Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Slashback

Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance 393

Slashback tonight with more on "anti-leech" anti-browser technology, Panamanian VoIP blocking, the Magic Box fraud, and LotR battle scene creation, fighting back against PanIP, and more. Read on below for the details, and (if applicable) have a good holiday.

Excuse me, is this well already poisoned? PHPee writes "Yesterday Slashdot posted an article (only thieves block pop-up ads) regarding anti-leech.com's anti-theft campaign. I happened to be one of many people who sent an email to anti-leech, explaining my disappointment, and I received an auto-responder message today, indicating anti-leech has posted a FAQ regarding its anti-theft campaign."

Wish he'd have been arrested for fraud, instead. MojoT writes "Following up from a previous story, Madison Priest, the so called inventor of a broadband Magic Box, was arrested Friday on drug trafficking charges and possession of a firearm by a felon. He must have been confusing the bit rate of his Magic Box with the number of hits he was getting off his stash."

You mean this stuff is just a kind of data? pelle writes "As a (non Panamanian) geek in Panama, I've been following the UDP story quite heavily. The Panamanian paper La Prensa reports that the Panamanian Supreme court has suspended the infamous order to block UDP's used for VOIP the Enteregulador (the governments regulator of utilities). The suspension was done on a complaint by a company called Net2Net Corp. There has been strong uproar amongst people in Panama about the blocking of the UPD's. So this is seen as a welcome thing. The article quotes Gonzalo Córdoba, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation as saying "Blocking the ports for accessing voice is a form of censorship". For Spanish readers the article is at: La Prensa Note, my Spanish aint all that yet, so I might have missed out several finer points."

I'll wait out the battle in my hobbit hole, thanks. An anonymous reader writes "First scooped at theonering.net: The official Lord of the Rings site has put up an amazing feature that goes into a lot of detail on the motion-capture techniques and programming that goes into the movies' battle scenes. It is one of the best-designed web features I have seen, very informative with interviews from the people working on it and interactive "design your own army"-type features. This should answer any questions left by the recent Slashdot article, and raise many more... (Requires Flash to view.)"

Don't PanIP Timothy Beere writes "Just a quick update to the Slashdot faithful. I received notice several weeks ago that PanIP was suing me and the PanIP Defense Group for the www.youmaybenext.com web site.

The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, defamation and unfair competition. They obviously see the web site as a big threat to their grand plan of suing the potential thousands of e-commerce sites that they could have targeted.

In a preliminary court hearing last week, a judge resoundingly denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the web site. This is the same judge that will be hearing the patent case. We will soon be filing a motion to have PanIP pay all attorney's fees for the web site case as we feel this was nothing less than a litigation threat meant to restrain our free speech. Apparently PanIP doesn't think we have the right to inform people about what they're are doing. Or maybe they are feeling very uncomfortable with the spotlight shining on them.

One other note. We currently have 16 members in our FightBack Defense Group. The FightBack group will soon be posted on the web site.

On a personal note. I can't say enough about the overwhelming response I got from the original slashdot post. I knew if I could get the word out there that people would be disgusted by what PanIP is doing.

We are in the process of filing our responses for the Group and the case will soon be under way in the court. We are still hunting for good prior art in an effort to have their patents invalidated. We intend to stop PanIP and we need your support!"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance

Comments Filter:
  • "The only way..." (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:08PM (#4771605) Homepage Journal
    The Anti-Leech FAQ says:
    Running a website costs the webmaster behind that site time and money. The only way to cover for that income is using banner ads and pop ups.
    Strange, I was of the impression that there were other business models that worked better than banner ads and popups. In fact, the majority of web sites that I use somehow have managed to stay in business for years despite NOT having banner ads and pop ups. I guess I should expect those sites to fold at any moment.
    • I'd love to respond to your witty and accurate post, but I can't, I have to many effing pop-ups/unders and new-spawned windows to close. Screw it, I'm using mozilla from now on.

      *BAM BAM BAM*
      Excuse me, Mr Emalb, it appears you are using a not Homeland approved browser. You will be assimilated now. Because as we all know, only terrorists support ad-blocking.
    • .... then put it on your web page. Inline the pictures, serve the banners from your own domain space, or whatever. The difficulty is finding a method for serving them that lets you convince the banner vendors that you're not faking hits, but that should be manageable.

      What I really like about PopUP ads is that if you tell Mozilla not to load them, it won't load them. (I'm borrowing my mother-in-law's PC on vacation, and it only has IE - it's been popup city here....)

    • It is the only way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ted_Green ( 205549 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:28PM (#4772260)
      For some websites. Generaly the ones who use Anti-leech.

      Frankly I have *no* problem with Anti-Leech. I think they put it quite eloquently in their faq:

      You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups

      If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.

      If a website wants to use Anti-Leech, *let it* There's no reason it shouldn't.
      True, I think that people who say "We should force you to view our ads if you use are service" are missing a key element that people who don't want to view they ads probably aren't going to click on them.. but hey it's their content and their choice to block, charge or whatever with it*

      *So long as they don't try to prevent others from providing the same content *cough* siaa *cough*

    • If people don't see the ads, the site can't continue, and so people no longer get to visit it.. ... and order is restored once again.

      If I put up a website, it is because I have something to say or something to sell. I don't expect anyone to pay for my site if I have something to say. I did it out of my own volition. What I get is a warm, fuzzy feeling that I've made someone else's day, or in the case of a commercial site, I get customers.

      Ad banners should go the way of the dinosaur. Their benefit is negligible while their drain on the web community is measurable and tiresome.
  • Google (Score:2, Funny)

    by Mattcelt ( 454751 )
    That's funny, they cite google as a "multinational company" with lots of money... But wait, didn't google just start putting small unobtrusive ads on the service relatively recently? How, then, did they get to be this big corporation?

    Very funny, IMHO.
    • Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:30PM (#4771722)
      hint #1: you don't succeed by calling people that visit your site "thieves"

      hint #2: you don't succeed by creating a business that needs screenfuls of FAQs to justify it's existence.
  • by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:10PM (#4771614) Homepage
    ... that these anti-leech folks are kinda weird? Does anyone know where they are located? Their "english" seems a bit... off. If you read the FAQ there's a sidebar that compares them with Google (of all things), with a blurb about Goggle being a huge multinational or something like that. Eh?

    Also their "technology" is not really effective at all. The bit where they claim to protect the HTML source of a page is absolutely ridiculous and simple to circumvent. Do they actually sell this crap??

    Maybe it's just me, but they seem... well, weird. Kinda like those EARN $5,000,000 IN JUST THREE DAYS BY STUFFING ENVELOPES deals. Dunno. Maybe it's just me.

    Oh, and the FAQ page tried to install some Gator scumware on load. I bet they did it because they knew the FAQ was going to get hit, because none of the other pages in the site did that.

    • by CaptainCarrot ( 84625 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:25PM (#4771694)
      Does anyone know where they are located? Their "english" seems a bit... off.

      +1 Insightful! Here's the whois lookup for anti-leech.com:

      Registrant:
      WakeNet AB
      Tanneforsv 17
      Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
      SE

      Domain Name: ANTI-LEECH.COM

      Administrative Contact:
      Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
      Tanneforsv 17
      Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
      SE
      888 888 888 888

      Technical Contact:
      Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
      Tanneforsv 17
      Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
      SE
      888 888 888 888

      Looks to be a one-man operation. Too bad ol' Johan here isn't a better programmer. He might have some up with some approach that wasn't so a) easy to rip off and b) easy to work around.

      • Technical Contact:
        Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
        Tanneforsv 17
        Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
        SE
        888 888 888 888

        If that last line is supposed to be his phone number, isn't the obviously bogus number some sort of violation of whatever rules DNS runs under? The last time I bought a domain name, the signup form made a big stink about making sure that all of the contact info was valid. Maybe we can get whoever issued anti-leech.com to take it back. :-)

    • Thank God for Opera. (Score:3, Informative)

      by RatBastard ( 949 )
      One of many things I liek about Opera is that it ignors Gator and all of the other assorted scumware out there. YAY!
    • Does anyone else think... ... that these anti-leech folks are kinda weird? Does anyone know where they are located?

      Sure.

      bash$ whois anti-leech.com

      (snip)
      Domain Name: ANTI-LEECH.COM

      Administrative Contact:
      Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se

      Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47

      Fair use, etc etc.

    • by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:06PM (#4772395) Homepage Journal
      EARN $5,000,000 IN JUST THREE DAYS BY STUFFING ENVELOPES

      Where can I learn more about this amazing offer?
  • Anti-Theft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Un pobre guey ( 593801 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:12PM (#4771623) Homepage
    An organization is broadcasting information gratis for all to consume. It includes paid advertising it expects you to patiently and passively consume along with the rest of the content. How can it possibly be considered theft to decline to view the advertising?

    This has already been discussed quite a bit. Is there any compelling legal argument that there is a real contractual obligation, express or implied, to force us to consume the advertising?

    • It's not legal theft, but to the content owner, blocking software is a threat to the way they do business.

      This company is trying its best to provide technology to get around the ad-blocking technology... a fair game of cat-and-mouse if you ask me. Although, it looks like the mouse is getting away...
      • It's not legal theft, but to the content owner, blocking software is a threat to the way they do business.

        Perhaps the content owner should reconsider how they do business then. I've never really had a problem with banners or even tasetfully done inline ads, but pop-ups are just downright rude and worse even than telemarketers.
    • by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:12PM (#4771927) Homepage
      The law does not call refusing to watch commercials theft or any other criminal offense. We don't live in an Orwellian time where you could be forced to watch the commercials. It's also not any civil offense I can think of -- you're not breaking any agreement you gave real or implied consent to. I think it's going to be pretty hard to make out any implied legally binding promise on your part to watch ads.

      To use TV as an analogy, muting all the commercials is fine, and is anticipated by the advertisers. If anything the mute button has encouraged them to make ads less bombastic and more entertaining. However, it can get stickier, at least if you are recording and if you are using technology to block the ads. Recording is legal as a form of fair use, but I wonder if routine ad-blocking would raise a problem. I've heard this discussed in the context of these personal video recorders, where they could make ad-skipping very easy, but have made it slightly inconvenient to placate the industry. I don't know if this is out of legal concerns or political pressure. Now, ad blocking software might be a similarly suspect technology. But that seems weak, and as a practical matter the software will not be challenged.

      However, I do think an ethical argument could be made that you should watch the ads, perhaps just occasionally as a compromise. We now the ads are what keep the lights on, and that the advertisers are asking for a little of our time in return to make their pitch. If they ask you up front, would you be willing to watch a few ads in exchange for your nighttime dose of Stargate? Slashdot or Salon ask us to pay a subscription to suppress ads; surely it's implied that they'd rather you didn't do it on your own, thus evading both their revenue streams and being at least a bit of a leech. You're not subscribing for the convenience of having them block the ads, you're paying to block the ads, period.

      But this is perhaps just a lot of handwringing. Certainly ad-blocking is not a crime, but we have to acknowledge that in many cases, as with TV, we prefer ad-sponsorship over other models, such as paying. I used to use ad-blocking software and got tired of managing it. I now glance at the ads occasionally, or at least don't treat them like the Medusa, where a mere glance might be lethal. And, significantly, I avoid ad-choked sites altogether, denying myself the content while making the point that theirs is not a site to which I will give a "hit." If enough people do this, ad revenue drops and the site has to improve its scheme or perish.

      Vote with your feet. Boycott sites you don't like, and respect the sites that you do visit by suffering the content the webmaster has to include not to die. If you don't like it, walk, and if you care enough, send the webmaster a note explaining why.

      Sorry my prose rambles -- I'm still mulling this over.
  • (from the Anti-Leech FAQ):

    You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups
    If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return

    Interesting. How will they know if you don't load the popups? Seems like a scare tactic to me.

    • AFAIK, the popup containst javascript that reports back to the main page, telling it "Yes, I exist, so don't abort". If the main page doesn't get that message in a certain amount of time, it closes or similar.
      • This will be circumvented in 5...4...3...2...

        Not that we want to see the protected websites, per se. Simply because Johan here thinks that he can one-up the geek community at large. Me thinks that Johan's going to be rendered insignificant rather quickly.

        ...1...

    • Re:This is ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrP- ( 45616 )
      Read the site, the previous article, etc.. They created a way of testing if your browser supports popups.. It takes 5 to 25 seconds, and if you support em, you get access to the page, if not you get an error...

      try it yourself: http://www.anti-leech.com/theft_example.html [anti-leech.com]
      • And it doesn't work all that well. I got *DENIED!* and then I hit the back button and the site likes me. Or maybe it's an Opera thing.
      • I see the site fine. I use Mozilla. I have popups blocked. I also use privoxy [privoxy.org] to block advertisements. I have a default policy to deny all cookies. I can still see it fine (I suspect it uses some cookie trick).

        However, this entire thing is a hack. You can't ever have any assumption be 100% true about clients that may or may not execute code you send them.
      • Using Mozilla 1.1 I pass their little "test" just fine... and I have banner ads and popups blocked.

        Heh.
      • Re:This is ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fweeky ( 41046 )
        In Mozilla and Opera, I block unrequested popups and use user CSS to eliminate most banners. JavaScript is enabled, although I reject third party cookies.

        Their example [anti-leech.com] just sat there in both. No access denied, no loading images, nothing.

        Ironically, in MSIE, with no banner or popup blocking (and I *saw* the test popup it launched), and no reported blocked cookies, I got an access denied message after about 5 seconds.

        I'm really impressed by this, uh, "technology". Seriously -- they've come up with something this poor, and actually manage to sell it to people! I wish I could do that, although hopefully with something less lame ;)
        • Not only that... but I just checked it out with Netscape 3.04 with js and images off, and the site worked fine. So did calling the "test image" via context menu. Yeah, I'm real impressed too.

          I'd be even more "impressed" if I were using an afflicted browser, and Anti-Theft was installed on a site I wanted to view, and I had to wait 25 seconds to be told I'd be allowed to continue using the site. I'd probably have already left under the assumption that the server was down or something.

          Seems to me we need a new category for software like this. I suggest "Barnumware".

  • by RollingThunder ( 88952 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:15PM (#4771637)
    *mentally kisses karma goodbye*

    The article headline:
    "Inventor arrested on drug charges"

    In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs.

    Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?

    *shakes head*

    Not meant to be a troll, though I'm sure it'll be moderated as such. Just boggles my mind.
    • I would agree with your position that the emphasis on a pound of wacky tobacky is ridiculous. The only problem is that they found actually found a 1,000-plant Dro Farm that he was running. That's nothing to sneeze, or cough, at.
    • by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:44PM (#4771802)
      Remember that marijuana plants are illegal in and of themselves. Assault rifles are not. Now in this guys case, his being a previously convicted felon meant that he wasn't allowed to posses any firearms at all, which is why he's being charged with that also. But an "assualt rifle" is not an illegal thing per se. In fact, the term assault rifle is purely a propaganda term used to make people think what he had is worse than it was. The legal definition of assault rifle is based purely on the cosmetic appearance of the firearm, with no mention of what caliber round it shoots or anything that actually affects it's performance. People think "machine gun" when they hear assault rifle, but that's not what is technically being said. That's why I say it's a propaganda term. But I digress.
      • At the outset, let me say I'm trying to be informative, not to start a debate over the wisdom of gun control. That's for another day.

        True, assault weapons are not machine guns; they are semi-automatic, so one trigger pull fires one round. The legal definition is confusing and weird, but this is partly because of the pressure exerted by the gun lobby to eek out exceptions. A pure assault weapon ban might make more sense, but given the variety of weapons made, it's pretty tough to come up with an unassailable definition. Ultimately the line is going to be arbitrary, as with so many regulations.

        I don't think "assault weapon" is a propaganda term; certainly the military has a sense of the difference between assault weapons (M-16) and not (9mm sidearm). Assault was used as a synonym for "unusually dangerous," but there is some defensible logic behind that. Pushing for a ban on "unusually dangerous weapons" sound kind of lame, if more accurate.

        I disagree that the difference is cosmetic. Most of the elements in the definition focus on functional attributes that make the weapon more portable or more deadly and so on. I mentioned here [slashdot.org] a link to some information concerning the statutory definition. The statute is quite clear which weapons are OK and which are not; and if you are prosecuted if will do you no good to point to a weapon that is similar but legal. You do run into situations like "What is a silencer?" -- one case I saw involved a guy who tried to make a pathetic silencer from a Coke can or something, but I think he may have been convicted on his intent to make the device, not his success.

        Gun regulation dates back 100 years, and there is considerable caselaw. The assault weapon ban just added a little more scope to it (no pun intended).
        • At the outset, let me say I'm trying to be informative, not to start a debate over the wisdom of gun control.

          SNIP

          True, assault weapons are not machine guns; they are semi-automatic, so one trigger pull fires one round.

          SNIP

          I don't think "assault weapon" is a propaganda term; certainly the military has a sense of the difference between assault weapons (M-16)

          See. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Confusion between what is an "assault weapon" and flat out fully automatic machine guns which have been heavily regulated for years. The M-16 is not an "assault weapon", neither under the legal definition nor under your own. So did you call the M-16 an assault weapon because you're one of the ignorant masses whose fallen for all the propaganda they've heard? Apparently. You don't belive the term is a propaganda term, and more importantly on some level you've accepted that particular lie as truth. Despite your earlier statements in the same post which give a contrary opinion! Quite remarkable.

          I disagree that the difference is cosmetic. Most of the elements in the definition focus on functional attributes that make the weapon more portable or more deadly and so on. I mentioned here [slashdot.org] a link to some information concerning the statutory definition.

          If you want to present the impression of impartially "informing" the readers, don't reference the Brady Foundation. They are at least as biased as the NRA. From the more impartial University of Michigan here are the things that make a rifle an "assault weapon":

          (B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

          `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

          `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

          `(iii) a bayonet mount;

          `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

          `(v) a grenade launcher;

          (i) has some impact on how concealable a weapon is, but in actual use the stock is unfolded and performs identically to a normal stock.

          (ii) is really what makes a weapon look like a military weapon to the general public. I'm suprised that they didn't just ban all rifles with this style of grip. Note that in my opinion, this falls under cosmetic. I can shoot either type of rifle from either the hip or the shoulder. A pistol-style grip is a little easier from the hip perhaps, but I think this is largely cosmetic.

          (iii) This is totally cosmetic. Are drug dealers and gang members really running around with bayonets?

          (iv) Same thing. Is anybody that worried about flash suppressors? It's not like they actually supress the muzzle flash anyway.

          (v) Totally ludicrous. Are any crimes commited with grenades? Besides I would be very suprised if grenades and grenade launchers were not already regulated under firearms laws covering destructive devices

          The statute is quite clear which weapons are OK and which are not; and if you are prosecuted if will do you no good to point to a weapon that is similar but legal.

          The statute is "clear" because it bans a number of weapons by name. The statute is quite unclear because you can buy post-ban weapons that are functionally identical to banned guns with minor cosmetic changes and new names. For example, the Colt AR-15 and Colt "Match Target HBAR". To 95% of the population, they look identical. And they are pretty much right. Colt took off the flash supressor and bayonet mount, slapped on a new name, and hey, legal weapon.

          The bill is also quite unclear because there are several pairs of rifles where both are semi-automatic, both are magazine fed, and both shoot the same round. A specific example is the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. But one is banned by name, and the other is exempted by name! What's the sense in that?
    • by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:51PM (#4771839) Homepage
      In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs. Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?
      I know this will sound like a troll but it's meant as the truth. You see, this happened in America and here in America, guns and violence are okay. Sex and drugs are not. That's why there are so many films with gun fights, people getting killed, people getting hands blown off, screaming, dying, etc. But if there's some drugs involved, then it has to be bad guys. No one just smoking pot on their back porch can be a good guy. No sex either. We can expose "the children" to that. But guns and suffering and people dying horrible painful deaths are okay. So the focus is on the drugs. We're so fixated on the fact that someone had some pot that it goes almost unnoticed that there were deadly weapons in his possession.
    • Possession of marijuana is illegal in the US. Possession of a firearm is not illegal in most of the US. Cops carry firearms, and frequently "assault rifles"; does that make them dangerous? In Switzerland they must be really crazy, then, because every able-bodied male is required to do military training and then required by law to take home and keep in working order a real military rifle, not one of those sissy "assault rifles"...
    • "Assault rifles" are not illegal in most places in the United States. While I don't personally own one, I have several friends that do. My favorite type is the AR-15, which is the civilian variant of the military M-16. The legal, generally available variant is semiautomatic (it does not have 3-round burst or a fully automatic mode). The AR-15 is really quite a lot of fun to shoot. It has very little kick, and is extremely accurate.

      Assault rifles are not practical criminal weapons. They are expensive (an AR-15 costs $1,000 to $1,500). They are not easy to conceal. They are unweidly to operate in confined indoor spaces. These features make them very undesireable to most criminals. Hence, you don't hear about people robbing a convenience store with an AR-15 very often.

      Make no mistake about it, if someone has real criminal intent, a gun law will do nothing to prevent them from carrying out their actions. You can get any gun you want (legal or illegal) into this country, or any other, if you have a strong enough desire to. No law will prevent that. If you don't believe me, then why does Britain have problems with gun violence?

      The reason behind the second amendment is that the government is truly putting its trust in the people, and hence, they have the right to be armed if they so desire. It's not about your right to hunt ducks, or even your right to defend your home against criminals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some crazed revolutionary idiot--I love this country, flaws and all--but this really is the reason behind the second amendment.
      • The reason behind the second amendment is that the government is truly putting its trust in the people, and hence, they have the right to be armed if they so desire.

        OK, then, should we trust people with .50 calibre machine guns? RPGs? Stinger missiles? F-22's? Tactical nukes? Unless you're going to argue that private citizens should be allowed to posess any weaponry they choose, you have to draw the line somewhere. The difference between US gun laws and the rest of the world's is merely that the line is drawn differently.

        And, taking your argument from the other end, if the government trusts its people so much, why aren't people allowed to smoke dope? With dope, the risk of a third party being harmed is surely much smaller than that with a rifle.

    • The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?

      The drugs are illegal (without a tax stamp, which the government won't sell you, if I recall correctly). The guns are, generally, legal.

      Owning the guns, since ( or maybe I should say if) they are suited for military use (see this [go.com] abc news article for a layman's overview which mentions the US vs Miller case), is specifically protected by the US constitution.

      Without the drugs (assuming that the guy wasn't a felon), there would be nothing newsworthy about the guns. With the drugs, they're good for some extra years in jail, but still nothing newsworthy.

    • LOL it was POT, this guy will be too relaxed to bother to even load the damn things. If he'd had a 1/4 oz of Crank then a gun battle would have ensued. The US media has become so absorbed in the War on Terrorism that they'd have you believe that ANY quantity of bud in the US actually comes from a terrorist country. Give me a bloody break, I guess that means Canada is a snowy terorist paradise, and the poor people in Humboldt County must all be raving lunatics.
    • by beej ( 82035 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:30PM (#4772472) Homepage Journal
      In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs.

      Actually, it gives more punch when the assault rifles are listed second. Most people don't think pot is that bad, so it needs to be reinforced with something evil.

      Putting the more-important-thing first often comes out with the opposite effect: "They seized assault rifles and a pound of marijuana." See how flat that sounds?

      People are also more likely to remember the last thing in a list, so it has the most power.

      On that note: someone I knew, a kind gentle man, was arrested for growing pot (several plants, but not large-scale). This guy wouldn't, and didn't, ever threaten anyone with guns. But he had some in the house.

      The guns were reported in the paper. I was surprised at just how evil and dangerous it made him sound, and realized that I had passed similar judgement against people I didn't know just for reading in they paper that their guns were seized.

      Different than the story in question, I know, but just beware when you see things like that printed. You probably know people who own assault rifles.

    • by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:20AM (#4774980) Journal
      I'm blown away.

      It appears most people who replied read this:

      Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?

      and promptly went into Gun Defense mode.

      A few people pointed out the legality of guns vs. the illegality of weed. That's not what he asked. He asked which was more of a threat.

      A few other people pointed out the media's and authority's tendency to exaggerate the nature of weapons found during raids. "Assault rifles" could be, well, anything. However, a person firing a bullet from a rifle is more likely to threaten a person's life than a person lighting up a fatty, which is what RollingThunder was trying to get at.

      If there weren't an insane War on (Some) Drugs that turns people who grow plants and brew chemicals to trade with others for personal use into criminals, this raid would never have happened.

      I'm disappointed. A lot of people completely failed to answer his (possibly rhetorical) question regarding which is a greater threat to human life, instead falling back on the law or media/police exaggerations to dodge the issue at the root of this.

      You can support a person's right to own weaponry and still acknowledge that the availability of weapons poses a greater threat to peace and life than the availability of a plant.
  • by Akardam ( 186995 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:15PM (#4771640)
    http://www.akardam.net/media/news/anti-leech-funny .png [akardam.net]

    That's all I'm going to say... this is too funny.
  • "Today" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why are you calling it theft?
    Legally it is of course not theft to block pop ups (today)


    TODAY?! This implies that at some point, they wish to have pop-up blocking declared ILLEGAL. This really scares me.
  • boo fuckin' hoo (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Legally it is of course not theft to block pop ups [but] it's like stealing something from us.

    The only way to cover for that income is using banner ads and pop ups

    Want money? GET A REAL JOB! What is so special about "pop-ups"? You can't find another way to fund yourself? Can't figure out a type of advertisting that doesn't piss people off? Read some books on capitalism, then adapt or die.

    Seriously, these guys are nuts and will be out of business in a year. Meanwhile, all the small web sites will either die off or find a better way to support themselves.

    Actually, now that I think about it.. I guess I don't mind these guys. They'll let me AVOID pop-ups and the sites that use them! Cool! Hell, I wish Mozilla would put up a dialog that says "oops, this site uses pop-ups, stay the fuck away". Then everybody wins!

    Google is profitable without that much advertising. However, Google is a multinational huge company with an enourmous sale force and budget.

    Gee, I wonder WHY Google is so successful? I wonder WHY Google doesn't have an "apologies" page like you do, trying to justify its existence. Maybe because they have a legitimate business model, not just a bunch of whining and crappy javascript?

    Thank you,

    Anonymous Coward who sounds pissed but really isn't

    • Hell, I wish Mozilla would put up a dialog that says "oops, this site uses pop-ups, stay the fuck away". Then everybody wins!
      Hrmmm...a window that appears on my screen to give me some information that I have to click on before it goes away...

      Wait! This gives me a great idea for a new advertising scheme! I think I'll call them "put up" ads!!! I'll make millions!! :D

      Heh...just kidding. Actually, I am quite happy w/ Mozilla just blocking the pop-ups. I would probably be kind of annoyed if everytime I came to a site which uses pop-ups (which I don't see anyway because they are blocked) a dialoge popped up at me asking me if I want to block that site. The cookie one is annoying enough as it is for me. But I put up with that one because I want to know what sites are trying to put on my computer.

      Just MHO...cheers. :)

  • OK, so I admit that I don't always click over every story linked to by Slashdot before I post.

    But, I did venture over to that Anti-Leech site. After reading a while, laughing out loud a bit, and repeating this for quite some time while browsing their inane site, I started to see pop-ups.

    And no, not just any pop-ups, but pop-up ads that feature illegal devices like x10 cameras, cable descramblers, et al.

    How f*cking ironic is that?!
  • Isn't it kind of odd that Kazaa Lite uses Anti-leech? I mean not only are they distributing software that (amongst other things) allows you to steal music. They distribute a hacked version of someone else's client that they removed the ads from!
  • Translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:21PM (#4771672) Homepage
    From here [prensa.com]

    La Corte Suprema de Justicia ordenó suspender los efectos de la orden del Ente Regulador de los Servicios Públicos (ERSP) que bloqueó los puertos de acceso de voz sobre Protocolo de Internet al admitir una acción de amparo de garantías constitucionales.

    The supreme court ordered the directive to block ports to be suspended based on a [claim] of constitutional guarantees.

    El amparo fue presentado por la firma Infante, Garrido & Garrido a nombre de la compañía Net2net Corp., en contra la resolución de la junta directiva del Ente No. JD-3576, del 25 de octubre del 2002.

    This law firm submitted the request to suspend the blockage on Oct. 25.

    Mediante una nota firmada por el magistrado sustanciador, Winston Spadafora, la Corte solicitó al Ente el envío de un informe acerca de los hechos sobre el caso y se ordenó la suspensión inmediata de los efectos de la mencionada resolución.

    Essentially what I assume is the federal prosecutor requested the company that would have been doing the blocking an explanation about the action, which was then given to the Supreme Court, who in turn stopped the order.

    Para el presidente del Ente Regulador, Alex Anel Arroyo, las llamadas a larga distancia internacional a través de internet son ilegales.

    The dude Alex Anel Arroyo thinks international long distance calls over the internet are illegal, yadda. I assume he's the one that initiated all this. Send him some email =)

    La orden del Ente fue dirigida a unas 50 empresas concesionarias del servicio 211 o servicio de internet para uso público, para que bloqueen 24 puertos de acceso User Datagram Protocol (UDP), que eran utilizados para transmisión de voz, incluso por algunas empresas que daban el servicio al público.

    The blocking order was originally sent to about 50 internet providers to block 24 UDP ports used for voice transmission.

    Esas empresas proveedoras de servicio de internet han presentado varias solicitudes de reconsideración ante el ERSP.

    The companies have in fact requested the order be examinated further.

    Entre los proveedores de internet que hicieron la petición de reconsideración se encuentran Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet A CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net y Senacyt.

    List of ISPs that requested the order be reconsidered.

    La Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Senacyt) criticó la resolución a través de su director, Gonzalo Córdoba, quien afirmó que el bloqueo de los puertos de acceso de voz "constituye una forma inusitada de censura".

    The government technology agency criticized the attempt to block the ports, etc.

    A la posición de los proveedores de internet se suma la de muchos usuarios que se verán afectados con el bloqueo de los puertos de acceso, conocidos como User Datagram Protocols.

    Not to mention individual users who would find themselves screwed (my emphasis) by the UDP blockage. Duh.

  • OK, so I load up the "anti-leech" FAQ, and what do I get? A doubleclick add for....: anti-popup software [omegacs.net]

    ROFL!

  • by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:22PM (#4771681) Homepage Journal
    rant mode on

    Not only do I use a browser that blocks pop-ups, I also have added a variety of advertiser URLs to my "hosts" file. While the pop-ups are annoying no matter what, I generally will let banner ads, etc. download in peace... as long as the ad gets successfully served. The only advertisers in my host file are those who have consistently managed to effectively block the content that I was interested in by not being able to serve the ads they contracted to serve for those sites. If you're going to hit me with an ad, at least do it correctly.

    rant mode off

    Back to "anti-leach"... I guess I'm also supposed to read all the ads in free newspapers and not take a biology breaks or grab a beer when there's a commercial on TV and its a high crime if I hit the mute button. Maybe that's why I'd rather just read a book.
  • Just love your FAQ web page. I especially liked the way your Java code pegged my CPU at 100% and I had to kill -9 my browser. And you wonder why people are blocking your damned pop-up ads? If keeping my software from crashing by blocking these annoyances makes me a ``thief'' then so be it. I guess I already knew that since I don't watch all the ads on television and I don't read all the ads in the daily newspaper or magazines.

  • by raytracer ( 51035 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:29PM (#4771717)

    I'm frankly amazed at the degree to which people go to redefine words to try to change the tenor and direction of debate. A good example is the anti-leech trying to redefine your desire to not read their advertising as theft. To use the word theft to describe such actions is to belittle the meaning of the word theft, making it useless to describe actual property crimes.

    Anti-leech would have you believe that you are under some obligation to make their particular business model (which is apparently to gain money by annoying people with popups) or else you are stealing from them. They admit that in a legal sense, it is of course incorrect to call it theft, but in a moral sense such a label is justified.

    They are, well, full of it.

    It isn't the responsibility of consumers to make a particular broken business model profitable: that is the responsibility of business owners. If you can't figure out a way to make money on the Internet, then you can't, but it seems pretty silly to bitch at your target audience for that problem. When your viewers decide to employ pop-up blocking or ad-filtering software, they are sending you as their content provider a message: this stuff is not of value to me, I don't want to waste even a single brain cell dealing with it. It is true that eventually your advertisers will likely notice that the response rate from web based advertisements are ridiculously low and will stop spending money on click-throughs and the like, and that will (at least according to anti-leech) spell an end to many websites.

    Which would of course be a hideous tragedy, because who doesn't want to read through more advertising.

    Businesses should learn a new lesson: intrusive pop up advertising doesn't work. Spam doesn't work. Stop paying for it. Be creative, and try to make information about your product visible to those who actually want it, don't cast it scattergun style in front of millions of people for whom it just represents an annoyance. Browsers such as Mozilla now have pop-up blocking because users want it, and that means that the users don't want to read your add for X-10 cameras or you've won a free prize while trying to access their bank accounts. Listen to your customers, and develop a business based upon respecting them, not on blanketing them with crap everytime they log in.

  • Sorry if this is off-topic... but it was mentioned in the Slashback. Happy Thanksgiving everybody. If your family get-together gets boring... show or talk about this stupid link:
    Happy Tday!
  • by I Love this Company! ( 547598 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:30PM (#4771726)
    It seems that the site [cdcovers.cc] using anti-leech software (it blocks Opera in this instance) just got issued a notice from the RIAA to take down its CD cover scans section (must be due to lost profits!) If that's not juicy irony, I don't know what is.
  • Expect My Bill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @07:30PM (#4771728) Homepage
    From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
    "A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

    Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

    The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

    The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

    This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

    Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

    And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

    Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
    • And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

      You're right, they shouldn't be calling people who don't like popups 'thieves'. That said, the word has been drastically diluted in its meaning thanks to Valenti, Rosen et al. For site authors whose first language probably isn't English (their sytax is funny, and some of their registration info leads me to believe they're Swedish) perhaps we can cut them a bit of slack.

      To be fair, the content that they're trying to protect is their own. If they want to say that I have to do backflips to see it, that's their prerogative. I don't have to agree to their terms, and I don't have to see their content.

      Your complaint sounds something like, "Yankee Stadium was built right out in public view. Anybody can just walk right up to it. It's unfair that as a condition of entry, the owners can charge money for access. Members of the public should be able to walk right in and wander about whenever they feel like it. I mean, it should be okay as long as they don't take somebody else's seat, right?" Most sites don't charge for their content, but they're not compelled to give it away. If these web sites want to try to enforce their particular revenue model, I wish them the best of luck. They're not hurting anybody but themselves, I suspect.

  • I went to anti-leach and was amused by the banner ad on top: "Eliminate Pop-ups and triple your surfing speed."

    Well, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too... the campaign they are trying to start is funded by the ads they are serving up.

    Ya know what -- I don't give a damn. I'll still leave the unsolicited pop-up blocker enabled in Mozilla, and if some dipsh!t site wants to use the anti-leech stuff, I'll fire up IE in a sacrificial process that I can kill if things get out of hand.

  • Looking back, Zekko's founders and investors see how Priest's endless stalling and laughable excuses should have made them more cautious.
    Yes, this should have made them cautious, but the more important clue was his Material excess. I'm not one to begrudge a man a nice car, but by the same token, I won't invest in a company who has at it's head a man who spends to excess. *Cough*Oracle*ahem*. If Priest is spending money like water, then the money isn't going towards the product, real or not, it's going towards his personal taste, and that nets the investor nothing. That this flim flam netted so much dough without any documentation is a cautionary tale for even the private investor with a small portfolio.
    • I won't invest in a company who has at it's head a man who spends to excess. *Cough*Oracle*ahem*. If Priest is spending money like water, then the money isn't going towards the product, real or not, it's going towards his personal taste, and that nets the investor nothing

      I think you've confused the company's money and the employee's money. You probably wouldn't care if employee #2708 spent all his money on cladding his house in the burbs with faux bricks, so why should you care if employee #1 wastes his on fast cars and the like ?

      In this guys's case, you might have a point, since he's probably the only employee and he really IS the company, but why begrudge Larry or Paul Allen or any other successful business the fruits of their labour/ingenuity/luck or whatever ? Presumably you would only invest in companies where the boss lives in a trailer parked out back of the office ?

  • I went to the Anti-leech site.

    I'm using Proxomitron. I've been using it for a lonnnnng time.

    Proxomitron [cjb.net] blocked their popups, the ads on their site, and I stuffed a new script in, in order to get back my context menu. SAD Stuff.

    I hope this is the trend for "anti-block" crap. I can get around that without even breaking a sweat.

    Now, if only I could run proxomitron on Linux.

    I can't beleive that they claim to stop stuff like Proxomitron. It's just about the perfect tool ;)

    HNCPBS
  • by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:00PM (#4771879) Homepage
    I was writing a reply [slashdot.org] to the anti-leech website when I realized that using the same logic, I could charge the site for my content!

    I realize, of course, that the owner of anti-leech.com did not request the content in question, but this fact seems largely irrelevant to Mr. Wennberg. After all, much like the "thieves" who "steal" from his clients, he did not actually ask that I compose a reply, but I did and it did cost me bandwidth to post, time to create, etc., and as such I expect Mr. Wennberg to pay for the resources that have been expended.

    It is in this vein that I have billed Mr. Wennberg for my rebuttal (content) on a net-30 basis and fully intend to collect. I really hope that Mr. Wennberg is consistent with his application of fairness. After all, I did spend a lot of time putting together my response and if he does not pay my bill, it might very well cause me to go out of business altogether.

    ---------------------

    Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:42:05 -0500 (EST)
    From: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
    To: johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
    Bcc: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
    Subject: Crashspace: Invoice #0001

    Anti-leech.com,

    Thank you for your recent content purchase! Here is your order confirmation.

    Invoice: 0001

    Content:
    ----[%begin]----
    From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
    "A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

    Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

    The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

    The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

    This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

    Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

    And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

    Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...

    My .02,

    Limekiller
    ----[%end ]----

    Total Charge: $90.00 USD

    We bill on a net-30 basis. Past due accounts are charged an additional 18% annual APR fee, accrued every 30 days (1.5%).

    Again, thank you for using Crashspace content!

    Regards,
    Jason

    --
    ----

    "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." - Charles V
  • by marmoset ( 3738 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:10PM (#4771919) Homepage Journal
    Look closely at the banner ad [freeke.org] that was running when I took a look at the Anti-Leech page.

  • the ridiculous FAQ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:25PM (#4771983) Homepage Journal

    Here's a response I was working on. I would send it, but I have no confidence they would actually read it.


    Thank you for your response. I read your FAQ, and have the following questions and comments.
    Running a website costs the webmaster behind that site time and money.

    While I won't dispute that web sites take time to develop, many thousands of web sites operate non-commercially, and I've run several at no cost. The web is a place to share information. You characterize user preferences as theft, and even implicitly advocate turning that characterization into law:
    Legally it is of course not theft to block pop ups (today),...

    In essence, therefore, you are attempting to restrict an environment of free exchange of information to support a commercial venture, based upon the fallacious argument that the environment depends on the success of that venture. I find that reprehensible.
    However, Google is a multinational huge company with an enourmous(sic) sale(sic) force and budget.

    Actually, according to this: http://www.google.com/press/investors.html [google.com], Google is privately funded, owned by a small consortium of U.S. IT business leaders. And despite having actually used Google's advertising services, I have not been contacted by any member of their vast sales force. I have received not even a single piece of spam. I point this out because Google's business success has come from their attitude toward their intended customers. People want unbiased, accurate, ad-free search results. Google is successful because they have found a way to give people what they want and a way to make money on it, rather than trying to force an outdated business philosophy to the Internet, and screaming epithets such as "thief!" when it doesn't work.
  • Suddenly, everybody's doing this. I just got spammed by a startup called "ai-implant", which sells a package for crowd scenes. (I'm not giving a link, but you can find them if you care.)

    Four companies that I know of have tools for this now. It's a tiny, tiny niche market. There's going to be a shakeout real soon.

  • OK, so I agree with everyone else that the anti-leech folks are lame. But there was one good point to be raised in that FAQ... waaaay down at the end.
    You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups
    If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.
    You know what? I'm perfectly fine with this attitude. So long as I'm free to block pop-ups, I know they're free to block me. I don't think it's wise, mind you, but with Voltaire, I'll defend to the death their right to do it.

    If only they'd do the same for me...

  • by Gregoyle ( 122532 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:31PM (#4772015)
    I translated this with a little help from Systran(Sherlock). I lay no claim to the words being mine though, as the article was written by someone else.

    Court Suspends Internet Blockage Ruling

    Mario A. Muñoz
    andresm@prensa.com

    The Supreme Court of Justice ordered to suspend the effects of the Public Services Regulating Body (ESRP) order that blocked the ports for voice over IP, due to a finding that it was constitutionally protected.

    The motion was presented by the firm Infante, Garrido & Garrdio for the company Net2net Corp, in opposition to the Oct. 25th, 2002 resolution JD-3576 by the board of directors of the Regulating Body.

    In a letter from the Chief Magistrate, Winston Spadafora, the Court asked for a report on the facts of the case and ordered the immediate suspension of the effects of the aforementioned resolution.

    The President of the Regulating Body, Alex Anel Arroyo, thinks international calls made through the Internet are illegal.

    The ESRP order was given to 50 Internet Service Providers, ordering them to block 24 UDP access ports that were used for voice transmission, including some companies that offered that service to the public.

    Those ISPs have presented several requests to the ERSP for reconsideration (of the order).

    Among the ISPs that issued the request are Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet a CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net, and Senacyt.

    The national Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation (Senacyt) criticized the resolution through its director, Gonzalo Cordova, who affirmed that blocking the voice access ports "constitutes a different form of censorship".

    The ISPs position is added to that of the many users would be affected by blocking the access ports known as UDP (User Datagram Protocols)

    All rights are reserved by Prensa corporation. internet@prensa.com
    (hopefully those don't include translation rights)
  • Meaning: We understand that after a whole bunch of people sent us pissed off emails, we understand that perhaps thief was not the most diplomatic term to use, but we're still too anal to change or apologize...
  • is WHAT I DO. I dislike ads, I dislike advertisement. If I want to purchase something, I WILL do the research on it, check for the lowest prices, and purchase it. Ads have little or NO influence on my purchasing decisions.

    Maybe someone ought to send that "Webmaster" of that site a SPELL CHECKING Ad so they might be able to purchase one and put it to USE.

  • by Thaelon ( 250687 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:34PM (#4772281)
    Nature doesn't acknowledge pleas or namecalling if you can't get your food to survive. The buisness world is just another part of nature, if your methods of survival don't work, then you don't get to survive.

    Nobody likes banners, popups, or spam all they do is annoy users and steal OUR bandwidth, so when your buisness model based on popups, banners or spam fails, analagously speaking you die.

    Google's advertisments work because they're TARGETED. You search for something and they slip in a couple of text based ads related to WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

    Here's a weird analogy: In Vietnam the U.S. dropped more blanketing bombs on North Vietnam than in all of WWII and it accomplished almost nothing. It was a stupid strategy because just like with mass spamming/popups the liklihood of any given bomb accomplishing something was nil just like the odds of any single ad generating a profit are nil, you're just wasting "bombs" that never make an impact just like your untargeted ads face a disinterested audience.

    Google gets to survive because their method works, you don't because yours doesn't.

    No hurry up and croak, we're tired of your bs.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:48PM (#4772567) Homepage
    Hmm I clicked on the link to see their FAQ and their attempt at redeeming any of their legitimacy.. and what do i get? the trademark of the scummiest sites on the internet.... a Gator install request.

    Sorry, but they are scumbags through and through. anyone supporting the invasive popups and allowing gator anywhere near their servers are worse than telemarketers that scam old people.

    Sorry, but their actions and how their site acts says contrary to someone interested in doing legitimage business and I will continue to warn people away from their company and anyone that uses their services.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...