I think you missed a few points with your analogy:
Imagine a world where electric windows aren't standard. Now, imagine that someone starts selling aftermarket electric windows. Now imagine that a car manufacturer, seeing the popularity of electric windows, starts to offer electric windows as standard equipment (and modifies its manufacturing process such that they can't really build cars without electric windows).
And their electric Windows will open of their own accord and let anyone who happens to be passing to enter your car. Now imagine that third parties now sell protection to stop people getting into your car when the installed electric windows open, but the protection device only works for certain ways for getting into your car through the open windows and people find more and different ways of getting in, so you have to keep spending more money on the protection device.
The manufacturer's electric windows can still be replaced with new ones;
But you can't remove the original electric windows with their open defect; only disable access to them from the driver - they are still there with their ability to open at will.
if the aftermarket window people can offer a sufficient improvement to be worth getting it done they'll still do business, if they can't; they won't. Now, why should the situation be different if only one company makes cars?
And if other people makes cars, there will be a standard set for how the windows should operate so that everyone can have the same experience. Then the manufacturer of the cars with the built-in opening electric windows makes subtle changes, eg tints their windows rose coloured, which means that everyone driving their cars gets a different, not quite right view, and road manufacturers have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get the roads to look right, as do the manufacturer of other cars (having to take into account the fudges the road manufacturers have made).
So their size and ability to provide electric windows for 'free' makes it difficult to compete?
No, it's their ability to make sure that their "free" installed electric windows can't be removed if someone has decided to replace them with a different, better band. In these days of spiralling fuel costs, all unnecessary extra weight ought to be removed from the vehicle, so if I've decided I want a better brand of electric window, I should not be forced to still have the default windows installed, even if they're disabled for my access and I don't want them.
Sucks to be you - make a better product or make a different add on in the full expectation that it'll become standard equipment in a few years, but don't bitch that you want the people who buy the cars to be forced to take the car home from the dealer and then either pay you to fit your electric windows, leaving their car out of action for a week, or return it to the dealer to fit electric windows for free, but still leaving them car-less for a week.
And if a dealer wants to supply the car with a different brand of nelectric windows, the original car manufacturer insists that their "free" electric windows must be installed and the button to operate them be the most prominant and not disabled and that the other electric windows button be small, and possibly hiden under a panel. Then the person who brought a licence to use the car (not the car itself) must be the one to disable the "free" electric windows and install the button to operate their preferred windows in a more prominant, not hidden, place.
Now... you could remove the actual IE program itself, as few other programs depend on it, but what would be the point? To save a few megabytes?
No, to stop it popping up and running when it has had its access removed.
I mean, there is already the option to remove access to it and use another browser as default
There may be that option: I have removed access to IE (not only from the Control Panel, but also changed the Big Blue E not to run it), AND set up a different default browser, but it doen't work as it as IE still has been accessed by some program wanting a web-broswer access to something.
I may still have my wallet, but I no longer have the paper or metal tokens that represent the abstract idea of money [that I could exchange for something]; So you have stolen something: the tokens - I have been deprived of them.
It's not the fact that I can add Firefox to Windows, it's that as I do NOT want IE, I can't remove IE that bothers me - I have "disabled" it (from the Control Panel), but it still manages to pop up on occasions.
Not the first time...the company for which I worked was sold out and the old MD signed an agreement not to set up a similar venture for the next n years (or something like that)...I noticed a complete system backup had "mysteriously" changed from 2400ft 1/2" reels to longer reels[1] with the tape labels transferred rather crudely at the same time as he left...
[1] The problen with the longer reels was that although the new tape drive could handle them, the system couldn't - so I had given up using them.
Of course, this is coming from the dude who refused to have a professional photographer take pictures at his wedding because he is adamantly opposed to the concept of the "work" being *theirs*,...
No Problem...point them towards this as obviously your wedding is your copyright?...but then again, it would probably only be such if your wedding took place in Belgium.
...
a) Putting something into GPL is the same as putting it into the public domain... No it's not. Putting something into BSD is more akin to putting it into the public domain.
...because there is no control over distribution... Actually, there is: Copyright Law - it clearly (apparently....can't read legalese too well) states what you can and can't do, and one of the things you can't do is to distribute something which isn't yours without permission. Without the GPL you have NO RIGHT to distribute the code whatsoever.
... and no economic damages associated with infringement... Perhaps there is. Suppose I write some code and let you use it under a licence that says you don't have to pay me a penny provided that if you distribute my code (in any form - original or modified) you let anyone who gets the code from you have a copy of the source for the distributed code. If you don't want to have to distribute your sorce code you come to me and say can you drop that requirement of your licence; in that case I say sorry, no, but I have this alternative licence you can use: it says you will pay me £200 for the code plus 1% royalties for each copy you distribute.
So, if you had wanted to distribute without giving the source code away, I have incurred an economic damage if you use my original licence.
Also, you may like to thank Hollywood and the music industry: a music track that costs something like £0.50(ish $0.99) to download legally which if downloaded illegally will cost you £375(ish $750 - statutory damages) [if caught]. Is that the real economic damage of an illegally downloaded track; is that how much the music industry has actually lost per download? May I suggest you put your argument to the RIAA and see what reply they come back with?
"...
Right, so instead of a company paying some money to license the software, their entire business potentially gets destroyed.... The author(s) have the right to distribute their code under whatever licence they wish, so if you don't like the terms they currently offer, there's always the option to contact the original author(s) and negotiate a different licence, one which you do like.
Simple really: the "free" (GPL) licence comes with restrictions; if you don't like them, negotiate a new licence that you do like...one for which the original author(s) may/will require payment.
It's a problem which, amongst downloadable software, is somewhat unique to the GPL. Most software which is downloaded or purchased off the shelf has a EULA which, while typically overly-verbose, makes sense...
EULAs make sense? I have [at least] one piece of software that announces "Congratulations on BUYING this software" whilst at the same time requiring me to agree to a EULA that says "You do NOT OWN the software, but a LICENCE to use it". So which is correct: the software that says I own it, or the licence which says I don't. Doesn't make sense to me.
...Don't copy the software to more than one computer. Don't give people a copy of the software. Don't disassemble the software...
Whereas the GPL says you can copy the software to more than one compouter, you can give people a copy, you can disassemble the software (though you don't need to as you can get the original source) - more than Copyright Law in itself allows.
...Don't expect us to cover your losses if the software fails.
I seme to recollect that the GPL also states something like that, but let's do a quick comparison.
If I pay £0.00 for some software and it fails causinng £xxx worth of damage how much have I lost? £xxx. However, if the software costs £299.99, how much have I lost? £(xxx+299.99) - unless the supplier refunds the FULL cost of the software (plus costs incurred in obtaining said refund).
Still looks like GPL software is the better bet.
Most software licenses don't cover redistribution at all, except inasmuch as they say that it is forbidden. If redistribution is allowed somehow, it's almost always a part of a negotiated license rather than a boilerplate EULA. The GPL, a boilerplate license, does. It's unusual. Its provisions are unusual.
Yes, the GPL is unusual in that it DOES allow you to distribute the code unlike most other licences. However, if you don't like the terms of the distribution, you can always contact the original author(s) and request a different licence - negotiate for what you want; just remember that they may require some form of payment in this case. The difference is that the GPL automatically allows you [restricted] distribution rights before you even have to ask!
The only thing that slightly worries me about this: if the EULA is what is causing MS to pay the tax, then in paying the tax, MS can clearly say that the EULA is valid (in India at least) as the government has demanded legal taxes based on it.
...the problem is software patents. Novels, short stories and mathematics, or even legal texts are covered by copyright, why need software be special.
Spot the subtle difference between Novels, etc that are covered by copyright and software that (is! but also) requires patents:
With the Novels, etc, everyone gets to see the text of the covered object, whereas with software, it's only the "author" that gets to see it - until OSS that is.
If I'm not mistaken, (the majority of) those who want patents on software are the Closed Source Software suppliers - they can't protect their "idea" by copyright (as you can't see their source), so they've gone for protecting their "secret formula" with a patent...and keep it "secret" by obsfurcating the patent...
I solved a vandalisim problem on my property, when the cops arrived and had the kids in hand, I talked with the cop and then with the kids. I said, "I have a pump shotgun. I talked to the officer on this and he said I am legally allowed to do this. Next time I hear noises in my garage or home, I will not stop and tell you to leave, I will fire a couple of rounds into your chest. you will probably die a very slow and painful death." the officer backed me up telling them that they were home invading and I have the right to kill them. The kids shit themselves right there. One started crying. I have had no problems for 2 years now.
It's a pity Tony Martin didn't have your kind of cops when he did that.
If the patent examiner can't work out what the patent's supposed to be protecting in a reasonable time, then the patent should be rejected; in reward for getting a monopoly, the patentee has to disclose how to "build" their invention.
If the patent application is complicated, and it's not clear what the invention is, nor how to "build" it, then the patentee has not fulfilled their part of the patent contract, and so should not get a monopoly on it. Simple really?
Hmmm...in 1979 on a flight back from Toronto to Heathrow, we had to make an emergency landing at Bangor, Maine - we were 45 mins over the Atlantic when we turned back due to a hydraulic leak. I'm not sure of the distance, but I suspect that the DC-10 couldn't have glided that distance - perhaps glide distances have gone up and there are more strips between Bangor, Maine and Bangor, Wales now?
They did, they used a 32 bit signed integer - a quick explanation:
When representing a signed integer, one bit is used for the sign and the rest (31 bits) for the value. When handling negative numbers, 2s complement is used: basically, invert all the bits (ie make any bit that is 0 become 1, and any bit 1 become 0) and add 1 - then -1 is represented by all bits set and adding one, ignoring carry, results in all bits clear = 0. Using this technique, with 32 bits, the values 0 to 2147483647 are positive and represent their value, and the values 2147483648 to 4294967295 are negative and represent the values -2147483648 to -1 respectively (you'll notice that there are 2147483648, or 2^31, values in each half).
And going back to your point: yes, it would have made sense for Blizzard to use a 32 bit unsigned integer.
Probably a programmer not really thinking about it, or didn't really expect the limit to be reached, used "int money;" as opposed to "unsigned int money;".
Thinking back over the code I've written, I've often used "int " (where int is 4 bytes, signed) when I should have really used an "unsigned int " - of the code which is still in use and for which that will be an issue, it'll be about 2037 before the problem really crops up and I'll be retired; as will, I suspect, the code (though the source is available to anyone who is running the code to fix it if they require).
This isn't the first time a signed integer has been used to store the amount of money a player has (and I suspect it won't be the last, either) - years ago when I played MicroProse's Railroad Tycoon, I found an interesting bug (feature) with the way cash was stored:
For the game, a negative cash made a small bit of sense (overdraft) and so a signed integer was used. If you just bought up >50% of the shares in your railroad company (to ensure that you couldn't be fired), and then ensured that you had lots of expenditure but no income every financial period, you would end each financial period with more negative cash until it eventually overflowed and became positive. Once positive, with lots of income, it refused to overflow back negative.
I found it interesting, that although a positive overflow was checked a negative one wasn't. The assumption must be that the programmer never really expected the limit condition to be met and so only put a cursory check in - checking for a positive overflow to prevent sudden negative cash (in both games) and the problems that could cause the program and game play, but in MicroProse's case, not bothering with the negative overflow as it was an extreme case not expected - the game play was possibly meant to prevent it and I found the 1 in a whatever chance to get it to happen (I was trying to see how negative a rating I could achieve without being "fired").
Sony do not have a monopoly in the manufacture of record players that play their previously issued records - you can use any record player to play a record that Sony has made; thus your analogy breaks down: there are other manufacturers that can make the record players as they have the format information, so if Sony doesn't manufacture a player, you can still get a player that will play your record. However, if MS won't supply a reader for its file formats, you're stuffed if you happen to have a file in the older format (whether you created it yourself, or have received it from someone who wishes you to receive their data stored in that format).
It was more than just wide spacing of the letters; that in itself is not enough to prevent jamming as a fast typist could send letters from either side fast enough to still jam. The innovation with the QWERTY layout was to deliberately mis-allocate letters between the hands - specifically for the English QWERTY layout, there is more work for the left hand; possibly assuming that most typists are right handed and therefore suffer slight dexterity loss in the left. Also, I think, the sequences that are most likely to jam are made deliberately difficult in terms of finger dexterity - eg, a common ending in English '-ed' is done by one finger (when touch typing).
With reference to foreign kezboards, when I was emailing mz fiancee last year, she was using a Swiss-French kezboard that used the same lazout as English except that Z and Y were swapped. Everz daz I received an email from her, it was an interesting read - especiallz as the swap added a kind of French accent to her message.
I used to pay by the minute. My first dial-up was pay-as-you-go, but when my internet usage increased, I found a deal on a monthly subscription that was cheaper; I upgraded to broadband as it was cheaper than the monthly dial-up (from the same supplier).
I fixed most of the advertising by adding a lot of entries to/etc/hosts (as they annoyed me) to point to the local machine - now all I get is pages served up by my local httpd instead of the advertising. When I get the chance, I'll sort out a proper DNS server on my internet gateway machine to handle them, but time is rather limited at the moment.
I have to pay for the connection to my ISP. My logged spam comes to a total of:
566,357,862 bytes - from spam sent to my old email address and my replacement email address, plus an additional
104,489,930 bytes - from the email address I abandoned as all it receives is spam, but I keep alive for anywhere that I don't trust and requires an email address; I emptied it last night of 9755 messages (received between 20/07/06 and 08/01/07 [9651] and 104 yesterday after I had emptied it) - I just let it fill and then bounce - and have just checked it now. Over the last 14 hours it has received 445 messages with a total of 1,494,616 bytes
2,344,115 bytes - from 730 spam received this year (over the last 83 hours) at my current email address
So at least 674,686,523 bytes, or 658,873K, or 643M (= 674M as per HD manufacturers) of spam has been received since my email address first got leaked. In consideration that my first PC came with a HD of 525M, the amount of spam I have received would have filled that and more!
I've only recently converted to broadband; prior to that I was on 56K dial-up. So, assuming about 350,000,000 bytes of spam were received during that period, about 62500 seconds or 1041 minutes or 17 hours have been wasted, and I've had to pay for each and every second of that - that amounts to theft of quite a bit of money. Similarly, theft of my current bandwidth would come to quite a pretty penny as well, just a bit smaller.
Before suggesting spam filters, I'd just like to point out a couple of facts:
1) I do have spam filters in place - they divert 99.9999% spam accurately so I never see it in my Inbox
2) They hide the problem, not solve it - spammers will try harder to get through, changing messages and sending more of them.
My spam filters log results: eg last year, spam started off at about 1300 messages/month for Jan and Feb, increased to about 2000/month for most of the year, then about 3000 for Sep and Oct, then 5247 for Nov and 7267 for Dec. Obviously, spam filters were getting better somewhere and so the spammers tried another tact - change the style of the spam and increase it. However, I've also noticed that over the years spam seems to increase vaguely exponentionally, suggesting that my email address started off on one list, then after a while, ended up on another, following a kind of fibonnacci series for the number of lists on which it exists - even my "spam-trap" email address is still being traded and put on more lists by the look of it.
There is also the theft of the Zombie PC owner's ISP connection bandwidth, not to mention the power required to execute the mailing; along with breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (in the UK at least).
And as others have mentioned - there's the theft of the time to deal with the incoming spam: the time spent dealing with spam (whether by hacking filters, or manually deleting them) which can never be recovered.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed a few points with your analogy:
And their electric Windows will open of their own accord and let anyone who happens to be passing to enter your car. Now imagine that third parties now sell protection to stop people getting into your car when the installed electric windows open, but the protection device only works for certain ways for getting into your car through the open windows and people find more and different ways of getting in, so you have to keep spending more money on the protection device.
But you can't remove the original electric windows with their open defect; only disable access to them from the driver - they are still there with their ability to open at will.
And if other people makes cars, there will be a standard set for how the windows should operate so that everyone can have the same experience. Then the manufacturer of the cars with the built-in opening electric windows makes subtle changes, eg tints their windows rose coloured, which means that everyone driving their cars gets a different, not quite right view, and road manufacturers have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get the roads to look right, as do the manufacturer of other cars (having to take into account the fudges the road manufacturers have made).
No, it's their ability to make sure that their "free" installed electric windows can't be removed if someone has decided to replace them with a different, better band. In these days of spiralling fuel costs, all unnecessary extra weight ought to be removed from the vehicle, so if I've decided I want a better brand of electric window, I should not be forced to still have the default windows installed, even if they're disabled for my access and I don't want them.
And if a dealer wants to supply the car with a different brand of nelectric windows, the original car manufacturer insists that their "free" electric windows must be installed and the button to operate them be the most prominant and not disabled and that the other electric windows button be small, and possibly hiden under a panel. Then the person who brought a licence to use the car (not the car itself) must be the one to disable the "free" electric windows and install the button to operate their preferred windows in a more prominant, not hidden, place.
No, to stop it popping up and running when it has had its access removed.
There may be that option: I have removed access to IE (not only from the Control Panel, but also changed the Big Blue E not to run it), AND set up a different default browser, but it doen't work as it as IE still has been accessed by some program wanting a web-broswer access to something.
I may still have my wallet, but I no longer have the paper or metal tokens that represent the abstract idea of money [that I could exchange for something]; So you have stolen something: the tokens - I have been deprived of them.
It's not the fact that I can add Firefox to Windows, it's that as I do NOT want IE, I can't remove IE that bothers me - I have "disabled" it (from the Control Panel), but it still manages to pop up on occasions.
Not the first time...the company for which I worked was sold out and the old MD signed an agreement not to set up a similar venture for the next n years (or something like that)...I noticed a complete system backup had "mysteriously" changed from 2400ft 1/2" reels to longer reels[1] with the tape labels transferred rather crudely at the same time as he left...
[1] The problen with the longer reels was that although the new tape drive could handle them, the system couldn't - so I had given up using them.
No Problem...point them towards this as obviously your wedding is your copyright?...but then again, it would probably only be such if your wedding took place in Belgium.
... a) Putting something into GPL is the same as putting it into the public domain... No it's not. Putting something into BSD is more akin to putting it into the public domain.
...because there is no control over distribution... Actually, there is: Copyright Law - it clearly (apparently....can't read legalese too well) states what you can and can't do, and one of the things you can't do is to distribute something which isn't yours without permission. Without the GPL you have NO RIGHT to distribute the code whatsoever.
... and no economic damages associated with infringement... Perhaps there is. Suppose I write some code and let you use it under a licence that says you don't have to pay me a penny provided that if you distribute my code (in any form - original or modified) you let anyone who gets the code from you have a copy of the source for the distributed code. If you don't want to have to distribute your sorce code you come to me and say can you drop that requirement of your licence; in that case I say sorry, no, but I have this alternative licence you can use: it says you will pay me £200 for the code plus 1% royalties for each copy you distribute.So, if you had wanted to distribute without giving the source code away, I have incurred an economic damage if you use my original licence.
Also, you may like to thank Hollywood and the music industry: a music track that costs something like £0.50(ish $0.99) to download legally which if downloaded illegally will cost you £375(ish $750 - statutory damages) [if caught]. Is that the real economic damage of an illegally downloaded track; is that how much the music industry has actually lost per download? May I suggest you put your argument to the RIAA and see what reply they come back with?
Simple really: the "free" (GPL) licence comes with restrictions; if you don't like them, negotiate a new licence that you do like...one for which the original author(s) may/will require payment.
Whereas the GPL says you can copy the software to more than one compouter, you can give people a copy, you can disassemble the software (though you don't need to as you can get the original source) - more than Copyright Law in itself allows.
I seme to recollect that the GPL also states something like that, but let's do a quick comparison.
If I pay £0.00 for some software and it fails causinng £xxx worth of damage how much have I lost? £xxx. However, if the software costs £299.99, how much have I lost? £(xxx+299.99) - unless the supplier refunds the FULL cost of the software (plus costs incurred in obtaining said refund).
Still looks like GPL software is the better bet.
Yes, the GPL is unusual in that it DOES allow you to distribute the code unlike most other licences. However, if you don't like the terms of the distribution, you can always contact the original author(s) and request a different licence - negotiate for what you want; just remember that they may require some form of payment in this case. The difference is that the GPL automatically allows you [restricted] distribution rights before you even have to ask!
The only thing that slightly worries me about this: if the EULA is what is causing MS to pay the tax, then in paying the tax, MS can clearly say that the EULA is valid (in India at least) as the government has demanded legal taxes based on it.
With the Novels, etc, everyone gets to see the text of the covered object, whereas with software, it's only the "author" that gets to see it - until OSS that is.
If I'm not mistaken, (the majority of) those who want patents on software are the Closed Source Software suppliers - they can't protect their "idea" by copyright (as you can't see their source), so they've gone for protecting their "secret formula" with a patent...and keep it "secret" by obsfurcating the patent...
Piracy is the raiding of a ship or boat.
With all these obvious thoughts about Pi, slashdotters have been involved in a bit of Transcendental Meditation...
If the patent examiner can't work out what the patent's supposed to be protecting in a reasonable time, then the patent should be rejected; in reward for getting a monopoly, the patentee has to disclose how to "build" their invention.
If the patent application is complicated, and it's not clear what the invention is, nor how to "build" it, then the patentee has not fulfilled their part of the patent contract, and so should not get a monopoly on it. Simple really?
Hmmm...in 1979 on a flight back from Toronto to Heathrow, we had to make an emergency landing at Bangor, Maine - we were 45 mins over the Atlantic when we turned back due to a hydraulic leak. I'm not sure of the distance, but I suspect that the DC-10 couldn't have glided that distance - perhaps glide distances have gone up and there are more strips between Bangor, Maine and Bangor, Wales now?
They did, they used a 32 bit signed integer - a quick explanation:
When representing a signed integer, one bit is used for the sign and the rest (31 bits) for the value. When handling negative numbers, 2s complement is used: basically, invert all the bits (ie make any bit that is 0 become 1, and any bit 1 become 0) and add 1 - then -1 is represented by all bits set and adding one, ignoring carry, results in all bits clear = 0. Using this technique, with 32 bits, the values 0 to 2147483647 are positive and represent their value, and the values 2147483648 to 4294967295 are negative and represent the values -2147483648 to -1 respectively (you'll notice that there are 2147483648, or 2^31, values in each half).
And going back to your point: yes, it would have made sense for Blizzard to use a 32 bit unsigned integer.
Probably a programmer not really thinking about it, or didn't really expect the limit to be reached, used "int money;" as opposed to "unsigned int money;".
Thinking back over the code I've written, I've often used "int " (where int is 4 bytes, signed) when I should have really used an "unsigned int " - of the code which is still in use and for which that will be an issue, it'll be about 2037 before the problem really crops up and I'll be retired; as will, I suspect, the code (though the source is available to anyone who is running the code to fix it if they require).
This isn't the first time a signed integer has been used to store the amount of money a player has (and I suspect it won't be the last, either) - years ago when I played MicroProse's Railroad Tycoon, I found an interesting bug (feature) with the way cash was stored:
For the game, a negative cash made a small bit of sense (overdraft) and so a signed integer was used. If you just bought up >50% of the shares in your railroad company (to ensure that you couldn't be fired), and then ensured that you had lots of expenditure but no income every financial period, you would end each financial period with more negative cash until it eventually overflowed and became positive. Once positive, with lots of income, it refused to overflow back negative.
I found it interesting, that although a positive overflow was checked a negative one wasn't. The assumption must be that the programmer never really expected the limit condition to be met and so only put a cursory check in - checking for a positive overflow to prevent sudden negative cash (in both games) and the problems that could cause the program and game play, but in MicroProse's case, not bothering with the negative overflow as it was an extreme case not expected - the game play was possibly meant to prevent it and I found the 1 in a whatever chance to get it to happen (I was trying to see how negative a rating I could achieve without being "fired").
Not quite:
Sony do not have a monopoly in the manufacture of record players that play their previously issued records - you can use any record player to play a record that Sony has made; thus your analogy breaks down: there are other manufacturers that can make the record players as they have the format information, so if Sony doesn't manufacture a player, you can still get a player that will play your record. However, if MS won't supply a reader for its file formats, you're stuffed if you happen to have a file in the older format (whether you created it yourself, or have received it from someone who wishes you to receive their data stored in that format).
It was more than just wide spacing of the letters; that in itself is not enough to prevent jamming as a fast typist could send letters from either side fast enough to still jam. The innovation with the QWERTY layout was to deliberately mis-allocate letters between the hands - specifically for the English QWERTY layout, there is more work for the left hand; possibly assuming that most typists are right handed and therefore suffer slight dexterity loss in the left. Also, I think, the sequences that are most likely to jam are made deliberately difficult in terms of finger dexterity - eg, a common ending in English '-ed' is done by one finger (when touch typing).
With reference to foreign kezboards, when I was emailing mz fiancee last year, she was using a Swiss-French kezboard that used the same lazout as English except that Z and Y were swapped. Everz daz I received an email from her, it was an interesting read - especiallz as the swap added a kind of French accent to her message.
Display: "Supplied by the generosity of Microsoft"
I used to pay by the minute. My first dial-up was pay-as-you-go, but when my internet usage increased, I found a deal on a monthly subscription that was cheaper; I upgraded to broadband as it was cheaper than the monthly dial-up (from the same supplier).
/etc/hosts (as they annoyed me) to point to the local machine - now all I get is pages served up by my local httpd instead of the advertising. When I get the chance, I'll sort out a proper DNS server on my internet gateway machine to handle them, but time is rather limited at the moment.
I fixed most of the advertising by adding a lot of entries to
If you think long (and hard?) enough about it, you'll be into Transcendental Meditation.
I have to pay for the connection to my ISP. My logged spam comes to a total of:
566,357,862 bytes - from spam sent to my old email address and my replacement email address, plus an additional
104,489,930 bytes - from the email address I abandoned as all it receives is spam, but I keep alive for anywhere that I don't trust and requires an email address; I emptied it last night of 9755 messages (received between 20/07/06 and 08/01/07 [9651] and 104 yesterday after I had emptied it) - I just let it fill and then bounce - and have just checked it now. Over the last 14 hours it has received 445 messages with a total of 1,494,616 bytes
2,344,115 bytes - from 730 spam received this year (over the last 83 hours) at my current email address
So at least 674,686,523 bytes, or 658,873K, or 643M (= 674M as per HD manufacturers) of spam has been received since my email address first got leaked. In consideration that my first PC came with a HD of 525M, the amount of spam I have received would have filled that and more!
I've only recently converted to broadband; prior to that I was on 56K dial-up. So, assuming about 350,000,000 bytes of spam were received during that period, about 62500 seconds or 1041 minutes or 17 hours have been wasted, and I've had to pay for each and every second of that - that amounts to theft of quite a bit of money. Similarly, theft of my current bandwidth would come to quite a pretty penny as well, just a bit smaller.
Before suggesting spam filters, I'd just like to point out a couple of facts:
1) I do have spam filters in place - they divert 99.9999% spam accurately so I never see it in my Inbox
2) They hide the problem, not solve it - spammers will try harder to get through, changing messages and sending more of them.
My spam filters log results: eg last year, spam started off at about 1300 messages/month for Jan and Feb, increased to about 2000/month for most of the year, then about 3000 for Sep and Oct, then 5247 for Nov and 7267 for Dec. Obviously, spam filters were getting better somewhere and so the spammers tried another tact - change the style of the spam and increase it. However, I've also noticed that over the years spam seems to increase vaguely exponentionally, suggesting that my email address started off on one list, then after a while, ended up on another, following a kind of fibonnacci series for the number of lists on which it exists - even my "spam-trap" email address is still being traded and put on more lists by the look of it.
There is also the theft of the Zombie PC owner's ISP connection bandwidth, not to mention the power required to execute the mailing; along with breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (in the UK at least).
And as others have mentioned - there's the theft of the time to deal with the incoming spam: the time spent dealing with spam (whether by hacking filters, or manually deleting them) which can never be recovered.