And who is foolish enough to ban customers from communicating with him? You can impose strict rules on vendors, but you'll always be your customer's bitch.
Oh, you mean like I should put an electric fence around my house because all the windows are easily breakable?
Some defects in security are well known but assumed. When they get broken though they still involve costs, and I'm not just talking about window replacement.
You forgot to say that in both cases, if caught, your burglar ends up in jail.
And yes you could probably sue him for the car alarm thing. After all you don't know how he got in, maybe he captured your code when you opened it with a keychain.
However in that case all these costs bump up because they're made in a high alert situation. Think about overtime, outside assistance, express delivery of equipment, etc. Security by obscurity is a bad thing, but the corrolary of that is that in the case of a break-in you cannot afford to fix problems at a reasonnable pace, mainly because of the publicity.
You might say that the victims are responsible for the publicity, but that's not true. Who knows when and where that goof who just broke into your system bragged about it.
There is a direct consequences between a break-in and the extra costs. The same way if someone breaks into your house. You will immediately replace your locks for better ones even if the nature of your belongings doesn't justify it. Simply because you do not want to live through the same ordeal again.
If I break into your house, you will have to make a full inventory in order to establish what had been stolen... Then you'll have to change all your credit cards, financial info, etc. etc. Simply because you never know. That takes time, don't you agree?
Next time I'm on the street I'll try to open your door, and then every window, in an attempt to get into your house. Once I'm in, I'll let you know what the problem was so that you can "fix" it.
I admit that I never tried to phone my request in, simply because I do not trust the odds. However I can tell you that sending an email request to the proper AOL complaint department is useless. You only get a bunch of automatic replies and then it stops.
Like I said, we have multiple class-C's and found out that the best solution is simply to rotate our SMTP's source address accross 5 or 6 IPs. By the time you get back to the first one it's already off AOL's list. I hate myself for being forced to do that, but I am not willing to fight the bureaucracy.
Now if we were on a real RBL list that trick would not work, but AOL knows it's doing wrong and that's why their blacklist turnaround is roughly 2-3 weeks. That way, by the time AOLusers understand what's happening and start complaining to customer service the problem has already gone away.
What if you look at it from a slightly different angle? AOL is abusing its place in the market by trying to indirectly regulate Internet communications and by that mean deserves a slap on the wrist like any other monopoly.
People on AOL expect to receive "Internet" email. And that's what's being advertised. How do you explain that the reason why they didn't receive an invoice from your website is because their provider went a bit berserk on the filtering?
For God's sake, if they want a private network, let them do it. But they should clearly advertise that their version of email is not the same one everybody else uses.
Take it in the proper AOL=monopoly context. AOL blocking other providers from forwarding mail to AOL users without reasonable cause is a form of abuse simply because of AOL's place in the market. By that mean they can put lots of hosting companies out of business.
On another note, for the last month or so I have been struck with the same problems from AOL. I have a good supply of IP addresses, so I don't really care, especially that after a few weeks they take your IP off the blacklist.
Finally one of my customers told me that AOL 7 (or whatever the latest version is) has a special "report spam and block it" button. AOLusers tend to use it to kill off newsletters that they are subscribed to. It does the work, but too many lusers hitting the switch runs you strate for the blacklist. And there is NOWHERE to complain.
Now we wouldn't want AOL to do what Microsoft did with IE? Or do we? I am confused, who are we supposed to hate here?
So instead of building a separate exploit-capable worm for each security threat why don't you just build or implement a tool to update all the systems on your subnet? That way you won't have to rewrite your propagation code every time a new exploit is delivered.
But then again you will tell me that this doesn't sound as "cool".
Just download the google toolbar and you'll see that our favorite search engine already tracks results in that way. What they do with the information is another question..
Then maybe you should check out the international copyright law convention as well as the copyright law in your own country and you will see that software and audio/video content rental is generally prohibited unless you hold a specific license to do so. Maybe you buy the DVDs wholesale but your company has a general "deal" with the content producer?
The mp3.com model solves the problem of ownerwhip/identification to some extent and it could most probably be enough in this case. However once identified, what prevents me from playing my whole CD collection on my home stereo without alerting Snapster that I am currently listening to my CDs? I think that's the weakest point in this system.
Besides, I don't think that the burden of uniquely identifying a CD is RIAA's responsability. Why would they be forced to implement measures in order to make the Snapster business model more efficient?
Thanks for pointing it out. People don't seem to understand that DVD/video/game rental has nothing to do with trying to rent a copy you buy at bestbuy.
But everyone always tries to make the comparison.
"Rentable" DVDs cost at least 3 times the price of regular DVDs. That's what makes them legal. They hold a specific license that allows the video store to rent them. If one doesn't hold such a license with a cd/dvd they buy then he needs to abide to the general copyright law.
Nice to see you promoting your great idea accross the board like that, but have you thought about all these exclusivity contracts that every musician has to sign in order to start selling some records?
Is your pyramidal scheme going to involve musicians that we want to listen to?:)
I don't believe that a system like this could be described as legally solid. How can you effectively "freeze" a physical CD while someone plays a copy of it? How could Snapster prove that it has control over when a physical CD is stuck into a player? Such control cannot be obtained unless you have some special hardware device that would indeed render a CD unusable until it is unlocked by the central server.. Now that just wouldn't make sense because the cost per CD would probably be too high.
The only solution for this would be for Snapster itself to purchase multiple copies of these CDs and "borrow" their content to its shareholders. I am not talking about the 1-copy-of-each-CD model, but rather, thousands and tens of thousands of copies. In such a system someone needs to act as the gardian. Your stock broker can allow you to short your stock, but he is legally responsible for keeping an accounting of the stocks that he holds for his customers vs. the amount that he is allowed to short. The comparison the author makes is very interesting but fundamentelly flawed if there is no central control over the physical assets.
The other problem lies in the online delivery mechanism, of course. In order to maintain control of who plays what, you would need some type of DRM. That's a serious show stopper to market penetration, and the very reason why DRM, with all the complications it represents, is a dying concept.
It's cute. I like it, but I don't believe the author can get "rich" on this idea. Snapster would in fact need to keep diluting its capital in order to afford all these CDs it needs to stock.
Mind you, I believe the concept will get somewhere. For example, if you break a CD, you still own the right to the music that was on that CD. Arguably one could just keep the inner ring of a CD (where the serial number is) and prove ownership of an album. Hence #1 less place is necessary to store the albums and #2 you could actually ask shareholders to break the CDs they currently own in order to prove ownership and at the same time that the CD cannot be physically played anymore. Therefore even the original owner of a CD will be required to go through Snapster's access control system in order to play the DRM'd copy of his CD. Would you be willing to break your collection of CDs for a company that could go belly-up after one lawsuit?
The point being that if Snapster can show that it took all necessary measures in order for its system not to be circumvented, it will probably not get its ass kicked in courts. If it solely relies on its shareholders to act in good faith, then that's not going to hold in court for long. Negligence and criminal negligence are concepts that apply even to corporations and generally you cannot achieve an illegal result through legal means.
Probably one of the best comments in the bunch. Too bad everyone is stuck on Funny+1 and giving insightfull points to meanless messages.
Besides, DVDs are able to provide different "edits" of the same movie. It's just a mather of programming the disc properly. Especially when it's all about simply cutting some scenes out.
The best way to start a good anti-hoax site would be to provide an email interface.
i.e. I get a mail that looks like a hoax, I forward it to submit@hoaxlist.com, and if the site determines it is in fact a hoax it automatically emails all TO: and CC: fields in the forwarded email informing people of the fact. Also, it could mention fair and square the person who was at the origin of the propagation in said group of people. That would definitely make them think twice before they forward that junk again.
This could also be useful in tracking the spread of hoaxes.
For added efficiency, put all the email addresses that you collect that way on a spam list and that will certainly make people hate chain-letter forwarders.:)
[..]it was made from the standpoint of TCP itself. If it's looking at the UDP packets coming in and realizes one is missing, it will request that that missing packet be resent [...]
Until now we all thought TCP was a layer on top of IP. Thanks for clarifying that.
Slashdot Mirror
And who is foolish enough to ban customers from communicating with him? You can impose strict rules on vendors, but you'll always be your customer's bitch.
Oh, you mean like I should put an electric fence around my house because all the windows are easily breakable?
Some defects in security are well known but assumed. When they get broken though they still involve costs, and I'm not just talking about window replacement.
You forgot to say that in both cases, if caught, your burglar ends up in jail.
And yes you could probably sue him for the car alarm thing. After all you don't know how he got in, maybe he captured your code when you opened it with a keychain.
However in that case all these costs bump up because they're made in a high alert situation. Think about overtime, outside assistance, express delivery of equipment, etc. Security by obscurity is a bad thing, but the corrolary of that is that in the case of a break-in you cannot afford to fix problems at a reasonnable pace, mainly because of the publicity.
You might say that the victims are responsible for the publicity, but that's not true. Who knows when and where that goof who just broke into your system bragged about it.
There is a direct consequences between a break-in and the extra costs. The same way if someone breaks into your house. You will immediately replace your locks for better ones even if the nature of your belongings doesn't justify it. Simply because you do not want to live through the same ordeal again.
If I break into your house, you will have to make a full inventory in order to establish what had been stolen... Then you'll have to change all your credit cards, financial info, etc. etc. Simply because you never know. That takes time, don't you agree?
Next time I'm on the street I'll try to open your door, and then every window, in an attempt to get into your house. Once I'm in, I'll let you know what the problem was so that you can "fix" it.
I'm sure you would like that.
I admit that I never tried to phone my request in, simply because I do not trust the odds. However I can tell you that sending an email request to the proper AOL complaint department is useless. You only get a bunch of automatic replies and then it stops.
Like I said, we have multiple class-C's and found out that the best solution is simply to rotate our SMTP's source address accross 5 or 6 IPs. By the time you get back to the first one it's already off AOL's list. I hate myself for being forced to do that, but I am not willing to fight the bureaucracy.
Now if we were on a real RBL list that trick would not work, but AOL knows it's doing wrong and that's why their blacklist turnaround is roughly 2-3 weeks. That way, by the time AOLusers understand what's happening and start complaining to customer service the problem has already gone away.
It's a happy happy world...
Bravo. Outright abuse, that's what it is.
What if you look at it from a slightly different angle? AOL is abusing its place in the market by trying to indirectly regulate Internet communications and by that mean deserves a slap on the wrist like any other monopoly.
People on AOL expect to receive "Internet" email. And that's what's being advertised. How do you explain that the reason why they didn't receive an invoice from your website is because their provider went a bit berserk on the filtering?
For God's sake, if they want a private network, let them do it. But they should clearly advertise that their version of email is not the same one everybody else uses.
Take it in the proper AOL=monopoly context. AOL blocking other providers from forwarding mail to AOL users without reasonable cause is a form of abuse simply because of AOL's place in the market. By that mean they can put lots of hosting companies out of business.
On another note, for the last month or so I have been struck with the same problems from AOL. I have a good supply of IP addresses, so I don't really care, especially that after a few weeks they take your IP off the blacklist.
Finally one of my customers told me that AOL 7 (or whatever the latest version is) has a special "report spam and block it" button. AOLusers tend to use it to kill off newsletters that they are subscribed to. It does the work, but too many lusers hitting the switch runs you strate for the blacklist. And there is NOWHERE to complain.
Now we wouldn't want AOL to do what Microsoft did with IE? Or do we? I am confused, who are we supposed to hate here?
Could the video be any less clear than that? Sounds like a set-up, kinda reminds me of these two guys walking on the moon.
Oh, you are so good. We are all amazed at your level of perception and prediction.
I for one welcome this Genius Overlord!
So instead of building a separate exploit-capable worm for each security threat why don't you just build or implement a tool to update all the systems on your subnet? That way you won't have to rewrite your propagation code every time a new exploit is delivered.
But then again you will tell me that this doesn't sound as "cool".
DSELECT rules.
I think you must be the retarded one. "Buy on rumors, sell on news" only holds when the news are supposed to push the stock price up.
Next time a bad rumor hits the horizon I'll make sure to let you know so you can help me unload some shares before it really hits bad.
Just download the google toolbar and you'll see that our favorite search engine already tracks results in that way. What they do with the information is another question..
You are not James Bond. This is just about releasing some information. Don't take this too far bro.
Then maybe you should check out the international copyright law convention as well as the copyright law in your own country and you will see that software and audio/video content rental is generally prohibited unless you hold a specific license to do so. Maybe you buy the DVDs wholesale but your company has a general "deal" with the content producer?
The mp3.com model solves the problem of ownerwhip/identification to some extent and it could most probably be enough in this case. However once identified, what prevents me from playing my whole CD collection on my home stereo without alerting Snapster that I am currently listening to my CDs? I think that's the weakest point in this system.
Besides, I don't think that the burden of uniquely identifying a CD is RIAA's responsability. Why would they be forced to implement measures in order to make the Snapster business model more efficient?
And who will be promoting these musicians with radio stations/ tv shows accross the country?
Because they won't be able to do it themselves..
Thanks for pointing it out. People don't seem to understand that DVD/video/game rental has nothing to do with trying to rent a copy you buy at bestbuy.
But everyone always tries to make the comparison.
"Rentable" DVDs cost at least 3 times the price of regular DVDs. That's what makes them legal. They hold a specific license that allows the video store to rent them. If one doesn't hold such a license with a cd/dvd they buy then he needs to abide to the general copyright law.
I'll give you 50 cents if you stop promoting your pyramidal scheme right now.
Nice to see you promoting your great idea accross the board like that, but have you thought about all these exclusivity contracts that every musician has to sign in order to start selling some records?
:)
Is your pyramidal scheme going to involve musicians that we want to listen to?
I don't believe that a system like this could be described as legally solid. How can you effectively "freeze" a physical CD while someone plays a copy of it? How could Snapster prove that it has control over when a physical CD is stuck into a player? Such control cannot be obtained unless you have some special hardware device that would indeed render a CD unusable until it is unlocked by the central server.. Now that just wouldn't make sense because the cost per CD would probably be too high.
The only solution for this would be for Snapster itself to purchase multiple copies of these CDs and "borrow" their content to its shareholders. I am not talking about the 1-copy-of-each-CD model, but rather, thousands and tens of thousands of copies. In such a system someone needs to act as the gardian. Your stock broker can allow you to short your stock, but he is legally responsible for keeping an accounting of the stocks that he holds for his customers vs. the amount that he is allowed to short. The comparison the author makes is very interesting but fundamentelly flawed if there is no central control over the physical assets.
The other problem lies in the online delivery mechanism, of course. In order to maintain control of who plays what, you would need some type of DRM. That's a serious show stopper to market penetration, and the very reason why DRM, with all the complications it represents, is a dying concept.
It's cute. I like it, but I don't believe the author can get "rich" on this idea. Snapster would in fact need to keep diluting its capital in order to afford all these CDs it needs to stock.
Mind you, I believe the concept will get somewhere. For example, if you break a CD, you still own the right to the music that was on that CD. Arguably one could just keep the inner ring of a CD (where the serial number is) and prove ownership of an album. Hence #1 less place is necessary to store the albums and #2 you could actually ask shareholders to break the CDs they currently own in order to prove ownership and at the same time that the CD cannot be physically played anymore. Therefore even the original owner of a CD will be required to go through Snapster's access control system in order to play the DRM'd copy of his CD. Would you be willing to break your collection of CDs for a company that could go belly-up after one lawsuit?
The point being that if Snapster can show that it took all necessary measures in order for its system not to be circumvented, it will probably not get its ass kicked in courts. If it solely relies on its shareholders to act in good faith, then that's not going to hold in court for long. Negligence and criminal negligence are concepts that apply even to corporations and generally you cannot achieve an illegal result through legal means.
Probably one of the best comments in the bunch. Too bad everyone is stuck on Funny+1 and giving insightfull points to meanless messages.
Besides, DVDs are able to provide different "edits" of the same movie. It's just a mather of programming the disc properly. Especially when it's all about simply cutting some scenes out.
The best way to start a good anti-hoax site would be to provide an email interface.
:)
i.e. I get a mail that looks like a hoax, I forward it to submit@hoaxlist.com, and if the site determines it is in fact a hoax it automatically emails all TO: and CC: fields in the forwarded email informing people of the fact. Also, it could mention fair and square the person who was at the origin of the propagation in said group of people. That would definitely make them think twice before they forward that junk again.
This could also be useful in tracking the spread of hoaxes.
For added efficiency, put all the email addresses that you collect that way on a spam list and that will certainly make people hate chain-letter forwarders.
Until now we all thought TCP was a layer on top of IP. Thanks for clarifying that.