See this The big difference is that you don't poll known addresses. You poll when an event is sent from the sender.
There are other differences, take a look.
My goals were slightly different:
Move the cost of emailing to the sender. To high a cost would make it harder for the spammers.
Pin down the sender. Currently, the sender can be spoofed. This system would make it harder.
Huh? You'd still only transfer the same amount of data, it would just become unpredictable how much you would transfer, when.
This isn't true. The spammers would have to set up a server. And wait for the millions of spam recipients to connect. Each connection has overhead.
In the current setup, the spammers can use thousands of zombies sharing the load.
Spammers don't have to build an expensive infrastructure, they can freeload off of regular Joes.
Plus, you'd be able to tell which of those e-mails were actually being retrieved, therefore you'd get a better form of address verification out of it than is currently available.
This is an issue, but once that server was classified by the client as non-trustworthy, they can ignore further notifications.
And remember that each notification is very small.
Also, it would create problems for people who check their e-mail infrequently (because the originating message might have disappeared).
A service could easily be set up to house messages for such people, like gmail.
Furthermore, both systems could be used together. You don't have to sign up. You can just sit back and watch everyone else with 0 spams! (Thanks for the tip about flameproof underwear, Smallpond - *ducks*)
Some laws came into existance because of corporate lobbying. This case is orthogonal to the benefit or detriment of society.
Also, copyright was written into law to promote publication.
It had nothing to do with preventing others from singing or performing or stealing precious IP. It had nothing to do with morality.
There is nothing moral about preventing others from building on the useful sciences that currently exists. Or sharing ideas and expression. (Patents and copyrights)
And furthermore, copyright didn't originally even restrict copying! It was intended to give authorsand publishers an incentive to publish.
Printing had become cheap, and publishers were worried that they could sell enough copies to cover expenses if competitors were allowed to undercut them.
Hence copyright gave the author the monopoly on publishing, which they could license to a publisher.
So don't even suggest that there is anything moral about locking down precious IP
Since you admit the language is not neutral, allowing the opposition in the argument to choose the terminology is giving an important advantage.
It's important to argue the substance and the terminology.
If someone accuses me of "IP theft" I'm going to pin them down on what kind of IP they are refering to, and how I "thieved" it. Copyright? How do you steal a copyright? Trademark? Patent?
In the case of sharing music, my personal belief is that I do not want to pay the RIAA to shove ads of Britney Spears down my throat, and to lobby congress for a broadcast flag, and a permanent control that forces us to view them.
I'd much prefer to pay the artist directly - what are the distributors providing for their cut?
With todays technology, the artists are well able to distribute music without the distribution companies taking a huge percentage, with which they bash their customers like a stick.
How do you figure you can prove you're not a spammer?
Better is to allow your approval to be revoked, if you are initiating spam.
Plus, the cost of such a system would be prohibitive to say the least.
Who would be resposible? A US company? And I assume all the other countries are just dying to subscribe to that system!
I think a protocol change is in order. Instead of sending the message via SMTP, only send a notification that an email is waiting to be picked up, and it's location. When your email is checked, it loads the email from the server.
This has the following benefits:
The cost is on the sender. It would be prohibitively expensive to send millions of messages - you'd have to host all the clients!
Zombies would be useless - systems are likely to be behind firewalls now (hardware and software), so incoming email clients would be rejected.
It could be rolled out based on current protocols. SMTP could be used for notifications. 1 notification per email, max of 1 notification per 20mins - reset on check? Check email via POP3. Not IMAP since you want to actually retrieve the message.
I don't like the way ad companies can get a complete profile of your surfing by having ads on a bunch of websites.
In some cases they can even get search terms and other queries included in the url. If the site owner allows it, they could even get subscriber names or other personal data.
I don't find advertising per se annoying. It's intrusive ads, and companies that collect data that I find objectionable.
I use privoxy and squid, and I recently added tor into the mix.
The way this government is throwing out freedoms, it's the only way you'll be able to communicate.
You'll know it's the end of freedom when tor and freenet, etc. are outlawed.
I've also set up sshd on port 443 so that I can punch through the corporate firewall where I work, and port forward the http proxy - hence browsing without being monitored...
Anyway, you can use the content filter to strip Dvorak drivel.
IBM has been working with Linux for longer, developing a place in the community.
They've donated millions of dollars worth (in developer time) of code to Open Source and Free Software.
They have enigineered solutions to allow Linux to run alongside AIX and other OSes on IBM hardware.
Some really great hacks.
And really pushing Linux as a solution that's innovating far faster than anything else out there - remember the ad campaign?
Kudos goes to IBM! Of course their getting the press.
On another note, the numbers may be skewed, because when you purchase, say, an iSeries from IBM intending to run Linux, you get it with i5/OS (aka OS/400) and have to load Linux yourself.
Re:the glass was of even higher quality than theor
on
Glass In Spaaaaace
·
· Score: 0
The I-Pass system used on many highways log every I-Pass that goes through.
Here in Illinois they doubled the price of a toll, unless you have an I-Pass.
So they becoming mandatory.
Oh, and BTW, I-Pass RFIDs are registered with the license tag(s), and other info.
Other companies not being able to compete IS abuse of the users.
Just like not having the choice to buy a computer without Windows, or without WMP, or without IE is abuse of the purchaser.
They can do it because they have a unique position in the market. They push OEMs around, other software vendors. Governments.
The fact is that bundling software with an OS gives it an advantage. This is fine in a normal economy, but Microsoft has an OS monopoly. They therefore get an unfair advantage.
And of COURSE they're rolling the cost. It has to be paid for. Just like the loss they make on the XBox hardware is subsidized by OS and Office sales.
They use their monopoly to steamroll other markets. This is illegal.
They should have been forced to remove it from all future sales. Or supply competitors products also. So the public has a fair choice, and competition is introduced.
Slashdot Mirror
The big difference is that you don't poll known addresses. You poll when an event is sent from the sender.
There are other differences, take a look.
My goals were slightly different:
This isn't true. The spammers would have to set up a server. And wait for the millions of spam recipients to connect. Each connection has overhead.
In the current setup, the spammers can use thousands of zombies sharing the load.
Spammers don't have to build an expensive infrastructure, they can freeload off of regular Joes.
This is an issue, but once that server was classified by the client as non-trustworthy, they can ignore further notifications.
And remember that each notification is very small.
A service could easily be set up to house messages for such people, like gmail.
Furthermore, both systems could be used together. You don't have to sign up. You can just sit back and watch everyone else with 0 spams! (Thanks for the tip about flameproof underwear, Smallpond - *ducks*)
Also, copyright was written into law to promote publication.
It had nothing to do with preventing others from singing or performing or stealing precious IP. It had nothing to do with morality.
There is nothing moral about preventing others from building on the useful sciences that currently exists. Or sharing ideas and expression. (Patents and copyrights)
And furthermore, copyright didn't originally even restrict copying! It was intended to give authorsand publishers an incentive to publish.
Printing had become cheap, and publishers were worried that they could sell enough copies to cover expenses if competitors were allowed to undercut them.
Hence copyright gave the author the monopoly on publishing, which they could license to a publisher.
So don't even suggest that there is anything moral about locking down precious IP
It's important to argue the substance and the terminology.
If someone accuses me of "IP theft" I'm going to pin them down on what kind of IP they are refering to, and how I "thieved" it. Copyright? How do you steal a copyright? Trademark? Patent?
In the case of sharing music, my personal belief is that I do not want to pay the RIAA to shove ads of Britney Spears down my throat, and to lobby congress for a broadcast flag, and a permanent control that forces us to view them.
I'd much prefer to pay the artist directly - what are the distributors providing for their cut?
With todays technology, the artists are well able to distribute music without the distribution companies taking a huge percentage, with which they bash their customers like a stick.
I like the idea. And I'd be happy to pay for tracks. But until I can get them in a format that's useful, I'm not interested.
Example .aac I can't do that.
I have a Sony car cd mp3 player. I rip tracks from cd's and dvd's and load >700Mbs of mp3s onto a cd.
With
So thanks, but no thanks.
Plus I don't like paying the RIAA to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobby congress to further take away my freedoms.
Better is to allow your approval to be revoked, if you are initiating spam.
Plus, the cost of such a system would be prohibitive to say the least.
Who would be resposible? A US company? And I assume all the other countries are just dying to subscribe to that system!
I think a protocol change is in order. Instead of sending the message via SMTP, only send a notification that an email is waiting to be picked up, and it's location. When your email is checked, it loads the email from the server.
This has the following benefits:
There are some kinks, but I think it's workable.
Example from ASF
your sig is 51 years ahead of it's time
So now what? Does the bad karma expire?
Or is my account now permanently useless?
I don't like the way ad companies can get a complete profile of your surfing by having ads on a bunch of websites.
In some cases they can even get search terms and other queries included in the url. If the site owner allows it, they could even get subscriber names or other personal data.
I don't find advertising per se annoying. It's intrusive ads, and companies that collect data that I find objectionable.
I use privoxy and squid, and I recently added tor into the mix.
The way this government is throwing out freedoms, it's the only way you'll be able to communicate.
You'll know it's the end of freedom when tor and freenet, etc. are outlawed.
It doesn't take everyone to develop "the car" for us all to have one available.
I've also set up sshd on port 443 so that I can punch through the corporate firewall where I work, and port forward the http proxy - hence browsing without being monitored...
Anyway, you can use the content filter to strip Dvorak drivel.
IBM has been working with Linux for longer, developing a place in the community.
They've donated millions of dollars worth (in developer time) of code to Open Source and Free Software.
They have enigineered solutions to allow Linux to run alongside AIX and other OSes on IBM hardware.
Some really great hacks.
And really pushing Linux as a solution that's innovating far faster than anything else out there - remember the ad campaign?
Kudos goes to IBM! Of course their getting the press.
On another note, the numbers may be skewed, because when you purchase, say, an iSeries from IBM intending to run Linux, you get it with i5/OS (aka OS/400) and have to load Linux yourself.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot...
Here in Illinois they doubled the price of a toll, unless you have an I-Pass.
So they becoming mandatory.
Oh, and BTW, I-Pass RFIDs are registered with the license tag(s), and other info.
Microsoft isn't known for being particularly sensitive to users' privacy... are they?
Microsoft Wants P2P Avalanche to Crush BitTorrent
I guess you either like to initiate newbies or you're Microsoft lovers.
I suppose I should've put:
In Soviet Russia spyware removes you!
Grumble...
Get it at: Windows Service Pack 3
It's called "Good Money After Bad"
Other companies not being able to compete IS abuse of the users. Just like not having the choice to buy a computer without Windows, or without WMP, or without IE is abuse of the purchaser. They can do it because they have a unique position in the market. They push OEMs around, other software vendors. Governments. The fact is that bundling software with an OS gives it an advantage. This is fine in a normal economy, but Microsoft has an OS monopoly. They therefore get an unfair advantage. And of COURSE they're rolling the cost. It has to be paid for. Just like the loss they make on the XBox hardware is subsidized by OS and Office sales. They use their monopoly to steamroll other markets. This is illegal. They should have been forced to remove it from all future sales. Or supply competitors products also. So the public has a fair choice, and competition is introduced.