Considering the fact that IBM popularized the practice of litigating a company till they run out of money to fight... it shouldn't take long for this one to end.
If Microsoft should decide to pile more cash on TSG, it might take a bit longer
Re:What's the power curve on that?
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
It passes through several servers
Actually, the typical email passes through 2 smtp servers nowadays - the outgoing smtp server for the sender's ISP or organization, and the incoming smtp server for the recipient's ISP/organization. I'm not saying this makes email delivery guaranteed, but the days of email having to go through umpteen MTAs before getting to the destination are for the most part long over.
Re:Will receive email for work.
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
This would make it too slow to send spam, by making it simply too processor intensive. Legitimate users would be unaffected.
Exactly how will this leave use of legitimate mailing lists unaffected?
While the Morse code requirement for getting a ham license is going to be going away, I'm not so sure that the code will be 'disappearing off the air', at least as far as the ham bands are concerned. I'm certainly not stopping using Morse just because it's no longer a license requirement, and the same is true for a lot of other hams. The use of Morse isn't being banned, it's just no longer a license requirement. And in some segments of the hobby, morse is still a preferred mode (it's not unusual to see comments from contesters about having to hunt up the microphone when they occasionally operate a phone contest, simply because they primarily operate CW contests).
I have fought with spammers before, trying to get taken off of their lists, and they threatened ME with telling my ISP (a college at that time) that I was harassing HIM.
Your mistake was trying to communicate with the spammer in the first place. Communicate with his ISP instead and try to get him kicked off. Getting his list off of the Internet is much more effective than trying to get yourself off of his list.
I honestly can't think of a single thing they've done that could be labelled "innovative".
They've taken this technology made by others, and incorporated it into a new product. In marketing-speak, that's 'innovating' (remember that Microsoft is really more of a marketing company than a technology company, and as far as Marketing is concerned, technology doesn't really exist until it has been incorporated into a sellable product). It's not innovation in the ordinary or technical sense of the word, but marketing people don't care about that. They love being able to make a statement that they know is only true in the limited sense they mean by it, all the while knowing that most people are going to take it in a different (and more marketable) sense.
I think Microsoft use the term innovation in a rather (semantically) different manner to everyone else
See my earlier post on this. They approach the idea of innovation from a Marketing perspective, and then take advantage of the spin caused by the fact that most people approach it from a technical sense
Microsoft never innovated: it just latched on all the good ideas. GUIs, ACLs, www browsers, spreadsheet, heck, even the mouse was invented by somebody else.
Keep in mind, Microsoft uses 'innovate' in a marketing sense (remember Microsoft is really more of a marketing company than a technology company). In this sense, 'innovation' isn't about inventing new things, it's about incorporating new things (whereever they were invented) into product. As far as Marketing is concerned, technology isn't real until it's part of a sellable product (and at Microsoft, it's not real until it's part of a Microsoft product). In the sense they use it, they do innovate. The spin is that they use it in that sense, knowing that people will take it in the technical sense (i.e. actually inventing new things). Typically marketing ploy, really - use a word in a specific sense, so that you can claim that in some way you're speaking the truth, but take advantage of the fact that people in general will take that word in a different sense.
The people that have looked at this - both our legal teams as well as independent people coming from the outside - say: 'These contracts are bullet-proof. This is a very strong contract right you have.'
My word! It's true! SCO is using spammer cartoonies as legal counsel. The signs were all there - the shift in accusations every time someone points out a fault in their allegations, the bogus explanations of why their critics are wrong, the 'Oh, yeah, we have REAL proof of what
we're saying, but we're not going to show it now - you'll find out about it in court!' bit, the whole arrogant attitude - but this seems to seal it. Who else but spammer cartoonies would be so prone to use the term 'bullet-proof'?
I've been using "Government Granted Temporary Monopoly", or GGTM for short. I think this manages to convey much of the issues you've outlined in a fairly concise form.
But, signing up now seems a bit absurd. It would be like giving the telemarketters three months time to use my number until then. I think that I might just wait until, oh say, October 1st.
Given that it's 3 months from when you sign up until your number goes on the list no matter when you sign up, how exactly is waiting until Oct 1st going to gain you anything?
Is the RIAA downloading these songs to check if they are real, correctly labeled and such? If so, they are breaking the law (IANAL).
IANAL either, but it seems to be that as agents for the copyright holders, they likely have blanket permission from the copyright holders to make such copies in the course of their investigations, so the 'well, you violated copyright, too, in pulling down the file to examine it' gambit isn't likely to stick.
This is precisely and exactly what they should be doing. Their attempts to ban useful technologies just because they can be used for copyright infringement can and should fail. Their attempts to mandate technologies of control ("My Computer" indeed!) can and should fail.
Exactly. If the RIAA is paying attention, they'll note that they are getting positive responses to this from the mouths of people who previously would have been anti-RIAA. A large contingent of the anti-RIAA crowd are so only because of the RIAA's attempts to put a stranglehold on technology. Drop the technology-control agenda and only go after the actual GGTM violators, and they'll likely find that opposition to their efforts drops substantially.
I think its most likley A, as SCO have been doing a whole load of talking, and not much else: "We're going to sue you!", "We're really going to sue you!" , "We're really really going to sue you!", "Hey everyone, we're really going to sue them, really!", etc...etc...
Anyone who has read news.admin.net-abuse.email much may very well find this to be eerily familiar - it sounds exactly like spammer cartooney threats. Then again, is anyone actually surprised to find that SCO's ethics and professionalism is about on a par with spammer's?
Slashdot Mirror
Programming? What programming? Does SCO actually have any programming staff on board anymore?
This is Slashdot. Someone will probably correct you even if you're right.
If Microsoft should decide to pile more cash on TSG, it might take a bit longer
Actually, the typical email passes through 2 smtp servers nowadays - the outgoing smtp server for the sender's ISP or organization, and the incoming smtp server for the recipient's ISP/organization. I'm not saying this makes email delivery guaranteed, but the days of email having to go through umpteen MTAs before getting to the destination are for the most part long over.
Exactly how will this leave use of legitimate mailing lists unaffected?
That doesn't say much, as it's become a common joke to mock the "me too" posts by something like
<aol>
Me Too.
</aol
You'll catch all of those.
What choice does he have? There's not much in the way of pictures.
After extensive use, Q codes become jargon, not just an abbreviation. And it's not like hams avoid the use of jargon over 'phone', or in person.
While the Morse code requirement for getting a ham license is going to be going away, I'm not so sure that the code will be 'disappearing off the air', at least as far as the ham bands are concerned. I'm certainly not stopping using Morse just because it's no longer a license requirement, and the same is true for a lot of other hams. The use of Morse isn't being banned, it's just no longer a license requirement. And in some segments of the hobby, morse is still a preferred mode (it's not unusual to see comments from contesters about having to hunt up the microphone when they occasionally operate a phone contest, simply because they primarily operate CW contests).
Wonder how long before SCO is charged under RICO?
Your mistake was trying to communicate with the spammer in the first place. Communicate with his ISP instead and try to get him kicked off. Getting his list off of the Internet is much more effective than trying to get yourself off of his list.
They've taken this technology made by others, and incorporated it into a new product. In marketing-speak, that's 'innovating' (remember that Microsoft is really more of a marketing company than a technology company, and as far as Marketing is concerned, technology doesn't really exist until it has been incorporated into a sellable product). It's not innovation in the ordinary or technical sense of the word, but marketing people don't care about that. They love being able to make a statement that they know is only true in the limited sense they mean by it, all the while knowing that most people are going to take it in a different (and more marketable) sense.
Problem is, they actually want to see both 'out quick' and 'well engineered', even if it's not possible.
Sigh. Where is Nikola Tesla now that we need him?
Corporations have minds?
See my earlier post on this. They approach the idea of innovation from a Marketing perspective, and then take advantage of the spin caused by the fact that most people approach it from a technical sense
Keep in mind, Microsoft uses 'innovate' in a marketing sense (remember Microsoft is really more of a marketing company than a technology company). In this sense, 'innovation' isn't about inventing new things, it's about incorporating new things (whereever they were invented) into product. As far as Marketing is concerned, technology isn't real until it's part of a sellable product (and at Microsoft, it's not real until it's part of a Microsoft product). In the sense they use it, they do innovate. The spin is that they use it in that sense, knowing that people will take it in the technical sense (i.e. actually inventing new things). Typically marketing ploy, really - use a word in a specific sense, so that you can claim that in some way you're speaking the truth, but take advantage of the fact that people in general will take that word in a different sense.
My word! It's true! SCO is using spammer cartoonies as legal counsel. The signs were all there - the shift in accusations every time someone points out a fault in their allegations, the bogus explanations of why their critics are wrong, the 'Oh, yeah, we have REAL proof of what we're saying, but we're not going to show it now - you'll find out about it in court!' bit, the whole arrogant attitude - but this seems to seal it. Who else but spammer cartoonies would be so prone to use the term 'bullet-proof'?
I've been using "Government Granted Temporary Monopoly", or GGTM for short. I think this manages to convey much of the issues you've outlined in a fairly concise form.
I would think the existence of Perl is proof this is not a world without walls.
Given that it's 3 months from when you sign up until your number goes on the list no matter when you sign up, how exactly is waiting until Oct 1st going to gain you anything?
Run that by me again? What long-distance company are they forced to use, ZPDI? (That would be cruel)
IANAL either, but it seems to be that as agents for the copyright holders, they likely have blanket permission from the copyright holders to make such copies in the course of their investigations, so the 'well, you violated copyright, too, in pulling down the file to examine it' gambit isn't likely to stick.
Exactly. If the RIAA is paying attention, they'll note that they are getting positive responses to this from the mouths of people who previously would have been anti-RIAA. A large contingent of the anti-RIAA crowd are so only because of the RIAA's attempts to put a stranglehold on technology. Drop the technology-control agenda and only go after the actual GGTM violators, and they'll likely find that opposition to their efforts drops substantially.
Anyone who has read news.admin.net-abuse.email much may very well find this to be eerily familiar - it sounds exactly like spammer cartooney threats. Then again, is anyone actually surprised to find that SCO's ethics and professionalism is about on a par with spammer's?