1. Phone conversations trasvel from your phone to the telco through wires or optical cable. This is called "data." 2. Big Company down the street (which includes the mall, your electricity provider, and other companies you do business with) sends more data through the wires than individual users like you, so the telcos want to charge them more. 3. If they do this, your cost for goods and services will go up because Big Company must extend its increased phone costs to its customers. 4. Although Big Company sends more data than you, they already pay more for it in the number of lines coming into the building, taxes, and special service fees. 5. Each time you call Big Company, it will cost them and you more money, from which the telco profits. 6. Data is data, whether voice or computer data on the internet (it all travels over the same wires and cables, and voice data gets converted to computer/digital data at some point, anyway). 7. "Net neutrality" means the telco cannot disctiminate between Big Company data and your data and charge more or less accordingly. 8. Vote for me 'cause I'm smart, I make things go, and I look for things.
Here, now, is an amazing thing. The parent posed relevant thought.question, which got modded "Offtopic." Yet, the majority conversation thread from that point on was entirely based on the parent post's question. Ergo, is not the entire thread "Offtopic"?
Lest I be chastised, I will refrain from using the term "irony."
All this hand-wringing and pontificating about the evils and abuses of Microsoft is fine and good, but how do we fix it? What program do we disable or ports do we block to keep Gates and Balmer out of our private business?
"Permission is expressly granted to any person who wishes to place a link in his or her own website to www.accesscopyright.ca or any of its pages with the following exception: in order to protect the moral rights associated with this site, permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright. Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content. "
_joke_ Does that mean Slashdot violated their policy? _joke_
As stated in a comment in a related story http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/132 2258 , the spammers own and control the internet; the internet is no longer free (not as in beer); we must pay obesience to the owners by allowing their spam in out inboxes; and I, for one, do NOT welcome our spam-spewing overlords.
It is a bit like street gangs: So long as you allow them to graffiti "tag" your buildings/houses, sell drugs on the corner, and otherwise flaunt their "ownership" of "their turf," they allow you to co-exist more or less peacefully. If you start complaining to cops, covering up or removing their grafitti, or otherwise interfering with them, they visit retribution on you and yours without regard to "collateral damage."
"'m sure ISPs, telecom companies, and small business associations don't like having their bandwidth filled with spam, scams, and phishing."
You think not? All but the latter *make* money off spam by charging for bandwidth that SOMEBODY has to pay for (not the spammers, of course). Why do you think that no major ISP (with the possible exception of AOL) has taken a hardline stance against *outgoing* spam? Comcast, Road Runner, SBC Global, Sprint, Time-Warner Telecom, et al have a ho-hum attitude about spam. I wonder why?
"a) got our legislators to actually REALLY ban spam..."
That will never happen because:
1. the "Direct Marketing" lobby greases politicians caimpaign palms 2. I doubt even ONE legislator understands what spam is and what it costs (not one of them reads his own email before some aid pre-screens it) 3. ??? 4/ Profit! (always the politico's overriding concern)
"The problem with your premise is that poor grammar obscures meaning."
You are, of course, correct. However, often clear (or unclear) meaning is more a matter of syntax and construction than grammar. The meaning of "the capacitor don't conduct no DC current" is clear, albeit grammatically terrible.
As a professional writer and editor (as well as an engineer/programmer in a past life), I have to weigh in on this grammar business.
The relative importance of grammar varies according to target audience/readership. An audience of engineers doesn't give a fat hairy ray's ass about grammar; they are interested only in information/facts. However, an audience of business leaders/managers, arts majors, etc. pay stricter attention to gammar and construction aesthetics, and will judge the writer's knowledge (perhaps even intelligence) based on the writing.
The fairness of the latter notwithstanding, it remains a fact of importance when communicating ideas. Two engineering proposals might express identical ideas, but the best written one is chosen almost invariably because the perception is that the writer "knows what he is talking about."
Do not discount the importance of grammar and good writing in an engineering environment. Think of it this way: If two pieces of code accomplish the same task, but one is bloated and top-heavy with overhead and the other is simple, elegant, and straightforward, which would an engineer label "good" code? And, were that engineer a manager, which would he buy? In like manner, which of two written proposals (with identical ideas) would a non-engineer be more likely to accept, the well-written or the poorly-written one?
Having read your post, I can tell ypou I do the same thing via Spamcop--for all the good it does. My experience is that the major ISPs (Comcast, Road Runner, SBCGlobal, et al)--who are also the worst "offnders" when it comes to spam-spewing zombies--rarely take any action. Occasionally, small to mid-size ISPs take action, but that is rare.
Bluefrog has the right idea: Make to cost of spamming more than it returns for the object of the spam, and the incentive to spam goes away.
You do not understand how the system works. It is designed to PREVENT the spammer learning your or anoy other member's email address.
The opt-out request instructs the spammer to download and *encrypted* list of member email addresses from Blue Security, which the spammer then uses to "wash" his spam list and rid it of member addresses. The spammer never sees any legitimate email addresses.
"Just turn on the "junk mail" controls and start marking those emails as junk."
To what end? Just delete and move on? Forget about it?
Sorry, my idealistic chum, but a crime has been committed. Specifically, theft. Of my bandwidth. That I pay for. That makes it personal. I want a pound of flesh, literal or cyber.
...to correct the injustice of the parent being modded "Troll." The poster asked a legitimate question, but it seems to have rankled a Firefox fanboy with mod points.
Just for grins, I entered "anal sex" at the CENSEARCHIP site and hit "Image Search."
Results:
China: About 855 results United States: About 683,000 results
The images retrieved and displayed were, to say the least, markedly different.
One would think a country with mandatory birth control would want its citizens to know all about about non-reproductive sex techniques, and encourage them.
"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."
But that is not what Pirate Bay does. What they do is the equivalent to you telling someone, "Hey, they have music CDs at the corner store." If the person then goes to the corner store and steals a CD, well, that's his problem, not yours.
Oh, yeah? Well, if he invented coffee, why didn't he patent it and create the CIAA (Coffee Inventors Actors Association), huh? Huh? Answer that one, smarty-pants! Oh, wait....
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of the Unifon Alphabet? http://www.unifon.org/
How's this:
1. Phone conversations trasvel from your phone to the telco through wires or optical cable. This is called "data."
2. Big Company down the street (which includes the mall, your electricity provider, and other companies you do business with) sends more data through the wires than individual users like you, so the telcos want to charge them more.
3. If they do this, your cost for goods and services will go up because Big Company must extend its increased phone costs to its customers.
4. Although Big Company sends more data than you, they already pay more for it in the number of lines coming into the building, taxes, and special service fees.
5. Each time you call Big Company, it will cost them and you more money, from which the telco profits.
6. Data is data, whether voice or computer data on the internet (it all travels over the same wires and cables, and voice data gets converted to computer/digital data at some point, anyway).
7. "Net neutrality" means the telco cannot disctiminate between Big Company data and your data and charge more or less accordingly.
8. Vote for me 'cause I'm smart, I make things go, and I look for things.
Here, now, is an amazing thing. The parent posed relevant thought.question, which got modded "Offtopic." Yet, the majority conversation thread from that point on was entirely based on the parent post's question. Ergo, is not the entire thread "Offtopic"?
Lest I be chastised, I will refrain from using the term "irony."
All this hand-wringing and pontificating about the evils and abuses of Microsoft is fine and good, but how do we fix it? What program do we disable or ports do we block to keep Gates and Balmer out of our private business?
You're just jealous because you didn't think of it first.
Although, I am grateful and appreciative of your subtlty in correcting my spelling of "maelstrom."
Holy Edgar Allen Poe, Batman!
http://www.online-literature.com/poe/26/
"Permission is expressly granted to any person who wishes to place a link in his or her own website to www.accesscopyright.ca or any of its pages with the following exception: in order to protect the moral rights associated with this site, permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright. Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content. "
_joke_ Does that mean Slashdot violated their policy? _joke_
As stated in a comment in a related story http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/132 2258 , the spammers own and control the internet; the internet is no longer free (not as in beer); we must pay obesience to the owners by allowing their spam in out inboxes; and I, for one, do NOT welcome our spam-spewing overlords.
It is a bit like street gangs: So long as you allow them to graffiti "tag" your buildings/houses, sell drugs on the corner, and otherwise flaunt their "ownership" of "their turf," they allow you to co-exist more or less peacefully. If you start complaining to cops, covering up or removing their grafitti, or otherwise interfering with them, they visit retribution on you and yours without regard to "collateral damage."
The spammers must be stopped.
"'m sure ISPs, telecom companies, and small business associations don't like having their bandwidth filled with spam, scams, and phishing."
You think not? All but the latter *make* money off spam by charging for bandwidth that SOMEBODY has to pay for (not the spammers, of course). Why do you think that no major ISP (with the possible exception of AOL) has taken a hardline stance against *outgoing* spam? Comcast, Road Runner, SBC Global, Sprint, Time-Warner Telecom, et al have a ho-hum attitude about spam. I wonder why?
"What a cromulent notion!"
PharmaMaster, is that you?
"a) got our legislators to actually REALLY ban spam..."
That will never happen because:
1. the "Direct Marketing" lobby greases politicians caimpaign palms
2. I doubt even ONE legislator understands what spam is and what it costs (not one of them reads his own email before some aid pre-screens it)
3. ???
4/ Profit! (always the politico's overriding concern)
This episode proves that the spammers own and control the internet.
The internet is no longer free (not as in beer). We must pay obesience to the owners by allowing their spam in out inboxes.
I, for one, do NOT welcome our spam-spewing overlords.
"The problem with your premise is that poor grammar obscures meaning."
You are, of course, correct. However, often clear (or unclear) meaning is more a matter of syntax and construction than grammar. The meaning of "the capacitor don't conduct no DC current" is clear, albeit grammatically terrible.
As a professional writer and editor (as well as an engineer/programmer in a past life), I have to weigh in on this grammar business.
The relative importance of grammar varies according to target audience/readership. An audience of engineers doesn't give a fat hairy ray's ass about grammar; they are interested only in information/facts. However, an audience of business leaders/managers, arts majors, etc. pay stricter attention to gammar and construction aesthetics, and will judge the writer's knowledge (perhaps even intelligence) based on the writing.
The fairness of the latter notwithstanding, it remains a fact of importance when communicating ideas. Two engineering proposals might express identical ideas, but the best written one is chosen almost invariably because the perception is that the writer "knows what he is talking about."
Do not discount the importance of grammar and good writing in an engineering environment. Think of it this way: If two pieces of code accomplish the same task, but one is bloated and top-heavy with overhead and the other is simple, elegant, and straightforward, which would an engineer label "good" code? And, were that engineer a manager, which would he buy? In like manner, which of two written proposals (with identical ideas) would a non-engineer be more likely to accept, the well-written or the poorly-written one?
Having read your post, I can tell ypou I do the same thing via Spamcop--for all the good it does. My experience is that the major ISPs (Comcast, Road Runner, SBCGlobal, et al)--who are also the worst "offnders" when it comes to spam-spewing zombies--rarely take any action. Occasionally, small to mid-size ISPs take action, but that is rare.
Bluefrog has the right idea: Make to cost of spamming more than it returns for the object of the spam, and the incentive to spam goes away.
You do not understand how the system works. It is designed to PREVENT the spammer learning your or anoy other member's email address.
The opt-out request instructs the spammer to download and *encrypted* list of member email addresses from Blue Security, which the spammer then uses to "wash" his spam list and rid it of member addresses. The spammer never sees any legitimate email addresses.
"Just turn on the "junk mail" controls and start marking those emails as junk."
To what end? Just delete and move on? Forget about it?
Sorry, my idealistic chum, but a crime has been committed. Specifically, theft. Of my bandwidth. That I pay for. That makes it personal. I want a pound of flesh, literal or cyber.
"Harassment is not a way to save your business."
It is much more than harassment, it is a federal crime called extortion.
I hope Blue Security makes such a complaint to the FBI. These assclown spammers are compounding crime with more crime.
They really *should* be locked up in a labor camp for the crime known in the former Soviet Union as "parasitism."
You call it PPP: Pre-Production Prototype
...to correct the injustice of the parent being modded "Troll." The poster asked a legitimate question, but it seems to have rankled a Firefox fanboy with mod points.
Just for grins, I entered "anal sex" at the CENSEARCHIP site and hit "Image Search."
Results:
China: About 855 results
United States: About 683,000 results
The images retrieved and displayed were, to say the least, markedly different.
One would think a country with mandatory birth control would want its citizens to know all about about non-reproductive sex techniques, and encourage them.
"Regardless of the rationalization there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD."
But that is not what Pirate Bay does. What they do is the equivalent to you telling someone, "Hey, they have music CDs at the corner store." If the person then goes to the corner store and steals a CD, well, that's his problem, not yours.
Oh, yeah? Well, if he invented coffee, why didn't he patent it and create the CIAA (Coffee Inventors Actors Association), huh? Huh? Answer that one, smarty-pants! Oh, wait....
Berry-boiling sheep herders notwithstanding, nobody "invented" coffee, but merely discovered it.
That's like saying a prospector digging for gold invented oil.
How do we know that all that info is not just a bunch of red herrings to throw us off the track and keep us distracted?