Not removing now closed relays from the list is like not releasing prisoners from jail. Something which might or might not be a good idea...
That's assuming that you consider the list to be a punishment. I believe that they are information sources -- IP X was, and may still be, an open relay.
Also, I think the usefulness of DBs like ORBD lies in them staying current, as I think it might cost more losing one important mail than wading through tons of spam.
I agree. But keeping the open-relay databases current is not a responsibility the database providers have to those listed in the databases. It may affect the popularity and usefulness of their service, but that's another matter altogether.
If some person/group decides to create such a database, they have only the following two responsibilities:
1. Do not defame/slander by listing a system incorrectly. That said, they make up the rules and if they say their databases are "IP addresses that were open relays within the last six months", they have up to six months after a relay is closed to remove the record from the database.
2. Provide services paid for. If they accept payments to remove entries within, say, 24 hours (rather than the normal cycle), they have to remove those entries within 24 hours. Otherwise, they can remove them in conformance with the criteria that they set (see item 1).
Again, you are viewing this as punishment and I'm viewing it as information. Since ORDB does not block e-mail, harass ISPs listed in the database, etc., they aren't punishing. They are just providing information Now if bobco.com rejects your e-mail because your IP is listed in the ORDB, then maybe bobco.com is punishing you, but ORDB is not.
Not quite. You're required to take a test and become registered with a central database to become a legal driver. Any idiot with a 486 and a net card can set up a mail system after reading a few how-to's and I've seen plenty of highly underqualified people get sucked into maintaining the corporate email servers.
Then that company can pay the price for not hiring a qualified person to do the job. When their mail starts bouncing, maybe they will get a clue and hire a qualified person.
I'd hate to see more tests, government approvals, etc. associated with the Internet. I think that these databases are doing a good job of whacking clueless people's wee-wees.
This is BS, by the same logic used above, you owe me for adding your email-adress to my hypothetical spamlist... Would you pay me to remove?
That is such an illogical and poor analogy that I hardly know where to start...
Unlike spammers, open relay database services do not send the people in their database anything. They don't harass them. They don't use up their bandwidth and storage. They don't have a business relationship with those listed in the database. They are simply reporting the information: "IP X.X.X.X was an open relay last time we tested." If the New York Times runs a story stating that you were arrested and jailed, do you think that they are legally and morally obligated to immediately report when you are released from jail?
These database projects to not owe you anything unless you are paying them for a service. If they do remove your system after you fix it, you owe them a letter of apology (for causing the problem) and thanks (for taking the time to remove you), not a complaint that they didn't do it fast enough to suit you.
I think that ORDB should make you pay them for the time that they spend removing your database entry.
(note that the use of the word "you" was in the hypothetical sense in the above examples)
I don't accept ORBS having decided what's permitted and what's not !
ORBS does not decide what is "permitted" nor do any of these other databases. They have a set of criteria for deciding whether and when your mail server ends up in their database. If their criteria matches mine, then I can choose to use them as part of my mail filtering.
1. These list should inform you have been added
2. They should leave you 10-15 days to fix the problem before blocking you
3. They should help you. I was *very* shocked by ORBS attitude "we block you, and we don't care if you cannot correct it"
I'm sick of the attitude that ORBS owes you something when your mail server is an open relay. If your system is an open relay, your fuck-up will cost them time and effort as they add your system to the database. Now you think that they owe it to you provide you an absurd amount of warning (10-15 days), notification that you were added, and then you want them to provide free consulting services (see item 3). If you don't know how to run a mail server, then stop trying to.
It's like being ticketed for driving your car down the wrong side of the road at 90 miles per hour and then being pissed off that the cop did not provide you with free driving lessons and give you 10-15 days to stop driving like that.
If your system is an open relay, unplug the Ethernet cable immediately and leave it unplugged until the system is fixed. If you don't know how to fix it, then pay professionals to provide your SMTP & POP services. A spammer could spew tens of thousands of messages per hour through an open relay and you owe it to everyone else on the net do whatever it takes, including pulling the plug, to make sure that your system is not an open relay.
I think that ORBS should charge a processing fee for "expedited removal" from their database and, otherwise, just remove systems once a week.
>>Proposing to me over Slashdot was so romantic!
>>Should we plan on a June wedding?
> I don't know how to tell you this, but
> someone hacked Slashdot. I didn't post
> that. I mean, I love you and all, but
> I'm not ready for that kind of commitment.
> Besides, things are really so great
> between us, I'd hate to do anything to
> mess it up.
Kathy? Did you get my last message (see above)? Hey, I got you a heart shaped box of chocolate. Maybe we can go to a movie tonight. I think you've got a problem with your phone. Every time I've called, it rings once, sounds like it's being picked up, and then disconnects. Call me. Please. Luv U!
...
The biggest problem with anything short of a widely-accepted international treaty is that a lot of spam gets bounced off of international relays.
The laws should hold responsible the people who send the spam. If Billy Bob causes 500,000 pieces of spam to be sent, then Billy Bob should go to jail. I don't care if he sent the spam himself through AOL or paid some company to send it through mail servers in China.
The important thing to remember about spam is that there is always a path to the spammer. He may have a P.O. box or a web site or a phone number in the spam, but there's always something that law enforcement could use to find his identity.
Detroit, MI - Nations Bank, Wachovia, and Citibank have brought a lawsuit naming Ford, Chrysler, and GM as defendants. According to the lawsuit, the auto manufacturers produce powerful cars that make it easier for consumers, using the vehicles as "getaway cars", to rob banks.
A spokeswoman for the banks involved in the suit said that although the banks favor automotive advances, "new automobile technology must go hand in hand with financial institution protection" and that "the consumer should bear the full cost and inconvenience of protecting the financial interests of huge, multi-billion dollar banking empires."
Re:Works great if you have a clean room available
on
Clear Hard Drive Mods
·
· Score: 2
Idiots.
I'll second that. These are probably the same people that ride around in lowered Honda Civics with huge wings, air dams, blacked out headlights, clear taillight lenses, 4" diameter chromed exhaust tips, and bone-stock engines.
I know that everyone has different taste, but if you think windows and neon lights belong on PCs, you have poor taste.
Since I already have no respect for the opinion of people who do this kind of lame mode, flame away. You won't hurt my feelings.
until my meds kick in (bubble bubble) -- just a quick question. If i had a way for Tivo to make cash by being interested in your personal viewing habits, would they take me up on the offer?
Probably not. The FTC would be all over their asses so quick that they'd be hosed. Plus, the risk of losing consumer confidence if they were caught would be too great.
I just can't imagine why any corporation would be interested in what I (or you) watch on public TV channels.
Interested in buying a bridge? It's in great shape! We're moving and can't take it with us.
You clearly have a grossly exaggerated idea of your importance to the world if you think that TiVo is interested in what you, personally, watch on television. They have meds to treat conditions like yours.
Would you even have bothered responding if I hadn't mentioned that old DOS program (which, by the way, isn't featured on their pages, only some updated Windows version is)?
Yes. I had already started to compose a reply and then decided to review your other messages in the thread. As for your claims about what is "featured", there is a button on the first page labelled "MS-DOS Games", so your game was not too well hidden.
This is pointless anyway: The thread is so old we're probably the only ones reading it.
I'm sure we are, but it's far from pointless. You're getting a life-lesson about the evils of hypocrisy, absolutism, and being judgemental and I'm having fun watching you dodge the issue: You downloaded shareware, used it past its trial date, didn't register it, and then, when confronted with this, made up some lame excuse about "probably" not being able to find the author. I went into Google and searched for "DOS game Sherlock" and the long-lost author of your program was the first hit.
You are very quick to use words like "leech" and "criminal" when describing others who have done the same thing that you did. So, would you prefer to use those words to describe yourself or would you rather admit that your earlier comments were out of line?
If you have problems with someone posting their opinion, don't read debate forums.
I only have a problem with it when those opinions are presented as fact.
Then erase it and all of the copies of it that you have.
Might as well, I haven't run it for years.
Gee, that reminds me of your earlier post:
same tired justifications for being a leech. "Costs too much" this, "wouldn't use it anyway" that, ad nauseum. Then again, every criminal justifies their actions: "she wanted to", "they already got more than they need", etc. Sickening.
It sounds to me like you are just another "criminal" "justifying [your] actions" by saying 'it's okay that I stole it because I haven't used it in years.'
You just proved that you are a hypocrite, just as I said earlier.
I don't understand why anyone bother posting stories to/. that lead to the same tired justifications for being a leech.
I'd be willing to bet that I've paid for a lot more software than you have, with a collection that goes back to the CP/M-80 days, so get off of your high horse. I've also got several shareware packages that I've registered where the author gladly took my money and then his website and all support for the product vanished shortly thereafter.
I don't recall reading anywhere that you were appointed, or qualified to be, National Arbiter of Ethics. As we see below, your own ethics are somewhat questionable.
In another message in this thread, you wrote:
The only piece of shareware I have that isn't registered is an old DOS game called Sherlock, because I doubt I would be able to find the person who wrote it.
Then erase it and all of the copies of it that you have. You "doubt" that you "would be able to find the person who wrote it"? It doesn't sound like you looked too hard to find the person, either. Might this be the publisher?:
Everett Kaser Software
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117
Phone: (541) 928-5259 between 8am and 8pm Pacific Time daily.
email: everett@kaser.com
That took me all of 30 seconds to find and if that's not the correct publisher, I'm sure that a tiny effort on your part might reveal where to send your long-overdue registration. I just have to wonder how many other pirated shareware and commercial packages you may have "forgotten" about.
You are just a software pirate who feels morally superior to others because you have pirated less software (or so you claim).
It harms the people who paid for the software by diluting the value of the product they paid for.
The reasoning behind that statement escapes me. If I buy a software package, someone else choosing to pirate it doesn't change its value to me. We are talking about software, not Franklin Mint "limited edition" Elvis coins. Software is not valuable because of its rarity.
It's a vicious circle, as the sucker eventually see this and start freeloading -- and companies go out of business and software prices go up.
I don't consider honest people to be "suckers." Nor do I decide to steal from company X because lots of other people do. I've paid for plenty of shareware (having purchased a $40 package just yesterday) for which there are readily available cracks and keygens. And there is the occasional package that I have used without paying for because, while it was worth something to me, it was not worth the asking price. But, once I decided that, the author would get $0 from me -- unless, through further use, I changed my mind about the product's value.
Please explain why 100 people should pay $10 for a software used by 1000, when they all could pay $2 and everyone would benefit (including the author).
Because it wasn't offered at $2. It was offered at $10 and 9 out of 10 people did not feel that it was worth $10 to them to register it. If I'm using a $500 development package that I paid for, I'm not going to get upset because some high-school kid decided to use a pirated copy. If you show me a fellow software professional earning a living using a pirated copy of that tool, then, yes, I'd be pretty annoyed an may even turn him in.
Of those 50% who tried to pirate the software (obviously they placed some value in it), some of them must be considering whether it is worthwhile to pay.
Some, yes. But others probably decided it was not worth your asking price or that they could not afford it before they tried to pirate it.
What I would be interested in is what happens to your sales now that you have implemented this much more rigorous anti-piracy effort. That's the real way to get a good idea of the cost of piracy to your business.
Agreed that the BSA's math is flawed, but until someone actually comes up with the magic "piracy formula", I'm sure it will continue to be used.
I do not believe that an inability to measure something justifies accepting flawed numbers as fact. If people want to say that software piracy exacts a terrible cost on the software industry, I think most people will agree (I know that I would). But I hate seeing people accept idiotic claims as fact.
P.S. I was not suggesting that your article fell into that logical trap. I was responding to other posts that I read on Slashdot.
Piracy doesn't equate to lost sales, but it does equate to immaturity and lack of character.
As you are a principal in Ambrosia Software, I understand your inability to be objective, but I would have hoped that you could have refrained from name calling and insults. Nonetheless, I'll try to elevate this discussion above that level.
Yesterday, I paid $40 for a shareware program (Sure Thing CD Labeller) even though I am sure that there are cracks available for the trial version. Why? Because the product was priced fairly given what it did for me.
Again, you incorrectly equate physical objects ("shiny thing[s]") with software. If someone takes one of your shiny things, you have one less than you did. If someone uses your software without registering it, you have no less than you did before.
The key here is intent. If the person intends to deprive you of a license fee that he otherwise would have paid, that is dishonest and morally corrupt.
If one "could not" buy the software, where's he getting the copy from?
A warez site, a friend, etc.
If he can get his hands on a pirated copy, he can likely get them on a legal one, too.
Explain to me how some kid in high school that can't afford a good lunch can get a legal copy of 3D Studio Max, a package that costs thousands of dollars.
If he "would not" buy it, then what's he using it for?
Because it's something that he likes to play with but can't justify the cost of. For example, he might want to try using Adobe Acrobat but can't justify paying $200 for it just for goofing around with it.
I don't know how you can have so much trouble with the concept that there are people that cannot afford to buy every piece of software that they want to use, or that there are people who want to use a piece of software but not enough to justify the expenditure. Are you intentionally being obtuse?
There seems to be this mistaken notion that every pirated copy of software equates to a lost sale. This simply is not true. Some people are willing to use the software for free but wouldn't consider paying for it -- even if no crack or illicit serial number were available. I've seen kids with thousands of dollars worth of software, including such expensive packages as 3D Studio Max. Those kids were not about to plunk down thousands of dollars that they don't have to buy software that they just want to play with.
So who does it hurt if someone pirates a copy of something that they would never buy? The publisher has not lost a sale. His distributer has not lost a sale. Neither of them has fewer copies than they did before. They aren't providing technical support for the pirated software. Sometimes, the pirated copy at home turns into sales when the person later asks his work to purchase copies -- and in this case, the piracy actually benefits the company.
Now those so inclined can get up on your more-ethical-than-thou pedestals and preach to us about how this is such a moral outrage, but I'm tired of seeing this level of ferver directed at people who just want to use a piece of software that they cannot, or would not, buy. Show me a someone who pirates software in lieu of buying it, and I'll be the first in line to serve on the jury to convict them, but don't expect me to get in a huff over someone who pirates something that he could not, or would not, have bought. Don't fall for the Business Software Alliance and Software Publisher's Association (BSA & SPA) illogic that states that 10 pirated copies of a $100 piece of software equals $1000 in lost revenue.
Hmmmm, and he couldn't come up with some other keyword or numerical sequence that they could still use to reach him but would be unlikely to be included in a spam? If he can't even come up with a solution for that, then I feel sorry for his customers and their problems.
I said that he got "disgusted", not that he could not come up with, and distribute, some secret keyword. The point was that his customers knew and could easily remember the word "urgent" while some other obscure word or "numerical sequence" would have been far less likely to stick with them.
As for his customers, they include some of the biggest names in the computer gaming industry. He's been the hired gun that saved major projects that were months behind schedule. And he has turned down jobs that would have paid him more in a month than you will probably earn in a year.
The problem with spam is that is mostly useless. If spammers refined their targeting strategies users would not complain.
You are completely incorrect. I'm a fisherman. That does not mean that I want to receive hundreds of e-mails every week from companies that sell fishing-related products.
A friend of mine had set up his e-mail to activate his pager if the word "urgent" was in the subject. This was so his clients could contact hime 24/7 if they had a network emergency. At 3-something-AM his pager went off. Why? Some spammer had an "urgent" message for him. Do you think that he'd have been happy if the spam was advertising something related to an interest of his? Of course not. End result: he got disgusted and his customers no longer can e-mail him 24/7 for emergency support.
The simple fact is that we all pay the cost of spam. We pay in higher ISP costs. The companies we work for often spend money to limit the spam in the company e-mail systems. Entire businesses have sprung up with pricey solutions to filter out spam. Just because spam is not physical does not mean that it is received, stored, and delivered without cost.
INSTALL THE FONTS THAT WERE USED WHEN DOCUMENTS WERE COMPOSED!!!
You are an idiot. I'm comparing Office to StarOffice and 602Pro PC Suite on the exact same machine. I can go from one to the other and find problems with indentation, bullet sizes and shapes, line breaks, footnote formatting, etc. It has nothing to do with fonts.
Grrr... How many times do I have to tell people that? Microsoft formats (as opposed to, say, TeX) are completely enslaved to font sizes, so any kind of fallback font causes formatting problems simply because it's not the same size. What does everybody expect, that TrueType Arial will magically appear on every X server without a sysadmin bothering to install it?
What in the f*** are you talking about? 602 Software is a Windows package. You're blathering on in here trying to impress everyone with your technical savvy and you don't even know what platform the office suite runs on.
What about PowerPoint?
Same as with Word
There is no Powerpoint equivalent included with 602 Software. That's the point. The business world uses Powerpoint and you have to be able to exchange documents with other firms. That means that, at the least, an office that has standardized on 602 Software's PC Suite is going to have to buy Powerpoint.
What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?
Those apps should not exist in the first place.
Great. So I'm supposed to tell my clients, vendors, and business partners to go f*** themselves if they have standardized on any of those apps.
You haven't actually used anything but Office for longer than it takes to read a Microsoft ad in a glossy magazine, did you?
I've been a professional software engineer since 1980 and have used dozens of word processors and spreadsheets on everything from CPM/80 to Windows to Linux -- and a whole lot of other OSs that you probably haven't even hear of. You, on the other hand, sound like some snot-nosed, know-it-all little shit that probably hasn't even finished school yet.
After you get five or ten years in the real world, come back and chat with me again.
I'm far more intelligent than you are. And you were kind enough to provide plenty of evidence to support that statement.
You're completely leaving out the fact that most people dont even know anything else is available, once again thanks to MS.
How is this "thanks to MS"? Sun has made the availability of StarOffice known. There have been columns about 602 Software's office suite in national magazines. Just what has Microsoft done to prevent information about these products from getting out?
If you'd ever even bothered to try 602 Office or the new Openoffice builds, (or by holy merciful god TeX) you'd want to retract this statement.
There you go talking out of your ass again. I have, installed on the very system I'm using to compose this, both 602Pro PC Suite 2001 and StarOffice 6.0 beta. I've used both of them and they simply are not viable solutions for most businesses. I have found Word documents and Excel spreadsheets that simply don't "work". I've seen formatting problems on both word processors. I've exported work and seen problems rendering it under Word.
Plus you ignore the fact that the only applications for which 602 Software even attempts to provide an equivalent are Word and Excel. What about PowerPoint? What about Outlook? What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?
If businesses around the country could use a free or nearly free software package in place of Microsoft Office, they would do so in a minute. But if a vendor, customer, or business partner collaborates with you on a document, you need complete compatability. You can't have page breaks that don't line up. You can't have bullets that are the wrong shape and size. You can't just ignore Powerpoint documents.
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway.
They arrested a representative of Elcomsoft who was breaking U.S. law (the DMCA) by giving a lecture in the U.S. on how to break cryptography protecting eBooks.
Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
All that Adobe did is tell the Justice Department that a representative of Elcomsoft was violating the DMCA. It was the Justice Department that elected to arrest him and press charges (though it could be argued that the Justice Department, under the current administration, has gotten far too friendly with major corporations like Adobe and Microsoft).
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
If "their entire focus" is the recall of the DMCA, they won't be developing any products for you to buy, will they?
The DMCA benefits big software companies like Adobe and they are no more likely to push for its recall than the RIAA is to push for the recall of copyright protections.
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices.
on
A Quick Peek at Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Had you read the article more carefully (at all?), you would have seen the following:
It's highly significant, as it signals a much tighter integration between Microsoft's enterprise server products and the client.
and
Microsoft is intent on P2P-style workgroup collaboration [that] looks seamless, with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS.
Note that they are not attempting to provide open standards that would let Lotus, RedHat, and other vendors provide compatible products. They want to force Netmeeting and other MS-proprietary products on everyone, effectively squashing competitors much as they did by integrating IE into Windows.
Microsoft is being the 800lb. gorilla. They are ignoring the RFC process, standards committees, and everything else that made the Internet platform-independent. In fact, their goal is to force their proprietary standards on every business much as they have with the ubiquitous Microsoft Word.doc format. Now, businesses are practically required to run Word in order to inter-operate with their customers and business partners. The result is that Microsoft can now charge an exorbitant rate for Office and people still have to buy it. CompUSA is selling Office XP Professional for $579 and there is not a non-Microsoft office suite even offered for sale by them. (Don't waste my time telling me about Staroffice, 602 Software, and other packages. If they were viable alternatives, Microsoft couldn't get over $500 for their product.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not removing now closed relays from the list is like not releasing prisoners from jail. Something which might or might not be a good idea...
That's assuming that you consider the list to be a punishment. I believe that they are information sources -- IP X was, and may still be, an open relay.
Also, I think the usefulness of DBs like ORBD lies in them staying current, as I think it might cost more losing one important mail than wading through tons of spam.
I agree. But keeping the open-relay databases current is not a responsibility the database providers have to those listed in the databases. It may affect the popularity and usefulness of their service, but that's another matter altogether.
If some person/group decides to create such a database, they have only the following two responsibilities:
1. Do not defame/slander by listing a system incorrectly. That said, they make up the rules and if they say their databases are "IP addresses that were open relays within the last six months", they have up to six months after a relay is closed to remove the record from the database.
2. Provide services paid for. If they accept payments to remove entries within, say, 24 hours (rather than the normal cycle), they have to remove those entries within 24 hours. Otherwise, they can remove them in conformance with the criteria that they set (see item 1).
Again, you are viewing this as punishment and I'm viewing it as information. Since ORDB does not block e-mail, harass ISPs listed in the database, etc., they aren't punishing. They are just providing information Now if bobco.com rejects your e-mail because your IP is listed in the ORDB, then maybe bobco.com is punishing you, but ORDB is not.
Not quite. You're required to take a test and become registered with a central database to become a legal driver. Any idiot with a 486 and a net card can set up a mail system after reading a few how-to's and I've seen plenty of highly underqualified people get sucked into maintaining the corporate email servers.
Then that company can pay the price for not hiring a qualified person to do the job. When their mail starts bouncing, maybe they will get a clue and hire a qualified person.
I'd hate to see more tests, government approvals, etc. associated with the Internet. I think that these databases are doing a good job of whacking clueless people's wee-wees.
This is BS, by the same logic used above, you owe me for adding your email-adress to my hypothetical spamlist... Would you pay me to remove?
That is such an illogical and poor analogy that I hardly know where to start...
Unlike spammers, open relay database services do not send the people in their database anything. They don't harass them. They don't use up their bandwidth and storage. They don't have a business relationship with those listed in the database. They are simply reporting the information: "IP X.X.X.X was an open relay last time we tested." If the New York Times runs a story stating that you were arrested and jailed, do you think that they are legally and morally obligated to immediately report when you are released from jail?
These database projects to not owe you anything unless you are paying them for a service. If they do remove your system after you fix it, you owe them a letter of apology (for causing the problem) and thanks (for taking the time to remove you), not a complaint that they didn't do it fast enough to suit you.
I think that ORDB should make you pay them for the time that they spend removing your database entry.
(note that the use of the word "you" was in the hypothetical sense in the above examples)
I don't accept ORBS having decided what's permitted and what's not !
ORBS does not decide what is "permitted" nor do any of these other databases. They have a set of criteria for deciding whether and when your mail server ends up in their database. If their criteria matches mine, then I can choose to use them as part of my mail filtering.
1. These list should inform you have been added
2. They should leave you 10-15 days to fix the problem before blocking you
3. They should help you. I was *very* shocked by ORBS attitude "we block you, and we don't care if you cannot correct it"
I'm sick of the attitude that ORBS owes you something when your mail server is an open relay. If your system is an open relay, your fuck-up will cost them time and effort as they add your system to the database. Now you think that they owe it to you provide you an absurd amount of warning (10-15 days), notification that you were added, and then you want them to provide free consulting services (see item 3). If you don't know how to run a mail server, then stop trying to.
It's like being ticketed for driving your car down the wrong side of the road at 90 miles per hour and then being pissed off that the cop did not provide you with free driving lessons and give you 10-15 days to stop driving like that.
If your system is an open relay, unplug the Ethernet cable immediately and leave it unplugged until the system is fixed. If you don't know how to fix it, then pay professionals to provide your SMTP & POP services. A spammer could spew tens of thousands of messages per hour through an open relay and you owe it to everyone else on the net do whatever it takes, including pulling the plug, to make sure that your system is not an open relay.
I think that ORBS should charge a processing fee for "expedited removal" from their database and, otherwise, just remove systems once a week.
The e-mail exchange...
>>>>>> Yes!
>>>>> Yes, what?
>>>> Yes, I'll marry you!
>>> Huh? You are such a kidder.
>>Proposing to me over Slashdot was so romantic!
>>Should we plan on a June wedding?
> I don't know how to tell you this, but
> someone hacked Slashdot. I didn't post
> that. I mean, I love you and all, but
> I'm not ready for that kind of commitment.
> Besides, things are really so great
> between us, I'd hate to do anything to
> mess it up.
Kathy? Did you get my last message (see above)? Hey, I got you a heart shaped box of chocolate. Maybe we can go to a movie tonight. I think you've got a problem with your phone. Every time I've called, it rings once, sounds like it's being picked up, and then disconnects. Call me. Please. Luv U!
...
The biggest problem with anything short of a widely-accepted international treaty is that a lot of spam gets bounced off of international relays.
The laws should hold responsible the people who send the spam. If Billy Bob causes 500,000 pieces of spam to be sent, then Billy Bob should go to jail. I don't care if he sent the spam himself through AOL or paid some company to send it through mail servers in China.
The important thing to remember about spam is that there is always a path to the spammer. He may have a P.O. box or a web site or a phone number in the spam, but there's always something that law enforcement could use to find his identity.
Detroit, MI - Nations Bank, Wachovia, and Citibank have brought a lawsuit naming Ford, Chrysler, and GM as defendants. According to the lawsuit, the auto manufacturers produce powerful cars that make it easier for consumers, using the vehicles as "getaway cars", to rob banks.
A spokeswoman for the banks involved in the suit said that although the banks favor automotive advances, "new automobile technology must go hand in hand with financial institution protection" and that "the consumer should bear the full cost and inconvenience of protecting the financial interests of huge, multi-billion dollar banking empires."
Idiots.
I'll second that. These are probably the same people that ride around in lowered Honda Civics with huge wings, air dams, blacked out headlights, clear taillight lenses, 4" diameter chromed exhaust tips, and bone-stock engines.
I know that everyone has different taste, but if you think windows and neon lights belong on PCs, you have poor taste.
Since I already have no respect for the opinion of people who do this kind of lame mode, flame away. You won't hurt my feelings.
until my meds kick in (bubble bubble) -- just a quick question. If i had a way for Tivo to make cash by being interested in your personal viewing habits, would they take me up on the offer?
Probably not. The FTC would be all over their asses so quick that they'd be hosed. Plus, the risk of losing consumer confidence if they were caught would be too great.
I just can't imagine why any corporation would be interested in what I (or you) watch on public TV channels.
Interested in buying a bridge? It's in great shape! We're moving and can't take it with us.
You clearly have a grossly exaggerated idea of your importance to the world if you think that TiVo is interested in what you, personally, watch on television. They have meds to treat conditions like yours.
Would you even have bothered responding if I hadn't mentioned that old DOS program (which, by the way, isn't featured on their pages, only some updated Windows version is)?
Yes. I had already started to compose a reply and then decided to review your other messages in the thread. As for your claims about what is "featured", there is a button on the first page labelled "MS-DOS Games", so your game was not too well hidden.
This is pointless anyway: The thread is so old we're probably the only ones reading it.
I'm sure we are, but it's far from pointless. You're getting a life-lesson about the evils of hypocrisy, absolutism, and being judgemental and I'm having fun watching you dodge the issue: You downloaded shareware, used it past its trial date, didn't register it, and then, when confronted with this, made up some lame excuse about "probably" not being able to find the author. I went into Google and searched for "DOS game Sherlock" and the long-lost author of your program was the first hit.
You are very quick to use words like "leech" and "criminal" when describing others who have done the same thing that you did. So, would you prefer to use those words to describe yourself or would you rather admit that your earlier comments were out of line?
If you have problems with someone posting their opinion, don't read debate forums.
I only have a problem with it when those opinions are presented as fact.
Then erase it and all of the copies of it that you have.
Might as well, I haven't run it for years.
Gee, that reminds me of your earlier post:
same tired justifications for being a leech. "Costs too much" this, "wouldn't use it anyway" that, ad nauseum. Then again, every criminal justifies their actions: "she wanted to", "they already got more than they need", etc. Sickening.
It sounds to me like you are just another "criminal" "justifying [your] actions" by saying 'it's okay that I stole it because I haven't used it in years.'
You just proved that you are a hypocrite, just as I said earlier.
I don't understand why anyone bother posting stories to /. that lead to the same tired justifications for being a leech.
I'd be willing to bet that I've paid for a lot more software than you have, with a collection that goes back to the CP/M-80 days, so get off of your high horse. I've also got several shareware packages that I've registered where the author gladly took my money and then his website and all support for the product vanished shortly thereafter.
I don't recall reading anywhere that you were appointed, or qualified to be, National Arbiter of Ethics. As we see below, your own ethics are somewhat questionable.
In another message in this thread, you wrote:
The only piece of shareware I have that isn't registered is an old DOS game called Sherlock, because I doubt I would be able to find the person who wrote it.
Then erase it and all of the copies of it that you have. You "doubt" that you "would be able to find the person who wrote it"? It doesn't sound like you looked too hard to find the person, either. Might this be the publisher?:
Everett Kaser Software
PO Box 403
Albany OR 97321-0117
Phone: (541) 928-5259 between 8am and 8pm Pacific Time daily.
email: everett@kaser.com
That took me all of 30 seconds to find and if that's not the correct publisher, I'm sure that a tiny effort on your part might reveal where to send your long-overdue registration. I just have to wonder how many other pirated shareware and commercial packages you may have "forgotten" about.
You are just a software pirate who feels morally superior to others because you have pirated less software (or so you claim).
It harms the people who paid for the software by diluting the value of the product they paid for.
The reasoning behind that statement escapes me. If I buy a software package, someone else choosing to pirate it doesn't change its value to me. We are talking about software, not Franklin Mint "limited edition" Elvis coins. Software is not valuable because of its rarity.
It's a vicious circle, as the sucker eventually see this and start freeloading -- and companies go out of business and software prices go up.
I don't consider honest people to be "suckers." Nor do I decide to steal from company X because lots of other people do. I've paid for plenty of shareware (having purchased a $40 package just yesterday) for which there are readily available cracks and keygens. And there is the occasional package that I have used without paying for because, while it was worth something to me, it was not worth the asking price. But, once I decided that, the author would get $0 from me -- unless, through further use, I changed my mind about the product's value.
Please explain why 100 people should pay $10 for a software used by 1000, when they all could pay $2 and everyone would benefit (including the author).
Because it wasn't offered at $2. It was offered at $10 and 9 out of 10 people did not feel that it was worth $10 to them to register it. If I'm using a $500 development package that I paid for, I'm not going to get upset because some high-school kid decided to use a pirated copy. If you show me a fellow software professional earning a living using a pirated copy of that tool, then, yes, I'd be pretty annoyed an may even turn him in.
Of those 50% who tried to pirate the software (obviously they placed some value in it), some of them must be considering whether it is worthwhile to pay.
Some, yes. But others probably decided it was not worth your asking price or that they could not afford it before they tried to pirate it.
What I would be interested in is what happens to your sales now that you have implemented this much more rigorous anti-piracy effort. That's the real way to get a good idea of the cost of piracy to your business.
Agreed that the BSA's math is flawed, but until someone actually comes up with the magic "piracy formula", I'm sure it will continue to be used.
I do not believe that an inability to measure something justifies accepting flawed numbers as fact. If people want to say that software piracy exacts a terrible cost on the software industry, I think most people will agree (I know that I would). But I hate seeing people accept idiotic claims as fact.
P.S. I was not suggesting that your article fell into that logical trap. I was responding to other posts that I read on Slashdot.
Piracy doesn't equate to lost sales, but it does equate to immaturity and lack of character.
As you are a principal in Ambrosia Software, I understand your inability to be objective, but I would have hoped that you could have refrained from name calling and insults. Nonetheless, I'll try to elevate this discussion above that level.
Yesterday, I paid $40 for a shareware program (Sure Thing CD Labeller) even though I am sure that there are cracks available for the trial version. Why? Because the product was priced fairly given what it did for me.
Again, you incorrectly equate physical objects ("shiny thing[s]") with software. If someone takes one of your shiny things, you have one less than you did. If someone uses your software without registering it, you have no less than you did before.
The key here is intent. If the person intends to deprive you of a license fee that he otherwise would have paid, that is dishonest and morally corrupt.
If one "could not" buy the software, where's he getting the copy from?
A warez site, a friend, etc.
If he can get his hands on a pirated copy, he can likely get them on a legal one, too.
Explain to me how some kid in high school that can't afford a good lunch can get a legal copy of 3D Studio Max, a package that costs thousands of dollars.
If he "would not" buy it, then what's he using it for?
Because it's something that he likes to play with but can't justify the cost of. For example, he might want to try using Adobe Acrobat but can't justify paying $200 for it just for goofing around with it.
I don't know how you can have so much trouble with the concept that there are people that cannot afford to buy every piece of software that they want to use, or that there are people who want to use a piece of software but not enough to justify the expenditure. Are you intentionally being obtuse?
There seems to be this mistaken notion that every pirated copy of software equates to a lost sale. This simply is not true. Some people are willing to use the software for free but wouldn't consider paying for it -- even if no crack or illicit serial number were available. I've seen kids with thousands of dollars worth of software, including such expensive packages as 3D Studio Max. Those kids were not about to plunk down thousands of dollars that they don't have to buy software that they just want to play with.
So who does it hurt if someone pirates a copy of something that they would never buy? The publisher has not lost a sale. His distributer has not lost a sale. Neither of them has fewer copies than they did before. They aren't providing technical support for the pirated software. Sometimes, the pirated copy at home turns into sales when the person later asks his work to purchase copies -- and in this case, the piracy actually benefits the company.
Now those so inclined can get up on your more-ethical-than-thou pedestals and preach to us about how this is such a moral outrage, but I'm tired of seeing this level of ferver directed at people who just want to use a piece of software that they cannot, or would not, buy. Show me a someone who pirates software in lieu of buying it, and I'll be the first in line to serve on the jury to convict them, but don't expect me to get in a huff over someone who pirates something that he could not, or would not, have bought. Don't fall for the Business Software Alliance and Software Publisher's Association (BSA & SPA) illogic that states that 10 pirated copies of a $100 piece of software equals $1000 in lost revenue.
Hmmmm, and he couldn't come up with some other keyword or numerical sequence that they could still use to reach him but would be unlikely to be included in a spam? If he can't even come up with a solution for that, then I feel sorry for his customers and their problems.
I said that he got "disgusted", not that he could not come up with, and distribute, some secret keyword. The point was that his customers knew and could easily remember the word "urgent" while some other obscure word or "numerical sequence" would have been far less likely to stick with them.
As for his customers, they include some of the biggest names in the computer gaming industry. He's been the hired gun that saved major projects that were months behind schedule. And he has turned down jobs that would have paid him more in a month than you will probably earn in a year.
The problem with spam is that is mostly useless. If spammers refined their targeting strategies users would not complain.
You are completely incorrect. I'm a fisherman. That does not mean that I want to receive hundreds of e-mails every week from companies that sell fishing-related products.
A friend of mine had set up his e-mail to activate his pager if the word "urgent" was in the subject. This was so his clients could contact hime 24/7 if they had a network emergency. At 3-something-AM his pager went off. Why? Some spammer had an "urgent" message for him. Do you think that he'd have been happy if the spam was advertising something related to an interest of his? Of course not. End result: he got disgusted and his customers no longer can e-mail him 24/7 for emergency support.
The simple fact is that we all pay the cost of spam. We pay in higher ISP costs. The companies we work for often spend money to limit the spam in the company e-mail systems. Entire businesses have sprung up with pricey solutions to filter out spam. Just because spam is not physical does not mean that it is received, stored, and delivered without cost.
INSTALL THE FONTS THAT WERE USED WHEN DOCUMENTS WERE COMPOSED!!!
You are an idiot. I'm comparing Office to StarOffice and 602Pro PC Suite on the exact same machine. I can go from one to the other and find problems with indentation, bullet sizes and shapes, line breaks, footnote formatting, etc. It has nothing to do with fonts.
Grrr... How many times do I have to tell people that? Microsoft formats (as opposed to, say, TeX) are completely enslaved to font sizes, so any kind of fallback font causes formatting problems simply because it's not the same size. What does everybody expect, that TrueType Arial will magically appear on every X server without a sysadmin bothering to install it?
What in the f*** are you talking about? 602 Software is a Windows package. You're blathering on in here trying to impress everyone with your technical savvy and you don't even know what platform the office suite runs on.
What about PowerPoint?
Same as with Word
There is no Powerpoint equivalent included with 602 Software. That's the point. The business world uses Powerpoint and you have to be able to exchange documents with other firms. That means that, at the least, an office that has standardized on 602 Software's PC Suite is going to have to buy Powerpoint.
What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?
Those apps should not exist in the first place.
Great. So I'm supposed to tell my clients, vendors, and business partners to go f*** themselves if they have standardized on any of those apps.
You haven't actually used anything but Office for longer than it takes to read a Microsoft ad in a glossy magazine, did you?
I've been a professional software engineer since 1980 and have used dozens of word processors and spreadsheets on everything from CPM/80 to Windows to Linux -- and a whole lot of other OSs that you probably haven't even hear of. You, on the other hand, sound like some snot-nosed, know-it-all little shit that probably hasn't even finished school yet.
After you get five or ten years in the real world, come back and chat with me again.
What a dumb comment.
I'm far more intelligent than you are. And you were kind enough to provide plenty of evidence to support that statement.
You're completely leaving out the fact that most people dont even know anything else is available, once again thanks to MS.
How is this "thanks to MS"? Sun has made the availability of StarOffice known. There have been columns about 602 Software's office suite in national magazines. Just what has Microsoft done to prevent information about these products from getting out?
If you'd ever even bothered to try 602 Office or the new Openoffice builds, (or by holy merciful god TeX) you'd want to retract this statement.
There you go talking out of your ass again. I have, installed on the very system I'm using to compose this, both 602Pro PC Suite 2001 and StarOffice 6.0 beta. I've used both of them and they simply are not viable solutions for most businesses. I have found Word documents and Excel spreadsheets that simply don't "work". I've seen formatting problems on both word processors. I've exported work and seen problems rendering it under Word.
Plus you ignore the fact that the only applications for which 602 Software even attempts to provide an equivalent are Word and Excel. What about PowerPoint? What about Outlook? What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?
If businesses around the country could use a free or nearly free software package in place of Microsoft Office, they would do so in a minute. But if a vendor, customer, or business partner collaborates with you on a document, you need complete compatability. You can't have page breaks that don't line up. You can't have bullets that are the wrong shape and size. You can't just ignore Powerpoint documents.
Next time don't jump to conclusions.
... all stuck together.
Big mistakes for terrorists:
Asking airport officials how to log on to your "al-Qaida Online" account over the wireless link.
Complaining that you can't talk to your "buddy" Osama even though he's on your buddy list.
Receiving and watching a Quicktime video with instructions for committing a terrorist act -- while sitting in the boarding area.
Having your laptop announce "You've Got Jihad!" while in the terminal.
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway.
They arrested a representative of Elcomsoft who was breaking U.S. law (the DMCA) by giving a lecture in the U.S. on how to break cryptography protecting eBooks.
Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
All that Adobe did is tell the Justice Department that a representative of Elcomsoft was violating the DMCA. It was the Justice Department that elected to arrest him and press charges (though it could be argued that the Justice Department, under the current administration, has gotten far too friendly with major corporations like Adobe and Microsoft).
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
If "their entire focus" is the recall of the DMCA, they won't be developing any products for you to buy, will they?
The DMCA benefits big software companies like Adobe and they are no more likely to push for its recall than the RIAA is to push for the recall of copyright protections.
Had you read the article more carefully (at all?), you would have seen the following:
.doc format. Now, businesses are practically required to run Word in order to inter-operate with their customers and business partners. The result is that Microsoft can now charge an exorbitant rate for Office and people still have to buy it. CompUSA is selling Office XP Professional for $579 and there is not a non-Microsoft office suite even offered for sale by them. (Don't waste my time telling me about Staroffice, 602 Software, and other packages. If they were viable alternatives, Microsoft couldn't get over $500 for their product.)
It's highly significant, as it signals a much tighter integration between Microsoft's enterprise server products and the client.
and
Microsoft is intent on P2P-style workgroup collaboration [that] looks seamless, with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS.
Note that they are not attempting to provide open standards that would let Lotus, RedHat, and other vendors provide compatible products. They want to force Netmeeting and other MS-proprietary products on everyone, effectively squashing competitors much as they did by integrating IE into Windows.
Microsoft is being the 800lb. gorilla. They are ignoring the RFC process, standards committees, and everything else that made the Internet platform-independent. In fact, their goal is to force their proprietary standards on every business much as they have with the ubiquitous Microsoft Word