this is also happening on Ubuntu server, running Spamassassin 3.2.5

The linked article references a workaround:
add this line to the "local.cf" spamassassin config file, on this system is was /etc/spamassassin/local.cf

score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0.0

If you're running spamassassin as a daemon, you *may* also want to restart spamd
with something like:

sudo /etc/init.d/spamassassin restart

This solution simply removes the rule by setting the score for that rule to 0.
You'll want to undo this once a solution is deployed.

Note that access to information, education and entertainment, relationships, friendships and intimacy and many other basic human needs are not on that list. Travel, personal property, reproduction, and many other norms we accept as given are also not on that list. What I wrote was that basic human needs for safety and survival would be afforded as a right to all people in a "fair" and idealized world, and that people could work for a life more than that.

I stand by that assertion: such a place would be fair. Would it work? Who knows. European countries offer a reasonable safety net and seem to be doing OK. Compared to some countries, crime there is lower, people are smarter, incarceration is lower, people are happier and healthier, drug use is lower. An idealized world like this probably wouldn't be nearly as free as some people experience today, but it would be fair. Personally, I'd choose freedom over fairness when they conflict, but offering a real safety net for human survival and safety would eliminate the fear that drives many toward the ills we see in the world today, and it would make the world a much nicer place.

If you want to label it a "socialist utopia", fine, call it hoogamazoola for all I care, it doesn't change the essence of the point: life now, on earth, is not even close to fair in any sense, nor do people even give the idea of "fair" a reasonable hearing in social discourse. Marx was right about one thing in the mid 1800's: his premise was there is enough. It was true then, and still is today.

There is ridiculous dishonesty in this assertion.

Of course profiting off someone else's work is unfair. Nothing about what the litigant or the defendants have done or will do relates in any way with "fair". If the world were "fair" every single human would have as an inalienable right free access to decent food, housing, healthcare, and security and working beyond that would be an optional choice to better their life. Humanity is far, far from this ideal, and everything we do now in the business world is *nothing* about fair, it is about power and capital, and having long chains of other humans working for the profit of those few who have learned how to escape or work the system. Remember more than half of your planet's population still farms their food by hand, and dies in large numbers when there are droughts.

"Profiting from someone else's innovation" is at the very basic essence of working capitalism. It an the assumption driving nearly all investment. Using capital to buy a stock, and having that stock rise in value, has the effect of making a profit off the wealth creation and innovation in that company. I don't take a position for or against that system it is highly efficient, when it works, at allocating resources and creating significant development.

But even beyond the nature of business and profit, these folks have gone down into the depths of corporate IP litigation, where the idealistic light of "fair" shines like smelly dirt. Lawsuits rarely have much to do with a high notion of justice; they are what you can pay for, and what you can win. To assert that ones actions are about "fair" when filing a corporate IP litigation lawsuit is patently absurd and frankly laughable.

I got rid of my TV feed service years ago. The content is mostly (like 90%+) mindless drivel, and the ads are insidious. When I'm in a room with a TV, and I hear how loud the ads are, I laugh, and ask them to mute it.

We now have free, on demand movies with most cable services, we have Netflix, Hulu, Tivo, Cablebox DVR, Joost, Miro, Mythtv, Apple TV, Roku, Boxee, PS3 streaming, we have Itunes, and to top all that off, there is an expanding vibrant black market - all getting around the mess of broadcast TV ad delivery. Plus: (...plug...) there are lots of decent open licensed content that you can find, and that market is growing.</plug>

I say let the dinosaur-age broadcasters keep shoving awful ads and crap programming down the TV feed. Why write laws to try and help them provide a better service? Anyone with half a mind left would have dropped it already, and younger minds will see it for what it is: mindless distraction to suck the life out of you.

The only real identity that is immune from subversion is consistent, community agreement.

What I mean by this is that every piece of data measured can be faked, copied, or altered in the database against which the measurement is checked. DNA can be planted, id cards will be sold on black markets and faked, biometrics can be later changed or forged. The measured data in the database against which identity is checked can be altered - *all* the technology-based methods for ID have vectors of attack.

What cannot be faked is what ones peers and friends agree upon regarding who an individual really is, and that the human in wuestion really is the person they agree it is. If all the friends and neighbors agree you really are Bob, then you're Bob regardless of what you do, or what data is stored in electronic systems. This is an unwieldy (nearly impossible) metric for access to a bar, authentication for into services, permission to drive, or asserting your ID at the bank to get your money. However, at its heart, community consistency could be the unalterable root from which all the other identification methods would rely upon. Basically one can create all kinds of electronic, physical, and technology based systems that will need to get reset when they are faked or forged or incorrect. To rely on other electronic systems for that reset is flawed and misses the essential nature of how people understand and use interpersonal identity.

Google is not the concern, nor is their control. I have no expectation Google uses search history for any purpose other than algorithm tweaking. The privacy issue comes from ones search history collected in one place. In aggregate, the collection of all Internet search history is an extremely powerful tool for learning about a person, and possibly exposing things an individual doesn't even realize they are revealing.

Most people have never been sued or accused of a crime, gone through a trial, been deposed or subpoenaed, or have any understanding of just how bad things can get when situations really go bad. There are times when one justifiably wants to guard their privacy carefully, but typically it's difficult to always know in the moment when those times are. Realizing after the fact that you need to protect information from discovery is too late.

I use a proxy as my default search service, like this:

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?q=google+is+collecting+your+data

There may also be others, but this one has worked for me.

Downsides: no cached or similar pages, no searchable search history, no cute math results, none of the value-add search links or maps at the top of the results - just the plain search results.

Upside: no data collection on my searches. (if I believe that the proxy is not also collecting data), you can also set it to give 100 search results as the default.

But its even deeper than this. Freecreditreport leeches off an even bigger scam. The whole premise that people allow, expect and pay these three companies to collect and sell their own information back to others is a intrinsically a scam.

The "big three" do not see or treat consumers as their customers - which explains why they are so difficult to deal with: their customers are other companies that buy information about the "worthiness" of potential customers, like you.

The absurd and unfair treatment that people received from these private companies was so bad that the laws were changed to require them to provide some information back to the unwilling subjects of their profits.

LegalTorrents.com has been in operation for about 6 years now. We host licensed digital media and distribute using Bittorrent.

This article refers to an announcement that we have launched a new service for members providing open Bittorrent tracking so anyone can host their own content seeds, and publish an unlimited amount of material without uploading to the LegalTorrents servers.

@publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap, here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT_SV8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w
and an issue section with several articles, http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc

There are several steps to qualify for safe harbors, and we will follow each of them to the letter. We have not yet had to reply to any DMCA takedowns yet - all the content on the website must have a share-friendly license before content can be uploaded.

In such a situation, we will both defend the rights of our customers and provide them all the information possible to resolve the issue. I disagree the FAQ is slanted toward "IP-thieves". This does not represent the ethos of LegalTorrents.

Fred von Lohmann from the EFF provides an excellent .pdf review for service providers; there is a recently updated version here:
http://www.law.depaul.edu/centers_institutes/ciplit/niro_symposium_09/pdf/paper_cohn1.pdf
plus EFF has a wiki page with additional details: http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Actually, this is not accurate, the trackers are open, and can be used without adding the hash to the website. Unfortunately, a completely open system is open to abuse, copyright infringement, and other issues.

To publish your own content, or content you have a license to distribute, membership is required to "whitelist" content, and prevent automatic removal by blacklisting. This is the solution we have come up with to minimize and prevent abuse.

Any logged in user can flag content as copyright infringing, here
http://www.legaltorrents.com/flag_content
and unless that hash value is in the whitelist (added by a member), the tracker will remove it in about 15 minutes.

I'd really like to see Google open the API so anyone can upload 360 degree image sets and add to the mapping collection.

Inside and on top of buildings, police stations, museums, libraries, schools, government offices, cemeteries, amusement parks, rivers, caves, airports, ports, national parks, trails, lakes, campsites, businesses, military bases, people's homes, backyards, front yards, hospitals, casinos, daycare centers, bars, strip clubs,...

I say, let's post online detailed maps and images of everything and every single place possible, then give it all to one company to share back to us with ads. This is where these efforts will lead. Oh, wait, that doesn't sound as good (er, not evil) any more.

I'm not sure - but is there a way to use all these images in applications that are not Google? Could others have a license to create a 3D first-person environment simulation of the real world if there were enough stitch-together images or 3D camera imagery? Would Google allow this?