As for the comments about the Amish - they are not necessarily averse to technology. They just insist on being off the grid.
A few years ago, I visited an Amish machine shop in Shelby County, Ohio. The enterprising young owner produced machined metal parts for the auto industry. He had bought lathes and milling machines, then ripped out their electric motors. The entire shop was powered by a gas engine outside that turned an overhead belt. Apparently gas engines are OK, but not electric motors or starters.
BTW, I'm a small-time slide rule collector, and member of the Oughtred Society. But I'm always amazed by the collections of some of the other members. It's what happens when you mix engineering thoroughness with an interest in old artifacts.
After an alien that feeds on negative emotion sucks all fear out of Lister, he volunteers to strap on a neutron bomb and go after the beast. Hilarity ensues.
"Between ever-better computer image recognition algorithms and cheap offshore labor, captchas are doomed."
Most of the comments here seem to be trying to come up with a better Turing test.
What about the second point - I assume that there are sweatshops in China devoted to solving captchas, or other automated Turing tests. It's still pretty economical for a spammer setting up bogus identities. Any statistics on how common are "Turing sweatshops"?
Like it or not, the First Amendment does apply to spam.
Several people wrote opinions about this for the
Intel vs. Hamidi
case.
Any communication in the United States -- commercial or not -- enjoys some level of protection under the First Amendment. Though advertising has somewhat less protection than a daily newspaper, book or television broadcast, courts have consistently ruled that government must demonstrate a compelling interest before it can impose restrictions.
That's why the most effective legislative efforts target fraudulent e-mail, interference with computer systems or the refusal to respond to requests to remove names from a mailing list. To pass constitutional muster, restrictions on spam have to be based on allegations of real harm, not just irritation.
Note that this case wasn't argued on First Amendment grounds.
Intel simply failed to convince the court that Hamidi had tresspassed on their computer system.
Having said all that, I still don't understand why a university should worry about First Amendment issues.
Even if government regulations must pass First Amendment muster,
why should a publicly funded university need to worry about blocking spam?
Slashdot Mirror
Nicely done.
As for the comments about the Amish - they are not necessarily averse to technology. They just insist on being off the grid.
A few years ago, I visited an Amish machine shop in Shelby County, Ohio. The enterprising young owner produced machined metal parts for the auto industry. He had bought lathes and milling machines, then ripped out their electric motors. The entire shop was powered by a gas engine outside that turned an overhead belt. Apparently gas engines are OK, but not electric motors or starters.
BTW, I'm a small-time slide rule collector, and member of the Oughtred Society. But I'm always amazed by the collections of some of the other members. It's what happens when you mix engineering thoroughness with an interest in old artifacts.
As illustrated in the BBC series Red Dwarf, episode "Polymorph": http://www.tv.com/red-dwarf/polymorph/episode/1095 9/summary.html.
After an alien that feeds on negative emotion sucks all fear out of Lister, he volunteers to strap on a neutron bomb and go after the beast. Hilarity ensues.
Most of the comments here seem to be trying to come up with a better Turing test. What about the second point - I assume that there are sweatshops in China devoted to solving captchas, or other automated Turing tests. It's still pretty economical for a spammer setting up bogus identities. Any statistics on how common are "Turing sweatshops"?
Like it or not, the First Amendment does apply to spam.
Several people wrote opinions about this for the Intel vs. Hamidi case.
Note that this case wasn't argued on First Amendment grounds. Intel simply failed to convince the court that Hamidi had tresspassed on their computer system.
Having said all that, I still don't understand why a university should worry about First Amendment issues. Even if government regulations must pass First Amendment muster, why should a publicly funded university need to worry about blocking spam?
Then check out an cheaper robotic dog from Silverlit:
http://www.i-cybie.com/
And how to hack into it:
http://www.aibohack.com/icybie/
It's about $50-75 on ebay.