Your "logic" would lead to making robbery, theft, murder, rape, etc legal.
The reward or punishment you derive from these only depends on who you doing it for. The Americans are already doing those things in Iraq, but that's another thread. Unless you have money invested in the prison infrastructure, you will derive no benefit from locking up spammers. Unless pure, sweet revenge gets you off.
That's what made me post in the first place, when you posted "It's consensual"
No, I said it's consensual between buyer and seller. Let's take the politics out of it and work towards a FAIR technological solution.
If your side wins, email becomes useless.
Of course that's not true. It will become different, possibly incompatable with the present system(but can be emulated). Contrary to popular belief, different is not always bad.
Pro-spam, eh? That's a good one. Like the filters I use, I'm just getting better at minimizing it. Maybe I should have been a spammer. I could have retired by now. The only thing I'm saying is that legal solutions won't work. It will be selectively enforced like all our laws. To me, that's worse than the original offense. Not being a mind reader, I am uncertain as to how that got twisted into being pro-spam. It's our mad desire for money, that brings on all this crap. Maybe we should look into that...no?
Apparently, you're just as inflexable on this as I appear to be to you. Go ahead. Lock 'em up. I'm going invest in the rapidly growing prison industry. I'll make millions and you will still be deleting spam. Or maybe you already have a big stake in it now. If filling the jails is making you rich with said investments, then I can understand your point of view. It appears that you have learned well from our experience with prohibition.
Maybe, instead of limiting the size of the attachments, the free e-mail services should limit the number of e-mails you can send for free. Say 10-50? Would that be enough for most users?
I sure hope everybody checks out that site (Paul Graham). It's good to see people actually producing a solution, instead of screaming "Lock 'em up!". It's what I've been encouraging the readers here to do. The filters that I use keep the problem managable.
Arguing with someone who (as an inescapable corrolary) thinks that the solution to burglary is to convince everyone not to buy from fences is an exersize in futility.
The real solution is to put bars in the window. Or do you actually have a FAIR legal solution, that will be enforced upon everybody equally? Sounds just as futile to me. If it's so impossible to stop people from buying from spammers or fences, what makes you think we can stop spam or burglary? The best we can do is to minimize it, unless we eliminate the desire for money.
If you can be positive you have the right guy, I find nothing wrong with taking all their property, RICO style. The basic reason I don't like using the law as opposed to technological solutions is that we DON'T have equal protection under the law. The law does not apply to politically connected people. Prohibition has proven this. The well connected can even get away with murder. You know who I am talking about. With the rampant hypocracy in the system today, don't expect much respect for the law. I have mixed feelings about private property, and can not say whether the gov't shuold protect what might not be yours to begin with. Just because you paid money for something doesn't automatically make it yours. You may have bought stolen property. Stolen has a broad meaning here, from a candy bar in a store all the way up to Indian land in North America.
I didn't say you consent to recieving spam, but obviously your neighbors and many others do. As long they consent, you are going to recieve spam also. Use and improve your filters, look for or develope better protocols, and quit your belly aching. Making it illegal will only make it more profitable due to the risks involved. The black market is always more profitable, and it's off the books and tax free. Or haven't you learned anything from prohibition, past and present. Economics will always trump law.
The fact that you keep saying "It's consensual" and are dead set against making it illegal tells me that you are very likely a spammer.
That's funny as hell. The false ussumptions made on me are merely amusing (and fun to read). The only bad part of that is when you make false assumptions against others that can really cause harm. And since you're so quick to assume, I guess I can also assume that you are very quick to find people guilty of whatever without having all the facts. Kind of like the guy living at 1600 Pennsilvania Ave.
You certainly are defending them.
You're either with us or against us. Is that the way it works?? Again, another false assumption. The fact is, you just need to look at the problem(and it is a problem) from another angle. Any attempt to use the law is just going to nail too many innocents. That is why technology is the only fair solution. If we cut the petty politics, I'm sure a solution could be found within a year.
The car's computer could send the data overseas to be asessed(?). Then the repair instructions sent to a mechanic, who doesn't know which end of the screwdriver to hit, at home. The cushy part of the job goes away and the "home team" does all the grunt work.
Who?? Al-Qaida or the KKK? Americans are more dangerous to Americans than the Palestinians are. Does worldwide terrorism kill more people than drunk drivers in America? Hell, I don't know. The middle east is only an issue because of the money involved. Once we get the oil monkey off our back, we will forget about the middle east or we'll just give Israel mo' money and tell them to go ahead and take the whole region. We don't need it anymore.
The culture of the middle east is simply an intolerant one.
Heh...come with me to east Texas...or even some parts of the middle west
C'mon folks. Let's build those elevated mag lev tubes, and quit worrying about how expensive cars are getting. (Heh..still remembering my dad's '64 Lincoln at a whopping $4,000usd brand new)
They probably have gone after third partys for making "bootleg" parts (a real problem in the aviation industry, for safety reasons, not IP stupidity. Actually, I'n not sure about that even. I think Lycoming went after Superior Air Parts over IP. Can't remember). The whole third party parts issue will become moot when RFID tags become common, working like key fobs. If the tag is not detected, the car won't run.
I'm not defending spammers, but you all taking the wrong attitude on this. The fact is that spamming is profitable for only one reason. Because people buy from spammers.It IS that simple, and the ONLY fair social solution is to get people to stop buying. I know you think jail is great and all, but you should know by now that it won't work. And you are only lying to yourselves if you think it does. As long as you want to live in a capitalist society, and as long as spam is profitable, the problem will last longer than war in the Middle East. In the meantime use your filters. Write better ones to help minimize the problem, because in today's (or any other day's) world I can guarantee that you won't eliminate it. Just make sure your nukes are bigger than theirs.
Cry me a river. Mommy, mommy, he filled my box with stuff. Make him stand in the corner for five years. Yeah, that'll fix 'em. Find another way to get your damn mail. I have absolutely NO sympathy for people who think jail is the answer for everything. Go tell your neighbors to quit buying from the spammers. The problem will NOT go away unless people stop buying, or a technical solution comes along. And all yer cussin' won't change THAT.
I don't have sufficient information to debate this, but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect, unless they "insourced" a bunch of Americans to build their nukes and such. Anyway, this here is "arguments". You want "abuse". That's down the hall. Stupid git:-)
I'm not sure what part of "buyer" you don't understand, but without the buyer, there would be no spam. Unless you know something else that could fuel it. Technical solutions are, or will be available. Let's go that route. Until you take out the profits, this little arms race will continue. Jail or no jail. I would like to think that we might learn something from our experience with prohibition, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
... the threat of being bankrupted by an legal battle can be at least as coercive as the threat of having your legs broken with a baseball bat, so why should one be legal, and the other not?
I looked at opensecrets.com, and I couldn't find any politicians that recieved donations from mob bosses(or their underlings)
Re:Maybe it is because we are skeptical...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
There are just too many of us.
Do a little traveling. You'll find that most of the planet is still quite empty. The water problem is merely a matter of making it profitable to collect rain falling over the ocean and piping it in. However, if we were to turn the deserts green, you would probably see some REAL climate change with all that new moisture we pump into the air.
That's right. The subject that WEREN'T kid friendly were history and english.(too many essay questions:-)). Catechism(sp) was particularly harsh.(lousy catholics)
Where are the parents in this equation? There are a lot of those that aren't so kid friendly either. Actually, I should cut them some slack, since, thanks to "trickle down" both parents have to work now. So now the kid comes home to MTV, where they can learn the priciples of physics on Jackass.
You forgot the slide rule. It's a good tool that requires no electricity, is fairly precise(Used to design the SR-71), it can graphically show relationship amongst nembers, and it's fun to play with.
Slashdot Mirror
Your "logic" would lead to making robbery, theft, murder, rape, etc legal.
The reward or punishment you derive from these only depends on who you doing it for. The Americans are already doing those things in Iraq, but that's another thread. Unless you have money invested in the prison infrastructure, you will derive no benefit from locking up spammers. Unless pure, sweet revenge gets you off.
That's what made me post in the first place, when you posted "It's consensual"
No, I said it's consensual between buyer and seller. Let's take the politics out of it and work towards a FAIR technological solution.
If your side wins, email becomes useless.
Of course that's not true. It will become different, possibly incompatable with the present system(but can be emulated). Contrary to popular belief, different is not always bad.
Pro-spam, eh? That's a good one. Like the filters I use, I'm just getting better at minimizing it. Maybe I should have been a spammer. I could have retired by now. The only thing I'm saying is that legal solutions won't work. It will be selectively enforced like all our laws. To me, that's worse than the original offense. Not being a mind reader, I am uncertain as to how that got twisted into being pro-spam. It's our mad desire for money, that brings on all this crap. Maybe we should look into that...no?
...you will go to jail.
Apparently, you're just as inflexable on this as I appear to be to you. Go ahead. Lock 'em up. I'm going invest in the rapidly growing prison industry. I'll make millions and you will still be deleting spam. Or maybe you already have a big stake in it now. If filling the jails is making you rich with said investments, then I can understand your point of view. It appears that you have learned well from our experience with prohibition.
Maybe, instead of limiting the size of the attachments, the free e-mail services should limit the number of e-mails you can send for free. Say 10-50? Would that be enough for most users?
I sure hope everybody checks out that site (Paul Graham). It's good to see people actually producing a solution, instead of screaming "Lock 'em up!". It's what I've been encouraging the readers here to do. The filters that I use keep the problem managable.
Arguing with someone who (as an inescapable corrolary) thinks that the solution to burglary is to convince everyone not to buy from fences is an exersize in futility.
The real solution is to put bars in the window. Or do you actually have a FAIR legal solution, that will be enforced upon everybody equally? Sounds just as futile to me. If it's so impossible to stop people from buying from spammers or fences, what makes you think we can stop spam or burglary? The best we can do is to minimize it, unless we eliminate the desire for money.
If you can be positive you have the right guy, I find nothing wrong with taking all their property, RICO style. The basic reason I don't like using the law as opposed to technological solutions is that we DON'T have equal protection under the law. The law does not apply to politically connected people. Prohibition has proven this. The well connected can even get away with murder. You know who I am talking about. With the rampant hypocracy in the system today, don't expect much respect for the law. I have mixed feelings about private property, and can not say whether the gov't shuold protect what might not be yours to begin with. Just because you paid money for something doesn't automatically make it yours. You may have bought stolen property. Stolen has a broad meaning here, from a candy bar in a store all the way up to Indian land in North America.
I didn't say you consent to recieving spam, but obviously your neighbors and many others do. As long they consent, you are going to recieve spam also. Use and improve your filters, look for or develope better protocols, and quit your belly aching. Making it illegal will only make it more profitable due to the risks involved. The black market is always more profitable, and it's off the books and tax free. Or haven't you learned anything from prohibition, past and present. Economics will always trump law.
The fact that you keep saying "It's consensual" and are dead set against making it illegal tells me that you are very likely a spammer.
That's funny as hell. The false ussumptions made on me are merely amusing (and fun to read). The only bad part of that is when you make false assumptions against others that can really cause harm. And since you're so quick to assume, I guess I can also assume that you are very quick to find people guilty of whatever without having all the facts. Kind of like the guy living at 1600 Pennsilvania Ave.
You certainly are defending them.
You're either with us or against us. Is that the way it works?? Again, another false assumption. The fact is, you just need to look at the problem(and it is a problem) from another angle. Any attempt to use the law is just going to nail too many innocents. That is why technology is the only fair solution. If we cut the petty politics, I'm sure a solution could be found within a year.
The car's computer could send the data overseas to be asessed(?). Then the repair instructions sent to a mechanic, who doesn't know which end of the screwdriver to hit, at home. The cushy part of the job goes away and the "home team" does all the grunt work.
It also produces more OOOOHHH's and AAAAHHH's.
They're intolerant, racist, anti-semitic bastards.
Who?? Al-Qaida or the KKK? Americans are more dangerous to Americans than the Palestinians are. Does worldwide terrorism kill more people than drunk drivers in America? Hell, I don't know. The middle east is only an issue because of the money involved. Once we get the oil monkey off our back, we will forget about the middle east or we'll just give Israel mo' money and tell them to go ahead and take the whole region. We don't need it anymore.
The culture of the middle east is simply an intolerant one.
Heh...come with me to east Texas...or even some parts of the middle west
C'mon folks. Let's build those elevated mag lev tubes, and quit worrying about how expensive cars are getting. (Heh..still remembering my dad's '64 Lincoln at a whopping $4,000usd brand new)
They probably have gone after third partys for making "bootleg" parts (a real problem in the aviation industry, for safety reasons, not IP stupidity. Actually, I'n not sure about that even. I think Lycoming went after Superior Air Parts over IP. Can't remember). The whole third party parts issue will become moot when RFID tags become common, working like key fobs. If the tag is not detected, the car won't run.
I'm not defending spammers, but you all taking the wrong attitude on this. The fact is that spamming is profitable for only one reason. Because people buy from spammers.It IS that simple, and the ONLY fair social solution is to get people to stop buying. I know you think jail is great and all, but you should know by now that it won't work. And you are only lying to yourselves if you think it does. As long as you want to live in a capitalist society, and as long as spam is profitable, the problem will last longer than war in the Middle East. In the meantime use your filters. Write better ones to help minimize the problem, because in today's (or any other day's) world I can guarantee that you won't eliminate it. Just make sure your nukes are bigger than theirs.
...and I'm a victim...
Cry me a river. Mommy, mommy, he filled my box with stuff. Make him stand in the corner for five years. Yeah, that'll fix 'em. Find another way to get your damn mail. I have absolutely NO sympathy for people who think jail is the answer for everything. Go tell your neighbors to quit buying from the spammers. The problem will NOT go away unless people stop buying, or a technical solution comes along. And all yer cussin' won't change THAT.
#define amnot (uid=723125)
...to beat off your attackers .......
Uh, you may want to re-phrase that.
...through the courts without any regard for ethics.
No matter how we label it, all decisions will based on economics(is it worth fighting?) There's nothing ethical about it.
I don't have sufficient information to debate this, but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect, unless they "insourced" a bunch of Americans to build their nukes and such. Anyway, this here is "arguments". You want "abuse". That's down the hall. Stupid git :-)
I'm not sure what part of "buyer" you don't understand, but without the buyer, there would be no spam. Unless you know something else that could fuel it. Technical solutions are, or will be available. Let's go that route. Until you take out the profits, this little arms race will continue. Jail or no jail. I would like to think that we might learn something from our experience with prohibition, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
... the threat of being bankrupted by an legal battle can be at least as coercive as the threat of having your legs broken with a baseball bat, so why should one be legal, and the other not?
I looked at opensecrets.com, and I couldn't find any politicians that recieved donations from mob bosses(or their underlings)
There are just too many of us.
Do a little traveling. You'll find that most of the planet is still quite empty. The water problem is merely a matter of making it profitable to collect rain falling over the ocean and piping it in. However, if we were to turn the deserts green, you would probably see some REAL climate change with all that new moisture we pump into the air.
That's right. The subject that WEREN'T kid friendly were history and english.(too many essay questions:-)). Catechism(sp) was particularly harsh.(lousy catholics)
Where are the parents in this equation? There are a lot of those that aren't so kid friendly either. Actually, I should cut them some slack, since, thanks to "trickle down" both parents have to work now. So now the kid comes home to MTV, where they can learn the priciples of physics on Jackass.
You forgot the slide rule. It's a good tool that requires no electricity, is fairly precise(Used to design the SR-71), it can graphically show relationship amongst nembers, and it's fun to play with.
If a teacher can't teach up to a standard, then they should be removed.
Under the current conditions, we won't have any teachers left. We might just have to outsource our kids to India for them to get a decent education.