Of course, they released it last year, but because it is backwards compatible, for some people it won't show up until next week.
Shipping was a problem. It's pretty black and white that most people will just find a humdinger of a cat, which they are likely to shrow out the window as soon as they open the box. The cat, as the tail goes, landed on all four feet, and scientific circles pawsed to argue that it should be meters instead. But employing meter-made cat women would be to batty an idea.
The rest of the people caused them to fall asleep, and their computers were stolen.
Wikipedia made a huge mistake. It figured that everyone can contribute *and* edit, and that editors were also contributors. Nope, contributors are mostly good contributors, that Wikipedia got right. Editors, however, either want to present information, ot just their own POV.
Letting contributors be editors is asking for poor presentation. Asking editors to be contributors is begging to be hurt. The "but more people will fix it" response may be true, but that's is a kludge, not an answer to the problem.
Therefore, there needs to be a separation between contributing to a page and editting it. Allowing people to edit the main page is silly. Allowing them to edit a candidate is an excellent idea. As a candidate begins to differ from the main page (or possibly a certain amount of time has passed), there can be a process ot make it the main page. This process, whether by hand, by vote, or who knows what, should have different rules than fully open contributions.
The only real drawback is who gets to decide what goes live is not a more limited pool and be even more easily usurped by a group that decides they want to "own" a page, or bias of the responsible editor. It'll be interesting to see how it works out, and then how the finished product differs from Wikipedia.
Another point would be not to associate the actor unless required. It comes off as pedantic. And, reasons should not be given because they seem like excuses. So:
"Dear so-and-so, I am Such-and-such and am responsible for all decisions regarding Customer Service. The standard policy for free accounts is to delete..... This policy has been followed, and the opportunity to upgrade the account--which backs up accounts to make a restoration possible--was offered. No response was received within the alloted 48 hours, per terms of the free account service agreement. As such, an automated process deleted the data. The process used makes the data unrecoverable.
I am sorry for the inconvenience. Please provide comments that will help us improve our service for not only yourself, but also for our other valued customers. Sincerely, Such-and-such"
This sort of passivation makes eyes glaze over and also tricks our brains into not parsing the whole thing at a time. It's hard to associate bad guy A with doing bad thing B if both A and B are obscured behind intermediaries.
Obscured is not what is happening. It is all about the subjectivity inherent in referring to a subect as "i", "we", or "you". That subjectivity triggers subjectivity in the subject, which will enforce what the subject already feels. If this were a joyous letter, subjectivity would be used to heighten the pleasure.
While the floppy is not common as it used to be, it is supported on every OS, and the 3.5" goes back over a decade, making it the optimal form of media for small amounts.
Why anyone would want to get rid of the floppy is beyond me. It is small and somewhat durable (unlike CDs). The hardware is very cheap, and a new floppy is even cheaper. USBs are not ubiquitous, and not all OSes support them. Remember, most people are not using the most recent versions of OSs.
The floppy will fade on its own one day, but declaring its death is just cheap showmanship. If the news meant anything to you, it means you recognize how good the floppy is too.
SLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINESLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINE SLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINESLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINE SLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINESLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINE IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the condi
95 did this too. But, it only checked for one file, and by name. The answer was to create a zero-length file names whatever.dll and put it on a floppy.
If a penny's weight makes it worth five cents, i hope it goes up. It's a loony idea, but i have a sixth sense that they'll finally be worth something on the moon.
Interestingly enough, it was a Republican, Sen Specter, that challenged him on this. As the article comntinues "Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering."
So, if both parties don't want this, let's hope this guy gets canned, quickly.
are you saying that we're not allowed to use TOOLS to aid in this task?
When the tool is a crutch, yes. Nobody truly learns to ride a bike until the training wheels are off.
As long as a filter is used, the child never learns to monitor himself.
Should I carry my child to school instead of driving him?
The OP didn't say the parent should be there at all times instead of the AI. The OP suggested that the parent have a decent relationship with the child, so the child can be trusted on his own.
As long as this sort of technology isn't used in a "fire and forget" configuration, but is accompanied by active involvement, I don't see how this is a bad thing AT ALL.
That's like saying every marriage should have a prenuptial agreement. If a divorce happens, it helped, and if it doesn't happen, how did it hurt?
Well, the mere presence of the agreement strains the relationship itself and gives it a cheap feeling.
Using a tool to "help" a real parent-child relationship will only serve to ruin it.
Suppose I give my kid a book about morality, a book which closely matches my own concepts. Am I copping out?
No. But this is not comparable for two reasons.
1) Giving the book is merely transmitting in written form what would otherwise be transmitted orally.
2) The book does not monitor the child; it merely gives information.
Please spell out exactly what is and is not acceptable in the rearing of a child, it would be very helpful for me.
Whose talking about the totality of rearing a child? The point here is to have a decent relationship with the child as part of the rearing.
The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience.
45 volunteers?
Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!
On top of that, they are volunteers?
Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...
The participants were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work
And they believe the answers? Why not ask people "Are you a liar?" and find out that 75% of the people always tell the truth.
Sheesh! This study is an affront to altruism.
and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.
By who?
Altruism us unselfish behaviour. Guess what, what is unselfish to A may be tremendously selfish to B. Republicans and Democrats have severely different defintions of selfish and unselfish. And then there's Xians and Muslims. The list goes on.
Being selfish is an inherently subjective behaviour, making altruism also inherently subjective. It changes by the person. So, if this "game" could measure altruism, it would be only one person's subjective view of altruism, implemented in a game.
And even if it could measure altruism, it is a game. And as many people know, people use in-game personas for who they may like to be, or to act out immature feelings that the person would not normally act with. How many people play games exactrly as they live life?
On top of that, they knew this was for a study. Being self-concious would have an obvious affect on altruistic tendencies.
He said true altruism was a rare or even intangible thing.
*Sigh*
Sounds like he found what he wanted to find. There are many altruistic people. You just have to know where to look.
"Altruism is usually reciprocal - you do something for someone and you expect something back ultimately.
/me cries.
And _he_ is an expert on altruism???
"The other types are kin altruism, giving to ones relatives, and being cheated or cuckolded."
Oh please. We give to our families not out of altruism, but because of identification. This is very basic psycology.
He said it would be interesting to study people at the extremes of altruism and selfishness and see if their brains differed significantly.
So, now altruistic people are not normal?
===============
Moral of the story is, ask a hedonist about altruism and he'll tell you that it's an abnormality.
While it is true that we are born selfish, Freud explained why very well, because we cannot differentiate betwen our own ego and anyone else's for a couple years, and our own ego isn't fully developed until about age five. By that time we have a firm root in selfishness and it takes work to change it.
Trying to find the physiological manifestation of psycological behaviour is an arduous task that rarely yieds anything even remotely conclusive. Yet, as in any frontier, researchers are doing their best, and sooner or later it will likely yeild fruit. However, taking on complex behavioral systems which are based in culture, change by the person, and even in a given person changes throughout his years, assuming results is preposterous. Let alone in a small group, and by people who don't even know what it means.
I'd call it junk science, but even that name would give it too much credit.
For those who don't know, this possibility was discussed in France two centuries ago, where this and many other troubling discoveries were dealt with.
The plan put in place was considered absurd, but doable. To somehow or another change the very climate of the world, to make it use the flakespace at a slower pace until a new dimension could be discovered.
So, along with European clocks moving a head a second every few years, there world temperature too was set to become warmer. The phenomina today which we call "Global Warming" is actually there to save us from the disasturous effects of two similar snowflakes.
The official Snowflake Registry in Paris has concluded, after a full investigation of the matter, that no two snowflakes have ever been alike, and each flake fallen is actually recorded with an id. Should you happen to generate a snowflake on your own, please register it, and do the world a favor.
can see you've never worked at an ISP. A customer who is cut off could not care less about why, all they want is to be reconnected immediately and with no work on their part. They will threaten leaving your service, lawsuits, and practically death threats if you do not reconnect them.
Can't you just say "run this", and either give them a program or mail them a CD?
Obviously this won't work, i just don't know why, or at least not clearly.
There are only a few ISPs that connect at cross-network access points. All other ISP, buy their service from up-level ISPs.
As has been suggested before, why can't every ISP have a policy (start at the top (the access points), and the rules will trickle down) that any ISP sending spam has to turn off access within a few hours or be shut down.
Ultimately, the low-level ISP, who actually connect to the users would be forced to recognize the individual computers sending the spam, and shut down their access. These users can even use a virus cleaning program, or never come back on.
When "innocent" computers are turned off, it really isn't that big of a deal. There are free tools to remove viruses, and i'l bet they will be *happy* to know they're a problem, and how to get better.
At first they would be inundated with calls, but then we'd have a clean inter-network.
And noone can just start a new top-level network, because they would be denied entry to the access point, of which there are only a few.
Slashdot Mirror
"0-day" has become nothing more than a buzzword.
Because it itself is no longer a 0-day buzzword. Oh, the irony.
MIT Scientists.
What's with all the "scientist" stories of late. Can't we just say researchers? Which would be more accurate.
Harvard Physicists Make Light Dance
It's about time those stuffed-shirts had some fun. And being it's just a "light" dance, they won't even break a sweat.
Quantum Computer To Launch Next Week
Of course, they released it last year, but because it is backwards compatible, for some people it won't show up until next week.
Shipping was a problem. It's pretty black and white that most people will just find a humdinger of a cat, which they are likely to shrow out the window as soon as they open the box. The cat, as the tail goes, landed on all four feet, and scientific circles pawsed to argue that it should be meters instead. But employing meter-made cat women would be to batty an idea.
The rest of the people caused them to fall asleep, and their computers were stolen.
Millimeter Turbins? Must be for really small Muslims.
It definitely made me want to read that book again
Just play it with tonight's lecture.
How skeptical should we be of we read in books?
What?
Wikipedia made a huge mistake. It figured that everyone can contribute *and* edit, and that editors were also contributors. Nope, contributors are mostly good contributors, that Wikipedia got right. Editors, however, either want to present information, ot just their own POV.
Letting contributors be editors is asking for poor presentation. Asking editors to be contributors is begging to be hurt. The "but more people will fix it" response may be true, but that's is a kludge, not an answer to the problem.
Therefore, there needs to be a separation between contributing to a page and editting it. Allowing people to edit the main page is silly. Allowing them to edit a candidate is an excellent idea. As a candidate begins to differ from the main page (or possibly a certain amount of time has passed), there can be a process ot make it the main page. This process, whether by hand, by vote, or who knows what, should have different rules than fully open contributions.
The only real drawback is who gets to decide what goes live is not a more limited pool and be even more easily usurped by a group that decides they want to "own" a page, or bias of the responsible editor. It'll be interesting to see how it works out, and then how the finished product differs from Wikipedia.
to make Fort Knox jealous
You mean Fort Knox and jealous aren't the same person?
Repeat after me: There is no spoon.
The Electric Slide? That's out of this world...
It's all because of poor design. Design should be 50%-70% of a project, with coding coming only at the very end, to implement well defined things.
Another point would be not to associate the actor unless required. It comes off as pedantic. And, reasons should not be given because they seem like excuses. So:
..... This policy has been followed, and the opportunity to upgrade the account--which backs up accounts to make a restoration possible--was offered. No response was received within the alloted 48 hours, per terms of the free account service agreement. As such, an automated process deleted the data. The process used makes the data unrecoverable.
"Dear so-and-so, I am Such-and-such and am responsible for all decisions regarding Customer Service. The standard policy for free accounts is to delete
I am sorry for the inconvenience. Please provide comments that will help us improve our service for not only yourself, but also for our other valued customers. Sincerely, Such-and-such"
This sort of passivation makes eyes glaze over and also tricks our brains into not parsing the whole thing at a time. It's hard to associate bad guy A with doing bad thing B if both A and B are obscured behind intermediaries.
Obscured is not what is happening. It is all about the subjectivity inherent in referring to a subect as "i", "we", or "you". That subjectivity triggers subjectivity in the subject, which will enforce what the subject already feels. If this were a joyous letter, subjectivity would be used to heighten the pleasure.
Just put me in a cold, dark server room.
If your server room is cold and dark, something is very wrong.
While the floppy is not common as it used to be, it is supported on every OS, and the 3.5" goes back over a decade, making it the optimal form of media for small amounts.
Why anyone would want to get rid of the floppy is beyond me. It is small and somewhat durable (unlike CDs). The hardware is very cheap, and a new floppy is even cheaper. USBs are not ubiquitous, and not all OSes support them. Remember, most people are not using the most recent versions of OSs.
The floppy will fade on its own one day, but declaring its death is just cheap showmanship. If the news meant anything to you, it means you recognize how good the floppy is too.
SLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINESLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINE
SLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINESLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINE
SLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINESLASHDOT FILTER TO GET AROUND CHARACTERS PER LINE
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the condi
95 did this too. But, it only checked for one file, and by name. The answer was to create a zero-length file names whatever.dll and put it on a floppy.
Do you need a search warrant for a Google bomb?
If a penny's weight makes it worth five cents, i hope it goes up. It's a loony idea, but i have a sixth sense that they'll finally be worth something on the moon.
Just my two (worth ten) cents.
My company SpongeNoMore will be entering the sponge removal phase soon. The plan is to rocket them to Mars, and nukle 'em with my TeslaWave OvenRay.
They better find water, 'cus i don't want to be responsible for making Mars into the black planet.
Wow, his statement is troubling.
Interestingly enough, it was a Republican, Sen Specter, that challenged him on this. As the article comntinues "Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering."
So, if both parties don't want this, let's hope this guy gets canned, quickly.
are you saying that we're not allowed to use TOOLS to aid in this task?
When the tool is a crutch, yes. Nobody truly learns to ride a bike until the training wheels are off.
As long as a filter is used, the child never learns to monitor himself.
Should I carry my child to school instead of driving him?
The OP didn't say the parent should be there at all times instead of the AI. The OP suggested that the parent have a decent relationship with the child, so the child can be trusted on his own.
As long as this sort of technology isn't used in a "fire and forget" configuration, but is accompanied by active involvement, I don't see how this is a bad thing AT ALL.
That's like saying every marriage should have a prenuptial agreement. If a divorce happens, it helped, and if it doesn't happen, how did it hurt?
Well, the mere presence of the agreement strains the relationship itself and gives it a cheap feeling.
Using a tool to "help" a real parent-child relationship will only serve to ruin it.
Suppose I give my kid a book about morality, a book which closely matches my own concepts. Am I copping out?
No. But this is not comparable for two reasons.
1) Giving the book is merely transmitting in written form what would otherwise be transmitted orally.
2) The book does not monitor the child; it merely gives information.
Please spell out exactly what is and is not acceptable in the rearing of a child, it would be very helpful for me.
Whose talking about the totality of rearing a child? The point here is to have a decent relationship with the child as part of the rearing.
This is so reidiculous.
The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience.
45 volunteers?
Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!
On top of that, they are volunteers?
Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...
The participants were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work
And they believe the answers? Why not ask people "Are you a liar?" and find out that 75% of the people always tell the truth.
Sheesh! This study is an affront to altruism.
and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.
By who?
Altruism us unselfish behaviour. Guess what, what is unselfish to A may be tremendously selfish to B. Republicans and Democrats have severely different defintions of selfish and unselfish. And then there's Xians and Muslims. The list goes on.
Being selfish is an inherently subjective behaviour, making altruism also inherently subjective. It changes by the person. So, if this "game" could measure altruism, it would be only one person's subjective view of altruism, implemented in a game.
And even if it could measure altruism, it is a game. And as many people know, people use in-game personas for who they may like to be, or to act out immature feelings that the person would not normally act with. How many people play games exactrly as they live life?
On top of that, they knew this was for a study. Being self-concious would have an obvious affect on altruistic tendencies.
He said true altruism was a rare or even intangible thing.
*Sigh*
Sounds like he found what he wanted to find. There are many altruistic people. You just have to know where to look.
"Altruism is usually reciprocal - you do something for someone and you expect something back ultimately.
/me cries.
And _he_ is an expert on altruism???
"The other types are kin altruism, giving to ones relatives, and being cheated or cuckolded."
Oh please. We give to our families not out of altruism, but because of identification. This is very basic psycology.
He said it would be interesting to study people at the extremes of altruism and selfishness and see if their brains differed significantly.
So, now altruistic people are not normal?
===============
Moral of the story is, ask a hedonist about altruism and he'll tell you that it's an abnormality.
While it is true that we are born selfish, Freud explained why very well, because we cannot differentiate betwen our own ego and anyone else's for a couple years, and our own ego isn't fully developed until about age five. By that time we have a firm root in selfishness and it takes work to change it.
Trying to find the physiological manifestation of psycological behaviour is an arduous task that rarely yieds anything even remotely conclusive. Yet, as in any frontier, researchers are doing their best, and sooner or later it will likely yeild fruit. However, taking on complex behavioral systems which are based in culture, change by the person, and even in a given person changes throughout his years, assuming results is preposterous. Let alone in a small group, and by people who don't even know what it means.
I'd call it junk science, but even that name would give it too much credit.
Two snowflakes alike? Bah!
For those who don't know, this possibility was discussed in France two centuries ago, where this and many other troubling discoveries were dealt with.
The plan put in place was considered absurd, but doable. To somehow or another change the very climate of the world, to make it use the flakespace at a slower pace until a new dimension could be discovered.
So, along with European clocks moving a head a second every few years, there world temperature too was set to become warmer. The phenomina today which we call "Global Warming" is actually there to save us from the disasturous effects of two similar snowflakes.
The official Snowflake Registry in Paris has concluded, after a full investigation of the matter, that no two snowflakes have ever been alike, and each flake fallen is actually recorded with an id. Should you happen to generate a snowflake on your own, please register it, and do the world a favor.
can see you've never worked at an ISP. A customer who is cut off could not care less about why, all they want is to be reconnected immediately and with no work on their part. They will threaten leaving your service, lawsuits, and practically death threats if you do not reconnect them.
Can't you just say "run this", and either give them a program or mail them a CD?
A free virus scan is all it takes.
Obviously this won't work, i just don't know why, or at least not clearly.
There are only a few ISPs that connect at cross-network access points. All other ISP, buy their service from up-level ISPs.
As has been suggested before, why can't every ISP have a policy (start at the top (the access points), and the rules will trickle down) that any ISP sending spam has to turn off access within a few hours or be shut down.
Ultimately, the low-level ISP, who actually connect to the users would be forced to recognize the individual computers sending the spam, and shut down their access. These users can even use a virus cleaning program, or never come back on.
When "innocent" computers are turned off, it really isn't that big of a deal. There are free tools to remove viruses, and i'l bet they will be *happy* to know they're a problem, and how to get better.
At first they would be inundated with calls, but then we'd have a clean inter-network.
And noone can just start a new top-level network, because they would be denied entry to the access point, of which there are only a few.
Seriously, why won't this work?