They don't have to use spews to have their class B spewed. Even if the ISP never had been listed in spews, it can happen any second. And there's nobody to talk to with Spews, not even a phone or by formal letter.
You just have to hope they don't blacklist you in error or because a spammer who's account has been inmediatelly closed by the ISP as soon as they discovered the spammer got you spewed.
Using spews is like trying to combat crime by killing everyone that was a friend of the thief, his friend, relatives, etc, and you don't even need to prove we commited the crime. It works, but it's higly unfair in a lot of cirscunstances.
Thats the point, what does inteligent means. Are they reversable? If I can do something that can solve math really fast, can that crunching machine become a "me"? If not, can it try to emulate a me (AI)?
Is crunching number power a generic term something that could emulate everything that could ever think about in this universe? I mean, having a mathematical representation of a real phenomena in this universe, does it became inteligent? Or is it just math? After all, we live in a universe of rules, and what makes us worth (apparently) is how we are organized internaly, our "model" makes us inteligent, or our model is called "inteligent".
So it all boils down to the speed and the model itself. Without the model, you DONT have anything usefull.
1000 monkeys do not make for a human though the processing power used may be the same. Probably even an ants colony would use more pro procesing power than a human (and they are networked also). Are they more inteligent?
This is why we see people that don't like computer chess and other like it. Some see it as just adding more and more power crunching, others see the beatuy of the new models aimed at playing stronger chess (more chess knoledge, less tactics).
It has to specialize some neurons to make up for an anolog algorith to solve this. So yes and no. It's not a fixed recall method, but yes, it's not like the brain can do anything it is not trained to do.
Inteligent people are the ones that know how to quickly retrain their brains to new tasks, or the ones that know very efficient ways to solve problem, so that they don't lose many neuros for other things. It's an organizational efficiency which of course, we don't know what it looks like, but probably is an extremely elegant algorithm connecting lots of subnets and with almost no duplication of tasks. We could call it the "ultimate library"...
If they reduce spam (blocking more spam), the ones that get though it will be smarter, and more effectly. Even you might have trouble noticing it's spam at first glance.
So the effectiveness of sucesfull spammers will grow making it a great bussiness (only to those that can master it).
Well'll have less spam, and better quality spammers.
BTW, Apple's filter also have an elemnt of whitelisting, since emails from people in your address book go through without checking.
So what? Microsoft has had something similar for years. They even let you share your address book to others (worms) without any special configuration at all.:)
Once you reach a critical mass of these spam efficiency will drop, but it will still be an advantage. I have a 0.03 signal to noise right now, I don't know what to do. I have just too much domains registered with my email account and refuse to change it because of spammers. I am a very unhappy person when checking my email.
This also happened to my server, blacklisted for 4 months after the spammer was gone, probably smapping the hell out of our inboxes while my humble server was unable to contact many servers.
I am not saying they where the same, I was just saying I was totaly screwed with no support after I bought a faily expensive card from NVidia.
3Dfx support was great. ATI, on the other hand, took more time to deliver, but I think there's also an aleviating fact that plays in ATIs favour. Their cards where cheap, the had always been very cheap. So they where trying to match $300 cards and offering $100 ones, claiming they where just as good. I know they weren't, but they where hell worth the money.
On the other hand, Edge3D, Rendition cards, Virge3D and even the Matrox cards where a complete fiasco.
The TNT put nvidia in the right track, but it wasn't a low budget card. ATI was the first to offer cheap cards that could _really_ play 3D Games.
I have now a Laptop with a Rage Pro (mobolity M), and I can still play Quake, Quake II, Quake III and many other 3D games with "decent" speeds. And it's a 1998 design (though I will crash the system after a while, because there must be some overheating or something. I need to underclock it to play more than an hour straight:).
By the way, I had always regarded ATI cards as crap, until I witnessed the Rage Pro was really not that bad, in fact, for the price, it was a great card.
My experience: I bought an Edge 3D and was totaly screwed by Nvidia. Not even decent DirectDraw, no Win98 drivers. Of course no Windows 2000 drivers, no Linux drivers, no drivers at all. And it also came with a soundcard that I can't use. I bought this card in 1996 so they should have supported at least Windows 98 and Windows 2000 like every other card in the market.
The RIVA was also a very crappy card that couldn't play anything at decent speed expect with a quality that looked like dithered 256 colors.
So watch out, when companies are playing catch up they can try and make promises they will not fullfill. So ATI and Nvidia played the same game.
On the other hand, 3Dfx never failed me even once. It was happy when I got hand of my first Voodoo I, and with the Voodoo II even happier (but the Voodoo I blew me away).
They are illegal when they are abused. They have abused it in the past, but that's a non-issue. The fact is that they can abuse it and get away with it easily.
So they now are actually stronger than before. They can stop competition by just "saying they intend to enter a market", say making a free version of this or that. Would you keep investing in that area if you trully believed MS would get into that market?
Nope. Nobody wants to get in the way of Microsoft, because they can kill you anytime leveraging their proven monopoly os the basic OS.
The only competition that is fighting MS key milkers are the war machines oracle, IBM and Sun plus all the free software enthusiasts.
Not if the present value of the "nonsense" proyects was positive. And the only way to value them as positive is if you expect these "loses" to turn into profits, or if you think of this loses as a way to keep your "milking cows" alive.
I'm pretty sure MS has plans for the X-Box, MSN and many other "loser" divisions that seem just bad investments. Killing AOL, Sony@consoles, Oracle and any other player in selected markets is amission on itself.
It has been proven there is a lot of money on consoles and these other markets. They are just not making a profit, not untill they can kill competition.
They are paying for the rent. Of course they need a high soda margin to pay the huge rents. Go and look at the margin of the entire MCDonnalds operations, not individual products.
For example, your price comparison of soda vs manufacturing costs for the computer equivalent would be:
cost of letting a user make a copy of some software? $0 Registration fee for that product over the internet? $10 (or anything > 0. Profit margin: infinite.
In the tech industry it is very common for new products to produce a loss for the first few years...
Let me add my own ending: "... if they need competitors to close before they can make any profit".
You only need cash, and they do have it. Just think for one second. If they enter a market, why is it they are not making a profit? Because they are offering below cost. How in hell would a competitor be able to charge in that market, if Microsoft offering a good product? When they don't, I don't see a problem of them losing money. It's just business. But if they COULD charge, but they don't, then they are trying to drive competition insolvent.
Yeah, and according to the field of Microeconomics, marginal costs should go up with increasing production. But as we already know, they start at 0 here, and remain at zero.
I'd say normal Microeconomics do not apply to non-commodities. Ie, you can't applie Microeconomics theory to an Office suite of a Britney Spears CD. Conclusions just does not hold.
But you could apply monopoly theory, is just for the wrong reasons. If Microsoft has 10 lines of revenue, each with 0 marginal cost. They just need to keep one to kill the competitors on the other 9 lines, provided they reached some critical mass of cash.
After that, no true competition can arise. You'd need to war Microsoft in ALL fronts at the same time, and still you'd start as as unknown company with zero brand factor. You'd need like 100 billions just to start.
If you don't want to fight them in all fronts at the same time, they can just turn your product into a free one.
Nobody in their right mind would try to develop any application that "might possibly" be of relative interest in the MS dominion plan. And the ones not in their right mind, let me tell you, lost a huge deal of money.
The notable exception is Apple, which has been left alive because Microsoft needed someone alive to be able to point their fingers at and say "competition!". That's why you had a Mac IE and a Mac MS Office. Without IE and Office Macs would have remained a real niche.
The thing is clear. They use the fact that you COULD make a competing product => they are not a monopoly.
On the other hand, they have shown you can make a competing product as long as you don't intent to sell it for a profit. If you do intend to sell it, and Microsoft doesn't like that, they just need to make it a free part of the OS bundle.
So what happens? No competition can arise, nobody on their right judgement would invest in a product that can be bundled any moment MS thinks is best for their monopoly long term health.
End result: we can't reasonaly prove they are a monopoly, but their get away with monopoly revenues. That's the state of affairs as of today.
=> Can't prove, but must pay.
So it all boils down to this: if Microsoft is allowed to morph their revenues from one area to another, it means they can always offer each of those parts for free, as long as some other part remains non-free. That automaticaly can be read as: they can kill any competitor, as long as the competitor needs a profit to survive and is not offering a solution that includes ALL the products we are selling.
And it is pretty clear they have been doing this. No wonder why we have never seen non-agregated figures by product line of Microsoft shares (and if they quote anything, it's too agregated to be really usefull).
Of course I understand that server is a relative term. But most people that come from a Windows enviroment have trouble with it (including me when I was new to X Windows).
Most everything could be thought as server. Even a keyboard: a service for gathering keystrokes from human clients. Etc, etc.
But people do get confused about X being a server for the resons I stated. That's not my opinion but my experience. Every person new to X Windows must be explained that their X-Server is just their computer and that applications are just clients, in the X terminology.
Agreed, but you can't walk away with "Oh I trusted the password. Our server is secure, only your info is insecure". You need to provide a secure way (client/server application) to your clients, and that includes the client of course. That's why they ask Microsoft to offer some security, because they are using Windows clients, and companies need them to be secure gateways to their server. That is, they need to be able to trust windows to offer key services like banking services, etc.
I don't know if it makes sense to you. It's my opinion.
It is hard, if you think of SERVERS as applications that provide a service to other clients. Web server, email server, file server.
So when they say they want to connect to your Server to use an X app, they mean they want to connect to the application that offer such service and that they are the clients that provide a Window to the server so that they can use it from whereever they are.
It makes more sense to call applications that provide remote services Servers than to call your client computer a server.
Or do you call your web app a server and slashdot you client application? Do you call your ssh client your server software and your remote (server) machine your client? Because basically, the terminal display accomplishes the same task than an X *server*.
Watch out for.Net enabled sites. You might have to choose from a castrated Web interface of a real.Net interface in less time than you think. Yes, ASP Controls will be controled by Microsoft and will as incompatible as they see fit.
In fact, you are trusting the client. Not blindly trusting it, but if you provided this client then they will blame you. And if you didn't provide the client (say IE) then you allowed them to access your services through an unsecure client.
These are privately held companies that I am talking about. No goverment involved. And of course, if you don't let them export because you don't like that they are more competitive than you in ONE market, then how do you expect them have an open economy.
After all, countries do specialize in what they do best and it's a logical conclusion that they will have lower prices than you on all these products.
I mean, where I live we do not mind not producing our own movies or our own games. We know you can do better (though people here might try to do a game, but not as good) and we import them. But we do expect our exports to be accepted.
You can't request them to repay any debt they have if you block their imports. After all, the monetary side of any operation is the relex of a real good that must be traded. And a debt is a good that MUST be traded in the future.
If your client uses windows you need to provide a windows interface (sometimes you can get away with a web interface, sometimes you cannot. Even if you get away with it, any flaw can hamper your bussines as you have to trust that your customer is really asking you to do what he appears to me trying to do - say transfering some money).
So nope, if you need to interface with Windows you have to understand windows and try to fight back any vulnerabilities. Of course, under windows you will be using a lot of the window API so you are always at risk that YOUR application will be a problem for you.
In a client server enviroment you can't trust your client, but you MUST trust what they are trying to acomplish and who they are.
On your server it's up to you (as long as Windows can interface with it, today that is simple but don't take that for granted. Passport and other things can make it difficult for you in the future to do your own thing, not because it will be imposible, but because the USER will ask you to - the lazy user).
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to use spews to have their class B spewed. Even if the ISP never had been listed in spews, it can happen any second. And there's nobody to talk to with Spews, not even a phone or by formal letter.
You just have to hope they don't blacklist you in error or because a spammer who's account has been inmediatelly closed by the ISP as soon as they discovered the spammer got you spewed.
Using spews is like trying to combat crime by killing everyone that was a friend of the thief, his friend, relatives, etc, and you don't even need to prove we commited the crime. It works, but it's higly unfair in a lot of cirscunstances.
Thats the point, what does inteligent means. Are they reversable? If I can do something that can solve math really fast, can that crunching machine become a "me"? If not, can it try to emulate a me (AI)?
Is crunching number power a generic term something that could emulate everything that could ever think about in this universe? I mean, having a mathematical representation of a real phenomena in this universe, does it became inteligent? Or is it just math? After all, we live in a universe of rules, and what makes us worth (apparently) is how we are organized internaly, our "model" makes us inteligent, or our model is called "inteligent".
So it all boils down to the speed and the model itself. Without the model, you DONT have anything usefull.
1000 monkeys do not make for a human though the processing power used may be the same. Probably even an ants colony would use more pro procesing power than a human (and they are networked also). Are they more inteligent?
This is why we see people that don't like computer chess and other like it. Some see it as just adding more and more power crunching, others see the beatuy of the new models aimed at playing stronger chess (more chess knoledge, less tactics).
It has to specialize some neurons to make up for an anolog algorith to solve this. So yes and no. It's not a fixed recall method, but yes, it's not like the brain can do anything it is not trained to do.
Inteligent people are the ones that know how to quickly retrain their brains to new tasks, or the ones that know very efficient ways to solve problem, so that they don't lose many neuros for other things. It's an organizational efficiency which of course, we don't know what it looks like, but probably is an extremely elegant algorithm connecting lots of subnets and with almost no duplication of tasks. We could call it the "ultimate library"...
If they reduce spam (blocking more spam), the ones that get though it will be smarter, and more effectly. Even you might have trouble noticing it's spam at first glance.
So the effectiveness of sucesfull spammers will grow making it a great bussiness (only to those that can master it).
Well'll have less spam, and better quality spammers.
BTW, Apple's filter also have an elemnt of whitelisting, since emails from people in your address book go through without checking.
:)
So what? Microsoft has had something similar for years. They even let you share your address book to others (worms) without any special configuration at all.
and they DO work
Once you reach a critical mass of these spam efficiency will drop, but it will still be an advantage. I have a 0.03 signal to noise right now, I don't know what to do. I have just too much domains registered with my email account and refuse to change it because of spammers. I am a very unhappy person when checking my email.
This also happened to my server, blacklisted for 4 months after the spammer was gone, probably smapping the hell out of our inboxes while my humble server was unable to contact many servers.
I am not saying they where the same, I was just saying I was totaly screwed with no support after I bought a faily expensive card from NVidia.
:).
3Dfx support was great. ATI, on the other hand, took more time to deliver, but I think there's also an aleviating fact that plays in ATIs favour. Their cards where cheap, the had always been very cheap. So they where trying to match $300 cards and offering $100 ones, claiming they where just as good. I know they weren't, but they where hell worth the money.
On the other hand, Edge3D, Rendition cards, Virge3D and even the Matrox cards where a complete fiasco.
The TNT put nvidia in the right track, but it wasn't a low budget card. ATI was the first to offer cheap cards that could _really_ play 3D Games.
I have now a Laptop with a Rage Pro (mobolity M), and I can still play Quake, Quake II, Quake III and many other 3D games with "decent" speeds. And it's a 1998 design (though I will crash the system after a while, because there must be some overheating or something. I need to underclock it to play more than an hour straight
By the way, I had always regarded ATI cards as crap, until I witnessed the Rage Pro was really not that bad, in fact, for the price, it was a great card.
My experience: I bought an Edge 3D and was totaly screwed by Nvidia. Not even decent DirectDraw, no Win98 drivers. Of course no Windows 2000 drivers, no Linux drivers, no drivers at all. And it also came with a soundcard that I can't use. I bought this card in 1996 so they should have supported at least Windows 98 and Windows 2000 like every other card in the market.
The RIVA was also a very crappy card that couldn't play anything at decent speed expect with a quality that looked like dithered 256 colors.
So watch out, when companies are playing catch up they can try and make promises they will not fullfill. So ATI and Nvidia played the same game.
On the other hand, 3Dfx never failed me even once. It was happy when I got hand of my first Voodoo I, and with the Voodoo II even happier (but the Voodoo I blew me away).
They are illegal when they are abused. They have abused it in the past, but that's a non-issue. The fact is that they can abuse it and get away with it easily.
So they now are actually stronger than before. They can stop competition by just "saying they intend to enter a market", say making a free version of this or that. Would you keep investing in that area if you trully believed MS would get into that market?
Nope. Nobody wants to get in the way of Microsoft, because they can kill you anytime leveraging their proven monopoly os the basic OS.
The only competition that is fighting MS key milkers are the war machines oracle, IBM and Sun plus all the free software enthusiasts.
Not if the present value of the "nonsense" proyects was positive. And the only way to value them as positive is if you expect these "loses" to turn into profits, or if you think of this loses as a way to keep your "milking cows" alive.
I'm pretty sure MS has plans for the X-Box, MSN and many other "loser" divisions that seem just bad investments. Killing AOL, Sony@consoles, Oracle and any other player in selected markets is amission on itself.
It has been proven there is a lot of money on consoles and these other markets. They are just not making a profit, not untill they can kill competition.
They are paying for the rent. Of course they need a high soda margin to pay the huge rents. Go and look at the margin of the entire MCDonnalds operations, not individual products.
For example, your price comparison of soda vs manufacturing costs for the computer equivalent would be:
cost of letting a user make a copy of some software? $0 Registration fee for that product over the internet? $10 (or anything > 0. Profit margin: infinite.
That's not how to do the math...
In the tech industry it is very common for new products to produce a loss for the first few years ...
Let me add my own ending: "... if they need competitors to close before they can make any profit".
You only need cash, and they do have it. Just think for one second. If they enter a market, why is it they are not making a profit? Because they are offering below cost. How in hell would a competitor be able to charge in that market, if Microsoft offering a good product? When they don't, I don't see a problem of them losing money. It's just business. But if they COULD charge, but they don't, then they are trying to drive competition insolvent.
Yeah, and according to the field of Microeconomics, marginal costs should go up with increasing production. But as we already know, they start at 0 here, and remain at zero.
I'd say normal Microeconomics do not apply to non-commodities. Ie, you can't applie Microeconomics theory to an Office suite of a Britney Spears CD. Conclusions just does not hold.
But you could apply monopoly theory, is just for the wrong reasons. If Microsoft has 10 lines of revenue, each with 0 marginal cost. They just need to keep one to kill the competitors on the other 9 lines, provided they reached some critical mass of cash.
After that, no true competition can arise. You'd need to war Microsoft in ALL fronts at the same time, and still you'd start as as unknown company with zero brand factor. You'd need like 100 billions just to start.
If you don't want to fight them in all fronts at the same time, they can just turn your product into a free one.
Nobody in their right mind would try to develop any application that "might possibly" be of relative interest in the MS dominion plan. And the ones not in their right mind, let me tell you, lost a huge deal of money.
The notable exception is Apple, which has been left alive because Microsoft needed someone alive to be able to point their fingers at and say "competition!". That's why you had a Mac IE and a Mac MS Office. Without IE and Office Macs would have remained a real niche.
The thing is clear. They use the fact that you COULD make a competing product => they are not a monopoly.
On the other hand, they have shown you can make a competing product as long as you don't intent to sell it for a profit. If you do intend to sell it, and Microsoft doesn't like that, they just need to make it a free part of the OS bundle.
So what happens? No competition can arise, nobody on their right judgement would invest in a product that can be bundled any moment MS thinks is best for their monopoly long term health.
End result: we can't reasonaly prove they are a monopoly, but their get away with monopoly revenues. That's the state of affairs as of today.
=> Can't prove, but must pay.
So it all boils down to this: if Microsoft is allowed to morph their revenues from one area to another, it means they can always offer each of those parts for free, as long as some other part remains non-free. That automaticaly can be read as: they can kill any competitor, as long as the competitor needs a profit to survive and is not offering a solution that includes ALL the products we are selling.
And it is pretty clear they have been doing this. No wonder why we have never seen non-agregated figures by product line of Microsoft shares (and if they quote anything, it's too agregated to be really usefull).
I hope somebody will understand my point...
Of course I understand that server is a relative term. But most people that come from a Windows enviroment have trouble with it (including me when I was new to X Windows).
Most everything could be thought as server. Even a keyboard: a service for gathering keystrokes from human clients. Etc, etc.
But people do get confused about X being a server for the resons I stated. That's not my opinion but my experience. Every person new to X Windows must be explained that their X-Server is just their computer and that applications are just clients, in the X terminology.
Agreed, but you can't walk away with "Oh I trusted the password. Our server is secure, only your info is insecure". You need to provide a secure way (client/server application) to your clients, and that includes the client of course. That's why they ask Microsoft to offer some security, because they are using Windows clients, and companies need them to be secure gateways to their server. That is, they need to be able to trust windows to offer key services like banking services, etc.
I don't know if it makes sense to you. It's my opinion.
It is hard, if you think of SERVERS as applications that provide a service to other clients. Web server, email server, file server.
So when they say they want to connect to your Server to use an X app, they mean they want to connect to the application that offer such service and that they are the clients that provide a Window to the server so that they can use it from whereever they are.
It makes more sense to call applications that provide remote services Servers than to call your client computer a server.
Or do you call your web app a server and slashdot you client application? Do you call your ssh client your server software and your remote (server) machine your client? Because basically, the terminal display accomplishes the same task than an X *server*.
Watch out for .Net enabled sites. You might have to choose from a castrated Web interface of a real .Net interface in less time than you think. Yes, ASP Controls will be controled by Microsoft and will as incompatible as they see fit.
Food is not a reason to use an OS. Food is a reason to use it at work only.
512 MB ram cost US$50, give me a break... :)
In fact, you are trusting the client. Not blindly trusting it, but if you provided this client then they will blame you. And if you didn't provide the client (say IE) then you allowed them to access your services through an unsecure client.
These are privately held companies that I am talking about. No goverment involved. And of course, if you don't let them export because you don't like that they are more competitive than you in ONE market, then how do you expect them have an open economy.
After all, countries do specialize in what they do best and it's a logical conclusion that they will have lower prices than you on all these products.
I mean, where I live we do not mind not producing our own movies or our own games. We know you can do better (though people here might try to do a game, but not as good) and we import them. But we do expect our exports to be accepted.
You can't request them to repay any debt they have if you block their imports. After all, the monetary side of any operation is the relex of a real good that must be traded. And a debt is a good that MUST be traded in the future.
If your client uses windows you need to provide a windows interface (sometimes you can get away with a web interface, sometimes you cannot. Even if you get away with it, any flaw can hamper your bussines as you have to trust that your customer is really asking you to do what he appears to me trying to do - say transfering some money).
So nope, if you need to interface with Windows you have to understand windows and try to fight back any vulnerabilities. Of course, under windows you will be using a lot of the window API so you are always at risk that YOUR application will be a problem for you.
In a client server enviroment you can't trust your client, but you MUST trust what they are trying to acomplish and who they are.
On your server it's up to you (as long as Windows can interface with it, today that is simple but don't take that for granted. Passport and other things can make it difficult for you in the future to do your own thing, not because it will be imposible, but because the USER will ask you to - the lazy user).
Oh, I used the wrong word I guess :( (how do you call "canteras" there?)...