The court considered two ways in which faxes hurt the recipients:
They cost the recipient substantial resources ($100/year)
They deny the recipient use of their own equipment
Spammers could argue that neither of these apply to spam.
Spam is a denial of service attack when it fills up your inbox before you can empty it and prevents you from receiving wanted messages. That alone should be more then enough.
The problem here is that even if a law is passed how do you track down the people responsible. Given that headers are usually forged and the open relays are likely to stay open then this is going to be diffilcult.
So why aren't the techie people attacking the open relays and beating them into the ground? They can't be that hard to find, since the spamers find them, or attack. Send them messages that loop back into them until they are closed. By the time they've fought the loss of bandwidth and deluge of unwanted messages, maybe they'll be more responsible about how they comport themselves on the Internet.
I am okay with DRM as long as I know who holds the keys. With todays Homeland security, I am not sure that I am the only key holder.
I am NEVER okay with DRM. As long as someone else holds the keys, they can change the rules anytime afterwards.
Consider, you buy DRM protected music this year.
Next year, through spending lots of money in Washington D.C., the industries are are granted the legal right to specify that the music you bought cannot be copied to any other form, and your DRM is automatically updated to enforce that without ever asking your consent.
The year after that they get a law where your purchased music will expire after ten years of use. Just won't play after that.
And the year after that, instead of unlimited plays allowed within your remaining eight years (the ten year limit was made retroactive, of course), you now have to pay a few pennies for each play. And btw, it now expires in seven (for you four) years.
You can't do anything because they own the keys and can change the conditions of their use any time they wish (true of any DRM system, to deal with compromised keys, if nothing else). Your only recourse is to the law -- and they've already preempted that route.
Let's be clear here: DRM IS NEVER OKAY. Got that?
And if you're foolish to think the rules never change on something after you've bought it, look at how copyrights on old music and movies continue to be extended beyond ever expiring? Even now, copyrighted material first published before you were born will never expire in your lifetime.
So what does this do to my nice film scanner? Does this make my digital photography image chain unusable with the new technology? It seems unlikely that there's a Photoshop import filter for the original negative.
And I'm always leary of adopting a new technology that is monopolized by a single provider.
After reading the article, I can't think of Any gun I am Less Likely to buy then this one.
It's expensive, both to buy, and shoot afterwards.
It's reliability is in question (my gun must shoot first time, every time)
It appears inaccurate, especially from the bottom barrels (gun control is hitting what you are aiming at).
It's intrusive (it's none of the government's damn business what I shoot at as long as it is a legal target).
And it gives the government complete control over the use of and revocation of use of my personal firearm. The article proudly trumphets this fact.
I would refuse to buy a gun based on any of the above as long as an alternative exists. This one hits all of them. The obvious legislation outlawing every other gun in existance is the only way this gun will sell to anyone but the extreme liberal. Anyone want to bet that this is not not part of the plan?
That is an insightful comment that lasts exactly as long as it takes someone to cover the camera eye with a bit of opaque tape.
Or only shoot people at night.
Overall this idea of a new, better gun is a piece of "feel good" garbage that will result in a lot of people running around shouting that all the problems of guns have just been solved -- and attempt legislation to make it happen.
Truthfully, does any of this actually make you feel any safer?
Actually, you can block those e-mail by going into Options, Custom Filter, and creating a rule that states, "Deliver mail that contains staff@hotmail.com in the from addr to my Junk Mail folder."
Why don't you automatically forward it to their abuse address? If a few % of their subscribers did this, they might make an unsubscribe option available.
After an initial period in which Intuit service personnel required customers with product activation problems to ante up for another full-priced copy, Intuit is now bending over backward to resolve problems.
Bending over backward for Intuit does seem appropariate, given how much they've had their customers bending over forward.
Not to take joy in the bludgeoning of the little guy, but this dude is a squatter. Patents should expire if you don't do anything with them for 2 years.
Tell Macrovision, who patented every way they could think of for breaking their video copy protection system just to be able to keep anyone else from using it.
even now, every so often I'll walk into a meeting with a client (as most of my work is done internationally and online this is rare) and they'll completely change their attitude from very professional and respecting to very hostile and degrading strictly based on age.
I'll bet it is not your age nearly as much as other factors.
Do you dress professionally for meetings? Do you treat your clients with respect? Do you have a reasonable haircut of a reasonable color, no obvious tatoos or piercings? Do you arrive sober, and speak educated English. Are you copping an attitude because you once did well in a DotCom and once made more money then the people you new deal with? Or do you consider all this just selling out, and that you should be accepted for who you are regardless of how you dress and/or act?
There's a lot you can to to cultivate a professional provided you care enough about your business to do so.
After reading your rant, you don't strike me as a reliable person that I'd want to do business with.
Short answer is that I have lost my faith in Dell, and until they prove themselves to me again, I won't buy their products, and I advise other people to do the same, no matter now nifty-cool they may be.
And just how do they prove themselves to you again if you won't deal with them?
I note that we have 5 Dells in our immediate family, including the 5 year old Dimension I'm typing this on. I've also worked closely with another dozen, and never had any problem with Dell service or support. I submit that your experience is not universal to all Dell owners.
...legitiate bulk senders... There is no such thing. It's that simple.
OK what do you call CNET, it is one of the largest bulk senders, all its newsletters are 100% opt in
What do you call Code Amber which distributes Amber alert warnings to opted in subscribers?
What do you call Amex, Ebay, and the hundreds of companies that use the web to do legitimate business with their customers?
I want my bills sent by email rather than snail mail. I want to be able to send and receive richly formatted HTML emails rather than teletype pieces of crud in monospace fonts.
I think that the blanket statements such as 'no bulk senders are legitimate' illustrate the real problem here, too many people have simplistic solutions that will eliminate spam for their proposers and people just like them but require everyone to adopt their limited uses
If I had moderation points, you would be flamebait right now.
I really do believe the world at large (minus 1) does understand the difference between opt-in mailings and UCE (unsolicited commercial e-mail) spam.
Was just telling another friend yesterday that a home user can have an affordable terabyte of rotating storage now. Raid controller and 3x320GB drives. I don't need it yet, but it's achievable.
My question is, how long until a desktop with a TByte of ram? Consider:
10 years ago, 1GB of ram was unimaginable.
20 years ago, 1GB of disc was unimaginable.
Today 1TB of ram doesn't seem any more unimaginable then those previous levels did in their day.
Once you admit that blocking is both possible and acceptable, then there remains only the simple question of what to block next.
Don't tell me that if this holds up that the RIAA and MPAA won't be next in line with a list of sites to be blocked -- starting with all download sites for P2P, ripping, copying and related software. How long before download.com is only a memory. Remember that there is isn't anything out there that somebody doesn't like made available.
I don't support child porn at all where real children are involved, but this isn't the way to attack the problem. The politicians and courts are too much like the kings of olde, they just command it to be done and expect someone else to work out the real details and problems.
[sarcasm] Isn't that nice of them. Reminds me of some liberals I know whose attitude is, "Now that I've identified the problem for you, you go fix/pay for it."[/sarcasm]
The scary thought is how a provider (e.g. AT&T) which hosts thousands of personal pages could have the enire site blocked because of one misbehaving user, even on First Amendment protected materials.
If you read the Extreme Tech article completely, it reminds us that the companion product (not used in TurboTax yet) SafeDisk is even more insidious. That it replaces your CD-RW drivers with its own and monitors (prevents?) how you use your CD-RW drive after that. Now there is something that ought to be the target of lawsuits left & right.
A few lawsuits for system damage by SafeCast right now wouldn't hurt either.
So what is a good utility to inspect and clean all this crap off of boot sectors 1-63, even if it does make limited-time demos forget their earlier installs?
I completely agree with you, and would have started a separate thread if you hadn't already brought this up. I have had cases, some of them rentals, where I was bending the DVD to near breaking to get the d@mn thing out. Doesn't suprise me at all that there may be stress fractures letting in contaminates around the center hole. Who the heck designs these cases anyway -- the movie industry?
Indeed, the vast majority of newsgroups are non-infringing.
All the moreso, I would have believed that the case could be made against the infringing newsgroups without ever trying to shut down Usenet itself, and there would have been an easier going of it. Yet that hasn't happened. One does wonder why. In Usenet more then most other places, the ability to close down only infringing uses seems evident by requiring news services to not carry specified groups. Curious, wouldn't you say?
Re:I've just been using USENET.
on
Shutting down Kazaa
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One does wonder why Usenet is yet to be sued. It far predates Napster. Does it in some way pass a legal challenge that Napster didn't, or is it considered just too arcane for Joe College-Student to use in ripping off the starving record companies?
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse be, BUT Microsoft will be coming out with a Windows-64 to support the AMD Opteron/Athlon-64 chips at, or very very near to launch.
Agreed. Although if he had said Opteron instead of Itantium, I might have half belived it.
They cost the recipient substantial resources ($100/year)
They deny the recipient use of their own equipment
Spammers could argue that neither of these apply to spam.
Spam is a denial of service attack when it fills up your inbox before you can empty it and prevents you from receiving wanted messages. That alone should be more then enough.
So why aren't the techie people attacking the open relays and beating them into the ground? They can't be that hard to find, since the spamers find them, or attack. Send them messages that loop back into them until they are closed. By the time they've fought the loss of bandwidth and deluge of unwanted messages, maybe they'll be more responsible about how they comport themselves on the Internet.
Considering the complete content of many CD's today, the industry is already 90% there.
I am NEVER okay with DRM. As long as someone else holds the keys, they can change the rules anytime afterwards.
Consider, you buy DRM protected music this year.
Next year, through spending lots of money in Washington D.C., the industries are are granted the legal right to specify that the music you bought cannot be copied to any other form, and your DRM is automatically updated to enforce that without ever asking your consent.
The year after that they get a law where your purchased music will expire after ten years of use. Just won't play after that.
And the year after that, instead of unlimited plays allowed within your remaining eight years (the ten year limit was made retroactive, of course), you now have to pay a few pennies for each play. And btw, it now expires in seven (for you four) years.
You can't do anything because they own the keys and can change the conditions of their use any time they wish (true of any DRM system, to deal with compromised keys, if nothing else). Your only recourse is to the law -- and they've already preempted that route.
Let's be clear here: DRM IS NEVER OKAY. Got that?
And if you're foolish to think the rules never change on something after you've bought it, look at how copyrights on old music and movies continue to be extended beyond ever expiring? Even now, copyrighted material first published before you were born will never expire in your lifetime.
And I'm always leary of adopting a new technology that is monopolized by a single provider.
It's expensive, both to buy, and shoot afterwards.
It's reliability is in question (my gun must shoot first time, every time)
It appears inaccurate, especially from the bottom barrels (gun control is hitting what you are aiming at).
It's intrusive (it's none of the government's damn business what I shoot at as long as it is a legal target).
And it gives the government complete control over the use of and revocation of use of my personal firearm. The article proudly trumphets this fact.
I would refuse to buy a gun based on any of the above as long as an alternative exists. This one hits all of them. The obvious legislation outlawing every other gun in existance is the only way this gun will sell to anyone but the extreme liberal. Anyone want to bet that this is not not part of the plan?
That is an insightful comment that lasts exactly as long as it takes someone to cover the camera eye with a bit of opaque tape.
Or only shoot people at night.
Overall this idea of a new, better gun is a piece of "feel good" garbage that will result in a lot of people running around shouting that all the problems of guns have just been solved -- and attempt legislation to make it happen.
Truthfully, does any of this actually make you feel any safer?
Sounds like living in WA can pay for itself. One $4000 suit/week can pay pretty good wages. Sounds like the ultimate work-at-home business.
So do you spread your e-mail address across Usenet?
Can you you sue the same people again if you open up a new e-mail address and they start sending it there too?
Can you recommend a good real estate agent?
Why don't you automatically forward it to their abuse address? If a few % of their subscribers did this, they might make an unsubscribe option available.
Bending over backward for Intuit does seem appropariate, given how much they've had their customers bending over forward.
Tell Macrovision, who patented every way they could think of for breaking their video copy protection system just to be able to keep anyone else from using it.
I'll bet it is not your age nearly as much as other factors.
Do you dress professionally for meetings? Do you treat your clients with respect? Do you have a reasonable haircut of a reasonable color, no obvious tatoos or piercings? Do you arrive sober, and speak educated English. Are you copping an attitude because you once did well in a DotCom and once made more money then the people you new deal with? Or do you consider all this just selling out, and that you should be accepted for who you are regardless of how you dress and/or act?
There's a lot you can to to cultivate a professional provided you care enough about your business to do so.
After reading your rant, you don't strike me as a reliable person that I'd want to do business with.
Maybe it's time for someone (who knows how) to start a thread about Dell's current service -- good or bad.
Does seem that most of the complaints here are about laptop/notebooks, which I believe Dell outsources.
And just how do they prove themselves to you again if you won't deal with them?
I note that we have 5 Dells in our immediate family, including the 5 year old Dimension I'm typing this on. I've also worked closely with another dozen, and never had any problem with Dell service or support. I submit that your experience is not universal to all Dell owners.
You're a lucky guy to have known her in HS.
OK what do you call CNET, it is one of the largest bulk senders, all its newsletters are 100% opt in
What do you call Code Amber which distributes Amber alert warnings to opted in subscribers?
What do you call Amex, Ebay, and the hundreds of companies that use the web to do legitimate business with their customers?
I want my bills sent by email rather than snail mail. I want to be able to send and receive richly formatted HTML emails rather than teletype pieces of crud in monospace fonts.
I think that the blanket statements such as 'no bulk senders are legitimate' illustrate the real problem here, too many people have simplistic solutions that will eliminate spam for their proposers and people just like them but require everyone to adopt their limited uses
If I had moderation points, you would be flamebait right now.
I really do believe the world at large (minus 1) does understand the difference between opt-in mailings and UCE (unsolicited commercial e-mail) spam.
There is no such thing. It's that simple.
I agree completely. You just beat me to the post. I'd have given you a moderation point if I'd had any to give.
My question is, how long until a desktop with a TByte of ram? Consider:
10 years ago, 1GB of ram was unimaginable.
20 years ago, 1GB of disc was unimaginable.
Today 1TB of ram doesn't seem any more unimaginable then those previous levels did in their day.
Don't tell me that if this holds up that the RIAA and MPAA won't be next in line with a list of sites to be blocked -- starting with all download sites for P2P, ripping, copying and related software. How long before download.com is only a memory. Remember that there is isn't anything out there that somebody doesn't like made available.
I don't support child porn at all where real children are involved, but this isn't the way to attack the problem. The politicians and courts are too much like the kings of olde, they just command it to be done and expect someone else to work out the real details and problems.
[sarcasm] Isn't that nice of them. Reminds me of some liberals I know whose attitude is, "Now that I've identified the problem for you, you go fix/pay for it."[/sarcasm]
The scary thought is how a provider (e.g. AT&T) which hosts thousands of personal pages could have the enire site blocked because of one misbehaving user, even on First Amendment protected materials.
This needs to be stopped here!
A few lawsuits for system damage by SafeCast right now wouldn't hurt either.
So what is a good utility to inspect and clean all this crap off of boot sectors 1-63, even if it does make limited-time demos forget their earlier installs?
I completely agree with you, and would have started a separate thread if you hadn't already brought this up. I have had cases, some of them rentals, where I was bending the DVD to near breaking to get the d@mn thing out. Doesn't suprise me at all that there may be stress fractures letting in contaminates around the center hole. Who the heck designs these cases anyway -- the movie industry?
All the moreso, I would have believed that the case could be made against the infringing newsgroups without ever trying to shut down Usenet itself, and there would have been an easier going of it. Yet that hasn't happened. One does wonder why. In Usenet more then most other places, the ability to close down only infringing uses seems evident by requiring news services to not carry specified groups. Curious, wouldn't you say?
One does wonder why Usenet is yet to be sued. It far predates Napster. Does it in some way pass a legal challenge that Napster didn't, or is it considered just too arcane for Joe College-Student to use in ripping off the starving record companies?