The USA does not have strict penalties. If we did, it would be a detterent.
Unbelievable
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
One possibility now being discussed is that the program is an attempt to create software engines for sending spam by using unprotected computers that have been surreptitiously commandeered by the virus. Access to such computers could then be sold to e-mail companies.
We need to have serios penalties for hackers, crackers, and script kiddies. Jail time should be manditory. We also need a better email protocol which would make it difficult to fake headers.
To me, security is a sound backup and restoration plan, and not keeping all of my personal info in a file called "my banking stuff.doc"
You must not have met my parents, or many people who are not that computer literate. To many, many people a computer is just a tool they use to make life easier. It should not be a full time job to administer.
The problem is with all the hackers, port sniffers, crackers, and the like. I want to see some harsh penalties which send people to jail just for looking.
I know that many computer users do not ever look at computer security, they just plug it in and go. At the best, some of my friends will block ports, but that is about it. They do not check logs, or anything. And how many people out there have a second PC attached by serial cable to log intrusion data? I think if more people secured their systems, then everyones security would increase because there would be less places to launch attacks from. What we need is someone at the major distros to write a program which, when executed, will secure a system. Something which is point and click "easy".
If the client wants to send email to an AOL customer, and AOL blocks it, than the recipeit will not get it. So what? The recipient can find another email address where any and all mail will be accepted. I like the idea of challenging emails, to make sure they are valid- that they come from where they say they did, and that they are not spam. If AOL is sucessful at weeding out spam, and I get an email from someone@aol.com, I might not hit the delete button as a knee jerk reaction. Over the past few years, I have deleted some emails because I did not recognize the sender. Some of them could have been from people I lost contact with. But I was unwilling to go through 1000's of spam emails to find out.
What AOL is doing is forcing other providers to be responsible. If some other provider allows a customer to send mass spam, then AOL is saying they will reject all mail from that provider. The provider will then have to decide, make 99% of its users happy and be civilized, or allow the 1% to spam and therfore be blocked.
Who said they did? Plus, the commerce clause is for congress to pass laws. Unless congress passes a law saying that a ISP has to allow all email to pass, then AOL is in the clear.
Get a different provider if you do not like it. Or you could call AOL and explain to them who you are and what you are doing and hope they let your email server send mail.
And I doubt you could sue. The service provider decides what services you get. It you do not like it, you are free to find another company.
I had AOL for about six months, and it sucked because of all the spam. I left for the opposite reason, that they did little to stop spam.
I would like to see other internet providers follow, especially broadband ISP's.
People are also free to chose whatever provider they want. The only downside I can see is if someone brings up an "Interstate Commerce" violation- congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states, including internet sales. But as long as AOL does not stop people from pointing their browsers at whatever stores they want, I do not see how anyone can win a lawsuit.
I personally think it is good that someone is trying to block spam. Now if they could validate forged headers.
That is an older version of the JVM which will be missing some classes that are being used by Java programmers. So much for being up to date.
BTW, why are they only now getting around to offering the Java SDK on BSD? Is there something more difficult about running Java on BSD than on another OS like linux?
They should be allowed to protect their products. So if they spend money on a protection procedure, and someone finds a way to destroy that protection, then harm was caused to the producer.
At the same time, those who produce these DVD's should not have a monopoly and charge 15x what it costs to produce the product. And they should not release the same DVD over and over and over again to make 20 dollars * 3 times. First comes the DVD with no extras, then the special edition, then the collectors edition.
If you view this from an emotional standpoint, I can see why some would want to screw the movie industry.
"Even if all the technical details are ironed out, I think it will be five years at least before fans are replaced. They are still the cheapest option."
Seems to be a way off. I wonder if in 5 years we will have different processors, where this will not be effective. Think little bacteria or DNA or something organic as a CPU.
I do not think there is work for someone to do DHTML programming. Everything I have seen is going to servlets. Nobody is putting up static pages (No matter what anyone says, JavaScript does not make a page dynamic). Why pay someone 20 dollars an hour in today's market when there are hardcore programmers unemployed, who can write Java servlets and JSP?
I wanted to add one other question. What is wrong with 99% of people in a city, county, or state saying "we do not want x"? To me it is like a senior citizens community saying "no noise at all past 9pm". Differnt communities have different standards.
That is where the computer guru's would have to come together and have some protocol which would be difficult to hack. Even if it only says the IP provider has to know who you are, and will not release that identity without a court order? At least if everyone in the world knew that the spammer was from IP X, then they could demand X stop spamming. On the protocol side, it would perhaps make faking headers harder?
Um, what about the people who use the internet anonymously as a form of political expression because they're afraid of retribution if it is known what they're saying? What about the people who want to express things about themselves that, while perfectly legal and healthy, are not in tune with their community's standards and if they were discussing openly could lead to loss of job or even a lynch mob? I think your cure is worse than the disease, although I agree it would cure it.
I think you are getting at community standards. I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying "We will not allow this". Political speech is always protected, because federal judges are not from the same state as where they hear cases. So if you are in Alabama and get prosecuted for saying something political which is not popular, the federal judge which will hear your case might be from New York or California.
I remember years ago when I responded to the footer "Click here to unsubscribe". Little did I know that was a way spammers varified email addresses. It must have taken me off the $20 for 1 million email addresses, and placed me on the $250 premium list.
Kinda like the footer that spammers had which cliamed their email complied with some HR#1342 blah blah blah. That is when I became suspicious, because I knew something that passed in the house alone was not law.
I was thinking, the problem with spam is two fold. One, the person sending it to you is anonymous. If the spammer believed everyone would know his identity, that would be a deterrent. Second, the spammer has no large costs. This makes for a marketplace where a few individuals will make money at the expense of everyone else.
I have said this before, we have a problem of ethics. Nobody wants to be responsible for what they do. A spammer is more concerned about making money than the inconvenience he causes to millions of people.
My solution is we will have to remove aninimity from the web. Everyone will have to become accountable for what they do.
Two years later, in 2002, E-Pass extended its action by filing similar suits against Compaq and Microsoft. It alleged Microsoft had actually tried to buy the patent for $10 million. E-Pass said if refused to sell, and claimed that Microsoft subsequently behaved as if it had never heard of the patent.
I wonder if we are getting to a point where patents are being used not to protect products a company makes, but to force others to pay for what they make? Can I patent every idea I have, and then sue others who have the same idea and make something of it?
I own the GL1 and it is a horrible video card. It was a pain in the rear to get the driver working. Every time I ran the install, it had to reboot and then it did not recognize the card in anything but 800*640. Once I got the card working, some software would lock up when it changes resolution, like what games do. My experiance with the Fire GL1 is it is a horrible card.
That would be like a music company telling me I could only listen to a CD on 1 stereo system, that if I wanted to listen to the music in my car I would have to buy a second CD. It is BS.
I think it is wrong to monitor end users. When I buy a copy of Word or Office, I should be able to instal it on every PC I own. If they are now monitoring my PC then they have crossed the line. I would like to see a civil liberty group file a lawsuit. What is next, call the local police in Alabama to arrest someone for watching what they consider obscene, the same item which might be fine in New York?
On the large scale, drugs do far more harm than betting on sports. When was the last time someone dropped dead because of a bet they made? With drugs, there are people overdosing all the time. You are the exception, not the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
The USA does not have strict penalties. If we did, it would be a detterent.
We need to have serios penalties for hackers, crackers, and script kiddies. Jail time should be manditory. We also need a better email protocol which would make it difficult to fake headers.
You must not have met my parents, or many people who are not that computer literate. To many, many people a computer is just a tool they use to make life easier. It should not be a full time job to administer.
The problem is with all the hackers, port sniffers, crackers, and the like. I want to see some harsh penalties which send people to jail just for looking.
I know that many computer users do not ever look at computer security, they just plug it in and go. At the best, some of my friends will block ports, but that is about it. They do not check logs, or anything. And how many people out there have a second PC attached by serial cable to log intrusion data? I think if more people secured their systems, then everyones security would increase because there would be less places to launch attacks from. What we need is someone at the major distros to write a program which, when executed, will secure a system. Something which is point and click "easy".
What AOL is doing is forcing other providers to be responsible. If some other provider allows a customer to send mass spam, then AOL is saying they will reject all mail from that provider. The provider will then have to decide, make 99% of its users happy and be civilized, or allow the 1% to spam and therfore be blocked.
Who said they did? Plus, the commerce clause is for congress to pass laws. Unless congress passes a law saying that a ISP has to allow all email to pass, then AOL is in the clear.
And I doubt you could sue. The service provider decides what services you get. It you do not like it, you are free to find another company.
I had AOL for about six months, and it sucked because of all the spam. I left for the opposite reason, that they did little to stop spam.
I would like to see other internet providers follow, especially broadband ISP's.
I personally think it is good that someone is trying to block spam. Now if they could validate forged headers.
That is an older version of the JVM which will be missing some classes that are being used by Java programmers. So much for being up to date.
BTW, why are they only now getting around to offering the Java SDK on BSD? Is there something more difficult about running Java on BSD than on another OS like linux?
At the same time, those who produce these DVD's should not have a monopoly and charge 15x what it costs to produce the product. And they should not release the same DVD over and over and over again to make 20 dollars * 3 times. First comes the DVD with no extras, then the special edition, then the collectors edition.
If you view this from an emotional standpoint, I can see why some would want to screw the movie industry.
"Even if all the technical details are ironed out, I think it will be five years at least before fans are replaced. They are still the cheapest option."
Seems to be a way off. I wonder if in 5 years we will have different processors, where this will not be effective. Think little bacteria or DNA or something organic as a CPU.
I do not think there is work for someone to do DHTML programming. Everything I have seen is going to servlets. Nobody is putting up static pages (No matter what anyone says, JavaScript does not make a page dynamic). Why pay someone 20 dollars an hour in today's market when there are hardcore programmers unemployed, who can write Java servlets and JSP?
I wanted to add one other question. What is wrong with 99% of people in a city, county, or state saying "we do not want x"? To me it is like a senior citizens community saying "no noise at all past 9pm". Differnt communities have different standards.
I think that is why we have federal courts. Look at what is happening in Alabama. The federal courts are doing their job. Plus, this is not China.
Can a computer whiz tell me if this is possible?
I think you are getting at community standards. I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying "We will not allow this". Political speech is always protected, because federal judges are not from the same state as where they hear cases. So if you are in Alabama and get prosecuted for saying something political which is not popular, the federal judge which will hear your case might be from New York or California.
I remember years ago when I responded to the footer "Click here to unsubscribe". Little did I know that was a way spammers varified email addresses. It must have taken me off the $20 for 1 million email addresses, and placed me on the $250 premium list.
Kinda like the footer that spammers had which cliamed their email complied with some HR#1342 blah blah blah. That is when I became suspicious, because I knew something that passed in the house alone was not law.
I have said this before, we have a problem of ethics. Nobody wants to be responsible for what they do. A spammer is more concerned about making money than the inconvenience he causes to millions of people.
My solution is we will have to remove aninimity from the web. Everyone will have to become accountable for what they do.
And to make a living by suing someone else who is making a usefull product is wrong. Society is shooting itself in the foot.
There are too many lawyers. I guess not everyone can get into medical school.
Two years later, in 2002, E-Pass extended its action by filing similar suits against Compaq and Microsoft. It alleged Microsoft had actually tried to buy the patent for $10 million. E-Pass said if refused to sell, and claimed that Microsoft subsequently behaved as if it had never heard of the patent.
I wonder if we are getting to a point where patents are being used not to protect products a company makes, but to force others to pay for what they make? Can I patent every idea I have, and then sue others who have the same idea and make something of it?
I own the GL1 and it is a horrible video card. It was a pain in the rear to get the driver working. Every time I ran the install, it had to reboot and then it did not recognize the card in anything but 800*640. Once I got the card working, some software would lock up when it changes resolution, like what games do. My experiance with the Fire GL1 is it is a horrible card.
That would be like a music company telling me I could only listen to a CD on 1 stereo system, that if I wanted to listen to the music in my car I would have to buy a second CD. It is BS.
I think it is wrong to monitor end users. When I buy a copy of Word or Office, I should be able to instal it on every PC I own. If they are now monitoring my PC then they have crossed the line. I would like to see a civil liberty group file a lawsuit. What is next, call the local police in Alabama to arrest someone for watching what they consider obscene, the same item which might be fine in New York?
On the large scale, drugs do far more harm than betting on sports. When was the last time someone dropped dead because of a bet they made? With drugs, there are people overdosing all the time. You are the exception, not the rule.