The SCO DDOS is nothing compared to the fact that the worm opens up a back door which allows other people complete control over his computer.
easy way to stop this: don't accept port 25 DUL
on
More MyDoom Gloom
·
· Score: 1
I keep saying the one way to stop this is to have all the major ISPs filter port 25 traffic from any of their dial-up or broadband (non-business) customers to any IP other than their designated SMTP relays. If they do this, not only will they stop the spread of these worms, but they'll also stop about 99% of all the spam.
Until the ISPs get responsible, if you run a mail server, you can make an active effort to blacklist all SMTP traffic from DULs. There are a number of RBLs that do this.
As an added bonus, if unauthorized SMTP traffic were filtered out, spammers and worm-writers would have to resort to sending e-mail-spreading-worms through larger ISP gateways, which could more efficiently identify the earliest sources of these rogue scripts and help catch the perpetrators.
I agree with you. Another thing I can't stress enough is that if you look at almost all successful software/tech companies you will find there's rarely one person behind them. Maybe with OSS, you can collaborate virtually and compensate, but the most successful companies have always been a team of at least two people: a developer, and a marketer, (Jobs & Woz, Gates and Allen, HP, etc.) - and the key is finding a partner that you can trust and has your same level of values, commitment and goals.
Let's get something straight: it's unlikely anyone in the open-source community is behind this worm. It's more likely this is the work of a spammer cashing in on the discord between these warring factions.
Then again I could be wrong. This could be a big scheme by Bill Gates to collect e-mail addresses, after which he's going to pay everyone who clicks on the attachment $100.
What makes you think this worm's objective is to DDOS SCO? I contend that's just a distraction. The worm's real intent is to create a smokescreen while opening up a back door for spammers to install proxy-relaying software. All the circumstantial evidence points more to these worms being launched by spammers who are trying to steal more IP space from which to operate. Getting entangled in the SCO debacle simply makes an excellent diversion, that will mislead investigators. Also, attacking SCO enhances their case and claim they're being "victimized", which seems to be SCO's primary business model these days.
1. Be born to rich parents with lots of connections
2. Go to Harvard, meet lots of other rich kids, get bored with school and drop out
3. Form a software company, be in the right place at the right time, then take someone else's work and license it to the largest computer company in the world.
Critter is a professional media asset management application designed for content creators who are looking for a focused, automatic, non-intrusive and cost effective solution...
You gotta love the way products are marketed these days. It's hard to even tell what the hell it does. This is indicative of the marketing being the thing that's sold and actually not the product, so while you think you have a product-oriented business model, you actually have a gobbely-gook, marketing-babble-based model. At least your product descriptions give some idea. I go to some web sites and they're selling a "solution" to an ambiguous "problem." WTF.
I like the way the poster arbitrarily suggests, "Why not start a software company?" as if this is something you can casually do because you're bored or something.
The truth is, even if you had a good application to address, whether you could write a viable piece of software that was marketable is an entirely different matter. Even if you get to that point where you have a good market, and a good product, it's only then that the real tough work begins...
I "accidently" started a software company many years ago when I wrote utilities to help clients in my computer consulting business. The products turned out to be so useful that everyone suggested I start selling them, which I eventually did. It took me almost three years, living in a crappy 1BR apartment that didn't even have working plumbing, making some months, not enough money to pay the rent, but eventually word got out and my product received Editor's Choice in PC Mag. Ok, now I've made it? No. Another problem -- distribution. Even though I had the best product in its market, my competition was in bed with the 1-2 major distributors and put pressure on them to not carry my product. I was in a catch-22 as I couldn't afford to spend money on advertising unless I had distribution, but the distributors wouldn't carry my product unless I was advertising, but I didn't want to put a $20k+ ad in PC Magazine (the major pub at the time) when the product wasn't on store shelves. Eventually we picked up distribution, but it was through a lot of hard work, travelling around doing promotions, exhibiting at Comdex (which at the time was an uber-expensive mafia setup where you'd pay a fortune for a crappy location and then find out when you arrive IG moved your both to the middle of nowhere). I won't even go into the nightmares of trying to deal with venture capital firms -- let's just say I'm still on medication from the rash those people gave us.
Before Windows, the economics of the industry was bad enough. Now it's even worse. You don't have to worry about distribution; you have to worry about some other company with more resources and a desire to envelop every market they can copying your product or bundling it with their existing products and destroying your market. Whereas a great product would eventually be found out, nowadays, most of the industry is hype/advertising driven and those with the most resources, not the best product, rule.
That's not to say it can't be done. But starting a successful software company has more to do with having a realistic idea of exactly what you need to do, and a *tremendous* amount of perserverance. There are lots of shortcuts you can take to offload responsibilities to exploitive partners and publishing companies, but you might as well get a 9-to-5 if you do that because you'll end up getting taken advantage of and losing control of your work.
It makes a lot more sense this worm, like many others, is the work of spammers. They love to redirect blame all over the place but the true purpose of this script is probably to open up a back door so they can install proxy relays for their spamming activities. And of course, laugh at the authorities and their inept ability to track them down, while going after the wrong people.
I'm sure i'm not the only person who wonders if SCO might actually be behind this. I know it sounds stupid, but I hate to believe people in the OS community would be so stupid as to launch a worm like this. Now SCO, on the other hand, it would make a lot of sense since they really don't have any way to make money other than pretending to be victimized.
I've moved away from Symantec and Norton as well. The newest versions of their products are very invasive and annoying. I had the program crash during installation on one computer and I had to re-install the OS to gain the use of my computer. I will not use any more Symantec products.
Generally speaking, I agree with most of the comments here. The newer series tend to get more bland and formulaic with each episode, relying on tired plot devices and shallow character development.
I am of the belief that one of the main appeals to the early series, and specifically TNG which successfully demonstrated that ST was far from dead, was the focus around a number of politically-incorrect themes, such as the insignificance of materialism, the destructive and counteproductive forces of religion, and most importantly, the desire to learn and explore. There was a lot of humility ingrained into the early episodes that seems quite out of style these days.
TNG was a brilliant series in the way it really made you wonder what the crew was going to encounter next, and you weren't banging your head at the stupidity of their actions. The scenarios were realistic and believable; the character development made a lot more sense. DSN came along and incorporated a more epic-type ongoing conflict and also introduced religion as a major plot point, but showed both sides of the issue. It was especially refreshing to see villanous characters which had great depth and the ability to turn themselves around. Then Voyager came along, and like the ship itself, it was lost in space, devoid of any identity or purpose and seemed to merely be a shallow plot device to rehash the same conflicts over and over. When I first saw Enterprise, I realized the process of taking a brilliant series and turning it into "Cheers" was complete. Not to mention, Enterprise has one of the worst theme songs ever written.
I've seen a few decent Enterprise episodes, but overall, the series is drowning in unoriginality.
I hate to say it but the series does need to be put to rest. Something better will come along, probably on HBO since they seem to be the last remaining network that tackles real issues in a realistic way.
If I go to your site and I'm "attacked" by an intrusive advertisement, I'll hit the back button or close my browser window and go elsewhere.
I am sure I am not alone in having no desire to be distracted by obnoxious, and almost always badly-targetted promotions interfering with my ability to get to the information I desire in a timely manner. Unfortunately, you people seem intent on using the bludgeon-the-user-with-noise model which hasn't worked before, and won't work now.
As in other mediums, the barrage of advertising has desensitized the user to the advertiser's message. We don't pay attention to banner ads and the messages are misleading and insulting. You people still have yet to figure out how to properly use the technology at your disposal. It's a shame.
But feel free to continue blasting undesireable noise as a front end to your information. We'll continue to make better use of the technology to block it, and when that isn't possible, we'll fine tune our ability to completely ignore this crap.
That's not to say that advertising is dead. It's just different now. When I consider a product or service, I almost always ignore paid promotions. The powers that be don't seem to regulate the truthfulness of most of these ads and people are now suspect of most claims. Misleading people has become the de-facto standard in advertisers' attempt to sell. As a result, we look at testimonials and honest (non-viral) comments from our peers as to what the best products and services are. We patronize those portals that respect their users' sensibilities.
Good luck with your efforts, though I probably won't be paying attention.
Financial Times - FT a good example of actual "news reporting" (as opposed to "news creating" exhibited by most companies). As a result of the commercial influence in all aspects of society nowadays, it makes perfect sense that some of the financial news sources may now be the most objective source of information. Check out this wonderful site and newspaper.
PR Watch - This site is run by the Center for Media & Democracy is a nonprofit, public interest organization funded by individuals and nonprofit foundations and dedicated to investigative reporting on the public relations industry. The Center serves citizens, journalists and researchers seeking to recognize and combat manipulative and misleading PR practices. There is an excellent weekly newsletter you can subscribe to from this site which summarizes news stories and special issues where media coverage was manipulated.
Disinfopedia - a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. More than 2500 articles outlining information and credentials on key individuals and entities involved with public policy and other areas. This is a great resource to look up the history of people in the news.
Link TV - The first national network offering a global perspective on news, current events and culture, presenting viewpoints seldom covered in the U.S. media. We present first-run documentaries on global issues, current affairs series, international news, classic foreign feature films, and the best of world music. Link TV's programming, combined with innovative use of two-way digital link-ups and our participatory web site, deepens audience engagement and encourages active participation. If you have DirecTV, this network is channel 375 - ask your cable provider if they do not make this network available - it's worth it!
Democratic Underground - What has turned out to be a polarized web site has become a watchdog for the mainstream media, the Democratic Underground exposes the hypocrisy and sleaziness in the media. Check this site out folks -- with references (something you do not find on conservative sites)
CorpWatch - A great site for information on the nefarious activities of multinational corporations. Want to find out who's paid off whom? Which governments are under the influence of which corporations? Little-known corporate relationships that explain unusual social or political events? This is the site to check.
Adbusters - In our society it has become increasingly difficult to separate editorial from advertising and many argue there is no longer a distinction. This site addresses the social changes in how people are educated by addressing the impact of news and the advertising media and exposes the propaganda campaigns. Very good reading, and in many cases, shockingly thought-provoking!
Common Dreams News Center - Billed as "Breaking news & views for the Progressive community", this site endeavors to carry stories that the mainstream media may either not be reporting, or not telling all sides.
Canadian Broadcast Corporation - Canada's state-owned news service is widely regarded as one of the most objective sources of information.
Independent Media Center - A good source for news stories that the mainstream doesn't pick up. This site is particularly sensitive to the influence corporate America has over what is and is
This case has all the earmarks of a standard, litigious IP-based extortion scheme. That business model dictates that the main purpose is not to win, but to shake down as many people as possible. And the one thing you do not do is go after the biggest player if you're not certain you can win.
So why is SCO doing this? What are the possible reasons?
1. A last ditch effort to save the company
Most people seem to think this is what's going on, but public companies are all about making money and creating shareholder value. This is a very risky proposition that could result in the destruction of SCO. It's hard to believe the major shareholders want to roll the dice.
2. A delusional batch of executives are convinced they're right and are blindly pursuing their course.
As foolish as most of us think SCO is, I still think it's hard to believe that they're as foolish as they seem to be acting. The fact that SCO is playing games with the court and being mysterious and evasive about their evidence implies that they are more aware of the fragility of their case than they want people to believe.
3. It's a big stock scam
The major players have put together a plan to inflate SCO's stock and hope to cash out before it all comes crashing down. It's a variation on the dot-com theme of 2000, but this one is intentional and out in the open: let's create a lot of hype, resulting in inflated value, and then cash out and leave someone else holding the bag.
4. It's an elaborate plan designed to discredit Linux and the open source community.
The only way this plan fails is if the case goes to trial and SCO loses. If they win, it's a huge victory for them; if they settle, it's a huge victory for them. As time goes by, their case gets weaker and weaker. If this continues, my money is on them trying to settle with IBM.
So why wouldn't IBM settle if SCO offered them a deal? Let's look at these scenarios:
1. IBM is dependent upon Linux as part of their future product line. They need to ensure their customers that there are no IP issues.
Winning the case AND settling the case both accomplish this objective. The difference is, if the case is settled, then ONLY IBM is free and clear. IBM becomes the only legitimate Linux distributor in town and their business skyrockets.
2. IBM is a big, idealistic company that truly cares about the open-source community and will fight to keep software free.
I'm sure this kind of talk dominates the discussion at shareholder and executive meetings.
If IBM wins the case, open-source wins, and IBM "sorta" wins, but it's a hollow victory and all of a sudden IBM has tons of legitimate competition from other Linux distributors.
It is a shame that many people spend so much of their lives being distracted that their ability to "feel" has been stunted. And most people equate feeling with reacting, which aren't the same. Reacting is a form of agression, whereas feeling is a part of the process of understanding. Unfortunately for us, the latter isn't something that can be accomplished with the push of a button or the plunking down of a credit card.
Slashdot is definitely more of a community driven by people who have a desire to understand moreso than a desire to react, but even those of us who are aware of these dynamics are still subject to the ongoing influence that wants to dictate black-and-white "solutions" to complex problems. But, as many of us soon realize, we can't apply the same logical problem-solving skills to cultural and sociological issues that we do on inanimate equipment.
It's interesting to witness how we've not only become a materialistically-disposable society, but also a psychological one as well.
I urge everyone to find out if their funds are loaded with SCO stock. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's IRAs and portfolios are heading for a crash and they don't even know it.
What I think will happen, even though many people disagree, is that SCO and IBM will settle. This will further propagate the FUD that keeps down the smaller Linux operators and gives both SCO and IBM what they want: a chance to come out clean and free of any IP issues.
We need to put just as much pressure on IBM to take this case all the way through. I won't be surprised if it gets settled. IBM settling would do more for IBM than winning the case, which would legitimize all of IBM's competition in the Linux marketplace.
Speaking of stock, 30+% of SCO stock is held by mutual funds and other institutional owners, so if you believe that SCO is going to lose this case, which seems likely, expect all the shareholders to take huge losses when this stock sinks. A look at the history of their stock shows it's way over-valued anyway. If you have annuities or mutual funds, you really need to find out if they have SCO in their portfolio cause you're going to get burned!
Capital Guardian Trust Company 1,177,800 8.51 $16,288,974 30-Sep-03 Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC 316,600 2.29 $4,378,578 30-Sep-03 Royce & Associates, Inc. 1,441,200 10.41 $19,931,796 30-Sep-03 Integral Capital Management V, LLC 246,730 1.78 $3,412,275 30-Sep-03 Empire Capital Partners LP 205,000 1.48 $1,961,849 30-Jun-03 Barclays Bank Plc 174,686 1.26 $2,415,907 30-Sep-03 Bjurman, Barry & Associates 160,000 1.16 $2,212,800 30-Sep-03 ING Investments, LLC 143,100 1.03 $1,979,073 30-Sep-03 Oberweis Asset Management Inc. 112,000 0.81 $1,548,960 30-Sep-03 Whitney Asset Management LLC 76,967 0.56 $1,064,453 30-Sep-03
I've always been enthralled by the idea of integrating technology into exercise so that people were more motivated to engage in cardiovascular activities. One of the best examples of this is the Dance Dance video game. One can't deny that getting good at the game is directly proportional to how in shape you are. In a market dominated by games where people hone skills such as shooting people, it's a refreshing change. Disney Quest also has some interesting video games that involve lots of physical effort and something like their giant human pinball simulation is an all-around exercise.
Now what we need is some kind of game plug-in that exposes players to sunlight and gets their Seratonin levels up to norm.
If you want some open utopia, why don't you post under your real name? Why not list your address and personal information in your signature?
An ideal communications network will be a reflection of how accessible its participants desire to be. Maybe I don't want my refrigerator to have its own publicly-accessible IP address? Is that so wrong?
There's a difference between bugs and glaring, exploitable security holes.
Microsoft has bugs in their OS that go unfixed for years at a time, if ever.
There are also differences between operating system anomolies and application anomolies. You can't take into account Windows Update patches and then compare them to security fixes for individual unix applications -- if you want to do that, you'll find that there is also a plethora of security patches and updates for various Microsoft products like Office/Word/Excel, etc. that are not being counted in the tally.
Slashdot Mirror
Your friend is a moron.
The SCO DDOS is nothing compared to the fact that the worm opens up a back door which allows other people complete control over his computer.
I keep saying the one way to stop this is to have all the major ISPs filter port 25 traffic from any of their dial-up or broadband (non-business) customers to any IP other than their designated SMTP relays. If they do this, not only will they stop the spread of these worms, but they'll also stop about 99% of all the spam.
Until the ISPs get responsible, if you run a mail server, you can make an active effort to blacklist all SMTP traffic from DULs. There are a number of RBLs that do this.
As an added bonus, if unauthorized SMTP traffic were filtered out, spammers and worm-writers would have to resort to sending e-mail-spreading-worms through larger ISP gateways, which could more efficiently identify the earliest sources of these rogue scripts and help catch the perpetrators.
I agree with you. Another thing I can't stress enough is that if you look at almost all successful software/tech companies you will find there's rarely one person behind them. Maybe with OSS, you can collaborate virtually and compensate, but the most successful companies have always been a team of at least two people: a developer, and a marketer, (Jobs & Woz, Gates and Allen, HP, etc.) - and the key is finding a partner that you can trust and has your same level of values, commitment and goals.
Let's get something straight: it's unlikely anyone in the open-source community is behind this worm. It's more likely this is the work of a spammer cashing in on the discord between these warring factions.
Then again I could be wrong. This could be a big scheme by Bill Gates to collect e-mail addresses, after which he's going to pay everyone who clicks on the attachment $100.
What makes you think this worm's objective is to DDOS SCO? I contend that's just a distraction. The worm's real intent is to create a smokescreen while opening up a back door for spammers to install proxy-relaying software. All the circumstantial evidence points more to these worms being launched by spammers who are trying to steal more IP space from which to operate. Getting entangled in the SCO debacle simply makes an excellent diversion, that will mislead investigators. Also, attacking SCO enhances their case and claim they're being "victimized", which seems to be SCO's primary business model these days.
1. Be born to rich parents with lots of connections
2. Go to Harvard, meet lots of other rich kids, get bored with school and drop out
3. Form a software company, be in the right place at the right time, then take someone else's work and license it to the largest computer company in the world.
Critter is a professional media asset management application designed for content creators who are looking for a focused, automatic, non-intrusive and cost effective solution...
You gotta love the way products are marketed these days. It's hard to even tell what the hell it does. This is indicative of the marketing being the thing that's sold and actually not the product, so while you think you have a product-oriented business model, you actually have a gobbely-gook, marketing-babble-based model. At least your product descriptions give some idea. I go to some web sites and they're selling a "solution" to an ambiguous "problem." WTF.
I like the way the poster arbitrarily suggests, "Why not start a software company?" as if this is something you can casually do because you're bored or something.
The truth is, even if you had a good application to address, whether you could write a viable piece of software that was marketable is an entirely different matter. Even if you get to that point where you have a good market, and a good product, it's only then that the real tough work begins...
I "accidently" started a software company many years ago when I wrote utilities to help clients in my computer consulting business. The products turned out to be so useful that everyone suggested I start selling them, which I eventually did. It took me almost three years, living in a crappy 1BR apartment that didn't even have working plumbing, making some months, not enough money to pay the rent, but eventually word got out and my product received Editor's Choice in PC Mag. Ok, now I've made it? No. Another problem -- distribution. Even though I had the best product in its market, my competition was in bed with the 1-2 major distributors and put pressure on them to not carry my product. I was in a catch-22 as I couldn't afford to spend money on advertising unless I had distribution, but the distributors wouldn't carry my product unless I was advertising, but I didn't want to put a $20k+ ad in PC Magazine (the major pub at the time) when the product wasn't on store shelves. Eventually we picked up distribution, but it was through a lot of hard work, travelling around doing promotions, exhibiting at Comdex (which at the time was an uber-expensive mafia setup where you'd pay a fortune for a crappy location and then find out when you arrive IG moved your both to the middle of nowhere). I won't even go into the nightmares of trying to deal with venture capital firms -- let's just say I'm still on medication from the rash those people gave us.
Before Windows, the economics of the industry was bad enough. Now it's even worse. You don't have to worry about distribution; you have to worry about some other company with more resources and a desire to envelop every market they can copying your product or bundling it with their existing products and destroying your market. Whereas a great product would eventually be found out, nowadays, most of the industry is hype/advertising driven and those with the most resources, not the best product, rule.
That's not to say it can't be done. But starting a successful software company has more to do with having a realistic idea of exactly what you need to do, and a *tremendous* amount of perserverance. There are lots of shortcuts you can take to offload responsibilities to exploitive partners and publishing companies, but you might as well get a 9-to-5 if you do that because you'll end up getting taken advantage of and losing control of your work.
It makes a lot more sense this worm, like many others, is the work of spammers. They love to redirect blame all over the place but the true purpose of this script is probably to open up a back door so they can install proxy relays for their spamming activities. And of course, laugh at the authorities and their inept ability to track them down, while going after the wrong people.
I'm sure i'm not the only person who wonders if SCO might actually be behind this. I know it sounds stupid, but I hate to believe people in the OS community would be so stupid as to launch a worm like this. Now SCO, on the other hand, it would make a lot of sense since they really don't have any way to make money other than pretending to be victimized.
mod this as a troll please.. it's only funny if one has absolutely no understanding of economics or government.
I've moved away from Symantec and Norton as well. The newest versions of their products are very invasive and annoying. I had the program crash during installation on one computer and I had to re-install the OS to gain the use of my computer. I will not use any more Symantec products.
Generally speaking, I agree with most of the comments here. The newer series tend to get more bland and formulaic with each episode, relying on tired plot devices and shallow character development.
I am of the belief that one of the main appeals to the early series, and specifically TNG which successfully demonstrated that ST was far from dead, was the focus around a number of politically-incorrect themes, such as the insignificance of materialism, the destructive and counteproductive forces of religion, and most importantly, the desire to learn and explore. There was a lot of humility ingrained into the early episodes that seems quite out of style these days.
TNG was a brilliant series in the way it really made you wonder what the crew was going to encounter next, and you weren't banging your head at the stupidity of their actions. The scenarios were realistic and believable; the character development made a lot more sense. DSN came along and incorporated a more epic-type ongoing conflict and also introduced religion as a major plot point, but showed both sides of the issue. It was especially refreshing to see villanous characters which had great depth and the ability to turn themselves around. Then Voyager came along, and like the ship itself, it was lost in space, devoid of any identity or purpose and seemed to merely be a shallow plot device to rehash the same conflicts over and over. When I first saw Enterprise, I realized the process of taking a brilliant series and turning it into "Cheers" was complete. Not to mention, Enterprise has one of the worst theme songs ever written.
I've seen a few decent Enterprise episodes, but overall, the series is drowning in unoriginality.
I hate to say it but the series does need to be put to rest. Something better will come along, probably on HBO since they seem to be the last remaining network that tackles real issues in a realistic way.
If I go to your site and I'm "attacked" by an intrusive advertisement, I'll hit the back button or close my browser window and go elsewhere.
I am sure I am not alone in having no desire to be distracted by obnoxious, and almost always badly-targetted promotions interfering with my ability to get to the information I desire in a timely manner. Unfortunately, you people seem intent on using the bludgeon-the-user-with-noise model which hasn't worked before, and won't work now.
As in other mediums, the barrage of advertising has desensitized the user to the advertiser's message. We don't pay attention to banner ads and the messages are misleading and insulting. You people still have yet to figure out how to properly use the technology at your disposal. It's a shame.
But feel free to continue blasting undesireable noise as a front end to your information. We'll continue to make better use of the technology to block it, and when that isn't possible, we'll fine tune our ability to completely ignore this crap.
That's not to say that advertising is dead. It's just different now. When I consider a product or service, I almost always ignore paid promotions. The powers that be don't seem to regulate the truthfulness of most of these ads and people are now suspect of most claims. Misleading people has become the de-facto standard in advertisers' attempt to sell. As a result, we look at testimonials and honest (non-viral) comments from our peers as to what the best products and services are. We patronize those portals that respect their users' sensibilities.
Good luck with your efforts, though I probably won't be paying attention.
The answer to that can be found by looking at how we deal with these things in other arenas.
With phone numbers, we get them "unlisted" and we give them out to the people that need to know.
With e-mail, a similar method will be employed using "whitelisting" of authorized senders and receivers. It's a natural progression.
The Habeas plan
Most ineffective effort
Ever to stop spam
(c) 2004 Mabu
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!
Here are some great sources for news online:
Financial Times - FT a good example of actual "news reporting" (as opposed to "news creating" exhibited by most companies). As a result of the commercial influence in all aspects of society nowadays, it makes perfect sense that some of the financial news sources may now be the most objective source of information. Check out this wonderful site and newspaper.
PR Watch - This site is run by the Center for Media & Democracy is a nonprofit, public interest organization funded by individuals and nonprofit foundations and dedicated to investigative reporting on the public relations industry. The Center serves citizens, journalists and researchers seeking to recognize and combat manipulative and misleading PR practices. There is an excellent weekly newsletter you can subscribe to from this site which summarizes news stories and special issues where media coverage was manipulated.
Disinfopedia - a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. More than 2500 articles outlining information and credentials on key individuals and entities involved with public policy and other areas. This is a great resource to look up the history of people in the news.
Link TV - The first national network offering a global perspective on news, current events and culture, presenting viewpoints seldom covered in the U.S. media. We present first-run documentaries on global issues, current affairs series, international news, classic foreign feature films, and the best of world music. Link TV's programming, combined with innovative use of two-way digital link-ups and our participatory web site, deepens audience engagement and encourages active participation. If you have DirecTV, this network is channel 375 - ask your cable provider if they do not make this network available - it's worth it!
Democratic Underground - What has turned out to be a polarized web site has become a watchdog for the mainstream media, the Democratic Underground exposes the hypocrisy and sleaziness in the media. Check this site out folks -- with references (something you do not find on conservative sites)
CorpWatch - A great site for information on the nefarious activities of multinational corporations. Want to find out who's paid off whom? Which governments are under the influence of which corporations? Little-known corporate relationships that explain unusual social or political events? This is the site to check.
Adbusters - In our society it has become increasingly difficult to separate editorial from advertising and many argue there is no longer a distinction. This site addresses the social changes in how people are educated by addressing the impact of news and the advertising media and exposes the propaganda campaigns. Very good reading, and in many cases, shockingly thought-provoking!
Common Dreams News Center - Billed as "Breaking news & views for the Progressive community",
this site endeavors to carry stories that the mainstream media may either not be reporting, or not telling all sides.
Canadian Broadcast Corporation - Canada's state-owned news service is widely regarded as one of the most objective sources of information.
Independent Media Center - A good source for news stories that the mainstream doesn't pick up. This site is particularly sensitive to the influence corporate America has over what is and is
This case has all the earmarks of a standard, litigious IP-based extortion scheme. That business model dictates that the main purpose is not to win, but to shake down as many people as possible. And the one thing you do not do is go after the biggest player if you're not certain you can win.
So why is SCO doing this? What are the possible reasons?
1. A last ditch effort to save the company
Most people seem to think this is what's going on, but public companies are all about making money and creating shareholder value. This is a very risky proposition that could result in the destruction of SCO. It's hard to believe the major shareholders want to roll the dice.
2. A delusional batch of executives are convinced they're right and are blindly pursuing their course.
As foolish as most of us think SCO is, I still think it's hard to believe that they're as foolish as they seem to be acting. The fact that SCO is playing games with the court and being mysterious and evasive about their evidence implies that they are more aware of the fragility of their case than they want people to believe.
3. It's a big stock scam
The major players have put together a plan to inflate SCO's stock and hope to cash out before it all comes crashing down. It's a variation on the dot-com theme of 2000, but this one is intentional and out in the open: let's create a lot of hype, resulting in inflated value, and then cash out and leave someone else holding the bag.
4. It's an elaborate plan designed to discredit Linux and the open source community.
The only way this plan fails is if the case goes to trial and SCO loses. If they win, it's a huge victory for them; if they settle, it's a huge victory for them. As time goes by, their case gets weaker and weaker. If this continues, my money is on them trying to settle with IBM.
So why wouldn't IBM settle if SCO offered them a deal? Let's look at these scenarios:
1. IBM is dependent upon Linux as part of their future product line. They need to ensure their customers that there are no IP issues.
Winning the case AND settling the case both accomplish this objective. The difference is, if the case is settled, then ONLY IBM is free and clear. IBM becomes the only legitimate Linux distributor in town and their business skyrockets.
2. IBM is a big, idealistic company that truly cares about the open-source community and will fight to keep software free.
I'm sure this kind of talk dominates the discussion at shareholder and executive meetings.
If IBM wins the case, open-source wins, and IBM "sorta" wins, but it's a hollow victory and all of a sudden IBM has tons of legitimate competition from other Linux distributors.
It is a shame that many people spend so much of their lives being distracted that their ability to "feel" has been stunted. And most people equate feeling with reacting, which aren't the same. Reacting is a form of agression, whereas feeling is a part of the process of understanding. Unfortunately for us, the latter isn't something that can be accomplished with the push of a button or the plunking down of a credit card.
Slashdot is definitely more of a community driven by people who have a desire to understand moreso than a desire to react, but even those of us who are aware of these dynamics are still subject to the ongoing influence that wants to dictate black-and-white "solutions" to complex problems. But, as many of us soon realize, we can't apply the same logical problem-solving skills to cultural and sociological issues that we do on inanimate equipment.
It's interesting to witness how we've not only become a materialistically-disposable society, but also a psychological one as well.
I urge everyone to find out if their funds are loaded with SCO stock. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's IRAs and portfolios are heading for a crash and they don't even know it.
Stock scam shareholders.
What I think will happen, even though many people disagree, is that SCO and IBM will settle. This will further propagate the FUD that keeps down the smaller Linux operators and gives both SCO and IBM what they want: a chance to come out clean and free of any IP issues.
We need to put just as much pressure on IBM to take this case all the way through. I won't be surprised if it gets settled. IBM settling would do more for IBM than winning the case, which would legitimize all of IBM's competition in the Linux marketplace.
Speaking of stock, 30+% of SCO stock is held by mutual funds and other institutional owners, so if you believe that SCO is going to lose this case, which seems likely, expect all the shareholders to take huge losses when this stock sinks. A look at the history of their stock shows it's way over-valued anyway. If you have annuities or mutual funds, you really need to find out if they have SCO in their portfolio cause you're going to get burned!
Capital Guardian Trust Company 1,177,800 8.51 $16,288,974 30-Sep-03
Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC 316,600 2.29 $4,378,578 30-Sep-03
Royce & Associates, Inc. 1,441,200 10.41 $19,931,796 30-Sep-03
Integral Capital Management V, LLC 246,730 1.78 $3,412,275 30-Sep-03
Empire Capital Partners LP 205,000 1.48 $1,961,849 30-Jun-03
Barclays Bank Plc 174,686 1.26 $2,415,907 30-Sep-03
Bjurman, Barry & Associates 160,000 1.16 $2,212,800 30-Sep-03
ING Investments, LLC 143,100 1.03 $1,979,073 30-Sep-03
Oberweis Asset Management Inc. 112,000 0.81 $1,548,960 30-Sep-03
Whitney Asset Management LLC 76,967 0.56 $1,064,453 30-Sep-03
More details HERE.
I've always been enthralled by the idea of integrating technology into exercise so that people were more motivated to engage in cardiovascular activities. One of the best examples of this is the Dance Dance video game. One can't deny that getting good at the game is directly proportional to how in shape you are. In a market dominated by games where people hone skills such as shooting people, it's a refreshing change. Disney Quest also has some interesting video games that involve lots of physical effort and something like their giant human pinball simulation is an all-around exercise.
Now what we need is some kind of game plug-in that exposes players to sunlight and gets their Seratonin levels up to norm.
What's wrong with islands of networks?
If you want some open utopia, why don't you post under your real name? Why not list your address and personal information in your signature?
An ideal communications network will be a reflection of how accessible its participants desire to be. Maybe I don't want my refrigerator to have its own publicly-accessible IP address? Is that so wrong?
How did you expect this to turn out anyway?
There's a difference between bugs and glaring, exploitable security holes.
Microsoft has bugs in their OS that go unfixed for years at a time, if ever.
There are also differences between operating system anomolies and application anomolies. You can't take into account Windows Update patches and then compare them to security fixes for individual unix applications -- if you want to do that, you'll find that there is also a plethora of security patches and updates for various Microsoft products like Office/Word/Excel, etc. that are not being counted in the tally.