Slashdot Mirror
Gates on Spam
pvt_medic writes "Microsoft is proposing a new system that would require people to pay to send e-mails. Postage would be in the form of allowing others to use your computer to make calculations, similar to the SETi@home project. There are other systems being suggested that would include monetary stamps and people could decide on accepting an e-mail based off the value of the stamp. (story has great picture of Bill Gates as well)" Gates' proposed system will be Microsoft patent-encumbered, unsurprisingly.
No.
Love, Tom.
The rest will burn in the Final Conflagration between the Dark Prince's OS and the upstart Penguin!
Muwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Also, what is Gates holding in that picture? A joint?
Shhh... It's an iPod mini
The only great picture of Bill Gates that I know of are ones of this incident
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Have you ever used MS Windows? Have you ever used MS Windows... on Weed?
It's great man... there a little paper clip hiding in the corner. What's he doing there? I don't know, man!!! Red team go! Red team go!!!
Fire in the sky
Wonder where he hid the baby?
Microsoft makes peace with Spam, tells everyone to learn to live with it and love it.
You forget, though, that Longhorn will make security breaches in Windows a thing of the past. Once that comes out everybody will upgrade (even grandma with her P133 playing Yahoo! Bridge) and then all security problems will just go away.
whew. I can't wait for that.
Please remit one fully factorized 2048 bit random number.
Love, Bill.
He's smoking a wad of cash. If this is implemented, exploits in Windows and outlook that allow viruses to email copies of themselves will be making him money. "Let's um, hold off on that patch for a bit longer, shall we? Muwahahahahaha!!!"
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
Should we remove all services likely to be abused from the operating systems? Or should we just not allow people to setup their own operating systems? Maybe we shouldn't allow people access to compilers. Alot of bad things are done with compilers.
Dear Bill,
0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000002 are 1 and 2. I promise this number is completely random.
The factors of 0x00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Love,
Alex
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
wait, this was already done! Last time I used Outlook to send an email, my computer churned for 10 seconds and then said "Illegal exception."
I guess this "math puzzle" [oh, so *that's* what they're calling it now] was too hard for Outlook.
You advocate a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Nathan's blog