Re:With that last question I ask another
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 2
I think one has to careful with sweeping statements like that.
1) Somebody will always hate somebody else. And if that somebody else is more known than usually then those that hate will also be more known. Case in point South America and Spain. Not that many South American's are that crazy about Spain. (Obvious reasons, but nobody hears about it).
2) Not everybody hates the US. They were talking about this in CNN Europe Edition. And many came to the conclusion that Europeans do not hate American's per say. They hate the administration and George Bush.
3) Some people who hate the US also hate the West. There are many Islamists (People who believe Islamism is the true way). And these folks, do not like Democracy or anything like that. They only believe in Islamism and hence they hate the West as much as they the US.
4) Humans like bitch. I know that I bitch about the US, but guess what I REALLY bitch about Germany (Schroeder the biggest wahoo, bonehead, idiot, makes George Bush look intelligent, ever elected), France, Canada and all the other countries. But people only remember my bitching of the US.
Exactly. A picture is worth a 1000 words and if the picture is good then even more. I read the article and thought who just puts together IKEA haphazardly? Not me. And to be very frank the concept of having a piece of furniture talk to me about not following their instructions to the T really irks me.
Where this could be really useful is not in IKEA furniture, but industrial equipment. Custom Industrial equipment is a one off usually and there are many custom parts and having these LEDS would be really handy to make sure you are doing everything correctly.
For example custom machinery is usually assembled and tested in the shop and then taken apart for transporation. Now imagine before the machine is taken apart sensors are placed everywhere. Putting the machine back together again would be a snap. THAT WOULD BE USEFUL (I know I had to do it)
I agree and that what we have to realize. Bin Laden does not want to debate he wants Islamism (his form) to be the end all of everything.
It is sad because my opinion on life is that there is always a compromise and in this case there is not. And when the other party wants you dead the only option is to, fight back. Raw animalism in its finest form!
Using that analogy absolutely nothing is original. Sure it has been mentioned. But what I was trying to point out is that he DID IT! Just because you write it in a book does not mean it can actually be carried out. Books have this nice habit of making things work, because well, its fiction. As they say ideas, a dime a dozen!
The reason why I mention this is because of an article I read about computer usage among drug lords. Well, if they have that sophistication, what about the real hackers that money launder.
My thinking is that stealing credit cards is not really that interesting for hackers. Instead I wonder if it is not more interesting for hackers to put in money into the system. Not additional money, but making the money not raise any triggers. Result? Clean money laundering. And that would definitely be worth a WHOLE S**T load of money.
The comment was that e-terrorism may occur, but that there would be little loss of life. And I really wonder if the terrorists would attack the network themselves.
I would tend to think they would attack the source, which would attack the network indirectly. Like the comment about the tree falling on a power line and cutting off electricity for a while in an area.
Where I think there ought to be more concern is digital theft. Oddly enough we always hear about young hackers breaking into a network and getting caught. Please tell me where the older hackers are? Since I doubt that there are no older hackers. UNLESS, they are successful and do not get caught. Those are the folks that we need to be scared about in digital terms.
Nut balls like Bin Laden I think are more concerned with killing and general mayhem and anarchy. Sure they may use technology, but that is not their main focus. And I really think that Bin Laden's strength is not high tech, but low tech and sheer simplicity. Like using a plane as a missle. Who would have thought it? What scares me about nut balls like him is that he uses our free societies against us!
I know exactly how you feel. I cannot understand why people actually code in JBuilder. Every time I try (did try with 7) I keep falling flat on my face. IT IS SO SLOW....
What I do like is JCreator or Eclipse. Especially Eclipse. It is snappy, nice to work with and somewhat intuitive.
Excuse me, but they are... Nobody in their right mind is going to let you build a bridge without having built a small model ahead of time. Models, simulations, tinkering are the heart and sole of engineering. Civil engineers will go out and plop down some concrete to test some ideas to see if they work. If you design a bridge solely by paper you get the same error that occured with the Tacoma bridge and the harmonics.
I think you were not reading my post or you read the first line and not the rest. There are 3 phases
1) Tinkering, experimenting and get an idea of what is going on. 2) Putting together a game plan 3) Implementing the game plan
In fact my approach works better because it gives you an idea before you know what is going on. Then when you have an idea what is going on then you implement. When I said a game plan I mean formal definition, which could be documentation, models, etc.
Those that document ahead of time actually waste time because you are going to change your mind anyways until you actually know what you are going to do.
Nowhere did I say just do it and then say there it works.
Looking around the website a bit you will see that they throw multiples of 5000 USD around a lot. For example a support contract costs 5000 USD, which gets you twenty hours at 250 USD of support. WOW! THAT IS REALLY EXPENSIVE!
My wife works at a big Investment bank where daily Front Arena consultants (expensive cost) about 1000 USD a day. And they thought that was expensive.
Well just get a JBoss consultant. Ok I think they are professional and have their act together. But the costs are still in dot.com days... Times HAVE changed...
When I lead teams I always enforce the coding style that code should be readable like a book. After all does that not make sense since we are paid to read code for a living.
I hate code like the following:
if( i++)
or
++i = ++ n;
Stuff like that annoyes me because it is like short hand notation. Sure any competent programmer should be able to read that, but it is short hand that requires just an additional thought. As an example:
On the weekend we went swimming and it was bad.
Sentence says everything and is compact, but is still not a good sentence. A novelist would write:
On the weekend we went swimming in the lake at our cottage in Canada, and the water was too cold, which made it unbearable.
This sentence says everything that needs to be said. Sure it is verbose, but anybody who can read that will understand immediately what is being referred to.
Being a professional engineer this is not how you approach the problem whatsoever. No engineer in their right mind writes the documentation ahead of time. Actually there are engineers that do that, but they work for the government.
Real engineering is tinkering and logging what you did. In engineering there are three phases, which involve tinkering and experimenting and doing simulation. The second phase is coming up with a game plane. With the last phase being the implementation.
And engineers do just jump in and do something when they know what they are doing. An engineer is an engineer because they know how to guess-estimate. That is why an engineer goes to school for 4-5 years to learn what engineering is. They when you need to tinker and when to jump in!
The problem in IT is that you have people who do not have enough engineering education to know what they are doing. And by education I do not simply mean school education, but training or simply good mentoring.
When I bid on a project often I come lowest because of my hourly rates. However, people are not irked because I always break down all of the costs. Typically the client will get a spreadsheet of features and their individual costs. Of course there is a padding built in, which both parties realize.
When you bid do you break everything down? Breaking it down is about two days of work depending on the size of the project.
True drugs have high R&D costs. But why is that? The reason is because the market is that way. Instead of having one drug company get approval for a drug, each drug company should get approval. This is a bit screwed up in the drug industry.
Consider a car. A car has a 3-4 billion RD budget before it hits the street. And yet cars are not protected by patents and people buy cars in droves. Ok cars are more expensive. But when you consider how complex a car actually is it is pretty cheap. But when a car maker releases a new car that car has to be approved in each country of sale. It is not as if Ford could get approval for all cars in the industry.
Drug should be the same way. A large amount of the cost is the testing and making sure it is safe. A clone drug maker should not be exempt from those costs, like GM is not exempt from having to get approval of their own vehicles. Fair is fair.
Once clone drug makers actually have to get FULL approval then I think clone drug makers will think twice on the drug they want to clone.
If the market were truly competitive then the table would be even and hence the amount spent on the drugs would still be there. Supply and demand.
The cloning argument by the drug companies get tiring. The drug companies are gouging the clients. (Seniors go to Canada to get the same drugs as the US, but much cheaper).
The problem with patents is that it makes the table uneven. If everybody could clone everybody else then people would specialize and only do certain drugs. A company that purely clones will eventually do its own research.
Do not believe me? Well look no further than PC's. IBM started it. Compaq cloned it. According to the patent argument clones would undercut the competitors and stop evolution. But the opposite has occured. We have faster PC's with more features at a lower cost. When clone companies get larger they develop better products. Of course these better products could be cloned again.
The same can happen with drugs! A comment may be that the comparison between drugs and PC's is not correct. But the truth is that when the Asprin patent expired people are finding out all sorts of uses for Asprin. And many new and interesting facts are learned about Asprin.
Patents do not foster creativity. They foster ways to beat the patent and not evolve the product. This is cloning with a twist.
Will all scientific information become a trade secret? Some yes and guess what there is plenty that is a trade secret anyways. Why? because even with patents once the cat is out of the bag it is out of the bag.
Patents could have protected a small inventor from true monopolizers, but in fact the small time inventor is hurt by patents today. These days to get a world wide patent costs several hundred thousand dollars. In the EU it costs about 30,000 Euros and in the US about 20,000 dollars. This is not money that a small inventor has. However, it is something large corps can afford. And then large corps use that money to fend off competitors. In other words a big corp can be inefficient.
Now I am going to throw you a concept. Imagine that there was no patent protection and there was rampant cloning or evolution? Could an industry survive? Absolutely... Examples include, books, music, sports, fashion, food (wine, beer, spirits), etc.
All of these industries are based on selling a product to make it interesting for the client. For example how many receipes are there for mashed potatoes? But yet people buy receipe books in droves. Or what about jeans? Remember when jeans were are all the rage in the eighties and jeans were cloned rampantly? Or how about sports? First people started with simple surfing, then skate boards then roller blades, etc. THAT is true innovation not hampered by patents!
About IP theft, and wanting to eat? Gee whiz, but I think the engineers still eat in those industries. The difference is that the engineers have to actually be part of a business. A monopoly grants the inventor a license of bad business and money gouging.
I have been thinking about that as well. I think the problem is less about LINUX building the killer app and more about LINUX mindshare.
This really reminds me of the eighties and how IBM was the dominant company. People bought IBM PC's, because well it was IBM. It took about ten years before that switch was to Microsoft. What happened is not that Microsoft won, but a generation moved over to Microsoft. I was part of that generation.
Open Source and LINUX will have the same thing happen. Give it another ten years or so and things will change. Ok everybody has said that. But the truth is that MS is making the exact same mistakes that IBM did. IBM wanted the entire cake and no MS wants the same. When was the last time that other software was installed on a MS user client or server? And MS is doing the exact same strategy that IBM did in the eighties. Invest in everything and hope something works out.
If you look at the stock price of MS and compare it to the stock price of IBM in the eighties you will probably see quite a few similarities.
What I see happening is that some people will convert, but many will stay and a new generation of developers, admins, etc will all start using LINUX. It is already happening...
The problem is roaming. When I receive a call or SMS while roaming I have to pay from my country to the country I am roaming. Result? I have to pay for SPAM. And that is not funny. My provider is in Canada and I roam in Europe.
In Europe the caller pays for everything, even when the other is roaming.
BTW I would read the fine print on who pays while you are roaming in another country.
Patents has NEVER brought anything good to society. All patents do is create a monopoly.
1) There are no truly unique inventions. Everything is an evolution of everything else.
2) The car was patented. While the patent of the car was active cars were not built and they were low quality, etc. Ford got around the patent and made cars that everybody could buy and drive. Windsurfers were patented. The company windsurfer held onto the patent and in the last couple years of the patent sued the hell out of companies. Result companies went under and Windsurfer took the money and ran. Sure the original patent holders invented the car and windsurfer. But those same inventors did nothing to further the invention.
3) Time has shown again and again that ideas or concepts are worth nothing. Execution is worth everything. There are hardly any companies that survive only on patents. If you look at most big companies they survive because they know how to run a business.
4) Now and the future the only ones penalized by patents will be the "western" world. The rest of the world does not care about patents and they clone, etc. Why? Because patents introduce a penalty that only the "western" world can afford.
That would be a really good idea. You know those fake rocks to hide ugly things. Well that would be a wireless station beside the building. Then the "fake rocks" (buildings) are tied together using cables. Within the building wireless repeaters could be used to ensure good coverage.
Granted, but they were tempted there. Which is not entirely ethical by itself.
I am not coming to the help to the hackers, but stating that the US like all other countries are side-stepping trying to get along and do things on their own. My point was that this is narrow minded thinking that actually aids the criminal. These arrests of the little hackers are nothing in terms of actually hacking.
Why is it that the only hackers that are caught or pin pointed are young? Could it be that hacking is a task for the young? Or could it more likely be that the professionals are actually not catchable and leading everyone by the noses? I tend to think the latter. And the only way to get around this is to actually work together as one human race. Oh yeah forgot, *CURRENT* US administration believes in uni-laterism.
Does it really matter if it is internationally legal or not? Seriously...
The way that countries are behaving makes it actually simpler for the criminals. The error of the hacker was to go to the US. The real criminals will be more clever and not have any threads leading to themselves. And since it is so simple to move from country to country the criminals get away with their crimes.
For example this actually ties into SPAM. SPAM is illegal in specific countries or states. WOOOPPPEEE DOOO! The spammers just move to other countries that are willing to move the mail. Just like money laundering! No control whatsoever!
And I do not see this changing soon, because it would be the horror of horrors! Countries would actually have to cooperate and would have to work together and pass similar laws! We would have to admit the fact that we are all humans of one race!
Ah, I see your wording and yes you are right it does require that you are a buddy within the network.
So in fact they claim that they are the "bot" creators, when in fact their bot scope is pretty darn narrow. It requires that the bot recognises the user and the user recognises the bot.
Interesting, that does make the patent valid since most bots are bots that you send information to blindly. Or as they put it. When you log on the message processor talks to you first. Most bots you start the conversation with.
Slashdot Mirror
I think one has to careful with sweeping statements like that.
1) Somebody will always hate somebody else. And if that somebody else is more known than usually then those that hate will also be more known. Case in point South America and Spain. Not that many South American's are that crazy about Spain. (Obvious reasons, but nobody hears about it).
2) Not everybody hates the US. They were talking about this in CNN Europe Edition. And many came to the conclusion that Europeans do not hate American's per say. They hate the administration and George Bush.
3) Some people who hate the US also hate the West. There are many Islamists (People who believe Islamism is the true way). And these folks, do not like Democracy or anything like that. They only believe in Islamism and hence they hate the West as much as they the US.
4) Humans like bitch. I know that I bitch about the US, but guess what I REALLY bitch about Germany (Schroeder the biggest wahoo, bonehead, idiot, makes George Bush look intelligent, ever elected), France, Canada and all the other countries. But people only remember my bitching of the US.
Exactly. A picture is worth a 1000 words and if the picture is good then even more. I read the article and thought who just puts together IKEA haphazardly? Not me. And to be very frank the concept of having a piece of furniture talk to me about not following their instructions to the T really irks me.
Where this could be really useful is not in IKEA furniture, but industrial equipment. Custom Industrial equipment is a one off usually and there are many custom parts and having these LEDS would be really handy to make sure you are doing everything correctly.
For example custom machinery is usually assembled and tested in the shop and then taken apart for transporation. Now imagine before the machine is taken apart sensors are placed everywhere. Putting the machine back together again would be a snap. THAT WOULD BE USEFUL (I know I had to do it)
I agree and that what we have to realize. Bin Laden does not want to debate he wants Islamism (his form) to be the end all of everything.
It is sad because my opinion on life is that there is always a compromise and in this case there is not. And when the other party wants you dead the only option is to, fight back. Raw animalism in its finest form!
Using that analogy absolutely nothing is original. Sure it has been mentioned. But what I was trying to point out is that he DID IT! Just because you write it in a book does not mean it can actually be carried out. Books have this nice habit of making things work, because well, its fiction. As they say ideas, a dime a dozen!
The reason why I mention this is because of an article I read about computer usage among drug lords. Well, if they have that sophistication, what about the real hackers that money launder.
My thinking is that stealing credit cards is not really that interesting for hackers. Instead I wonder if it is not more interesting for hackers to put in money into the system. Not additional money, but making the money not raise any triggers. Result? Clean money laundering. And that would definitely be worth a WHOLE S**T load of money.
The comment was that e-terrorism may occur, but that there would be little loss of life. And I really wonder if the terrorists would attack the network themselves.
I would tend to think they would attack the source, which would attack the network indirectly. Like the comment about the tree falling on a power line and cutting off electricity for a while in an area.
Where I think there ought to be more concern is digital theft. Oddly enough we always hear about young hackers breaking into a network and getting caught. Please tell me where the older hackers are? Since I doubt that there are no older hackers. UNLESS, they are successful and do not get caught. Those are the folks that we need to be scared about in digital terms.
Nut balls like Bin Laden I think are more concerned with killing and general mayhem and anarchy. Sure they may use technology, but that is not their main focus. And I really think that Bin Laden's strength is not high tech, but low tech and sheer simplicity. Like using a plane as a missle. Who would have thought it? What scares me about nut balls like him is that he uses our free societies against us!
I know exactly how you feel. I cannot understand why people actually code in JBuilder. Every time I try (did try with 7) I keep falling flat on my face. IT IS SO SLOW....
What I do like is JCreator or Eclipse. Especially Eclipse. It is snappy, nice to work with and somewhat intuitive.
Excuse me, but they are... Nobody in their right mind is going to let you build a bridge without having built a small model ahead of time. Models, simulations, tinkering are the heart and sole of engineering. Civil engineers will go out and plop down some concrete to test some ideas to see if they work. If you design a bridge solely by paper you get the same error that occured with the Tacoma bridge and the harmonics.
I think you were not reading my post or you read the first line and not the rest. There are 3 phases
1) Tinkering, experimenting and get an idea of what is going on.
2) Putting together a game plan
3) Implementing the game plan
In fact my approach works better because it gives you an idea before you know what is going on. Then when you have an idea what is going on then you implement. When I said a game plan I mean formal definition, which could be documentation, models, etc.
Those that document ahead of time actually waste time because you are going to change your mind anyways until you actually know what you are going to do.
Nowhere did I say just do it and then say there it works.
Looking around the website a bit you will see that they throw multiples of 5000 USD around a lot. For example a support contract costs 5000 USD, which gets you twenty hours at 250 USD of support. WOW! THAT IS REALLY EXPENSIVE!
My wife works at a big Investment bank where daily Front Arena consultants (expensive cost) about 1000 USD a day. And they thought that was expensive.
Well just get a JBoss consultant. Ok I think they are professional and have their act together. But the costs are still in dot.com days... Times HAVE changed...
Exactly....
When I lead teams I always enforce the coding style that code should be readable like a book. After all does that not make sense since we are paid to read code for a living.
I hate code like the following:
if( i++)
or
++i = ++ n;
Stuff like that annoyes me because it is like short hand notation. Sure any competent programmer should be able to read that, but it is short hand that requires just an additional thought. As an example:
On the weekend we went swimming and it was bad.
Sentence says everything and is compact, but is still not a good sentence. A novelist would write:
On the weekend we went swimming in the lake at our cottage in Canada, and the water was too cold, which made it unbearable.
This sentence says everything that needs to be said. Sure it is verbose, but anybody who can read that will understand immediately what is being referred to.
Likewise I prefer the notation
destCounter = srcCounter;
destCounter ++;
srcCounter ++;
Easier to read...
Being a professional engineer this is not how you approach the problem whatsoever. No engineer in their right mind writes the documentation ahead of time. Actually there are engineers that do that, but they work for the government.
Real engineering is tinkering and logging what you did. In engineering there are three phases, which involve tinkering and experimenting and doing simulation. The second phase is coming up with a game plane. With the last phase being the implementation.
And engineers do just jump in and do something when they know what they are doing. An engineer is an engineer because they know how to guess-estimate. That is why an engineer goes to school for 4-5 years to learn what engineering is. They when you need to tinker and when to jump in!
The problem in IT is that you have people who do not have enough engineering education to know what they are doing. And by education I do not simply mean school education, but training or simply good mentoring.
When I bid on a project often I come lowest because of my hourly rates. However, people are not irked because I always break down all of the costs. Typically the client will get a spreadsheet of features and their individual costs. Of course there is a padding built in, which both parties realize.
When you bid do you break everything down? Breaking it down is about two days of work depending on the size of the project.
True drugs have high R&D costs. But why is that? The reason is because the market is that way. Instead of having one drug company get approval for a drug, each drug company should get approval. This is a bit screwed up in the drug industry.
Consider a car. A car has a 3-4 billion RD budget before it hits the street. And yet cars are not protected by patents and people buy cars in droves. Ok cars are more expensive. But when you consider how complex a car actually is it is pretty cheap. But when a car maker releases a new car that car has to be approved in each country of sale. It is not as if Ford could get approval for all cars in the industry.
Drug should be the same way. A large amount of the cost is the testing and making sure it is safe. A clone drug maker should not be exempt from those costs, like GM is not exempt from having to get approval of their own vehicles. Fair is fair.
Once clone drug makers actually have to get FULL approval then I think clone drug makers will think twice on the drug they want to clone.
If the market were truly competitive then the table would be even and hence the amount spent on the drugs would still be there. Supply and demand.
The cloning argument by the drug companies get tiring. The drug companies are gouging the clients. (Seniors go to Canada to get the same drugs as the US, but much cheaper).
The problem with patents is that it makes the table uneven. If everybody could clone everybody else then people would specialize and only do certain drugs. A company that purely clones will eventually do its own research.
Do not believe me? Well look no further than PC's. IBM started it. Compaq cloned it. According to the patent argument clones would undercut the competitors and stop evolution. But the opposite has occured. We have faster PC's with more features at a lower cost. When clone companies get larger they develop better products. Of course these better products could be cloned again.
The same can happen with drugs! A comment may be that the comparison between drugs and PC's is not correct. But the truth is that when the Asprin patent expired people are finding out all sorts of uses for Asprin. And many new and interesting facts are learned about Asprin.
Patents do not foster creativity. They foster ways to beat the patent and not evolve the product. This is cloning with a twist.
Will all scientific information become a trade secret? Some yes and guess what there is plenty that is a trade secret anyways. Why? because even with patents once the cat is out of the bag it is out of the bag.
Patents could have protected a small inventor from true monopolizers, but in fact the small time inventor is hurt by patents today. These days to get a world wide patent costs several hundred thousand dollars. In the EU it costs about 30,000 Euros and in the US about 20,000 dollars. This is not money that a small inventor has. However, it is something large corps can afford. And then large corps use that money to fend off competitors. In other words a big corp can be inefficient.
Now I am going to throw you a concept. Imagine that there was no patent protection and there was rampant cloning or evolution? Could an industry survive? Absolutely... Examples include, books, music, sports, fashion, food (wine, beer, spirits), etc.
All of these industries are based on selling a product to make it interesting for the client. For example how many receipes are there for mashed potatoes? But yet people buy receipe books in droves. Or what about jeans? Remember when jeans were are all the rage in the eighties and jeans were cloned rampantly? Or how about sports? First people started with simple surfing, then skate boards then roller blades, etc. THAT is true innovation not hampered by patents!
About IP theft, and wanting to eat? Gee whiz, but I think the engineers still eat in those industries. The difference is that the engineers have to actually be part of a business. A monopoly grants the inventor a license of bad business and money gouging.
I have been thinking about that as well. I think the problem is less about LINUX building the killer app and more about LINUX mindshare.
This really reminds me of the eighties and how IBM was the dominant company. People bought IBM PC's, because well it was IBM. It took about ten years before that switch was to Microsoft. What happened is not that Microsoft won, but a generation moved over to Microsoft. I was part of that generation.
Open Source and LINUX will have the same thing happen. Give it another ten years or so and things will change. Ok everybody has said that. But the truth is that MS is making the exact same mistakes that IBM did. IBM wanted the entire cake and no MS wants the same. When was the last time that other software was installed on a MS user client or server? And MS is doing the exact same strategy that IBM did in the eighties. Invest in everything and hope something works out.
If you look at the stock price of MS and compare it to the stock price of IBM in the eighties you will probably see quite a few similarities.
What I see happening is that some people will convert, but many will stay and a new generation of developers, admins, etc will all start using LINUX. It is already happening...
The problem is roaming. When I receive a call or SMS while roaming I have to pay from my country to the country I am roaming. Result? I have to pay for SPAM. And that is not funny. My provider is in Canada and I roam in Europe.
In Europe the caller pays for everything, even when the other is roaming.
BTW I would read the fine print on who pays while you are roaming in another country.
Patents has NEVER brought anything good to society. All patents do is create a monopoly.
1) There are no truly unique inventions. Everything is an evolution of everything else.
2) The car was patented. While the patent of the car was active cars were not built and they were low quality, etc. Ford got around the patent and made cars that everybody could buy and drive. Windsurfers were patented. The company windsurfer held onto the patent and in the last couple years of the patent sued the hell out of companies. Result companies went under and Windsurfer took the money and ran. Sure the original patent holders invented the car and windsurfer. But those same inventors did nothing to further the invention.
3) Time has shown again and again that ideas or concepts are worth nothing. Execution is worth everything. There are hardly any companies that survive only on patents. If you look at most big companies they survive because they know how to run a business.
4) Now and the future the only ones penalized by patents will be the "western" world. The rest of the world does not care about patents and they clone, etc. Why? Because patents introduce a penalty that only the "western" world can afford.
I roam around the world quite a bit. So now I have to pay for SPAM that I did not even want? You have got to be kidding me.
Me wonders who is in control of the government. The people or big business!
That would be a really good idea. You know those fake rocks to hide ugly things. Well that would be a wireless station beside the building. Then the "fake rocks" (buildings) are tied together using cables. Within the building wireless repeaters could be used to ensure good coverage.
This would be the cheapest and would work.
Yeah so, a database is available. Who cares, I am spamming you from a country that does not care about your database!
Granted, but they were tempted there. Which is not entirely ethical by itself.
I am not coming to the help to the hackers, but stating that the US like all other countries are side-stepping trying to get along and do things on their own. My point was that this is narrow minded thinking that actually aids the criminal. These arrests of the little hackers are nothing in terms of actually hacking.
Why is it that the only hackers that are caught or pin pointed are young? Could it be that hacking is a task for the young? Or could it more likely be that the professionals are actually not catchable and leading everyone by the noses? I tend to think the latter. And the only way to get around this is to actually work together as one human race. Oh yeah forgot, *CURRENT* US administration believes in uni-laterism.
Does it really matter if it is internationally legal or not? Seriously...
The way that countries are behaving makes it actually simpler for the criminals. The error of the hacker was to go to the US. The real criminals will be more clever and not have any threads leading to themselves. And since it is so simple to move from country to country the criminals get away with their crimes.
For example this actually ties into SPAM. SPAM is illegal in specific countries or states. WOOOPPPEEE DOOO! The spammers just move to other countries that are willing to move the mail. Just like money laundering! No control whatsoever!
And I do not see this changing soon, because it would be the horror of horrors! Countries would actually have to cooperate and would have to work together and pass similar laws! We would have to admit the fact that we are all humans of one race!
Ah, I see your wording and yes you are right it does require that you are a buddy within the network.
So in fact they claim that they are the "bot" creators, when in fact their bot scope is pretty darn narrow. It requires that the bot recognises the user and the user recognises the bot.
Interesting, that does make the patent valid since most bots are bots that you send information to blindly. Or as they put it. When you log on the message processor talks to you first. Most bots you start the conversation with.