Each mobile standard defines a maximum, which the accredited hardware maker needs to abide by. Yes it's a hardware limit but it's not determined by the hardware maker, but by the standard they want to be accreditted for.
Example: for GSM standard phones, it's 2 Watts maximum.
For older analog phones it was 3.6 Watts.
For CDMA2000 and D-Amps it's currently under 1 Watt.
the story starts like a ludlum novel saying israli agents noticed the sites vanishing from the web...
it's like "this is a nonstory but let's mention unverifiable israeli agents and it'll get posted"
because i read it to the end and there's no proof whatsoever of anything, it could be the martians or the russians or a temporary website problem, but the sites were shut down, this journalist had to post something. so let's mention some israeli secret agents who noone will ever be able to verify and therefore we have something called "credibility".
the mention of isareli agents makes no sense with the rest of the story. the best source is always a "XXX country agent" because you obviously can't verify the info anyhow.
but you used plenty of demagoguery to imply, Google owes something.
If you read back you'll see I said nothing of the sort. I said many times nobody HAS to do anything, nobody OWES anything. I said they SHOULD. Demagoguery is what you're using to justify the unjustifiable.....you're just a passionate fan of Google.
Whatever. Google does not owe anything -- so long as it does not force you to use it.
Listen, my arguments are based on free will, good will and civility. Yours are rough comments made based on HAVE TO, MUST DO and FORCE TO. No Google does not force me to do anything. But by your reasoning then why the heck do you say "good morning sir" to the bus driver if nobody is forcing you.
And no, it does not index my email messages, because I do not use GMail.
Last time I looked millions used Gmail and of those millions probably 99.9% do not know their email is being cross-related to their Google 30 year session habits cookie, Orkut buddies and Blog posts. They also have no clue that Google actually can cross their geo-IP location with a satellinte photo of their town.
Google is the stock market version of the NSA.
Neither should you, if you dislike them.
I don't dislike them. I am raising awareness to relevant issues. Vigilance is the price of liberty. You for example are now a citizen that may disagree with me but you KNOW what I've told you. When Google really becomes a tool for evil you'll remember I told you this in july 2005.
In a few years Google will be seen as the smart guys who leeched everyone's work to make a buck. So?
They're kidnapping your neighbour. So what?
which is not far from claiming, that librarians leech on the writers
Thank you for bringing this up. I was about to mention librarians on this post.
Librarian's work is open-source, the way they classify books is known to everyone. Plus librarians indeed don't make billions, it's actually a pretty humble job done by very respectable people who usually don't get any recognition unless they become the first lady of the US.
Librarians do not take the entire text off of books and run them through a secret routine which somehow seems to help me find other people's work.
Librarians are not traded in the stock-market, librarians don't sells ads in the library where other people's work resides.
Librarians do not read your mail to show you a product relevant to your current interests.
Librarians do not cross-relate GPS information with satellite photos and your geo-IP.
In short please don't insult librarians!
Google is a leech, a private NSA. It's not illegal YET but it's immoral. I actually sympathize with them and admire their work. But that doesn't make them any better.
We're working with very different frequencies here.
90% of my post was about Google leeching other people's work, which included:
1) web site content on Google.com 2) email messages on Gmail 3) real world photographs in maps.google 4) people's relationships in Orkut.com 5) people's posts and ideas in Blogger.com 6) open source software without giving back
I didn't propose a lawsuit and DEMANDED anything from Google, I brought up what I believe are very important points, some of them being:
1) google, unlike yahoo and msn, does not produce anything. all their content is spidered, scraped, form 3rd parties
2) google indexes your email messages to present you with relevant ads
3) google sets 30 year HTTP cookies, for what purpose?
Don't distort what I'm saying please. First I RECCOMMEND Google give more back and did not demand, second I did not say they were bad. Thirdly I did not say they HAD to do anything, but as I said before you also don't have to be polite, you don't have to wear clothes or brush your teeth, doing things only because you have to makes you a chimp.
In a few years Google will be seen as the smart guys who leeched everyone's work to make a buck.
"Google does not threaten our privacy because it only indexes things that are already available on the internet"
Like your Gmail inbox?
"If they do not want to give up the algorithm or tools they use to index/search, then they have that right. Wishing otherwise does not make it so. And typing in all caps does not make your point any stronger."
If Linus Torvalds reasoned like you we probably wouldn't have the very system Slashdot is running on.
"They produce a service which people find useful. Just because they don't make a hard good does not mean they do not produce anything."
As a software developer I may relate to what you're saying. Keep going please.
"I think that Google's contributions to the open source field are much more significant than you claim."
I'd like to quote you for this reply : "Wishing does not make it so"
"They also have programs such as the Summer of Code where they pay college students to contribute to open source projects."
How nice of them. I'm sure the contributed projects do not become a patented Google program in the Fall.
"I don't really know what your problem is with Google. "
None. Just trying to raise awareness to the fact that Gmail + Google + Blogger + Earth + Orkut + 30 year HTTP cookies is a dangerous mix.
"They don't alter your content in any way, and they provide a valuable service to people. If you don't like Google, you don't have to use it."
We don't know what they do with my content...or do you know something we all don't? And about that last point c'mon man that's not an argument is it?
My friend you started on a painfully sour note, you better have a point now.
"Google is a service company, their products(Keyhole, Search Appliance, etc) are extensions of their services really.. They provide a service that leverages other things."
Maybe all the logic I got in my brain is wrong, or maybe "leverages other things" can mean anything whatsoever including everything I said?
"Mining the information of 8 billion pages is not a product"
Read that sentence again please and think before you continue your argument.
"You are not, in any way, forced to use Google's services/products."
I base my opinion on the fact that ever since we defeated the Nazis that I'm actually not forced to do anything, thank you.
"Thus, they are not a the end all of the world, you can simply choose to not work with them. Really, it is easy."
I suddenly feel a bit sick and wish to discontinue this discussion exactly here. Thank you for your interesting reply.
First of all I don't see a problem with Google having a copy of my content. The point I was trying to make is that, BY LOGIC, without sites Google makes zero money, with sites Google makes billions. So OUR sites make up Google.
Secondly: Full-text search means there's a verbatim copy of your web pages inside Google's brain. It's not a link(pointer) to the content, it is THE content itself. Therefore you did not think before replying, you replied based on passion not reason. If Google only had links, that'd be different.
" First of all, have you ever used Google's mail service?"
I've seen it, not interested thanks.
"It does not leech off of news agencies..."
Surely you must be joking Mr. Feynman.
Google News != Gmail
Google is a leech, period. They should be doing more than trying to become the stock market version of the NSA.
Your point being? To shut up someone who said the truth about Google? In a few years all this passion will be over and everyone's gonna realise what a leech Google has been all this time.
as i said above, this is a piece of awfully crafted corporate propaganda.
"ok our music sales are great because bananas are selling well in the UK and although we have no clue how many illegal downloads there were in torrent, soulseek and 200 other networks we still concluded that our sales are doing great, thank you"
Google feeds off everybody's work to make billions of dollars.
The Google mail system combined with Google Earth(or the simpler Maps), Orkut and Blogs is the end of privacy.
Not only is Google a major threat to our constitutional right to privacy but it is also a major leech of other people's copyrighted material.
Google does not produce one line of content, their news service leeches other agencies' work, their search engine leeches everybody's web sites...
Sometimes you just gotta ask yourself how something as absurd as google goes by loved by everyone and adored as if it were anything more than a huge copyright infringement case.
They provide a nice service, granted. But this service is based on our content, shouldn't we get a share of the revenue? No! Instead we PAY to have ads on their results which in turn are 100% our content. I'd like to meet the marketing genius that convinced everyone to produce content so Google could feed off of it.
If you go read some SEO forums you'll see that the google representatives tell you to produce tons of clean content and you'll rank higher. AH GENIUS! Give them MORE free content so their engine offers more of YOUR work to others, make THEM more money against your work.
AH! As if it weren't enough, Google runs on open-source software because they HAD to leech other people's programming too. They developed proprietary tools, a proprietary, secretly held algorithm WITH open source tools!!!! Google developed a fascinating distributed filesystem and guess what WE THE DEVELOPERS OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE WHICH GOOGLE LEECHED DO NOT GET TO SEE IT!!!!
In short : Google produces nothing, they organize your stuff for you without you asking for it, and they get really well paid for that. They use open source tools but give nothing back to open source, they use your website and they give you some traffic in return, traffic which your content earned anyway.
Don't want to make any friends by this, I'm being honestly open about what I think of Google and I'd like other opinions on this and why I may be wrong.
Normally the population's sense of security can be measured by how many prefer a movie at home versus at the theater.
When the movie-at-home crowd grows larger than the theater crowd it means more people are unwilling to leave their homes for some reason. This comes from a sense of insecurity and fear because the natural human behavior is that of joining crowds.
Microsoft has managed to link itself with bad code to a degree that, recently, I spent over 40 minutes convincing a programming team that Code Complete was actually a good book and did not reflect the bad quality of Microsoft software.
If Google is to become what it seems to be morphing into we may well be staring at the next Microsoft.
Remember Microsoft had similar early days, chaotic work environment, great brains, a management that hired more great brains....
And...guys....they now have Rob Pike on the team. C'mon, concede already! Google has style.
The question is...why not just go with the already existing Microsoft? Do we need another giant? I guess we do.
There's a fox in the barn.
I don't like this one bit. Why this emphasis on Netbeans, OpenThis, OpenThat if these programs run on any hardware? Hardware that is normally cheaper than Sun(although admitedly not as cool)?
If every Sun software became open then Sun, the hardware company, will go the way of VA-Linux.
Have they given up and are now willing to die shooting (at Microsoft)? What is left in their magic hats now that Solaris is free?
The last time I read about a revolutionary chip that would forever change the world and the company was so great they even had the Linux creator as a board member it turned out to be not much more than a loud fart in the wind. (Enter Transmeta)
This is a distributed-processing-capable chip. They're moving software into the chip, doing what software can do in a more compact and probably more efficient way. There's nothing revolutionary here and besides being a dupe story it's way overrated. The only attractive here is the fact PS3 will use it instead of embedding something open, like Mosix.
And no it won't "eventually take over the PC market."
If blacklisting worked we'd be rid of spam. Google tried it, they quickly noticed spam growth is geometric, their own capability is not.
Blacklisting is bullshit, they gave you mods up for ranting but my post is still concise, the solution is technical : authentication.
You ignored the fact I mentioned that Wietse Venema wrote Postfix, and I offered a solution : add proper authentication to Postfix.
You also ignored what I said about SASL, which is a mediocre authentication system. I proposed fixes, but you went on to discuss blacklisting.
Blacklists are what FBI uses to find thousands of criminals. In cyberspace you know well there are 4 billion possible IPv4 and the near infinite capabilities of IPv6 are just around the corner.
Infinite domain names combinations, cheap domain names and a universe of IP addresses. Blacklist that....you'll spend the rest of your life either running queries on the blacklist or updating the blacklist.
Authentication and legislation: the only solutions to spam, whether you like it or not.
I provided a clear and simple suggestions to fix this : add decent authentication to SMTP daemons, legislate and eliminate mediocre auth. schemes such as SASL.
To agree with what I'm about to say you have to assume the following: to spam you need 2 things : 1) at least one SMTP server is open to SPAM(can be the spammer's own) and 2) there's an uplink somewhere that allows this SPAM into the SMTP network.
With the above in mind, why the heck does anyone hold SPAM CONFERENCES?
Uplink providers offer the 2nd pre-requisite to spammers. Why? Because SPAM makes them money. They charge by the Gigabyte and SPAMmers send out gigs and gigs of crap through their uplink.
And 1) is easy to obtain, the best SMTP routing software is open source(Sendmail, Exim, Postfix, ___ So to me a SPAM conference is hypocrisy at high.
"We", "we" as in all the accomplices of the lack of regulation for the Internet being us, are guilty of letting SPAM running rampant.
How to defeat SPAM once and for all? Simple
First of all something better than SASL has to come up for authentication of legitimate senders. SASL is as ridiculous as it gets for SMTO authentication.
SMTP software providers, even open source ones, need to provide decent authentication. Microsoft already does, you can authenticate with Exchange Server and legitimate mail. Setting this up with Sendmail and Postfix involves setting up a buggy, alpha-level authentication scheme called SASL. Forget SASL, it sucks, don't shove it down our throats. Postfix is written by none less than Wietse Venema(hacking demigod) and he surely could have inserted a simple getpwent authentication scheme into Postfix, therefore legitmate local network UNIX users could send mail. He didn't. He's to blame for SPAM too.
Legislation. Legislation can trigger the capitalist side of the equation. With SPAM being illegal it would be easy to make sure that the uplink provider's profits from SPAM became illegal as well.
The truth : SPAM is out there because frankly nobody cares enough to find a real fix for it.
(Sorry for replying to my own, it's nostalgia time so...)
A bit offtopic but speaking of the first experiences I had with UNIX : I remember right after I had the chance to type on a UNIX tty(yes I tried 'dir') that I bought a magazine on a flight to Brazil.
Must have been 1990 or 1991, yeah 20++ or so years after UNIX was born, and this magazine had an article by John Dvorak or Bill Machrone, I think it was one of the fat guys (sorry, that's how I remember them) and he compared UNIX to pizza and he ridiculed UNIX, and made jokes of UNIX, and he all but proclaimed the doom of UNIX.
I'd like to shove that one on his nose today.
Ah, how I miss the guys with the crystal balls from the 80's, John Dvorak and these folks hardly got any of their predictions right. They were as right as Henry Blodget when this latter fool predicted EToys would be an internet gorilla, "Strong Buy" he gladly proclaimed, now he's a convicted felon.
Also in nostalgia, "the good old days of Phrack" I will call them as tribute to our friend, I remember that the same magazine, either on that cover or the ones shortly before/after it happily screamed "IS THERE LIVE BEYOND 33MHZ". That was 33MHz cpu "front side bus". Which of course is a candidate (of a bad) joke for the last page of Playboy Mag. nowadays....
Lastly just as Henry Blodget was convicted for fooling stock market naives I suggest Bill Machrone, John Dvorak and all idiotic friends from the days of clown predictions about technology should be convicted and sentenced to watermelon impalation for their sad career as technoprophets.
But we'll hand it to them, not even Bill Gates saw the Internet coming.
Slashdot Mirror
Each mobile standard defines a maximum, which the accredited hardware maker needs to abide by. Yes it's a hardware limit but it's not determined by the hardware maker, but by the standard they want to be accreditted for.
Example: for GSM standard phones, it's 2 Watts maximum.
For older analog phones it was 3.6 Watts.
For CDMA2000 and D-Amps it's currently under 1 Watt.
the story starts like a ludlum novel saying israli agents noticed the sites vanishing from the web...
it's like "this is a nonstory but let's mention unverifiable israeli agents and it'll get posted"
because i read it to the end and there's no proof whatsoever of anything, it could be the martians or the russians or a temporary website problem, but the sites were shut down, this journalist had to post something. so let's mention some israeli secret agents who noone will ever be able to verify and therefore we have something called "credibility".
the mention of isareli agents makes no sense with the rest of the story. the best source is always a "XXX country agent" because you obviously can't verify the info anyhow.
unless i'm missing something.
Yes, a SHARE is not much is it?
If you read back you'll see I said nothing of the sort. I said many times nobody HAS to do anything, nobody OWES anything. I said they SHOULD. Demagoguery is what you're using to justify the unjustifiable.....you're just a passionate fan of Google.
Listen, my arguments are based on free will, good will and civility. Yours are rough comments made based on HAVE TO, MUST DO and FORCE TO. No Google does not force me to do anything. But by your reasoning then why the heck do you say "good morning sir" to the bus driver if nobody is forcing you.
Last time I looked millions used Gmail and of those millions probably 99.9% do not know their email is being cross-related to their Google 30 year session habits cookie, Orkut buddies and Blog posts. They also have no clue that Google actually can cross their geo-IP location with a satellinte photo of their town.
Google is the stock market version of the NSA.
I don't dislike them. I am raising awareness to relevant issues. Vigilance is the price of liberty. You for example are now a citizen that may disagree with me but you KNOW what I've told you. When Google really becomes a tool for evil you'll remember I told you this in july 2005.
They're kidnapping your neighbour. So what?
Thank you for bringing this up. I was about to mention librarians on this post.
Librarian's work is open-source, the way they classify books is known to everyone. Plus librarians indeed don't make billions, it's actually a pretty humble job done by very respectable people who usually don't get any recognition unless they become the first lady of the US.
Librarians do not take the entire text off of books and run them through a secret routine which somehow seems to help me find other people's work.
Librarians are not traded in the stock-market, librarians don't sells ads in the library where other people's work resides.
Librarians do not read your mail to show you a product relevant to your current interests.
Librarians do not cross-relate GPS information with satellite photos and your geo-IP.
In short please don't insult librarians!
Google is a leech, a private NSA. It's not illegal YET but it's immoral. I actually sympathize with them and admire their work. But that doesn't make them any better.
We're working with very different frequencies here.
:
:
90% of my post was about Google leeching other people's work, which included
1) web site content on Google.com
2) email messages on Gmail
3) real world photographs in maps.google
4) people's relationships in Orkut.com
5) people's posts and ideas in Blogger.com
6) open source software without giving back
I didn't propose a lawsuit and DEMANDED anything from Google, I brought up what I believe are very important points, some of them being
1) google, unlike yahoo and msn, does not produce anything. all their content is spidered, scraped, form 3rd parties
2) google indexes your email messages to present you with relevant ads
3) google sets 30 year HTTP cookies, for what purpose?
Don't distort what I'm saying please. First I RECCOMMEND Google give more back and did not demand, second I did not say they were bad. Thirdly I did not say they HAD to do anything, but as I said before you also don't have to be polite, you don't have to wear clothes or brush your teeth, doing things only because you have to makes you a chimp.
In a few years Google will be seen as the smart guys who leeched everyone's work to make a buck.
"Google does not threaten our privacy because it only indexes things that are already available on the internet"
Like your Gmail inbox?
"If they do not want to give up the algorithm or tools they use to index/search, then they have that right. Wishing otherwise does not make it so. And typing in all caps does not make your point any stronger."
If Linus Torvalds reasoned like you we probably wouldn't have the very system Slashdot is running on.
"They produce a service which people find useful. Just because they don't make a hard good does not mean they do not produce anything."
As a software developer I may relate to what you're saying. Keep going please.
"I think that Google's contributions to the open source field are much more significant than you claim."
I'd like to quote you for this reply : "Wishing does not make it so"
"They also have programs such as the Summer of Code where they pay college students to contribute to open source projects."
How nice of them. I'm sure the contributed projects do not become a patented Google program in the Fall.
"I don't really know what your problem is with Google. "
None. Just trying to raise awareness to the fact that Gmail + Google + Blogger + Earth + Orkut + 30 year HTTP cookies is a dangerous mix.
"They don't alter your content in any way, and they provide a valuable service to people. If you don't like Google, you don't have to use it."
We don't know what they do with my content...or do you know something we all don't? And about that last point c'mon man that's not an argument is it?
"What is google obligated to give back?"
The whole point of civilization is that you're actually not obligated to do anything.
"Well, they seem to be following the terms of the GPL, etc... "
I'm not so sure about this, but I'm not a lawyer.
"doesn't mean they are bad people"
This is true indeed and if you read back I'm sure you won't find me saying Google are bad people.
"They are a company, not a socialist state."
I wouldn't have noticed myself, thank you.
"Feed the troll"?
My friend you started on a painfully sour note, you better have a point now.
"Google is a service company, their products(Keyhole, Search Appliance, etc) are extensions of their services really.. They provide a service that leverages other things."
Maybe all the logic I got in my brain is wrong, or maybe "leverages other things" can mean anything whatsoever including everything I said?
"Mining the information of 8 billion pages is not a product"
Read that sentence again please and think before you continue your argument.
"You are not, in any way, forced to use Google's services/products."
I base my opinion on the fact that ever since we defeated the Nazis that I'm actually not forced to do anything, thank you.
"Thus, they are not a the end all of the world, you can simply choose to not work with them. Really, it is easy."
I suddenly feel a bit sick and wish to discontinue this discussion exactly here. Thank you for your interesting reply.
Hi, your logic is amusing to say the least.
First of all I don't see a problem with Google having a copy of my content. The point I was trying to make is that, BY LOGIC, without sites Google makes zero money, with sites Google makes billions. So OUR sites make up Google.
Secondly: Full-text search means there's a verbatim copy of your web pages inside Google's brain. It's not a link(pointer) to the content, it is THE content itself. Therefore you did not think before replying, you replied based on passion not reason. If Google only had links, that'd be different.
" First of all, have you ever used Google's mail service?"
I've seen it, not interested thanks.
"It does not leech off of news agencies..."
Surely you must be joking Mr. Feynman.
Google News != Gmail
Google is a leech, period. They should be doing more than trying to become the stock market version of the NSA.
Your point being? To shut up someone who said the truth about Google? In a few years all this passion will be over and everyone's gonna realise what a leech Google has been all this time.
exactly.
as i said above, this is a piece of awfully crafted corporate propaganda.
"ok our music sales are great because bananas are selling well in the UK and although we have no clue how many illegal downloads there were in torrent, soulseek and 200 other networks we still concluded that our sales are doing great, thank you"
Perhaps you missed my point altogether?
My post is entitled "where is our share?" as in "is google giving back enough?"
I wonder how they conclude these things anyway when they have no clue how many songs were downloaded in the black market to begin with....
I bet you the illegal music traffic tripled as well.
If I had the time I could probably prove that broadband connections increased in number, prices fell, newer technologies connected more people, etc...
This is a piece of not-so-well crafted corporate propaganda.
Google feeds off everybody's work to make billions of dollars.
The Google mail system combined with Google Earth(or the simpler Maps), Orkut and Blogs is the end of privacy.
Not only is Google a major threat to our constitutional right to privacy but it is also a major leech of other people's copyrighted material.
Google does not produce one line of content, their news service leeches other agencies' work, their search engine leeches everybody's web sites...
Sometimes you just gotta ask yourself how something as absurd as google goes by loved by everyone and adored as if it were anything more than a huge copyright infringement case.
They provide a nice service, granted. But this service is based on our content, shouldn't we get a share of the revenue? No! Instead we PAY to have ads on their results which in turn are 100% our content. I'd like to meet the marketing genius that convinced everyone to produce content so Google could feed off of it.
If you go read some SEO forums you'll see that the google representatives tell you to produce tons of clean content and you'll rank higher. AH GENIUS! Give them MORE free content so their engine offers more of YOUR work to others, make THEM more money against your work.
AH! As if it weren't enough, Google runs on open-source software because they HAD to leech other people's programming too. They developed proprietary tools, a proprietary, secretly held algorithm WITH open source tools!!!! Google developed a fascinating distributed filesystem and guess what WE THE DEVELOPERS OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE WHICH GOOGLE LEECHED DO NOT GET TO SEE IT!!!!
In short : Google produces nothing, they organize your stuff for you without you asking for it, and they get really well paid for that. They use open source tools but give nothing back to open source, they use your website and they give you some traffic in return, traffic which your content earned anyway.
Don't want to make any friends by this, I'm being honestly open about what I think of Google and I'd like other opinions on this and why I may be wrong.
Normally the population's sense of security can be measured by how many prefer a movie at home versus at the theater.
When the movie-at-home crowd grows larger than the theater crowd it means more people are unwilling to leave their homes for some reason. This comes from a sense of insecurity and fear because the natural human behavior is that of joining crowds.
Microsoft has managed to link itself with bad code to a degree that, recently, I spent over 40 minutes convincing a programming team that Code Complete was actually a good book and did not reflect the bad quality of Microsoft software.
Oh Big Brother that is!
If Google is to become what it seems to be morphing into we may well be staring at the next Microsoft.
Remember Microsoft had similar early days, chaotic work environment, great brains, a management that hired more great brains....
And...guys....they now have Rob Pike on the team. C'mon, concede already! Google has style.
The question is...why not just go with the already existing Microsoft? Do we need another giant? I guess we do.
According to Google this contest page is not to be taken seriously. It's a PR 0 page...
Google says, me do. Next story please.
There's a fox in the barn.
I don't like this one bit. Why this emphasis on Netbeans, OpenThis, OpenThat if these programs run on any hardware? Hardware that is normally cheaper than Sun(although admitedly not as cool)?
If every Sun software became open then Sun, the hardware company, will go the way of VA-Linux.
Have they given up and are now willing to die shooting (at Microsoft)? What is left in their magic hats now that Solaris is free?
The last time I read about a revolutionary chip that would forever change the world and the company was so great they even had the Linux creator as a board member it turned out to be not much more than a loud fart in the wind. (Enter Transmeta)
This is a distributed-processing-capable chip. They're moving software into the chip, doing what software can do in a more compact and probably more efficient way. There's nothing revolutionary here and besides being a dupe story it's way overrated. The only attractive here is the fact PS3 will use it instead of embedding something open, like Mosix.
And no it won't "eventually take over the PC market."
If blacklisting worked we'd be rid of spam. Google tried it, they quickly noticed spam growth is geometric, their own capability is not.
Blacklisting is bullshit, they gave you mods up for ranting but my post is still concise, the solution is technical : authentication.
You ignored the fact I mentioned that Wietse Venema wrote Postfix, and I offered a solution : add proper authentication to Postfix.
You also ignored what I said about SASL, which is a mediocre authentication system. I proposed fixes, but you went on to discuss blacklisting.
Blacklists are what FBI uses to find thousands of criminals. In cyberspace you know well there are 4 billion possible IPv4 and the near infinite capabilities of IPv6 are just around the corner.
Infinite domain names combinations, cheap domain names and a universe of IP addresses. Blacklist that....you'll spend the rest of your life either running queries on the blacklist or updating the blacklist.
Authentication and legislation: the only solutions to spam, whether you like it or not.
I provided a clear and simple suggestions to fix this : add decent authentication to SMTP daemons, legislate and eliminate mediocre auth. schemes such as SASL.
With the above in mind, why the heck does anyone hold SPAM CONFERENCES?
Uplink providers offer the 2nd pre-requisite to spammers. Why? Because SPAM makes them money. They charge by the Gigabyte and SPAMmers send out gigs and gigs of crap through their uplink.
And 1) is easy to obtain, the best SMTP routing software is open source(Sendmail, Exim, Postfix, ___
So to me a SPAM conference is hypocrisy at high.
"We", "we" as in all the accomplices of the lack of regulation for the Internet being us, are guilty of letting SPAM running rampant.
How to defeat SPAM once and for all? Simple
First of all something better than SASL has to come up for authentication of legitimate senders. SASL is as ridiculous as it gets for SMTO authentication.
SMTP software providers, even open source ones, need to provide decent authentication. Microsoft already does, you can authenticate with Exchange Server and legitimate mail. Setting this up with Sendmail and Postfix involves setting up a buggy, alpha-level authentication scheme called SASL. Forget SASL, it sucks, don't shove it down our throats. Postfix is written by none less than Wietse Venema(hacking demigod) and he surely could have inserted a simple getpwent authentication scheme into Postfix, therefore legitmate local network UNIX users could send mail. He didn't. He's to blame for SPAM too.
Legislation. Legislation can trigger the capitalist side of the equation. With SPAM being illegal it would be easy to make sure that the uplink provider's profits from SPAM became illegal as well.
The truth : SPAM is out there because frankly nobody cares enough to find a real fix for it.
Andreessen Biography : http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html
.
.
His career:
Beginnings at the University of Illinois
.
.
Netscape
.
.
What happened to Netscape?
Hey pal you gotta pay for Windows.
(Sorry for replying to my own, it's nostalgia time so...)
A bit offtopic but speaking of the first experiences I had with UNIX : I remember right after I had the chance to type on a UNIX tty(yes I tried 'dir') that I bought a magazine on a flight to Brazil.
Must have been 1990 or 1991, yeah 20++ or so years after UNIX was born, and this magazine had an article by John Dvorak or Bill Machrone, I think it was one of the fat guys (sorry, that's how I remember them) and he compared UNIX to pizza and he ridiculed UNIX, and made jokes of UNIX, and he all but proclaimed the doom of UNIX.
I'd like to shove that one on his nose today.
Ah, how I miss the guys with the crystal balls from the 80's, John Dvorak and these folks hardly got any of their predictions right. They were as right as Henry Blodget when this latter fool predicted EToys would be an internet gorilla, "Strong Buy" he gladly proclaimed, now he's a convicted felon.
Also in nostalgia, "the good old days of Phrack" I will call them as tribute to our friend, I remember that the same magazine, either on that cover or the ones shortly before/after it happily screamed "IS THERE LIVE BEYOND 33MHZ". That was 33MHz cpu "front side bus". Which of course is a candidate (of a bad) joke for the last page of Playboy Mag. nowadays....
Lastly just as Henry Blodget was convicted for fooling stock market naives I suggest Bill Machrone, John Dvorak and all idiotic friends from the days of clown predictions about technology should be convicted and sentenced to watermelon impalation for their sad career as technoprophets.
But we'll hand it to them, not even Bill Gates saw the Internet coming.