Slashdot Mirror

I've often wondered if "kdawson" is like the /. equivalent of Allan Smithee (a pseudonym used by directors who want to take their names off a bad film). Maybe all the questionable stories and bad summaries just get the generic "kdawson" label to avoid embarrassing the real editors.

Sadly, he's for real. If you happen to be near Massachusetts, you can visit him at home.

Since we can't do anything else, I suggest everyone who is sick of this crap exclude articles posted by kdawson in their preferences

For years I've left my preferences untouched, preferring to just take the good with the bad, but now I have finally resorted to filtering kdawson's articles out of the front page.

For new Slashdot users, however, I wouldn't recommend this tactic. If you're looking to quickly build up your karma, there's no better way than to just browse the kdawson stories and be the first to point out how horribly distorted and flawed they are.

(assuming, of course, that kdawson isn't just a puppet Taco uses to post the asinine anti-Microsoft stuff which always gets plenty of adviews)

Allegedly, "kdawson" is this guy.

http://technologyfront.com/resume.html

http://technologyfront.com/resume.html -- kdawson's background in FUD/bullshit/hand-waving nonsense

http://technologyfront.com/resume.html

Professional marketeer/hand waver.

Did anyone notice that this story emphasized the greatness of the /. editorial model vs. the "digg.com" model, and was curiously posted by "Anonymous reader"?

It may in fact just be the Ritalin talking, but I think our beloved /. Editors are getting their pokes in here and there...

No big deal, just an paranoid/schizo observation

Keith Dawson is the principal of the Technology Front. Here is a little of my background, with links to more.

I work out of my home office at 118-A Hollis Street in Groton, Massachusetts 01450 (map).

Phone number is 978-449-0444.

Maybe that will prevent dupes. ;)

With virus writers, though, a single guy infects the whole world. You'd literally need to deter every single potential author before you'd see much of a change. Cutting back on the number of virus writers isn't that significant; to have the effect MS is looking for, they'd have to wipe them out completely. And deterrence just won't do that, because there will always be the occasional radical who for whatever reason isn't affected by deterrence.

I don't buy this argument. Less people out there writing viruses means less work for Microsoft patching up the holes.

So offering bounties and such is really a pretty useless action on MS's part, provided they're legitimately interested in squashing viruses. They'd be much better served offering people bounties to find original, exploitable holes in Windows security and report them only to MS. Give out $250,000 for each unique remote exploit people can find and patch them -- that would be a step in the direction of security.

I think a prize (of smaller size) would be effective here. For example, as I understand it Netscape used to offer a free T-shirt for spotting security flaws in Netscape's browser. Rumor has it that one exploit ended up in the NY Times (and elsewhere) because Netscape wouldn't part with a T-shirt for a previous discovery.

All Microsoft have to do is pre-announce features that won't be in their products until v3, well before the release of v1 (vide Go Corporation & Pen Windows), and that's enough to kill off the competition. Microsoft's success has become a self-fulfilling prophect for most of the market these days...

Does anyone else wonder whether Kevin Burmeister is the real force behind this company? And does anyone wonder whether all the shots are really being called in LA (and not in the pacific tax-haven they'd have us all believe)? Who knows?