Fewer complaints, and far less likely that they would end up in court for spamming.
Seriously, if spammers had any foresight, they would at least try to target interested people. They would honor unsubscribes. They would put legitimate info in their header.
None of that would make it acceptable to me, of course, but if most spammers did that, congress wouldn't be passing laws about spam, and far fewer people would complain about it.
As they are doing it (the cheap and easy way), they are forcing people to get decent spam filters, they are convincing lawmakers that laws must be passed, and they get a lot of complaints.
Making it illegal will only make it more profitable due to the risks involved. The black market is always more profitable, and it's off the books and tax free. Or haven't you learned anything from prohibition, past and present. Economics will always trump law.
Your "logic" would lead to making robbery, theft, murder, rape, etc legal. After all, laws against them won't stop them, and according to you, it simply makes them more profitable.
The false ussumptions made on me are merely amusing (and fun to read).
Since you keep lying about how you never said that it's consenual, here's a quote. Go tell your lies to someone as stupid as you are - I'm not buying.
No matter how you want to look at it, spam is a two way street and it's a consensual act between buyer and seller. That means in no way should there be any jail time.
That one post is what got me started in this thread. It's an outright lie.
I didn't say you consent to recieving spam, but obviously your neighbors and many others do. As long they consent, you are going to recieve spam also.
Actually, you did. That's what made me post in the first place, when you posted "It's consensual". It's clearly not. But I'm not surprised that someone who is pro-spam is also a lying bastard.
Some people like rough sex. Some people like rape fantasy, B&D/S&M stuff. Some like it enough to pay for it.
That, however, does not mean that I should have to put up with it if it isn't my choice. Your theory is that since some like spam, it's OK to do spam me, it's OK to ignore unsubscribes, it's OK to force your advertising costs onto other people, and it's OK to pretend to be me, and it's OK to forge my domain in the headers of their spam so their bounces come to my mailbox.
You're either with us or against us. Is that the way it works?
When you tell me that I should shut up and quit whining, just deal with the spam, don't try to stop it, then yes, it's clear that you aren't on my side. If your side wins, email becomes useless.
It's clear I'm arguing with a troll, and quite likely a spammer, so post whatever nonsense you want - you aren't worth responding to.
Agreed. However, your point was "laws can't stop spam". I pointed out that laws don't stop murder, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. Laws don't stop *anything* - they just make that thing illegal. The same is true of laws about spam.
However, there are businessmen right now who think "It's so cheap, and while a lot of people don't like it, it's not illegal, so it must be OK." We can stop those people from turning into spammers by making laws.
Most spammers are from the US. Laws can help change that. And that does help. Blocking China or Taiwan or Korea from my mailserver is *very* unlikely to cause me to loose any legitimate mail. Blocking everyone on UUnet, on the other hand, has a very high chance of blocking legitimate mail. So by forcing the spammers to send their crap from overseas, getting rid of the crap becomes easier.
I also disagree with you about how hard it is to figure out who the spammers are. Spamhaus.org has known who the major spammers are for some time, and they don't have government resources.
Spam isn't harmful in the same way as murder - it doesn't kill you. But if allowed to do so, it will ruin email as a form of communication. It's costing people a lot of time and money, already, and its' getting worse.
Actually, I haven't mentioned jail in the posts I've made to you. All I've done is to point out that you claim spam is consensual, and it isn't. I have not, and will not, consented to spammers filling my email box with crap.
The fact that you keep saying "It's consensual" and are dead set against making it illegal tells me that you are very likely a spammer. You certainly are defending them.
How can you say that people CHOOSE a non-democratic government? Did they pick Saddam out of a lineup? Even if he had some support, was it merely because he was the best of the bad?
When we vote for president in the US, we, too, must choose from the best of the bad choices they give us.
p.s.: the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.
As currently implemented, that may be true - I dunno. But you can hang a lot of murderers and rapists with one rope, so I'm convinced that it could and should be cheaper to kill them than to take care of them the rest of their lives.
Real spammers will simply move their base to a country that won't extradite them and has good broadband connections. Like maybe some island in the middle of the Pacific that acts as a supply and maintenence station for the major trans-oceanic internet cables. So this law won't do anything to reduce the amount of spam that gets to your PC.
You are partly correct. Some spammers will move to a spam friendly location and continue. That's fine. But you're wrong about it not reducing my spam.
Since I receive no legitimate mail from those places, I can block off their entire IP space without losing any legitimate mail.
Defend the spammers all you want, lie about how what you do is consenual all you want, but everyone else knows that spam is forced on people, not something that they consent to.
The paragraph you quot from continues. Lets look at the entire paragraph, instead of taking things out of context in order to propogate nonsense.
Historical records indicate that 16th century hunters in the Philippines hid up trees and used a rock tied to a long cord, up to 20 feet in length, to throw at wild animals beneath them. The weapon was able to be pulled up and thrown back down for multiple attempts at the prey. This gave rise to the widespread idea that the practice was the true forerunner of the yo-yo, but this is a stretch of imagination and has no real basis in fact. It is extremely likely, however, that the yo-yo did travel from China not only to Greece, but also to the Philippines, where the yo-yo is known to have been a popular toy for children over a very long period of time.
It's kind of like the guy selling Million Dollar pencils. Ask him how many he expects to sell at that price, and his answer is "I only need to sell one!".
Re:Interesting facts:
on
Extreme Yo-Yoing
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yoyo's as weapons are myths.
http://www.nationalyoyo.org/museum/generalhistory. htm
I'm not sure what part of "buyer" you don't understand, but without the buyer, there would be no spam.
I'm not sure what part of "I have never bought from spammers, and I never will" you don't understand. Spam isn't consensual - I didn't agree to any of it. I'm a victim when they spam me, and I'm a victim when they forge my domain name in the From field of their spam.
Your claims that spam is consensual is pure bull shit. Changing the subject to "some people buy from spam" doesn't change that.
No matter how you want to look at it, spam is a two way street and it's a consensual act between buyer and seller. That means in no way should there be any jail time.
Consensual? Bull Frickin Shit! I receive ~500 spams a day, none of which I have consented to in any way. I've never bought from a spammer, and never will, so you're "between buyer and seller" stuff is just an outright lie. Consensual my ass...
So you think a serial killer who tortured countless people deserves to just fall asleep and never wake up? Doesn't sound like much retribution for what they have done.
I don't care how they die, I just want to know that they won't ever be able to do it again. And I don't want to pay to feed them, etc for 40 years - they are scum and money spent on taking care of them is just wasted.
If retribution is your goal, then torture them before you kill them. But locking them up is simply too expensive with no upside.
If only we could keep the slashdot effect working for months instead of days.
Load page in Opera, right click, select "Reload every X seconds", depending on how much bandwidth you are willing to use up. I suspect that most browswers have a similar feature.
All mail is successfully delivered, but never leaves the machine. The spam company is none the wiser.
No, because as explained previously, they'll seed the list with some of their own "test" addresses. If the mail doesn't get delivered to those addresses, they'll know you didn't send the emails. To get something like this to work, you would need to sort out their seeds from the rest, and deliver the mails to the seeds. Since you have no way of knowing which addresses are seeds and which are from "BillyBobsIncredible5MillionOptInAddresses" CD...
It would be trivial for the spammers to seed the mail they have you send with some verification addresses. If they don't receive the mail you supposedly sent to those test addresses, then they know you aren't really delivering the mail you claim to be delivering.
Re:Internet connection gets pulled.
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
ISPs might pull the odd user that was sending spam, but if EVERYBODY sent spam they would have to cancel every customer's account. Customers used to recieving that $168/week will switch to their competitors and tell their friends about their new spam money making software.
Unless your friends make a living by robbing banks and muggling little old ladies, you might want to be careful about mentioning that you've decided to dedicate your computer to spamming 24 hours a day.
ISP's won't have to get rid of everybody, as not everybody is going to join leagues with the spammers. ISP's don't want to be blacklisted - that kills the use for their legitimate customers. They don't want massive bandwidth bills for allowing their customers to spam 24 hours a day (most don't have that kind of bandwidth available, if as you claim, *everybody* did it.) Most realize that spam is bad for their business, and will fight against it.
Re:Thousands per year
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
$8760 per year. The money is tempting.
Two points you seem to be missing.
1: Rule #1 is that spammers lie. Do you trust them to pay?
2: How long before your ISP see's you sending massive amount s of spam and shuts you off? How long before your IP gets blacklisted, so you can't send legitimate mail? How long before a friend of yours figures out that you are doing it and burns down your house? There are a lot of side effects, and the chances that you could do this for a year without hitting some major problmes is very, *very* small.
I'm assuming that you already realize the moral implications of this - I could be wrong.
They know true geeks won't touch their product with a 10 foot pole, but they're chasing after the people who wouldn't touch Linux with a 10 foot otherwise.
Is Lindows (er... Linspire) really that bad? I'm not a linux geek, but I'd like to try linux again. And last weekend Fry's ran an ad for a $99 computer (1.4 ghz, 40 gig HD, 128 ram, basically everything but a monitor) which comes loaded with Lindows. Limited to 12 per store or somesuch, but if they do that often, I could show up at opening time one day.
I'm curious, though, if I did, whether I could stick with Lindows/Linspire or if I'd need to reinstall to put Redhat or Mandrake or something on it.
The last time I tried Linux, I got it installed, but it was useless, and to get anything to work I had to edit config files with VI, which worked much like DOS Edlin - one line at a time using nonsensical commands. Soon I realized that the comptuer was useless and put windows back on it.
It's only fair, since some of my tax money supports the television system. If I have to pay something, I should be able to use it.
Tax money pays for roads, too, but I don't believe that blind people should receive a drivers license.
I'm not opposed to TTY service, but I do believe that if the service is being abused (especially if it's being abused in order to commit a crime) that there should be some limits. The only people that gain if TTY is used as a middleman to perpetrate fraud are the scammers.
Slashdot Mirror
Fewer complaints, and far less likely that they would end up in court for spamming.
Seriously, if spammers had any foresight, they would at least try to target interested people. They would honor unsubscribes. They would put legitimate info in their header.
None of that would make it acceptable to me, of course, but if most spammers did that, congress wouldn't be passing laws about spam, and far fewer people would complain about it.
As they are doing it (the cheap and easy way), they are forcing people to get decent spam filters, they are convincing lawmakers that laws must be passed, and they get a lot of complaints.
Your "logic" would lead to making robbery, theft, murder, rape, etc legal. After all, laws against them won't stop them, and according to you, it simply makes them more profitable.
The false ussumptions made on me are merely amusing (and fun to read).
Since you keep lying about how you never said that it's consenual, here's a quote. Go tell your lies to someone as stupid as you are - I'm not buying.
No matter how you want to look at it, spam is a two way street and it's a consensual act between buyer and seller. That means in no way should there be any jail time. That one post is what got me started in this thread. It's an outright lie.
Actually, you did. That's what made me post in the first place, when you posted "It's consensual". It's clearly not. But I'm not surprised that someone who is pro-spam is also a lying bastard.
Some people like rough sex. Some people like rape fantasy, B&D/S&M stuff. Some like it enough to pay for it.
That, however, does not mean that I should have to put up with it if it isn't my choice. Your theory is that since some like spam, it's OK to do spam me, it's OK to ignore unsubscribes, it's OK to force your advertising costs onto other people, and it's OK to pretend to be me, and it's OK to forge my domain in the headers of their spam so their bounces come to my mailbox.
You're either with us or against us. Is that the way it works?
When you tell me that I should shut up and quit whining, just deal with the spam, don't try to stop it, then yes, it's clear that you aren't on my side. If your side wins, email becomes useless.
It's clear I'm arguing with a troll, and quite likely a spammer, so post whatever nonsense you want - you aren't worth responding to.
Agreed. However, your point was "laws can't stop spam". I pointed out that laws don't stop murder, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. Laws don't stop *anything* - they just make that thing illegal. The same is true of laws about spam.
However, there are businessmen right now who think "It's so cheap, and while a lot of people don't like it, it's not illegal, so it must be OK." We can stop those people from turning into spammers by making laws.
Most spammers are from the US. Laws can help change that. And that does help. Blocking China or Taiwan or Korea from my mailserver is *very* unlikely to cause me to loose any legitimate mail. Blocking everyone on UUnet, on the other hand, has a very high chance of blocking legitimate mail. So by forcing the spammers to send their crap from overseas, getting rid of the crap becomes easier.
I also disagree with you about how hard it is to figure out who the spammers are. Spamhaus.org has known who the major spammers are for some time, and they don't have government resources.
Spam isn't harmful in the same way as murder - it doesn't kill you. But if allowed to do so, it will ruin email as a form of communication. It's costing people a lot of time and money, already, and its' getting worse.
The fact that you keep saying "It's consensual" and are dead set against making it illegal tells me that you are very likely a spammer. You certainly are defending them.
When we vote for president in the US, we, too, must choose from the best of the bad choices they give us.
As currently implemented, that may be true - I dunno. But you can hang a lot of murderers and rapists with one rope, so I'm convinced that it could and should be cheaper to kill them than to take care of them the rest of their lives.
Murder still happens, but that doesn't mean it should be legal.
You are partly correct. Some spammers will move to a spam friendly location and continue. That's fine. But you're wrong about it not reducing my spam.
Since I receive no legitimate mail from those places, I can block off their entire IP space without losing any legitimate mail.
Defend the spammers all you want, lie about how what you do is consenual all you want, but everyone else knows that spam is forced on people, not something that they consent to.
Historical records indicate that 16th century hunters in the Philippines hid up trees and used a rock tied to a long cord, up to 20 feet in length, to throw at wild animals beneath them. The weapon was able to be pulled up and thrown back down for multiple attempts at the prey. This gave rise to the widespread idea that the practice was the true forerunner of the yo-yo, but this is a stretch of imagination and has no real basis in fact. It is extremely likely, however, that the yo-yo did travel from China not only to Greece, but also to the Philippines, where the yo-yo is known to have been a popular toy for children over a very long period of time.
It's kind of like the guy selling Million Dollar pencils. Ask him how many he expects to sell at that price, and his answer is "I only need to sell one!".
Yoyo's as weapons are myths. http://www.nationalyoyo.org/museum/generalhistory. htm
I'm not sure what part of "I have never bought from spammers, and I never will" you don't understand. Spam isn't consensual - I didn't agree to any of it. I'm a victim when they spam me, and I'm a victim when they forge my domain name in the From field of their spam.
Your claims that spam is consensual is pure bull shit. Changing the subject to "some people buy from spam" doesn't change that.
Consensual? Bull Frickin Shit! I receive ~500 spams a day, none of which I have consented to in any way. I've never bought from a spammer, and never will, so you're "between buyer and seller" stuff is just an outright lie. Consensual my ass...
I don't care how they die, I just want to know that they won't ever be able to do it again. And I don't want to pay to feed them, etc for 40 years - they are scum and money spent on taking care of them is just wasted.
If retribution is your goal, then torture them before you kill them. But locking them up is simply too expensive with no upside.
Load page in Opera, right click, select "Reload every X seconds", depending on how much bandwidth you are willing to use up. I suspect that most browswers have a similar feature.
No, because as explained previously, they'll seed the list with some of their own "test" addresses. If the mail doesn't get delivered to those addresses, they'll know you didn't send the emails. To get something like this to work, you would need to sort out their seeds from the rest, and deliver the mails to the seeds. Since you have no way of knowing which addresses are seeds and which are from "BillyBobsIncredible5MillionOptInAddresses" CD...
It would be trivial for the spammers to seed the mail they have you send with some verification addresses. If they don't receive the mail you supposedly sent to those test addresses, then they know you aren't really delivering the mail you claim to be delivering.
Unless your friends make a living by robbing banks and muggling little old ladies, you might want to be careful about mentioning that you've decided to dedicate your computer to spamming 24 hours a day.
ISP's won't have to get rid of everybody, as not everybody is going to join leagues with the spammers. ISP's don't want to be blacklisted - that kills the use for their legitimate customers. They don't want massive bandwidth bills for allowing their customers to spam 24 hours a day (most don't have that kind of bandwidth available, if as you claim, *everybody* did it.) Most realize that spam is bad for their business, and will fight against it.
Two points you seem to be missing.
1: Rule #1 is that spammers lie. Do you trust them to pay?
2: How long before your ISP see's you sending massive amount s of spam and shuts you off? How long before your IP gets blacklisted, so you can't send legitimate mail? How long before a friend of yours figures out that you are doing it and burns down your house? There are a lot of side effects, and the chances that you could do this for a year without hitting some major problmes is very, *very* small.
I'm assuming that you already realize the moral implications of this - I could be wrong.
Is Lindows (er... Linspire) really that bad? I'm not a linux geek, but I'd like to try linux again. And last weekend Fry's ran an ad for a $99 computer (1.4 ghz, 40 gig HD, 128 ram, basically everything but a monitor) which comes loaded with Lindows. Limited to 12 per store or somesuch, but if they do that often, I could show up at opening time one day.
I'm curious, though, if I did, whether I could stick with Lindows/Linspire or if I'd need to reinstall to put Redhat or Mandrake or something on it.
The last time I tried Linux, I got it installed, but it was useless, and to get anything to work I had to edit config files with VI, which worked much like DOS Edlin - one line at a time using nonsensical commands. Soon I realized that the comptuer was useless and put windows back on it.
Yes, I can see that people who are good at testing and documentation are going to be begging to join your team and support your software.
As for you, troll, go away.
Tax money pays for roads, too, but I don't believe that blind people should receive a drivers license.
I'm not opposed to TTY service, but I do believe that if the service is being abused (especially if it's being abused in order to commit a crime) that there should be some limits. The only people that gain if TTY is used as a middleman to perpetrate fraud are the scammers.