In fact, it's likely that the people who wrote this worm don't give a damn about the SCO vs. Linux debate going on. They're likely using it as a clever misdirection to attract people off in one direction, get the whole SCO holy war thing going while they quietly reap thousands, if not millions, of bank account numbers and passwords.
The DDoS'ing of www.sco.com is only the big shiny package in this worm that is attracting the media like flies to... well, you know.
The worm's real goal is to install invisible keystroke monitors in an attempt to gather passwords and bank account numbers of infected users. With all the noise coming from those infected PC's going to SCO, a few packets going elsewhere slip through very easily if you're not looking for it.
It's classic prestidigitation. Make a big show with one hand while the other does the dirty work.
Did you explain to them why it didn't work? Non-techie's need to be educated in terms that they can relate to, and I find the association of computers to cars to be a very simple way of making that comparison. So when you tell that that the reason Firebird didn't work isn't because the car is broken, but instead it's because the road was intentionally made for specific cars to use and will cause non-equipped cars to crash, they may begin to understand.
If enough people start making layperson comparisons like this and can complain loudly enough, we might get somewhere. But if the average computer user simply caves into whatever works, it doesn't matter whether it is a piece of crap or if the competing product is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- people will instinctively use the easiest tool to accomplish something as possible, and IE fits that bill. If the converse were true, we'd have turbine engines in cars and Betamax would never have lost to VHS.
This seems much more plausible than any other rationale for why terrorists do the things they do. They fear their perceived way of life being threatened by people who wish to impose their cultural structure upon them, so the logical answer is to remove that influence.
With respect to America vs. Islamic terrorists, the problem the terrorists have is that there's much more of us than them and we're much better funded and trained. Therefore, to reduce these advantages, you make it so that the money dries up and the ability to maintain that large personnel advantage goes along with it. This is done by injecting FUD on a national, if not global, scale. Widespread FUD, in the form of fears for security and well-being, will force us and our leaders to retreat back into isolationism and protect from within, costing us opportunity at home and abroad. With economic strife, the ability to spread the American way is reduced since there is no longer a way to distribute that information.
Their methods may be crude but the end results are very, very effective. To counter the grandparent's post, the loss in opportunity for America is much worse than the loss due to poverty or the drug war. We're talking about the ability to continue to fund those and ALL other social programs and if that funding diminishes due to terrorist activity, then the domino effect will occur and we will lose on a much grander scale. By contrast, the terrorists have very little to lose here and an awful lot to gain if their efforts are successful.
Couldn't we respond to SCO in much the same way we respond to telemarketers (well, pre-DNC telemarketers...) ?
SCO: You're using our IP, we want money. Consumer: Oh really? Perhaps you'd care to talk to the head of the household? [gives phone to baby]
SCO: You're using our IP, we want money. Consumer: Oh really? Here's my response. [holds phone up to airhorn, fires]
SCO: You're using our IP, we want money. Consumer: Oh really? Is that so? Tell me more... SCO: UNIX, blah, blah, blah, Linux, blah, blah, blah. Consumer: Uh huh, go on. SCO: Stolen IP, blah, blah, blah... Consumer: Really? Could you elaborate further? [sets phone down, makes cheese sandwich, watches two hours of TV, plays video game, comes back...] SCO: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..... Consumer: I think I'll need some materials on your plan. Could you send me your prospectus and the details of the alleged infringement? [pause...click] Consumer: Hello? Hello?
Hmmm...this might be a red herring by the MPAA to the effect of "Pirating movies must be stopped, because if 70 year old people know how to do this, then anyone can."
IIRC, it was that farming folks Rand and Mat encountered between Four Kings and Caemlym, but I'm not entirely certain.
As I re-read my post, I also realized that Terry Goodkind also borrowed this style for the characters from Nicobarese...I might be altogether mistaken...anyway....
When the stock goes up like this without any backing news to speak of, then it becomes very possible that a combination of of the well known pump-n-dump and the lesser-known short-and-distort schemes are at work. This occurred in August 2003 as well, and I made a point of documenting various parts of the unusual rise then in my journal that month.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
As for why men typically invited women on dates, I suspect it has something fundamentally to do with the respective roles of the sexes in procreation, same as it does for most animals. I'm glad we're getting past that, though.
Don't be so sure of this. If I recall my brainwashing from the Discovery Channel well enough, it has more to do with reproductive readiness and fitness than any social favors.
In short, men are able to procreate at any time, while women only have a short amount of time every month, and therefore have to be much more selective of who they mate with in order to produce superior offspring. Of course, I'm discounting the pleasure factor of sex during non-ovulation periods of the month, but my point is that when the decision to reproduce is a factor, women will be (and should be) incredibly selective. Simple Darwinism requires this.
If women want to take the initiative, I'd believe that the chance of rejection by men is much less than vice versa, but it's still a natural selection process that women employ. Personally, as a member of the male gender, I don't see anything wrong with it at all (of course, I'm biased, being that my "duties" are fulfilled, being married with children).
Since the RIAA is made up of such companies as Warner Records, Sony, and so forth, then blaming the RIAA equates to blaming these companies due to logical inference. It's like saying that you hate seafood -- implicitly you also hate tuna, swordfish, lobster, shrimp, and all the other delectables of the sea. (Not that I hate seafood -- I actually love it, but for comparison's sake, ya know...)
Trust me, I'm well aware of whom I am implicating when I use the cover-all term of RIAA or MPAA. While I have to agree with their actions to combat piracy, I have serious misgivings with the fact that they could have prevented much of this non-sense had they realized that their business model was broken and attempted to adapt to the new technologies, but they chose to ignore the new means of content delivery that nearly every other media company has embraced, and subsequently, the void was filled in their absence. They had their chance, but they missed it and instead of realizing their gaffe and making amends to use the new distribution channel, they told us, the consumers, that we have no other choice but to continue to pay a non-returnable, full price fee for music and movies that may only contain very little redeeming content. So when people logically dissented and found alternative means for getting only the music and movies they wanted, the RIAA and MPAA companies decided to address the problem only by suing the perpetrators and not to fix the underlying problem since the ability to pick and choose only the quality products from their catalogues, even if offered by them, severely damages their profit margins, and that is the crux of the matter. As a example of an industry that did figure this out, take a look at the PC gaming industry and their reliance on downloadable demo games to entice the customer. Of course, the profit margins in that industry are way down as well, but they're maintainable now, and games are continuing to become of increasing quality due to competition.
They are going to have to realize that their old business model is permanently broken and that people are increasing going to realize that they will not pay 100% for a product that contains only 8% value. When the RIAA/MPAA companies admit that filesharing isn't the problem, but that their own lack of quality is the problem, only then will they be able to address the situation.
The text actually states that the MPAA is using lawsuits as a method for protecting their interests because "few in Hollywood are confident that such [technological] approaches can stop piracy in the long run". So instead of using available technology to protects these movies and other media, they continue business as usual on the product front and step up the lawsuit front to deal with their lack of innovation.
The growing trend of organizations such as the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO to attempt to bring in revenues via lawsuits instead of fixing their broken business models is the most significant trend of 2003.
However, I don't see it as a long-term trend, since nature abhors a vacuum and as long as there is a want/need, there will be people trying to fulfill that need and legalities be damned.
Wally -- "Wait a minute, that beard, those suspenders, that smug expression!" Wally -- "You're one of those condescending UNIX computer users!" UNIX-guy-- "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer."
No offense taken. It's just that the election process is much more expensive than "two little old grannies" [;-) ] per district, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Even so, with the e-voting machines, you still need "two little old grannies" per district, so not much is being saved in people power. The savings come in with cases like Florida 2000 where a mass mobilization of forces are required to audit and verify the votes, rather than man the booths.
How much will it cost to mobilize 250,000 people every time to count paper votes? An article about the Calfornia recall states that it may have cost CA taxpayers up to $66M dollars. And this is just one vote in one election in one state. Now rinse, spin, and repeat for multiple votes in multiple elections across all 50 states.
An automated and reusable system is beginning to look like a better solution.
A few questions: How fast can you read forty million pieces of paper? Can you ensure me that you could read them accurately every time? If I asked for a recount, how fast could you do that?
At some point with every successful product or process, it passes a point that makes it less simple and/or less efficient. Whether it's enhancements to the product or economies of scale issues with distribution and logistics, something invariably makes it less perfect than it was before. That's where innovation has to be able to continue that product or process to keep it desirable for the newer requirements it eventually has to take on. Failure to maintain or produce new innovations to a process ultimately lead it into decay and eventually into displacement.
Better yet, get him to agree to replenish the fuel supply and then be they're personal charter for the next year, bringing in necessary sundries and other desirables, at his cost for the flight (scientists still pay for the goods). After all, they'd be helping him out, he should help them out. It's not just monetary, you have to make it personal as well. Also, this would help discourage tourism as the scientists want, as this precedent would be set (go there for tourism, but you must return for the needs of the scientists, at your expense).
Actually, this could extend to any natural resources area, like parks and such. Use the park, but your usage constitutes your agreement to volunteer your time to help maintain the park. Sounds like a workable plan.
But SCO has made no public intent of the possibility of selling the company before. That's what I'm wondering about -- they've finally and explicitly declared their intentions. It's all well and good that we've all pretty much know that for months, but now it's public record rather than speculation. That's what I find significant.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, it's likely that the people who wrote this worm don't give a damn about the SCO vs. Linux debate going on. They're likely using it as a clever misdirection to attract people off in one direction, get the whole SCO holy war thing going while they quietly reap thousands, if not millions, of bank account numbers and passwords.
This is much more damaging than the SCO DDoS.
The DDoS'ing of www.sco.com is only the big shiny package in this worm that is attracting the media like flies to ... well, you know.
The worm's real goal is to install invisible keystroke monitors in an attempt to gather passwords and bank account numbers of infected users. With all the noise coming from those infected PC's going to SCO, a few packets going elsewhere slip through very easily if you're not looking for it.
It's classic prestidigitation. Make a big show with one hand while the other does the dirty work.
Did you explain to them why it didn't work? Non-techie's need to be educated in terms that they can relate to, and I find the association of computers to cars to be a very simple way of making that comparison. So when you tell that that the reason Firebird didn't work isn't because the car is broken, but instead it's because the road was intentionally made for specific cars to use and will cause non-equipped cars to crash, they may begin to understand.
If enough people start making layperson comparisons like this and can complain loudly enough, we might get somewhere. But if the average computer user simply caves into whatever works, it doesn't matter whether it is a piece of crap or if the competing product is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- people will instinctively use the easiest tool to accomplish something as possible, and IE fits that bill. If the converse were true, we'd have turbine engines in cars and Betamax would never have lost to VHS.
This seems much more plausible than any other rationale for why terrorists do the things they do. They fear their perceived way of life being threatened by people who wish to impose their cultural structure upon them, so the logical answer is to remove that influence.
With respect to America vs. Islamic terrorists, the problem the terrorists have is that there's much more of us than them and we're much better funded and trained. Therefore, to reduce these advantages, you make it so that the money dries up and the ability to maintain that large personnel advantage goes along with it. This is done by injecting FUD on a national, if not global, scale. Widespread FUD, in the form of fears for security and well-being, will force us and our leaders to retreat back into isolationism and protect from within, costing us opportunity at home and abroad. With economic strife, the ability to spread the American way is reduced since there is no longer a way to distribute that information.
Their methods may be crude but the end results are very, very effective. To counter the grandparent's post, the loss in opportunity for America is much worse than the loss due to poverty or the drug war. We're talking about the ability to continue to fund those and ALL other social programs and if that funding diminishes due to terrorist activity, then the domino effect will occur and we will lose on a much grander scale. By contrast, the terrorists have very little to lose here and an awful lot to gain if their efforts are successful.
"The Brave New Moon is a Harsh Matrix..."
or something like that....
Couldn't we respond to SCO in much the same way we respond to telemarketers (well, pre-DNC telemarketers...) ?
SCO: You're using our IP, we want money.
Consumer: Oh really? Perhaps you'd care to talk to the head of the household?
[gives phone to baby]
SCO: You're using our IP, we want money.
Consumer: Oh really? Here's my response.
[holds phone up to airhorn, fires]
SCO: You're using our IP, we want money.
Consumer: Oh really? Is that so? Tell me more...
SCO: UNIX, blah, blah, blah, Linux, blah, blah, blah.
Consumer: Uh huh, go on.
SCO: Stolen IP, blah, blah, blah...
Consumer: Really? Could you elaborate further?
[sets phone down, makes cheese sandwich, watches two hours of TV, plays video game, comes back...]
SCO: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....
Consumer: I think I'll need some materials on your plan. Could you send me your prospectus and the details of the alleged infringement?
[pause...click]
Consumer: Hello? Hello?
Properly planned without a panic-timeframe schedule, such trips can actually be enjoyable, in and of themselves.
You obviously have no need to drive to L.A. then, eh?
Hmmm...this might be a red herring by the MPAA to the effect of "Pirating movies must be stopped, because if 70 year old people know how to do this, then anyone can."
Might the MPAA be setting him up as a pariah?
Yeah, but the lag time when playing Halo is gonna be really bad....
IIRC, it was that farming folks Rand and Mat encountered between Four Kings and Caemlym, but I'm not entirely certain.
As I re-read my post, I also realized that Terry Goodkind also borrowed this style for the characters from Nicobarese...I might be altogether mistaken...anyway....
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled insanity...
When the stock goes up like this without any backing news to speak of, then it becomes very possible that a combination of of the well known pump-n-dump and the lesser-known short-and-distort schemes are at work. This occurred in August 2003 as well, and I made a point of documenting various parts of the unusual rise then in my journal that month.
In short, men are able to procreate at any time, while women only have a short amount of time every month, and therefore have to be much more selective of who they mate with in order to produce superior offspring. Of course, I'm discounting the pleasure factor of sex during non-ovulation periods of the month, but my point is that when the decision to reproduce is a factor, women will be (and should be) incredibly selective. Simple Darwinism requires this.
If women want to take the initiative, I'd believe that the chance of rejection by men is much less than vice versa, but it's still a natural selection process that women employ. Personally, as a member of the male gender, I don't see anything wrong with it at all (of course, I'm biased, being that my "duties" are fulfilled, being married with children).
Since the RIAA is made up of such companies as Warner Records, Sony, and so forth, then blaming the RIAA equates to blaming these companies due to logical inference. It's like saying that you hate seafood -- implicitly you also hate tuna, swordfish, lobster, shrimp, and all the other delectables of the sea. (Not that I hate seafood -- I actually love it, but for comparison's sake, ya know...)
Trust me, I'm well aware of whom I am implicating when I use the cover-all term of RIAA or MPAA. While I have to agree with their actions to combat piracy, I have serious misgivings with the fact that they could have prevented much of this non-sense had they realized that their business model was broken and attempted to adapt to the new technologies, but they chose to ignore the new means of content delivery that nearly every other media company has embraced, and subsequently, the void was filled in their absence. They had their chance, but they missed it and instead of realizing their gaffe and making amends to use the new distribution channel, they told us, the consumers, that we have no other choice but to continue to pay a non-returnable, full price fee for music and movies that may only contain very little redeeming content. So when people logically dissented and found alternative means for getting only the music and movies they wanted, the RIAA and MPAA companies decided to address the problem only by suing the perpetrators and not to fix the underlying problem since the ability to pick and choose only the quality products from their catalogues, even if offered by them, severely damages their profit margins, and that is the crux of the matter. As a example of an industry that did figure this out, take a look at the PC gaming industry and their reliance on downloadable demo games to entice the customer. Of course, the profit margins in that industry are way down as well, but they're maintainable now, and games are continuing to become of increasing quality due to competition.
They are going to have to realize that their old business model is permanently broken and that people are increasing going to realize that they will not pay 100% for a product that contains only 8% value. When the RIAA/MPAA companies admit that filesharing isn't the problem, but that their own lack of quality is the problem, only then will they be able to address the situation.
RTFA....
Piracy: Studios Fight Piracy With Education
The text actually states that the MPAA is using lawsuits as a method for protecting their interests because "few in Hollywood are confident that such [technological] approaches can stop piracy in the long run". So instead of using available technology to protects these movies and other media, they continue business as usual on the product front and step up the lawsuit front to deal with their lack of innovation.
This is entirely on-topic.
The growing trend of organizations such as the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO to attempt to bring in revenues via lawsuits instead of fixing their broken business models is the most significant trend of 2003.
However, I don't see it as a long-term trend, since nature abhors a vacuum and as long as there is a want/need, there will be people trying to fulfill that need and legalities be damned.
already...already
"This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department".
(grummble....proofread...bah....)
What makes you think that spammers aren't already RICO-influenced already?
Wally -- "You're one of those condescending UNIX computer users!"
UNIX-guy-- "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer."
--Dilbert, c. 1994
No offense taken. It's just that the election process is much more expensive than "two little old grannies" [ ;-) ] per district, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Even so, with the e-voting machines, you still need "two little old grannies" per district, so not much is being saved in people power. The savings come in with cases like Florida 2000 where a mass mobilization of forces are required to audit and verify the votes, rather than man the booths.
How much will it cost to mobilize 250,000 people every time to count paper votes? An article about the Calfornia recall states that it may have cost CA taxpayers up to $66M dollars. And this is just one vote in one election in one state. Now rinse, spin, and repeat for multiple votes in multiple elections across all 50 states.
An automated and reusable system is beginning to look like a better solution.
A few questions: How fast can you read forty million pieces of paper? Can you ensure me that you could read them accurately every time? If I asked for a recount, how fast could you do that?
At some point with every successful product or process, it passes a point that makes it less simple and/or less efficient. Whether it's enhancements to the product or economies of scale issues with distribution and logistics, something invariably makes it less perfect than it was before. That's where innovation has to be able to continue that product or process to keep it desirable for the newer requirements it eventually has to take on. Failure to maintain or produce new innovations to a process ultimately lead it into decay and eventually into displacement.
In essence, this is the tao of programming.
E-Voting machines.
Big business hides the memos,
Congress wants answers...
Better yet, get him to agree to replenish the fuel supply and then be they're personal charter for the next year, bringing in necessary sundries and other desirables, at his cost for the flight (scientists still pay for the goods). After all, they'd be helping him out, he should help them out. It's not just monetary, you have to make it personal as well. Also, this would help discourage tourism as the scientists want, as this precedent would be set (go there for tourism, but you must return for the needs of the scientists, at your expense).
Actually, this could extend to any natural resources area, like parks and such. Use the park, but your usage constitutes your agreement to volunteer your time to help maintain the park. Sounds like a workable plan.
But SCO has made no public intent of the possibility of selling the company before. That's what I'm wondering about -- they've finally and explicitly declared their intentions. It's all well and good that we've all pretty much know that for months, but now it's public record rather than speculation. That's what I find significant.