Fact is, the law states that the Uni is in the right here.
I'm not so sure. If the site pretends to be an official UCSD sanctioned site, then I've little doubt that UCSD could win in court. However, if they do a good job up front in making it clear that they are not an official UCSD site, and are willing to battle it out in court, the site owners would have a good chance of winning.
See www.taubmansucks.com for legal details on one sites battle. Visit www.microsoftsucks.com - do you think that's a microsoft sponsored site? Do you think MS would leave that site alone if they thought they could win in court?
I like it. I'd been thinking of UCSDSucks.com, myself. Companies like to pretend that using their name in a domain name is illegal, but that isn't always true. In particular, sites like www.taubmansucks.com and www.microsoftsucks.com and many others. Being unable to see the site, it's hard to tell how this would fall. If the site makes it very clear that it is not an official UCSD funded/supported/sanctioned site, they have a fair chance of winning any legal battle. (The school's rules mentioned are just their rules, not the law. The law wins.) On the other hand, if the site pretends to be an official UCSD site, then UCSD would almost certainly win in court, should it come to that.
From the court ruling in the taubmansucks.com case, here's a clip. The entire story of the court battle is available on that site, and is a very interesting read. But to read the whole thing, set aside several hours, there is a lot there, and trying to read leagalize is very slow/tedious, at least for me.
Mishkoff's use of Taubman's mark in the domain name taubmansucks.com is purely an exhibition of Free Speech, and the Lanham Act is not invoked.... [T]he First Amendment protects critical commentary when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves the criticism of a business....Taubman concedes that Mishkoff is "free to shout 'Taubman Sucks!' from the rooftops...."... Essentially, this is what he has done in his domain name. The rooftops of our past have evolved into the internet domain names of our present.
It merely says We're not going to tell you in a long-winded manner.
Or it means you have to do some basic math and that you have some needed background. As I recall, they were hoping to get about 70k out of it. You can verify that at http://bruce.pennypacker.org/SLAPP/DemandforLegalF ees.pdf, I believe. (It's one of the pdf's on that page, and I believe that's the correct one.)
According to the link I gave you in my previous msg, Wellborn dropped 40K of his fee's, which leaves 30k. Also according to that link, less than half of the amount needed (which appears to be 30k, to me) has been collected. Keep in mind, I have no inside info, this is just based on what I've read. So I estimate a $30,000 bill, and under $15,000 donated to cover it. I sent in $50 today, myself.
That also seems reasonable based on the info shown at http://www.spamcon.org/thanks.shtml
As I mentioned before, the SpamCon Foundation isn't about this one court case. They are helping with it, certainly, but there will be more cases, and we need an organization like that on our side. I trust them, else I wouldn't have donated. The people getting sued trust them, else they wouldn't be having everyone who wants to donate go through SpamCon - and they most definitely are. I emailed a couple of them before the SpamCon Foundation was involved and asked about sending a donation. They told me to wait and that I would hear about it when they had a central spot to donate.
The people who were sued in this case won't make any profit. Even if a lot more money is donated than is needed to pay those bills, they won't make a dime. The SpamCon Foundation will hold on to that money (in their legal fund, which is seperate from their general operating fund) until it is needed. If you trust them, that's a good thing. If you don't, then don't donate.
it is not the spammers that lead to my outgoing email not being delivered.
Correct. It is the admins on the receiving computer which are directly setting up blocks to keep spam out of their system. There are no perfect solutions to spam. If you catch 99.5% of it, some still gets through. If you attempt to catch 99.5% of it, you're also likely to block some legitimate mail.
But if you look at the root cause - why have admins started blocking mail from certain sites - it's because of the spammers. 10 years ago, running mail relays as open relays was the norm. Everybody did it, few if any admins had a problem with receiving mail from them. Then spammers started abusing them, people got tired of getting tons of spam, and the admins started closing down their relays so that they wouldn't be aiding the spammers. As time passed, other admins started blocking open relays which had sent them spam. (And every open relay is just begging to be used by spammers. If it hasn't been yet, it's because they haven't found it yet - and they eventually will.)
If it were not for spam, the spam blocking wouldn't ever have happened. So the root problem is still caused by spam.
I do not like spam anymore than anyone else:
Apparently, you do, else you wouldn't be arguing that blocking open relays is worse than not blocking them.
I discovered that my ISP had been blacklisted for having an open relay. The cure was worse than the disease.
From your point of view, the cure was worse than the disease. Some people wouldn't accept your mail. From their side, blocking open relays has kept 1,000's of spams out of their system, saved them time, saved them bandwidth, and heled educate ISP's who are stupid enough to run open relays on their mail server. And all they lost was your words of wisdom.
I think that this link will help answer your question.
Also, keep in mind that the Spamcon Foundation Legal Fund isn't about this one case. That fund will continue to be useful in the war against spam long after most people have forgotten about this particular case.
The fund is tax deductible. Please donate. CAUCE claims to have signed up over 20,000 people since March 1, 2000, and to have another 23,000 members from prior to that. If just 20% of those people donated just $5, it would make a huge difference. All of us hate spam. Here is a good, tax deductible way to help fight against it.
Hell no we don't. The real, actual costs for Felstein and friends who filed the suit is probably in the $500 range, tops. The real costs for the anti-spammers who were sued is much, much higher - in the $30,000 range, even after Wellborn (the good lawyer [did I just say that?]) dropped his fee's by $40,000 to what I suspect is not much more than just his actual costs.
This has wasted time and money for anti-spammers, and has had no detrimental effect on the spammers except to publicize just how sleazy they are. And it's been clear for a long time that they don't care about their reputation.
The spammers goal wasn't to win in court - I don't think even the Felstein is stupid enough to think that his case would hold up. The spammers goal was to harass, and they've done that without repercussions.
It's possible that this isn't a finished story. Contrary to some/. messages, it's still possible for the defendants to countersue. However, it's not likely, as doing so means spending more money on lawyers. And it's not clear (at least to me) if the SpamCon legal fund would cover that, even assuming enough donations had come in. At this point, only about half of the funds that the NANAE 9 owe has been donated to the fund.
Why is accessing a remote computer without permission an offence?
You say that now, but if I started using a computer to order things online, and paying for them using your bank account # or your credit card number, I'm sure you would feel that I had stolen from you. You would be right - but I could do it all over the computer, which you claim shouldn't be an offense. The idea that people should be allowed to hack companies systems, that theft or destruction of information isn't wrong, and that anything you can do over a computer isn't "real" is complete bullshit.
You're right, if hacking were entirely legal, many hackers would find employment. Others would turn into legalized crimininals, stealing from honest folks. DoS attacks on competitors sites would be quite common, and information theft would be rampant. Some companies would disconnect fro the net altogether (which doesn't bar employees from using computers to do your legalized destruction, but helps limit external attacks.) And a number of business would go out of business. <sarcasm>Great plan.</sarcasm>
Before you manage to pass this law, I should get a job at a bank. After all, when I become an overnight millionaire, it'll just be 0's and 1's.
Your sig says...
Your search - Domino security flaw - did not match any documents.
When I run that phrase through Google, I get... Results 1 - 10 of about 8,030. Search took 0.24 seconds.
I don't know anything about Domino, but I know BS when I see it. The rest of your "message" looked every bit as honest.
Every description of why someone should buy a TiVo sounds like it's aimed at people who have never seen a VCR.
From that, it sounds like you've never seen a TiVo.
I don't have one, because I don't watch much TV. But they'll do a ton of things that a VCR just won't do, and for people who spend much time watching TV, they beat a VCR hands down. I'll probably get one eventually, primarily for watching football, one of the few things I do watch. Sometimes I want to be able to review a play, but I don't want to miss the rest of the game. With TiVo, you can back up a bit, but it (unlike a VCR) will continue to record. I can watch the play as many times as I want, and then continue on. When a commercial comes on, I can skip forward over it, back to the game. You just can't do that kind of thing with a VCR unless you record the entire game and then watch on the tape later.
If a TiVo isn't your kind of thing, that's fine. But claiming it's no different from a VCR is kind of like saying that a modern computer is no different from an Apple II.
See http://www.mersenne.org/faq.htm for a brief bit of info. That's the GIMPS (Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search) FAQ page. I've been a part of GIMPS for (I'm guessing) six years or so. I've had no trouble caused by running GIMPS 24/7 during that time. I've run it on work machines, servers, etc, in addition to on my personal machine. In fact, I think there is still a server running it for me at a place I worked several years back.:^)
Basically, the CPU will run hotter, because it's actually in use all the time. That isn't normally a problem, but if your fan died, or if you've overclocked, or if you're system is in a very hot room, it's possible it could be.
You can expect your electric bill to be a little higher - but it's an extra 5-$10 a month, I believe, compared to turning the computer off when you aren't using it. Turning a system off and on again is probably harder on the equipment than running something like GIMPS.
SETI@home has a few things I don't like. The primary one is that they don't have enough data to analyze, so they give the same data to a bunch of different people. And after they've analyzed that and ask for more, they end up analyzing data that's already been checked. Double-checking (or even triple-checking) isn't a bad idea, but checking the same data thousands of times is pointless.
SETI also runs as a screensaver, which means it's still not using all available processor time. GIMPS runs at a very low priority, but it's always there, unless you shut it down or define times when it shouldn't run. I like the idea that my computer is using all of it's available CPU power, all the time.
There are some other interesting sounding distributed computing projects out there. Try visiting http://www.aspenleaf.com/distributed/distrib-proje cts.html for links to pretty much any distributed computing project available. I've considered getting out of GIMPS in order to join with one of the others, such as cancer research, but so far, I'm just continuing with what I've done for so long.
There are a large number of religious people who have some very set views on sex, pornography, and a jillion other things. And those people have a long history of trying to force whatever they want into law.
That's what is happening here. They don't have a very good shot at getting rid of pornography altogether, or they would try for that. So they claim "Lets protect the children" and use it to try and make pornography illegal/unprofitable.
Pornography has a history of being one of the first (and most) profitable businesses on the web. The religious folks hate that. But there are a number of unscrupulous people in that business, too, and if they can set things up so that the only way you can see pr0n is to give out your credit card number (which does *nothing* to prove that it isn't little Johnny with his dads card, or 14 year old Sally with her sisters card - or her own, for that matter) then they know that a lot of people who will look at it now won't take the chance.
Imagine what we would be doing right now if Lotus were able to patent the spreadsheet concept it used in 1-2-3 20 years ago
If Lotus had tried to get a patent, Visicalc could be shown as prior art, so (in theory, as I understand it, IANAL) the patent wouldn't be valid. However, if Visicalc had gotten a patent, Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't bave existed without some kind of royalty agreement.
Similar examples can be made in the areas of Word Processing, Databases, etc.
I don't understand how "server side" bayesian filtering would work. I can't show it "good mail" and "bad mail" for it to learn from - I'm only going to see what it decides to show me. If it decides to toss mail that I would have wanted, I'll never see it, and therefore, I'll never be able to tell it "This is legitimate mail" so it can do better the next time.
Regardless, most of us don't run our own mail server, and if you don't, you end up with whatever you get. My mail server has Spam Assassain set up, and headers are added to the message saying that it guesses it's spam or not spam, with a list of reasons why. It is wrong quite often (in both directions), so I don't trust it. If it were up to me, they wouldn't run it at all - the SA headers are just more to download, and they do me no good.
DNS Blacklisting doesn't catch every spam - but the vast majority of my spam does come from blacklisted sites. I'm not willing to auto-delete them, though, because I don't want to miss legitimate mail. So I just have it tag them, sort based on that, and look at the headers of the mail that isn't blacklisted first. Out of 200 spams, I'll have 5-10 that aren't blacklisted. I usually take a quick glance through the blacklisted mail, too, but it's so rare to get legitimate mail from them that I don't spend much time on it.
I rather doubt that the law requires Sprint to be held responsible for telemarketers which call their users, any more than my ISP is legally responsible to stop the spammers from spamming my account, or you are legally responsible for making sure that thieves in your town are arrested. Generally speaking, individuals and companies are required to obey the law, not enforce it.
In the long term, filtering _is_ the solution to shut down spammers. If we can prevent the messages from being delivered, spammers will not be able to make any money.
The people who run bayesian filters are, most likely, not the people who respond to spam. The few idiots who support the spammers are, most likely, not going to run any decent filters. And that's where your theory falls apart.
I don't run Bayesian filters, because of the time involved. In order to use them, you have to download the entire message. On dial up, receiving 200+ spams a day, that isn't worth it for me. I use MailWasher, myself. It downloads the headers. Mail from whitelisted sources isn't shown at all in Mailwasher. Everything else (which is mostly spam) is shown. Mailwasher then looks to see if those mails come from sites that are on a DNS blacklist and tags that mail. I sort so that the non-blacklisted emails are at the top, and glance through them. Legitimate mail? Add another whitelist entry. Everything else gets deleted off the server. Only after the junk is gone do I have Eudora download the rest of the mail.
If I run a bayesian filter, I would have to download the text of all 200+ spams, because you can't run the filter until you have the message, and because you're supposed to tell the filter "This is spam" to help it learn. It isn't worth the time to download it - it's junk.
It costs me less than a penny a piece to deal with an individual spam. Hit delete, turn on my filter, etc. Is it really such a nuisance that we have to waste billions of dollars to "solve" it?
We are *already* wasting billions of dollars on spam. That happens right now, it's getting worse, and it will continue to get worse.
Side notes :
There are additional costs. You're ISP costs are higher, for instance, due to the spam.
If the emails cost 1 cent to send, then those 5,000,000 spams now cost them $50,000 to send, which obliterates their $25,000 profit, and then some. Suddenly, it's not worth it. And they'll stop doing it.
I don't think so. More likely, they'll find a way to forge the messages so that someone else ends up with the bill. Spammers already forge domain names in their spam, sell items that are clearly illegal, or fraudulently advertise items which simply don't exist. Why would we expect them to suddenly say "I have to play by the rules?". Spam is already sent by way of machines the spammers have hacked. They already run DoS attacks on sites with spam fighting tools, blacklist distributors, etc. Shouldn't we expect the same kind of tactics to continue - or get worse?
I beleive we need a totally new system, but I don't beleive that pay-to-send needs to be a part of it. Most people only think about how that will effect the spammers and the 10-20 emails they send every day or so. (And even then, they don't seem to think it all the way through.)
Imagine the cost to SlashDot. I receive emails from/. every day with the new headlines/stories, to let me know about replies/moderation of messsages I've posted, etc. I'm sure many of you get the same messages. The costs to/. would jump enourmously - or their whole model would have to change, either removing those services or requiring a paid membership, in order to cover the cost. The NYTimes, Reuters, LockerGnome, and many others have similar email lists. Very useful, generally free - and pay-to-send will put an end to all of them.
Are you on any discussion mailing lists? I have several programming related lists which send me 25-50 mails a day. I'd lose those under a pay-to-send system.
Pay-to-send would have an enourmous downside for legitimate emailers, and for the users who receive those emails, while having a fairly small effect on spammers, who will seek to circumvent the system if possible, and who will disrupt the system via DoS attacks if they can't find a way to send their messages without paying.
Telemarketers get the bulk of their sales from people they can pressure into a sale: elderly, mentally infirm, emotionally insecure, whatever reason, some people can't say "no" over the phone. If those people are on the Do Not Call list, then telemarketers will not get those high-pressure sales, and they will lose money.
If they follow the DNC list, they'll also avoid calling me, which means I won't either waste their time or cuss them out. I have no problem saying "no" or "fuck you scumbag" or "Hold on - someone is at the door". And I'll never buy from them.
The bottom line is that if they are honest, they won't call me - I'm on the DNC lists. (Federal, and our state list.) If they continue to call me, it's clear that they are crooks, and I have no reason to be nice to them.
No wonder you post as AC. I'd just like to say "Fuck off and die, scumbag". The lies you tell about how you want to do nothing but play by the books aren't going to find many trusting listeners, because you and your con man friends have told too many lies before and continue to bother people who have done everything they can to tell you to go away and leave them alone.
They pay people to spam. Using "It was an associate" isn't an acceptable excuse. I'm receiving 200+ spam emails every day. Spammers will continue until email is useless, if they are allowed to. I will never do business with a spammer, as spammers are thieves and con men. That includes you. You admit yourself that you know they spam, yet you still advertise for them.
You'll pretend that Prepaid Legal couldn't stop them - but if it's an office full of lawyers, I'm sure they could file some lawsuites. But they aren't going to, because they don't care that they are hiring spammers. (And that's giving them credit - they may have no lawyers at all. Most spam advertised businesses are *not* on the up-and-up.)
You're here on SlashDot to advertise for PrePaid legal. You've hardly posted about anything else. You are a spamming con man.
According to standard practice rook pawn is dumb, however by exploring 'dumb' branches is how some of the more inventive openings have been discovered.
Also, making a 'dumb' move means that the computer soon runs out of it's standard library openings, and has to calculate each move instead of playing "by the book". I'm in no position to comment on grandmasters, but most people are not going to know the standard book-line openings nearly as well as the computer does, so making the computer think about a move puts us on a more even keel. If I try to play standard lines, the computer is going to remember them much better than I do.
I can't help but think that as computers get faster, and better chess software is written, that computers will be able to win most of the time even against gransmasters. They can already beat the vast majority of people hands down. That doesn't bother me. I'd like to see a competition between two grandmasters who are each allowed to use a computer to advise them. To me, computers and software aren't a "Humans vs Computers" thing so much as a "Humans can do more with a computer than without one" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure. If the site pretends to be an official UCSD sanctioned site, then I've little doubt that UCSD could win in court. However, if they do a good job up front in making it clear that they are not an official UCSD site, and are willing to battle it out in court, the site owners would have a good chance of winning.
See www.taubmansucks.com for legal details on one sites battle. Visit www.microsoftsucks.com - do you think that's a microsoft sponsored site? Do you think MS would leave that site alone if they thought they could win in court?
I like it. I'd been thinking of UCSDSucks.com, myself. Companies like to pretend that using their name in a domain name is illegal, but that isn't always true. In particular, sites like www.taubmansucks.com and www.microsoftsucks.com and many others. Being unable to see the site, it's hard to tell how this would fall. If the site makes it very clear that it is not an official UCSD funded/supported/sanctioned site, they have a fair chance of winning any legal battle. (The school's rules mentioned are just their rules, not the law. The law wins.) On the other hand, if the site pretends to be an official UCSD site, then UCSD would almost certainly win in court, should it come to that.
From the court ruling in the taubmansucks.com case, here's a clip. The entire story of the court battle is available on that site, and is a very interesting read. But to read the whole thing, set aside several hours, there is a lot there, and trying to read leagalize is very slow/tedious, at least for me.
Or it means you have to do some basic math and that you have some needed background. As I recall, they were hoping to get about 70k out of it. You can verify that at http://bruce.pennypacker.org/SLAPP/DemandforLegalF ees.pdf, I believe. (It's one of the pdf's on that page, and I believe that's the correct one.)
According to the link I gave you in my previous msg, Wellborn dropped 40K of his fee's, which leaves 30k. Also according to that link, less than half of the amount needed (which appears to be 30k, to me) has been collected. Keep in mind, I have no inside info, this is just based on what I've read. So I estimate a $30,000 bill, and under $15,000 donated to cover it. I sent in $50 today, myself.
That also seems reasonable based on the info shown at http://www.spamcon.org/thanks.shtml
As I mentioned before, the SpamCon Foundation isn't about this one court case. They are helping with it, certainly, but there will be more cases, and we need an organization like that on our side. I trust them, else I wouldn't have donated. The people getting sued trust them, else they wouldn't be having everyone who wants to donate go through SpamCon - and they most definitely are. I emailed a couple of them before the SpamCon Foundation was involved and asked about sending a donation. They told me to wait and that I would hear about it when they had a central spot to donate.
The people who were sued in this case won't make any profit. Even if a lot more money is donated than is needed to pay those bills, they won't make a dime. The SpamCon Foundation will hold on to that money (in their legal fund, which is seperate from their general operating fund) until it is needed. If you trust them, that's a good thing. If you don't, then don't donate.
I hope this helped.
Correct. It is the admins on the receiving computer which are directly setting up blocks to keep spam out of their system. There are no perfect solutions to spam. If you catch 99.5% of it, some still gets through. If you attempt to catch 99.5% of it, you're also likely to block some legitimate mail.
But if you look at the root cause - why have admins started blocking mail from certain sites - it's because of the spammers. 10 years ago, running mail relays as open relays was the norm. Everybody did it, few if any admins had a problem with receiving mail from them. Then spammers started abusing them, people got tired of getting tons of spam, and the admins started closing down their relays so that they wouldn't be aiding the spammers. As time passed, other admins started blocking open relays which had sent them spam. (And every open relay is just begging to be used by spammers. If it hasn't been yet, it's because they haven't found it yet - and they eventually will.)
If it were not for spam, the spam blocking wouldn't ever have happened. So the root problem is still caused by spam.
I do not like spam anymore than anyone else:
Apparently, you do, else you wouldn't be arguing that blocking open relays is worse than not blocking them.
I discovered that my ISP had been blacklisted for having an open relay. The cure was worse than the disease.
From your point of view, the cure was worse than the disease. Some people wouldn't accept your mail. From their side, blocking open relays has kept 1,000's of spams out of their system, saved them time, saved them bandwidth, and heled educate ISP's who are stupid enough to run open relays on their mail server. And all they lost was your words of wisdom.
Try visiting http://bruce.pennypacker.org/SLAPP/ for more information. That's where you'll find details.
Also, keep in mind that the Spamcon Foundation Legal Fund isn't about this one case. That fund will continue to be useful in the war against spam long after most people have forgotten about this particular case.
The fund is tax deductible. Please donate. CAUCE claims to have signed up over 20,000 people since March 1, 2000, and to have another 23,000 members from prior to that. If just 20% of those people donated just $5, it would make a huge difference. All of us hate spam. Here is a good, tax deductible way to help fight against it.
Hell no we don't. The real, actual costs for Felstein and friends who filed the suit is probably in the $500 range, tops. The real costs for the anti-spammers who were sued is much, much higher - in the $30,000 range, even after Wellborn (the good lawyer [did I just say that?]) dropped his fee's by $40,000 to what I suspect is not much more than just his actual costs.
This has wasted time and money for anti-spammers, and has had no detrimental effect on the spammers except to publicize just how sleazy they are. And it's been clear for a long time that they don't care about their reputation.
The spammers goal wasn't to win in court - I don't think even the Felstein is stupid enough to think that his case would hold up. The spammers goal was to harass, and they've done that without repercussions.
It's possible that this isn't a finished story. Contrary to some /. messages, it's still possible for the defendants to countersue. However, it's not likely, as doing so means spending more money on lawyers. And it's not clear (at least to me) if the SpamCon legal fund would cover that, even assuming enough donations had come in. At this point, only about half of the funds that the NANAE 9 owe has been donated to the fund.
It's important that people donate. http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/
This has nothing, zero, zilch, to do with shutting down spammers. Read the article - you sound totally clueless at this point.
You say that now, but if I started using a computer to order things online, and paying for them using your bank account # or your credit card number, I'm sure you would feel that I had stolen from you. You would be right - but I could do it all over the computer, which you claim shouldn't be an offense. The idea that people should be allowed to hack companies systems, that theft or destruction of information isn't wrong, and that anything you can do over a computer isn't "real" is complete bullshit.
You're right, if hacking were entirely legal, many hackers would find employment. Others would turn into legalized crimininals, stealing from honest folks. DoS attacks on competitors sites would be quite common, and information theft would be rampant. Some companies would disconnect fro the net altogether (which doesn't bar employees from using computers to do your legalized destruction, but helps limit external attacks.) And a number of business would go out of business. <sarcasm>Great plan.</sarcasm>
Before you manage to pass this law, I should get a job at a bank. After all, when I become an overnight millionaire, it'll just be 0's and 1's.
When I run that phrase through Google, I get...
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,030. Search took 0.24 seconds. I don't know anything about Domino, but I know BS when I see it. The rest of your "message" looked every bit as honest.
From that, it sounds like you've never seen a TiVo.
I don't have one, because I don't watch much TV. But they'll do a ton of things that a VCR just won't do, and for people who spend much time watching TV, they beat a VCR hands down. I'll probably get one eventually, primarily for watching football, one of the few things I do watch. Sometimes I want to be able to review a play, but I don't want to miss the rest of the game. With TiVo, you can back up a bit, but it (unlike a VCR) will continue to record. I can watch the play as many times as I want, and then continue on. When a commercial comes on, I can skip forward over it, back to the game. You just can't do that kind of thing with a VCR unless you record the entire game and then watch on the tape later.
If a TiVo isn't your kind of thing, that's fine. But claiming it's no different from a VCR is kind of like saying that a modern computer is no different from an Apple II.
Basically, the CPU will run hotter, because it's actually in use all the time. That isn't normally a problem, but if your fan died, or if you've overclocked, or if you're system is in a very hot room, it's possible it could be.
You can expect your electric bill to be a little higher - but it's an extra 5-$10 a month, I believe, compared to turning the computer off when you aren't using it. Turning a system off and on again is probably harder on the equipment than running something like GIMPS.
SETI@home has a few things I don't like. The primary one is that they don't have enough data to analyze, so they give the same data to a bunch of different people. And after they've analyzed that and ask for more, they end up analyzing data that's already been checked. Double-checking (or even triple-checking) isn't a bad idea, but checking the same data thousands of times is pointless.
SETI also runs as a screensaver, which means it's still not using all available processor time. GIMPS runs at a very low priority, but it's always there, unless you shut it down or define times when it shouldn't run. I like the idea that my computer is using all of it's available CPU power, all the time.
There are some other interesting sounding distributed computing projects out there. Try visiting http://www.aspenleaf.com/distributed/distrib-proje cts.html for links to pretty much any distributed computing project available. I've considered getting out of GIMPS in order to join with one of the others, such as cancer research, but so far, I'm just continuing with what I've done for so long.
That's what is happening here. They don't have a very good shot at getting rid of pornography altogether, or they would try for that. So they claim "Lets protect the children" and use it to try and make pornography illegal/unprofitable.
Pornography has a history of being one of the first (and most) profitable businesses on the web. The religious folks hate that. But there are a number of unscrupulous people in that business, too, and if they can set things up so that the only way you can see pr0n is to give out your credit card number (which does *nothing* to prove that it isn't little Johnny with his dads card, or 14 year old Sally with her sisters card - or her own, for that matter) then they know that a lot of people who will look at it now won't take the chance.
If Lotus had tried to get a patent, Visicalc could be shown as prior art, so (in theory, as I understand it, IANAL) the patent wouldn't be valid. However, if Visicalc had gotten a patent, Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't bave existed without some kind of royalty agreement.
Similar examples can be made in the areas of Word Processing, Databases, etc.
Regardless, most of us don't run our own mail server, and if you don't, you end up with whatever you get. My mail server has Spam Assassain set up, and headers are added to the message saying that it guesses it's spam or not spam, with a list of reasons why. It is wrong quite often (in both directions), so I don't trust it. If it were up to me, they wouldn't run it at all - the SA headers are just more to download, and they do me no good.
DNS Blacklisting doesn't catch every spam - but the vast majority of my spam does come from blacklisted sites. I'm not willing to auto-delete them, though, because I don't want to miss legitimate mail. So I just have it tag them, sort based on that, and look at the headers of the mail that isn't blacklisted first. Out of 200 spams, I'll have 5-10 that aren't blacklisted. I usually take a quick glance through the blacklisted mail, too, but it's so rare to get legitimate mail from them that I don't spend much time on it.
It's so sad. Hundreds of Commodore users are remembering the past, and no mention of the 8032, or the 8050 drives that went with it. :(
The Programmer's Reference Manual? That's what we called "The Bible".
The people who run bayesian filters are, most likely, not the people who respond to spam. The few idiots who support the spammers are, most likely, not going to run any decent filters. And that's where your theory falls apart.
I don't run Bayesian filters, because of the time involved. In order to use them, you have to download the entire message. On dial up, receiving 200+ spams a day, that isn't worth it for me. I use MailWasher, myself. It downloads the headers. Mail from whitelisted sources isn't shown at all in Mailwasher. Everything else (which is mostly spam) is shown. Mailwasher then looks to see if those mails come from sites that are on a DNS blacklist and tags that mail. I sort so that the non-blacklisted emails are at the top, and glance through them. Legitimate mail? Add another whitelist entry. Everything else gets deleted off the server. Only after the junk is gone do I have Eudora download the rest of the mail.
If I run a bayesian filter, I would have to download the text of all 200+ spams, because you can't run the filter until you have the message, and because you're supposed to tell the filter "This is spam" to help it learn. It isn't worth the time to download it - it's junk.
We are *already* wasting billions of dollars on spam. That happens right now, it's getting worse, and it will continue to get worse.
Side notes :
There are additional costs. You're ISP costs are higher, for instance, due to the spam.
I do not believe pay-to-send is the solution.
I don't think so. More likely, they'll find a way to forge the messages so that someone else ends up with the bill. Spammers already forge domain names in their spam, sell items that are clearly illegal, or fraudulently advertise items which simply don't exist. Why would we expect them to suddenly say "I have to play by the rules?". Spam is already sent by way of machines the spammers have hacked. They already run DoS attacks on sites with spam fighting tools, blacklist distributors, etc. Shouldn't we expect the same kind of tactics to continue - or get worse?
I beleive we need a totally new system, but I don't beleive that pay-to-send needs to be a part of it. Most people only think about how that will effect the spammers and the 10-20 emails they send every day or so. (And even then, they don't seem to think it all the way through.)
Imagine the cost to SlashDot. I receive emails from /. every day with the new headlines/stories, to let me know about replies/moderation of messsages I've posted, etc. I'm sure many of you get the same messages. The costs to /. would jump enourmously - or their whole model would have to change, either removing those services or requiring a paid membership, in order to cover the cost. The NYTimes, Reuters, LockerGnome, and many others have similar email lists. Very useful, generally free - and pay-to-send will put an end to all of them.
Are you on any discussion mailing lists? I have several programming related lists which send me 25-50 mails a day. I'd lose those under a pay-to-send system.
Pay-to-send would have an enourmous downside for legitimate emailers, and for the users who receive those emails, while having a fairly small effect on spammers, who will seek to circumvent the system if possible, and who will disrupt the system via DoS attacks if they can't find a way to send their messages without paying.
If they follow the DNC list, they'll also avoid calling me, which means I won't either waste their time or cuss them out. I have no problem saying "no" or "fuck you scumbag" or "Hold on - someone is at the door". And I'll never buy from them.
The bottom line is that if they are honest, they won't call me - I'm on the DNC lists. (Federal, and our state list.) If they continue to call me, it's clear that they are crooks, and I have no reason to be nice to them.
No wonder you post as AC. I'd just like to say "Fuck off and die, scumbag". The lies you tell about how you want to do nothing but play by the books aren't going to find many trusting listeners, because you and your con man friends have told too many lies before and continue to bother people who have done everything they can to tell you to go away and leave them alone.
You'll pretend that Prepaid Legal couldn't stop them - but if it's an office full of lawyers, I'm sure they could file some lawsuites. But they aren't going to, because they don't care that they are hiring spammers. (And that's giving them credit - they may have no lawyers at all. Most spam advertised businesses are *not* on the up-and-up.)
You're here on SlashDot to advertise for PrePaid legal. You've hardly posted about anything else. You are a spamming con man.
Also, making a 'dumb' move means that the computer soon runs out of it's standard library openings, and has to calculate each move instead of playing "by the book". I'm in no position to comment on grandmasters, but most people are not going to know the standard book-line openings nearly as well as the computer does, so making the computer think about a move puts us on a more even keel. If I try to play standard lines, the computer is going to remember them much better than I do.
I can't help but think that as computers get faster, and better chess software is written, that computers will be able to win most of the time even against gransmasters. They can already beat the vast majority of people hands down. That doesn't bother me. I'd like to see a competition between two grandmasters who are each allowed to use a computer to advise them. To me, computers and software aren't a "Humans vs Computers" thing so much as a "Humans can do more with a computer than without one" thing.