Because the majority of the executives and Members of the Board do not capable of identifying what needs to be done or the person who can accomplish it.
If they cannot define the criteria (other than "turn the company around") how will they be able to find a person who can successfully implement those criteria?
Instead, they go with "rock star" CEO's.
Here's a quick example. Get 100 pennies. Toss them in the air. Take out the "bad" pennies that came up tails. You should have about 50 left.
Do it again. You should have about 25 "performing" pennies.
Again, now you have weeded out the dead wood and you're left with a dozen or "successful" pennies.
Again, now you have the half dozen or so "highly successful" pennies.
Once more and you have the few "rock star" pennies. These are the pennies you pay millions of dollars to turn your company around. These are the pennies that don't make mistakes. These are the pennies that understand management and the market.
And hiring CEO's is even worse than that. At least with the pennies, they only had a couple of factors influencing them. Companies have all kinds of influences from overseas competition to economic depression to lawsuits and so forth.
If a CEO makes a decision, and the company increases in value, how do you know that it was anything other than mere luck?
Maybe his decision was extremely stupid and a thousand other decisions would have increased the company's value even more.
Which is why one of the first actions of the new CEO is usually to secure the golden parachutes for himself and other execs.
Even after being a geek for a looong time, I'm still shocked at how clueless most geeks are to the real world.
The problem isn't with them. It's with you.
"25 million is a lot, right?". No. It isn't.
Yes, it is a lot.
If there was an easily exploitable flaw in FireFox that allowed crackers to capture people's bank account info or credit card info, the crackers would be all over it.
25 million accounts, even at $100 each is still over 2 billion dollars (25,000,000x$100 = 2,500,000,000).
And $2.5Billion is enough to interest any cracker/criminal.
The implication of this article stems in the absolutes of security: can it ward off intruders or not. This is a flawed approach, and while seemingly a logical one, denounces another reality of this level of breach: the lion's share of these breaches are not of the most malicious sort (read: that stupid data miner which causes popups, search bars from hell, etc).
The FIRST aspect of "security" is limiting the avenues of attack. You sort of touched on that, but I'll say it explicitly.
If FireFox doesn't run ActiveX, then that is one avenue that is NOT available for an attack.
As others have pointed out, lynx is very secure and that is because it completely blocks so many avenues of attack.
One must acknowledge the reality of security by statistics alongside security by absolutes.
Exactly. Now, from TFA:
As law enforcement officers will tell you, crime finds you if it wants you bad enough, no matter what preventative measures you take.
If they say that, then they are wrong.
Look at the typical junkie on the street. He's be happy to rob a bank. But the bank's security system is beyond his capabilities to SUCCESSFULLY attack.
So he picks easier targets with LOWER payoffs (mugging pedestrians).
Which brings me to the SECOND aspect of security: Build the defenses on the available avenues to defeat the attacks.
Sure, there are criminals out there who can pick any lock and defeat any alarm system. But they are very few and very far between. The odds that you, specifically, will be targetted by one of them is less than the odds of you winning the lottery.
So, contrary to what TFA says, crime will NOT find you if it wants you bad enough. It has to want you bad enough AND be intelligent enough AND be skilled enough.
But the vast majority of criminals have an Achilles' heel: They prefer convenience to challenge.
Sort of. More accurately, they're lazy. The "vast majority" will NOT spend time and effort to learn how to bypass alarm systems. If there's an easier target, they'll go for it.
If your (and your neighbor's) defenses are more than they can bypass, they'll leave the area.
For now, it's more convenient for them to pick on Internet Explorer.
No. While it is more "convenient", that is NOT the reason that IE is subject to all the attacks.
The reason is that the level of skill/intelligence required to successfully attack IE is SO VERY LOW. ANYONE with a bit of programming skill can write an exploit for IE.
Sure, any junkie can get a knife, and a knife is good enough for a mugging. But that knife isn't going to get you very far in a bank robbery.
Clearly, hackers wouldn't be so successful if they didn't have so many potential targets.
Again, it isn't about the POTENTIAL targets.
It's all about the AVAILABLE targets in your SKILL RANGE.
Of course, it's up to software makers to hold up their end, too. But they're no less susceptible to market forces, deadlines and bureaucracy than anyone else.
Which is why Open Source has such a great security rep. There aren't any market forces or deadlines to deal with. It's ready when it is ready.
Mistakes happen. Hacking happens. To assume you won't fall prey to either fairly begs for trouble.
This gets back to your statement on statistics and "the absolutes of security".
Sure, my system is vulnerable. An attacker has to get to Seattle. And into the office building. And disable the cameras. And disable the alarm system. And break into the office. And blow the server room door. And then steal the server.
I'm not losing any sleep.
Of the thousands of computer viruses now available, most ar
If you RTFA, you'll see that this was an inside job done by corrupt upper-level employees.
Yep.
Setting aside security-Utopia for a second, at some point you have to trust your own employees, especially "upper level" ones.
Nope. It shouldn't be that hard to have every employee's access to every account logged.
Then, you have those logs checked by another person, not at that location. Was there a legitimate reason for the access (withdrawl/deposit)? Was that access initiated by the customer?
The people monitoring the logs will not have access to the personal information of the accounts.
Now, if the logs are checked on a random basis (Joe is NOT the only person who checks all of Seattle's logs) then that activity is much easier to spot.
When that trust turns out to be misplaced, there's not a lot one can do to prevent malfeasance.
The key is to build a system where individuals are NOT allowed unchecked access to personal information.
The reason we don't have systems like that is because there isn't any financial incentive to implement them.
The US does NOT have the same privacy laws that other countries have so this kind of activity is MUCH easier to get away with.
It shouldn't come as a shock that IT managers aren't evaluating Linux for servers as much anymore when you look at what's available in Windows Server 2003 and *BSD.
The article only accounts for 63%. That leaves 37% as either testing Linux or deploying it. And the annual figures for server sales seem to show increasing Linux sales.
So where do you see the decline in interest?
I'm not as big a user of Linux as I used to be, so stop me if I'm talking out my ass here, but stripping Linux down to operate strictly as a server simply isn't what it used to be (in terms of effort required if nothing else) due to kernel bloat and dependency hell.
Okay. Stop. You're talking out of your ass.
I use Debian on servers. It is ultra-simple to install a bare system and then add on only what I specifically want.
And that isn't even counting recompiling the kernel or recompiling any packages. I'm sure you could get an extra 5-10% performance, but my systems are already on idle most of the time.
Why would you use it when there are other OSes that provide everything else a server needs with less kruft?
What "kruft"? Which OS's have less? Certainly not in Win2003, as you mentioned. You cannot remove services in that, just disable them.
48% are not interested in Linux. 52% are somewhat interested in Linux.
15% are not sure about Linux.
Which leaves 37% who have deployed Linux or are testing Linux for deployment.
The company I work for sounds similar to your's. We have LOTS of server apps that will only run on Windows. Except we have more servers.
Switching now would be insane.
Possibly. But "now" isn't "tomorrow".
The key issue is whether you're talking about an EXISTING installation or a NEW installation.
Because you have an existing installation, your company has already spent the money to evaluate and deploy that system.
But, at some time in the future, there will be an upgrade. And you will have to spend more money on your system.
There are 3 items to consider when evaluating a system.
#1. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) - how much does it cost to run this system day after day.
#2. Return on Investment (ROI) - How much revenue with this system allow us to generate?
#3. Migration cost - How much will it cost to deploy this system.
Now, even though Linux may have a far lower TCO and a far higher ROI, the migration cost can be too high to make a business case for it.
But when it is time to pay for the next upgrade, the migration costs need to be compared. So if it would cost $1 million to migrate today, but it would take the company 10 years to make that money back, no one would migrate.
But then you have to pay $500,000 for the next upgrade. Suddenly, the Linux system doesn't look so bad. Particularly if you're looking at ANOTHER upgrade within the next 5 years.
So you (being the pro-active guy you are) get in touch with the people working on the Linux systems. You have the time and they have the incentive. Can they cut the migration costs to $250,000 within the next 5 years (estimated time to your next upgrade)?
After all, it's just 0's and 1's.
If they can do that, then the next upgrade will cost MORE than the migration.
It's called a "migration plan". Only idiots or people with an agenda try to migrate ALL of their systems at once.
Start by learning Linux and seeing where it can be deployed, reasonably, in your existing network. We're running it for DNS/DHCP/backup/webpages/etc. I also have it protecting an old GroupWise system. I'm also trying to establish OpenLDAP as our standard directory service.
The longer you wait to start, the more proprietary infra-structure you'll have to migrate.
Your IT department needs a plan. Otherwise, you'll be driven by the vendors. And the vendors are only interested in getting more of your money into their pockets.
But having the email program dig through years and years and years of email just to get the stuff you received today pisses a lot of people off.
The issue isn't really about disk storage. The issue is that many mail systems are not setup with "live" data disks and "archived" data disks. Everything goes on the live drives unless the user archives it off to a safe location.
But then how do you make sure you have a backup of that archived data?
Currently, we're taking the approach of copying all the email that comes in or goes out to DVD.
It's not a great solution, but the users can do whatever they want with their emails and I'll still have a copy in case any legal issues pop up.
I suspect that, very soon, email systems will be designed to accomodate the concept of archives as a near-line storage system or even a different storage box. Adding space to a storage box probably won't have the same issues as adding space to a live mail system.
And having a system that archives email to a different box after a set time since last access or something would definately improve the speed.
The laws WERE effective. So they had to be changed
on
Tweaking the CAN-SPAM Act
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Before "CAN-SPAM", the various states would pass their own anti-spam laws.
Some states had really good (anti-spammer) laws.
Some didn't.
So the DMA lobbied the government to deal with the "problem" of different states having different laws.
The end result... one worthless Federal law that trumps all of the state laws.
I work for a small buisness. I don't Spam. But I do advertise via email.
The key is how do you get those addresses you send your ads to.
How is this not evil? Well I know that a customer is having problem with X and my previous solution was to expensive for them to fix. A week later I found a cheaper solution that stills works. So I email the customer saying Hey I found a better solution to the problem and it only costs $y
So you, personally, are sending an email to follow up on a contact that was initiated by the potential customer that that potential customer personally sent to you.
So far, so good.
Now if the CAN-SPAM act was to strick this honest buisness dealing could be considered Spam which it is not.
Dude, you have nothing to worry about as long as the DMA can pay lobbyists.
Ok you say that is fine because it is one on one comunication. So let me move it 1 step further. Say I know 5 clients that have the probem and I send them the email.
How did you get their addresses?
following this pattern there will be a point where I move from normal sales to spamming.
No. It isn't about quantity.
It's about unsolicitated commercial ads.
If 10,000 people have personally contacted you looking for Product X, and you personally reply to those 10,000 people saying that you have Product X in stock, that would be fine.
That is why we have a hard time making laws on excessive things because they will could become to a point where they hinder good intentional uses.
Nope. It's quite easy as a matter of fact.
The key is HOW the addresses you are sending to are obtained.
In a legitimate, non-spam business, they will be obtained by those people giving you their email addresses and expecting to receive emails from you.
In a spam business, emails are harvested and/or purchased in bulk.
All that the US needs to do is to define non-spam as email sent by a company that you have provided your info to and for that company to have a record of that (your IP address, your email address, the web page/domain you were at when you provided it).
Anything else is spam.
No "affiliates", no "partners", no one other than that one company you provided the information to.
Legitimate companies will not have a problem with this. Give them 6 months to update their mailing lists to meet the new criteria.
Spammers (and companies using them) are the only ones that will be affected by this.
This is very bad news for all those legitimate banks that purchase email leads from spammers, but I really don't give a rat's ass about whether they like it or not. I'm tired of getting mortgage spam and I'm tired of people saying that their email was flagged as spam just because they were discussing their mortgage options with their bank.
Information is what you have when you process data.
It is possible to have too much data and not enough information. And that is the point we have hit. We can capture just about any amount of data on a subject, but we aren't getting any better information on that subject.
If you have enough data points, you will start to see patterns even when there aren't any.
A. Not even close. That honor still belongs to "Empire," followed closely by "A New Hope." Both those films have an urgency to them that "Episode III" could never muster. But "Sith" edges out "Jedi" - if only because "Sith" lacks Ewoks, and because "Sith"'s Emperor comes off as more than a cackling, flour-dipped prune who speaks in sound bites while lightning spews out of his fingers.
She might have really liked it, but it still reads pretty mediocre.
Is Lucas a genius for making two completely unacceptable films just to reduce expectations of the 3rd?
That's what I liked about the old Siskel and Ebert show. You got multiple reviews for each movie.
Ebert likes this one, despite the wooden acting and pathetic dialog, because of... the effects?
Siskel might pan it because the wooden acting and pathetic dialog overshadowed the effects (or whatever Ebert liked) for him.
So those reviews had more depth. If you were wondering about a specific movie, you would have the advice to not go in expecting anything intellectual or insightful, just lots of action and effects.
And isn't that how you review movies for your friends? You tell them whether it is worth the money to see in the theatre or whether they'd like it more on DVD with beer and pizza so they can laugh loudly.
And there is nothing substantiated about the claims that ANYONE has made ANY death threats against anyone.
The ONLY substantiated evidence is that the cops were called when MOG was harassing PJ's mom.
They should be afraid because in their history, they've never been under more scrutiny by their audience.
Be careful, that could be taken as a "threat" by one of those "journalists".
And that is the biggest problem with these "journalists".
They don't know the tech or the industry, so they attempt to get by on National Enquirer style sensationalism and rumour.
Read John's column again and you'll see him reporting the allegations of "death threats" as if they were established fact.
Pure sensationalism and sensationalism can be had from any "journalist". It is harder to maintain readership for a sensationalist rag than for a real tech magazine.
Bonus points if he can incite someone to threaten him. If he gets 10,000 reasonble posts and one threat, he'll make the next article about that one threat, completely ignoring the rest.
The article will state: "In response to my last article, I got THOUSANDS of angry responses, some of them quite THREATENING."
That is the way these "journalists" handle it.
Since we cannot see the actual email, he is free to describe it in any way he desires.
Given that he has already characterized the Linux community as "criminally insane" and "lunatics", you can be sure that he will be portraying the emails as from such individuals.
BUT you will also NOT see a SINGLE case of any email being forwarded to the cops/FBI for legal action regarding communicating a threat.
Not a single one .
Meanwhile, if it were you or I who received an emailed death threat, we would have the appropriate message and headers carried to the local authorities for investigation and possible arrest.
No arrests will be made. No criminal cases will be opened. No email will be sent to the authorities.
But much will be said in his articles about the tone of the threats he received for his unbiased and fact-filled article about Linux extremists.
Today is the 16th of May, 2005 and it is 11:25am Pacific time.
Nope. He just doesn't believe that she violated anything. From TFA:
Whatever the case, I've seen this feud become ridiculous and invasive, but I've seen worse on network TV with less-public figures than PJ. I would have paid no attention to the whole thing if I represented the collective thoughts of the Linux community. What difference does it make?
What MOG did wasn't so bad. He's seen worse.
Oh, brother. In the olden days, O'Gara would have been given a medal for generating readership. But in today's world of the so easily offended, she's apparently let go instead, and things calm down as the hissy fit subsides.
She didn't violate any ethics. People are just too easily offended today.
There is such a thing as "moral outrage" and that is what is being expressed by people objecting to MOG's article.
But John doesn't understand that. John only sees page hits. And page hits are good.
Also, hasn't the "tech community" (aka the good guys) also published personal information? The DiDio flap comes to mind and I fail to recall oodles of people rallying that her privacy had been violated.
Slashdot has a search function.
Go ahead. Substantiate your claim.
Show where ANYONE here published DiDiot's mother's address/phone number or even pictures of her house.
John says that MOG was nutty to write that, but that there wasn't anything wrong with it.
He even said that, in the old days, she'd be given a MEDAL for writing that because of the page hits it generated.
Then he goes on to refer to Linux users as "criminally insane" "fanatics"/"lunatics" who issue "death threats" to those who disagree with them.
But the evidence so far only shows the cops being called on MOG, none have been called on Linux fans.
And that was only when MOG was harassing PJ's mom. And John didn't have a problem with MOG harasssing PJ's mom because worse things happen. Newsflash: Just because something worse can happen does NOT make other things right or good or ethical.
So, John is accepting ANY allegations made against the "Linux community" by ANYONE even if there is NO evidence.
And he predicts that all those fanatical, lunatic, criminally insane Linux fans will post hateful messages on his blog now.
You have to ask yourself WHY someone would accept ANY allegations made against Linux fans AND use such provocative descriptions of said fans in a PUBLIC column.
I belive that he's given up trying to write about the tech and is setting himself up as a martyr when the "Linux fanatics" post crap on his "blog".
It's all about the page hits and the material for future columns.
Great. Another MOG is born to take the place of the MOG that was.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the majority of the executives and Members of the Board do not capable of identifying what needs to be done or the person who can accomplish it.
If they cannot define the criteria (other than "turn the company around") how will they be able to find a person who can successfully implement those criteria?
Instead, they go with "rock star" CEO's.
Here's a quick example. Get 100 pennies. Toss them in the air. Take out the "bad" pennies that came up tails. You should have about 50 left.
Do it again. You should have about 25 "performing" pennies.
Again, now you have weeded out the dead wood and you're left with a dozen or "successful" pennies.
Again, now you have the half dozen or so "highly successful" pennies.
Once more and you have the few "rock star" pennies. These are the pennies you pay millions of dollars to turn your company around. These are the pennies that don't make mistakes. These are the pennies that understand management and the market.
And hiring CEO's is even worse than that. At least with the pennies, they only had a couple of factors influencing them. Companies have all kinds of influences from overseas competition to economic depression to lawsuits and so forth.
If a CEO makes a decision, and the company increases in value, how do you know that it was anything other than mere luck?
Maybe his decision was extremely stupid and a thousand other decisions would have increased the company's value even more.
Which is why one of the first actions of the new CEO is usually to secure the golden parachutes for himself and other execs.
If there was an easily exploitable flaw in FireFox that allowed crackers to capture people's bank account info or credit card info, the crackers would be all over it.
25 million accounts, even at $100 each is still over 2 billion dollars (25,000,000x$100 = 2,500,000,000).
And $2.5Billion is enough to interest any cracker/criminal.
The FIRST aspect of "security" is limiting the avenues of attack. You sort of touched on that, but I'll say it explicitly.
If FireFox doesn't run ActiveX, then that is one avenue that is NOT available for an attack.
As others have pointed out, lynx is very secure and that is because it completely blocks so many avenues of attack.
Exactly. Now, from TFA:
If they say that, then they are wrong.
Look at the typical junkie on the street. He's be happy to rob a bank. But the bank's security system is beyond his capabilities to SUCCESSFULLY attack.
So he picks easier targets with LOWER payoffs (mugging pedestrians).
Which brings me to the SECOND aspect of security: Build the defenses on the available avenues to defeat the attacks.
Sure, there are criminals out there who can pick any lock and defeat any alarm system. But they are very few and very far between. The odds that you, specifically, will be targetted by one of them is less than the odds of you winning the lottery.
So, contrary to what TFA says, crime will NOT find you if it wants you bad enough. It has to want you bad enough AND be intelligent enough AND be skilled enough.
Sort of. More accurately, they're lazy. The "vast majority" will NOT spend time and effort to learn how to bypass alarm systems. If there's an easier target, they'll go for it.
If your (and your neighbor's) defenses are more than they can bypass, they'll leave the area.
No. While it is more "convenient", that is NOT the reason that IE is subject to all the attacks.
The reason is that the level of skill/intelligence required to successfully attack IE is SO VERY LOW. ANYONE with a bit of programming skill can write an exploit for IE.
Sure, any junkie can get a knife, and a knife is good enough for a mugging. But that knife isn't going to get you very far in a bank robbery.
Again, it isn't about the POTENTIAL targets.
It's all about the AVAILABLE targets in your SKILL RANGE.
Which is why Open Source has such a great security rep. There aren't any market forces or deadlines to deal with. It's ready when it is ready.
This gets back to your statement on statistics and "the absolutes of security".
Sure, my system is vulnerable.
An attacker has to get to Seattle.
And into the office building.
And disable the cameras.
And disable the alarm system.
And break into the office.
And blow the server room door.
And then steal the server.
I'm not losing any sleep.
You'd have to wipe out all of their hard drives and tapes.
But that would, effectively, destroy their business.
Not that I, personally, have a problem with destroying their businesses, but I see long running court cases over it.
Then, you have those logs checked by another person, not at that location. Was there a legitimate reason for the access (withdrawl/deposit)? Was that access initiated by the customer?
The people monitoring the logs will not have access to the personal information of the accounts.
Now, if the logs are checked on a random basis (Joe is NOT the only person who checks all of Seattle's logs) then that activity is much easier to spot.The key is to build a system where individuals are NOT allowed unchecked access to personal information.
The reason we don't have systems like that is because there isn't any financial incentive to implement them.
The US does NOT have the same privacy laws that other countries have so this kind of activity is MUCH easier to get away with.
So where do you see the decline in interest?
Okay. Stop. You're talking out of your ass.
I use Debian on servers. It is ultra-simple to install a bare system and then add on only what I specifically want.
And that isn't even counting recompiling the kernel or recompiling any packages. I'm sure you could get an extra 5-10% performance, but my systems are already on idle most of the time.
What "kruft"? Which OS's have less? Certainly not in Win2003, as you mentioned. You cannot remove services in that, just disable them.
48% are not interested in Linux.
52% are somewhat interested in Linux.
15% are not sure about Linux.
Which leaves 37% who have deployed Linux or are testing Linux for deployment.
The company I work for sounds similar to your's. We have LOTS of server apps that will only run on Windows. Except we have more servers.
Possibly. But "now" isn't "tomorrow".
The key issue is whether you're talking about an EXISTING installation or a NEW installation.
Because you have an existing installation, your company has already spent the money to evaluate and deploy that system.
But, at some time in the future, there will be an upgrade. And you will have to spend more money on your system.
There are 3 items to consider when evaluating a system.
#1. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) - how much does it cost to run this system day after day.
#2. Return on Investment (ROI) - How much revenue with this system allow us to generate?
#3. Migration cost - How much will it cost to deploy this system.
Now, even though Linux may have a far lower TCO and a far higher ROI, the migration cost can be too high to make a business case for it.
But when it is time to pay for the next upgrade, the migration costs need to be compared. So if it would cost $1 million to migrate today, but it would take the company 10 years to make that money back, no one would migrate.
But then you have to pay $500,000 for the next upgrade. Suddenly, the Linux system doesn't look so bad. Particularly if you're looking at ANOTHER upgrade within the next 5 years.
So you (being the pro-active guy you are) get in touch with the people working on the Linux systems. You have the time and they have the incentive. Can they cut the migration costs to $250,000 within the next 5 years (estimated time to your next upgrade)?
After all, it's just 0's and 1's.
If they can do that, then the next upgrade will cost MORE than the migration.
It's called a "migration plan". Only idiots or people with an agenda try to migrate ALL of their systems at once.
Start by learning Linux and seeing where it can be deployed, reasonably, in your existing network. We're running it for DNS/DHCP/backup/webpages/etc. I also have it protecting an old GroupWise system. I'm also trying to establish OpenLDAP as our standard directory service.
The longer you wait to start, the more proprietary infra-structure you'll have to migrate.
Your IT department needs a plan. Otherwise, you'll be driven by the vendors. And the vendors are only interested in getting more of your money into their pockets.
And "staying with Microsoft" is not a plan.
Disk space is cheap.
But having the email program dig through years and years and years of email just to get the stuff you received today pisses a lot of people off.
The issue isn't really about disk storage. The issue is that many mail systems are not setup with "live" data disks and "archived" data disks. Everything goes on the live drives unless the user archives it off to a safe location.
But then how do you make sure you have a backup of that archived data?
Currently, we're taking the approach of copying all the email that comes in or goes out to DVD.
It's not a great solution, but the users can do whatever they want with their emails and I'll still have a copy in case any legal issues pop up.
I suspect that, very soon, email systems will be designed to accomodate the concept of archives as a near-line storage system or even a different storage box. Adding space to a storage box probably won't have the same issues as adding space to a live mail system.
And having a system that archives email to a different box after a set time since last access or something would definately improve the speed.
Before "CAN-SPAM", the various states would pass their own anti-spam laws.
... one worthless Federal law that trumps all of the state laws.
Some states had really good (anti-spammer) laws.
Some didn't.
So the DMA lobbied the government to deal with the "problem" of different states having different laws.
The end result
So far, so good.Dude, you have nothing to worry about as long as the DMA can pay lobbyists.How did you get their addresses?No. It isn't about quantity.
It's about unsolicitated commercial ads.
If 10,000 people have personally contacted you looking for Product X, and you personally reply to those 10,000 people saying that you have Product X in stock, that would be fine.Nope. It's quite easy as a matter of fact.
The key is HOW the addresses you are sending to are obtained.
In a legitimate, non-spam business, they will be obtained by those people giving you their email addresses and expecting to receive emails from you.
In a spam business, emails are harvested and/or purchased in bulk.
All that the US needs to do is to define non-spam as email sent by a company that you have provided your info to and for that company to have a record of that (your IP address, your email address, the web page/domain you were at when you provided it).
Anything else is spam.
No "affiliates", no "partners", no one other than that one company you provided the information to.
Legitimate companies will not have a problem with this. Give them 6 months to update their mailing lists to meet the new criteria.
Spammers (and companies using them) are the only ones that will be affected by this.
This is very bad news for all those legitimate banks that purchase email leads from spammers, but I really don't give a rat's ass about whether they like it or not. I'm tired of getting mortgage spam and I'm tired of people saying that their email was flagged as spam just because they were discussing their mortgage options with their bank.
Or however you want to distinguish the two.
Data is facts.
Information is what you have when you process data.
It is possible to have too much data and not enough information. And that is the point we have hit. We can capture just about any amount of data on a subject, but we aren't getting any better information on that subject.
If you have enough data points, you will start to see patterns even when there aren't any.
That is data overload.
In the French version (or any other language), does Yoda still speak backwards?
It's kind of hard to pirate Linux, people.
In other news, bootleg copies of the popular KDE desktop environment are expected to decline as more sites install legal versions.
If you're uber-elite, would you target just any machine with your non-publicly-released exploitation?
If it was me, I'd save the big guns for specific sites.
I'd use the common ones to crack the random boxes and use those boxes to map/probe my specific targets.
Once you start hitting everybody, someone will notice and start digging. Then you'll lose your secret toy.
You could find an exploit that was fixed by a patch you already issued that wasn't applied ...
and then you could issue a new patch to fix that exploit.
I'm sure people who didn't apply the first patch would be happy to apply the second patch. Really. I'm sure they'd be happy to.
She might have really liked it, but it still reads pretty mediocre.
Is Lucas a genius for making two completely unacceptable films just to reduce expectations of the 3rd?
That's what I liked about the old Siskel and Ebert show. You got multiple reviews for each movie.
... the effects?
Ebert likes this one, despite the wooden acting and pathetic dialog, because of
Siskel might pan it because the wooden acting and pathetic dialog overshadowed the effects (or whatever Ebert liked) for him.
So those reviews had more depth. If you were wondering about a specific movie, you would have the advice to not go in expecting anything intellectual or insightful, just lots of action and effects.
And isn't that how you review movies for your friends? You tell them whether it is worth the money to see in the theatre or whether they'd like it more on DVD with beer and pizza so they can laugh loudly.
stupid typo.
The ONLY substantiated evidence is that the cops were called when MOG was harassing PJ's mom.Be careful, that could be taken as a "threat" by one of those "journalists".
And that is the biggest problem with these "journalists".
They don't know the tech or the industry, so they attempt to get by on National Enquirer style sensationalism and rumour.
Read John's column again and you'll see him reporting the allegations of "death threats" as if they were established fact.
Pure sensationalism and sensationalism can be had from any "journalist". It is harder to maintain readership for a sensationalist rag than for a real tech magazine.
That is the way these "journalists" handle it.
Since we cannot see the actual email, he is free to describe it in any way he desires.
Given that he has already characterized the Linux community as "criminally insane" and "lunatics", you can be sure that he will be portraying the emails as from such individuals.
BUT you will also NOT see a SINGLE case of any email being forwarded to the cops/FBI for legal action regarding communicating a threat.
Not
a
single
one
.
Meanwhile, if it were you or I who received an emailed death threat, we would have the appropriate message and headers carried to the local authorities for investigation and possible arrest.
No arrests will be made.
No criminal cases will be opened.
No email will be sent to the authorities.
But much will be said in his articles about the tone of the threats he received for his unbiased and fact-filled article about Linux extremists.
Today is the 16th of May, 2005 and it is 11:25am Pacific time.
That is my prediction.
MOG did, everyone else did not.Hardly. MOG violated journalistic ethics by publishing the address of someone who was NOT involved in the "story" she was after.
You claimed: So, now it is up to you to match the information published by the "tech community" with the information published by MOG.
If MOG published MORE information, then MOG has exceeded the bounds adhered to by the "tech community".
I have shown that she has.
You are trying to claim that she has not.
If you cannot substantiate your claim, then MOG has exceeded the limits that others have adhered to.
End
of
story
Buh bye.
I don't give a fuck about PJ's phone number.
MOG published PJ's MOTHER'S phone number.
Show where ANYONE here has gone that far before.
What MOG did wasn't so bad. He's seen worse.She didn't violate any ethics. People are just too easily offended today.
There is such a thing as "moral outrage" and that is what is being expressed by people objecting to MOG's article.
But John doesn't understand that. John only sees page hits. And page hits are good.
Go ahead. Substantiate your claim.
Show where ANYONE here published DiDiot's mother's address/phone number or even pictures of her house.
Go ahead. It should be easy.
John says that MOG was nutty to write that, but that there wasn't anything wrong with it.
He even said that, in the old days, she'd be given a MEDAL for writing that because of the page hits it generated.
Then he goes on to refer to Linux users as "criminally insane" "fanatics"/"lunatics" who issue "death threats" to those who disagree with them.
But the evidence so far only shows the cops being called on MOG, none have been called on Linux fans.
And that was only when MOG was harassing PJ's mom. And John didn't have a problem with MOG harasssing PJ's mom because worse things happen. Newsflash: Just because something worse can happen does NOT make other things right or good or ethical.
So, John is accepting ANY allegations made against the "Linux community" by ANYONE even if there is NO evidence.
And he predicts that all those fanatical, lunatic, criminally insane Linux fans will post hateful messages on his blog now.
You have to ask yourself WHY someone would accept ANY allegations made against Linux fans AND use such provocative descriptions of said fans in a PUBLIC column.
I belive that he's given up trying to write about the tech and is setting himself up as a martyr when the "Linux fanatics" post crap on his "blog".
It's all about the page hits and the material for future columns.
Great. Another MOG is born to take the place of the MOG that was.