Re:Could be more appealing to the minicab operator
on
Using GPS to Hail Cabs
·
· Score: 1
This is also why, when stumbling around drunk in Dublin or London, you should wave for a cab with your mobile to your ear.
This way, a hackney can pull over and let you in. If a garda (cop) questions, the hackney can just say that you called on the phone. You "hang it up" and agree.
I pulled it off about 50% of the time for a year -- that is, I'd get a hackney to pull over and pick me up, even though it was against the law because I didn't call first, about half the nights I got tanked on Guinness.
So, some guy with email GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM isn't upholding the GPL, et al? One way you can make it not worth his while is to post his email, GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM all over the web. Maybe he'd like some spam sent to GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM leting him know about stuff. If everybody sends email to GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM than his email box will become so littered that his auctions will suffer. The end result: GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM will find it less profitible to violate copyright laws, etc. Don't you think that would help GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM stop doing bad things?
Push back puberty about 5 years... or at least stretch it out.
One of the problems with curing diseases is... more people. Eliminate the diseases that collectively knock off a few percent of the population before they reproduce (lots RE fetuses and newborns)... and you've got a whole new population that will reproduce, thereby giving the overall worldwide population an exponential boost.
If that effect was countered by requiring that people are older before having children, then two things would happen: 1. Stupid kids wouldn't be making the mistakes that lead to lots of babies with teenage mothers and fathers, and 2. People would be more likely to die before having children, thereby countering the effect of more babies living and growing up to have children.
People dying of something short of old age isn't fun for the families. But, if nobody died before 75 years of age, this planet might fill up awfully quickly. Slow down the reproduction cycle, and you've slowed that growth.
The flipside is that OxyClean would dominate kids lives for 15 years instead of 10, and college football/basketball would be much more like little league.
If you must have customers come to your "office", and you live in a bigger city, consider renting office space by the hour. Believe it or not, there are companies that serve as front offices for tens or hundreds of businesses. They forward your mail, have a bank of telephone operators that answer with "Foo Bar Inc., how may I help you" or whatever, and forward the calls as appropriate. They also have office space rentable by the hour -- they go in ahead of time and put your pictures on the wall, put in the right plants, nick knacks, etc.
Bizarre? Sure. But, if you need to look like a real company before you've got the capital/manpower, this is the way to go -- and still be in compliance of zoning laws (as well as impress your new, small client base).
If you won't be entertaining/working with clients in your home, screw it. Get yourself a fat pipe, a few terminals, and a big whiteboard -- and get yourself to work.
The best suggestion I've read is that they don't waste resources on that one (time, money, etc.) because there's already another high profile, well funded group that does just that -- the NRA.
Why should the ACLU waste time and money on that Ammendment when the NRA already fights for it?
Of course you've had! I get them about once a month. It's from "Hotmail Staff" or some such, and it includes a paragraph about the standard "fighting spam" and "send your photos to granny."
Then, it goes on to shout out the virtues of MSN 8, MSN Messenger, MSN Wallet, MSN XBill, MSN We Hate Torvolds, et al.
For grits and shiggles, I reported it as spam. Forwarded it to abuse@hotmail.com and whatnot. I got a message back informing me that the email -- containing advertisments I didn't want -- was not spam. Go figure.
Furthermore -- want to help it succeed on Wall Street?
Buy some stock. Tivo currently has a marketcap of something like $307 million dollars. If 10,000 Tivo users each bought $100 in stock, that'd be a cool million. You might think that.33% of a stock isn't enough to nudge it upward, but it is.
And consider this -- how many folks can afford to put in $200 or $500? The fact is, you can bump the stock price up. If the price can consistently stay above $7, it will attract far more general investors (who are wary of penny stocks).
I wouldn't do it because I don't care about Tivo. But, I do have 5% of my portfolio in other linux stocks, and don't give a damn about profits. If every ha}{0r or n00b or l3t3 kernal coder would buy up some shares, it would make a difference in price -- and stability -- of our favourite companies, particularly the small ones.
Even in open source, you can still vote with your dollars, both at the register and in the bigger market.
So, between fall 2000 and fall 2001, this American was living in Ireland. As a NY Mets fan, I was addicted to watching the game on espn.com and listening via webcasts.
Then the trouble began. About a month into the season, it just stopped working. I talked with the SysAdmin at the Irish University I was at (DCU), and nothing had changed with the ports/firewalls/whatever.
Clearly something changed at MLB. I emailed all the different addresses I could come up with, and didn't get a single human reply. They had no problem charging me $10 (advertised $9.95, but they threw in a nickel for "shipping" -- don't get me started on that one), but they never fixed the problem, addressed it, or offered me a refund.
So, I wouldn't buy the service. They screwed me over by (a) not fixing the service when it stopped working, (b) overcharging me for their service, and (c) having the balls to charge for shipping a streamed audio over the Internet.
I went to Seattle to interview with Mircosoft in 1998. Most of my interview process consisted of games and puzzles -- so get yourself a stack of mind puzzle books, and read them. Then, during the interview, instead of shouting out the answer immediately, pretend to think for about 30 seconds, while contorting your face. Shout out Eureka!, and give the answer. It worked for me; they made me an offer a few weeks later. They didn't give me much time to decide, which helped contribute to me turning them down, but I digress...
at any rate, I flew in, rented myself a Mazda 626 convertible, and immediately went to the Kingdome. The Mariners now play baseball elsewhere, but I digress again.
I bought a $75 ticket for the game, about five $5 beers, and plenty of food. I got reciepts for all of it, and included it in my expense report. Sure, $110 is nothing for Microsoft, but it sure was fun to watch a game in style on their dime.
In short, if you go to Seattle on an interview, treat yourself well, and review mental exercise books. Go do some things, and expense them. They'll fork over the loot. Pretend to figure out the answers to their questions on the fly, even if you already knew the answer.
After all of this, turn them down -- for you know that, in the overall scheme of things, it just isn't worth it.
So, two guys own gas stations in Podunk, Iowa. They're the only gas stations within 100 miles, supporting a town center of a few thousand people.
If they colluded on price (explicitly agreed to a price), it'd be illegal. So, they don't.
Early one morning, the owner of Swell Gas gets out his ladder, and increases his gas prices by 10 cents. The owner of Hexxon (across the street) sees him raise his price. He can do one of two things:
1. Not change his price.
2. Change his price.
If he chooses (2), he can do one of three things:
a. Increase his price by less than Swell's increase.
b. Increase his price by the same amount as Swell's increase.
c. Increase his price by more than Swell's increase.
As long as he doesn't ever engage in active communication with the owner of Swell, he can legally do any of those options. The owner of Swell knows this.
So, in fact, the owner of Swell raised his prices, hoping that the owner of Hexxon would too. Swell gas can't stay profitablw at a price of 10 cents higher unless Hexxon gas is 10 cents higher too. If Hexxon doesn't raise its prices a dime, than Swell will just reduce its price back to the price it started at. If Hexxon also raises its price 10 cents a gallon, than both stations will be far more prifitable, since demand is very inelastic due to their rural location. Furthermore, if their high prices resulted in a third station setting up shop, the two old stations would probably survive. They'd lower their prices back down and rely on the small town's familiarity with their stations (including their rocking chairs and Coke from a bottle) to survive until the new station went under.
Nobody broke the law, but clear pricing signals were exhibited. They can both come to the game-theory based conclusion that it makes sense for them both to raise prices together... and can briefly offer to "go first" with little to no cost.
Have a look at [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/02/28/airport. security.ap/index.html]this article[/url], all the way at the bottom.
[quote]Nine to 11 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were were flagged by the original CAPPS, but weren't searched because the system gave a pass to passengers who didn't check their bags, Hudson said. People without checked bags are now included.[/quote]
Don't just spout off FUD -- even if it is FUD in your favor. I don't support CAPPS II, but I do acknowledge that CAPPS did find half the hijackers... but didn't act on them.
By the time (spam) gets to your inbox, it has already cost your ISP money (time/effort/bandwidth) to deliver it. You just see what leaks through your ISP's filters, despite their best efforts.
While in the short term I concur, in the long term I must cry au contraire.
If Baysean filtering makes its way to the general public -- or is introduced at an ISP level, then it will reduce the amount of spam that gets through to potential customers, and hence make each spamming less profitable.
The least profitable of the spam messages will dissapear, thereby reducing the loads on our mailboxes and on the ISP as a whole. Therefore, perhaps a better question is:
Is there a way to use Baysean Filtering to reduce the costs an ISP faces due to spam?
There's been dozens of comments pointing out how their lease in SF was signed during the economic zenith, and how that's sucking their money dry.
Why not renegociate? Sure, the landlord doesn't have to talk -- but, if Salon files for bankruptcy, he loses a tenant all together. Why not cut the rent in half and use half the space? Salon isn't using the upper floor anyway, and so cutting their rent in half would help to cut their costs and help them survive -- and pay rent for years to come.
The landlord will make less in the short term, but he'd be able to rent out the top floor (for less money) -- and help ensure he still gets ridiculous rents on the loewr floor for years to come.
The Internet community is socially and politically active, and could be motivated to help out. But Salon must seem sincere -- and their cost in rent and in executive salaries must be reduced if folks are to believe that Salon is worthy of survival.
I'm amazed that you interpret a snide remark as "bitching and moaning".
But then, I'm also amazed that a person that gets paid to be an [b]editor[/b] doesn't. It'd be a bit like getting paid to paint houses and not bothering with the spots you can't reach.
It's about pride in your craft. Pudge is an editor. Expecting an editor to produce a single sentence his high school English teacher would approve is not too much to ask.
Radio station have the right to free speech, not the obligation to play music without compensation.
Not exactly -- not while they are using my airwaves.
In America, the airwaves are owned not by radio stations but by the American people. *If* the act of accepting money to play particular songs is bad for the people, than the people have the right -- as owners of the airwaves -- to change the rules that the radio stations have to play by.
When the people own the medium (television, radio), than the people have the right to determine how that medium is used.
For a good time, check out Free Air Time to find out about a similar regarding the television frequency range.
We don't like direct marketers, but we should have the least amount of venom for the The Direct Marketers Association. They maintain legitimate opt-out lists for email, telephone, and junk mail. Not every "marketer" uese 'em, but those that do use the lists only use them to opt customers out.
If it reduces just some of the harassment, isn't it worth it?
Megan E. Gray is a principle in the law firm Gray Matters in Washington, DC. She represents many clients in connection with intellectual property matters, internet issues, online privacy, anonymous speech, and related issues. More information about Gray Matters can be found at http://www.megangray.com.
The Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall represents individuals and non-profits on privacy, copyright, and First Amendment issues relating to the Internet and other advanced technology. More information about the Samuelson Clinic can be found at http://samuelsonclinic.org.
Yes, SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt. But there's more... the Big 3 lobbies Congress and is able to get expemptions, so that the CAFE standards aren't enforced, no less raised in levels like they were intended to be. Japanese and German automakers are leading the environmental way, and the Big 3 have shown nothing but vapourware.
If CAFE was enforced with raising levels over time, and SUVs and pickups encluded -- you'd see a few things very quickly:
1. Dramatic change in marketing. 2. SUVs with higher prices, while 3. Efficient cars with lower prices, and in the longer term 4. Improvements on the technology, both in concept and in application, so that autos reduce their environmental impact while increasing the safety of the passengers inside and outside the vehicle.
I'm suprised we haven't seen more from Hotmail and Yahoo!. Their servers recieve more spam-nooise than the rest of the world recieves signals.
If Spam was reduced by 10%, Hotmaill/Yahoo/BigFreeMail(tm) would save far more moeny in infrastructure than anybody else. Why haven't they been more active in stopping spam then?
"If an elected official tried, for example, to drape a banner with his or her picture on it over the state Capitol building, the police would yank it down and cite the offender."
Not in Boston. When my friends come to town, we go to the middle of the city and I give them five minutes to figure out the name of the mayor without speaking. They all do.
How? His name (Thomas Menino) is on every park bench. Every construction sign. The entrance plaque of every building public funds played a role in erecting. Associated with anything where the people and the tangible actions of the city government meet.
It's blatent, and it is an extra use of public funds, occuring in meatspace. This is a blatent contradiction of the ideas in the quote above.
But then, Boston and Chi-Town pols have been aquiring votes by unethical means for hundreds of years now...
[Will never see light of day due to too many comments anyway...]
So -- if Scientologists are able to censor with lawsuits, why not just inundate them? Then, they have to hire more lawyers, and spend more money. If a bunch of folks all put up mirrors all over the place (methinks.edu domains would be a good start), they'd have to work damned hard to send out lots of letters and make lots of phone calls. Their lawyers are either (i) mind controlled scientologists, or (ii) on the payroll. They only have a finite number of (i) and so the more we use up their resources of (ii) the less money they have overall.
They have lots of money. We have lots of cyberspace. Methinks I'll post some links today.
Slashdot Mirror
This is also why, when stumbling around drunk in Dublin or London, you should wave for a cab with your mobile to your ear.
This way, a hackney can pull over and let you in. If a garda (cop) questions, the hackney can just say that you called on the phone. You "hang it up" and agree.
I pulled it off about 50% of the time for a year -- that is, I'd get a hackney to pull over and pick me up, even though it was against the law because I didn't call first, about half the nights I got tanked on Guinness.
So, some guy with email
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
isn't upholding the GPL, et al? One way you can make it not worth his while is to post his email,
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
all over the web. Maybe he'd like some spam sent to
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
leting him know about stuff. If everybody sends email to
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
than his email box will become so littered that his auctions will suffer. The end result:
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
will find it less profitible to violate copyright laws, etc. Don't you think that would help
GREGLOSANG@YAHOO.COM
stop doing bad things?
Push back puberty about 5 years... or at least stretch it out.
One of the problems with curing diseases is... more people. Eliminate the diseases that collectively knock off a few percent of the population before they reproduce (lots RE fetuses and newborns)... and you've got a whole new population that will reproduce, thereby giving the overall worldwide population an exponential boost.
If that effect was countered by requiring that people are older before having children, then two things would happen:
1. Stupid kids wouldn't be making the mistakes that lead to lots of babies with teenage mothers and fathers, and
2. People would be more likely to die before having children, thereby countering the effect of more babies living and growing up to have children.
People dying of something short of old age isn't fun for the families. But, if nobody died before 75 years of age, this planet might fill up awfully quickly. Slow down the reproduction cycle, and you've slowed that growth.
The flipside is that OxyClean would dominate kids lives for 15 years instead of 10, and college football/basketball would be much more like little league.
If you must have customers come to your "office", and you live in a bigger city, consider renting office space by the hour. Believe it or not, there are companies that serve as front offices for tens or hundreds of businesses. They forward your mail, have a bank of telephone operators that answer with "Foo Bar Inc., how may I help you" or whatever, and forward the calls as appropriate. They also have office space rentable by the hour -- they go in ahead of time and put your pictures on the wall, put in the right plants, nick knacks, etc.
Bizarre? Sure. But, if you need to look like a real company before you've got the capital/manpower, this is the way to go -- and still be in compliance of zoning laws (as well as impress your new, small client base).
If you won't be entertaining/working with clients in your home, screw it. Get yourself a fat pipe, a few terminals, and a big whiteboard -- and get yourself to work.
Regarding Ammendment II:
The best suggestion I've read is that they don't waste resources on that one (time, money, etc.) because there's already another high profile, well funded group that does just that -- the NRA.
Why should the ACLU waste time and money on that Ammendment when the NRA already fights for it?
Prime numbers are defined to be both integers and positive.
At least, that's what Eric Weisstein thinks.
So do The Prime Pages
Gotta be positive, por favor.
Of course you've had! I get them about once a month. It's from "Hotmail Staff" or some such, and it includes a paragraph about the standard "fighting spam" and "send your photos to granny."
Then, it goes on to shout out the virtues of MSN 8, MSN Messenger, MSN Wallet, MSN XBill, MSN We Hate Torvolds, et al.
For grits and shiggles, I reported it as spam. Forwarded it to abuse@hotmail.com and whatnot. I got a message back informing me that the email -- containing advertisments I didn't want -- was not spam. Go figure.
Furthermore -- want to help it succeed on Wall Street?
.33% of a stock isn't enough to nudge it upward, but it is.
Buy some stock. Tivo currently has a marketcap of something like $307 million dollars. If 10,000 Tivo users each bought $100 in stock, that'd be a cool million. You might think that
And consider this -- how many folks can afford to put in $200 or $500? The fact is, you can bump the stock price up. If the price can consistently stay above $7, it will attract far more general investors (who are wary of penny stocks).
I wouldn't do it because I don't care about Tivo. But, I do have 5% of my portfolio in other linux stocks, and don't give a damn about profits. If every ha}{0r or n00b or l3t3 kernal coder would buy up some shares, it would make a difference in price -- and stability -- of our favourite companies, particularly the small ones.
Even in open source, you can still vote with your dollars, both at the register and in the bigger market.
Microsoft bug may attract big women ?
I'm sitting there thinking -- why would fatties have a thing for Microsoft? Bloated code?
Oh, never mind. Just wanted to blow some karma chunks.
So, between fall 2000 and fall 2001, this American was living in Ireland. As a NY Mets fan, I was addicted to watching the game on espn.com and listening via webcasts.
Then the trouble began. About a month into the season, it just stopped working. I talked with the SysAdmin at the Irish University I was at (DCU), and nothing had changed with the ports/firewalls/whatever.
Clearly something changed at MLB. I emailed all the different addresses I could come up with, and didn't get a single human reply. They had no problem charging me $10 (advertised $9.95, but they threw in a nickel for "shipping" -- don't get me started on that one), but they never fixed the problem, addressed it, or offered me a refund.
So, I wouldn't buy the service. They screwed me over by (a) not fixing the service when it stopped working, (b) overcharging me for their service, and (c) having the balls to charge for shipping a streamed audio over the Internet.
Screw them.
I went to Seattle to interview with Mircosoft in 1998. Most of my interview process consisted of games and puzzles -- so get yourself a stack of mind puzzle books, and read them. Then, during the interview, instead of shouting out the answer immediately, pretend to think for about 30 seconds, while contorting your face. Shout out Eureka!, and give the answer. It worked for me; they made me an offer a few weeks later. They didn't give me much time to decide, which helped contribute to me turning them down, but I digress...
at any rate, I flew in, rented myself a Mazda 626 convertible, and immediately went to the Kingdome. The Mariners now play baseball elsewhere, but I digress again.
I bought a $75 ticket for the game, about five $5 beers, and plenty of food. I got reciepts for all of it, and included it in my expense report. Sure, $110 is nothing for Microsoft, but it sure was fun to watch a game in style on their dime.
In short, if you go to Seattle on an interview, treat yourself well, and review mental exercise books. Go do some things, and expense them. They'll fork over the loot. Pretend to figure out the answers to their questions on the fly, even if you already knew the answer.
After all of this, turn them down -- for you know that, in the overall scheme of things, it just isn't worth it.
So, two guys own gas stations in Podunk, Iowa. They're the only gas stations within 100 miles, supporting a town center of a few thousand people.
If they colluded on price (explicitly agreed to a price), it'd be illegal. So, they don't.
Early one morning, the owner of Swell Gas gets out his ladder, and increases his gas prices by 10 cents. The owner of Hexxon (across the street) sees him raise his price. He can do one of two things:
1. Not change his price.
2. Change his price.
If he chooses (2), he can do one of three things:
a. Increase his price by less than Swell's increase.
b. Increase his price by the same amount as Swell's increase.
c. Increase his price by more than Swell's increase.
As long as he doesn't ever engage in active communication with the owner of Swell, he can legally do any of those options. The owner of Swell knows this.
So, in fact, the owner of Swell raised his prices, hoping that the owner of Hexxon would too. Swell gas can't stay profitablw at a price of 10 cents higher unless Hexxon gas is 10 cents higher too. If Hexxon doesn't raise its prices a dime, than Swell will just reduce its price back to the price it started at. If Hexxon also raises its price 10 cents a gallon, than both stations will be far more prifitable, since demand is very inelastic due to their rural location. Furthermore, if their high prices resulted in a third station setting up shop, the two old stations would probably survive. They'd lower their prices back down and rely on the small town's familiarity with their stations (including their rocking chairs and Coke from a bottle) to survive until the new station went under.
Nobody broke the law, but clear pricing signals were exhibited. They can both come to the game-theory based conclusion that it makes sense for them both to raise prices together... and can briefly offer to "go first" with little to no cost.
Have a look at [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/02/28/airport. security.ap/index.html]this article[/url], all the way at the bottom.
[quote]Nine to 11 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were were flagged by the original CAPPS, but weren't searched because the system gave a pass to passengers who didn't check their bags, Hudson said. People without checked bags are now included.[/quote]
Don't just spout off FUD -- even if it is FUD in your favor. I don't support CAPPS II, but I do acknowledge that CAPPS did find half the hijackers... but didn't act on them.
While in the short term I concur, in the long term I must cry au contraire.
If Baysean filtering makes its way to the general public -- or is introduced at an ISP level, then it will reduce the amount of spam that gets through to potential customers, and hence make each spamming less profitable.
The least profitable of the spam messages will dissapear, thereby reducing the loads on our mailboxes and on the ISP as a whole. Therefore, perhaps a better question is:
There's been dozens of comments pointing out how their lease in SF was signed during the economic zenith, and how that's sucking their money dry.
Why not renegociate? Sure, the landlord doesn't have to talk -- but, if Salon files for bankruptcy, he loses a tenant all together. Why not cut the rent in half and use half the space? Salon isn't using the upper floor anyway, and so cutting their rent in half would help to cut their costs and help them survive -- and pay rent for years to come.
The landlord will make less in the short term, but he'd be able to rent out the top floor (for less money) -- and help ensure he still gets ridiculous rents on the loewr floor for years to come.
The Internet community is socially and politically active, and could be motivated to help out. But Salon must seem sincere -- and their cost in rent and in executive salaries must be reduced if folks are to believe that Salon is worthy of survival.
I'm amazed that you interpret a snide remark as "bitching and moaning".
But then, I'm also amazed that a person that gets paid to be an [b]editor[/b] doesn't. It'd be a bit like getting paid to paint houses and not bothering with the spots you can't reach.
It's about pride in your craft. Pudge is an editor. Expecting an editor to produce a single sentence his high school English teacher would approve is not too much to ask.
'Does this mean I have to start buying cloths again instead of getting them at trade shows?'
Perhaps you'd better try to find a wrong-word checker as well. You know, to help you edit or something.
Radio station have the right to free speech, not the obligation to play music without compensation.
Not exactly -- not while they are using my airwaves.
In America, the airwaves are owned not by radio stations but by the American people. *If* the act of accepting money to play particular songs is bad for the people, than the people have the right -- as owners of the airwaves -- to change the rules that the radio stations have to play by.
When the people own the medium (television, radio), than the people have the right to determine how that medium is used.
For a good time, check out Free Air Time to find out about a similar regarding the television frequency range.
FYI: the direct link is disabled. The heading is:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
and the subheading:
SUBJECT: Common carrier services: Telephone Consumer Protection Act; implementation Unsolicited advertising
CFR Citation: 47 CFR 64
That should help you find it in the mess...
We don't like direct marketers, but we should have the least amount of venom for the The Direct Marketers Association. They maintain legitimate opt-out lists for email, telephone, and junk mail. Not every "marketer" uese 'em, but those that do use the lists only use them to opt customers out.
If it reduces just some of the harassment, isn't it worth it?
Less junk mail
Fewer telemarketers
Less spam
And BTW: don't be lazy and use the $5 Internet option. Print out the page and pop it in the post for less than 10% of the cost.
(Sarcastic: -1)
From this linky dinky,:
Yes, SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt. But there's more... the Big 3 lobbies Congress and is able to get expemptions, so that the CAFE standards aren't enforced, no less raised in levels like they were intended to be. Japanese and German automakers are leading the environmental way, and the Big 3 have shown nothing but vapourware.
If CAFE was enforced with raising levels over time, and SUVs and pickups encluded -- you'd see a few things very quickly:
1. Dramatic change in marketing.
2. SUVs with higher prices, while
3. Efficient cars with lower prices, and in the longer term
4. Improvements on the technology, both in concept and in application, so that autos reduce their environmental impact while increasing the safety of the passengers inside and outside the vehicle.
I'm suprised we haven't seen more from Hotmail and Yahoo!. Their servers recieve more spam-nooise than the rest of the world recieves signals.
If Spam was reduced by 10%, Hotmaill/Yahoo/BigFreeMail(tm) would save far more moeny in infrastructure than anybody else. Why haven't they been more active in stopping spam then?
From the article:
"If an elected official tried, for example, to drape a banner with his or her picture on it over the state Capitol building, the police would yank it down and cite the offender."
Not in Boston. When my friends come to town, we go to the middle of the city and I give them five minutes to figure out the name of the mayor without speaking. They all do.
How? His name (Thomas Menino) is on every park bench. Every construction sign. The entrance plaque of every building public funds played a role in erecting. Associated with anything where the people and the tangible actions of the city government meet.
It's blatent, and it is an extra use of public funds, occuring in meatspace. This is a blatent contradiction of the ideas in the quote above.
But then, Boston and Chi-Town pols have been aquiring votes by unethical means for hundreds of years now...
[Will never see light of day due to too many comments anyway...]
.edu domains would be a good start), they'd have to work damned hard to send out lots of letters and make lots of phone calls. Their lawyers are either (i) mind controlled scientologists, or (ii) on the payroll. They only have a finite number of (i) and so the more we use up their resources of (ii) the less money they have overall.
So -- if Scientologists are able to censor with lawsuits, why not just inundate them? Then, they have to hire more lawyers, and spend more money. If a bunch of folks all put up mirrors all over the place (methinks
They have lots of money. We have lots of cyberspace. Methinks I'll post some links today.