I seem to have rather a lot of Random/Funny posts these days which are just collections of links. Possibly the separate category will be a good enough way of dividing these, but possibly I should consider Simon’s blogmarks approach.
But for now, have some links!
- Wise man takes neither food nor drink
- Do you know what Yahoo! do with your information?
- Anti-spam legislation appears to be a spammers wet dream
- This might explain why I couldn’t get to my site, even though El and others could yesterday
- Apparently there’s a type of therapy that uses E that proponents are trying to get legalised
- America is not a Christian state
- Caffeine level in the SEA “causes concern” — why people are so happy and awake when they go to the beach!
- An actual, serious investigation into The Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
- Robo-receptionist — do you think it gossips and organises the office lottery pool too?
- And finally … the Catapulting Santa game!! (Note: Flash)
Posted by Meri @ 6:20 PM on November 26, 2003
Comments (4) Permalink
Comments (4) Permalink
November 27th, 2003 at 6:02 AM
“Violators are subject to awards up to $2 million, potentially tripled for intentional violations, and five years in prison. ”
Am I the only person who finds this a bit OTT?
I have a feeling there may be “worse” crimes with more lenient sentenses… Annoying as it may be, the potential harm spam can do seems minimal.
Thinking about it, it begs the question “Are we allowed to tell people not to talk to us?”.
In reality if someone is annoying you, you can tell them to shut up and go away. If they refuse, you can go somewhere they can’t follow, or if its a serious problem you *can* slap a restrainment order on them.
To compare to the internet, I feel that what might be lacking is a precise feeling of “public” and “private”, or places where annoying people cannot follow you.
What particularly is missing, and was highlighted by recent events with liveJournals, is that while you can say “Allow NO ONE except X, Y and Z”, but you can’t say “Allow EVERYONE except X, Y and Z”.
If it were possible, should we be able to?
Just pondering…
Tony
November 27th, 2003 at 9:14 AM
It is possible depending on what software you use for your blog etc. I can block people’s IPs if I want to. Of course the person might be able to keep changing IPs, but for a lot of people that will get the message across.
What really worries me about the spam law is that it is a $2mil fine … “potentially tripled for intentional violations”. Does this mean that people whose computers are taken over by spam-viruses can be fined $2mil for just not realising they were sending spam? That’s a bit crazy if you ask me….
November 27th, 2003 at 10:09 AM
LOL for the robo-receptionist – I want one!
Yay for the Internet not being “broken”. That phrase amused me greatly, someone’s been reading UserFriendly.
Now to spam. TBH I don’t think there’s such a thing as “legitimate e-mail marketing”, just as I don’t think there’s “legitimate telemarketing”.
Tony: yes, you can ask people not to talk to you. If they have even a little bot of social skill and grace, they will oblige.
Does this mean that people whose computers are taken over by spam-viruses can be fined $2mil for just not realising they were sending spam?
I had a conversation on a similar subject with Martin last night. It would appear that there is precedent in British law for at least some similar cases. There was one bloke who got off a child porn trial by saying his machine had been compromised and had downloaded the images without his knowledge. So it would appear that as long as you didn’t know that your machine was compromised, you can probably get off. Ho hum.
December 1st, 2003 at 1:05 AM
Grr arghh… that bloody Santa game is driving me insane… not only am I now rather too late for bed (yes, it really is past one in the morning, which is not good for the start of the week), but I can’t get Santa farther than 350.4 meters… he just refused to slide any more than that.