Re: Re****ting Spam in Google Groups

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Tim Little <tim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-03-28, Fred J  McCall <fmccall@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> Mark_Reichert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>> And lunch time is....?
>>>>>
>>>>> For not using your boss's assets.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone works for a boss who is the sole proprietor of their
>>>> company.  In any case, I'll be sure to remove myself from the
>>>> property every time I eat lunch in future.  Chairs, lighting,
>>>> tables, sink, garbage bin, ... all involve use of assets that do
>>>> not
>>>> belong to me. Or I could realise that I am generally permitted to
>>>> use these assets for personal purposes where it does not 
>>>> negatively
>>>> affect the work being done.
>>>>
>>>> In either event, there is definitely a major security and
>>>> maintenance
>>>> difference between installing dedicated software for newsreading 
>>>> vs
>>>> using a web interface via software already installed and
>>>> configured.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both are using network access that your employer pays for.  This
>>> impacts everyone else.
>>
>> Only if he pays by the byte.  The amount of bandwidth used by text
>> Usenet groups is say down in the noise compared to almost any other
>> sort of traffic.
>>
>
> No, not only if he pays by the byte.  Unless you have infinite
> bandwidth ANY use of the bandwidth by a user impacts all other 
> users.
> Claiming "Oh, but the impact of my recreation is trivial on those
> working" is just a cop-out.

When you go to the bathroom at work, are you careful to use only one 
square of toliet paper?