I'm guessing most of the people responsible for the telemarketing would argue that there's a lot of crap out there, but some of those that would opt out of telemarketing would really be interested in what THEY'RE peddling.
And to be fair, they're right. Would anyone say that yes, they want spam and telemarketing? Not many, if any. But they do find some suckers, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Yep...for the same reason spam faxes are illegal - the receiver bears a significant cost burden. And in reply to the parent - yes I've gotten a few calls on my cell phone (mostly spam that comes as a page), but it's once or twice a year.:)
I saw a few minutes on telemarketers on CNN a few days ago and they rolled out the same excuses Dave Barry ridicules. They said they were hardworking people, just like the rest of us. They actually argued that it was bad because it would put people out of work.
In a later discussion on the same show someone pulled out the lame-sounding but apt question - should stealing cars be legal just because it puts people out of work if it's illegal?. Some dufus responded, saying it was an invalid argument since stealing cars is illegal. Finish the thought and you've got "...stealing cars is illegal and calling people who don't want to be called is legal". So the dufus had a rather circular argument - it should be legal because it's legal. I was rather annoyed that nobody called him on it.
Anyway, it's fun to watch this one from the sidelines. I haven't had a landline in 3 years.:)
As others have pointed out, OS X seems vulnerable. No update is available as on Tuesday evening 7pm EST. To disable remote login via SSH in the meantime, go to System Preferences, Sharing, and unselect Remote Login.
So now they're targetting SGI. I just hope nobody settles out of court. If they have to make a real claim (x is ours) in court then it'll be easy to fix (remove/rewrite x).
If it goes to court, SCO will need to produce evidence, and that's what they're desperate to avoid. Even if they can show some flimsy but enforceable link to their IP, showing it means there'll be kernel patches the next day and they're SOL.
Every large network provider has a spam problem. Check UUNet, Qwest, etc. Also check a few other clients of Internap. [Disclaimer - I know people at Internap.]
...something was up at lunch on Tuesday. Our Cisco SE said he couldn't say what it was until 5pm that day. Apparently about 20-30 big networks were contacted then and only a few (100) people at Cisco itself knew.
Re:Whats worse than constantly reading about SPAM
on
In Pursuit Of A Spammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Whats worse? Constantly reading about SPAM prevention or receiving it ?
Duh. Receiving spam. You chose to go to Slashdot, read the article and post in its forum.
Just as I can't function without my first cup of coffee in the morning, I can't get my moral outrage going without the first SCO story of the morning. What are we going to do when the case is thrown out? I guess there's always MS.
That's one of my pet peeves. Slashdot tends to do that a lot - people throw out acronyms from specialized fields and assume everyone knows what they're talking about. To me, PAT is a Point After Touchdown.
Btw, I don't think you're lazy, or no more than most. Checking Slashdot is a good way to cover lots of interesting topics without having to go look at dozens of other sites. If you've got to go read the article to even know what the subject is, well that's just annoying.
True. However, if the story is true, then the blackmailers are quite technologically savvy. If they also have the willpower (e.g. not bragging about it), it could be next to impossible to trace.
They've known for the last couple years at least (at least since that's how long I've known insiders) that selling their own merchandise would be a small part of their long term strategy. It did get them the infrastructure, though. After that came the hosting of other large e-commerce sites. Now they're recruiting an army of channel sales / resellers. Very smart people over there. Wish they'd stop patenting business processes though.
Well, Dmitry was in Las Vegas at the time, so that's inside the border. If you rob a casino in Vegas, you get arrested, whether you're Russian or not. Better to argue that the law is flawed than to argue about jurisdiction.
Did VCD dealers in Malaysia get busted by the MPAA? If so, I'd guess that Malaysia is in on the Berne Convention or has some other agreement.
Many IT decision-makers have a herd mentality (e.g. nobody was ever fired for buying Cisco routers). Open Source use passed a critical mass a while ago and enough of the herd is heading in that direction now that the obvious advantages outweigh the fear of the unknown. It's continued acceptance is a foregone conclusion at this point.
Google has been expecting this for a long time and are prepared for it. MS is the only company that has been considered a serious threat, at least for the last year. They've got the name recognition, browser control and financial resources to do it. But do they have the right technical people? Are they committed to buying their way in no matter the cost? How about overcoming some very ingrained company traits and playing fair?
Then there's the Google motto of "don't be evil" to contend with. Part of Google's success, I believe, is due to not being evil, and more than that, to being good. That covers things like clearly marking ads, keeping their home page simple (I wouldn't use it as my browser home page if it wasn't) and not accepting payments for rank improvement.
There are a lot of very smart people at Google and my sources say the management is very shrewd and realistic. I'll bet they weather this storm. The drubbing of Netscape was, I think, an easier thing to do. Google already gives away their service for free, and they've got immense mindshare. Netscape had good name recognition at the time, but back then there was a flood of new users that didn't know anything about the net. That was also at a time when there wasn't so much anti-Microsoft sentiment out there (yes, even the general public has had a taste of it due to the court cases).
Wow, I just about convinced myself to submit my resume!
Re:Liberals
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Do we really want 'em running the country? Yes, if the alternative is the current administration. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is getting smaller. We're going to have to learn to live with the rest of that world.
I'm not exactly a liberal (more all over the place, issue to issue), but I'll defend them against some really bewildering claims. Your rant, point by point:
Saving nature - I'll have to disagree with you and say this is a good thing.
Stopping business - absurd. I thought the 8 years before Bush were going pretty damn well.
Building big government - again, absurd. Bush is building big government - and huge deficits. He's setting the all-time deficit record, beating the high water mark set by his father.
Clean energy - lots of people pay extra for environmentally friendly products and services. If some of them are arguing against a certain project, they may still be better than the environmentally unconscious.
Women's rights - not sure what you're getting at there. Care to expound on that claim?
Freedom of choice - good for them, representing the majority of their constituency instead of caving to a vocal minority.
School vouchers - I'm for school vouchers. Are liberals (democrats?) against them?
Do we really care what they have to say about anything? - Sure do. The thought of a country run by the old guard of the GOP without anyone even trying to keep them honest is a frightening thought.
Ah yes...The Unix Wars. So will this time period be called The Empire Litigates Back?
Open standards are a great thing. Even the playing field (i.e. remove proprietary, monopoly protocols and file formats) and the best program will win. Or so the theory goes, anyway.
I'm part of the IP Admin group of a large international ISP and have seen this firsthand. New customers routinely ask us to route space, and sometimes it's difficult to tell if it's theirs or not what with all the mergers, acquisitions and renaming of companies. There's definitely more scrutiny of these requests than there was a year ago.
A few months ago spammers started to hijack IP space that was registered to companies that are now out of business, which means that most likely nobody is going to notice what they've done.
After a while it's almost like getting squatters' rights - I've been using it and nobody else has a real claim to it, so it's mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing most of the people responsible for the telemarketing would argue that there's a lot of crap out there, but some of those that would opt out of telemarketing would really be interested in what THEY'RE peddling.
And to be fair, they're right. Would anyone say that yes, they want spam and telemarketing? Not many, if any. But they do find some suckers, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Yep...for the same reason spam faxes are illegal - the receiver bears a significant cost burden. And in reply to the parent - yes I've gotten a few calls on my cell phone (mostly spam that comes as a page), but it's once or twice a year. :)
I saw a few minutes on telemarketers on CNN a few days ago and they rolled out the same excuses Dave Barry ridicules. They said they were hardworking people, just like the rest of us. They actually argued that it was bad because it would put people out of work.
:)
In a later discussion on the same show someone pulled out the lame-sounding but apt question - should stealing cars be legal just because it puts people out of work if it's illegal?. Some dufus responded, saying it was an invalid argument since stealing cars is illegal. Finish the thought and you've got "...stealing cars is illegal and calling people who don't want to be called is legal". So the dufus had a rather circular argument - it should be legal because it's legal. I was rather annoyed that nobody called him on it.
Anyway, it's fun to watch this one from the sidelines. I haven't had a landline in 3 years.
As others have pointed out, OS X seems vulnerable. No update is available as on Tuesday evening 7pm EST. To disable remote login via SSH in the meantime, go to System Preferences, Sharing, and unselect Remote Login.
So now they're targetting SGI. I just hope nobody settles out of court. If they have to make a real claim (x is ours) in court then it'll be easy to fix (remove/rewrite x).
If it goes to court, SCO will need to produce evidence, and that's what they're desperate to avoid. Even if they can show some flimsy but enforceable link to their IP, showing it means there'll be kernel patches the next day and they're SOL.
Every large network provider has a spam problem. Check UUNet, Qwest, etc. Also check a few other clients of Internap. [Disclaimer - I know people at Internap.]
...something was up at lunch on Tuesday. Our Cisco SE said he couldn't say what it was until 5pm that day. Apparently about 20-30 big networks were contacted then and only a few (100) people at Cisco itself knew.
Whats worse? Constantly reading about SPAM prevention or receiving it ?
Duh. Receiving spam. You chose to go to Slashdot, read the article and post in its forum.
Just as I can't function without my first cup of coffee in the morning, I can't get my moral outrage going without the first SCO story of the morning. What are we going to do when the case is thrown out? I guess there's always MS.
That's one of my pet peeves. Slashdot tends to do that a lot - people throw out acronyms from specialized fields and assume everyone knows what they're talking about. To me, PAT is a Point After Touchdown.
Btw, I don't think you're lazy, or no more than most. Checking Slashdot is a good way to cover lots of interesting topics without having to go look at dozens of other sites. If you've got to go read the article to even know what the subject is, well that's just annoying.
Sounds like a good way to end up in jail.
True. However, if the story is true, then the blackmailers are quite technologically savvy. If they also have the willpower (e.g. not bragging about it), it could be next to impossible to trace.
I think this is the movie you're referring to:
X Change
Not a great movie. I like that sort of thing if done well, but I turned it off somewhere in the middle.
They've known for the last couple years at least (at least since that's how long I've known insiders) that selling their own merchandise would be a small part of their long term strategy. It did get them the infrastructure, though. After that came the hosting of other large e-commerce sites. Now they're recruiting an army of channel sales / resellers. Very smart people over there. Wish they'd stop patenting business processes though.
There's always room next to the Lost Ark!
Well, Dmitry was in Las Vegas at the time, so that's inside the border. If you rob a casino in Vegas, you get arrested, whether you're Russian or not. Better to argue that the law is flawed than to argue about jurisdiction.
Did VCD dealers in Malaysia get busted by the MPAA? If so, I'd guess that Malaysia is in on the Berne Convention or has some other agreement.
Yep. Only these museum looters have sued the curators and are selling tickets to the public to see the exhibits that they used to get in free to see.
Many IT decision-makers have a herd mentality (e.g. nobody was ever fired for buying Cisco routers). Open Source use passed a critical mass a while ago and enough of the herd is heading in that direction now that the obvious advantages outweigh the fear of the unknown. It's continued acceptance is a foregone conclusion at this point.
Google has been expecting this for a long time and are prepared for it. MS is the only company that has been considered a serious threat, at least for the last year. They've got the name recognition, browser control and financial resources to do it. But do they have the right technical people? Are they committed to buying their way in no matter the cost? How about overcoming some very ingrained company traits and playing fair?
Then there's the Google motto of "don't be evil" to contend with. Part of Google's success, I believe, is due to not being evil, and more than that, to being good. That covers things like clearly marking ads, keeping their home page simple (I wouldn't use it as my browser home page if it wasn't) and not accepting payments for rank improvement.
There are a lot of very smart people at Google and my sources say the management is very shrewd and realistic. I'll bet they weather this storm. The drubbing of Netscape was, I think, an easier thing to do. Google already gives away their service for free, and they've got immense mindshare. Netscape had good name recognition at the time, but back then there was a flood of new users that didn't know anything about the net. That was also at a time when there wasn't so much anti-Microsoft sentiment out there (yes, even the general public has had a taste of it due to the court cases).
Wow, I just about convinced myself to submit my resume!
Do we really want 'em running the country? Yes, if the alternative is the current administration. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is getting smaller. We're going to have to learn to live with the rest of that world.
I'm not exactly a liberal (more all over the place, issue to issue), but I'll defend them against some really bewildering claims. Your rant, point by point:
Saving nature - I'll have to disagree with you and say this is a good thing.
Stopping business - absurd. I thought the 8 years before Bush were going pretty damn well.
Building big government - again, absurd. Bush is building big government - and huge deficits. He's setting the all-time deficit record, beating the high water mark set by his father.
Clean energy - lots of people pay extra for environmentally friendly products and services. If some of them are arguing against a certain project, they may still be better than the environmentally unconscious.
Women's rights - not sure what you're getting at there. Care to expound on that claim?
Freedom of choice - good for them, representing the majority of their constituency instead of caving to a vocal minority.
School vouchers - I'm for school vouchers. Are liberals (democrats?) against them?
Do we really care what they have to say about anything? - Sure do. The thought of a country run by the old guard of the GOP without anyone even trying to keep them honest is a frightening thought.
Ah yes...The Unix Wars. So will this time period be called The Empire Litigates Back?
Open standards are a great thing. Even the playing field (i.e. remove proprietary, monopoly protocols and file formats) and the best program will win. Or so the theory goes, anyway.
Suing over the name Unix doesn't sound very "open" to me. Guess they're trying to give SCO a run for the money in the bad PR department.
I'm part of the IP Admin group of a large international ISP and have seen this firsthand. New customers routinely ask us to route space, and sometimes it's difficult to tell if it's theirs or not what with all the mergers, acquisitions and renaming of companies. There's definitely more scrutiny of these requests than there was a year ago.
A few months ago spammers started to hijack IP space that was registered to companies that are now out of business, which means that most likely nobody is going to notice what they've done.
After a while it's almost like getting squatters' rights - I've been using it and nobody else has a real claim to it, so it's mine.
Bah. So you're saying their claim is that the GPL invalidates itself? That sounds like the reverse of the old MS FUD of the "viral license".
Not public domain, actually. Even better - the GPL is a copyleft. There are specific terms to keep changes open for everyone.