I challenge you to show even one single technology which is purely good in every sense of the word, to anyone and everyone and the whole world, and has not (because it could not) been used as a weapon/to make weapons/to derive weapons or in any other way used against the general benefit of humankind as well as the specific benefit of any and all people.
By the criteria you and your compatriots in cogitation espouse, we'd never have researched anything, because anything could be used for evil.
Or, are you simply claiming that you have drawn a magic line in the sand which defines "good research" from "bad research"?
If so please for the good of all mankind, enscribe your morals into a "good book" by which we all can live.
And we shouldn't have electricity, because that's used to make weapons.
And we shouldn't have any sharp tools, because they could be used to cut/stab/slice/wound/maim people.
And we shouldn't have blunt tools (eg rocks), because they could be used a blunt instruments to hurt people, or using them would give them a sharp edge (see above).
And we shouldn't have fire, because that could be used to burn people.
And we'd all be naked, wandering the grasslands, with no written language, chewing grass and leaves all day.
Dying young; from disease, malnutrition, lack of shelter (remember, no tools) and predation by wild animals.
Judge Lee acknowledged that pop-up ads are often troublesome and annoying. "Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, 'spam,' as a burden of using the Internet," he wrote.
Interesting comment
Is it an indication of the legal opinion at large? That we're going to be stuck with spam, and there isn't (nor will there be) any attempt to legislate an abatement to the flood
The downside, however, is that it's a slow process. That cup of sugar could take weeks to digest. Still, a slow but steady trickle of electricity can be used to charge up a battery, which can then discharge large amounts of power when needed.
Obviously stacking a large cluster of these in a battery type configuration would solve the voltage/current supply issue.
It's painfully obvious if you stop to think about it.
Who, of all the bazillions of people using the internet, hurts the most from SPAM?
The ISP(s)
After all, they're bearing the huge and unreasonable SPAM induced costs for
Additional Bandwidth to receive/send/transit SPAM
Additional Mail Server requirements
CPU
DISK
Bandwidth
Memory
Customer Support for users complaing about SPAM
abuse@(insert ISP domain here) emails - for those who don't merely route them to/dev/null
For hundreds/thousands/millions of users/emails, as opposed to the hundreds (maybe thousands) of emails any one particular end user is receiving.
Question Two: Who is in the best position to prevent SPAM from being send?
The ISP(s)
Simply because, somewhere along the line, a SPAMer has to send the SPAM through an ISP. (ie transiting their network, even if not actively using the ISP mail server)
In the end, if enough ISPs cared (enough) about solving this problem, they could work smarter rather than simply throwing money/technology at the problem and we'd all have sweeter lives.
Some suggestions include:
No More ISP "Pink Contracts"
ISPs actively, collectively and in collaboration preventing identified SPAMers (eg preventing account/ISP hopping)
disabling dialup accounts (at least) access to outbound SMTP other than the ISPs mail server (which is setup to filter for spam)
And what can we (Joe Sixpack end-user types) do to encourage the ISPs to care about killing off SPAM?
signup noc@someisp dot whatever (and other well-known addresses) to known SPAM lists
forward each and every piece of SPAM to abuse@(your ISP dot whatever)
ditto forwarding SPAMs to your local elected Government Representative (and just tag on a friendly notice eg "just thought you'd like to see another of these endless SPAM messages I keep getting") so that they're aware of the scope of the problem
Use a SPAM filter, and report ALL the SPAM you receive... For Example: checkout SiteTamer Lots of good SPAM info and links (I am not in any associated with SiteTamer, just one of the many good finds on Google)
Slashdot Mirror
I challenge you to show even one single technology which is purely good in every sense of the word, to anyone and everyone and the whole world, and has not (because it could not) been used as a weapon/to make weapons/to derive weapons or in any other way used against the general benefit of humankind as well as the specific benefit of any and all people.
By the criteria you and your compatriots in cogitation espouse, we'd never have researched anything, because anything could be used for evil.
Or, are you simply claiming that you have drawn a magic line in the sand which defines "good research" from "bad research"?
If so please for the good of all mankind, enscribe your morals into a "good book" by which we all can live.
I agree with you completely.
And we shouldn't have electricity, because that's used to make weapons.
And we shouldn't have any sharp tools, because they could be used to cut/stab/slice/wound/maim people.
And we shouldn't have blunt tools (eg rocks), because they could be used a blunt instruments to hurt people, or using them would give them a sharp edge (see above).
And we shouldn't have fire, because that could be used to burn people.
And we'd all be naked, wandering the grasslands, with no written language, chewing grass and leaves all day.
Dying young; from disease, malnutrition, lack of shelter (remember, no tools) and predation by wild animals.
Judge Lee acknowledged that pop-up ads are often troublesome and annoying. "Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, 'spam,' as a burden of using the Internet," he wrote.
Interesting comment
Is it an indication of the legal opinion at large? That we're going to be stuck with spam, and there isn't (nor will there be) any attempt to legislate an abatement to the flood
The downside, however, is that it's a slow process. That cup of sugar could take weeks to digest. Still, a slow but steady trickle of electricity can be used to charge up a battery, which can then discharge large amounts of power when needed.
Obviously stacking a large cluster of these in a battery type configuration would solve the voltage/current supply issue.
Just for a grin, I searched google.
Looking there, you can find beer.
Looking there, you can find Stafford
eg It's in the UK The United Kingdom is well known for its relationship to beer.
Oddly enough, searching for both Stafford and beer returns no links about the proliferation of fermented ales in a certain part of the United Kingdom.
(sigh) Oh Great - Just when I thought I had my Home Theater set up correctly, they invent Even Deeper Bass.
I guess I'll need to upgrade if I ever want to truly enjoy such movies as this Scary Movie
1 weber per square meter
My that's a lot of BBQs.
Reminds me of Australia in the Summer.
Being an AC, you should be grateful that nobody ever mod'd down (either of) Your (meatspace) Parent(s).
Quit yer whining, sit down, and enjoy the entertainment.
<sarcasm> Heck Yeah, after all, it worked so well for all that SPAM I received. </sarcasm>
How many of you have
- access to a lawyer on retainer
- the money to pay for a laywer
- the legal skills yourself
to verify with absolute certainty that filling in this form is any less self-destructive than emailing RIAA lawyersor
or
Nice!
So you must be wondering what she's up to when she's at work, sitting on the photocopier.
About some company who thought to wire a piezo-electric crystal to a battery.
What will they think of next?
America Losing Jobs?
How could that be possible?
A quick whip around finds him here and here.
Who, of all the bazillions of people using the internet, hurts the most from SPAM?
The ISP(s)
After all, they're bearing the huge and unreasonable SPAM induced costs for
- Additional Bandwidth to receive/send/transit SPAM
- Additional Mail Server requirements
- CPU
- DISK
- Bandwidth
- Memory
- Customer Support for users complaing about SPAM
- abuse@(insert ISP domain here) emails - for those who don't merely route them to
/dev/null
For hundreds/thousands/millions of users/emails, as opposed to the hundreds (maybe thousands) of emails any one particular end user is receiving.Question Two: Who is in the best position to prevent SPAM from being send?
The ISP(s)
Simply because, somewhere along the line, a SPAMer has to send the SPAM through an ISP. (ie transiting their network, even if not actively using the ISP mail server)
In the end, if enough ISPs cared (enough) about solving this problem, they could work smarter rather than simply throwing money/technology at the problem and we'd all have sweeter lives.
Some suggestions include:
- No More ISP "Pink Contracts"
- ISPs actively, collectively and in collaboration preventing identified SPAMers (eg preventing account/ISP hopping)
- disabling dialup accounts (at least) access to outbound SMTP other than the ISPs mail server (which is setup to filter for spam)
And what can we (Joe Sixpack end-user types) do to encourage the ISPs to care about killing off SPAM?Lots of good SPAM info and links (I am not in any associated with SiteTamer, just one of the many good finds on Google)