One night, these programmers I know were sitting around at our boss's house. We were in the backyard at the barbecue, drinking brews and roasting marshmallows over the printouts of an old, old modem driver. It was a night a lot like tonight -- the moon wasn't up yet, and it was pretty dark. One of them, Joe, said he heard a noise "like an orphaned process" coming from behind the arbor vitae shrubs. He went over to take a look, and never returned. We all thought he'd had too much beer and went home to sleep it off, so nobody worried about it too much.
But the next day, Joe didn't show up at work. And the day after, and the day after that. We began to wonder if there wasn't something amiss, but our boss wouldn't say anything about him. I called him at home, but just got his answering machine.
Well, we got suspicious, so one lunch hour we snuck out and went over to the boss's house to check around the shrubs. You know what we found behind that arbor vitae tree? A condom laying outside the window! And you know what we saw when we looked in the window? Joe and the boss's wife in an embrace! He'd been fired for sleeping with her!!!!
Or maybe I just drank the beer and imagined the whole thing...
It's the 'AND' operator he's looking at. In boolean logic, an 'AND' operator has truth only when both conditions are true. So for a punishment to be prohibited by a boolean 'AND', it would have to pass the tests of both cruelty and unusuality.
So by that logic, twenty lashes would be fine, as long as we are all in agreement that flogging is the usual punishment for spamming; even if flogging is considered cruel. Alternately, a could impose an unusual punishment, such as to tattoo the words "I AM AN EVIL SPAMMER, SHUN ME" across his forehead -- but only if we gave him novocaine first to avoid the cruel bit surrounding the tattooing process itself.
Either of which are acceptable punishments for spammers in my opinion. Just not both for the same crime.
Yeah, I got on to Americas Army and did much the same. At least you get to shoot the supporters on the other side, although we didn't divide ourselves into "Bush" and "Kerry" teams.
Y'know, that might have been more satisfying. I can hear the taunts now: "Ha! Bushwhacked!" "Flip-flop this, you Kerryite!" and "Stupid spawn 'naders"
"Supposed to" is the wrong word. The system is designed so that you can vote on a candindate based on whether you think his wig is tall enough, or if his socks match his belt, or if he doesn't have a five o'clock shadow. You do not "have" to vote in any particular way, you do not have to supply reasons, you just have to apply pencil to paper (or finger to touch screen).
And the candidates are fully aware of this and take advantage of it. Lawn signs are a great example: they almost never have issues, they simply have a candidate's name, hoping you'll remember it when you step into the booth. Listing issues might actually repel someone who bothered to read the sign, but a name is just a name.
Anyway, I voted for a "different" reason than either of yours: I voted "against" a candidate, which is to say I voted for the candidate most likely to be elected to prevent his opponent from being elected. I would have voted for a ham sandwich if I thought it would have kept the "evil" candidate from winning. I did not vote for the candidate who best represented my feelings on the issues, because he did not stand a chance. I selected a second-rate candidate who I had no respect for because I feared the consequences of his opponent's election.
But in the end, it really won't matter. Too many people are going to vote for the guy who goes to the same church that they do, nevermind the fact the candidate lied to the public about his church attendance and piety (that would be both of them, for those of you keeping score at home.)
Well, we're talking about very small companies. And I'm more specifically referring to Aluria possibly writing spyware, rather than a traditional virus coming from a bigger AV outfit like Norton or Symantec or McAfee.
And in these small companies, One Idiot is likely to be one third of the employees, and possibly the entire tech team. It's hard to separate the idiot from the corporation in these cases.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. NoCeMs, anyone? It was an early usenet attempt to deal with spam. But it quickly became a game, played between the spammers and the antispammers. And it never really caught on in the mainstream.
To be useful, a list such as this becomes public. If it allows for anonymous entries, it will quickly be poisoned by spyware authors putting in legitimate entries such as word.exe, outlook.exe, etc. If it's poisoned and damages legitimate users' computers, it will prompt a quick outcry and a quicker death.
But if it's privately maintained (as in having secret moderators blessed with crypto keys that have to sign entries) other things have to be considered. First, moderators who become publicly known will find themselves subject to lawsuits and legal harrasment (see the spywareinfo.com site for an example of someone who has bee harrassed non-stop.) So secrecy becomes paramount. The other is that the software can't become too cumbersome to use for the average Jane and Jack Doe. Trust me, Aunt Margaret doesn't want you to explain how to verify and add trusted public keys to her keyring -- she only wants "the popup thingies to stop".
Yes, it would be possible using newsgroups to distribute signed updates anonymously. And it would be possible to keep the keyholders secret, and to allow for keyring updates to add and delete moderators. But someone has to take the risk of hosting and distributing the software, and that public entity is going to be the target of every spyware author's DDoS attacks simultaneously. Legitimate hosting services won't want to touch it. Would you voluntarily sign a contract that virtually guarantees you'll be the victim of a 30,000 machine zombie attack?
It's also going to take some seriously experienced crypto + Win32 coders to write a perfectly secure client first time around. And once it's written, the next issue is the "who updates it?" battle. The original author will wisely keep the master key private, but he or she may not want to put out the hundreds of monthly updates required. (Ask Patrick Kolla, the author of Spybot S&D, how much time he has to put into researching spyware, checking for signatures, and providing removal code and instructions.) It's a full-time task that will probably take a group of analysts and coders. (An anonymous submission process won't work, because the spammers are certain to poison that well, too.) Finally, how do you vette all these coders and analysts to make sure you don't accidentally let in the next Spamford Wallace?
Sorry to be so negative, but it's a huge undertaking with lots of risk and almost no chance of payback. Only a big established company with lots of backing could afford something like this. There's your answer! Get IBM to sponsor it, they're always looking for goodwill projects, and anything to twist the knife in Microsoft makes them happy. That, plus they have more lawyers than Manhattan has taxicabs.
But you're dodging reality by handwaving it away as "stupid conspiracy theory".
It's happened here. I'm from Minneapolis. You may know that we get snow around here in the winters. Remember, snowfall means fender-benders, and body shops hereabouts live for the winter repair season. One mild winter an employee of a local bodyshop was found guilty of driving around the city in a beat-up old wreck, sideswiping parked cars in an attempt to give his business enough work.
Just because you "can't imagine" unethical behavior doesn't mean it won't happen. What makes you think Aluria was a "successful" company, turning a profit? When it comes time to making sure the bank has enough money to cover payroll on Friday afternoon, desperate people have been known to turn to desperate measures. Actually, we have some measure of their desperation already -- they're partnering with WhenU (which is indeed scumware no matter how you classify it.)
I'm not saying Aluria or any antivirus company is guilty of anything criminal. I am saying that some people are more desperate than you might think, and that they may take an unethical route to drum up more business.
Actually, Hormel has been pretty cool about this for many years. They have wanted to make it plain all along that lowercase "spam" was acceptable to them as a name for UCE, but uppercase "Spam" was reserved for their trademarked product. I personally think that was a well thought out decision made long ago with much foresight. Many companies made a rough time for themseleves by defending trademarks on the web in the earlier days, but Hormel has never been seen as the bad guy before.
I wonder if SpamArrest changes their name to spamArrest would Hormel drop their challenge?
It's a tough spot, though, because they've allowed some "dilution" of their name by not having defended it completely. I can't really blame them for wanting to shed the negative image of being associated with UCE, but I don't know what else they can do except give up their 60 year old name (usuall a really, really bad idea.)
A pilot friend of mine took me for some zero G arcs in a Cessna 152 Aerobat. We only got a few seconds of weightlessness at a time before he approached VNE. It was quite a bit longer than even the best rollercoasters I've been on, though. Perhaps four or five seconds.
But we were indeed weightless for a little while anyway, and yes, it was really an amazing feeling. I don't know if it's worth $3000 to do it without the seatbelts, though.
Of course. Only the scenes that actually showed the crew "free" were filmed aboard the vomit comet. The rest were filmed on a sound stage. The plane was far too expensive to waste time filming the mundane scenes where the lack of zero G wasn't discernable from the shot.
An interesting "rumor" I heard about the movie was that the NASA geeks were given a special private preview screening of the film. The old timers all wanted to know where they got the footage of the launches, because they had seen it all before and didn't recognize it. Ron Howard had to explain to the guys that it was computer generated, and that not a single frame was old original footage. It was so realistic that several of them couldn't believe it was CGI.
Spaying and neutering animals isn't like a surgeon snipping your vas deferens. It actually entails the removal of the reproductive organ. It's a much more effective procedure than simply "tying a knot in the tubes" like they do with people.
There are lots of patented plants on the market these days. They typically come with warning tags that say "Asexual reproduction prohibited."
This means you can't take a cutting and root it to start a new plant; but you're free to let them go to seed and breed them that way. They realize that prohibiting sexual reproduction would probably be challenged in court, but reproduction probably won't hurt them economically because most strains start mutating after only a few generations (and most flower mutations are undesirable anyway.)
I suppose the same applies to the cats: you probably aren't allowed to take a cutting of them to try to start new kittens... or maybe they're simply neutered before they're sold to you.
You called it "attack", but replace it with your other word: "pressure".
If TiVo is "pressured" from both sides, something will have to give. Either TiVo will cave to the movie companies, causing a significant loss of goodwill and customer base as people choose cheaper alternatives (such as the DVR that comes built into cable modems these days); or TiVo will cancel the software downgrade, retaining their customer base and revenue stream and POTENTIALLY opening themselves up to lawsuits.
Lets just hope that TiVo recognizes an existing revenue stream is worth more than the cost of a potential lawsuit. What's the worst that could happen to them if they're sued, anyway? The court could order them to make exactly this change. Then, the ill-will would at least be focused on the real perpetrators: the movie companies who sued TiVo and forced this change upon their customers. They may still lose revenue stream as people head for the cable-box DVRs, but at least their fan-base won't be pissed off at them.
I think when your TiVo "phones home" to get the show schedule, one of the steps it performs is a "version validation" -- if your software version is too old, it downloads the correct patch for your hardware. Even two-year-old hardware will get patched the moment it dials the mothership.
You may not have noticed, but your ReplayTV recently "added" functionality: they stuck a Macrovision encoder into it a while back.
I noticed because I originally had an ancient TV set hooked up to it that didn't have a video-in jack. It was RF only. So, I was using my VCR as an RF modulator.
I replaced the old TV earlier this year, but left the VCR in the video line between the ReplayTV and the new TV set (so I could record when I wanted.) Anyway, one day we sat down to see a god-awful color changing blob travelling up and down the screen. It took a while to realize what was happening, so I took the VCR out of the circuit and the picture quality was restored. The Macrovision must have been screwing the signal the VCR had been reinterpreting.
I felt betrayed, but since I hadn't actually used the VCR in over two years, I shrugged it off and got over it.
Slashdot Mirror
But the next day, Joe didn't show up at work. And the day after, and the day after that. We began to wonder if there wasn't something amiss, but our boss wouldn't say anything about him. I called him at home, but just got his answering machine.
Well, we got suspicious, so one lunch hour we snuck out and went over to the boss's house to check around the shrubs. You know what we found behind that arbor vitae tree? A condom laying outside the window! And you know what we saw when we looked in the window? Joe and the boss's wife in an embrace! He'd been fired for sleeping with her!!!!
Or maybe I just drank the beer and imagined the whole thing...
I eulogized my aged server a couple years ago here on Slashdot in my journal. Does that count?
In related news, anyone want to go to a dachshund funeral? They'll probably need to schedule one next week sometime.
So by that logic, twenty lashes would be fine, as long as we are all in agreement that flogging is the usual punishment for spamming; even if flogging is considered cruel. Alternately, a could impose an unusual punishment, such as to tattoo the words "I AM AN EVIL SPAMMER, SHUN ME" across his forehead -- but only if we gave him novocaine first to avoid the cruel bit surrounding the tattooing process itself.
Either of which are acceptable punishments for spammers in my opinion. Just not both for the same crime.
I think you have it confused with the other type of SPAM.
Y'know, that might have been more satisfying. I can hear the taunts now: "Ha! Bushwhacked!" "Flip-flop this, you Kerryite!" and "Stupid spawn 'naders"
Step 2: Double check that antenna is attached really firmly.
Step 3: Make sure antenna is hooked to transmitter.
Step 4: Be sure you didn't disconnect the antenna when checking the transmitter.
And the candidates are fully aware of this and take advantage of it. Lawn signs are a great example: they almost never have issues, they simply have a candidate's name, hoping you'll remember it when you step into the booth. Listing issues might actually repel someone who bothered to read the sign, but a name is just a name.
Anyway, I voted for a "different" reason than either of yours: I voted "against" a candidate, which is to say I voted for the candidate most likely to be elected to prevent his opponent from being elected. I would have voted for a ham sandwich if I thought it would have kept the "evil" candidate from winning. I did not vote for the candidate who best represented my feelings on the issues, because he did not stand a chance. I selected a second-rate candidate who I had no respect for because I feared the consequences of his opponent's election.
But in the end, it really won't matter. Too many people are going to vote for the guy who goes to the same church that they do, nevermind the fact the candidate lied to the public about his church attendance and piety (that would be both of them, for those of you keeping score at home.)
I can't even imagine a beowulf cluster of these babies!
And in these small companies, One Idiot is likely to be one third of the employees, and possibly the entire tech team. It's hard to separate the idiot from the corporation in these cases.
To be useful, a list such as this becomes public. If it allows for anonymous entries, it will quickly be poisoned by spyware authors putting in legitimate entries such as word.exe, outlook.exe, etc. If it's poisoned and damages legitimate users' computers, it will prompt a quick outcry and a quicker death.
But if it's privately maintained (as in having secret moderators blessed with crypto keys that have to sign entries) other things have to be considered. First, moderators who become publicly known will find themselves subject to lawsuits and legal harrasment (see the spywareinfo.com site for an example of someone who has bee harrassed non-stop.) So secrecy becomes paramount. The other is that the software can't become too cumbersome to use for the average Jane and Jack Doe. Trust me, Aunt Margaret doesn't want you to explain how to verify and add trusted public keys to her keyring -- she only wants "the popup thingies to stop".
Yes, it would be possible using newsgroups to distribute signed updates anonymously. And it would be possible to keep the keyholders secret, and to allow for keyring updates to add and delete moderators. But someone has to take the risk of hosting and distributing the software, and that public entity is going to be the target of every spyware author's DDoS attacks simultaneously. Legitimate hosting services won't want to touch it. Would you voluntarily sign a contract that virtually guarantees you'll be the victim of a 30,000 machine zombie attack?
It's also going to take some seriously experienced crypto + Win32 coders to write a perfectly secure client first time around. And once it's written, the next issue is the "who updates it?" battle. The original author will wisely keep the master key private, but he or she may not want to put out the hundreds of monthly updates required. (Ask Patrick Kolla, the author of Spybot S&D, how much time he has to put into researching spyware, checking for signatures, and providing removal code and instructions.) It's a full-time task that will probably take a group of analysts and coders. (An anonymous submission process won't work, because the spammers are certain to poison that well, too.) Finally, how do you vette all these coders and analysts to make sure you don't accidentally let in the next Spamford Wallace?
Sorry to be so negative, but it's a huge undertaking with lots of risk and almost no chance of payback. Only a big established company with lots of backing could afford something like this. There's your answer! Get IBM to sponsor it, they're always looking for goodwill projects, and anything to twist the knife in Microsoft makes them happy. That, plus they have more lawyers than Manhattan has taxicabs.
It's happened here. I'm from Minneapolis. You may know that we get snow around here in the winters. Remember, snowfall means fender-benders, and body shops hereabouts live for the winter repair season. One mild winter an employee of a local bodyshop was found guilty of driving around the city in a beat-up old wreck, sideswiping parked cars in an attempt to give his business enough work.
Just because you "can't imagine" unethical behavior doesn't mean it won't happen. What makes you think Aluria was a "successful" company, turning a profit? When it comes time to making sure the bank has enough money to cover payroll on Friday afternoon, desperate people have been known to turn to desperate measures. Actually, we have some measure of their desperation already -- they're partnering with WhenU (which is indeed scumware no matter how you classify it.)
I'm not saying Aluria or any antivirus company is guilty of anything criminal. I am saying that some people are more desperate than you might think, and that they may take an unethical route to drum up more business.
No, wait, that's chicken.
SPAM tastes like ham jello, only with a firmer texture.
I wonder if SpamArrest changes their name to spamArrest would Hormel drop their challenge?
It's a tough spot, though, because they've allowed some "dilution" of their name by not having defended it completely. I can't really blame them for wanting to shed the negative image of being associated with UCE, but I don't know what else they can do except give up their 60 year old name (usuall a really, really bad idea.)
But we were indeed weightless for a little while anyway, and yes, it was really an amazing feeling. I don't know if it's worth $3000 to do it without the seatbelts, though.
An interesting "rumor" I heard about the movie was that the NASA geeks were given a special private preview screening of the film. The old timers all wanted to know where they got the footage of the launches, because they had seen it all before and didn't recognize it. Ron Howard had to explain to the guys that it was computer generated, and that not a single frame was old original footage. It was so realistic that several of them couldn't believe it was CGI.
Anyway, I'm betting that when his server got slashdotted tonight it was the duct tape that gave out.
Long way of saying "can't be undone."
This means you can't take a cutting and root it to start a new plant; but you're free to let them go to seed and breed them that way. They realize that prohibiting sexual reproduction would probably be challenged in court, but reproduction probably won't hurt them economically because most strains start mutating after only a few generations (and most flower mutations are undesirable anyway.)
I suppose the same applies to the cats: you probably aren't allowed to take a cutting of them to try to start new kittens ... or maybe they're simply neutered before they're sold to you.
Y'know, I'm really sure I don't want to know where that's going to go today.
Come on, this is Slashdot. "+1: Dead accurate" would be as useless as "Papal Brand Condoms."
Really. http://goatse.post just doesn't have that "ring" to it.
If TiVo is "pressured" from both sides, something will have to give. Either TiVo will cave to the movie companies, causing a significant loss of goodwill and customer base as people choose cheaper alternatives (such as the DVR that comes built into cable modems these days); or TiVo will cancel the software downgrade, retaining their customer base and revenue stream and POTENTIALLY opening themselves up to lawsuits.
Lets just hope that TiVo recognizes an existing revenue stream is worth more than the cost of a potential lawsuit. What's the worst that could happen to them if they're sued, anyway? The court could order them to make exactly this change. Then, the ill-will would at least be focused on the real perpetrators: the movie companies who sued TiVo and forced this change upon their customers. They may still lose revenue stream as people head for the cable-box DVRs, but at least their fan-base won't be pissed off at them.
That is if they go through with this lunacy.
I noticed because I originally had an ancient TV set hooked up to it that didn't have a video-in jack. It was RF only. So, I was using my VCR as an RF modulator.
I replaced the old TV earlier this year, but left the VCR in the video line between the ReplayTV and the new TV set (so I could record when I wanted.) Anyway, one day we sat down to see a god-awful color changing blob travelling up and down the screen. It took a while to realize what was happening, so I took the VCR out of the circuit and the picture quality was restored. The Macrovision must have been screwing the signal the VCR had been reinterpreting.
I felt betrayed, but since I hadn't actually used the VCR in over two years, I shrugged it off and got over it.