Re:Don't like it? Start a business!
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're basically arguing here from the assumption that a free market solves most or all problems, something that a reasonable person could easily disagree with.
As opposed to... the government? What reasonable person says, hey, there's a problem, I think the government should solve that. They do such a great job at everything else they try. Seriously.
I don't see why we are always fighting this problem at the reception end, rather than the source. Spam filters can work quite well, but why are they mostly applied right at the very endpoint of the chain? I'd be very happy for some basic filtering to take place on my outgoing mail at the ISP level. If it meant the odd automatic email with a captcha saying "are you sure you intended to send this mail?" before a spammy-looking email went out, thats fine with me, and wouldn't that approach cut down on all those twits whose PC's are part of a botnet without them realising it?
The vast majority of spam is being sent from home Windows machines that have been taken over by viruses and are under the control of the spammers.
For this to work on this scale, you have to understand that the big broadband companies, worldwide, have literally millions of customers whose computers effectively belong to someone else, and are routinely used to commit illegal acts, some worse than spamming (ie. widescale DDoS's).
Since these ISP's can't seem to get their shit together well enough to even start to put a dent in this problem, do you really imagine that they are going to take the time to filter the outbound mail from these machines?
Using a C/R system makes you a spammer. I refuse to communicate with spammers. No one's C/R will ever see a response from me, other than explicitly blocking all their C/R crap within my own mail system.
Of course, the US government had a great opportunity to make spam a crime, but the opt-out nature of the legislation meant it was bit of a damp squib.
The entire point of CAN-SPAM was to preempt state legislation that did in fact make spam a crime (or at least something individuals could sue for). The bill was basically authored by the Direct Marketing Association. The feds, for the most part, never had a single intention of making spam a crime.
In addition, of course, I see "out of office" and similar replies from individual mailboxes. Are these merely the indication of mail servers that have not implemented SPF on their (receiving) end? While that doesn't seem illogical, it seems just too easy. In other words, this issue has made me a little paranoid, and I just want to make sure I'm not relying overly much on SPF.
Very, very few mail servers check SPF. It would not be possible to rely overly much on SPF.
Having to accept an unskilled position is not starving to death. It's doing what is necessary to take care of yourself. Are you seriously suggesting that money stolen from taxpayers should be used to pay people just because they are unwilling to work in a job in something other than their chosen field?
53k is a lot less than most experienced IT people in Vancouver make, and we get dinged for a lot of transit taxes and stuff, too. Your marginal rate at 53K is already over 40%, so imagine how much more taxes people pay as they make more.
Does make we wish I could find good Linux work outside of Vancouver, though. My condo probably costs as much as your 10 acres:( I grew up living lakeside in northern Ontario, and I really miss the peace and quiet.
They still have the same average spending power, which means that no one is "poorer" for their lack of resources. But they're happy, and together, they've built something: a society, where people feel wanted and protected and cared for, so that they don't feel the need to sleep with guns in the drawer, or shoot their classmates.
Interesting fantasy world. In the socialist country that I live, we have a significant percentage (probably 25%) of the population who basically choose to do nothing, instead leaching off the rest of society, who in turn feel increasingly resentful of the money being stolen from them to support the leeches.
Oh, and every few weeks the leeches go out and protest that we aren't giving them enough for doing nothing.
And all the while, everyone's standard of living continues to slip.
It's at least 50% in Canada if you make any decent amount of money. 14% sales taxes, property taxes, fees for blah blah blah, it all adds up, and that's on top of an income tax that tops out at over 60% all by itself.
Oil that can't start to be extracted until 2010, and not in full production until 2013. And that may or may not exceed a few hundred million barrels. Hardly.
People keep saying we're taxed like crazy, but I think it's an illusion because of the way we add sales tax (taxes if you're in a province with a provincial sales tax) at the register instead of hiding it.
The average Canadian family pays about 50% of their income in taxes of one form or another. If you and your spouse both work, at least one of you is working solely to pay taxes. How is that not crazy?
Of course, Americans pay a lot of taxes, too, they just seem to somehow think they don't. And if you add in the cost of medical insurance, the total bill is probably similar, or even higher. Someone has to pay for that gigantic military.
If that were even remotely true, we would have no reserves whatsoever. Also, gas prices wouldn't have dropped through the floor in the last few weeks.
Removing it from the ground is not "generating" it. It's extracting a finite resource.
Gas prices dropped through the floor because the summer driving season ended and because the Gulf didn't get creamed by hurricanes this year. The price was also artificially high for current production/demand. That doesn't change the fact that most of the oil exporting countries are in production decline, and the ones that aren't will be soon, at which point things will start getting really nasty.
So why hasn't http://www.paypalsucks.com/ [paypalsucks.com] been sued out of existance? If you do business with someone and do get ripped off, you SHOULD be within rights to let people know.
Yes, absolutely. You just have to be prepared to defend your actions in court if you do so.
Claiming that you did business with someone and that they ripped you off is not "expressing your opinion", it is deliberately trying to hurt someone's livelihood. Civil court is the proper place to defend oneself against that sort of attack. In the US, if you're telling the truth, you can certainly say it, but you may have to defend yourself in court.
Although the reward is certainly far in excess of any real damage that could have been done, the principle is sound. If you mouth off about someone, you had better make sure you can prove you're telling the truth and be prepared to do so in a court of law.
It could be worse. In many other countries (including my own) you can be successfully sued for defaming someone even if you can prove that what you said is the truth. Now that stifles free speech.
Because asshole spammers and the greedy ISP's who support them ruined it for everyone. You have to block a significant percentage of email to make the remainder usable, and false positives are an inevitable result of doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
You're basically arguing here from the assumption that a free market solves most or all problems, something that a reasonable person could easily disagree with.
... the government? What reasonable person says, hey, there's a problem, I think the government should solve that. They do such a great job at everything else they try. Seriously.
As opposed to
Is there really a reason why people still use the word "Communist" as a sort of bogeyman?
Probably because all Communist regimes really were, and continue to be, pretty much pure evil.
A German guy was going to make one, but then he went on vacation for 8 weeks and forgot about it.
I don't see why we are always fighting this problem at the reception end, rather than the source. Spam filters can work quite well, but why are they mostly applied right at the very endpoint of the chain?
I'd be very happy for some basic filtering to take place on my outgoing mail at the ISP level. If it meant the odd automatic email with a captcha saying "are you sure you intended to send this mail?" before a spammy-looking email went out, thats fine with me, and wouldn't that approach cut down on all those twits whose PC's are part of a botnet without them realising it?
The vast majority of spam is being sent from home Windows machines that have been taken over by viruses and are under the control of the spammers.
For this to work on this scale, you have to understand that the big broadband companies, worldwide, have literally millions of customers whose computers effectively belong to someone else, and are routinely used to commit illegal acts, some worse than spamming (ie. widescale DDoS's).
Since these ISP's can't seem to get their shit together well enough to even start to put a dent in this problem, do you really imagine that they are going to take the time to filter the outbound mail from these machines?
SpamHaus is mostly dedicated spammers and botnet listings, very few open relays per se.
Depends on the software, but it probably happens when the message has multiple recipients on your server.
Most of the mail you get is from forged addresses in spam. Sending C/R's to those addresses makes you a spammer.
Using a C/R system makes you a spammer. I refuse to communicate with spammers. No one's C/R will ever see a response from me, other than explicitly blocking all their C/R crap within my own mail system.
Of course, the US government had a great opportunity to make spam a crime, but the opt-out nature of the legislation meant it was bit of a damp squib.
The entire point of CAN-SPAM was to preempt state legislation that did in fact make spam a crime (or at least something individuals could sue for). The bill was basically authored by the Direct Marketing Association. The feds, for the most part, never had a single intention of making spam a crime.
In addition, of course, I see "out of office" and similar replies from individual mailboxes. Are these merely the indication of mail servers that have not implemented SPF on their (receiving) end? While that doesn't seem illogical, it seems just too easy. In other words, this issue has made me a little paranoid, and I just want to make sure I'm not relying overly much on SPF.
Very, very few mail servers check SPF. It would not be possible to rely overly much on SPF.
I don't see any significant way that they differ from a government agency.
There's one. Your phone works.
Really, no one has ever emailed you a real picture?
Having to accept an unskilled position is not starving to death. It's doing what is necessary to take care of yourself. Are you seriously suggesting that money stolen from taxpayers should be used to pay people just because they are unwilling to work in a job in something other than their chosen field?
53k is a lot less than most experienced IT people in Vancouver make, and we get dinged for a lot of transit taxes and stuff, too. Your marginal rate at 53K is already over 40%, so imagine how much more taxes people pay as they make more.
:( I grew up living lakeside in northern Ontario, and I really miss the peace and quiet.
Does make we wish I could find good Linux work outside of Vancouver, though. My condo probably costs as much as your 10 acres
They still have the same average spending power, which means that no one is "poorer" for their lack of resources. But they're happy, and together, they've built something: a society, where people feel wanted and protected and cared for, so that they don't feel the need to sleep with guns in the drawer, or shoot their classmates.
Interesting fantasy world. In the socialist country that I live, we have a significant percentage (probably 25%) of the population who basically choose to do nothing, instead leaching off the rest of society, who in turn feel increasingly resentful of the money being stolen from them to support the leeches.
Oh, and every few weeks the leeches go out and protest that we aren't giving them enough for doing nothing.
And all the while, everyone's standard of living continues to slip.
It's at least 50% in Canada if you make any decent amount of money. 14% sales taxes, property taxes, fees for blah blah blah, it all adds up, and that's on top of an income tax that tops out at over 60% all by itself.
Oil that can't start to be extracted until 2010, and not in full production until 2013. And that may or may not exceed a few hundred million barrels. Hardly.
People keep saying we're taxed like crazy, but I think it's an illusion because of the way we add sales tax (taxes if you're in a province with a provincial sales tax) at the register instead of hiding it.
The average Canadian family pays about 50% of their income in taxes of one form or another. If you and your spouse both work, at least one of you is working solely to pay taxes. How is that not crazy?
Of course, Americans pay a lot of taxes, too, they just seem to somehow think they don't. And if you add in the cost of medical insurance, the total bill is probably similar, or even higher. Someone has to pay for that gigantic military.
If that were even remotely true, we would have no reserves whatsoever. Also, gas prices wouldn't have dropped through the floor in the last few weeks.
Removing it from the ground is not "generating" it. It's extracting a finite resource.
Gas prices dropped through the floor because the summer driving season ended and because the Gulf didn't get creamed by hurricanes this year. The price was also artificially high for current production/demand. That doesn't change the fact that most of the oil exporting countries are in production decline, and the ones that aren't will be soon, at which point things will start getting really nasty.
It certainly does. Oil exports are what allow everyone else to have oil.
So why hasn't http://www.paypalsucks.com/ [paypalsucks.com] been sued out of existance? If you do business with someone and do get ripped off, you SHOULD be within rights to let people know.
Yes, absolutely. You just have to be prepared to defend your actions in court if you do so.
Claiming that you did business with someone and that they ripped you off is not "expressing your opinion", it is deliberately trying to hurt someone's livelihood. Civil court is the proper place to defend oneself against that sort of attack. In the US, if you're telling the truth, you can certainly say it, but you may have to defend yourself in court.
Although the reward is certainly far in excess of any real damage that could have been done, the principle is sound. If you mouth off about someone, you had better make sure you can prove you're telling the truth and be prepared to do so in a court of law.
It could be worse. In many other countries (including my own) you can be successfully sued for defaming someone even if you can prove that what you said is the truth. Now that stifles free speech.
I'll bet Spamhaus.org is being transferred to a UK registrar right now. I wouldn't risk anything with Tucows, they have too much going on in the US.
It shows net exports. We use a lot of oil in Canada too, you know.
Because asshole spammers and the greedy ISP's who support them ruined it for everyone. You have to block a significant percentage of email to make the remainder usable, and false positives are an inevitable result of doing so.