Any ISP that tries to reduce spam for its customers should be praised, not just the ones that you perceive as Good(tm).
Any ISP that tries to reduce spam via logical, and technilogical ways should be praised. However I do not beileve we should praise Microsoft for suing spammers.
Why should they benefit from the wrong doings that affect customers? My opinion is that the benefit should be the customers, and not the ISP.
I didn't miss the benefits of the lawsuit, I see them clearly. The benefits of the law shouldn't go to the companies who just so happen to have the money to sue.
Why does Microsoft make the money from this!?
Just institute jail time for spammers, and lock them away. Same benefit, private companies don't profit from things that happen to their customers.
Because I'm sure Microsoft will write a check to each person who was duped by a deceptive internet advertisement.
You are correct sir. We will ignore all of Microsofts negative qualities! Everything is in the past, because 1 department of the corperate giant which is Microsoft happens to be using our legal system to sue for a whole mess load of money that none of us will ever see.
Microsoft doing it because it will make them money. Woohoo.
You're right. Maturity. I love Microsoft. Get me a copy of XP right now!
The lawsuits accuse the defendants collectively of flooding Microsoft's computer systems and its customers with more than 2 billion deceptive unsolicited e-mail messages.
That happened to our entire computer network 2 weeks ago. All of those deceptive messages from BillGates@microsoft.com
I will sue you, you will pay me. If it wasn't you Microsoft, please sue the people who spoofed your address, and recoup from them.
The large problem I have with athiests (of which I am one)
----
Might help to spell it atheist, but, okay, sure.
Because as well all know, incorrect spelling means that my points are invalid. Bravo!
If you beileve there is a God, then I must use that as a pretense in which to discuss things. I must accept that what I say will be put through a filter, and thus I will relent to your assertions if only to communicate in a mutually beneficial way.
----
No, you need not.
Like I mentioned above, there are things like the subjunctive mood; this, I am quoting from The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:
"of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or set of verb forms that represents a denoted act or state not as fact but as contingent or possible or viewed emotionally"
What does this mean?
Enlighten me.
Quite simply, it's a what-if thing; saying something that doesn't reflect reality at all, although it could.
I understand the point you are making, but I disagree with the point you center on. You are attempting to define what I am saying with a word, stating the definition, and then using that as a connectivity to create an incorrect statement.
It's subjunctive. Subjunctive means this. Therefore it cannot mean what you say it means for it is subjunctive.
It cannot be subjunctive by truth, because subjunctive states opinion. The opinion that something does, or does not reflect reality.
There is also the counterfactual, e.g., "What if I hadn't crashed my car two years ago?" deliberately contradicts reality; something that can't be changed.
Correct.
What is your point in regards to what I said?
That it's counterfactual to go along with something that you do not beileve to interact with someone under the guise you do for a mutual benefit? That was the basis of the statement you quoted. I at least see where you are coming from with your attempt to discredit by semantics in regards to subjunctive, but you're going nowhere with counterfactual. At least add some connectivity to your statements.
Unless you were just using the dictionary for fun.
The meaning of a string in some language, as opposed to syntax which describes how symbols may be combined independent of their meaning.
Fun!
Also, try on this little bit of logic:
I'm kind of tall, have it in my size?
Suppose X. We know Y to be true. If Y is true X cannot be true. Therefore, not-X.
And in none of that did you have to say, "I believe X is true."
Correct. My argument was if X was true. It was that it is irrelevant if X is true if there is no proof of the truth of X.
Sorry if I sound rude, I just don't get how you use evidence to support a countpoint for a statement that I never endorsed.
In none of what I said did I say X is true, because the very nature of my arguement was that it doesn't matter. At least not to me.
Ah, God exists as a concept, certainly! But we can make a distinction between the set of concepts and the set of things. The interesting question is: does God exist as an element of the set of things?
But my question is, what is the purpose of the seperation?
What does it matter, in essence?
If you beileve there is a God, then I must use that as a pretense in which to discuss things. I must accept that what I say will be put through a filter, and thus I will relent to your assertions if only to communicate in a mutually beneficial way.
The only reason to make a definitive remark is to state truth. There is no way that any of us can state truth amongst a matter base on pure speculation.
And thus, aside from our own egotistical goals of understanding things in which we do not have enough information to make solid judgements on, there is no point. Maybe coffeeshop (slashdot) banter.
The large problem I have with athiests (of which I am one) is there inability to accept the situations which they are presented, and their fierce need to change everyone elses opinion based on conclusions they've come across.
You must define God before you can make this claim.
I can make any claims I wish without definition. (God is this sense is a word/concept which is so engrained in not only our culture, but every person within our culture, that to deny it's existence is futile. We can talk about going into the future without it being true. I don't say there is no going into the future, just that we cannot do it. God exists in the hearts of men and women, which affects them, which affects me.
I.E. God exists.
I cannot say that I have a million dollars
You just did.
just because I am thinking of it right now and telling you about it,
Having a million dollars, and the plausability of a million dollars are different concepts.
Ever seen a million dollars up close? Does it exist?
It does exist, naturally, but do dragons? Yes, in my imagination.
And that is all that matters. If you beileve that dragons matter, you interact in life with the concept that dragons matter, then no matter what I say or do, your life is affected by dragons.
If I wish to work in the numberset, which is your life, and manipulate with you, I would need to follow a logic, Dragons exist.
It matters not if the tree fell, only if I heard it.
Fantasy dragons do exist and have a very clear definition.
I looked up "Fantasy Dragons" and didn't find anything.
If you mean God in the Christian sense, then no.
You keep saying in the Christian sense. You have Christianity issues. I don't even relate god to Christianity, so stop it.
He doesn't exist simply because I was discussing it.
What's this he stuff? It exists, simply because you were discussing it. That is a true statement, because I said it, and I am smart.
When you are dead you are dead and that is all that there is to it. There is no heaven and there is no afterlife. There is no God. Humanity is the result of a slow and gradual process of evolution from simpler life forms. Just deal with it.
Thank you for explaining that. For a second I thought there was another possibility to the one you just stated, but nope. There in black and white.
Can you imagine there being "nothing" and then there being "something?
Sure.
Of course you can't, but that doesn't mean there is a God.
There is a god. You are discussing it.
It certainly doesn't mean there is a God in the Christian sense.
You just brought it up again. Obvious proof that indeed, god must exist. It's sure talked about a lot. It's a part of our lexicon. You must involve god at some point in your life, and thus it is real.
It's just that so many people get their dick stepped on
His id states that he is a slanty eyed asian. Asians are not held against saying nizzle. Only crackers. Did you not recieve your Negro Handbook when you were born?
Slashdot Mirror
The justification seems to be that the spammer is engaging in unfair/deceptive business practices at the expense of the "interactive service provider"
So the effect, which is targeted at the customer, is deemed less important?
Okay. Fine. Then why does it matter what the content of the spam is?
The content should only come into case if we are considering the customer, which we are not. Just the deceptive business practices.
And the expense may be the of ISP, but I pay for my use of that expense. I think that "deceptive spams" are not deceptive at all.
I wasn't fooled. I asked for them!
Oh, you're still suing. Because it isn't about me, it's about potential profit.
Any ISP that tries to reduce spam for its customers should be praised, not just the ones that you perceive as Good(tm).
Any ISP that tries to reduce spam via logical, and technilogical ways should be praised. However I do not beileve we should praise Microsoft for suing spammers.
Why should they benefit from the wrong doings that affect customers? My opinion is that the benefit should be the customers, and not the ISP.
I didn't miss the benefits of the lawsuit, I see them clearly. The benefits of the law shouldn't go to the companies who just so happen to have the money to sue.
Why does Microsoft make the money from this!?
Just institute jail time for spammers, and lock them away. Same benefit, private companies don't profit from things that happen to their customers.
"Today's lawsuits are exactly the kinds of action we need to put illegal spammers out of business."
Cause Lawsuits solve all of the worlds problems!
The laws are inacted for the END USER
It does not cost Microsoft $500 dollars per spam message. Deceptibility has no variance in the ammount.
This is for being deceptive, and goes to the ones being decieved.
This is not for the Bandwidth Microsoft uses. Therefore they should recieve NOTHING!
Because I'm sure Microsoft will write a check to each person who was duped by a deceptive internet advertisement.
You are correct sir. We will ignore all of Microsofts negative qualities! Everything is in the past, because 1 department of the corperate giant which is Microsoft happens to be using our legal system to sue for a whole mess load of money that none of us will ever see.
Microsoft doing it because it will make them money. Woohoo.
You're right. Maturity. I love Microsoft. Get me a copy of XP right now!
The question is, why is the ISP allowed to sue for this?!
The reason for the law to sue spammers is if the spam is deceptive.
If the spam is deceptive is irrelevant to the isp, which is the one suing.
This should be an end user issue, that the end users get the profits from.
The lawsuits accuse the defendants collectively of flooding Microsoft's computer systems and its customers with more than 2 billion deceptive unsolicited e-mail messages.
That happened to our entire computer network 2 weeks ago. All of those deceptive messages from BillGates@microsoft.com
I will sue you, you will pay me. If it wasn't you Microsoft, please sue the people who spoofed your address, and recoup from them.
Thank you.
I am willing to pay $60 for a Blizzard game that I know will be clean and well-concieved.
As am I.
I am however not willing to pay $60 dollars for any other game, aside from a new verison of Civilization that comes out.
I buy a video game every week or 2, if they don't want my money, cool. My car could use a double overhead cam anyway.
I always felt horrible trying to explain to my girlfriend why I had troubles sleeping.
Laying in bed trying to figure out if using farms to prevent against zerg rushes was a good use of an initial scv's time, especially on a money map.
I might not be able to share music on Kazaa?!?!
Where do you get such information?!
"I hereby decree that you are forbidden to ram a ball point pen into your eye."
Is the ball point pen attached to something? Is it copy protected?
At least make it a challange.
I will consider any attempts to make "rip-proof" formats as special challenge.
And that is what makes computers great!
When I started using computers, there were several things I didn't care about doing. Unless someone said I couldn't. Then no one could stop me.
And I'd rather pirate, to each their own.
Okay, now you're just being a jerk.
A pompous one at that.
(Ironically, I'm adding you as a friend.)
The large problem I have with athiests (of which I am one)
----
Might help to spell it atheist, but, okay, sure.
Because as well all know, incorrect spelling means that my points are invalid. Bravo!
If you beileve there is a God, then I must use that as a pretense in which to discuss things. I must accept that what I say will be put through a filter, and thus I will relent to your assertions if only to communicate in a mutually beneficial way.
----
No, you need not.
Like I mentioned above, there are things like the subjunctive mood; this, I am quoting from The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:
"of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or set of verb forms that represents a denoted act or state not as fact but as contingent or possible or viewed emotionally"
What does this mean?
Enlighten me.
Quite simply, it's a what-if thing; saying something that doesn't reflect reality at all, although it could.
I understand the point you are making, but I disagree with the point you center on. You are attempting to define what I am saying with a word, stating the definition, and then using that as a connectivity to create an incorrect statement.
It's subjunctive. Subjunctive means this. Therefore it cannot mean what you say it means for it is subjunctive.
It cannot be subjunctive by truth, because subjunctive states opinion. The opinion that something does, or does not reflect reality.
There is also the counterfactual, e.g., "What if I hadn't crashed my car two years ago?" deliberately contradicts reality; something that can't be changed.
Correct.
What is your point in regards to what I said?
That it's counterfactual to go along with something that you do not beileve to interact with someone under the guise you do for a mutual benefit? That was the basis of the statement you quoted. I at least see where you are coming from with your attempt to discredit by semantics in regards to subjunctive, but you're going nowhere with counterfactual. At least add some connectivity to your statements.
Unless you were just using the dictionary for fun.
The meaning of a string in some language, as opposed to syntax which describes how symbols may be combined independent of their meaning.
Fun!
Also, try on this little bit of logic:
I'm kind of tall, have it in my size?
Suppose X.
We know Y to be true.
If Y is true X cannot be true.
Therefore, not-X.
And in none of that did you have to say, "I believe X is true."
Correct. My argument was if X was true. It was that it is irrelevant if X is true if there is no proof of the truth of X.
Sorry if I sound rude, I just don't get how you use evidence to support a countpoint for a statement that I never endorsed.
In none of what I said did I say X is true, because the very nature of my arguement was that it doesn't matter. At least not to me.
And if I could use there correctly, then maybe I could expect anyone to take my statements seriously.
I really should use the preview button.
Ah, God exists as a concept, certainly! But we can make a distinction between the set of concepts and the set of things. The interesting question is: does God exist as an element of the set of things?
But my question is, what is the purpose of the seperation?
What does it matter, in essence?
If you beileve there is a God, then I must use that as a pretense in which to discuss things. I must accept that what I say will be put through a filter, and thus I will relent to your assertions if only to communicate in a mutually beneficial way.
The only reason to make a definitive remark is to state truth. There is no way that any of us can state truth amongst a matter base on pure speculation.
And thus, aside from our own egotistical goals of understanding things in which we do not have enough information to make solid judgements on, there is no point. Maybe coffeeshop (slashdot) banter.
The large problem I have with athiests (of which I am one) is there inability to accept the situations which they are presented, and their fierce need to change everyone elses opinion based on conclusions they've come across.
You must define God before you can make this claim.
I can make any claims I wish without definition. (God is this sense is a word/concept which is so engrained in not only our culture, but every person within our culture, that to deny it's existence is futile. We can talk about going into the future without it being true. I don't say there is no going into the future, just that we cannot do it. God exists in the hearts of men and women, which affects them, which affects me.
I.E. God exists.
I cannot say that I have a million dollars
You just did.
just because I am thinking of it right now and telling you about it,
Having a million dollars, and the plausability of a million dollars are different concepts.
Ever seen a million dollars up close? Does it exist?
It does exist, naturally, but do dragons? Yes, in my imagination.
And that is all that matters. If you beileve that dragons matter, you interact in life with the concept that dragons matter, then no matter what I say or do, your life is affected by dragons.
If I wish to work in the numberset, which is your life, and manipulate with you, I would need to follow a logic, Dragons exist.
It matters not if the tree fell, only if I heard it.
Fantasy dragons do exist and have a very clear definition.
I looked up "Fantasy Dragons" and didn't find anything.
If you mean God in the Christian sense, then no.
You keep saying in the Christian sense. You have Christianity issues. I don't even relate god to Christianity, so stop it.
He doesn't exist simply because I was discussing it.
What's this he stuff? It exists, simply because you were discussing it. That is a true statement, because I said it, and I am smart.
It doesn't work that way as far as I know.
Then you know wrong.
You (...) achieve something.
Thank you. To what aims, I do not know, but it is nice to be appreciated.
You base your entire belief on the idea of TEETH in birds?
Is that any different than baseing your entire belief system on a book?
When you are dead you are dead and that is all that there is to it.
There is no heaven and there is no afterlife. There is no God.
Humanity is the result of a slow and gradual process of evolution from simpler life forms.
Just deal with it.
Thank you for explaining that. For a second I thought there was another possibility to the one you just stated, but nope. There in black and white.
Can you fathom "nothing?"
yes.
Can you imagine there being "nothing" and then there being "something?
Sure.
Of course you can't, but that doesn't mean there is a God.
There is a god. You are discussing it.
It certainly doesn't mean there is a God in the Christian sense.
You just brought it up again. Obvious proof that indeed, god must exist. It's sure talked about a lot. It's a part of our lexicon. You must involve god at some point in your life, and thus it is real.
It's just that so many people get their dick stepped on
Ouch.
It's nature of man, according to Socrates.
You quoted it, so I know it's true.
Christianity is wrong. I do, however, strongly oppose the idea that the bible is inerrant.
Christianity is not wrong, you monster.
His id states that he is a slanty eyed asian. Asians are not held against saying nizzle. Only crackers. Did you not recieve your Negro Handbook when you were born?
Oh.. You're white?
Of course you are.
Fo Sheezy, My Neezy.. Keeps my arms all breezy.
No kidding, it ruled!
We used to have contests. I would play with the VMU (If you put a VMU in while playing, it came up with a playable version of what was on the screen.)
and I would beat everybody not looking at the t.v. Just playing on the VMU.
Total Sweet!