that others can use to help force ISPs not to sell to spamers. You loose, the ruling can be examined to determin if the judge found the theroy flawed or the facts of the case to not support a judgement in your favor.
If you loose, your out the lawyer fees (it is only fair that some one that supports SPEWS be the one to take the risk with a theroy put forth by SPEWS supporters after all). You win, your out nothing, you may have made some money in damages, and you set a president that others can follow. The trick is, you have to believe in your theroy to do it.
Either the resoning works, or its time to stop presenting this as a viable option.
I am sure there have been other SPEWS suporters that have gotten caught up in the colateral damage that would have standing, why have they not made this case?
Or if you feel so strongly about it, why not sign up with a service you know will get hit, and sue them when it happens?
I don't think you would have a chance in hell of proving such a case in court. I see the ISP claiming that is is a problem on the receiving servers end, and that they have no control over the receiving station or its use of SPEWS. I can't see them loosing on this point, they have no direct control over the servers of either the receiving ISP or SPEWS.
So you would then have to (1) prove to a judge/jury that the ISP is liable for the acts of 3rd and 4th parties (SPEWS and the receiving ISP), which I see as next to impossible or (2) prove that the ISP should have known that they were going to be listed on SPEWS and that SPEWS is an industry accepted method for blocking SPAM. This has even less of a chance of sucess - SPEWS does not notify the ISP prior to listing them. And don't even start with the garbage responces about the people behind SPEWS making the complaints, the undisputed fact is that SPEWS as an orginization does not notify the ISP, and this in and of itself kills any chance or proving that the ISP had proper notification prior to listing. Without this notice and at least a few other steps on SPEWS part I can't see how you would not be laughed out of court. If your legal people see it difrently I would love to see there legal theroy complete with citations.
But again, since you feel so strongly that it can be won, go and prove me wrong. Know that until at least one of SPEWS suporters actually goes and proves this theroy of yours in court, any one who is not a hard core supporter of SPEWS is going to look on this theroy much as I do.
If driving into large crowds were a problem for a fraction of the number of people SPEWS is a problem for I have no doubts it would be included as a direct warning in all car owners manuals. Even so, intentionally striking some one with your car is a crime in all 50 states. Page 8 of my Geos owners manual states very clearly that I should "...operate this vehicle in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws...". So yes, it does seem to be there.
You, and every other SPEWS defender can try to duck it all you want, in the end the fact is that SPEWS is as irresponsible, if not more so than the spammers they are fighting.
Tell me, why is it that this fine upstanding netizen, providing such a valuable service to the community has taken such pains to hide its true identity?
Why doesn't SPEWS take the very logical step of identifying themselves as SPEWS to the ISP when they make a complaint about a spammer? For that matter, why don't they provide any way for those accused to contact them directly?
Why doesn't SPEWS have a page on there web site explaining to people why they are not receiving legit mail? (I will point out that they have one for those whos sent mail gets bounced because of the 'service')
Why don't they include a recommended warning for admins to give to users on there web site? OR don't you think that the users of systems using SPEWS should know about it?
Why isn't a list of SPEWS subscribers available? After all, if you truly believe that its the mail admins doing the blocking, why not provide a means for an admin who feel they were wrongly affected by a SPEWS listing to contact all of the admins and ask them to fix it?
I can go on and on about the steps a responsible organization would and should take (or, as in the case of other lists, do take), but in the end it doesn't much matter, we all know that SPEWS is anything but a responsible organization.
I have to agree with this. Among the various other things I do, I run a youth circus program called Simply Circus (www.simplycircus.com). We use 8 of the talkabout 2 way radios, and have not had any problem with them.
Before a show we will use the pair of T5710's we have to scan for others in the area and to find a pair of clear channels. Once we find a pair of channels that works (primary and backup), we set the rest of the radios to the same channel, and make sure every one knows he backup. The system works well for us. While the T5710's are a bit more expensive, the other radios run about $40/pair, including rechargable bateries and charger.
I am planning to have the radios / chargers mounted in my van (same one we use to transport equipment) so that they will always be charged and ready to go.
You are correct that the issue boils down to if refusing to disconnect spammers constitutes "willful negligence". What you seem to gloss over is that for some one to try and follow this logic they would alsmot certenly have to go to court over it. That is (and I am being generous here) a tough sell to say the least. If the logic won't stand up in a court of law, what use is it?
If you, as a SPEWS supporter, feel it is a position that can be won in court, why don't you test it out and see if it works?
Now answer my question: Is SPEWS aware how many ISP's are not informing there customers of this? [details of who/what is blocked]
A/C SPEWS defender answer:
I decline to answer your question due to the following reason: It is clearly dumb. Thanks for playing.
Hmm. Typical SPEWS defender responce. Flame instead of answering. By answering (and admiting) this you also are forced to admit that SPEWS is irisponcible for NOT doing something about it (such as providing a recomeded warning for admins to give to users). But no, that would force us to discuss why SPEWS does not take responcibility for a problem that they helped to create, yet at the same time demand other take responcibility for the actions of third (or 4th, 5th... 100th) parties.
On this it seems we agree. ISP *must* inform the customer that blocklisting/filtering is taking place, and how.
Now answer my question: Is SPEWS aware how many ISP's are not informing there customers of this?