You are stupid enough to assume that only "westerners" frequent slashdot. That you are the only Indian "eleet" enough to be posting here. You were so quick to label me of "western tendencies", that it never occured to you that I am an Indian too.
Tum ek number ke gadhe ho!
(I am not sure you will be able to translate that or not, cosidering that you are *quite* possibly one of those "caste is all" chaps who pride themselves on their "perfect english" and don't even know the national language.)
I am an Indian myself, you idiot. So I don't see how I can be accused of "western tendency to label insane anything".
Which is why I know firsthand, that most educated Indians, save for one region(but then again US has texas as its dim-witted cousin), do NOT bother with stupid caste stuff, save perhaps when marrying(supposed reasoning is that different castes have different habits etc. and hence adjustment may be difficult). your boss in a company, may be of lower caste. What will you do? Refuse to work under him? Refuse to accept documents signed by him, since according to you anything touched by him, cannot be handled by you?
You are insane. Most of us Indians, do NOT bother with that sort of nonsense anymore. It is not possible anymore.
But ofcourse, to idiots from your region(and I can tell where you belong to, thanks to your "bestest english in the worlds" way of talking and your obsession with caste nonsense), caste is still an obsession.
Caste btw, was never determined by birth but by your actions. It merely describes your profession. Go and actually read some of the puranas and vedas.
Westerners have no "concept" of caste. They have a hard time even grasping what it is. So how on earth are you deciding if they are "higher" or "lower" caste , you moron?
Disgusting idiot. India would be better off without filthy jerks like you, who are obsessed with their twisted concepts of "caste".
Considering that I originally belong to a country where most residents can spend entire life, without ever registering on govt's radar, the answer is no, I do not have a credit history yet.
Unless ofcourse, US immigration office sends details of all newly-arrived straight off to credit card companies.
You know how kids are, and they wouldn't file a complaint if they had nothing to back it, would they?
Unfortunately, media is all too full of stories of RIAA falsely suing old grannies, dead people and folks that do ot even own a computer. So no, that is not a natural assumption anymore. You are wrong.
I presume you wanted to state that most of the poor Indians(84% of the populace) cannot afford to send their kids to school, or stay in touch with parents every day(when they have to go a thousand kilometers away and can barely afford one visit home every couple of years. And don't even own a phone). These are things that only the americans and first world residents take for "granted" and can afford to "demand".
But using terms like "higher refined caste" makes you look stupid and rheteric, despite having a valid point. Which part of India are you from? From my experience, currently, only *one* portion of India, which is still obsessed with outdated stuff like caste etc, despite being educated(as you apparently are). The rest of educated Indians are too busy trying to earn a living, to be bothered with the caste nonsense. I am pretty sure, you belong to the same region in all probability. The kind of rheoterics and the weird language form("we speak better english than even the british!") points to it.
Indeed. All the above is correct.
However, Indians adapt. First of all, the IT industry exists usually in major cities, which do have good infrastructure. And regardless, alternatives exist to all things. Indians are very good at adapting.
Electricity problems ? Sure. We would have solved it, but for USA sactioning against us, to try and prevent our nuclear research(which would have got us nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs, same as USA has used nuclear power plans to meet its own power needs. But apparently same is not to be permitted for India easily. Logic being that India will become a nuclear power, blindly ignoring that it already is a nuclear power, and USA itself sits on the biggest pile of nukes, which makes reasos for its sanctions questionable. Heck India, is not even a dictatorship.)
Anyhow, most Indian IT companies happen to have backup power supplies. At no point does the work gets interrupted. It is assumed by default, that power failures will happen. Phone lines will fail. Water will not be clean, by default. And hence, Indians use backup power supplies, alternate means of communication if needed(Video conferencing via internet/multiple phone lines, use water filters to get clean water).
Yes, the poorer substrata of the population, doesn't gets to have all these alternatives. But we are not discussing them, are we ?
It is not as good as USA. But nor is it as bad as you believe.
You are painting it as "unreliable" to send emails. It is not.
And the above person is an idiot for using a figure like "89%". How on earth can you get that accurate a number ? He should have simply said "every month, there will be 1 or 2 days when you may not be able to connect for a few hours". Simple as that.
It is unreliable to rely on a single ISP. That is all. Thanks to the high demand, the servers are sometimes unable to cope with the demand and suffer occasional meltdown or might be unable to accept anymore connections(on dialups). i.e. there will be a day every month when you are not able to connect. But considering that if you are in the middle class or upper class, which is the one to be able to afford internet, it is well within your reach to afford a backup dialup connection as well. This being India, it is not that expensive after all. Use broadband in general. Switch to dialup in case of emergencies. Works for almost everyone usually.
I am pretty sure that our "I-want-100%-uptime" american cousins, at least in case of businesses, keep a backup connection too, if connectivity is all that important to them.(and no we don't need to pay a monthly fee for the second backup cnnection. There are pre-paid plans which work on a per-minute basis)
Ofcourse, if you lack smarts, the idea of keeping another ISP as backup emergency connection, will never occur to you in the first place. And it is a bad idea to goto a developing country's job market, which requires all your smarts to survive in, if you lack the smarts and reasoning capability to compete with the locals.
Get a grip on reality. All cybercafes in the city having a blackout the *same* time as your home connection ? You *have* to be nuts... or paranoid.
A net connection costs a mere 10-20 dollars per month in India. If you are *that* much lazy to set your foot out of your house, I don't see what is so tough or expensive about having a second backup connection. Most mobile services, especially Reliance telecom, offer internet service via your mobile phone for almost *nearly* the same rates. Use that as your backup connection. It is not as if the entire internet backbone of the country goes down. Just individual ISPs who have server/proxy crashes or too many users logged in at same time.
With the reliance like services(internet via your cellphone), you pay only per minute basis, which comes down to just 1 dollar per hour, you cheapskate!! Corporate companies in India, manage 100% uptime by having a backup connection. Internet isn't that expensive there even fr the locals
Or stay home. It is a 3rd world country that isn't exactly profiting in billions of dollars by supplying killing weapons/missiles to other nations. It lacks infrastructure for the time being, and locals cope with it by applying their brains and using workarounds/compromises. The fact that you were neither able to apply your brains to think up the above backup connection solution, nor are willing to adjust/compromise, means that you are obviously not going to survive in an other part of the world. You are just not intelligent/smart enough.
2-3 days a month. It doesn't means your internet goes on the blink for 30 days in a row. And we have hundreds of cybercafes in every block. Ever heard about cybercafes ? Those places where you can pay a small amount to access internet for hours.
"we invite the mailman every day, implicitly, accepting the consequences that may ensue"
And we have to pay the post office a monthly payment for having a mailbox outside our house? Since when?
*I* end up paying for having *your* spam being stored in my mailbox. In postal mail, the cost of mails I receive are paid for by the sender in form of stamps. Start paying for my end of receiving your mails as well, and foot my entire internet bill, and then sure, feel free to make that stupid anology and send me spam.
So will you be footing my internet bill from this month onwards?
Your postal mail example is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
In postal mails, it is the *sender* who bears the total cost of transmission, via stamps. I as a receipient, have to pay jack shit to receive mails in my post box. In case of postal mail, sure it is just an annoyance, and you are only wasting a lot of my time. The post office is sure as hell not charging *me* to have a mailbox hanging outside my door.
... but in case of online spam, *I* and the ISP are paying for the damned bandwidth. *You*, my brilliantly thick friend, are paying just for *your* end of transmission. You are not paying for the ISPs loss of bandwidth, which runs into several thousand dollars every month. Start sending me and the ISP money for every spam mail you send to me, and *then* talk!
Clicking on a webpage means I am soliciting whatever is being shown. Much like I purchase a newspaper and will read whatever is written. *That*, you idiot, does NOT implies you can start throwing *your* trash in my lawn. Just because I subscribe to some newspaper, means you can throw your rags, dirty trash, last year's molding magazines in my lawn ? If so, you are stupid.
And choice over what mail we receive is exactly what this law is supposed to enforce! You seem to tout receiving unsolicited email as some sort of "mandate" or "inevitability". Setting up a mail service does not means, that I am signing up for receiving *spam* that I end up paying for. I am signing up to receive emails from my friends and associates. You are a complete tool for suggesting that I should accept receiving mails about "hot x-rated sex" as part of that service. Why should I ? I don't! Which is the reason for legal decisions such as this. To *prevent* spam from being "inevitable".
Typical arguement from spammers : "You have a mail account so you should accept our spam as inevitable".
Why?
Servers are not property? The law and property rights seem to disagree with you, my uninformed friend. And if they were territory, trespass law *still* applies. The spam filters are like gate locks at my farm. If you are trying to break them i.e. my own measures, you are trespassing. A burglar is not permitted to argue "but the lock was too easy to break, and your measures were not enough to stop me, so you can't complain". Heck you get sent to jail for just attempted breaking and entering, if you as much as tried my door lock repeatedly.
Hence this particular law is quite appropriate. Only a complete fool will try and argue otherwise.
Theft of service is not theft ? Brilliant. I suppose it is perfectly okay, if I hook up illegal connections to *your* power supply lines, and making you pay for all of it. Clearly, I have not appropriated any of your lost funds, and therefore am not really stealing anything from you. I am merely *causing* you to do so by abusing the service you pay for.
My points don't "merely say that spamming is wrong". My points say that it is a theft of service... a concept that you are being incredibly dense at grasping.
*After* clearly showing you how the ISP is suffering a very real monetary loss, there is no theft of service ? Try using the lame "abuse" excuse when it comes to making illegal connections to your neighbours phone lines, power lines, cable connection and see how far you get.
It is irrelevant whether I am "renting" or "owning". Try burglaring a "rented" apartment and see if you get shot or not. Trespass laws apply as much to rented apartments as "owned" ones. You have to be an idiot to suggest, that because I am merely *renting* a car, if you climb in and drive it off, it is just an "abuse of service" and hence not a theft. Try it once, and see how many police cars chase you for *stealing a car*.
Private companies run subway metro trains, taxis... for *paying* customers. The usage of car is rented as a service. So after I have paid in advance for it, it is okay for *you* to jump inside and drive away? Just because it is a service ? or just because it is running on public roads?
The servers are as much a property of the ISP, as the office space or company car. Trespass and theft laws apply just as much.
It is amusing how you think just because power supply, phone services, cable TV are "services", their illegal unpaid usage, is somehow not a theft. Your concept of "theft" is both childish and stupid.
although in the vast majority of these cases, you can believe that the recipient doesn't own the server at all. In those cases, the analogy would be more like "little different than sending them lots of junkmail which, when they feel like it, they can go down to the local post office to collect and bin".
Are you really that dumb ? Or just pretending ?
Recipient doesn't owns the server ? Define "own". I am paying money to the ISP to "rent" space on their server to store my mails. Renting doesn't bestows a form of ownership ? You mean to say just because I am *renting* an apartment instead of being able to own one, *you* can come and put your stuff in one of the rooms?
Think again dumbass. It will land you in Jail, pronto. Plus beaten up very badly by me as well, if you persisted... with the law endorsing it. At least with spam, you are only going to Jail.
Yes, the servers are the ISPs property. Property rights say so. And the space I rent from them are *my* property for that period. And the owner decides what gets stored on that *private property*. Not *you*, dumbass!
The spam is not just a minor inconvinience. It is a very real loss of service. And especially to the ISP, it all adds up. You are using *their* bandwidth, whch they are paying to maintain. You are cutting into their profit.
If you were shaving off 10 cents from 10,000 accounts of a bank every day, you would be sent to jail for stealing 30 thousand bucks from the bank every month. The 10 cent won't get written off as a "minor inconvenience". You will get sent to jail for theft for several years. And with spam you are making businesses lose lot more than just 30,000 dollars each month, since you are sending emails by billions every months.
At least nobody pays engineers evey month to maintain and run a postal mailbox outside my house. So much for your brilliant comparision!
Even with free services like gmail or yahoo, your spamming is degrading their service, which means they lose their users. Which means less revenue from advertisements. Very real loss again. All thanks to your stealing.
Also what are these "damages" for exactly? Having to use 10 seconds of your time to delete an e-mail and use up a tiny bit of extra bandwidth?
Or, if you gave it some thought, actual financial loss from the wasted bandwidth.
The bandwidth I use, has been paid for, by *me*. For my personal pleasure, so use as I see fit(as long as such usage doesn't encroaches on rights of others or is not illegal ofcourse).
So technically, if I, or say even the ISP, is paying moolah for say 1GB of that bandwidth and a chunk of it is wasted transmitting *your* unsolicited spam so that *you* can make money... yes a damage has occurred.
Bandwidth is not free. Even if you are offered unlimited bandwidth, it just means that your ISP is paying for it in bulk, without lettng inidividual users worry about how much they download. *Someone* is keeping those cables repaired, those servers up and running paying up the elecric bills for them, and paying the network engineers. And it is definitely not the spammer. And as far as the ISP is concerned, even a hundred 10Kb spam mail to every 10000 of its users every day, means 3GB bandwidth usage loss every month, that was not available to its paying userbase. They had to pay for it, but got no revenue for its usage.
The tiny bit of bandwidth adds up. Especially when you consider that many ISPs have userbases running into tens of thousands and more. Since all such extra losses get passed finally to the end customer(for every business wants to maintain its profitability), it is finally I who ends up paying extra for your get-rich-quick scheme.
If this was a bank, and you were shaving off 10 cents from each of ten thousand of its accounts every day via electronic fraud, the damage to individual account holders might not be *significant*. But you would still be going to Jail for stealing 30,000 dollars from bank every month... for a long long time. You can't say then, that "oh it was just 10 measly cents dammit!". Right?
Right?
I can agree 100% with you here. The first natural target for most sexual predators would be children in their own relations. Children they are naturally trusted with and have easy access to.Or how about even babysitters?
It is amazingly common for parents to trust their kids to others, just because they "know" them. Not surprisingly, most of such cases go unreported despite years of abuse, thanks to a desire to not to bring disrepute to "family name" or because the abuser if your own brother or some such close relative, or simple unwillingness to believe that your own relative/latest boyfriend might be doing this to your kids.
It is only the external threats that worry us. Which is a mistake.
the famous quote from the Connecticut AG along the lines of "if we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age online."
Well the success ratio for "putting a man on the moon" currently is, once in approx. 50 years.
If that is also acceptable for successful online age verifications, I don't see why xanga.com should have any problems. Getting one user's age verified, once in every 50 years, shouldn't be that hard.
Some times it's not possible to babysit your kids every second of the day.
Yes it isn't. We agree.
However... lots of parents in USA, have guns in their houses. Or liquor. Or knives. You are supposed to keep these safely locked away, out of the reach of children. Correct ? Because if you don't, and something goes wrong, you get charged with reckless child endangerment and sent to Jail possibly. At no point are you asked to monitor the kids all the time. Only to keep the dangerous stuff away from their access. Isn't it ?
So what exactly is so difficult about adopting the same attitude towards computers and restricting access to it as well? I mean *besides* being lazy and incompetent? If the internet is as dangerous as you guys argue it is, surely it should be treated in a similar manner ?
Since when does it become the gun manufacturer's responsbility to build in all sorts of special elecronic complex gadgetry to verify the age of the user ?
If *you* carelessly leave a gun lying around a child, you should be sent to Jail. Similarly if you let your kid have unmonitored/unrestricted online access, you should be sent to Jail as well, if he falls prey to some pervert pedophile.
I'd be interested to hear from people who own or run sites like Xanga on what they think about their responsibilities
And I'd be interested in hear from parents who allow their kids unmonitored online access on what they think about their responsibilties.
Simpler solution. Penalize any parents who are found to have allowed unmonitored net access to a minor, hevaily.
If their kids fall prey to some Sexual Predator, send both the offendor and such parents to Jail.
Let us quickly make this a law! Won't anyone think of the Children ?!!!
So Xanga is a website that imediately steals your identity? Why you wanted to use it in the first place?
because your logically flawed question missed one thing.
He doesn't minds using it, if they don't have access to his identity in the first place. Same reason you would use hundreds of sites like say slashdot, without caring whether or not they are capable of stealing your SSN.
Because they don't have access to your SSN in the first place.
Charge any parents that allow their kids to access internet unmonitored, with reckless child endagerment. Send the parents to Jail if their kid falls pay to a Sexual predator.
Slashdot Mirror
You are stupid enough to assume that only "westerners" frequent slashdot. That you are the only Indian "eleet" enough to be posting here. You were so quick to label me of "western tendencies", that it never occured to you that I am an Indian too.
Tum ek number ke gadhe ho!
(I am not sure you will be able to translate that or not, cosidering that you are *quite* possibly one of those "caste is all" chaps who pride themselves on their "perfect english" and don't even know the national language.)
The GP actually is an imbecile, not merely sounding like one.
I am an Indian myself, you idiot. So I don't see how I can be accused of "western tendency to label insane anything".
Which is why I know firsthand, that most educated Indians, save for one region(but then again US has texas as its dim-witted cousin), do NOT bother with stupid caste stuff, save perhaps when marrying(supposed reasoning is that different castes have different habits etc. and hence adjustment may be difficult). your boss in a company, may be of lower caste. What will you do? Refuse to work under him? Refuse to accept documents signed by him, since according to you anything touched by him, cannot be handled by you?
You are insane. Most of us Indians, do NOT bother with that sort of nonsense anymore. It is not possible anymore.
But ofcourse, to idiots from your region(and I can tell where you belong to, thanks to your "bestest english in the worlds" way of talking and your obsession with caste nonsense), caste is still an obsession.
Caste btw, was never determined by birth but by your actions. It merely describes your profession. Go and actually read some of the puranas and vedas.
Westerners have no "concept" of caste. They have a hard time even grasping what it is. So how on earth are you deciding if they are "higher" or "lower" caste , you moron?
Disgusting idiot. India would be better off without filthy jerks like you, who are obsessed with their twisted concepts of "caste".
Unless ofcourse, US immigration office sends details of all newly-arrived straight off to credit card companies.
Unfortunately, media is all too full of stories of RIAA falsely suing old grannies, dead people and folks that do ot even own a computer. So no, that is not a natural assumption anymore. You are wrong.
I don't have a credit card since I don't like the idea of being in debt, unnecessarily. Does that means I cannot have a job ?
Are you some kind of nutcase?
I presume you wanted to state that most of the poor Indians(84% of the populace) cannot afford to send their kids to school, or stay in touch with parents every day(when they have to go a thousand kilometers away and can barely afford one visit home every couple of years. And don't even own a phone). These are things that only the americans and first world residents take for "granted" and can afford to "demand".
But using terms like "higher refined caste" makes you look stupid and rheteric, despite having a valid point. Which part of India are you from? From my experience, currently, only *one* portion of India, which is still obsessed with outdated stuff like caste etc, despite being educated(as you apparently are). The rest of educated Indians are too busy trying to earn a living, to be bothered with the caste nonsense. I am pretty sure, you belong to the same region in all probability. The kind of rheoterics and the weird language form("we speak better english than even the british!") points to it.
We do tend to have multiple phone lines, from multiple providers, in case of businesses where it is so vital.
Yes, the poorer substrata of the population, doesn't gets to have all these alternatives. But we are not discussing them, are we ?
It is not as good as USA. But nor is it as bad as you believe.
You are painting it as "unreliable" to send emails. It is not.
And the above person is an idiot for using a figure like "89%". How on earth can you get that accurate a number ? He should have simply said "every month, there will be 1 or 2 days when you may not be able to connect for a few hours". Simple as that.
It is unreliable to rely on a single ISP. That is all. Thanks to the high demand, the servers are sometimes unable to cope with the demand and suffer occasional meltdown or might be unable to accept anymore connections(on dialups). i.e. there will be a day every month when you are not able to connect. But considering that if you are in the middle class or upper class, which is the one to be able to afford internet, it is well within your reach to afford a backup dialup connection as well. This being India, it is not that expensive after all. Use broadband in general. Switch to dialup in case of emergencies. Works for almost everyone usually.
I am pretty sure that our "I-want-100%-uptime" american cousins, at least in case of businesses, keep a backup connection too, if connectivity is all that important to them.(and no we don't need to pay a monthly fee for the second backup cnnection. There are pre-paid plans which work on a per-minute basis)
Ofcourse, if you lack smarts, the idea of keeping another ISP as backup emergency connection, will never occur to you in the first place. And it is a bad idea to goto a developing country's job market, which requires all your smarts to survive in, if you lack the smarts and reasoning capability to compete with the locals.
Get a grip on reality. All cybercafes in the city having a blackout the *same* time as your home connection ? You *have* to be nuts ... or paranoid.
A net connection costs a mere 10-20 dollars per month in India. If you are *that* much lazy to set your foot out of your house, I don't see what is so tough or expensive about having a second backup connection. Most mobile services, especially Reliance telecom, offer internet service via your mobile phone for almost *nearly* the same rates. Use that as your backup connection. It is not as if the entire internet backbone of the country goes down. Just individual ISPs who have server/proxy crashes or too many users logged in at same time.
With the reliance like services(internet via your cellphone), you pay only per minute basis, which comes down to just 1 dollar per hour, you cheapskate!! Corporate companies in India, manage 100% uptime by having a backup connection. Internet isn't that expensive there even fr the locals
Or stay home. It is a 3rd world country that isn't exactly profiting in billions of dollars by supplying killing weapons/missiles to other nations. It lacks infrastructure for the time being, and locals cope with it by applying their brains and using workarounds/compromises. The fact that you were neither able to apply your brains to think up the above backup connection solution, nor are willing to adjust/compromise, means that you are obviously not going to survive in an other part of the world. You are just not intelligent/smart enough.
Thousands of Indians have sacrificed that and migrated to USA in order to have a better life. Cope or stop complaining.
2-3 days a month. It doesn't means your internet goes on the blink for 30 days in a row. And we have hundreds of cybercafes in every block. Ever heard about cybercafes ? Those places where you can pay a small amount to access internet for hours.
And we have to pay the post office a monthly payment for having a mailbox outside our house? Since when?
*I* end up paying for having *your* spam being stored in my mailbox. In postal mail, the cost of mails I receive are paid for by the sender in form of stamps. Start paying for my end of receiving your mails as well, and foot my entire internet bill, and then sure, feel free to make that stupid anology and send me spam.
So will you be footing my internet bill from this month onwards?
In postal mails, it is the *sender* who bears the total cost of transmission, via stamps. I as a receipient, have to pay jack shit to receive mails in my post box. In case of postal mail, sure it is just an annoyance, and you are only wasting a lot of my time. The post office is sure as hell not charging *me* to have a mailbox hanging outside my door.
Clicking on a webpage means I am soliciting whatever is being shown. Much like I purchase a newspaper and will read whatever is written. *That*, you idiot, does NOT implies you can start throwing *your* trash in my lawn. Just because I subscribe to some newspaper, means you can throw your rags, dirty trash, last year's molding magazines in my lawn ? If so, you are stupid.
And choice over what mail we receive is exactly what this law is supposed to enforce! You seem to tout receiving unsolicited email as some sort of "mandate" or "inevitability". Setting up a mail service does not means, that I am signing up for receiving *spam* that I end up paying for. I am signing up to receive emails from my friends and associates. You are a complete tool for suggesting that I should accept receiving mails about "hot x-rated sex" as part of that service. Why should I ? I don't! Which is the reason for legal decisions such as this. To *prevent* spam from being "inevitable".
Typical arguement from spammers : "You have a mail account so you should accept our spam as inevitable".
Why?
Servers are not property? The law and property rights seem to disagree with you, my uninformed friend. And if they were territory, trespass law *still* applies. The spam filters are like gate locks at my farm. If you are trying to break them i.e. my own measures, you are trespassing. A burglar is not permitted to argue "but the lock was too easy to break, and your measures were not enough to stop me, so you can't complain". Heck you get sent to jail for just attempted breaking and entering, if you as much as tried my door lock repeatedly.
Hence this particular law is quite appropriate. Only a complete fool will try and argue otherwise.
My points don't "merely say that spamming is wrong". My points say that it is a theft of service... a concept that you are being incredibly dense at grasping.
*After* clearly showing you how the ISP is suffering a very real monetary loss, there is no theft of service ? Try using the lame "abuse" excuse when it comes to making illegal connections to your neighbours phone lines, power lines, cable connection and see how far you get.
It is irrelevant whether I am "renting" or "owning". Try burglaring a "rented" apartment and see if you get shot or not. Trespass laws apply as much to rented apartments as "owned" ones. You have to be an idiot to suggest, that because I am merely *renting* a car, if you climb in and drive it off, it is just an "abuse of service" and hence not a theft. Try it once, and see how many police cars chase you for *stealing a car*.
Private companies run subway metro trains, taxis... for *paying* customers. The usage of car is rented as a service. So after I have paid in advance for it, it is okay for *you* to jump inside and drive away? Just because it is a service ? or just because it is running on public roads?
The servers are as much a property of the ISP, as the office space or company car. Trespass and theft laws apply just as much.
It is amusing how you think just because power supply, phone services, cable TV are "services", their illegal unpaid usage, is somehow not a theft. Your concept of "theft" is both childish and stupid.
Are you really that dumb ? Or just pretending ?
Recipient doesn't owns the server ? Define "own". I am paying money to the ISP to "rent" space on their server to store my mails. Renting doesn't bestows a form of ownership ? You mean to say just because I am *renting* an apartment instead of being able to own one, *you* can come and put your stuff in one of the rooms?
Think again dumbass. It will land you in Jail, pronto. Plus beaten up very badly by me as well, if you persisted... with the law endorsing it. At least with spam, you are only going to Jail.
Yes, the servers are the ISPs property. Property rights say so. And the space I rent from them are *my* property for that period. And the owner decides what gets stored on that *private property*. Not *you*, dumbass!
The spam is not just a minor inconvinience. It is a very real loss of service. And especially to the ISP, it all adds up. You are using *their* bandwidth, whch they are paying to maintain. You are cutting into their profit.
If you were shaving off 10 cents from 10,000 accounts of a bank every day, you would be sent to jail for stealing 30 thousand bucks from the bank every month. The 10 cent won't get written off as a "minor inconvenience". You will get sent to jail for theft for several years. And with spam you are making businesses lose lot more than just 30,000 dollars each month, since you are sending emails by billions every months.
At least nobody pays engineers evey month to maintain and run a postal mailbox outside my house. So much for your brilliant comparision!
Even with free services like gmail or yahoo, your spamming is degrading their service, which means they lose their users. Which means less revenue from advertisements. Very real loss again. All thanks to your stealing.
Damn right, you are going to jail.
Or, if you gave it some thought, actual financial loss from the wasted bandwidth.
The bandwidth I use, has been paid for, by *me*. For my personal pleasure, so use as I see fit(as long as such usage doesn't encroaches on rights of others or is not illegal ofcourse).
So technically, if I, or say even the ISP, is paying moolah for say 1GB of that bandwidth and a chunk of it is wasted transmitting *your* unsolicited spam so that *you* can make money... yes a damage has occurred.
Bandwidth is not free. Even if you are offered unlimited bandwidth, it just means that your ISP is paying for it in bulk, without lettng inidividual users worry about how much they download. *Someone* is keeping those cables repaired, those servers up and running paying up the elecric bills for them, and paying the network engineers. And it is definitely not the spammer. And as far as the ISP is concerned, even a hundred 10Kb spam mail to every 10000 of its users every day, means 3GB bandwidth usage loss every month, that was not available to its paying userbase. They had to pay for it, but got no revenue for its usage.
The tiny bit of bandwidth adds up. Especially when you consider that many ISPs have userbases running into tens of thousands and more. Since all such extra losses get passed finally to the end customer(for every business wants to maintain its profitability), it is finally I who ends up paying extra for your get-rich-quick scheme.
If this was a bank, and you were shaving off 10 cents from each of ten thousand of its accounts every day via electronic fraud, the damage to individual account holders might not be *significant*. But you would still be going to Jail for stealing 30,000 dollars from bank every month... for a long long time. You can't say then, that "oh it was just 10 measly cents dammit!". Right? Right?
I can agree 100% with you here. The first natural target for most sexual predators would be children in their own relations. Children they are naturally trusted with and have easy access to.Or how about even babysitters?
It is amazingly common for parents to trust their kids to others, just because they "know" them. Not surprisingly, most of such cases go unreported despite years of abuse, thanks to a desire to not to bring disrepute to "family name" or because the abuser if your own brother or some such close relative, or simple unwillingness to believe that your own relative/latest boyfriend might be doing this to your kids.
It is only the external threats that worry us. Which is a mistake.
Well the success ratio for "putting a man on the moon" currently is, once in approx. 50 years.
If that is also acceptable for successful online age verifications, I don't see why xanga.com should have any problems. Getting one user's age verified, once in every 50 years, shouldn't be that hard.
Yes it isn't. We agree.
However... lots of parents in USA, have guns in their houses. Or liquor. Or knives. You are supposed to keep these safely locked away, out of the reach of children. Correct ? Because if you don't, and something goes wrong, you get charged with reckless child endangerment and sent to Jail possibly. At no point are you asked to monitor the kids all the time. Only to keep the dangerous stuff away from their access. Isn't it ?
So what exactly is so difficult about adopting the same attitude towards computers and restricting access to it as well? I mean *besides* being lazy and incompetent? If the internet is as dangerous as you guys argue it is, surely it should be treated in a similar manner ?
Since when does it become the gun manufacturer's responsbility to build in all sorts of special elecronic complex gadgetry to verify the age of the user ?
If *you* carelessly leave a gun lying around a child, you should be sent to Jail. Similarly if you let your kid have unmonitored/unrestricted online access, you should be sent to Jail as well, if he falls prey to some pervert pedophile.
Much better solution.
Simpler solution. Penalize any parents who are found to have allowed unmonitored net access to a minor, hevaily.
If their kids fall prey to some Sexual Predator, send both the offendor and such parents to Jail.
Let us quickly make this a law! Won't anyone think of the Children ?!!!
because your logically flawed question missed one thing.
He doesn't minds using it, if they don't have access to his identity in the first place. Same reason you would use hundreds of sites like say slashdot, without caring whether or not they are capable of stealing your SSN.
Because they don't have access to your SSN in the first place.
Send the parents to Jail if their kid falls prey to a Sexual Predator.
Charge any parents that allow their kids to access internet unmonitored, with reckless child endagerment. Send the parents to Jail if their kid falls pay to a Sexual predator.
Then watch how quickly the problem vanishes.