Most Complete Astronomy Software Available

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Anthony Ayiomamitis on Sun, 07 Dec 2003
16:29:13 +0200, which said:

I certainly do not agree with this statement. For example,
would eBay be justified in bombarding you and I with every
astronomy-related auction that gets posted just because you and I have
an interest in astronomy and, therefore, they would be targetting in a
supposedly discriminate fashion?

This is really a non-question, since eBay doesn't send out mass
mailings except to its members, according to each member's registered
preferences. The only major exception to this is when they have to
alert all members to the latest scams which attempt to disguise
themselves as official eBay business.

The problem with the examples you describe is that they are
"public" and represent part of the "world noise around us" which we can
try and ignore. Sending spam to my Inbox is an invasion of privacy.

No more so than all those circulars that wind up in your snail box,
which are also part of the "world noise around us." Incidentally, I
take claims of privacy invasion with a grain of salt. 10 - 15 years
ago, people were claiming that Caller ID violated the privacy of the
person who was trying to call you; that's a claim that didn't last
long.

Similarly, if this "public" noise becomes an issue, I will take steps,
however possible, to do some radical surgery ... for example, if eBay
(for the sake of argument) decides to flood its registered users with
spam, I will go and remove my account with them so that I will
proactively put and end to such nonsense.

It would make more sense to change your email preferences on your "My
Ebay" page.

Unfortunately, I do not have
this privilege or luxury with my own Inbox.

Sure you do. There are any number of email previewers now out there,
designed specifically to deal with spam. I use Mailwasher Pro,
myself. In the newsgroups, I filter out any message posted to more
than three groups. Between these steps and killfiles, my online
experience is becoming almost boring.


-------------
Beady's 11th Law of Social Harmonics: "Your spouse is precisely the kind of person someone like you would choose to marry."

John Beaderstadt wrote:

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Anthony Ayiomamitis on Sun, 07 Dec 2003
16:29:13 +0200, which said:



I certainly do not agree with this statement. For example,
would eBay be justified in bombarding you and I with every
astronomy-related auction that gets posted just because you and I have
an interest in astronomy and, therefore, they would be targetting in a
supposedly discriminate fashion?


John,

This is really a non-question, since eBay doesn't send out mass
mailings except to its members, according to each member's registered
preferences. The only major exception to this is when they have to
alert all members to the latest scams which attempt to disguise
themselves as official eBay business.

You missed my point here. Using your comment in the earlier message (at
least as I understood it), I provided the above scenario.

The problem with the examples you describe is that they are
"public" and represent part of the "world noise around us" which we can
try and ignore. Sending spam to my Inbox is an invasion of privacy.



No more so than all those circulars that wind up in your snail box,
which are also part of the "world noise around us." Incidentally, I

Thanks for bringing this thing up since it is something I overlooked. I
remember that during the three years I lived and worked in Florida, for
example, there were two large garbage bins beside the set of mailboxes
for the apartment complex .... you should have seen the "contents" every
Thursday when people would find all kinds of circulars and which they
would immediately take them, walk 10 feet to the right and throw them
right into the bins left there. If I didn't know any better, I would
swear they were placed there for this specific reason and nothing else.
Now, imagine being away for 2-3 weeks and coming back only to find your
mailbox crammed with circulars for pizza specials, laundry detergent on
special at Target, jeans on sale at Wal-Mart, tires for your car and
every other item you can imagine. Whatever happened to the full-page
newspaper ads which were there anyway on Thursdays?

take claims of privacy invasion with a grain of salt. 10 - 15 years
ago, people were claiming that Caller ID violated the privacy of the
person who was trying to call you; that's a claim that didn't last
long.

I have no problem with the fact that it did not last. If someone
initiates a call, why shold they have the privilege of "hiding"?

Similarly, if this "public" noise becomes an issue, I will take steps,
however possible, to do some radical surgery ... for example, if eBay
(for the sake of argument) decides to flood its registered users with
spam, I will go and remove my account with them so that I will
proactively put and end to such nonsense.



It would make more sense to change your email preferences on your "My
Ebay" page.

The above was meant to be an example and nothing else. eBay has the
common sense not to do anything so stupid and it is a shame that the
countless idiots who specialize in spamming do not exercise the same
restraint.

Unfortunately, I do not have
this privilege or luxury with my own Inbox.



Sure you do. There are any number of email previewers now out there,
designed specifically to deal with spam. I use Mailwasher Pro,

But the point is that I should not have to go this route in my attempts
to mitigate the effects of this invasion of privacy. And, yes, I do use
Mailwasher but I still get annoyed with the countless messages I must
delete each and every time I check for email. Just this session, I
deleted 18 spam messages out of a total of 23 messages and this is a
regular nuisance and hassle that I must go through multiple times during
the day when I log onto the Internet. Why this unnecessary hassle and
abuse?!

myself. In the newsgroups, I filter out any message posted to more
than three groups. Between these steps and killfiles, my online
experience is becoming almost boring.

I would love to have the online boring experience you describe without
having to exert myself with Mailwasher etc for something that I did not
initiate.

Anthony.

-------------
Beady's 11th Law of Social Harmonics: "Your spouse is precisely the kind of person someone like you would choose to marry."

uk.sci.astronomy charter specifically prohibits any commercial posting;
the original message would be considered spam in that group.

Hi Tom:

Sadly, however, the uk.sci.astro, is usually heavily loaded-down with totally
unrelated commercial advertisements and other junk (some of a very smarmy
nature), so I guess what a charter says doesn't count for much in any event.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Anthony Ayiomamitis on Sun, 07 Dec 2003
20:56:05 +0200, which said:

But the point is that I should not have to go this route...

"Should" is subjunctive, which represents a condition other than
present reality. Point being that whether you shouldn't is irrelevant
to whether you actually do have to go that route.

I would love to have the online boring experience you describe without
having to exert myself with Mailwasher etc for something that I did not
initiate.

Well, you've got a choice. You can either exert yourself, or you can
freeload off of someone else's efforts. The only other alternative I
can see is to put up with things as they are.


-------------
Beady's 11th Law of Social Harmonics: "Your spouse is precisely the kind of person someone like you would choose to marry."

On 12/07/03 10:06 +0900, Kilolani wrote:

Unfortunately since yours is not the generally accepted definition, it =
would
help if you subscribed to the same one as the rest of the world, which =
is:
"Unsolicited messages, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminat=
ely
to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups."

The authoritative definition comes from The Jargon Lexicon:

http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/frames.html

"spam: vt.,vi.,n.

[from Monty Python's Flying Circus]

1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer=20
with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow,=20
overrun screw, smash the stack.

2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or=20
inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little=20
as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking =93What do you=20
think of abortion?=94 on soc.women). This is often done with=20
cross-posting (e.g. any message which is cross-posted to=20
alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost=20
inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior;=20
the latter more specific term has become more common.

3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages=20
separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more=20
specifically called ECP, Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one=20
sure way to infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also=20
velveeta and jello.

4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message.=20
This is more specifically called EMP, Excessive Multi-Posting.

5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical=20
email messages, particularly those containing advertising.=20
Especially used when the mail addresses have been culled from=20
network traffic or databases without the consent of the=20
recipients. Synonyms include UCE, UBE. As a noun, =91spam=92 refers=20
to the messages so sent.

6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For instance,=20
someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and comes back to=20
find 200 lines of text might say =93Oh no, spam=94.

The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the=20
Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses=20
3 4 and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered=20
abuse of the net, and are almost universally grounds for=20
termination of the originator's email account or network=20
connection. In these senses the term =91spam=92 has gone mainstream,=20
though without its original sense or folkloric freight =97 there is=20
apparently a widespread myth among lusers that =93spamming=94 is what=20
happens when you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan. Hormel,=20
the makers of Spam, have published a surprisingly enlightened=20
position statement on the Internet usage."

trane
--=20
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Trane Francks wrote:

On 12/07/03 10:06 +0900, Kilolani wrote:

Unfortunately since yours is not the generally accepted definition, it would
help if you subscribed to the same one as the rest of the world, which is:
"Unsolicited messages, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately
to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups."

The authoritative definition comes from The Jargon Lexicon:

http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/frames.html

"spam: vt.,vi.,n.

[from Monty Python's Flying Circus]

1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer
with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow,
overrun screw, smash the stack.

2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little
as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking “What do you
think of abortion?” on soc.women). This is often done with
cross-posting (e.g. any message which is cross-posted to
alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost
inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior;
the latter more specific term has become more common.

3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages
separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more
specifically called ECP, Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one
sure way to infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also
velveeta and jello.

4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message.
This is more specifically called EMP, Excessive Multi-Posting.

5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical
email messages, particularly those containing advertising.
Especially used when the mail addresses have been culled from
network traffic or databases without the consent of the
recipients. Synonyms include UCE, UBE. As a noun, ‘spam’ refers
to the messages so sent.

6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For instance,
someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and comes back to
find 200 lines of text might say “Oh no, spam”.

The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the
Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses
3 4 and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered
abuse of the net, and are almost universally grounds for
termination of the originator's email account or network
connection. In these senses the term ‘spam’ has gone mainstream,
though without its original sense or folkloric freight — there is
apparently a widespread myth among lusers that “spamming” is what
happens when you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan. Hormel,
the makers of Spam, have published a surprisingly enlightened
position statement on the Internet usage."



#5 (and by extension, #4) has pretty much been the primary definition
since Cantor and Siegel's "Green Card Scam" of 1994 touched off the
unsolicited advertising race.

Sure, a good argument can be made that if they didn't think of it,
someone else would have, but nonetheless I wish them nothing but ill
will and poor health till the day they die for their actions and the
fact that they're entirely unrepentent.
---
Mike

Tom Rankin wrote in message ...
What is SPAM after all?

SPAM is a delicious (opinions vary) luncheon meat packed by Hormel
Foods; spam is any e-mail that i did not ask for that tries to sell me
something, or gratuitous commercial posts to Usenet as defined
elsewhere in this thread.

Please see http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm for the finer points on
the difference between SPAM and spam.

If you do not want to see this person's posts anymore, if can be easily
filtered out. But, items of interest to the general reader of this
group should not be prohibited, just because you have to spend a few
bucks to purchase them. Right ??

Guess what--you've already spent some bucks, whether you realize it or
not.

Without getting specific about the article that inspired this thread,
there is one major reason why spam is bad: It imposes cost on the
recipient. That is why there is so much of it in your mailbox. It
costs the spammer hardly anything to broadcast 5 million e-mails all
over the world, but your ISP or news server bears the burden of the
extra bandwidth and disk storage to handle all this junk that nobody
wants. The cost of all this junk that you don't want is passed onto
*you*, although with American-style flat rates, you may not realize
just how much you're paying for junk that you don't want.

In short, spam is a free lunch (no pun intended) to the sender,
courtesy of the people who don't want it. Advertizing is supposed to
support the media on which it is carried. Banner ads let you surf the
Internet without being charged by the page. Ads in S&T allow you to
subscribe for a mere $43 per year. By contrast, spam is a
multibillion dollar drain on the Internet.

If i'm not mistaken, though, an occasional, directed, one-time
announcement a product is considered acceptable on Usenet.

The debate rages, at least in my schizophrenic mind....

See your dictionary for the finer points on the difference between
schizophrenic and schizoid.


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

What do you expect? They are lawyers!

Mike Richmann wrote:

#5 (and by extension, #4) has pretty much been the primary definition
since Cantor and Siegel's "Green Card Scam" of 1994 touched off the
unsolicited advertising race.

Sure, a good argument can be made that if they didn't think of it,
someone else would have, but nonetheless I wish them nothing but ill
will and poor health till the day they die for their actions and the
fact that they're entirely unrepentent.

--
Tom Rankin - Programmer by day, amateur astronomer by night!
Mid-Hudson Astronomy Association - http://jump.to/mhaa

When replying, remove the capital letters from my email address.