Just to be clear, what we're talking about is licensing and regulation of mail servers. You can couch it in technical terms like "whitelist", but it's really a regulatory issue. Even if you try to manage it with a non-governmental, international body like ICANN, disputes are still going to end up in the courts, and without some legislation-provided ability to do sometihng more than remove whitelist entries, spammers will see it as a minor obstacle, nothing more.
It is a regulatory issue in one respect, but not in another. It's regulatory in that for it to work, it has to be a singular, formally-sanctioned effort by a majority of the major ISPs online (as the TLD system is). But it's not "regulatory" in that in would be mandated upon the masses involuntarily.
The idea is that a few key countries mandate the creation of this central authority. It could be subsidized by a licensing fee or a slight increase in domain registration fees. I feel most users would pay an extra buck or two a year to finance this - not that this effort even really needs much funding if any. Individual users have set up RBLs that require even more resources than the SMTP whitelist would require.
ISPs choose whether they want to employ the whitelist or not. It would be voluntary, but there would be one central whitelist. ORBS is a good example of how this can be done with a blacklist but without some official sanction, as responsible as they may be in managing these things, they don't have the credibility they need (even though large ISPs like AOL do use ORBS).
The tech communitity created the open-source movement. All the various components that make it work, make diverse projects involving different developers all around the world work together is a fraction of the effort that would be required to implement a central smtp whitelist.
If you think that the administration of such a system would be corrupt, don't allow it to be! The tech community has proven it can lead the way to innovation and this effort would be a cakewalk in comparison to other OS projects. We'd have only ourselves to blame if we allowed a bunch of appointed dorks to administer the nature of how we communicate, which is what everyone's doing now!
While ICANN is not a good example of the kind of leadership that is possible, the TLD system does represent a fully-functional centrally-located DNS system. The same structure could be utilized to manage a centrally-located SMTP whitelist. You solicit RFCs from the community to establish the guidelines and ethical standards and procedures for participating and managing the program. It would work.
Not all buracracies are ineffective. The TLD system performs beautifully. We could learn from ICANN's mistakes and improve upon the system.
I disagree. An officially-sanctioned SMTP whitelist would deal with 95% of the spam problem. This would force spammers to act ethically or not be part of the whitelisted network. SMTP doesn't need a change. You implement trusted computing on a server level. This also would stop all the virus/worm propagating via infected PCs turning themselves into unauthorized mail relays.
The problem with this idea is that it's a CURE for spam, instead of the pitiful TREATMENTS that our authorities and corporations want to perpetrate which they profit from.
...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.
Wrong. Imprison these people and this will deter others - we're not talking about crack addicts. These guys break into computer networks and steal resources and they go on television and in the media because the authorities don't enforce the laws. There will always be spammers but there won't be as much spam and big operations won't be able to exist.
You are right that we need authentication. We need a national registry of responsible smtp relays and users can choose to only accept mail from relays that follow ethical practices. That's the other half of the solution.
Here is a list of the Attorney Generals around the country and the world. Everyone should contact their AG and demand that they prosecute these crimes. Until the public puts pressure on the authorities to enforce the crimes these spammers commit, nothing is going to change.
Why isn't this guy in jail? There's tons of evidence of him violating all sorts of laws. The FBI should pick him up now. It's a stain on the face of law enforcement that losers like this can go around bragging about committing crimes.
This has to be the goofiest idea Microsoft has ever come up with. Only a company with monopoly-type power could even consider implementing such an ineffective and wasteful scheme.
Ultimately it comes down to something similar in nature to a whitelist, but automatically defeatable at the expense of time, bandwidth and cpu resources. I don't see how this would thwart any spammers as they basically steal these resources from third parties, so this boneheaded scheme would only penalize innocent networks. So spam propagates a little slower? You can slow down spamming a lot faster by locking a few of these sleazebags in jail and not cause every network in the world to have to boost their resources.
I keep saying, the real solution to this problem is incredibly simple: a sanctioned smtp relay whitelist. Unlike Microsoft's crazy idea which would require a complete overhaul of the smtp system, a sanctioned whitelist could be implemented very easily with the existing systems in place.
It's funny that MS's idea is to mimmick the postal service in some form, but my idea of an smtp whitelist is more analogous. The USPS won't deliver to any arbitrary address. It has to be recognized and registered. As opposed to the analogy involving MS's idea where a postman would simply ask someone at a new address a goofy trivia question they'd have to answer before being able to accept mail.
IMO, there are certain universal truths that need to be taken into account when we address this problem:
1. The pay-per-email model, in any form cannot and will not work. It doesn't matter whether it's Cringely's idea of charging cyber postage, or MS's idea of offloading the burden to mail relays. Nobody is going to sign up.
If anyone managed to actually get an effective pay-per-postage e-mail model, it would end up being an smtp relay whitelist!
2. All recipient authentication models eventually gravitate towards the concept of a whitelist. Why beat around the bush? Let's call a spade a spade and work on models that directly address the issue of creating an authoritative method of controlling the smtp WAN.
3. The spam problem is not about e-mail or the content of e-mail messages; it's not about people getting mail they didn't ask for. The real problem with the spam epidemic has to do with theft and unauthorized exploitation of third-party resources. In most cases these are criminal offenses, that the authorities have not been able to deal with properly.
So the idea of implementing more elaborate hardware or software to thwart spam is meaningless. Why force those that are already suffering reduced bandwidth and resources to endure even more for a system that WILL NOT WORK?
There are two essential ways to solve the spam problem:
1. Beef up enforcement and prosecution of the crimes involved in spamming, and work on getting cooperation and consistency in policy among all the various nations online.
2. Implement a voluntary smtp whitelist where mail servers register and agree to adhere to certain ethical standards. Let networks choose if they wish to take advantage of the smtp whitelist.
In other words, the Cato Institute is composed of anonymous cowards who like to arrogantly defend the nobility of the organization with which they're associated, yet prefer to not identify themselves? Pardon me if the credibility of your argument escapes me.
Interesting subject. Some people get really excited about the holidays, looking at it as a materialistic boon. Others loathe the idea that a social mandate dictates that they are to give items to everyone they know, and then have to make stressful decisions as to which of their friends fall into that "gift recipient" category and which don't. And then there's always the situation where someone who isn't on your list, gives you something and you feel weird about it.
I don't know what's worse. Running around trying to find something meaningful for someone as a gift, or opening presents from people you care about and wondering if you ended up with some impulse item that's devoid of any insight into who you are.
I've always tried to give things to my friends that didn't fall into that impulse or heres-the-latest-gadget-even-though-i'm-not-sure-i t's-something-you-like category. I used to think that I was one of those people who is very hard to buy gifts for, because I tend to get what I want, when I want and don't mull around much advertising things I'd like but don't have. But lately, I've had a few friends completely blow me away with things that I didn't even consider, but turned out to be great gifts. Anything that reflects some time, personal effort or thought is always rewarding. So I no longer buy into the idea that some people are hard to buy gifts for... it's not about money; it's about taking some time to pay attention to what they like.
This year I found a number of otherwise mundane items that I could make special. For friends that are into cooking, I picked up some cookbooks by a famous chef in the area, and then tracked him down and got him to sign the books to my friends. Making things for people is also a good idea. One year I made up batches of herbed olive oil. Another year I smoked a bunch of hams and turkeys myself and gave them out. For friends that are into history or science, I'd keep my eyes open for interesting, very old artifacts on ebay. Wine also makes a good gift if you know what's good. A little research can yield some inexpensive, yet exceptional wines that are otherwise hard to find.
One of the weirdest gifts I ever got was from an ex-girlfriend (who at the time wasn't an ex). A gardenia bush. That in itself might not seem that weird, except I found a book she accidently left at my place on Voodoo spells, with a "love spell" page dog-eared that required placing Gardenia bushes around the target's house as a component!
All I'm suggesting is that if you give a million bucks to an organization, there's a good chance you have some influence over that organization. If your business was "made" by making products for the military industrial complex and the energy industry, that's something worth contemplating when you consider whether the organization is subject to influence or not. Common sense.
This organization most certainly has quite a lot of right-wing puppeteers. The Cato institute is funded by some very powerful people that have ties to oil & gas, heating and cooling businesses.
John Hazen White and Happy White, Benefactors of the Cato Institute, have made a long-term pledge of $1 million to support the Cato Institute's fiscal policy work. The Whites' generous pledge strengthens the ongoing research of Cato's director of fiscal policy studies Stephen Moore and fiscal policy analyst Dean Stansel. Projects to date have included policy studies of the capital gains tax, corporate welfare, and the work vs. welfare tradeoff.
Yea, capital gains, corporate welfare and issues relating to work vs. welfare. You're right. Those are all left-wing agendas. I'm sure the Cato institute is pumping out propganda left and right proving how counterproductive lowering the capital gains tax is. It is you sir, who seems to be ignorant.
Furthermore, a short history of Taco, Inc. one of the multimillion dollar corporations the White family started, has its roots deep in industrial applications involving heating & cooling systems, industrial energy and oil and gas fields.
Yea, that sounds like a moderate organization. No right wing agendas to Cato.
Who's behind the Cato Institute? Well it seems a major benefactor is the John Hazen White family. What business are they in? Heating and cooling systems and a host of other ventures that are dependent upon oil and gas and all those nifty industrial applications that the global warming scientific community are concerned about. I did a little bit of checking and found little tidbits here and there - there's probably a lot mroe to it, but the key to finding out the agenda of this organization is to follow who's funding it.
With the $99 price point, replacing the battery is no longer necessary. Just buy a new one when your old one dies.
It's that kind of wasteful, shallow, selfish attitude that really ticks me off. The components of this unit have the ability to last twenty times longer than the battery, so the notion of throwing it away because it's cheaper is narrow-minded and short-sighted, and certainly not in the spirit of Slashdotters who like to make products exceed their expectations and not contribute to the continued, totally avoidable, piling up of trash. I'll tell you what, give us your address and we'll dump all these dead units in your front yard and you can see how you like it.
I don't see any people within SCO buying shares. They're all unloading it. That shows quite a lot of faith in their cause:
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 91 $15.05 0 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 300 $15.06 0 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 1,300 $15.056 0 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 4,949 $15.1 0 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 91 $1.12 91 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 300 $1.12 300 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 1,300 $1.12 1300 GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 4,949 $1.12 4949 OLSON MICHAEL P VP 11/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 82 $16.3 51830 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.4 51912 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.6 54717 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.69 54817 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 500 $16.92 51330 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 563 $16.8 50767 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,100 $16.5 53617 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,350 $16.75 54917 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,605 $16.42 52012 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 4,500 $17.0 47330 OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 OE 5,500 $2.07 56267 OLSON MICHAEL P VP 10/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A OLSON MICHAEL P VP 09/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 23 $14.721 105300 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 300 $14.714 105000 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 400 $14.72 105323 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 4,277 $14.71 105723 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 700 $10.44 119300 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 4,300 $10.4 115000 BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 AS 7,000 $10.9 221043 BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 144 7,000 N/A N/A BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 1,900 $12.57 123100 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 3,100 $12.56 120000 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 100 $12.81 129900 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 4,900 $12.8 125000 HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.35 23894 HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.43 24494 HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 500 $13.4 23994 HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 900 $13.44 24594 HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 3,400 $13.3 20494 HUNSAKER JEFF F. EMP 07/23/2003 144 5,000 N/A N/A BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.0 130000 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.2 149900 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 200 $13.19 149700 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 800 $13.02 145900 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 1,300 $13.1 130100 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,000 $13.07 146700 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,700 $13.13 131400 BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 10,800 $12.91 135100
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, what we're talking about is licensing and regulation of mail servers. You can couch it in technical terms like "whitelist", but it's really a regulatory issue. Even if you try to manage it with a non-governmental, international body like ICANN, disputes are still going to end up in the courts, and without some legislation-provided ability to do sometihng more than remove whitelist entries, spammers will see it as a minor obstacle, nothing more.
It is a regulatory issue in one respect, but not in another. It's regulatory in that for it to work, it has to be a singular, formally-sanctioned effort by a majority of the major ISPs online (as the TLD system is). But it's not "regulatory" in that in would be mandated upon the masses involuntarily.
The idea is that a few key countries mandate the creation of this central authority. It could be subsidized by a licensing fee or a slight increase in domain registration fees. I feel most users would pay an extra buck or two a year to finance this - not that this effort even really needs much funding if any. Individual users have set up RBLs that require even more resources than the SMTP whitelist would require.
ISPs choose whether they want to employ the whitelist or not. It would be voluntary, but there would be one central whitelist. ORBS is a good example of how this can be done with a blacklist but without some official sanction, as responsible as they may be in managing these things, they don't have the credibility they need (even though large ISPs like AOL do use ORBS).
Yes it does, but our boneheaded federal authorities are more interested in pursuing 13-year olds downloading Bon Jovi music.
and the one thing that motivates spammers
real.. real bad analogy. Mitnick was never motivated by money or personal security, which is the one thing that is threatened by law enforcement.
The tech communitity created the open-source movement. All the various components that make it work, make diverse projects involving different developers all around the world work together is a fraction of the effort that would be required to implement a central smtp whitelist.
If you think that the administration of such a system would be corrupt, don't allow it to be! The tech community has proven it can lead the way to innovation and this effort would be a cakewalk in comparison to other OS projects. We'd have only ourselves to blame if we allowed a bunch of appointed dorks to administer the nature of how we communicate, which is what everyone's doing now!
While ICANN is not a good example of the kind of leadership that is possible, the TLD system does represent a fully-functional centrally-located DNS system. The same structure could be utilized to manage a centrally-located SMTP whitelist. You solicit RFCs from the community to establish the guidelines and ethical standards and procedures for participating and managing the program. It would work.
Not all buracracies are ineffective. The TLD system performs beautifully. We could learn from ICANN's mistakes and improve upon the system.
There is no silver antispam bullet
I disagree. An officially-sanctioned SMTP whitelist would deal with 95% of the spam problem. This would force spammers to act ethically or not be part of the whitelisted network. SMTP doesn't need a change. You implement trusted computing on a server level. This also would stop all the virus/worm propagating via infected PCs turning themselves into unauthorized mail relays.
The problem with this idea is that it's a CURE for spam, instead of the pitiful TREATMENTS that our authorities and corporations want to perpetrate which they profit from.
...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.
Wrong. Imprison these people and this will deter others - we're not talking about crack addicts. These guys break into computer networks and steal resources and they go on television and in the media because the authorities don't enforce the laws. There will always be spammers but there won't be as much spam and big operations won't be able to exist.
You are right that we need authentication. We need a national registry of responsible smtp relays and users can choose to only accept mail from relays that follow ethical practices. That's the other half of the solution.
Here is a list of the Attorney Generals around the country and the world. Everyone should contact their AG and demand that they prosecute these crimes. Until the public puts pressure on the authorities to enforce the crimes these spammers commit, nothing is going to change.
Why isn't this guy in jail? There's tons of evidence of him violating all sorts of laws. The FBI should pick him up now. It's a stain on the face of law enforcement that losers like this can go around bragging about committing crimes.
Perhaps Shatner didn't do as well with his Priceline stock as he thought, and needs to make a little more money?
While I agree his solo album is one of the worst things ever produced on vinyl, his work with Ben Folds in Fear of Pop was brilliant.
Actually, they were worried the story was
a hoax by someone who wanted to create fear
and panic.
In addition to "Fair and Balanced", I believe Fox News has "Fear and Panic" copyrighted. Watch yourself or you could get sued.
the FBI had concerns that the smallpox may have been planted in the book
In a related story, the authorities are now scouring libraries coast to coast to find the book entitled, "Where I Am Hiding" by Osama Bin Laden.
This has to be the goofiest idea Microsoft has ever come up with. Only a company with monopoly-type power could even consider implementing such an ineffective and wasteful scheme.
Ultimately it comes down to something similar in nature to a whitelist, but automatically defeatable at the expense of time, bandwidth and cpu resources. I don't see how this would thwart any spammers as they basically steal these resources from third parties, so this boneheaded scheme would only penalize innocent networks. So spam propagates a little slower? You can slow down spamming a lot faster by locking a few of these sleazebags in jail and not cause every network in the world to have to boost their resources.
I keep saying, the real solution to this problem is incredibly simple: a sanctioned smtp relay whitelist. Unlike Microsoft's crazy idea which would require a complete overhaul of the smtp system, a sanctioned whitelist could be implemented very easily with the existing systems in place.
It's funny that MS's idea is to mimmick the postal service in some form, but my idea of an smtp whitelist is more analogous. The USPS won't deliver to any arbitrary address. It has to be recognized and registered. As opposed to the analogy involving MS's idea where a postman would simply ask someone at a new address a goofy trivia question they'd have to answer before being able to accept mail.
IMO, there are certain universal truths that need to be taken into account when we address this problem:
1. The pay-per-email model, in any form cannot and will not work. It doesn't matter whether it's Cringely's idea of charging cyber postage, or MS's idea of offloading the burden to mail relays. Nobody is going to sign up.
If anyone managed to actually get an effective pay-per-postage e-mail model, it would end up being an smtp relay whitelist!
2. All recipient authentication models eventually gravitate towards the concept of a whitelist. Why beat around the bush? Let's call a spade a spade and work on models that directly address the issue of creating an authoritative method of controlling the smtp WAN.
3. The spam problem is not about e-mail or the content of e-mail messages; it's not about people getting mail they didn't ask for. The real problem with the spam epidemic has to do with theft and unauthorized exploitation of third-party resources. In most cases these are criminal offenses, that the authorities have not been able to deal with properly.
So the idea of implementing more elaborate hardware or software to thwart spam is meaningless. Why force those that are already suffering reduced bandwidth and resources to endure even more for a system that WILL NOT WORK?
There are two essential ways to solve the spam problem:
1. Beef up enforcement and prosecution of the crimes involved in spamming, and work on getting cooperation and consistency in policy among all the various nations online.
2. Implement a voluntary smtp whitelist where mail servers register and agree to adhere to certain ethical standards. Let networks choose if they wish to take advantage of the smtp whitelist.
Problem solved.
In other words, the Cato Institute is composed of anonymous cowards who like to arrogantly defend the nobility of the organization with which they're associated, yet prefer to not identify themselves? Pardon me if the credibility of your argument escapes me.
Interesting subject. Some people get really excited about the holidays, looking at it as a materialistic boon. Others loathe the idea that a social mandate dictates that they are to give items to everyone they know, and then have to make stressful decisions as to which of their friends fall into that "gift recipient" category and which don't. And then there's always the situation where someone who isn't on your list, gives you something and you feel weird about it.
i t's-something-you-like category. I used to think that I was one of those people who is very hard to buy gifts for, because I tend to get what I want, when I want and don't mull around much advertising things I'd like but don't have. But lately, I've had a few friends completely blow me away with things that I didn't even consider, but turned out to be great gifts. Anything that reflects some time, personal effort or thought is always rewarding. So I no longer buy into the idea that some people are hard to buy gifts for... it's not about money; it's about taking some time to pay attention to what they like.
I don't know what's worse. Running around trying to find something meaningful for someone as a gift, or opening presents from people you care about and wondering if you ended up with some impulse item that's devoid of any insight into who you are.
I've always tried to give things to my friends that didn't fall into that impulse or heres-the-latest-gadget-even-though-i'm-not-sure-
This year I found a number of otherwise mundane items that I could make special. For friends that are into cooking, I picked up some cookbooks by a famous chef in the area, and then tracked him down and got him to sign the books to my friends. Making things for people is also a good idea. One year I made up batches of herbed olive oil. Another year I smoked a bunch of hams and turkeys myself and gave them out. For friends that are into history or science, I'd keep my eyes open for interesting, very old artifacts on ebay. Wine also makes a good gift if you know what's good. A little research can yield some inexpensive, yet exceptional wines that are otherwise hard to find.
One of the weirdest gifts I ever got was from an ex-girlfriend (who at the time wasn't an ex). A gardenia bush. That in itself might not seem that weird, except I found a book she accidently left at my place on Voodoo spells, with a "love spell" page dog-eared that required placing Gardenia bushes around the target's house as a component!
All I'm suggesting is that if you give a million bucks to an organization, there's a good chance you have some influence over that organization. If your business was "made" by making products for the military industrial complex and the energy industry, that's something worth contemplating when you consider whether the organization is subject to influence or not. Common sense.
Yea, capital gains, corporate welfare and issues relating to work vs. welfare. You're right. Those are all left-wing agendas. I'm sure the Cato institute is pumping out propganda left and right proving how counterproductive lowering the capital gains tax is. It is you sir, who seems to be ignorant.
Furthermore, a short history of Taco, Inc. one of the multimillion dollar corporations the White family started, has its roots deep in industrial applications involving heating & cooling systems, industrial energy and oil and gas fields.
Yea, that sounds like a moderate organization. No right wing agendas to Cato.
Who's behind the Cato Institute? Well it seems a major benefactor is the John Hazen White family. What business are they in? Heating and cooling systems and a host of other ventures that are dependent upon oil and gas and all those nifty industrial applications that the global warming scientific community are concerned about. I did a little bit of checking and found little tidbits here and there - there's probably a lot mroe to it, but the key to finding out the agenda of this organization is to follow who's funding it.
I replaced my strap with this. It's a great,strong strap and very comfy.
It's that kind of wasteful, shallow, selfish attitude that really ticks me off. The components of this unit have the ability to last twenty times longer than the battery, so the notion of throwing it away because it's cheaper is narrow-minded and short-sighted, and certainly not in the spirit of Slashdotters who like to make products exceed their expectations and not contribute to the continued, totally avoidable, piling up of trash. I'll tell you what, give us your address and we'll dump all these dead units in your front yard and you can see how you like it.
The first computer I actually owned was a TRS-80 Model III. I was quite excited when I learned to program the graphics of this 128x48 display.
It's the perfect balance between holiday cheerfulness and depressing vocational stagnation. Jung would be proud.
Consumer: Sounds cool. What about the battery? Have you all thought about having a user-replaceable battery?
Steve Jobs: STRIPES! The new iPod will come in STRIPES! Who cares about the battery when you have STRIPES!
I don't see any people within SCO buying shares. They're all unloading it. That shows quite a lot of faith in their cause:
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 91 $15.05 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 300 $15.06 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 1,300 $15.056 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 4,949 $15.1 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 91 $1.12 91
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 300 $1.12 300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 1,300 $1.12 1300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 4,949 $1.12 4949
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 11/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 82 $16.3 51830
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.4 51912
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.6 54717
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.69 54817
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 500 $16.92 51330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 563 $16.8 50767
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,100 $16.5 53617
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,350 $16.75 54917
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,605 $16.42 52012
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 4,500 $17.0 47330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 OE 5,500 $2.07 56267
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 10/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 09/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 23 $14.721 105300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 300 $14.714 105000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 400 $14.72 105323
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 4,277 $14.71 105723
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 700 $10.44 119300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 4,300 $10.4 115000
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 AS 7,000 $10.9 221043
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 144 7,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 1,900 $12.57 123100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 3,100 $12.56 120000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 100 $12.81 129900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 4,900 $12.8 125000
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.35 23894
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.43 24494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 500 $13.4 23994
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 900 $13.44 24594
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 3,400 $13.3 20494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. EMP 07/23/2003 144 5,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.0 130000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.2 149900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 200 $13.19 149700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 800 $13.02 145900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 1,300 $13.1 130100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,000 $13.07 146700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,700 $13.13 131400
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 10,800 $12.91 135100