ZAX написа:В интерес на истината, следя чата с интерес още от създаването на форума. Да не забравяме че съм един от първите!
Изключително наивно от ваша страна е да си мислите, че седейки на линия и не пишейки във форума, аз правя нещо различно от това да се заливам от смях четейки чата. Умишлено се правех че не знам за него, само и единствено за да имам уникалната възможност да видя кой точно колко е лицемерен и какво наистина се говори зад гърбът ми.
Но последните дни ми писна от спама на @Странник, по цял ден чета само LTC, ботове, борси... А най-забавното е че ме критикува за същото "KNC, Jupiter, solo". Ако има по-голям егоцентрик от мен, то това е именно той и т.н.
Мислех да си трая още дълго време, но от една страна е доста неудобен този малкия чат за четене, трябва да се поразшири, даже някой го бе предложил преди няколко дни, мисля @cnerd пак му беше проблем спама там, пък мен ме нямаше, така че... От друга страна чашата отдавна е преляла, та чак потоп... Едно е да ме храните, съвсем друго е да обиждате (btw, аз си пазя логове и скринове, ако ги пратя на администраторите, които не е като да не са ги прочели, всички са за бан по 1 година, защото ме обиждат всеки ден), но съвсем друго е да казвате на черното бяло. Марто ми дължи точно толкова коина колкото съм похарчил по неработещия му хардуер. Ако не съм прав моля обосновете се. Само не започвайте с това че съм искал да хитрувам с курса, защото съм поискал рефънд още когато курсът беше същия на какъвто съм плащал, че дори и по-нисък! Т.е. бях съгласен да ми ги върне на загуба за мен, но той дори и на това не се нави! Но аз съм платил в коини и искам коини. Като също така е важно да се отбележи че не съм имал избор и съответните продукти се предлагат само в коини, избор съм имал само за платките!
Така че аз исках да ми върне 600-800 лева или там колкото беше курсът преди месец, нито повече нито по-малко от това което съм му дал!!! Но той отказа...
А иначе по темата, имам предложение:
Източник:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=bgСамо 10 лева ти решават проблема колега
The European Union's Internal Market Commission estimated in 2001 that "junk e-mail" cost Internet users €10 billion per year worldwide.[32] The California legislature found that spam cost United States organizations alone more than $13 billion in 2007, including lost productivity and the additional equipment, software, and manpower needed to combat the problem.[33] Spam's direct effects include the consumption of computer and network resources, and the cost in human time and attention of dismissing unwanted messages.[34] Large companies who are frequent spam targets utilize numerous techniques to detect and prevent spam.[35]
In addition, spam has costs stemming from the kinds of spam messages sent, from the ways spammers send them, and from the arms race between spammers and those who try to stop or control spam. In addition, there are the opportunity cost of those who forgo the use of spam-afflicted systems. There are the direct costs, as well as the indirect costs borne by the victims—both those related to the spamming itself, and to other crimes that usually accompany it, such as financial theft, identity theft, data and intellectual property theft, virus and other malware infection, child pornography, fraud, and deceptive marketing.
The cost to providers of search engines is not insignificant: "The secondary consequence of spamming is that search engine indexes are inundated with useless pages, increasing the cost of each processed query".[2] The methods of spammers are likewise costly. Because spamming contravenes the vast majority of ISPs' acceptable-use policies, most spammers have for many years gone to some trouble to conceal the origins of their spam. E-mail, Usenet, and instant-message spam are often sent through insecure proxy servers belonging to unwilling third parties. Spammers frequently use false names, addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information to set up "disposable" accounts at various Internet service providers. In some cases, they have used falsified or stolen credit card numbers to pay for these accounts. This allows them to quickly move from one account to the next as each one is discovered and shut down by the host ISPs.
The costs of spam also include the collateral costs of the struggle between spammers and the administrators and users of the media threatened by spamming.[36] Many users are bothered by spam because it impinges upon the amount of time they spend reading their e-mail. Many also find the content of spam frequently offensive, in that pornography is one of the most frequently advertised products. Spammers send their spam largely indiscriminately, so pornographic ads may show up in a work place e-mail inbox—or a child's, the latter of which is illegal in many jurisdictions. Recently, there has been a noticeable increase in spam advertising websites that contain child pornography.[citation needed]
Some spammers argue that most of these costs could potentially be alleviated by having spammers reimburse ISPs and persons for their material.[citation needed] There are three problems with this logic: first, the rate of reimbursement they could credibly budget is not nearly high enough to pay the direct costs[citation needed], second, the human cost (lost mail, lost time, and lost opportunities) is basically unrecoverable, and third, spammers often use stolen bank accounts and credit cards to finance their operations, and would conceivably do so to pay off any fines imposed.
E-mail spam exemplifies a tragedy of the commons: spammers use resources (both physical and human), without bearing the entire cost of those resources. In fact, spammers commonly do not bear the cost at all. This raises the costs for everyone. In some ways spam is even a potential threat to the entire e-mail system, as operated in the past. Since e-mail is so cheap to send, a tiny number of spammers can saturate the Internet with junk mail. Although only a tiny percentage of their targets are motivated to purchase their products (or fall victim to their scams), the low cost may provide a sufficient conversion rate to keep the spamming alive. Furthermore, even though spam appears not to be economically viable as a way for a reputable company to do business, it suffices for professional spammers to convince a tiny proportion of gullible advertisers that it is viable for those spammers to stay in business. Finally, new spammers go into business every day, and the low costs allow a single spammer to do a lot of harm before finally realizing that the business is not profitable.
Some companies and groups "rank" spammers; spammers who make the news are sometimes referred to by these rankings.[37][38] The secretive nature of spamming operations makes it difficult to determine how proliferated an individual spammer is, thus making the spammer hard to track, block or avoid. Also, spammers may target different networks to different extents, depending on how successful they are at attacking the target. Thus considerable resources are employed to actually measure the amount of spam generated by a single person or group. For example, victims that use common anti-spam hardware, software or services provide opportunities for such tracking. Nevertheless, such rankings should be taken with a grain of salt.
от Foxtail » 15 Ное 2013, 15:35 
от тогава той и странника флудят с 40 поста в минута... 
