Telling the company that you've found a flaw in their software is likely your best bet.
And, according to the story, they did that and... THE FUCKING COMPANY BLEW THEM OFF when they told them about the flaw months ago!
So... what do you do then? The company doesn't want to hear that it has an insecure product. And people are still using the product as if it were secure.
What do you do then? Simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, I tried to tell them. Let others worry about it, now." It's a sad fact that most people would actually do this... they are afraid of sticking their necks out for this very reason... it gives a very nice target for the lawyers' guillotines. Amerikan citizens have turned into domesticated puppies.
But the people that are willing to stand on principle... they are the unfortunate target of the DMCA: people that are actually tring to do the right thing!
I think the fact that this can happen is a sad state of affairs in the United Coporate States of Amerika.
I've been reading the comments, and it seems like the biggest objection to "Sender Pays" goes like "The Linux Kernel Mailing List will disappear if this happens."
But this objection is unnecessary: the truth is that mailing lists are no longer necessary!
Why does anybody have to send emails to 100 or 200 people? This is the stuff of horrific waste!
Instead, let's get the purveyors of email programs the ability to IMPORT messages into the mail queues. Simply connect to a server and download the latest stuff. Do it once a day, once an hour, or whatever. People with PDAs do this (think "AvantGo" and "Mazingo" and a few other services that hot-sync news from the web to a PDA for offline perusal). People with POP and IMAP accounts do this as well (connecting to a server on some regular basis to get email). It's not a big change from the current email GUI model.
For instance, let's assume there's a "Slashdot Mailing List" that basically feeds all the stories that appear on Slashdot. Your mailer can connect via some "well known protocol" (ftp, http) to the server that provides the mailing list. The mailer then imports the messages into its message queue, augmenting the messages it has received via IMAP and POP3.
How would this work? The mailer sends the last received message id, and the server sends all messages on the list that appeared after that id. This could be either by generating a transaction on the fly from a database, or just concatenating all messages id's from the one that was last received. Add compression (which email doesn't provide) and you have now provided a benefit--less bandwidth required compared to bulk email.
And the mailer KNOWS that it's not receiving SPAM, since the user has actually OPTED IN by definition by giving the email program the name of the mailing list that the user is interested in.
(Some mailing lists do a lot of this processing already, by incorporating messages in a digest format that is emailed or posted to the web, so we're not asking for too much additional functionality from them.)
Now, an ISP can intercept ALL DATA going across port 25, and examine the envelope. If there is more than a few recipients ("few" determined by the ISP's AUP), the ISP can generate a bounce ("Too many recipients") and drop the mail, or even save the mail, and in the bounce, give a URL that points the user to a "Click Through" agreement to pay the surcharge for sending email to multiple users.
For Spammers that try to circumvent this by sending one message per recipient, the ISP, which now has the equivalent of a "taxi meter" on port 25, can detect this as well, simply by aggregating the number of emails that a single address is sending out (simple database application).
Spammers that use open relays will get hit by the same problem, again assuming that the open relay's ISP has filtered port 25.
This should cut down spam.
The person whose wife wants to know about sales, simply OPTS IN to a server that will feed her the latest prices from the local grocery or the mall down the road. Advertisers are happy (they know how many people are downloading their bulk stuff), and the recipient is happy. If the mailing list isn't what the wife wanted, tell the email program to no longer download the stuff.
The only problem I see with such a solution is the possible invasion of privacy that could happen if it wasn't just the envelope of the message that is inspected (think: Carnivore). I'd leave this up to the implementing parties to come up with safeguards against this.
Typically when the FBI arrest and the DJ prosecute a defendant they're very interested in inflating the importance of the case for all kinds of reasons.
DJ????? A ha! I knew the RIAA was involved in this nefarious plot!!!
Current user interfaces are tied too closely to the nature of the operating system. Instead of having a user interface that is centered around the OS (let's see, a tree of files and folders that just mirrors the filesystem directory structure) to access our information, the interface needs to be centered around the information itself. Then, the OS managing the information does become irrelevant. Not useless, just irrelevant... to the user. We won't care what it is or what it's doing as long as we get the information we are interested in.
Anyway, put the following seven lines in your/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file (don't include the line numbers; they are simply there in case SlashDot wraps the lines):
1. header SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS Subject =~/you have an E-Card from/i 2. describe SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS Subject appears to be a FriendGreetings.com worm 3. score SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS 3.0 4. 5. full BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS/has sent you an e-card -- a virtual postcard from friendgreetings.com/i 6. describe BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS Appears to be a FriendGreetings.com worm 7. score BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS 5.0
This should be two sets of three lines separated by a space.
This should tag the message as SPAM. Feel free to up the scores. I made the first test only a 2.0, since it just may be that it is a "legitimate" e-card. (Who actually reads those things, anyway?)
Note to all RedHat 8.0 users: SpamAssassin is included in your linux box! Use it!
Maybe putting (but not installing) Mac OSX would be an even more interesting idea. Even though OSX won't run on PC hardware, it would still be an operating system...!
Higher level of bandwidth is nice, but it's really throughput that makes the difference (eg, even though you are supposed to currently get 1.5 Mbps downstream, sometimes the throughput is much smaller due to network congestion, etc.). Paying nearly twice as much should result in some sort of service "guarantee" which I have never seen AT&T or any of its predecessors that I used (RoadRunner, MediaOne, Highway1). So, I'm a bit leery of such a level of service.
Anyway, more important to "power users" would be things like offering DNS service (they are removing "vanity hostnames" -- why not provide nameservice for people that really want to have their own identity on the net?), and static IP's (it's a bitch having your own domain when your IP address may change at the whim of some faceless corporation).
All in all, I'm really quite happy with my current service from AT&T. I don't know what will happen when the Comcast merger happens. I *do* know that my IP address hasn't changed in a couple of years (so the static IP problem is mitigated, at least for now), and my throughput has mostly been pretty good.
Another thought... does the new "Ultra" service give you telephone support from people that actually know what they are talking about? On the ATTBI.* newsgroups, the complete lack of competence of the lackeys in Florida and Canada that answer the phone is legendary...!
This is a nice idea in theory, but there are some reasons why it won't work:
Running any open relay, even a honey pot, is probably against most ISP's AUP. Breaking the rules to get to the others that are doing bad things is never a good idea: two wrongs don't make a right.
Some ISPs use some standard tools to check their customers to see if they are running open relays. If those tools hit a honey pot, the customer who is actually attemping to fight SPAM, will actually receive a notice that they are running an open relay against the AUP, or may even get disconnected without notice.
As mentioned before, it is simple to check if an open relay is actually a honey pot: have the relay send email to a known location. If the email doesn't get delivered, the spammer will know that something different is happening with this apparent relay, and will just move on to the next one.
For example, if some Linux distribution decides to stop supporting Alpha (well, I *do* work for Compaq!) or Sparc, the media would be sounding the death knell for those processors.
Should be simple to write a script that would examine your HTTP error_log file for '\.exe' and insert a rule into IPCHAINS to DENY all connections from that IP. The connection will time out, of course... but it will slow down the virus.
Much better than having your system get hit 15 times a second from Nimda probes, anyway.
Re:Tracking encrypted communications
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
Wow! That must be why the NSA has decided to arrest the people running MSNBC.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, etc. etc. after the attack last Tuesday!
That's where all the internet traffic was after the crashes.
I actually heard that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was actually on an approach to either the White House or the Capitol building, and then veered and hit the Pentagon instead.
The worries were that the plane was going so fast, there was no time to evacuate whichever was the intended target.
As for the plane that ditched in PA, the pilot requested a change of flight plan to Washington, which would bely that Camp David was a target (I also think that Camp David isn't easy to spot from the air, but I could be wrong). No strategic value in Camp David, as the Prez was in Florida, and his wife was in DC.
What all the targets that were hit had in common was that they were large enough to allow a relatively untrained pilot to hit them.
We may never know the intended target for the fourth plane.
If Microsoft wants its MSN icon--or any other icon for that matter--on the desktop, then it should enter into the SAME SORT OF LICENSING DEAL THAT AOL IS MAKING WITH OTHER OEMS. Stating that their icons must show, or no icons will be allowed, is just another example of how Microsoft flexes its muscles to promote its inferior products (not that I wish to imply that AOL's product is in any way superior).
I have a term that Microsoft should learn: It's called playing fair.
If Microsoft doesn't want to play fair, then they deserve to be bitch-slapped by the DoJ and court system for being a monopoly and illegally protecting that monopoly.
Just because something is there, doesn't mean that everybody has a God given right to make money off it.
This is a basic tenet of human nature that, for some reason, seems to elude the minds of some people.
The internet is out there. That's a fact. It has been true for quite a long time in some form or another.
Now that home users are able to get broadband access in the form of cable or DSL, the fact is that people are already paying for their access, and if a web site is going to charge $XX for you to visit them, that is $XX above and beyond what they are currently paying.
Pay per view and subscriptions seem to be working in the cable market, but there has been stern resistance for "pay as you play" on the Internet.
The MPAA and RIAA are whining and crying, saying that the Internet doesn't provide any protection for intellectual property. Well, guess what? It doesn't. And it won't, no matter how many congresspeople they purchase, and how many stupid acts of legislation they try to get passed. Deal with it.
People didn't like it that their perfectly good album collection on vinyl was rendered obsolete by studios that now only release stuff on CD. Back in 1980, it required the owners of the albums' masters to be able to produce the CD's. People grumbled, but they bought CD's, a lot of them duplicating stuff they already had on vinyl.
Today, however, the state of the art has reached the common man. The Internet is only a tool, just like a CD-ROM burner is a tool, and the software for copying CD-ROMS is a tool. These tools allow people to tell the RIAA just what they think about having to pay again and again and again for essentially the same stuff.
Do you think if listening to radio required a subscription that radio would be as ubiquitous as it is today? Of course not!
People will "share" the files they have around on the Internet. Deal with it.
People don't want to view banner ads on web sites. They will ignore them, or they will use software to make them disappear. Either way, they were intrusive and disliked.
Either invent a business model that can deal with the current reality of the Internet, or end up in the Darwinian garbage heap.
If you try to invent your own "business friendly" Internet that has none of the things that people can already get from the current Internet, then you will only have an Internet that has businesses there... and very few customers! What would make people want to give up what they have now? It had better be good, or it will go the way of the 8-track tape.
The Internet managed fine before businesses discovered it, and I feel it will still be around despite what some misguided businesspeople, congresspeople, judges, or whomever decide to do. --
What was once a joke on Saturday Night Live (*Coke is it*) may actually work in the (*Chevy Trucks. Like a Rock.*) cyberspace world (*Spice Girls Reunion Tour -- Coming Soon!*).
Where's Mr. Subliminal (*Nike. Just do it.*) when we need him? He was one of the (*Wasssup!! Bud Lite*) least effective on television (*Read Slashdot!*), but his ideas (*Watch Shrek!*) may appeal in cyberspace where (*Disney's Atlantis -- Opening Tomorrow!*) banner ads have been met with both (*Tojans mean never having to say 'I'm Sorry!'*) open hostility and ridicule.
Somehow, we must (*Salon.com -- only $30/year*) find a new way to finance (*Vote Republican in 2002, or we will send Willie Horton to your door!*) the sites that we really love to surf (*Summer sale at Macy's: up to 20% off!*) or we will find many more of these well-written, but (*Carl Hiassen's new book: Sick Puppy! Now in paperback!*) underfunded sites go down just like (*Isuzu welcomes back Joe Isuzu! Buy a truck from us!*) Salon, Slate, Suck, and (*New York Times. We have the fnords!*) Feed. --
The biggest problem with broadband is, as was mentioned in the Freedom letter, a small percentage of the users is responsible for a huge percentage of the pipe.
It is within their rights to come up with an acceptable usage policy, and they seem to be doing it in a responsible way. If they had wanted to do this better, they should provided their customers with the information that they were considering a cap, and asked for feedback from them.
I kind of like the name of the team: BigPond. Does that imply that they are just some little fish? --
This propoganda tactic was in use before World War II, and apparently, it still works.
Even in politics, say the same lie often enough and it gets believed. President George Bush (Sr.) would dismiss civil rights legislation as a "quota bill." Now, President Junior does the same thing, saying that his "Lets Give Lots Of Money To The Rich Guys" tax policy as "favoring the poor."
In the high-tech area, we're hearing Allchin, Mundie, and now Ballmer repeating that "open source is not available to commercial companies."
This is a lot of horseshit. It's available to anybody and everybody. However, if you don't want to use it, then don't.
The GPL license (which the GNU folks will repeat over and over is NOT OPEN SOURCE), is a license to use a piece of software. It is no different than the license in which a person runs Windows, Office, or any other Microsoft product. One can say that using the same reasoning, Microsoft software is not available to commercial companies. Of course, that is, commercial companies that do not wish to abide by Microsoft's licenses, which is much more stringent with regard what you can and can not do than any interpretation that I've ever heard of the GPL.
If you don't like the license, don't use it. Microsoft has that right with regard to the GPL. However, Microsoft is not every commercial company. There are many companies, including IBM, Sun, RedHat, and others, that are only too happy to abide by the GPL.
But you have to give the Microsoft flaks du jour credit for continuing to play the "most so-called journalists are so f*cking stupid that they don't know the GPL from TNT" card. --
Here come's Telekom's Micromoney...
Buy that dress! Buy that beer! You've got money!
Hey, look a porn site! Key your code now!
Come on you got to scratch and sniff
And peel it right (I said, peel it right)
I say, yeah... yeah... yeah... yeah..
(Chorus)
'Cause I like to spend (Micromoney)
So much (Micromoney)
Too much (Micromoney)
Not good (Micromoney)
Not fine (Micromoney)
Where mine? (Micromoney)
It was mine, but I spent all night
They said, "Yeah..." (Yeah!) "Yeah..." (Yeah!) "Yeah..." (Yeah!)
They said I could spend it, Micromoney
Now I can't end it, no more Micromoney
I can't stop surfin' though I have no cash now
Can't stop now, no Micromoney
Need more (Yeah), I said, "More!" (Yeah!) Yeah! (Yeah)
(Repeat chorus)
I love my micro-micro-money...
I love my micro-micro-money... (Sure I do)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Yes, it's true)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Turnin' blue!)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Snifin' glue..)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Rent is due!)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Banks will sue!)
I love my micro-micro-money...
Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah...
Come on! Pay up!
Come on! I'm stuck!
Come on! What luck!
Found a card! I say, "yeah..." (Yeah!) "Yeah!" (Yeah!) "Yeah!" (Yeah!)
'Cause now I can spend (Micromoney)
Some more! (Micromoney)
You whore! (Micromoney)
I'm poor! (Micromoney)
My money's outa sight
It don't feel so fight
They say, "Yeah!" (Yeah!) "Yeah!" (Yeah!)
Exempting open source from mandatory warrantees is good in and of itself, but UCITA also makes legal those nasty Shrink Wrap "end user agreements" (in other words, you will be held to an agreement that you did not sign, nor did you have any say in the wording of that agreement).
UCITA is just bad law, and it is bad news for end users. --
I never said it was the answer. I just mentioned that when I was an application programmer, we occasionally had to put source code into escrow in case our company went out of business. The big companies requiring escrow didn't want to be beholden to another company's future.
The comment I made after that, about CIO's being blind to financial exposure, was the important point. You need to gauge your exposure to things you don't have direct control over, or you will quickly find out where the weakest link in the chain is when it is pulled. --
I'd challenge the uniqueness of a 10 or 15 note melody.
The publishers of the sheet music for Handel's Messiah took the publishers Handel's Messiah to court, claiming that the melody was a direct steal from the "Hallelujah chorus" from the Messiah. They WON. (This happened in the 1920's; the Westman Company, publisher of the sheet music for Messiah were awarded a share of "Bananas" profits. The court did not decide if the second line of the song was a direct steal from the second line of "My Bonnie").
So, using this as a precedent, it takes FOUR NOTES to successfully sue for stealing a melody. Ten or fifteen notes, is a blatent RIPOFF!
Slashdot Mirror
Telling the company that you've found a flaw in their software is likely your best bet.
And, according to the story, they did that and... THE FUCKING COMPANY BLEW THEM OFF when they told them about the flaw months ago!
So... what do you do then? The company doesn't want to hear that it has an insecure product. And people are still using the product as if it were secure.
What do you do then? Simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, I tried to tell them. Let others worry about it, now." It's a sad fact that most people would actually do this... they are afraid of sticking their necks out for this very reason... it gives a very nice target for the lawyers' guillotines. Amerikan citizens have turned into domesticated puppies.
But the people that are willing to stand on principle... they are the unfortunate target of the DMCA: people that are actually tring to do the right thing!
I think the fact that this can happen is a sad state of affairs in the United Coporate States of Amerika.
I've been reading the comments, and it seems like the biggest objection to "Sender Pays" goes like "The Linux Kernel Mailing List will disappear if this happens."
But this objection is unnecessary: the truth is that mailing lists are no longer necessary!
Why does anybody have to send emails to 100 or 200 people? This is the stuff of horrific waste!
Instead, let's get the purveyors of email programs the ability to IMPORT messages into the mail queues. Simply connect to a server and download the latest stuff. Do it once a day, once an hour, or whatever. People with PDAs do this (think "AvantGo" and "Mazingo" and a few other services that hot-sync news from the web to a PDA for offline perusal). People with POP and IMAP accounts do this as well (connecting to a server on some regular basis to get email). It's not a big change from the current email GUI model.
For instance, let's assume there's a "Slashdot Mailing List" that basically feeds all the stories that appear on Slashdot. Your mailer can connect via some "well known protocol" (ftp, http) to the server that provides the mailing list. The mailer then imports the messages into its message queue, augmenting the messages it has received via IMAP and POP3.
How would this work? The mailer sends the last received message id, and the server sends all messages on the list that appeared after that id. This could be either by generating a transaction on the fly from a database, or just concatenating all messages id's from the one that was last received. Add compression (which email doesn't provide) and you have now provided a benefit--less bandwidth required compared to bulk email.
And the mailer KNOWS that it's not receiving SPAM, since the user has actually OPTED IN by definition by giving the email program the name of the mailing list that the user is interested in.
(Some mailing lists do a lot of this processing already, by incorporating messages in a digest format that is emailed or posted to the web, so we're not asking for too much additional functionality from them.)
Now, an ISP can intercept ALL DATA going across port 25, and examine the envelope. If there is more than a few recipients ("few" determined by the ISP's AUP), the ISP can generate a bounce ("Too many recipients") and drop the mail, or even save the mail, and in the bounce, give a URL that points the user to a "Click Through" agreement to pay the surcharge for sending email to multiple users.
For Spammers that try to circumvent this by sending one message per recipient, the ISP, which now has the equivalent of a "taxi meter" on port 25, can detect this as well, simply by aggregating the number of emails that a single address is sending out (simple database application).
Spammers that use open relays will get hit by the same problem, again assuming that the open relay's ISP has filtered port 25.
This should cut down spam.
The person whose wife wants to know about sales, simply OPTS IN to a server that will feed her the latest prices from the local grocery or the mall down the road. Advertisers are happy (they know how many people are downloading their bulk stuff), and the recipient is happy. If the mailing list isn't what the wife wanted, tell the email program to no longer download the stuff.
The only problem I see with such a solution is the possible invasion of privacy that could happen if it wasn't just the envelope of the message that is inspected (think: Carnivore). I'd leave this up to the implementing parties to come up with safeguards against this.
Any opinions?
I thought that I figured the easy way around having Google's spy on me...
But this damn aluminum foil around my mouse is causing havoc with my web surfing!
I notice, too, that I dropped my pen on the floor.
WILL THIS NEVER END????
Typically when the FBI arrest and the DJ prosecute a defendant they're very interested in inflating the importance of the case for all kinds of reasons.
DJ????? A ha! I knew the RIAA was involved in this nefarious plot!!!
So he is talking about Mozilla???
This will be March, 2004 in "Linux Years."
You ARE using Linux, right?? [smile]
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file (don't include the line numbers; they are simply there in case SlashDot wraps the lines):
/you have an E-Card from/i /has sent you an e-card -- a virtual postcard from friendgreetings.com/i
Anyway, put the following seven lines in your
1. header SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS Subject =~
2. describe SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS Subject appears to be a FriendGreetings.com worm
3. score SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS 3.0
4.
5. full BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS
6. describe BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS Appears to be a FriendGreetings.com worm
7. score BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS 5.0
This should be two sets of three lines separated by a space.
This should tag the message as SPAM. Feel free to up the scores. I made the first test only a 2.0, since it just may be that it is a "legitimate" e-card. (Who actually reads those things, anyway?)
Note to all RedHat 8.0 users: SpamAssassin is included in your linux box! Use it!
Maybe putting (but not installing) Mac OSX would be an even more interesting idea. Even though OSX won't run on PC hardware, it would still be an operating system...!
Higher level of bandwidth is nice, but it's really throughput that makes the difference (eg, even though you are supposed to currently get 1.5 Mbps downstream, sometimes the throughput is much smaller due to network congestion, etc.). Paying nearly twice as much should result in some sort of service "guarantee" which I have never seen AT&T or any of its predecessors that I used (RoadRunner, MediaOne, Highway1). So, I'm a bit leery of such a level of service.
Anyway, more important to "power users" would be things like offering DNS service (they are removing "vanity hostnames" -- why not provide nameservice for people that really want to have their own identity on the net?), and static IP's (it's a bitch having your own domain when your IP address may change at the whim of some faceless corporation).
All in all, I'm really quite happy with my current service from AT&T. I don't know what will happen when the Comcast merger happens. I *do* know that my IP address hasn't changed in a couple of years (so the static IP problem is mitigated, at least for now), and my throughput has mostly been pretty good.
Another thought... does the new "Ultra" service give you telephone support from people that actually know what they are talking about? On the ATTBI.* newsgroups, the complete lack of competence of the lackeys in Florida and Canada that answer the phone is legendary...!
I've been told that tomorrow is "Day One."
But if you prefer to start counting at zero, then I guess you might think it's official today ("Day Zero").
But then, I just work for Digital^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCompaq^H^H^H^H^H^HHP...
Interesting thought, anyway.
this would have been reported differently.
For example, if some Linux distribution decides to stop supporting Alpha (well, I *do* work for Compaq!) or Sparc, the media would be sounding the death knell for those processors.
So... where are the obits for x86? [smile]
Should be simple to write a script that would examine your HTTP error_log file for '\.exe' and insert a rule into IPCHAINS to DENY all connections from that IP. The connection will time out, of course... but it will slow down the virus.
Much better than having your system get hit 15 times a second from Nimda probes, anyway.
Wow! That must be why the NSA has decided to arrest the people running MSNBC.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, etc. etc. after the attack last Tuesday!
That's where all the internet traffic was after the crashes.
I actually heard that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was actually on an approach to either the White House or the Capitol building, and then veered and hit the Pentagon instead.
The worries were that the plane was going so fast, there was no time to evacuate whichever was the intended target.
As for the plane that ditched in PA, the pilot requested a change of flight plan to Washington, which would bely that Camp David was a target (I also think that Camp David isn't easy to spot from the air, but I could be wrong). No strategic value in Camp David, as the Prez was in Florida, and his wife was in DC.
What all the targets that were hit had in common was that they were large enough to allow a relatively untrained pilot to hit them.
We may never know the intended target for the fourth plane.
[sigh]
If Microsoft wants its MSN icon--or any other icon for that matter--on the desktop, then it should enter into the SAME SORT OF LICENSING DEAL THAT AOL IS MAKING WITH OTHER OEMS. Stating that their icons must show, or no icons will be allowed, is just another example of how Microsoft flexes its muscles to promote its inferior products (not that I wish to imply that AOL's product is in any way superior).
I have a term that Microsoft should learn: It's called playing fair.
If Microsoft doesn't want to play fair, then they deserve to be bitch-slapped by the DoJ and court system for being a monopoly and illegally protecting that monopoly.
Get a clue, Microsoft!
--
Just because something is there, doesn't mean that everybody has a God given right to make money off it.
This is a basic tenet of human nature that, for some reason, seems to elude the minds of some people.
The internet is out there. That's a fact. It has been true for quite a long time in some form or another.
Now that home users are able to get broadband access in the form of cable or DSL, the fact is that people are already paying for their access, and if a web site is going to charge $XX for you to visit them, that is $XX above and beyond what they are currently paying.
Pay per view and subscriptions seem to be working in the cable market, but there has been stern resistance for "pay as you play" on the Internet.
The MPAA and RIAA are whining and crying, saying that the Internet doesn't provide any protection for intellectual property. Well, guess what? It doesn't. And it won't, no matter how many congresspeople they purchase, and how many stupid acts of legislation they try to get passed. Deal with it.
People didn't like it that their perfectly good album collection on vinyl was rendered obsolete by studios that now only release stuff on CD. Back in 1980, it required the owners of the albums' masters to be able to produce the CD's. People grumbled, but they bought CD's, a lot of them duplicating stuff they already had on vinyl.
Today, however, the state of the art has reached the common man. The Internet is only a tool, just like a CD-ROM burner is a tool, and the software for copying CD-ROMS is a tool. These tools allow people to tell the RIAA just what they think about having to pay again and again and again for essentially the same stuff.
Do you think if listening to radio required a subscription that radio would be as ubiquitous as it is today? Of course not!
People will "share" the files they have around on the Internet. Deal with it.
People don't want to view banner ads on web sites. They will ignore them, or they will use software to make them disappear. Either way, they were intrusive and disliked.
Either invent a business model that can deal with the current reality of the Internet, or end up in the Darwinian garbage heap.
If you try to invent your own "business friendly" Internet that has none of the things that people can already get from the current Internet, then you will only have an Internet that has businesses there... and very few customers! What would make people want to give up what they have now? It had better be good, or it will go the way of the 8-track tape.
The Internet managed fine before businesses discovered it, and I feel it will still be around despite what some misguided businesspeople, congresspeople, judges, or whomever decide to do.
--
What was once a joke on Saturday Night Live (*Coke is it*) may actually work in the (*Chevy Trucks. Like a Rock.*) cyberspace world (*Spice Girls Reunion Tour -- Coming Soon!*).
Where's Mr. Subliminal (*Nike. Just do it.*) when we need him? He was one of the (*Wasssup!! Bud Lite*) least effective on television (*Read Slashdot!*), but his ideas (*Watch Shrek!*) may appeal in cyberspace where (*Disney's Atlantis -- Opening Tomorrow!*) banner ads have been met with both (*Tojans mean never having to say 'I'm Sorry!'*) open hostility and ridicule.
Somehow, we must (*Salon.com -- only $30/year*) find a new way to finance (*Vote Republican in 2002, or we will send Willie Horton to your door!*) the sites that we really love to surf (*Summer sale at Macy's: up to 20% off!*) or we will find many more of these well-written, but (*Carl Hiassen's new book: Sick Puppy! Now in paperback!*) underfunded sites go down just like (*Isuzu welcomes back Joe Isuzu! Buy a truck from us!*) Salon, Slate, Suck, and (*New York Times. We have the fnords!*) Feed.
--
The biggest problem with broadband is, as was mentioned in the Freedom letter, a small percentage of the users is responsible for a huge percentage of the pipe.
It is within their rights to come up with an acceptable usage policy, and they seem to be doing it in a responsible way. If they had wanted to do this better, they should provided their customers with the information that they were considering a cap, and asked for feedback from them.
I kind of like the name of the team: BigPond. Does that imply that they are just some little fish?
--
And people start to believe it.
This propoganda tactic was in use before World War II, and apparently, it still works.
Even in politics, say the same lie often enough and it gets believed. President George Bush (Sr.) would dismiss civil rights legislation as a "quota bill." Now, President Junior does the same thing, saying that his "Lets Give Lots Of Money To The Rich Guys" tax policy as "favoring the poor."
In the high-tech area, we're hearing Allchin, Mundie, and now Ballmer repeating that "open source is not available to commercial companies."
This is a lot of horseshit. It's available to anybody and everybody. However, if you don't want to use it, then don't.
The GPL license (which the GNU folks will repeat over and over is NOT OPEN SOURCE), is a license to use a piece of software. It is no different than the license in which a person runs Windows, Office, or any other Microsoft product. One can say that using the same reasoning, Microsoft software is not available to commercial companies. Of course, that is, commercial companies that do not wish to abide by Microsoft's licenses, which is much more stringent with regard what you can and can not do than any interpretation that I've ever heard of the GPL.
If you don't like the license, don't use it. Microsoft has that right with regard to the GPL. However, Microsoft is not every commercial company. There are many companies, including IBM, Sun, RedHat, and others, that are only too happy to abide by the GPL.
But you have to give the Microsoft flaks du jour credit for continuing to play the "most so-called journalists are so f*cking stupid that they don't know the GPL from TNT" card.
--
Here come's Telekom's Micromoney...
Buy that dress! Buy that beer! You've got money!
Hey, look a porn site! Key your code now!
Come on you got to scratch and sniff
And peel it right (I said, peel it right)
I say, yeah... yeah... yeah... yeah..
(Chorus)
'Cause I like to spend (Micromoney)
So much (Micromoney)
Too much (Micromoney)
Not good (Micromoney)
Not fine (Micromoney)
Where mine? (Micromoney)
It was mine, but I spent all night
They said, "Yeah..." (Yeah!) "Yeah..." (Yeah!) "Yeah..." (Yeah!)
They said I could spend it, Micromoney
Now I can't end it, no more Micromoney
I can't stop surfin' though I have no cash now
Can't stop now, no Micromoney
Need more (Yeah), I said, "More!" (Yeah!) Yeah! (Yeah)
(Repeat chorus)
I love my micro-micro-money...
I love my micro-micro-money... (Sure I do)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Yes, it's true)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Turnin' blue!)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Snifin' glue..)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Rent is due!)
I love my micro-micro-money... (Banks will sue!)
I love my micro-micro-money...
Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah...
Come on! Pay up!
Come on! I'm stuck!
Come on! What luck!
Found a card! I say, "yeah..." (Yeah!) "Yeah!" (Yeah!) "Yeah!" (Yeah!)
'Cause now I can spend (Micromoney)
Some more! (Micromoney)
You whore! (Micromoney)
I'm poor! (Micromoney)
My money's outa sight
It don't feel so fight
They say, "Yeah!" (Yeah!) "Yeah!" (Yeah!)
No more... (Micromoney)
I'm poor... (Micromoney)
I'm sore.... (Micromoney)
.
.
.
--
Another news flash: Workers at Microsoft have to use Windows!
Must be a slow news day.
[sigh]
--
Exempting open source from mandatory warrantees is good in and of itself, but UCITA also makes legal those nasty Shrink Wrap "end user agreements" (in other words, you will be held to an agreement that you did not sign, nor did you have any say in the wording of that agreement).
UCITA is just bad law, and it is bad news for end users.
--
I never said it was the answer. I just mentioned that when I was an application programmer, we occasionally had to put source code into escrow in case our company went out of business. The big companies requiring escrow didn't want to be beholden to another company's future.
The comment I made after that, about CIO's being blind to financial exposure, was the important point. You need to gauge your exposure to things you don't have direct control over, or you will quickly find out where the weakest link in the chain is when it is pulled.
--
I'd challenge the uniqueness of a 10 or 15 note melody.
The publishers of the sheet music for Handel's Messiah took the publishers Handel's Messiah to court, claiming that the melody was a direct steal from the "Hallelujah chorus" from the Messiah. They WON. (This happened in the 1920's; the Westman Company, publisher of the sheet music for Messiah were awarded a share of "Bananas" profits. The court did not decide if the second line of the song was a direct steal from the second line of "My Bonnie").
So, using this as a precedent, it takes FOUR NOTES to successfully sue for stealing a melody. Ten or fifteen notes, is a blatent RIPOFF!
--