I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really get "high" off cigarettes. I get a little woozy off the first one of the morning, but it's not a pleasant feeling. Subsequent cigarettes have no real effect (and I only smoke ten a day). They don't make me more alert, or keep me awake.
It might be that there is an effect, one so subtle as to escape my notice, but if it's that subtle I doubt it factors greatly in my addiction.
If they could invent a drug that would stop me from feeling like Spike Spiegel every time I lit up, maybe they'd have a chance...
... did/. become a forum for moral debates about charity vs. capitalism?
Whether you want to donate or not is your choice. Maybe you want to support open-source. Maybe you prefer that businesses sink or swim on their own. That's your deal. I just don't see why people feel the need to berate one another for their choices. If I want to donate, don't tell me I'm an idiot for throwing away money on a failed business model. If I don't, then don't tell me I'm betraying the ideals of open-source.
Either donate, or don't -- it's not your business what anyone else does.
It'll work if you take out the space before the period. Slashcode feature.
Re:How harmful is spam... REALLY?
on
The Life of a Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hm. My first comment on/.
http://www.eprivacygroup.com/pdfs/SpamByTheNumbers.pdf
I see spam as a threat to ISPs because it makes increased expenditure on bandwidth and filters necessary. Also, as the above link shows, it decreases workplace productivity because people keep having to clean it out of their inboxes.
I get the free-market thing -- I'm a libertarian too. However, I think there's an essential conflict going on between spammers and other businesses. I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to industrial sabotage or anything melodramatic like that, but spam is interfering with businesses by decreasing productivity and increasing costs. I'm pretty weak on economics, but it bothers me that businesses should have to spend money dealing with a problem caused by someone who has no relation to their business whatsoever. It's like having to deal with the "ILOVEYOU" virus -- it sucks up resources and provides no benefit to anyone, anywhere, except the person who is causing problems for everyone else.
The problem is, of course, that you can turn it around and say that ISP filters are interfering with the spammers' business. I'd say, though, that people are going to pay spammers to do mass mailings regardless of whether the mailings get blocked or not. Getting blocked doesn't hurt the spammers' income, in my understanding, whereas the process of blocking hurts ISPs' budgets.
As for the companies who use spam to advertise -- "freedom to market" aside, how many of those companies would pass the standards of the BBB? I don't recall ever receiving spam from a company whose name or credentials I could trust in the slightest. For the reasons I mentioned above, plus the annoyance factor, I view spam as an underhanded, illegitimate advertising technique, and frankly I wouldn't shed a tear if companies who resorted to spam were deprived of their "freedom" to cause other people problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really get "high" off cigarettes. I get a little woozy off the first one of the morning, but it's not a pleasant feeling. Subsequent cigarettes have no real effect (and I only smoke ten a day). They don't make me more alert, or keep me awake.
It might be that there is an effect, one so subtle as to escape my notice, but if it's that subtle I doubt it factors greatly in my addiction.
If they could invent a drug that would stop me from feeling like Spike Spiegel every time I lit up, maybe they'd have a chance...
... did /. become a forum for moral debates about charity vs. capitalism?
Whether you want to donate or not is your choice. Maybe you want to support open-source. Maybe you prefer that businesses sink or swim on their own. That's your deal. I just don't see why people feel the need to berate one another for their choices. If I want to donate, don't tell me I'm an idiot for throwing away money on a failed business model. If I don't, then don't tell me I'm betraying the ideals of open-source.
Either donate, or don't -- it's not your business what anyone else does.
It'll work if you take out the space before the period. Slashcode feature.
Hm. My first comment on /.s .pdf
http://www.eprivacygroup.com/pdfs/SpamByTheNumber
I see spam as a threat to ISPs because it makes increased expenditure on bandwidth and filters necessary. Also, as the above link shows, it decreases workplace productivity because people keep having to clean it out of their inboxes.
I get the free-market thing -- I'm a libertarian too. However, I think there's an essential conflict going on between spammers and other businesses. I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to industrial sabotage or anything melodramatic like that, but spam is interfering with businesses by decreasing productivity and increasing costs. I'm pretty weak on economics, but it bothers me that businesses should have to spend money dealing with a problem caused by someone who has no relation to their business whatsoever. It's like having to deal with the "ILOVEYOU" virus -- it sucks up resources and provides no benefit to anyone, anywhere, except the person who is causing problems for everyone else.
The problem is, of course, that you can turn it around and say that ISP filters are interfering with the spammers' business. I'd say, though, that people are going to pay spammers to do mass mailings regardless of whether the mailings get blocked or not. Getting blocked doesn't hurt the spammers' income, in my understanding, whereas the process of blocking hurts ISPs' budgets.
As for the companies who use spam to advertise -- "freedom to market" aside, how many of those companies would pass the standards of the BBB? I don't recall ever receiving spam from a company whose name or credentials I could trust in the slightest. For the reasons I mentioned above, plus the annoyance factor, I view spam as an underhanded, illegitimate advertising technique, and frankly I wouldn't shed a tear if companies who resorted to spam were deprived of their "freedom" to cause other people problems.