President Bush recently signed into law the CAN-SPAM bill — the first federal attempt to curtail unsolicited commercial email.  Many supporters of the bill claim it will be a significant weapon in the war on spam.  As a technology professional who has been dealing with the growing onslaught for years, I beg to differ.

After more than six years of exploring the idea of a federal spam law, Congress finally came up with what they believe to be the solution.  I see it as a first step — a law with no teeth to accomplish what it was meant to do.

When the new law takes effect, it defines how companies can communicate with people they know and people they don't know.  Falsifying email headers is punishable with prison terms.  Sending sexually-oriented email without proper labeling can also land you in the big house.  Oh, and most interestingly, the law grants the FTC new enforcement authority and the right to establish a national "do not email" list similar to the unbelievable popular "do not call" list for telemarketers.

All of that sounds good, doesn't it?  As you were told as a child, not everything is as it seems.

CAN-SPAM is unlikely to demonstrate any noticeable decline in spam for email users when it goes into effect on January 1, 2004.

It legalizes (yes, I said legalizes) sending non-fraudulent spam, so you can be inundated with junk email so long as it's not sent using forged email headers.

The law does away with the state laws governing spam — many of which are far more stringent and protective of the consumer.

CAN-SPAM outlines an "opt-out" approach to spam rather than "opt-in."  The difference is significant.  In an "opt-in" system, spammers cannot send junk email to you unless you have specifically requested it.  On the other hand, the "opt-out" system requires that you the consumer pursue the spammer in order to be removed from their marketing list.  It's like saying identify theft is OK unless you ask the thief not to steal your identity.  Is it just me or does that sound entirely backward?

Although the law forces spammers to let recipients unsubscribe from their list, it doesn't say anything about them having to make it easy.  They don't have to offer an obvious click-to-unsubscribe link or reply-to-unsubscribe functionality.  Instead, CAN-SPAM will let them use any "Internet-based mechanism," prompting complaints that an unsubscribe feature could be buried in a Web site clogged with pop-ups.

It prohibits recipients from suing spammers, even if they are repeatedly and maliciously spammed.

The law imposes no labeling requirement on email unless it is sexually explicit.  Currently at least 15 states require "ADV:" or a similar label on all unsolicited commercial email.  Because CAN-SPAM would zap those laws and includes no labeling requirement of its own, spammers in those states could no longer be sued if they chose not to label.

As is typical (and exactly the same as the telemarketing "do not call" registry), the law doesn't regulate spam from political, religious or nonprofit groups.  No other antispam law in the United States appears to do this either, primarily because of questions about whether levying such regulations on noncommercial speech would jibe with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.  Also, politicians sometimes engage in spam themselves and prefer to keep their options open.

Analysts and spam-fighting companies have warned that CAN-SPAM could lead to even more unsolicited commercial email.  MessageLabs predicts that it "could increase already growing volumes of spam and adversely affect consumers and businesses."  Gartner warns spam would likely worsen despite the existence of a federal law.

Ray Everett-Church, a lawyer at antispam firm ePrivacyGroup.com, says that even with the FTC and state attorneys general, there is not "enough enforcement to make spammers think twice about engaging in the practice."

Everett-Church and other spam opponents have said that, because CAN-SPAM will legalize nonfraudulent spam, every business in the United States could send an unspecified amount of unsolicited email repeatedly, until the recipient asks to be removed.  The Small Business Administration says there are 22.9 million small businesses in the country, and each one would be able to take advantage of this new legal right.

California Sen. Debra Bowen, a Democrat who supported her state's legislation, said in a statement on Dec. 8 that CAN-SPAM "doesn't can spam, it gives it the congressional seal of approval…  An advertiser's First Amendment right to free speech doesn't trump a person's basic right to be left alone.  Spam isn't legitimate advertising and it's not free speech."

Tim Muris, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and a veteran of the spam wars, has been warning since the summer that CAN-SPAM might do more harm than good.  Instead of helping, Muris said, the measure "could actually be harmful" to the FTC's ongoing efforts to sue spammers.

In a speech in August, Muris warned that under CAN-SPAM, "the FTC would have to prove that the seller (who hires a spammer to advertise a product or service) knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that the third-party mailer intended to violate the law.  This standard requires proof of both the seller's and spammer's level of knowledge…  These requirements to prove intent pose a serious hurdle that we do not have to meet to obtain an injunction under our current jurisdiction."

The National Association of Attorneys General, which would also be charged with enforcing CAN-SPAM, is more blunt.  In November, the group sent a letter to Congress that warned: "The bill creates so many loopholes, exceptions, and high standards of proof, that it provides minimal consumer protections and creates too many burdens for effective enforcement…  We respectfully request that you not move forward…"

In addition to all of these issues, the law has no jurisdiction over spam sent from other countries.  I personally receive quite a bit of junk mail sent from China, Canada and Brazil (among many other countries), but this law will do nothing to curtail any of that.  That is a problem with many things other than spam, however, and will require a significant catalyst to get the world community to work together on the problem.

When Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., predicted in November that "it is quite possible that we will have to revisit this matter again," he was very much the prognosticator of the day.  CAN-SPAM was well-intentioned but poorly designed.  I believe its impact on spam will be negligible at best.

I know you'll all be happy to know that I finally got around to updating the gallery.  This round of updates are all based on pictures from my parents' infinitely large collection of pictures.  I started with a small set of pet pictures, so you can find all the new photos in the Pets gallery.  For more specific info on the updates, read on.

A couple of new pictures were added to Arco's gallery.

A new gallery was created for Dawg, a ferocious-looking pit bull who was actually a very big baby.

The ducks got their own gallery since I added several new pictures of them.

Henry's gallery was updated with a couple of new pictures.

A new gallery was added for Keli, the little dog who could keep up with the best of 'em.

Sneak got his own gallery — which is just how he would want it.

Finally, some miscellaneous pictures were added to the Pets gallery.

As I'm able to get my hands on more of the ol' family photos, I'll be updating the gallery.

For those of you who want to see the pictures from the new digital camera I got recently, just keep your pants on and be patient — I intend to start posting them within the next two weeks and will continue to post those that I think are worthy of sharing.

There was a city cop on his horse waiting to cross the street when a little boy on his new shiny bike stopped beside him.

"Nice bike," the cop said.  "Did Santa bring it to you?"

"Yep," the little boy said, "he sure did!"

The cop looked the bike over and handed the boy a $10 ticket for a safety violation.  The cop said, "Next year tell Santa to put a reflector light on the back of it."

The young boy glanced at the citation then looked up at the cop and said, "Nice horse you got there sir, did Santa bring it to you?"

"Yes, he sure did," chuckled the cop.

The little boy looked up at the cop and said, "Next year tell Santa the dick goes underneath the horse, not on top."

As a netizen (Internet user), I like everyone else am generally inundated with misinformed chain-letters which illustrate why you should never rely on anonymously-authored and randomly-forwarded messages for health advice (or any other advice for that matter).  On that note, I recently received an email regarding butter and margarine which clearly was written by a butter-loving nitwit with absolutely no historic or scientific knowledge.

Let’s first begin with the message in question.  Below is the email I’m referring to.  Note that I’ve left the poor grammar, Anglophilic spelling, and capitalization and punctuation mistakes intact without marking them with standard editorial signals like [sic].

DID YOU KNOW…
The difference between margarine and butter?

Both have the same amount of calories.  Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats at 8 grams compared to 5 grams.  Eating margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53% over eating the same amount of butter according to a recent Harvard Medical Study.

Eating butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other foods.

Butter has many nutritional benefits where margarine has a few only because they are added!

Most people agree that butter tastes much better than margarine and it can enhance the flavours of other foods.

Butter has been around for centuries, where margarine has been around for less then 100 years.

Now for Margarine…  very high in Trans Fatty Acids…  Triple risk of Coronary Heart Disease.  Increases total and LDL (this is the bad cholesterol)…  Lowers HDL cholesterol and this is the good one.  Increases the risk of cancers by up to five fold.  Lowers the quality of breast milk.  Decreases the power of the immune response.  Decreases insulin response.

And here is the most disturbing fact….

Margarine is but ONE MOLECULE from being PLASTIC…  (this fact alone could be enough to have you avoiding margarine for life and anything else that is hydrogenated — this means hydrogen is added changing the molecular structure of the food).

You can try this little test for yourself at home!  Purchase a tub of margarine and leave it in your garage or shaded area.  Within a couple of days you will note a couple of things — No flies, not even those pesky fruit flies will go near it, (that should tell you something!).  It does not rot or smell differently…

Because it has no nutritional value, nothing will grow on it, even those teeny weeny micro-organisms will not find a home to grow…Why? because it is nearly plastic.

Would you melt your tupperware and spread that on your toast???

What you’re looking at above is not a coherent essay written by a single, knowledgeable author.  It is nothing more than a compilation of facts and opinions from many unidentified sources.  As with most chain letters, the truth often is not compelling enough.  It only gains widespread appeal after someone sensationalizes it with questionable and blatantly inaccurate information.

It is true that a 1994 Harvard University study as well as research from other credible sources have concluded that a diet high in trans fat doubles the chance for heart attack and decreases life expectancy.  While trans fats can occur naturally, they are most commonly associated with chemical preservative techniques.  Hydrogenation is one of these techniques and health experts recommend that you limit your intake of hydrogenated or partially-hydrogenated foodstuffs as much as possible.

Stating that eating butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other foods is scientifically accurate yet deceptive.  It’s not the butter which provides increased nutritional transport.  All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are either water-soluble or fat-soluble.  This means the body cannot process them without the proper transport.  Vitamin C, for instance, is water-soluble, meaning the body requires a supply of water in order to process and utilize Vitamin C.  If butter contains more fat than margarine, it would by its very content be able to transport more fat-soluble vitamins and minerals than a product with less fat.  This does not make it healthier to consume, however, and certainly isn’t a reason to move to a diet with heavier fat content.

While butter and margarine may indeed have similar caloric values, butter generally ranks higher in saturated fat.  We should all know by now that saturated fat is detrimental to heart health.  Margarines differ from brand to brand, but generally they are lower in saturated fat and contain small amounts of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats (which are considered healthier than saturated).  Furthermore, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, switching to margarine from butter can greatly reduce blood cholesterol levels.

Margarine was the outcome of a competition that Napoleon III held in France to provide his troops with an alternative to butter that would survive long campaigns without refrigeration.  Minimal research on my part shows that this happened immediately prior to the Franco-Prussian war.  This would certainly explain why margarine is less likely to suffer from microbial or other contamination while butter is volatile.  In fact, one could say the same of unpopped popcorn.  When it’s left out with no protection, it neither suffers insect nor microbial infestation and will keep in a usable form for a significant amount of time in this manner.  Shouldn’t that be a cause for concern and shouldn’t we equally stop eating popcorn — simply because it can survive with minimal care and protection without becoming spoiled?  And think about the other foods you keep in this manner, such as pasta, cooking oil, salt and pepper and other spices, jerky…  Well, you get the idea.

The final argument in the letter above is what has made it so popular, but is also the farthest from reality and preys on the layman’s general ignorance of chemistry.  It is not true that margarine is “but ONE MOLECULE from being PLASTIC.”  Many items in nature are chemically similar to one another, but that doesn’t make them similar in appearance or effect.

For instance hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) is “but one molecule from” water (H₂O).  Does that mean we should drink hydrogen peroxide?  They are, after all, but one molecule from each other, so certainly that means they perform the very same function — or at least a similar function.  Similarly, ozone (O₃) is “but one molecule from” oxygen (O₂), but the former can create serious respiratory problems, while the latter can alleviate them.  Salt (NaCl) is one molecule from being sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl), both of which are highly toxic, yet we don’t find discomfort in consuming regular table salt.  In fact, our bodies require salt in order to function properly.  How can that be if the two molecules needed to make it are actually toxins?

The “plastic” outrage has been added as the chain circulates and is total bunk, but is unfortunately what appeals to most readers.  This is one reason why I recommend strongly against relying upon or forwarding health advice via email chain letters.  In fact, I always recommend not forwarding chain emails altogether as they have never (and let me repeat that — NEVER) been completely truthful or accurate.

The medium is simply too unreliable to trust.  That’s why I always say you should never forward chain mails for any reason — whether they are about computer viruses or health and medicine or terrorism or anything else.

NASA has put together the top 10 images of the sun as voted on by the public.  The images are stunning and beautiful and give just a hint as to the power of the sun.  All of the images were taken by SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory.  You can view the winners (and the runners-up) here.