totally off the subject, but regarding your sig, you own the copyright to your post per the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen here:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.
So, if you want it to go into the public domain right now (instead of 70 yrs [95 yrs for an anonymous coward, if i remember correctly] after your death) you can do that. In fact, the best way to do that is to change your sig to "this post, in its entirety, is in the public domain. No rights reserved." Voila.
yeah, indeed, it clearly is better/cooler than Roomba. I don't see why slashdotters support the roomba so greatly when this product is clearly superior. May have to get one of these.
if it doesn't automatically move over to the re-charging unit when it's running low on power, self-recharge, and then automatically start cleaning again when fully charged, it's worthless IMO.
Since there were no infringement laws, thor had no choice but to share. Humanity benefitted, as it should from all inventions. The inventor deserves nothing more than credit and a nice pat on the back. Not money. Not a monopoly.
So you are saying Thor sued everyone else who copied his wheel idea? Dooming all his friends and neighbors into carrying their goods in baskets on their heads? No way. Anyone who saw Thor's neato spinning travel-moving invention made one for themselves, without worrying about Thor suing them for patent infringement. Humanity propsered... until the USA's patent and copyright laws came into the picture a few hundred thousand years later. Now we have patented chia pets and justin timberlake albums. Thor is rolling around in his grave.
I was looking at the large, detailed mars pic on the linked site and low and behold, a huge, living stapler with some english words growing on its side appeared and started to stomp around on the planet. I, for one, welcome our new stapler overlords.
Wait, what's that you say? It was just a tacky, utterly-annoying pop-up advertisement hopping around on my computer screen? Oh. Fuck them then.
Bullshit. That is the flawed logic behind intellectual property. People will make things, they don't need the promise of a monopoly on their creations. People with musical talent will write songs. it's in their blood. Thor the caveman didn't need the promise of a monopoly to encourage him to invent the wheel. it's bullshit, plain and simple. intellectual property is a crime against humanity and the sole foundation of it - that people won't create things without it - is complete bs.
From a marketing standpoint, that is. Even if they cost the same to manufacture, the fact that they can advertise it as "twice as many bits" (or something dumb like that) will justify a 2x price increase simply because of dumb consumers. Seems like a great marketing gimmick, and maybe nothing more.
if that domain is notorious for spam, then I would do the same thing AOL did. again, sue the spammers for lost profits.
as long as spam is profitable
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
expect stuff like this to happen. as long as 2 or 3 jackfucks in alabama are gonna buy whatever arrives in their inbox spam will be profitable since there's no cost to it.
The internet would be a lot greater if you left your computer wide open so I could log in as root. Somehow I don't think you'll be contributing to the greatness of the net in that way.
Openness is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it's what makes spam profitable in the first place (no cost to send 1 message or 1 billion). There's a middle ground here, and I do not think AOL has crossed it. Not even close.
But their complaint is not that AOL blocks email. Their complaint is that AOL will not unblock an address after it has been pointed out that spam came from somewhere else. I see no irony or hypocrisy. They're not saying AOL should not block/filter spam, only that AOL should provide a remedy for those inadvertently blacklisted.
Common carrier means you accept all paying customers (can't say "black people can't ride our trains.") and you're not liable for what your customers do vis a vis the service you provide (not an accessory when a passenger smuggles cocaine into the country on your train). AOL is not turning down customers, they are filtering garbage from its network. They have the right to do that. Accepting emails has nothing to do w/ AOL's common carrier status.
Why the hell do law makers seem to think that every new technology needs to regulated to hell
1) Regulate = generate tax income, increase size of gov't bureaucracy (more power, more pussy).
2) Regulation = "protecting our precious children." Protecting the children = re-election next term. (more power, more pussy for a few more years).
You will never, EVER, find a regulation that's sole stated purpose is not "to protect the children from x" (x is usually molesting pedophiles or their own childish stupidity).
as you can see, the answer is two-fold and very simple.
Yeah, the prison idea was tongue in cheek although people like the SuperZonda guys should be locked away and assraped for the rest of their lives (the top 1% of spammers by volume). But I think fining the ISP where the spam came from would end the spam problem really quickly, especially if it were done via international treaty on the international level (maybe the ISP should have to pay the government of the country the spam was sent to... ooh wee! more revenue for the govt sounds good we vote yes!)
I think a vast majority of slashdotters are on AOL's side in this situation (regardless of what they think of AOL). Aggressive spamblocking is a good thing. AOL can block whoever the fuck it wants to. If it wants to block *@*.* it sure as fuck can. There is a built-in check on aggressiveness of spamblocking. If you block too much then your customers will start to miss valid emails and they'll start to complain, then they'll start to leave if you don't fix it. If AOL deems their current blacklist acceptable, more power to them. Fuck spam.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. They can do this the same way FedEx (a common carrier) can choose which roads it doesn't want to drive its trucks on.
Hmm. I personally hate the idea of contributory infringement, i.e. holding an ISP liable for the copyright infringement of a client, and this would be somewhat like that. But maybe ISPs should be liable for the spammings of a client (foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds). Have statutory damages (say, $10 per email) and hold the ISP liable for that amount, for each spam email sent from its servers (payable to the recipient of the email). This will give all ISPs a financial incentive to do more than sign up everyone with a credit card number and maybe kick off people who are reported to be spammers. They need to be more proactive (of course the ISP could sue the spammer for indemnity to cover the cost of the tens of millions of dollars the ISP had to pay due to the millions of spams the former customer/spammer sent out through its servers). Spammer can't afford to pay? Time to create special spammer debtor-prison.
Well, I'm sure in response, they would say "we're not saying spam filtering is wrong, we're saying blocking huge domains and refusing to narrow it down even when it's been pointed out the spam didn't come from us is wrong."
People really need to learn what the words "irony" and "hypocrisy" really mean. These two words are used interchangeably for any situation that sounds sorta funny.
it sounded like you were saying the only thing that can stop AOL from doing this is the commerce clause since AOL's actions affect multiple states. If that's not what you meant, then I simply misunderstood you.
Slashdot Mirror
the witness was probably some chick the guy bragged about writing the virus to. Trying to get pussy in all the wrong ways....
totally off the subject, but regarding your sig, you own the copyright to your post per the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen here:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.
So, if you want it to go into the public domain right now (instead of 70 yrs [95 yrs for an anonymous coward, if i remember correctly] after your death) you can do that. In fact, the best way to do that is to change your sig to "this post, in its entirety, is in the public domain. No rights reserved." Voila.
yeah, indeed, it clearly is better/cooler than Roomba. I don't see why slashdotters support the roomba so greatly when this product is clearly superior. May have to get one of these.
if it doesn't automatically move over to the re-charging unit when it's running low on power, self-recharge, and then automatically start cleaning again when fully charged, it's worthless IMO.
cannot be attributed to incompetence as the original story was linked in the dupe, thus it must be malice.
Since there were no infringement laws, thor had no choice but to share. Humanity benefitted, as it should from all inventions. The inventor deserves nothing more than credit and a nice pat on the back. Not money. Not a monopoly.
So you are saying Thor sued everyone else who copied his wheel idea? Dooming all his friends and neighbors into carrying their goods in baskets on their heads? No way. Anyone who saw Thor's neato spinning travel-moving invention made one for themselves, without worrying about Thor suing them for patent infringement. Humanity propsered... until the USA's patent and copyright laws came into the picture a few hundred thousand years later. Now we have patented chia pets and justin timberlake albums. Thor is rolling around in his grave.
I was looking at the large, detailed mars pic on the linked site and low and behold, a huge, living stapler with some english words growing on its side appeared and started to stomp around on the planet. I, for one, welcome our new stapler overlords.
Wait, what's that you say? It was just a tacky, utterly-annoying pop-up advertisement hopping around on my computer screen? Oh. Fuck them then.
Bullshit. That is the flawed logic behind intellectual property. People will make things, they don't need the promise of a monopoly on their creations. People with musical talent will write songs. it's in their blood. Thor the caveman didn't need the promise of a monopoly to encourage him to invent the wheel. it's bullshit, plain and simple. intellectual property is a crime against humanity and the sole foundation of it - that people won't create things without it - is complete bs.
From a marketing standpoint, that is. Even if they cost the same to manufacture, the fact that they can advertise it as "twice as many bits" (or something dumb like that) will justify a 2x price increase simply because of dumb consumers. Seems like a great marketing gimmick, and maybe nothing more.
if that domain is notorious for spam, then I would do the same thing AOL did. again, sue the spammers for lost profits.
expect stuff like this to happen. as long as 2 or 3 jackfucks in alabama are gonna buy whatever arrives in their inbox spam will be profitable since there's no cost to it.
The internet would be a lot greater if you left your computer wide open so I could log in as root. Somehow I don't think you'll be contributing to the greatness of the net in that way.
Openness is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it's what makes spam profitable in the first place (no cost to send 1 message or 1 billion). There's a middle ground here, and I do not think AOL has crossed it. Not even close.
But their complaint is not that AOL blocks email. Their complaint is that AOL will not unblock an address after it has been pointed out that spam came from somewhere else. I see no irony or hypocrisy. They're not saying AOL should not block/filter spam, only that AOL should provide a remedy for those inadvertently blacklisted.
then you can go somewhere else. aol sucks anyway.
Unrestricted spamming?
Common carrier means you accept all paying customers (can't say "black people can't ride our trains.") and you're not liable for what your customers do vis a vis the service you provide (not an accessory when a passenger smuggles cocaine into the country on your train). AOL is not turning down customers, they are filtering garbage from its network. They have the right to do that. Accepting emails has nothing to do w/ AOL's common carrier status.
Why the hell do law makers seem to think that every new technology needs to regulated to hell
1) Regulate = generate tax income, increase size of gov't bureaucracy (more power, more pussy).
2) Regulation = "protecting our precious children." Protecting the children = re-election next term. (more power, more pussy for a few more years).
You will never, EVER, find a regulation that's sole stated purpose is not "to protect the children from x" (x is usually molesting pedophiles or their own childish stupidity).
as you can see, the answer is two-fold and very simple.
Yeah, the prison idea was tongue in cheek although people like the SuperZonda guys should be locked away and assraped for the rest of their lives (the top 1% of spammers by volume). But I think fining the ISP where the spam came from would end the spam problem really quickly, especially if it were done via international treaty on the international level (maybe the ISP should have to pay the government of the country the spam was sent to... ooh wee! more revenue for the govt sounds good we vote yes!)
I think a vast majority of slashdotters are on AOL's side in this situation (regardless of what they think of AOL). Aggressive spamblocking is a good thing. AOL can block whoever the fuck it wants to. If it wants to block *@*.* it sure as fuck can. There is a built-in check on aggressiveness of spamblocking. If you block too much then your customers will start to miss valid emails and they'll start to complain, then they'll start to leave if you don't fix it. If AOL deems their current blacklist acceptable, more power to them. Fuck spam.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. They can do this the same way FedEx (a common carrier) can choose which roads it doesn't want to drive its trucks on.
Hmm. I personally hate the idea of contributory infringement, i.e. holding an ISP liable for the copyright infringement of a client, and this would be somewhat like that. But maybe ISPs should be liable for the spammings of a client (foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds). Have statutory damages (say, $10 per email) and hold the ISP liable for that amount, for each spam email sent from its servers (payable to the recipient of the email). This will give all ISPs a financial incentive to do more than sign up everyone with a credit card number and maybe kick off people who are reported to be spammers. They need to be more proactive (of course the ISP could sue the spammer for indemnity to cover the cost of the tens of millions of dollars the ISP had to pay due to the millions of spams the former customer/spammer sent out through its servers). Spammer can't afford to pay? Time to create special spammer debtor-prison.
Well, I'm sure in response, they would say "we're not saying spam filtering is wrong, we're saying blocking huge domains and refusing to narrow it down even when it's been pointed out the spam didn't come from us is wrong."
People really need to learn what the words "irony" and "hypocrisy" really mean. These two words are used interchangeably for any situation that sounds sorta funny.
it sounded like you were saying the only thing that can stop AOL from doing this is the commerce clause since AOL's actions affect multiple states. If that's not what you meant, then I simply misunderstood you.
a private company can't violate the commerce clause.