Unfortunately this is unlikely to be a GNU/Linux variant, due to the restrictive GNU GPL, but I wouldn't be surprised to see major ISVs (Oracle, Corel, Imprise, PCSoft etc etc etc)....
So I guess I should have called Oracle up and asked for their source code when I installed Oracle 8i on my Linux server?
We need to make sure we all clearly understand what GPL does in order to dispell the FUD that M$ executives have been shoveling lately. The Linux kernel is licensed through GPL. That means that if I modify it, I have to GPL my modifications. But I can write any software I want that will run on the kernel. I can choose whatever license scheme I want, and I can make people give their first born child to me in payment if I so choose. The libraries included with Linux distributions are, for the most part, covered under LGPL. If I change the code in a library function, I have to GPL my modifications. But I can write brand new programs that use the libraries and link with them all I want. Again, I could charge whatever I want to for these. I have the freedom to choose any license I want for this, too.
So, unless I make a derivative work based on existing GPL code, I'm not really bound by it. We need to get this message out in a unified voice.
But for 90% of the computer users, the sheep who will be installing XP on their systems because it's easiest, never mind any privacy invasion or loss of ocntrol to Microsoft, they don't really need Windows.
Most common mistake. Most sheep don't INSTALL Windows on their computer because it is easiest. They USE it because it's already installed. In all honesty, most of my linux installs have been no more difficult than a Windows NT install. But sheep don't know anything about partitioning drives or installing file systems. Windows has that kind of fun stuff too, but most people never have to see it.
Please give me an example of something Windows does better then Linux or another flavor of Unix?
How about WYSIWYG web design packages with integrated graphics programs. I have yet to see anything on Linux that's even close to Macromedia's DreamWeaver / Fireworks studio. That's the only reason I even still have a Windows box at home. Everything else I need either has been, or can be replaced with applications on my Linux box. I keep hoping Macromedia will release their suite for Linux....
And don't go using the standard arguments:
Real HTML coders use text editors. Those that make the money use WYSIWYG design tools, and follow up on the backend with a text editor to clean things up.
Write your own. Don't have the time, but would pay good money for an equivalent package.
From my grossly limited knowledge of French pop culture, comparing your product to your competitor's in advertisements (at least as of three or so years ago) is strictly verboten.
This used to be the case in the US as well. During advertisements, people had to say: "Our product is better than other leading brands," or "Our product is better than brand X." They couldn't mention the names of the other products. I think that was changed at some point during the late 70's, but I can't remember. To be honest, many companies choose not to engage in this kind of product comparison. Doing so encourages their competitors to do the same. It also encourages certain TV shows (such as "Fight Back", no longer on the air) to actively challenge their claims.
Actually, yes I do. I have a two year old. I don't let him watch ANYTHING on TV right now because I can't always trust the content of even well-intentioned shows, but more importantly, I can't trust the commercials that show up in between. Instead, I've purchased videos that he watches with content already reviewed and approved by other parents whom I trust. The extra expense is worth it.
It looks clear that there's a problem with HSA, but are there any links to articles or data on prior relationships with Juno and Earthlink? Since none of AOL's market currently has any impact on my area, where OTHER monopolies exist, I'm not familiar with any dealings between AOL and others.
This whole thing kinda makes you think (as we all knew) that Barney(ftm [frivolous trademark]) has always been about how much money they could make rather than what kind of message they could impart to kids. For those with the knowledge, I have a few questions.
Do they have a trademark on "Barney?"
If so, will that even hold water? Barney is a name. It's also commonly given to animals.
Even if the trademark holds water, doesn't law allow you to pretty much say anything about "Barney" you want, as long as you acknowledge the trademark? I would think anything otherwise would be a violation of our right to Free Speech.
Quite frankly, if such a case could be won, it would set a dangerous precedent. Imagine if you couldn't participate in M$ bashing on your website. Or for that matter, imagine if you couldn't participate in Linux-bashing. No trolling intended. Just two examples I thought would appeal to slashdot readers. But seriously: Some time ago, companies were given the right to advertise on TV that "their product was better than {insert specific brand name}." Would winning such a court case undo all of that?
I would think their case would hold water if we were talking about slandering a real person. But this is a "fictional" character on a TV program, and one that seems to almost invite animosity (for some inexplicable reason). What makes them think that we should give up our rights to free speech?
I won't get paranoid about this, but here are some questions (regarding use as money identifier):
How is this better than a device that can read the serial number on currency? After all, if you need to use a reader, why not just scan those serial numbers. They would provide exactly the same information.
What's to stop the counterfeiters from including these chips in their money, too?
How much extra is it going to cost to print money using this technology? Who is going to pay the cost?
What would happen if, say, I stood in line at the cash register and bought something. The cashier gives me change, but forgets to scan one of the bills that just happens to have come from the previous customer. I then go to another store, and spend that money -- where they scan it appropriately. Now they have a record of this money changing hands in a suspicious manner, so they send the police to arrest me and charge me with counterfeiting because two disconnected cash transactions have taken place using bills with the same serial number.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a cool device that could have many great uses. It could be added to packages (instead of just UPC codes) and act as a combination content identifier and anti-theft system (provided that they can increase the range a little). Thieves would be incredibly surprised when something that they thought wasn't tagged turned out to be. Hospitals could even use this device (temporarily implanted on or under the skin on a patient) to help make sure they don't amputate the leg of the wrong patient. But, I just don't see any reason to put these things into monetary currency.
I do find it astonishing that such an article should have been permitted on MSNBC.
How long before it gets taken off?
I think that we should instead ask the question, "What does M$ have to gain by running this story?" After all, since MSNBC is owned by M$, we must assume that unexpected stories like this have a hidden purpose.
I would guess that the site was slashdotted, and either:
1. The server can't handle it, or...
2. The owners of the server (or site) took the file offline because of the stress.
Pure speculation, of course. I was disappointed. I wanted to see the results.
Scientific studies show the probability of being in an accident increases linearly up to about the speed of traffic and then increases exponentially after that.
The probability of BEING in an accident, or of CAUSING one? Accuracy is important here.
There may be some change at extraordinarily low speeds when a vehicle truly becomes an obstacle, but, at general traffic speeds, going slower than traffic does not increase your probability of being in a collision.
You need to define extraordinary. In my book, 20 mph difference can be pretty bad. Also, what countries did New Scientist use to do its research? In countries where passing on the right (or more correctly, passing in the "slow" lane) is prohibited, it is probably much safer to go at or below the limit. But since most roads in the US don't have such a restriction, those people driving 20 mph faster than you and zig-zagging in and out of traffic are extremely dangerous. I've seen more than my fair share of close calls and accidents as a result of this phenomenon. Sure, I'd like to see the "extreme drivers" removed from the road permanently. But until then, I'm not going to be a sitting duck.
What happens if you've got the rental car on the German autobahn where there's no speed limit?
Contrary to popular belief, there are speed limits on the autobahn. Some sections (usually in the countryside between cities) are unrestricted, but close to cities, the are restrictions -- usually near a busy Kreutz. Also, there are "laermschutz" (noise shield) speed restrictions on sections of the a-bahn near large residential areas.
Actually, I could see rental companies in Germany speed restricting you to 160 kph or less. That's still about 100 mph and driving much faster than that is quite dangerous -- especially if you aren't used to driving at those speeds.
Here I was thinking that discouraging speeding was the right thing for a socially responsible company to do. Shows how much I know.
Sure, it's the responsible thing to do, but not likely the impetus of the rental company. More than likely, they saw it as a chance to lower their insurance rates or make some extra money. Most people in the US exceed the speed limit by at least a little.
The thing I'd be worried about are those situations where you're actually SAFER driving faster than the posted limit. This mostly happens on interstates, where other drivers are exceeding the limit by a considerable amount. Granted, what they are doing is illegal and dangerous. But if everybody else is doing 85 in a 65 mph zone, you had better speed up to at least 72 or so. The difference in speed between vehicles actually adds significantly to the danger. They even TEACH this now in defensive driving courses. It would hardly be fair to have to pay a fine for doing what I thought was a safer speed under the conditions. That's why it's better for the police to be involved. While they can legally pull the car driving 72, they're more likely to go after one of the faster cars... unless of course the faster car is blue.:)
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Make a decision, folks
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
Except that you have no right to speak for everyone upstream or even your ISP, only for yourself so points #2 and #3 are meaningless.
Correct. However, I do have a right to tell my ISP that I'm not willing to pay for them to deliver spam. It would be my ISP that chooses to apply ORBS as a filter.
As far as your paying for the space: Internet & Online access costs have done nothing but come down in price since the beginning. They have never been cheaper -- and with all that spam driving your costs up! Oh, my!
Time for you to go drink some more coffee. Just because prices have come down doesn't mean that spam isn't chewing up significant resources. The prices have dropped because storage space has become cheaper and competition has become fiercer. Just imagine what prices would be like WITHOUT the spam. Try asking your ISP how much they enjoy paying for the extra storage space to hold the spam. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that 2/3 of my mail volume is spam. If everybody else was the same way (I know, a big IF), then an ISP could theoretically reduce traffic and required storage space by as much as 2/3.
Now, let's examine some of your points....
1. Set a filter up in your e-mail client to file anything from ANYONE NOT KNOWN TO YOU in a separate folder. This will leave only e-mail from people you know. Sort through the rest at your leisure.
Well, this solves pretty much nothing. My mailbox on my ISP still fills up with crap. I still have to download it in order to file it. That's a real pleasure if I happen to be traveling in an area with a bad modem connection. At best, I might be able to find a program that downloads e-mail headers only and allows me to trash mails before downloading the messages. However, this still requires a significant investment in my time. When spammers start paying me for my time, it will be ok.
2. Get an free webmail account with Hotmail and use that e-mail address for anything that "requires" it that you don't want; posting to newsgroups/slashdot/etc. Send your "real" address only to friends and people you know.
I see, so now I need to carry on a covert identity and hide myself from the world so that I won't receive spam mail. Maybe I should have to include one of those cute little e-mail mnemonics that people have to figure out in order to send me e-mail.
3. Convince your ISP that spam is such a damn nuisance they could make a couple extra bucks a month (per subscriber) by offering an optional blocking service. Write the scripts for them and license them out. Make a fortune.
My ISP does offer a blocking service, and I definitely use it. That's why my spam load is cut in half. But it's honestly not enough.
Don't get me wrong: ORBS is a great idea. Anyone running an open relay needs to be slapped and their MCSE taken away. But today's prevalant anti-SPAM kill-em-all attitude is way out of line.
I truly agree with you in that I would love to see legitimate businesses capable of sending unsolicited e-mail in a 'net friendly manner. But since there's no solid legislation on spam, the only reasonably effective solution available is an anti-SPAM attitude. Almost every single piece of spam I receive has faked e-mail headers (from bouncing off an open relay or some other trick). Almost none of them offer anything I'm remotely interested in. (No, not even enlarging my genitals:) ) Replying to the messages doesn't work. We all know that using whatever method they indicate to get yourself removed from their list only ends up getting you put onto bunches of other lists. Many of the messages I receive are downright scams. I know enough to be wary when I see the word "phish" in the sender address or distribution list.
With US mail (Snail Mail), at least I have the option of refusing almost all of this kind of mail. They can eliminate it at the post office. It's much harder to do that with e-mail. Also, if these guys were sending fraudulent spam like this through the US mail system, there would be a lot of "businesses" in court.
No, right now we need to kill spam to the best of our ability until there is some legislation that provides significant penalties for abuse. Perhaps legitimate business who use unsolicited advertisements should pressure the government(s) to provide legislation that makes things better for everybody.
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Make a decision, folks
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely, 100% agreed. My point exactly.
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Make a decision, folks
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 5
It's not a lack of decision here. This is not simply a war on censorship. Obviously, preventing somebody from expressing their opinion is censorship. But I'm under no obligation to allow anybody to express their opinion to the world while I'm paying for it. How would you like it if I spray painted my opinion all over your car windshield? I bet you'd enjoy paying to have it removed so that you could actually see where you're driving, too.
Look at the facts.
I PAY for my internet service. I have a limited amount of space available in my e-mail account. When somebody spams me, they are benefiting from what I have paid.
My ISP is paying for servers and storage space. They are paying for bandwidth. When they have to receive and store all of the spam, they are basically paying for the spammer to use their services.
Everybody in between me and the ISP is paying for the spammers to use their services.
Now, I can see two possibilities (neither of which will ever happen) that could help with this situation. The first is for the headers of spam to contain an obligatory item indicating that the e-mail is commercial and unsolicited. This would allow ISPs to choose whether or not to route the e-mail. The second is to have a centralized list, similar to ORBS, that includes per-user registration. If a user "opts out" of spam, any subscribing servers could refuse to route e-mail from likely spam sources that have the opted out user as a destination.
Face it, this is not just a battle over censorship.
I wouldn't necessarily be frightened over the mistaken-identity problem.
#1 -- I think those face-rec algorithms are far better than humans at actually recognizing someone. I know they are better than I am. I would bet they are better than the police officers, too.
#2 -- If you're that close of a match, you might have just discovered that you have a long lost twin wandering the streets.
#3 -- Remember that most of the photos they are looking for are probably known criminals with prior records. If they arrested you, an identity check would probably clear your name. I think the worst you'd have to endure would be a couple hours behind bars while they verified your identity. Plus, you'd have the grounds for a really cool lawsuit (false arrest). IANAL!!
#4 -- Face Rec is a really cool geek technology! Most/.'ers would be proud to say they were mistakenly fingered by it.:)
Now, if they start using the system to look for people based on "artist sketches" or something stupid like that, I'd say we have real cause for worry.
Countries across the world have chosen to model new patent systems after the United States Patent Office. Go figure.
And yes, I read the article. Yes, I'm an American. Regardless, the humor of the situation wasn't lost on me.
GreyPoopon
--
Re:Wired News has an article...
on
SMS vs. E-mail?
·
· Score: 2
Yeah.. Leave it to the americans to have a distorted world view... But honestly, I've never heard of any other place than US where you pay for airtime instead of only originating calls/min.
Boy, talk about hypocritical.... (I'm assuming that you live in Europe) I agree that with regards to interoperability, the US cell phone system is totally screwed up. It's stupid that every vendor has to mount their own towers, and that my AT&T approved device doesn't work on Sprint or MCI. But I'm living here in Germany for a while, and every landline phone call I make costs me, even if I call my next door neighbor. Furthermore, you need a chart to know what rate you'll pay because it differs based on locality, number of minutes called, day of the week, and time of day. Honestly, how can you complain about per-minute charges for airtime in the United States and put up with per-minute charges for landline usage in Europe? Here's a few things that maybe some people aren't aware of:
For landline usage, almost all customers in the United States have unlimited calling to a reasonably large local area. There are fixed monthly fees that cover this, but most people make enough calls during the month to more than compensate.
Due to the highly competitive nature, long distance calls are significantly cheaper than many places in Europe.
Most Wireless calling plans in the US today offer a certain number of minutes that can be used ANYTIME. Reasonable plans start at $25 per month. Most of these plans include nationwide roaming and no long distance fees.
The major wireless carriers have partnered (at least for voice) to allow us to place calls using competitor networks. The plans that allow this are usually a tad more expensive, but not unreasonable. That allows the person who remains mostly in one area and doesn't need nationwide roaming to pay less.
Having said all of this, I really wish the US would use the same technology and standards as Europe and Asia. It would make interoperability at home better, and it would potentially allow us to use our cell phones when traveling abroad without having to purchase very expensive models that can switch over.
I was going to ask the same question myself, but instead I drank a cup of coffee and waited for the caffeine to take effect. Then, I realized that in addition to the 100Mbps throughput, the REALLY good thing about LOS-based LAN's is: security. If you keep your windows covered, you can pretty much be assured that nobody can use the "bleeding" from your network to sniff your packets.
The first time I ever set up Wireless LAN, I didn't turn on encryption. I left the thing running in my office, and was about the walk out the door when I realized that I was basically broadcasting sensitive data to whoever might want to listen. I promptly went back to my office and unplugged the thing, vowing to turn the encryption on the next day.
So, if you want the speed and security without running the wires, I can see where this product would be attractive. The price is a little stiff, but compare it to wire drops plus the cost of what could happen if somebody tapped into your network....
Looks like the "meeting of the minds" by several state governments actually shot M$ a dose of reality. I almost wish they'd gone ahead and included the Smart Tags. That would have given more ammunition for antitrust suits.
Now the question is, should the Open Source community start experimenting for alternatives to Smart Tags and try to beat M$ to the punch? Or is that just paving the way for further nasties?
It is interesting what happens when someone just guesses about what a technology does. Why are you so positive it will "dirty" up the power? What do you know about the technology? Why on earth would 92 companies agree to something that is not going to play nicely with the appliances in people's homes? Seems to me that would be a good way to piss off your customers and invite lawyers to your doorstep with class-action lawsuits.
Companies have been doing irresponsible things for years. I don't see why this should be any exception. And yes, anything that transmits signals through your power lines will "dirty" up the power (slightly). In order to get a signal, you have to "vary" something. Your choices are: voltage, current, or AC cycles. The first two have naturally wide variations, so I doubt that either are being used. Frequency has some variation too, but not as bad. The question is, will the effect of the network even be noticeable with the normal "noise" that exists on your power lines. The answer is most likely that it won't be any worse than your neighbor turning on a vacuum cleaner. But the question should still be asked.
Well, seeing as how this technology is for LAN's, not WAN's, I don't see how this argument applies, at all.
Ok, sorry. I was getting a bit ahead and trying to be forward thinking. I should have explained more. Although the article only dealt with home networks, I was envisioning some sort of mini-WANs set up on a phase loop -- any residents on that loop could pay an ISP on the same loop for internet connectivity. Cool idea, but it probably wouldn't work very well anyway.
This may be a tad "off the wall," but I'm concerned about impact on appliances. Apparently, power "noise" is so bad that a few years ago, a company made money selling these "green" plug adaptors that conditioned the power oscillations to more efficiently drive appliances. They claimed that their deviced drastically improved power efficiency and increased the lifetime of your appliances.
Now, maybe that's a whole bunch of bunk, but if it's accurate, what effect would this new device have? It surely would "dirty" up your power a bit, not to mention everyone elses on your phase loop. Enough of these running, and we'd all have to buy whole-house green plugs for everything EXCEPT the outlet we were using for ethernet.
On another note, wouldn't this technology have similar problems as cable modem? If the whole neighborhood signs up, what kind of throughput will you get? I have to believe that running new power cables (to increase bandwidth) is more expensive than burying some extra fiber.
Unfortunately, I see that Mundie hasn't been a very heavy contributor yet. Let's see: he's started a thread by apologizing for the fact that GPL advocates focused on the anti-GPL message. And he's taken discussion about the Mobile Internet Toolkit license and used it to continue referring to the GPL as a viral license.
He hasn't responded to any of the perfectly valid points and rebuttals contributed by other members of the "panel." Why not? Because he doesn't have a valid argument. He has no real data to back up what he says. Instead, he'll use every opportunity he gets to translate the discussion into marketing opportunities for M$.
Actually, this sounds more like the beginning of the end for Alpha. Compaq isn't really transferring Alpha to Intel:
Under the multi-year technology agreement, Compaq is transferring significant Alpha tools and engineering resources to Intel, as well as granting licenses to Compaq's Alpha microprocessor technology and compilers.
Based on the above, it looks like they are providing some resources and tools, and licensing the current technology. What this means (IMHO) is that they are partnering with Intel to work towards next-generation processors (Itanium and beyond), and are helping provide Intel with additional resources to improve their 64-bit line. Compaq is, according to the article, also commiting to the release of one more generation of Alpha processors. But, I think you can assume that will be the last. They will be porting their OS technology to Itanium. The plus side to this is that you may see some of the more interesting bits of Alpha technology show up down the line in some of the Intel processors.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess I should have called Oracle up and asked for their source code when I installed Oracle 8i on my Linux server?
We need to make sure we all clearly understand what GPL does in order to dispell the FUD that M$ executives have been shoveling lately. The Linux kernel is licensed through GPL. That means that if I modify it, I have to GPL my modifications. But I can write any software I want that will run on the kernel. I can choose whatever license scheme I want, and I can make people give their first born child to me in payment if I so choose. The libraries included with Linux distributions are, for the most part, covered under LGPL. If I change the code in a library function, I have to GPL my modifications. But I can write brand new programs that use the libraries and link with them all I want. Again, I could charge whatever I want to for these. I have the freedom to choose any license I want for this, too.
So, unless I make a derivative work based on existing GPL code, I'm not really bound by it. We need to get this message out in a unified voice.
GreyPoopon
--
Most common mistake. Most sheep don't INSTALL Windows on their computer because it is easiest. They USE it because it's already installed. In all honesty, most of my linux installs have been no more difficult than a Windows NT install. But sheep don't know anything about partitioning drives or installing file systems. Windows has that kind of fun stuff too, but most people never have to see it.
GreyPoopon
--
How about WYSIWYG web design packages with integrated graphics programs. I have yet to see anything on Linux that's even close to Macromedia's DreamWeaver / Fireworks studio. That's the only reason I even still have a Windows box at home. Everything else I need either has been, or can be replaced with applications on my Linux box. I keep hoping Macromedia will release their suite for Linux....
And don't go using the standard arguments:
GreyPoopon
--
This used to be the case in the US as well. During advertisements, people had to say: "Our product is better than other leading brands," or "Our product is better than brand X." They couldn't mention the names of the other products. I think that was changed at some point during the late 70's, but I can't remember. To be honest, many companies choose not to engage in this kind of product comparison. Doing so encourages their competitors to do the same. It also encourages certain TV shows (such as "Fight Back", no longer on the air) to actively challenge their claims.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Quite frankly, if such a case could be won, it would set a dangerous precedent. Imagine if you couldn't participate in M$ bashing on your website. Or for that matter, imagine if you couldn't participate in Linux-bashing. No trolling intended. Just two examples I thought would appeal to slashdot readers. But seriously: Some time ago, companies were given the right to advertise on TV that "their product was better than {insert specific brand name}." Would winning such a court case undo all of that?
I would think their case would hold water if we were talking about slandering a real person. But this is a "fictional" character on a TV program, and one that seems to almost invite animosity (for some inexplicable reason). What makes them think that we should give up our rights to free speech?
Somebody tell me where I can donate to the cause.
GreyPoopon
--
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a cool device that could have many great uses. It could be added to packages (instead of just UPC codes) and act as a combination content identifier and anti-theft system (provided that they can increase the range a little). Thieves would be incredibly surprised when something that they thought wasn't tagged turned out to be. Hospitals could even use this device (temporarily implanted on or under the skin on a patient) to help make sure they don't amputate the leg of the wrong patient. But, I just don't see any reason to put these things into monetary currency.
GreyPoopon
--
How long before it gets taken off?
I think that we should instead ask the question, "What does M$ have to gain by running this story?" After all, since MSNBC is owned by M$, we must assume that unexpected stories like this have a hidden purpose.
GreyPoopon
--
1. The server can't handle it, or...
2. The owners of the server (or site) took the file offline because of the stress.
Pure speculation, of course. I was disappointed. I wanted to see the results.
GreyPoopon
--
The probability of BEING in an accident, or of CAUSING one? Accuracy is important here.
There may be some change at extraordinarily low speeds when a vehicle truly becomes an obstacle, but, at general traffic speeds, going slower than traffic does not increase your probability of being in a collision.
You need to define extraordinary. In my book, 20 mph difference can be pretty bad. Also, what countries did New Scientist use to do its research? In countries where passing on the right (or more correctly, passing in the "slow" lane) is prohibited, it is probably much safer to go at or below the limit. But since most roads in the US don't have such a restriction, those people driving 20 mph faster than you and zig-zagging in and out of traffic are extremely dangerous. I've seen more than my fair share of close calls and accidents as a result of this phenomenon. Sure, I'd like to see the "extreme drivers" removed from the road permanently. But until then, I'm not going to be a sitting duck.
GreyPoopon
--
Contrary to popular belief, there are speed limits on the autobahn. Some sections (usually in the countryside between cities) are unrestricted, but close to cities, the are restrictions -- usually near a busy Kreutz. Also, there are "laermschutz" (noise shield) speed restrictions on sections of the a-bahn near large residential areas.
Actually, I could see rental companies in Germany speed restricting you to 160 kph or less. That's still about 100 mph and driving much faster than that is quite dangerous -- especially if you aren't used to driving at those speeds.
GreyPoopon
--
Sure, it's the responsible thing to do, but not likely the impetus of the rental company. More than likely, they saw it as a chance to lower their insurance rates or make some extra money. Most people in the US exceed the speed limit by at least a little.
The thing I'd be worried about are those situations where you're actually SAFER driving faster than the posted limit. This mostly happens on interstates, where other drivers are exceeding the limit by a considerable amount. Granted, what they are doing is illegal and dangerous. But if everybody else is doing 85 in a 65 mph zone, you had better speed up to at least 72 or so. The difference in speed between vehicles actually adds significantly to the danger. They even TEACH this now in defensive driving courses. It would hardly be fair to have to pay a fine for doing what I thought was a safer speed under the conditions. That's why it's better for the police to be involved. While they can legally pull the car driving 72, they're more likely to go after one of the faster cars ... unless of course the faster car is blue. :)
GreyPoopon
--
Correct. However, I do have a right to tell my ISP that I'm not willing to pay for them to deliver spam. It would be my ISP that chooses to apply ORBS as a filter.
As far as your paying for the space: Internet & Online access costs have done nothing but come down in price since the beginning. They have never been cheaper -- and with all that spam driving your costs up! Oh, my!
Time for you to go drink some more coffee. Just because prices have come down doesn't mean that spam isn't chewing up significant resources. The prices have dropped because storage space has become cheaper and competition has become fiercer. Just imagine what prices would be like WITHOUT the spam. Try asking your ISP how much they enjoy paying for the extra storage space to hold the spam. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that 2/3 of my mail volume is spam. If everybody else was the same way (I know, a big IF), then an ISP could theoretically reduce traffic and required storage space by as much as 2/3.
Now, let's examine some of your points....
1. Set a filter up in your e-mail client to file anything from ANYONE NOT KNOWN TO YOU in a separate folder. This will leave only e-mail from people you know. Sort through the rest at your leisure.
Well, this solves pretty much nothing. My mailbox on my ISP still fills up with crap. I still have to download it in order to file it. That's a real pleasure if I happen to be traveling in an area with a bad modem connection. At best, I might be able to find a program that downloads e-mail headers only and allows me to trash mails before downloading the messages. However, this still requires a significant investment in my time. When spammers start paying me for my time, it will be ok.
2. Get an free webmail account with Hotmail and use that e-mail address for anything that "requires" it that you don't want; posting to newsgroups/slashdot/etc. Send your "real" address only to friends and people you know.
I see, so now I need to carry on a covert identity and hide myself from the world so that I won't receive spam mail. Maybe I should have to include one of those cute little e-mail mnemonics that people have to figure out in order to send me e-mail.
3. Convince your ISP that spam is such a damn nuisance they could make a couple extra bucks a month (per subscriber) by offering an optional blocking service. Write the scripts for them and license them out. Make a fortune.
My ISP does offer a blocking service, and I definitely use it. That's why my spam load is cut in half. But it's honestly not enough.
Don't get me wrong: ORBS is a great idea. Anyone running an open relay needs to be slapped and their MCSE taken away. But today's prevalant anti-SPAM kill-em-all attitude is way out of line.
I truly agree with you in that I would love to see legitimate businesses capable of sending unsolicited e-mail in a 'net friendly manner. But since there's no solid legislation on spam, the only reasonably effective solution available is an anti-SPAM attitude. Almost every single piece of spam I receive has faked e-mail headers (from bouncing off an open relay or some other trick). Almost none of them offer anything I'm remotely interested in. (No, not even enlarging my genitals :) ) Replying to the messages doesn't work. We all know that using whatever method they indicate to get yourself removed from their list only ends up getting you put onto bunches of other lists. Many of the messages I receive are downright scams. I know enough to be wary when I see the word "phish" in the sender address or distribution list.
With US mail (Snail Mail), at least I have the option of refusing almost all of this kind of mail. They can eliminate it at the post office. It's much harder to do that with e-mail. Also, if these guys were sending fraudulent spam like this through the US mail system, there would be a lot of "businesses" in court.
No, right now we need to kill spam to the best of our ability until there is some legislation that provides significant penalties for abuse. Perhaps legitimate business who use unsolicited advertisements should pressure the government(s) to provide legislation that makes things better for everybody.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Look at the facts.
Now, I can see two possibilities (neither of which will ever happen) that could help with this situation. The first is for the headers of spam to contain an obligatory item indicating that the e-mail is commercial and unsolicited. This would allow ISPs to choose whether or not to route the e-mail. The second is to have a centralized list, similar to ORBS, that includes per-user registration. If a user "opts out" of spam, any subscribing servers could refuse to route e-mail from likely spam sources that have the opted out user as a destination.
Face it, this is not just a battle over censorship.
GreyPoopon
--
#1 -- I think those face-rec algorithms are far better than humans at actually recognizing someone. I know they are better than I am. I would bet they are better than the police officers, too.
#2 -- If you're that close of a match, you might have just discovered that you have a long lost twin wandering the streets.
#3 -- Remember that most of the photos they are looking for are probably known criminals with prior records. If they arrested you, an identity check would probably clear your name. I think the worst you'd have to endure would be a couple hours behind bars while they verified your identity. Plus, you'd have the grounds for a really cool lawsuit (false arrest). IANAL!!
#4 -- Face Rec is a really cool geek technology! Most /.'ers would be proud to say they were mistakenly fingered by it. :)
Now, if they start using the system to look for people based on "artist sketches" or something stupid like that, I'd say we have real cause for worry.
GreyPoopon
--
And yes, I read the article. Yes, I'm an American. Regardless, the humor of the situation wasn't lost on me.
GreyPoopon
--
Boy, talk about hypocritical.... (I'm assuming that you live in Europe) I agree that with regards to interoperability, the US cell phone system is totally screwed up. It's stupid that every vendor has to mount their own towers, and that my AT&T approved device doesn't work on Sprint or MCI. But I'm living here in Germany for a while, and every landline phone call I make costs me, even if I call my next door neighbor. Furthermore, you need a chart to know what rate you'll pay because it differs based on locality, number of minutes called, day of the week, and time of day. Honestly, how can you complain about per-minute charges for airtime in the United States and put up with per-minute charges for landline usage in Europe? Here's a few things that maybe some people aren't aware of:
Having said all of this, I really wish the US would use the same technology and standards as Europe and Asia. It would make interoperability at home better, and it would potentially allow us to use our cell phones when traveling abroad without having to purchase very expensive models that can switch over.
GreyPoopon
--
The first time I ever set up Wireless LAN, I didn't turn on encryption. I left the thing running in my office, and was about the walk out the door when I realized that I was basically broadcasting sensitive data to whoever might want to listen. I promptly went back to my office and unplugged the thing, vowing to turn the encryption on the next day.
So, if you want the speed and security without running the wires, I can see where this product would be attractive. The price is a little stiff, but compare it to wire drops plus the cost of what could happen if somebody tapped into your network....
GreyPoopon
--
Now the question is, should the Open Source community start experimenting for alternatives to Smart Tags and try to beat M$ to the punch? Or is that just paving the way for further nasties?
GreyPoopon
--
Companies have been doing irresponsible things for years. I don't see why this should be any exception. And yes, anything that transmits signals through your power lines will "dirty" up the power (slightly). In order to get a signal, you have to "vary" something. Your choices are: voltage, current, or AC cycles. The first two have naturally wide variations, so I doubt that either are being used. Frequency has some variation too, but not as bad. The question is, will the effect of the network even be noticeable with the normal "noise" that exists on your power lines. The answer is most likely that it won't be any worse than your neighbor turning on a vacuum cleaner. But the question should still be asked.
Ok, sorry. I was getting a bit ahead and trying to be forward thinking. I should have explained more. Although the article only dealt with home networks, I was envisioning some sort of mini-WANs set up on a phase loop -- any residents on that loop could pay an ISP on the same loop for internet connectivity. Cool idea, but it probably wouldn't work very well anyway.
GreyPoopon
--
Now, maybe that's a whole bunch of bunk, but if it's accurate, what effect would this new device have? It surely would "dirty" up your power a bit, not to mention everyone elses on your phase loop. Enough of these running, and we'd all have to buy whole-house green plugs for everything EXCEPT the outlet we were using for ethernet.
On another note, wouldn't this technology have similar problems as cable modem? If the whole neighborhood signs up, what kind of throughput will you get? I have to believe that running new power cables (to increase bandwidth) is more expensive than burying some extra fiber.
GreyPoopon
--
He hasn't responded to any of the perfectly valid points and rebuttals contributed by other members of the "panel." Why not? Because he doesn't have a valid argument. He has no real data to back up what he says. Instead, he'll use every opportunity he gets to translate the discussion into marketing opportunities for M$.
GreyPoopon
--
Based on the above, it looks like they are providing some resources and tools, and licensing the current technology. What this means (IMHO) is that they are partnering with Intel to work towards next-generation processors (Itanium and beyond), and are helping provide Intel with additional resources to improve their 64-bit line. Compaq is, according to the article, also commiting to the release of one more generation of Alpha processors. But, I think you can assume that will be the last. They will be porting their OS technology to Itanium. The plus side to this is that you may see some of the more interesting bits of Alpha technology show up down the line in some of the Intel processors.
I wonder how all of this will impact AMD....
GreyPoopon
--