What if terms were one year long, and once you leave office, you are exiled to a desert island? That would make sure that candidates really wanted to serve (rather than just getting power and wealth) and it would limit liability from bad decisions.
Actually, voting for a third party is the only way my vote could possibly matter in Texas. If enough people did it, that third party would get federal funding in the next election.
I think I'd rather have the $1million, convert it to Euros, and move to Denmark.
Well, the more people who do it, the less valuable that $1million is, so it's obvious that it's only worth it if fewer than half (we'll say) of the voting population took it.
Exactly. I'm in Texas. My vote is worthless. If I vote Republican, it's worthless because the Republican is going to win anyway. If I vote Democrat, my vote is worthless because the Republican is going to win anyway.
I'd give up my vote for $1million in a heartbeat. I'd probably do it for a full graduate school scholarship. I don't think I'd do it for just an iPod--even though I know that my vote is worthless, it feels pretty wrong and consumerist. At least with $1million, I could really make some headway into being self-sufficient (i.e. not needing to work for anyone.) But an iPod? Bleh.
You did pretty much describe them, though you presented it as an idea you'd just come up with. As such, I figured you might be interested to know that a) they've been done, b) they've been heavily researched, and c) they're being bypassed by botnets.
Sorry, I left ou the word "declared." Obviously the punitive damages are cruel and unusual, but congress is in the media cartels' pockets.
Sorry that you wrote a long diatribe on account of my error. On this point, we actually are in agreement--I just don't think it will ever be overturned.
Sure, there have been cases. You asserted something quite different, though, and that's what I was calling you on.
With an enterprise this big, mistakes are going to happen. I haven't seen any evidence that they aren't correcting those mistakes, however.
If they went after some of my friends who have whole HDs of stolen MP3s, I really have no issue with them even though they were my friends. Ok
But if they sued my parents (who barely know how to use a computer), I would be pissed. Whoa now.
You've espoused some very common sentiments on Slashdot, but here's the issue: how do they know? How do they know that your parents don't know how to use computers? How do they know that it was their son or daughter, or a friend who was over at the house one day?
They don't. What they know is an IP address that was in a swarm. And if the ISP cooperates, then that address gets them the name of the person who pays the bill. Now what? That person is probably one of your parents. Should the RIAA come in and ask to look at the computers in the household to determine if there is illegally downloaded music on them? Would your parents give their consent if some random stranger knocked on the door and asked that? Assuming your parents didn't give consent (as I'm confident most people wouldn't), what should the RIAA do now?
The problem is multi-fold, but it's got two main components. 1) Copyright holders HAVE A RIGHT to go after a person for damages when he/she violates their copyright. 2) Given just an IP address or a name (which is the most that a copyright holder can hope to get as evidence without getting access to the person's computer), it's almost impossible to assert a copyright violation claim. This is why we have courts--so that disputes between individuals can be resolved. But many people on Slashdot assert that the RIAA shouldn't take people to court with "this little proof." So what should they do? At this point, there is no way for a copyright holder to assert their legal rights, just because the infringement happens over the Internet.
I'm genuinely curious to hear of a solution, and you seem like the perfect candidate, since you seem to think that going after legitimate infringers is ok (per your statement about your friends.) How should the RIAA handle these situations? How do they gather enough evidence to go to court?
The RIAA tracking goons are not keeping accurate records of the files they themselves have downloaded and uploaded.
I don't know the specific of this claim, but if it's true, they shouldn't be able to use the evidence in court.
They are not voluntarily making restitution of $150,000 per infringement they make, even in the case of accidents, downloading and uploading copyrighted files they themselves do not own the copyright to.
No one is making these restitutions voluntarily. If they were, there would be no need for the courts to get involved. If someone has their copyright violated by the RIAA, they need to take the appropriate actions.
How many international citizens has the RIAA spied on?
Spied on? What, by connecting to a public tracker and recording IP addresses? That's not spying.
How many international laws and international treaties has the RIAA violated?
I don't know. Are you asserting that they've violated some? Can you be specific?
If some corporation with headquarters in California claims they have a truck of goods being hijacked in New York, the RIAA can't just recklessly speed all the way across the country without regard to the safety or protections or privacy of anyone along the route. They are running whatever red lights they feel like running, and they aren't even official police.
Not true at all. They're getting an IP address from the public filesharing network, then they're requesting information on the owner of that address. When the organization from which they request it doesn't cooperate, they go to a judge and get a subpoena. So far, I don't see any problems.
And they aren't proving anyone but themselves have infringed copyright. And they are dubiously alleging IP addresses are actual individual persons.
No doubt, this is a terrible assertion. However, it's a good place to start. If you open your access point to anyone who might want to come along and violate copyright, you sure better be ready when the RIAA comes knocking. Realistically, they should need to get a copy of your hard drive and check to see if the same filenames are there. If they are, they should then open the files and see if they are actually copies of works to which they own the copyright. Then they should proceed naturally.
Of course, most of the time, it never gets to this. People get a letter and they settle. Why? Well, most of the time, it's probably because they know that they did it. Some of the time, it may be that they didn't violate copyright, but they don't have the time, resources, or know-how to fight it. That happens every day, of course, but you don't see lots of people on Slashdot complaining until it involves getting free stuff.
Nothing on the internet is viewed whatsoever except by COPYING.
True, but copyright law assumes that the intended use is allowed. That's why you don't need a license to read a book--the purpose of the book is to be read. When dealing with files, the only thing you can do with them is copy them. You copy them to your computer, then you copy them to memory. The issue is when you are making the works available to be copied without permission. It's slightly different than the book analogy because the distribution is different, but analogies aren't meant to be perfect, anyway.
They haven't proved a single instance of copyright infringement,
They don't have to. In civil cases, it's a preponderance of the evidence. But you probably knew that, since it's brought up in every RIAA/MPAA story that pops up on here.
Each instance of mailing an extortionate settlement offer without proof of actual individual copyright infringement is a RICO predicate.
Yeah. It's probably better that they go to court for all of these cases rather than offering settlements. Note that I'm not trying to paint them as angelic here, but realistically, lo
You seem to be thinking that everyone named is immediately guilty; which isn't true. Most people are. Some are not. Personally, I tend to err on the side of the not.
That said, there should be a procedure for a copyright holder to find out whether or not they're right. And from the outside, the only thing they have to go on is an IP address.
however if someone says "Microsoft violated the GPL" and had no proof, then I certianly wouldn't approve of the accuser being able to make legal charges against them. What proof would be good enough? With file sharing, the only thing you have to go on initially is an IP address. Does that warrant a court order in order to get more information? In the Microsoft hypothetical, would an identical character string be sufficient? Law (and especially civil law) is all about figuring out the most likely scenario, but almost all cases start with very small amounts of evidence. The key is that you can usually gather more evidence in order to make a stronger case. With file sharing on the Internet, gathering more evidence is almost always going to require access to the person's computer.
People also need to remember the copyright is given by the people, and the people can remove it. IT is NOT an inalienable right. Unfortunately, that's laughable, under our current system.
I was defining it as "related to the curriculum being studied."
Why not? People don't have a right to view the formations and witness the propaganda of Triumph of the Network Admin Shill? Are you going to go into your university library and install a cultural czar at the library checkout counter to ensure the books being read are in compliance with approved list of allowed reading material? That's a hair's breadth from invoking Godwin, isn't it?
We're not doing anything to prevent people from viewing any content they want on the Internet. We're not even shaping most traffic. What we're doing is making some traffic go slower so that more people have an opportunity to use the network for its intended purpose. Get a fucking grip, troll.
Oh please. There are plenty of idea-sharing outlets on the Internet that aren't 99.9% illegal. I have a hard time accepting the conflation of "ideas" with the mindless entertainment that is most movies and music these days.
An idea is a concept or abstraction formed and existing in the mind. Human capability to contemplate ideas is associated with the ability of reasoning, self-reflection, and the ability to acquire and apply intellect. Further, ideas give rise to actual concepts, or mind generalisations, which are the basis for any kind of knowledge whether science or philosophy. --Wikipedia.
The RIAA has done the opposite of reason, fairness, and common sense in every case unless there was negative media on them. Do you know this for sure? I mean, that's a pretty safe statement to make--the cases where they got negative publicity, they did the "right thing" (I'm sure we all heard about the case where someone didn't even own a computer, and they dropped it), but you can't say for certain that they never do the "right thing" otherwise unless you've somehow managed to keep up with every single case they've filed, every letter they've sent, every subpoena they've convinced a court to grant them.
I think the truth is that you've incredibly biased (and rightfully so, the media cartels are pretty lame) and you can't see things objectively.
Because we live in a world where you can do more time for hacking than running over a dozen people at a farmer's market, I'm not going to say too much more. But I will tell you this - two things happened. That long ago, the statute of limitations is almost certainly passed. Also, it's unlikely that anything you did was a crime--probably just against the school policy. They'd have a hard time pressing charges. Why don't you finish the story?:)
Anyway, at my school, they have a similar MAC registration system. The thing is, if a MAC is detected on multiple ports, the port on which the second MAC lives is disabled. Then you get the e-mail asking why you're spoofing MAC addresses.
Honestly, I can't understand why it's so burdensome to be a good net neighbor. People are all about sharing files, but ask them to share bandwidth (or rather, let other people take their fair share) and they'll complain to high heaven about how "I pay for this bandwidth." I have a word for these people: entitlement bitches.
It's an asinine thing to do, but it does show how absurd it is to claim that you know who's using a particular MAC/IP address. 802.1x does solve this problem quite nicely, unless your certificate or computer gets compromised.
I wonder how many personal drivers of CEOs have to pay speeding tickets out of their own pockets. I don't think I'd keep driving my boss if s/he insisted that I speed, but refused to pay the ticket I inevitably received.
Equal protection under the law doesn't mean that all laws must be applied to all people. It means that when a law applies to a group of people (drivers, for example), it must apply equally to every individual in that group. For some laws, this is very broad--everyone has a obligation to not steal, and nearly every human being is put into a position where they have the opportunity to steal. Some laws are much more specialized--police officers have an obligation to acquire either consent or a warrant before they search your house. Equal protection means that there shouldn't be some police officers who get to overlook this law simply because they are friends with a judge.
Since docking middle-class or poor people lots of money in fines and/or throwing them in jail has never, shortly said, made any of their lives better (or, I'd imagine, reformed them in an significant way), why do we continue to endorse the meaningless and destructive platitudes of incarceration? The threat of losing some money tends to keep me from speeding. There are lots of roads in my area which are flat, have extremely high visibility, have two lanes in each direction with a median, and are 30mph. There's no good reason for the speed limit--other than to generate revenue. Nonetheless, I drive the speed limit in order to avoid tickets.
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" is meaningless to a person who needs to be on time to a meeting to keep their job but must speed because they had another obligation to drop off their kids at school, and yet cannot afford a speeding ticket. There are preventative ways to avoid this. Get up earlier. Get your kids up earlier. Don't have kids in the first place if you can't manage the obligations.
The disproportionality you speak of is almost always of the individual's own making. I'm not averse to government assistance, even in the cases where the person did it to him/herself, but most laws are there for a reason, and they should be applied equally to the people that they affect. I don't think that some people being subject to more laws is the issue, because it almost always comes with more power/wealth/privilege.
Tor just doesn't have the bandwidth to handle downloading large files. It would work in theory, but in practice, people limit their outgoing Tor traffic pretty significantly. Mine, for example, is limited to 10KB/s. Fast enough for browsing, too slow for filesharing.
Even if I didn't artificially limit it, the nature of Tor and low upstream bandwidth would. I have something like 512kbps upstream, which would be about 50KB/s. Since the traffic has to come into me and then back out to the BitTorrent user, that's not very fast.
Packet shaping makes sense on a college network. While it's certainly possible to research p2p, the vast majority of p2p use in the residence halls is not educational in nature. Shaping, thus, is quite appropriate. Before the shaping was put into place, p2p ate up so much of the pipe that the computer help center was swamped with calls about the internet being "down." In reality, it wasn't down, but just unusably slow from congestion.
Now the residence halls are shaped and p2p research is conducted outside of the halls. There are many fewer calls, probably because the people who aren't getting the bandwidth they want know that they don't have much room to complain. What are they going to say, "Whenever I try to download movies from BitTorrent, it's too slow!"
Perhaps Google wants to avoid this. Wants apps that push the hardware requirements so that the Android phones will HAVE to be powerhouses, Gosh, I really hope not. Battery technology just isn't there for powerhouse phones:\
It's the Unix philosophy. You get many small utilities that work very well together, and you can pipe the input of one into another if you want to do more advanced things.
This is why grep doesn't let you replace, why ls doesn't let you read files, etc.
Of course, not all Unix programs ascribe to the Unix philosophy--which is why EMACS can read your mail.
That's fine, but you're avoiding the central point: Google are causing further fragmentation and forking within Java at a time when there are significant efforts being made to re-unify and stabilize the platform. Java (and even J2ME) is a strange little beast. It's not quite a platform, but it tries to be one. Google is trying to create a true platform based upon Java. It's probably true that code written for their platform will have issues (or not run at all) on non-Android platforms, but that's something that would happen anyway, even if Google had chosen J2ME and tried to improve it. With everyone else fragmenting Java, coupled with versioning problems, software written for Android probably still wouldn't work by default on other J2ME phones.
The reason that one forks or fragments a project like this is in order to try to do it right. With so many vendors working on and supporting Android, I think they've got a real shot at making a platform where tweaks aren't necessary to get code to work on another Android phone (compare to getting the same software to work in different J2ME phones.)
In modern American English, "one" is used to refer to a nonspecific entity. I can't find a pronoun which can be used to refer to a specific person without specifying gender. "They" is used commonly, but is grammatically incorrect unless you are referring to multiple persons.
I'm confused as to why you responded to me. The person to whom I was responding did not seem to know what honeypots are. If you'll go back to my post and click "Parent" you'll see that I was replying to comment 21304407 (User Alari.)
I agree that lots of wild claims are made, and I'm skeptical, too. It would be nice if there was more information.
This has been done. Search the web for "honeypot."
And malware authors work around it by probing. If they suspect that an address in a network is used for a honeypot to blacklist any IP that touches it, then they do a simple binary search to find out which addresses are used, then they stop hitting those addresses.
Of course, that's only for searching out vulnerabilities with a worm that automatically propagates. How would you get the same statistical results, only when the attack vector is spam containing a link to a trojan? Read up on Storm Worm before you answer, as it works around the obvious solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop drinking the kool-aid. Linux can't provide this, either. TPM might be able to, but that comes with its own set of issues.
What if terms were one year long, and once you leave office, you are exiled to a desert island? That would make sure that candidates really wanted to serve (rather than just getting power and wealth) and it would limit liability from bad decisions.
Actually, voting for a third party is the only way my vote could possibly matter in Texas. If enough people did it, that third party would get federal funding in the next election.
I think I'd rather have the $1million, convert it to Euros, and move to Denmark.
Well, the more people who do it, the less valuable that $1million is, so it's obvious that it's only worth it if fewer than half (we'll say) of the voting population took it.
Exactly. I'm in Texas. My vote is worthless. If I vote Republican, it's worthless because the Republican is going to win anyway. If I vote Democrat, my vote is worthless because the Republican is going to win anyway.
I'd give up my vote for $1million in a heartbeat. I'd probably do it for a full graduate school scholarship. I don't think I'd do it for just an iPod--even though I know that my vote is worthless, it feels pretty wrong and consumerist. At least with $1million, I could really make some headway into being self-sufficient (i.e. not needing to work for anyone.) But an iPod? Bleh.
You did pretty much describe them, though you presented it as an idea you'd just come up with. As such, I figured you might be interested to know that a) they've been done, b) they've been heavily researched, and c) they're being bypassed by botnets.
Sorry, I left ou the word "declared." Obviously the punitive damages are cruel and unusual, but congress is in the media cartels' pockets.
Sorry that you wrote a long diatribe on account of my error. On this point, we actually are in agreement--I just don't think it will ever be overturned.
With an enterprise this big, mistakes are going to happen. I haven't seen any evidence that they aren't correcting those mistakes, however. If they went after some of my friends who have whole HDs of stolen MP3s, I really have no issue with them even though they were my friends. Ok But if they sued my parents (who barely know how to use a computer), I would be pissed. Whoa now.
You've espoused some very common sentiments on Slashdot, but here's the issue: how do they know? How do they know that your parents don't know how to use computers? How do they know that it was their son or daughter, or a friend who was over at the house one day?
They don't. What they know is an IP address that was in a swarm. And if the ISP cooperates, then that address gets them the name of the person who pays the bill. Now what? That person is probably one of your parents. Should the RIAA come in and ask to look at the computers in the household to determine if there is illegally downloaded music on them? Would your parents give their consent if some random stranger knocked on the door and asked that? Assuming your parents didn't give consent (as I'm confident most people wouldn't), what should the RIAA do now?
The problem is multi-fold, but it's got two main components. 1) Copyright holders HAVE A RIGHT to go after a person for damages when he/she violates their copyright. 2) Given just an IP address or a name (which is the most that a copyright holder can hope to get as evidence without getting access to the person's computer), it's almost impossible to assert a copyright violation claim. This is why we have courts--so that disputes between individuals can be resolved. But many people on Slashdot assert that the RIAA shouldn't take people to court with "this little proof." So what should they do? At this point, there is no way for a copyright holder to assert their legal rights, just because the infringement happens over the Internet.
I'm genuinely curious to hear of a solution, and you seem like the perfect candidate, since you seem to think that going after legitimate infringers is ok (per your statement about your friends.) How should the RIAA handle these situations? How do they gather enough evidence to go to court?
The RIAA tracking goons are not keeping accurate records of the files they themselves have downloaded and uploaded.
I don't know the specific of this claim, but if it's true, they shouldn't be able to use the evidence in court.
They are not voluntarily making restitution of $150,000 per infringement they make, even in the case of accidents, downloading and uploading copyrighted files they themselves do not own the copyright to.
No one is making these restitutions voluntarily. If they were, there would be no need for the courts to get involved. If someone has their copyright violated by the RIAA, they need to take the appropriate actions.
How many international citizens has the RIAA spied on?
Spied on? What, by connecting to a public tracker and recording IP addresses? That's not spying.
How many international laws and international treaties has the RIAA violated?
I don't know. Are you asserting that they've violated some? Can you be specific?
If some corporation with headquarters in California claims they have a truck of goods being hijacked in New York, the RIAA can't just recklessly speed all the way across the country without regard to the safety or protections or privacy of anyone along the route. They are running whatever red lights they feel like running, and they aren't even official police.
Not true at all. They're getting an IP address from the public filesharing network, then they're requesting information on the owner of that address. When the organization from which they request it doesn't cooperate, they go to a judge and get a subpoena. So far, I don't see any problems.
And they aren't proving anyone but themselves have infringed copyright. And they are dubiously alleging IP addresses are actual individual persons.
No doubt, this is a terrible assertion. However, it's a good place to start. If you open your access point to anyone who might want to come along and violate copyright, you sure better be ready when the RIAA comes knocking. Realistically, they should need to get a copy of your hard drive and check to see if the same filenames are there. If they are, they should then open the files and see if they are actually copies of works to which they own the copyright. Then they should proceed naturally.
Of course, most of the time, it never gets to this. People get a letter and they settle. Why? Well, most of the time, it's probably because they know that they did it. Some of the time, it may be that they didn't violate copyright, but they don't have the time, resources, or know-how to fight it. That happens every day, of course, but you don't see lots of people on Slashdot complaining until it involves getting free stuff.
Nothing on the internet is viewed whatsoever except by COPYING.
True, but copyright law assumes that the intended use is allowed. That's why you don't need a license to read a book--the purpose of the book is to be read. When dealing with files, the only thing you can do with them is copy them. You copy them to your computer, then you copy them to memory. The issue is when you are making the works available to be copied without permission. It's slightly different than the book analogy because the distribution is different, but analogies aren't meant to be perfect, anyway.
They haven't proved a single instance of copyright infringement,
They don't have to. In civil cases, it's a preponderance of the evidence. But you probably knew that, since it's brought up in every RIAA/MPAA story that pops up on here.
Each instance of mailing an extortionate settlement offer without proof of actual individual copyright infringement is a RICO predicate.
Yeah. It's probably better that they go to court for all of these cases rather than offering settlements. Note that I'm not trying to paint them as angelic here, but realistically, lo
That said, there should be a procedure for a copyright holder to find out whether or not they're right. And from the outside, the only thing they have to go on is an IP address. however if someone says "Microsoft violated the GPL" and had no proof, then I certianly wouldn't approve of the accuser being able to make legal charges against them. What proof would be good enough? With file sharing, the only thing you have to go on initially is an IP address. Does that warrant a court order in order to get more information? In the Microsoft hypothetical, would an identical character string be sufficient? Law (and especially civil law) is all about figuring out the most likely scenario, but almost all cases start with very small amounts of evidence. The key is that you can usually gather more evidence in order to make a stronger case. With file sharing on the Internet, gathering more evidence is almost always going to require access to the person's computer. People also need to remember the copyright is given by the people, and the people can remove it. IT is NOT an inalienable right. Unfortunately, that's laughable, under our current system.
We're not doing anything to prevent people from viewing any content they want on the Internet. We're not even shaping most traffic. What we're doing is making some traffic go slower so that more people have an opportunity to use the network for its intended purpose. Get a fucking grip, troll.
I think the truth is that you've incredibly biased (and rightfully so, the media cartels are pretty lame) and you can't see things objectively.
Anyway, at my school, they have a similar MAC registration system. The thing is, if a MAC is detected on multiple ports, the port on which the second MAC lives is disabled. Then you get the e-mail asking why you're spoofing MAC addresses.
Honestly, I can't understand why it's so burdensome to be a good net neighbor. People are all about sharing files, but ask them to share bandwidth (or rather, let other people take their fair share) and they'll complain to high heaven about how "I pay for this bandwidth." I have a word for these people: entitlement bitches.
It's an asinine thing to do, but it does show how absurd it is to claim that you know who's using a particular MAC/IP address. 802.1x does solve this problem quite nicely, unless your certificate or computer gets compromised.
I wonder how many personal drivers of CEOs have to pay speeding tickets out of their own pockets. I don't think I'd keep driving my boss if s/he insisted that I speed, but refused to pay the ticket I inevitably received.
The disproportionality you speak of is almost always of the individual's own making. I'm not averse to government assistance, even in the cases where the person did it to him/herself, but most laws are there for a reason, and they should be applied equally to the people that they affect. I don't think that some people being subject to more laws is the issue, because it almost always comes with more power/wealth/privilege.
Tor just doesn't have the bandwidth to handle downloading large files. It would work in theory, but in practice, people limit their outgoing Tor traffic pretty significantly. Mine, for example, is limited to 10KB/s. Fast enough for browsing, too slow for filesharing.
Even if I didn't artificially limit it, the nature of Tor and low upstream bandwidth would. I have something like 512kbps upstream, which would be about 50KB/s. Since the traffic has to come into me and then back out to the BitTorrent user, that's not very fast.
Packet shaping makes sense on a college network. While it's certainly possible to research p2p, the vast majority of p2p use in the residence halls is not educational in nature. Shaping, thus, is quite appropriate. Before the shaping was put into place, p2p ate up so much of the pipe that the computer help center was swamped with calls about the internet being "down." In reality, it wasn't down, but just unusably slow from congestion.
Now the residence halls are shaped and p2p research is conducted outside of the halls. There are many fewer calls, probably because the people who aren't getting the bandwidth they want know that they don't have much room to complain. What are they going to say, "Whenever I try to download movies from BitTorrent, it's too slow!"
It's the Unix philosophy. You get many small utilities that work very well together, and you can pipe the input of one into another if you want to do more advanced things.
This is why grep doesn't let you replace, why ls doesn't let you read files, etc.
Of course, not all Unix programs ascribe to the Unix philosophy--which is why EMACS can read your mail.
The reason that one forks or fragments a project like this is in order to try to do it right. With so many vendors working on and supporting Android, I think they've got a real shot at making a platform where tweaks aren't necessary to get code to work on another Android phone (compare to getting the same software to work in different J2ME phones.)
In modern American English, "one" is used to refer to a nonspecific entity. I can't find a pronoun which can be used to refer to a specific person without specifying gender. "They" is used commonly, but is grammatically incorrect unless you are referring to multiple persons.
I'm confused as to why you responded to me. The person to whom I was responding did not seem to know what honeypots are. If you'll go back to my post and click "Parent" you'll see that I was replying to comment 21304407 (User Alari.)
I agree that lots of wild claims are made, and I'm skeptical, too. It would be nice if there was more information.
This has been done. Search the web for "honeypot."
And malware authors work around it by probing. If they suspect that an address in a network is used for a honeypot to blacklist any IP that touches it, then they do a simple binary search to find out which addresses are used, then they stop hitting those addresses.
Of course, that's only for searching out vulnerabilities with a worm that automatically propagates. How would you get the same statistical results, only when the attack vector is spam containing a link to a trojan? Read up on Storm Worm before you answer, as it works around the obvious solutions.