I keep hearing pro-gun people talk about how cars are just as dangerous. Yet cars are even easier to acquire than guns, and more prevalent. Therefore it stands to reason there should be multiple examples of people using cars to kill groups of people. And yet... there aren't. I can only find one example from several years ago of a person intentionally hitting a crowd of people. All other examples are little old ladies who can't find the brakes. In all cases there were multple injuries and almost no fatalities. There were 13 mass shootings last year, killing 89. How many people were intentionally killed by car attacks last year? Why weren't there more attacks by car?
Your Google skills suck. Also, you're being very selective in what you call "attacks by car." Search for "car bomb" and expand outside of the US. When you add enough security to make guns ineffective, that's one of the major alternatives for preplanned events. And don't imagine that the explosive device is hard to create -- you only need certain, non-exotic gasses to create nasty mixtures, with Columbine being a poorly executed variant of this.
People prefer guns, but will readily shift to other means to attempt mass killings. Another example where a vehicle substituted for guns due to security restrictions is a certain light aircraft attack that you should recall.
The point of the car example is not that there is endemic population raring to engage in mass vehicular homicide. It's that nobody demands oddball restrictions on cars despite repeated instances of mass or attempted mass murder using cars, yet many demand the absolute elimination of mass killings by guns by any means. Balance utility and frequency for cars, but not for guns -- opposition by the gun owners is merely heartless support for a "blood sactifice."
No, I don't think there is any way to prevent all gun violence.... I do think we should do something instead of throwing our hands up in the air, declaring the problem impossible to solve...
So, "the problem" starts somewhere between killing one and twelve... there is an "acceptable loss?" How many? Either that or you're refusing to deal with the inherent contradiction between reality and your perjorative attacks on others.
I do think we can do better than the status quo. I do think we should do something instead of.... tossing our children away in a blood sacrifice.
And what is this nebulous "something"? You've already rejected the "armed guard" as something sufficient. You've already implicitly rejected bans on extended magazines as something sufficient (standard handgun magazine is 10-15, two guns and close range...). Each additional "something" has a cost.
You're suggesting that the existing licensing, design restrictions, and in some cases outright bans are insufficient to prevent "tossing our children away in a blood sacrifice," but you won't put up some solutions of your own for review. You certainly don't address mental heath issues -- the gun owners should be criminals merely for possessing some (any) type of weapon.
You don't get to declare measure of what is not "a blood sacrifice" without seeing just how hard "better than the status quo" is.
So if we can restrict school shootings to only a dozen victims at a time, that is an acceptable loss?
Yes.
The point is, the "good guy with a gun" did not prevent the shooting, nor could he stop the shooting when it was taking place, despite seeing and engaging the shooter. No matter what the NRA wants people to believe, the evidence in this case is pretty straightforward that armed guards aren't effective at stopping a mass shooting.
It appears that you're trolling for the "if even one life is lost..." position, in which case, I will say yes. There is always an acceptable loss, because the controls required to guarantee no loss, even if possible, are totally unreasonable to your average person. Two handguns, stock magazines, school drop-off time. You could create a dozen victems in a 30 seconds -- many schools, at least in my district, require entry at one point. In the case that I'm familiar with (as a parent), that is at the apex of a 90 degree funnel (wings of the building).
Want to know how else to accomplish this without a gun? If the entrance lacks stairs -- a car. One of tens of millions of perfectly legal cars.
Short of an armed police officer at every such entrance (the "good guy" you claim cannot prevent the shooting) or confiscating all handguns, what do you propose to guarantee no loss? More to the point -- what are the downsides to what you propose? At some point, those downsides introduce your derisive "acceptable loss" whether you like it or not.
The customer is always right. You should know that by now.
Pithy saying, but not a basis for a law.
The customer wants everything to be premium quality at the lowest possible non-premium, and preferably free, price. Not many fools are willing to provide that. Even fewer fools are willing to require that result as a matter of law.
Consumers want to make a choice regardless of whether they cause harm or not. Even if their fears are unfounded, it is still a modification of the food. Let them have it.
Whether or not genetic modification is inconsequential remains to be seen. Have they done any long term tests? Do consumers get to to choose what they want (oh, we can't have that now, can we)? Whether or not they cause harm is irrelevant. Consumers like me *want* to know.
It does not remain to be seen, and there have been numerous long term tests. You claim that "consumers like me *want* to know," but you can't be bothered to even look for whether there have beeen any long term tests. You don't want to know whether it is inconsequential, or the results of any tests -- you want to know whether you should act on your prejudice.
Whether or not they cause harm is irrelevant. Consumers like me *want* to know.
Whether they cause harm is relevant to a labeling requirement, and to the question of deception. Nobody can be obligated to label themselves or their products merely to support someone's political prejudices.
To me, it's still deceit without a label and I have a right to know so that I choose a different product if I want. But that's not fair to you because "it's great technology that deserves a chance". As far as I can tell, you don't think I can make an informed decision about it, so you want to protect me from that decision through deceit. How thoughtful.
You do not have that right, in the same manner that you do not have the right to know if the food was grown by a 20,000 acre corporate farm or a 500 acre family farm. Your political position is not a basis for mandatory labeling, and others refusal to play to your prejudice is not deceit.
It doesn't matter whether you're capable of making an informed decision, and he's not interested in protecting you from your prejudice or unreasonableness. He and others simply refuse to expend their time and energy to support scientifically unsupported, irrational prejudices such as yours.
You know as well as I do that the aliases permitted here are for the sake of anonymity. Why can't you judge my statements based on your experience and logic?
You know as well as I do that food is not required to be labeled as GMO, and is prohibited from being labeled as "GMO free" or the like, because there is no demonstrated harm from the former, or benefit from the latter.
Why can't you focus on the very points that I made, instead of twisting the definition of "deceit" to include the omission of a scientifically inconsequential aspect of the product?
Sixteen posts on this one topic today... the sparks from your axe-grinding wheel are really flying.
There is a rational argument for labeling: honesty.
Since you're certainly not named "Lorien_the_first_one," you'll forgive me for declining to let someone who is, by their own definition, dishonest lecture me on the nature of honesty.
If GMOs are really so safe, why the tremendous resistance to putting a simple label on the food?
Because consumers who remain far more similar to the old Mark Lynas than to the new Mark Lynas will misuse the information, and those hoping to impose the labeling requirement haven't offered a rational, rather than fear-mongering, basis for imposing the labeling requirement?
People, whether they are indvidials or groups acting as a corporation, hate being told what to do without good reason. "Because we want to know in order to support our irrational prejudices" is not a good reason.
In 2010, Visa processed 3.2 trillion dollars per year. The US Federal gross receipts for 2010 came out to a mere 2.2 trillion dollars (receipts, not GDP which came to 14.5 trillion for that year).
They handled 3.2 trillion dollars in transactions in the same way that NASDAQ has handled 1.2 billion shares so far today -- NASDAQ does not own those shares, NASDAQ processes trades of those shares between buyers and sellers. VISA processes payments between you and the merchant that you handed the credit card to. Since VISA falls well below your arbitrary line ($3 billion in n.o.p, not exactly a ruler of the universe there), there's no problem, right?
When MomCo bets the till on the ponies, MomCo goes under. When JP Morgan Chase effectively does the same, the whole goddamned stock market takes a dive and grandma's (not to mention, my) 401k edges lower and lower and lower...
Repeat after me... payment processors are not banks. Payment processors do not issue mortgages. Payment processors do not issue CDOs. Payment processors process electronic payments.
The way you've used "We The People" ("We The People don't care..."), besides demonstrating amazing hubris on your part, distills down to mob rule. Until you develop a logical rationale and dividing line to support what you claim ought to be done, you can quite rightly be ignored.
Sorry Mitt, but corporations ain't people.
For the purposes of entering into contracts, buying property, and the like, they are. Since well before you were born.
The mere fact that they're large businesses does not mean that they are forbidden from behaving like any small business or individual
But it should. As it is, they wield orders of magnitude more power than a small business or individual, yet have no more responsibility. This is a recipe for disaster, and indeed we are all paying the bill for the utter irresponsibility of financial businesses right now.
Not good enough. Where do you draw the line between large and small? How are you measuring power? You have to actually think through these issues and justify the conclusion of why you apply the principle only to some and not to all. That pesky Fourteenth Amendment, you know...
IIRC the payment processors have performed this economic blockade without due process or a legal ruling, so to clobber this organisation would take a court hearing, which may be what EFF is angling for.
Why would the payment processors have to provide due process or obtain a legal ruling? They're private businesses, not government agencies. The mere fact that they're large businesses does not mean that they are forbidden from behaving like any small business or individual -- if they do not want to do business with someone, they cannot be forced to. You should research the term "concerted refusal to deal," and then consider that there must be an actual prospective agreement, not merely independent action, before someone can successfully attack a refusal to trade on antitrust grounds. Hence decisions like the recent EC decision declining to go after the payment processors under competition laws.
The converse would be hilarious. Anyone boycotting a business or organization would have to provide due process and obtain a legal ruling that would permit them to refuse to trade with, say, Walmart. Hilarity ensues.
Once again, what I'm saying is, you're accepting everything the poster says on the assumption it's absolutely true. Spamtrap accounts don't reply to confirmation emails or click on confirmation links - ever. That's the whole point of them. Even if you're a malicious troll who got a list of Hotmail trap accounts from somewhere, how do you get control over them to confirm signup?
The confirmation email sent to the spamtrap account is itself the trap event. If the spamtrap does not confirm and the list does not send anything other than the confirmation email, then both the Hotmail management screen and his statements are still fully consistent. Do you want me to sign you up to his list to prove the point, or are you content with merely being lead to this very obvious conclusion through multiple Slashdot postings?
And yes, I am accepting it as true. It's trivial to follow the list signup procedure, respond to the confirmation message, and note that Hotmail even automatically categorizes the email as one from a newsletter. I unfortunately have to wait for the next mailing to confirm the unsubscribe link, unsubscribe, and then wait to not receive more messages, but it is consistent with everything that has been written, whereas you are merely guessing. And ignoring every other opinion to the contrary, e.g.:
The screenshot says more anyway. Judging from what he says the sizes of the mailshots are, it's a fresh IP that hasn't been used before. So the screenshot could have been taken before the reputation degrades.
You really insist on not reading the source material, don't you. "Hotmail allows newsletter publishers to view data about what percent of their messages to Hotmail users are being flagged by users as "spam," and when I looked up the stats for our IP, they showed a "complaint rate" of less than 0.1% (usually the rest of people hitting 'Junk Mail' to unsubscribe from the list)." The screenshot states that it is for a 24 hour period. With a subscribership of 420,000, he's not going to be emailing 420,000 Hotmail users over 24 hours.
It's possible that this guy has done everything totally by the book and somehow has just got unlucky that his behaviour happens to closely match that of actual spammers.
In that case, why isn't the spam-identified content blocked when sent from other IPs/email accounts? "This only happened when sending from my own IP address at peacefire.org. It didn't happen if I tried sending a message from my Gmail account to a Hotmail address, even if the message contained one of the four banned domain names, so the issue probably won't reproduce if you try sending a test message yourself."
I think "sender is not following standard mail etiquette" is far more likely than some enormous conspiracy theory against him. After all, plenty of bulk mail senders do just fine.
In that case, why is the mailing list not blocked, but only certain content? "It turns out that out of the seven different URLs that I had been mailing to our users, four of the domains in those URLs would generate a "550 Message Contains SPAM Content" error when sent from my IP to a Hotmail address, and the other three did not."
What you keep saying is that you simply will not read what is going on, and will not address the actual problem, but by God you'll fight tooth and nail against anyone who dares to point that out. Bravo. You'll notice that others have picked up on it too. I replied because you were +5 Informative yet clearly wrong. That seems to have resolved itself now, so I'm done with you.
I see what you're saying, but he's not actually having his IP blocked in this case. The blocking is taking place based on the content of the message, specifically whether it mentions certain domains set up as relays. The interesting question (from his point of view and ours) is exactly how those domains become flagged as "spammy". For instance, I'd be interested to know (as others have asked) whether the relays allow traffic on port 25, and whether this is a factor.
Actually, as I read it, it's the combination of mentioning certain domain names and the fact that the message originates from the mailing list IPs. It seems that other messages from the same IP would be received rather than blocked (not specifically discussed, but implied in the three not-banned domain names) and that messages containing the same domains sent from other IPs and email addresses would be received rather than blocked (specifically discussed in his gmail example, paragraph after the session transcript).
It's a far more specific block, and one that I suspect whitelisting the mailing list email address does not overcome (I'm not a member of the mailing list) -- which would be the ultimate issue here.
Look at it this way. This guys screenshot shows Hotmail themselves saying he hit some of their spamtraps. From the SNDS FAQ we can see that "trap hits" means he mailed accounts that don't solicit mail - ever
Yes, you've noted three trap hits out of 68,000 messages. Do you want to bet that those three trap hits are signup confirmation emails resulting from (i) typographical errors in the email address submitted by someone attempting to sign up or (ii) 'drive by' sign ups by a third party who has an axe to grind against the list?
There is essentially nothing to prevent someone from signing mike@plan99.net up to a dozen mailing lists in the signup process. It doesn't matter if they're mile@plan99.net or simply a jerk -- the fact that it happens (at 0.0044% frequency) doesn't transform the mailing list operator into a spammer. Even Hotmail notes that "[w]ell-behaved senders will hit very few such accounts because they're generally sending to people who give them their address and because they collect and process their NDRs." They don't expect a zero rate.
so we already know his claim that every account is opt in isn't true. What else isn't true?
That you're not bothering to think through the signup and confirmation process, for one... that your putting claims in his mouth that he never made, for another... "The list is also comprised of 100%-verified-opt-in addresses, meaning that a new subscriber has to reply to a confirmation message in order to be added to the list. That's considered the gold standard for responsible mailing." There's simply no basis for you to say that those accounts were falsely opted-in.
FYI in the complaint rate section the SNDS FAW states that "more than 30% of the IPs sending mail to Windows Live Hotmail keep their complaint rate at less than 0.3% and this represents a good bar to shoot for." He's allegedly at 0.1%. Your expectations are simply unrealistic, and yet again show that you're not willing to deal with the reality of the situation rather than attributing anything other then perfection as being evidence that "the guy is a spammer." Frankly, you're a perfect example of the problem at hand.
If users are seeing false positives they can go and unmark the mail as spam, the system will learn that the user wants that mail and the problem is solved.
Again, deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions. Reread the actual problem -- the users do not see these emails when sent from this account, and therefore cannot unmark the mail as spam. The problem is not solved. The problem isn't even remotely what you concieve it to be.
Those half-million people you think really really want new proxy sites all the time? Guess what, many of them don't. They are reporting your mail as spam which is why you're getting blocked (this is domain reputation). You may not understand why, but they are, so deal with it.
You assume that this is case, yet the poster provides a link to management data which at least appears to show that your assumption is incorrect. Did you read the post where it mentions that "[it] showed a 'complaint rate' of less than 0.1% (usually the rest of people hitting 'Junk Mail' to unsubscribe from the list)," or are you simply going to deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions.
Expire addresses that signed up a long time ago - some people won't unsubscribe when it's no longer useful for them.
Apparently, deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions.
BAD 'EXPERT'!
If I sign up to a mailing list, I expect to receive the output of that mailing list until I unsubscribe. I certainly don't want the mailing list silently dropping me, and I'm not very interested in the ISP offloading its mailing list problem onto me by making me affirmatively renew my subscription. Especially when you offer no evidence that 'addresses that signed up a long time ago' make up a disproportionate fraction of the alleged 0.1% spam report rate.
Pushing the problem onto the 400,000+ individual users instead of dealiing with it at the ISP level is exactly the sort of free market failure tha the poster complains of.
If SpamHaus is blacklisting you, they probably think you're sending mail to their spamtraps. Hence the "zero false positives" claim. Are you sure every single address on your list replied to a confirmation mail? All 400,000+ of them? Because it sounds unlikely.
Again, deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions. He isn't being blocked by SpamHaus. He's being blocked by Hotmail and Yahoo. Just admit that you haven't actually read the post, that you're spouting off about your own personal bugbear, and that your advice has almost no bearing on the actual problem. It'll make you feel better, honest.
I find it disappointing that instead of actively fighting secure boot and making a BIG PUBLIC STINK about it and embarrassing everyone involved in implementing this, the community is aquiescing to the concept and "working with it."
Stallman is right, guys, and anyone endorsing Trusted Computing 2.0 by either actively participating in the distribution of it, or tacit approval needs to be publicly humiliated and embarassed into doing the right thing.
We will tolerate no dissent! Not only will we refuse to use this, but we will ensure that nobody who disagrees with us (or simply doesn't give a rat's ass about our fundamentalist take on software freedom) will be able to even have the opportunity to use this!
FREEDOM! (for us, not for you... you're too stupid to be allowed the choice).
If you think about it, if there are 10 companies with standards-essential patents, and each charges 2.25%, then that's 22.5% of the device's post-profit cost, which seems rather high.
You assume that the royalty percentages are cumulative. They are not. If there are two companies with standards essential patents who manufacture and sell the devices, which is typically but not exclusively the case, then Company A could pay Company B 2.25% per device, and Company B could pay Company A 2.25% per device, or Company A and Company B could cross-license. When Company A manufactures a devices per year and Company B manufactures b devices per year, net patent revenue (or expense) for each is:
For A, (b-a)*0.0225 For B, (a-b)*0.0225
If the number of devices manufactured is comparable to equal, these figures trend to 0, not to (b)*0.045 and (a)*0.045 as you suggest.
Why is Company A compelled to charge an extra 4.5% per device? It could, but then again it has little reason to. Supply and demand and other cost factors will principally drive the price, and chopping that price into royalties versus other factors is like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. What matters is your net patent expense, just like your supplier expense, labor expense, etc.
The royalty rate is a cost of entry if you have nothing other than cash to trade. Companies holding standards essential patents are not being altruistic -- they are trading amongst themselves, and a cross-license is in some ways simpler than paying cash.
Apple does not have anything that it wishes to trade, but wants the cost of entry (i.e., the royalty rate) to be really, really low. Yet the cost of entry is based upon obtaining the benefit of each standard-essential patent owner's R&D efforts and IP, which Apple claims, at least with respect to its own efforts and IP, to be worth a very great deal (as reflected in the price premium that consumers pay and Apple's efforts to keep its IP completely proprietary).
A court (or expert) looking to establish a reasonably royalty rate is not merely going to evaluate a percentage per device -- that is the end result. That court is going to have to consider the royalties paid by other companies which have sought royalty-only license agreements (are there any?) and the gross value of what has been traded between standards-essential patent holders in pure cross-licensing or hybrid cross-licensing + royalty deals.
In Apple's case, iSuppli figures suggest that materials + labor represent about 1/3rd the price of their devices. That means Roughly 66% is IP + goodwill. That may "seem rather high," but that is what the market thinks that those properties are worth.
This strikes me as the wrong solution to the problem:
Not surprising, since you're ignoring the underlying problem. Your 2560x1600 desktop on that 30" LCD is going to kill the ability of your videocard to display a modern game at an acceptable frame rate. Many gamers will not accept windowed half-screen (or whatever fraction is required) gaming on their $1K LCD.
A program should instead request the "current monitor's resolution" (because there can be more than one!) set its display area to that size, and then tell the window manager to "fullscreen" it by removing title bar and border decorations and moving it to (0,0) of that monitor. But NEVER EVER RESIZE MY MONITORS.
No. Windows and OSX have figured this out. Linux window managers (at least one popular one) need to as well.
The window manager should always be superior to the app, and one should always be able to manage the window (task switch, move to another desktop, etc) using the window manager, regardless of what the app thinks it is doing.
Irrelevant to your desired scheme, where keyboard hotkeys would still be required. In Windows and OSX you can still task switch, move to another desktop, etc. using such hotkeys. Yet the game controls the resolution of the monitor in fullscreen mode.
The job of judges -IS-, absolutely, to apply the intent of applicable statue to the changing of the times.
Yeah... the absolutely part... no attorney who has studied constitutional law is going to buy that. The "living constitution" (and analogous "living statute") theory of legal interpretation is one of many, and is quite open to philosophical debate.
You're also going to have a hard time convincing many people that the "intent of [the] applicable statute" evolves over time in an undefined way rather than being fixed by the legislature that enacted the law. That is sort of mushiness that the strict constructionists are rejecting -- rather they argue that a circumstance either fits within the text or it does not. Then you have the "originalists" who think that regadless of the breadth of the text, you only implement the intent of the enacting legislature that fits within it.
It's a continuum, and to claim that the judges miffed it you must claim, as you apparently do, that no method of interpretation could possibly be right except for yours. The problem is, that claim is ridiculous on its face.
Slashdot Mirror
Your Google skills suck. Also, you're being very selective in what you call "attacks by car." Search for "car bomb" and expand outside of the US. When you add enough security to make guns ineffective, that's one of the major alternatives for preplanned events. And don't imagine that the explosive device is hard to create -- you only need certain, non-exotic gasses to create nasty mixtures, with Columbine being a poorly executed variant of this.
People prefer guns, but will readily shift to other means to attempt mass killings. Another example where a vehicle substituted for guns due to security restrictions is a certain light aircraft attack that you should recall.
The point of the car example is not that there is endemic population raring to engage in mass vehicular homicide. It's that nobody demands oddball restrictions on cars despite repeated instances of mass or attempted mass murder using cars, yet many demand the absolute elimination of mass killings by guns by any means. Balance utility and frequency for cars, but not for guns -- opposition by the gun owners is merely heartless support for a "blood sactifice."
So, "the problem" starts somewhere between killing one and twelve... there is an "acceptable loss?" How many? Either that or you're refusing to deal with the inherent contradiction between reality and your perjorative attacks on others.
And what is this nebulous "something"? You've already rejected the "armed guard" as something sufficient. You've already implicitly rejected bans on extended magazines as something sufficient (standard handgun magazine is 10-15, two guns and close range...). Each additional "something" has a cost.
You're suggesting that the existing licensing, design restrictions, and in some cases outright bans are insufficient to prevent "tossing our children away in a blood sacrifice," but you won't put up some solutions of your own for review. You certainly don't address mental heath issues -- the gun owners should be criminals merely for possessing some (any) type of weapon.
You don't get to declare measure of what is not "a blood sacrifice" without seeing just how hard "better than the status quo" is.
Yes.
It appears that you're trolling for the "if even one life is lost..." position, in which case, I will say yes. There is always an acceptable loss, because the controls required to guarantee no loss, even if possible, are totally unreasonable to your average person. Two handguns, stock magazines, school drop-off time. You could create a dozen victems in a 30 seconds -- many schools, at least in my district, require entry at one point. In the case that I'm familiar with (as a parent), that is at the apex of a 90 degree funnel (wings of the building).
Want to know how else to accomplish this without a gun? If the entrance lacks stairs -- a car. One of tens of millions of perfectly legal cars.
Short of an armed police officer at every such entrance (the "good guy" you claim cannot prevent the shooting) or confiscating all handguns, what do you propose to guarantee no loss? More to the point -- what are the downsides to what you propose? At some point, those downsides introduce your derisive "acceptable loss" whether you like it or not.
Pithy saying, but not a basis for a law.
The customer wants everything to be premium quality at the lowest possible non-premium, and preferably free, price. Not many fools are willing to provide that. Even fewer fools are willing to require that result as a matter of law.
No.
It does not remain to be seen, and there have been numerous long term tests. You claim that "consumers like me *want* to know," but you can't be bothered to even look for whether there have beeen any long term tests. You don't want to know whether it is inconsequential, or the results of any tests -- you want to know whether you should act on your prejudice.
Whether they cause harm is relevant to a labeling requirement, and to the question of deception. Nobody can be obligated to label themselves or their products merely to support someone's political prejudices.
You do not have that right, in the same manner that you do not have the right to know if the food was grown by a 20,000 acre corporate farm or a 500 acre family farm. Your political position is not a basis for mandatory labeling, and others refusal to play to your prejudice is not deceit.
It doesn't matter whether you're capable of making an informed decision, and he's not interested in protecting you from your prejudice or unreasonableness. He and others simply refuse to expend their time and energy to support scientifically unsupported, irrational prejudices such as yours.
You know as well as I do that food is not required to be labeled as GMO, and is prohibited from being labeled as "GMO free" or the like, because there is no demonstrated harm from the former, or benefit from the latter.
Why can't you focus on the very points that I made, instead of twisting the definition of "deceit" to include the omission of a scientifically inconsequential aspect of the product?
Sixteen posts on this one topic today... the sparks from your axe-grinding wheel are really flying.
Those should be labeled too. The damn grocery store insists upon merely labeling them as "herring," or the more insidious "pickled herring."
Since you're certainly not named "Lorien_the_first_one," you'll forgive me for declining to let someone who is, by their own definition, dishonest lecture me on the nature of honesty.
Because consumers who remain far more similar to the old Mark Lynas than to the new Mark Lynas will misuse the information, and those hoping to impose the labeling requirement haven't offered a rational, rather than fear-mongering, basis for imposing the labeling requirement?
People, whether they are indvidials or groups acting as a corporation, hate being told what to do without good reason. "Because we want to know in order to support our irrational prejudices" is not a good reason.
So you appear to be agreeing that China is really quite similar...
False. Both are publicly owned and publicly traded corporations.
Feel free to point out where BankAmericorp appears, or for that matter where anyone holds an ownership stake in excess of 10%.
They handled 3.2 trillion dollars in transactions in the same way that NASDAQ has handled 1.2 billion shares so far today -- NASDAQ does not own those shares, NASDAQ processes trades of those shares between buyers and sellers. VISA processes payments between you and the merchant that you handed the credit card to. Since VISA falls well below your arbitrary line ($3 billion in n.o.p, not exactly a ruler of the universe there), there's no problem, right?
Repeat after me... payment processors are not banks. Payment processors do not issue mortgages. Payment processors do not issue CDOs. Payment processors process electronic payments.
The way you've used "We The People" ("We The People don't care..."), besides demonstrating amazing hubris on your part, distills down to mob rule. Until you develop a logical rationale and dividing line to support what you claim ought to be done, you can quite rightly be ignored.
For the purposes of entering into contracts, buying property, and the like, they are. Since well before you were born.
Not good enough. Where do you draw the line between large and small? How are you measuring power? You have to actually think through these issues and justify the conclusion of why you apply the principle only to some and not to all. That pesky Fourteenth Amendment, you know...
Irrelevant. The MasterCard and VISA networks are not banks. Bank of America is a client of the MasterCard and VISA payment networks.
Why would the payment processors have to provide due process or obtain a legal ruling? They're private businesses, not government agencies. The mere fact that they're large businesses does not mean that they are forbidden from behaving like any small business or individual -- if they do not want to do business with someone, they cannot be forced to. You should research the term "concerted refusal to deal," and then consider that there must be an actual prospective agreement, not merely independent action, before someone can successfully attack a refusal to trade on antitrust grounds. Hence decisions like the recent EC decision declining to go after the payment processors under competition laws.
The converse would be hilarious. Anyone boycotting a business or organization would have to provide due process and obtain a legal ruling that would permit them to refuse to trade with, say, Walmart. Hilarity ensues.
The confirmation email sent to the spamtrap account is itself the trap event. If the spamtrap does not confirm and the list does not send anything other than the confirmation email, then both the Hotmail management screen and his statements are still fully consistent. Do you want me to sign you up to his list to prove the point, or are you content with merely being lead to this very obvious conclusion through multiple Slashdot postings?
And yes, I am accepting it as true. It's trivial to follow the list signup procedure, respond to the confirmation message, and note that Hotmail even automatically categorizes the email as one from a newsletter. I unfortunately have to wait for the next mailing to confirm the unsubscribe link, unsubscribe, and then wait to not receive more messages, but it is consistent with everything that has been written, whereas you are merely guessing. And ignoring every other opinion to the contrary, e.g.:
http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3314491&cid=42276705
http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3314491&cid=42276435
You really insist on not reading the source material, don't you. "Hotmail allows newsletter publishers to view data about what percent of their messages to Hotmail users are being flagged by users as "spam," and when I looked up the stats for our IP, they showed a "complaint rate" of less than 0.1% (usually the rest of people hitting 'Junk Mail' to unsubscribe from the list)." The screenshot states that it is for a 24 hour period. With a subscribership of 420,000, he's not going to be emailing 420,000 Hotmail users over 24 hours.
In that case, why isn't the spam-identified content blocked when sent from other IPs/email accounts? "This only happened when sending from my own IP address at peacefire.org. It didn't happen if I tried sending a message from my Gmail account to a Hotmail address, even if the message contained one of the four banned domain names, so the issue probably won't reproduce if you try sending a test message yourself."
In that case, why is the mailing list not blocked, but only certain content? "It turns out that out of the seven different URLs that I had been mailing to our users, four of the domains in those URLs would generate a "550 Message Contains SPAM Content" error when sent from my IP to a Hotmail address, and the other three did not."
What you keep saying is that you simply will not read what is going on, and will not address the actual problem, but by God you'll fight tooth and nail against anyone who dares to point that out. Bravo. You'll notice that others have picked up on it too. I replied because you were +5 Informative yet clearly wrong. That seems to have resolved itself now, so I'm done with you.
Actually, as I read it, it's the combination of mentioning certain domain names and the fact that the message originates from the mailing list IPs. It seems that other messages from the same IP would be received rather than blocked (not specifically discussed, but implied in the three not-banned domain names) and that messages containing the same domains sent from other IPs and email addresses would be received rather than blocked (specifically discussed in his gmail example, paragraph after the session transcript).
It's a far more specific block, and one that I suspect whitelisting the mailing list email address does not overcome (I'm not a member of the mailing list) -- which would be the ultimate issue here.
Yes, you've noted three trap hits out of 68,000 messages. Do you want to bet that those three trap hits are signup confirmation emails resulting from (i) typographical errors in the email address submitted by someone attempting to sign up or (ii) 'drive by' sign ups by a third party who has an axe to grind against the list?
There is essentially nothing to prevent someone from signing mike@plan99.net up to a dozen mailing lists in the signup process. It doesn't matter if they're mile@plan99.net or simply a jerk -- the fact that it happens (at 0.0044% frequency) doesn't transform the mailing list operator into a spammer. Even Hotmail notes that "[w]ell-behaved senders will hit very few such accounts because they're generally sending to people who give them their address and because they collect and process their NDRs." They don't expect a zero rate.
That you're not bothering to think through the signup and confirmation process, for one... that your putting claims in his mouth that he never made, for another... "The list is also comprised of 100%-verified-opt-in addresses, meaning that a new subscriber has to reply to a confirmation message in order to be added to the list. That's considered the gold standard for responsible mailing." There's simply no basis for you to say that those accounts were falsely opted-in.
FYI in the complaint rate section the SNDS FAW states that "more than 30% of the IPs sending mail to Windows Live Hotmail keep their complaint rate at less than 0.3% and this represents a good bar to shoot for." He's allegedly at 0.1%. Your expectations are simply unrealistic, and yet again show that you're not willing to deal with the reality of the situation rather than attributing anything other then perfection as being evidence that "the guy is a spammer." Frankly, you're a perfect example of the problem at hand.
Again, deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions. Reread the actual problem -- the users do not see these emails when sent from this account, and therefore cannot unmark the mail as spam. The problem is not solved. The problem isn't even remotely what you concieve it to be.
You assume that this is case, yet the poster provides a link to management data which at least appears to show that your assumption is incorrect. Did you read the post where it mentions that "[it] showed a 'complaint rate' of less than 0.1% (usually the rest of people hitting 'Junk Mail' to unsubscribe from the list)," or are you simply going to deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions.
Apparently, deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions.
BAD 'EXPERT'!
If I sign up to a mailing list, I expect to receive the output of that mailing list until I unsubscribe. I certainly don't want the mailing list silently dropping me, and I'm not very interested in the ISP offloading its mailing list problem onto me by making me affirmatively renew my subscription. Especially when you offer no evidence that 'addresses that signed up a long time ago' make up a disproportionate fraction of the alleged 0.1% spam report rate.
Pushing the problem onto the 400,000+ individual users instead of dealiing with it at the ISP level is exactly the sort of free market failure tha the poster complains of.
Again, deny any version of reality that doesn't align with your assumptions. He isn't being blocked by SpamHaus. He's being blocked by Hotmail and Yahoo. Just admit that you haven't actually read the post, that you're spouting off about your own personal bugbear, and that your advice has almost no bearing on the actual problem. It'll make you feel better, honest.
We will tolerate no dissent! Not only will we refuse to use this, but we will ensure that nobody who disagrees with us (or simply doesn't give a rat's ass about our fundamentalist take on software freedom) will be able to even have the opportunity to use this!
FREEDOM! (for us, not for you... you're too stupid to be allowed the choice).
It's not a spelling error if one correctly spells the different word that they ment, moron.
You assume that the royalty percentages are cumulative. They are not. If there are two companies with standards essential patents who manufacture and sell the devices, which is typically but not exclusively the case, then Company A could pay Company B 2.25% per device, and Company B could pay Company A 2.25% per device, or Company A and Company B could cross-license. When Company A manufactures a devices per year and Company B manufactures b devices per year, net patent revenue (or expense) for each is:
For A, (b-a)*0.0225
For B, (a-b)*0.0225
If the number of devices manufactured is comparable to equal, these figures trend to 0, not to (b)*0.045 and (a)*0.045 as you suggest.
Why is Company A compelled to charge an extra 4.5% per device? It could, but then again it has little reason to. Supply and demand and other cost factors will principally drive the price, and chopping that price into royalties versus other factors is like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. What matters is your net patent expense, just like your supplier expense, labor expense, etc.
The royalty rate is a cost of entry if you have nothing other than cash to trade. Companies holding standards essential patents are not being altruistic -- they are trading amongst themselves, and a cross-license is in some ways simpler than paying cash.
Apple does not have anything that it wishes to trade, but wants the cost of entry (i.e., the royalty rate) to be really, really low. Yet the cost of entry is based upon obtaining the benefit of each standard-essential patent owner's R&D efforts and IP, which Apple claims, at least with respect to its own efforts and IP, to be worth a very great deal (as reflected in the price premium that consumers pay and Apple's efforts to keep its IP completely proprietary).
A court (or expert) looking to establish a reasonably royalty rate is not merely going to evaluate a percentage per device -- that is the end result. That court is going to have to consider the royalties paid by other companies which have sought royalty-only license agreements (are there any?) and the gross value of what has been traded between standards-essential patent holders in pure cross-licensing or hybrid cross-licensing + royalty deals.
In Apple's case, iSuppli figures suggest that materials + labor represent about 1/3rd the price of their devices. That means Roughly 66% is IP + goodwill. That may "seem rather high," but that is what the market thinks that those properties are worth.
This is not a CRT-only problem.
Gamers.
Not surprising, since you're ignoring the underlying problem. Your 2560x1600 desktop on that 30" LCD is going to kill the ability of your videocard to display a modern game at an acceptable frame rate. Many gamers will not accept windowed half-screen (or whatever fraction is required) gaming on their $1K LCD.
No. Windows and OSX have figured this out. Linux window managers (at least one popular one) need to as well.
Irrelevant to your desired scheme, where keyboard hotkeys would still be required. In Windows and OSX you can still task switch, move to another desktop, etc. using such hotkeys. Yet the game controls the resolution of the monitor in fullscreen mode.
Yeah... the absolutely part... no attorney who has studied constitutional law is going to buy that. The "living constitution" (and analogous "living statute") theory of legal interpretation is one of many, and is quite open to philosophical debate.
You're also going to have a hard time convincing many people that the "intent of [the] applicable statute" evolves over time in an undefined way rather than being fixed by the legislature that enacted the law. That is sort of mushiness that the strict constructionists are rejecting -- rather they argue that a circumstance either fits within the text or it does not. Then you have the "originalists" who think that regadless of the breadth of the text, you only implement the intent of the enacting legislature that fits within it.
It's a continuum, and to claim that the judges miffed it you must claim, as you apparently do, that no method of interpretation could possibly be right except for yours. The problem is, that claim is ridiculous on its face.