You're right. I don't know how intelligent Mr. Bush is. Perhaps he will show me someday, but until then I'm left to read that book by its cover. I have to judge by the limited coverage provided by our stelar national news. As such, I feel that he "looks" like an idiot. Even though I suspect that the news is trying to put a good spin on the president. Especially in times (or near times) of war. I don't mean to suggest that I am right. I don't mean to offend people who feel differently. I just think that it is very important for the leader of America to look intelligent and I don't think he does.
This is why I agree with the original post suggesting that IQ tests should be given to politicians. The president would benefit greatly from this if he really could show an above average IQ. Still I remain skeptical.
> People like you will wake up some day and realize Bush isn't the moron you think he is. > You'll also realize exceptionally high intelligence doesn't necessarly make for good > Presidents.
The preceding (parent) message has been paid for by the Friends of Bush society. Their motto: "Low intelligent people deserve a shot at office too"
Personally, I think saying the IQ in question is low is being kind. I've never heard anyone in much lower office make up so many words, use words incorrectly and stumble around with his grammar. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so important. Remember, besides being a leader the president is an international ambassador. His manner speaks volumes about America even though it really shouldn't. I wouldn't tell anyone if he was my father.
In any case, if you think the prez is reasonably smart (just a case of 'Texan stupid' as you say), why are you so touchy about the IQ test. Of course the drug test is a much better idea... one which could also be difficult for Bush to pass.
This is a non-problem. You are suggesting that Internet voting is bad simply because the voter data would be well organized. You claim that this is less safe because it involves less people, but we can look at this the other way. For example, I could say that it is more safe since you need to find less honest people to oversee the privacy of the data. This is not a bad arguement at all as you have to agree that security becomes more difficult as the number of people involved goes up. See Florida's past presidential election for an example of how easy it is to get unethical results despite using a large staff.
But if one still worried about this, then the system could be set up to mimic a poorly stored system by taking the vote, parsing the selection, printing out the vote selection to paper and then deleting the original vote as received. This would leave them with a final vote tally but no way to track this back to the voters selection. Unless one wishes to go through the thousands of pages printed out for each vote (like the crapy old system we have).
You are so wrong. The poor do not hate the rich. It's when the rich use their position to extract more riches from the poor... Or when they hold the poor down and keep them from claiming what is rightfully theirs.
Examples of this are when (mostly American) corporations negotiate tax free zones within poor countries and set up the equivalent of sweat shops. Or when an oil company stands by (encourages) the killing of locals that protest the pillaging of their countries resources.
Yes. I did notice that. Very disturbing that the media doesn't see this as important. And these are just the ones we know about. With the new patriot laws approved, there's no need to let us know when an immigrant is taken in for questioning.
Reminds me of those horrible stories I used to here about the KJB when I was a kid and the cold war was on. Well now our secret service can do the same.
This is not about 7 people getting arrested. This is about 1.
It's about Runner and someone who has a grievance to settle with him. This poor guy looses his job over some coffee and paper. Face it... we've all done worse things at work. And if you haven't you know someone who has and only got a slap on the wrists for it.
Then he gets rounded up by the FBI for no real reason. No company would call the FBI for this type of behavior. It's bad for business to do so. Even the news report makes it questionable how the ISP feels about it.
So I know I'm reading between the lines, but here's my take.
- lawyer pisses someone off.
- pissed off person is or knows the detective who sets him up to get fired.
- setup succeeds and lawyer is fired.
- lawyer (or his friends) knows the law and lashes back at those who set up the surveilence.
- detective forced to resign as a result.
- someone with connection at FBI (like a police detective) asks for help to get back at the lawyer.
- FBI knows the lawyers ISP and also knows of some people committing fraud by 'uncapping' their cable modems. The lawyer may or may not be one of these people, but then again... who's going to question the FBI?
- so FBI takes 7 customers computers and newspaper publishes this story.
There's definately more to this story. For example what did the lawyer originally do to upset someone so much to ask for this trouble. And who is it that has it in for this lawyer.
Meanwhile I'm left wondering what is on that lawyers computer.
This is a story about two characters, a police detective and a lawyer, and their needs.
For some reason the police detective really has it in for the lawyer. Maybe there is something in their past... an unkempt promise, a defamation of character or friction around some common party. Well for whatever reason, the detective concocts a plan to rid himself of the lawyer.
Act 1 opens with a small room. There is a lunch table with some chairs, some cabinets, a fridge and a sink. A man stands in the center with a brown tan Columbo jacket and a hat.
"I know!" the detective schemes to himself as he rolls his palms together, a thin smile creeping across his face. "I'll hit him where it hurts most... in the integrity".
He leaves stage right, only to emerge a moment later with an armful of wires, batteries and other gadgets. He runs around the set, dancing and spinning as he gingerly sets all the equipment in place. On tippie toes he retreats to hide behind the supply cabinet.
Moments later, the lawyer emerges stage left. "What a particularly long and grueling trial that was." He says out loud to the seemingly empty room. He then proceeds to pour himself a cup of rich dark roast coffee. He takes a long deep breath from his cup, looks up and stairs wide eyed into open space. For a moment he's hypnotized by the coffees calming Brazilian aroma as he slides sideways over to the fridge and slips a vacuum packed coffee pouch from the freezer into his pocket.
"I'll save this one for later", he says to himself with a wink as he touches his nose.
Suddenly, a siren whistles out among red and blue flashes. The detective waddles out from behind the cabinet displaying a silver star pinned into his open wallet. He applies the handcuff to one wrist then spins the thief around.
"You're going down Runner".
Runner feels the detectives hot breath against his ear as he snaps the second cuff on. His face pushed into the supply cabinet for a frisk. The detective moves his hands slowly along Runners body.
"You got nothin" Runner states defiantly.
"We'll see about that" the detective retorts as his hands rub across Runners hard nipples. He reaches into the breast pocket and pulls out two creamers. The detective holds these up to Runners face.
"I brought those with me this morning" Runner replies to the unstated question.
"Then why are they still cold" the detective cleverly notices as he thrusts his free hand into the air, index finger extended to accentuate the point.
The searching continues as the detectives open palm run down Runner's torso and revolve to slide his fingers into his back pocket. Runner's back arches slightly.
"What's this?" The detective questions as a small note pad springs from his ass, now held dangling next to him.
"Umm... Why that's my minutes journal... of course." The lawyer quickly replies.
"Then why is it empty?" The detective arches the small pad in his hand and allows the pages to quickly flip open one at a time revealing only blank pages.
Runner turns his face back into the cabinet. There will be no reply.
"I thought so." The detective says, closing the moment of silence.
He continues the search. Sliding both hands down the back of his legs, up the front and then pauses near his inner thighs. Runner's body tightens.
"What's that?" the detective questions once again.
"Why, whatever do you mean?" Runner stammers... trying to sound innocent, but clearly bothered.
In a whirl, the detectives left hand pulls at the thief's belt, his right hand now flat thrusts down the open crack and latches on to the buried contents. What can only be described as an 'eep' like sound emerges from Runners tight lips. The detective rips his hand out from the lawyer's pants to reveal a small brown and silver wrapped pouch.
"Aaa ha!" The detective proclaims. The coffee bag left hanging high from the gallows of his stiff arm.
For a moment we see terror, fear or the desire for time to run backwards on the lawyers face. But it jiggles and weakens and his eyes flutter than squeeze together until tears begin to drip out.
"I admit it... I stole it." Runners lips quiver as he turns to look the into the blue pools of the detectives eyes. "Can you forgive me? I took it from the freezer only a moment ago."
"Then why is it so warm?"
For a second they both contemplate the question and the insinuation behind the tone. Then as drawn by some common force their lips meet and the lights fade to black.
First of all this is a poorly written article. He says that people see movies less, and then states that the price of seeing movies has skyrocketed. Wouldn't this be a counteracting force? Besides, box office receipts are on the rise. Those stats are easily searched online. So whose ass is he picking these numbers from? And so what if everything "isn't a Titanic" success like he mentions. As if every movie needs to make over a billion dollars at the box office to succeed. Boo woo.
Besides, should a movies success really depend on people seeing it over and over again? Instead, go 5 times and see 5 different movies. You'll get more out of it... unless MTV has already rotted away your ability to remember.
I hope these big budget movies do become a titanic flop. I'm tired of big flicks that reek of Hollywood's baby formula. Let's see if I can give it to you. Handsome leading actor, flashes of cleavage, same plot as last years success, 2 or 3 catch phrases (oh, the water jug humour), the latest computer effects and of course the neatly wrapped happy ending (even though it looked as though it might not just end that way. Yes, it was close... ya right!). Then it's push on you over and over again through the lies of advertising. After a while you really do start to believe that you wanted to see it all along. Then they're disappointed when you don't see it twice.
Don't get me wrong. I love the theatres. No home entertainment system I've seen can compete with their colossal size. It's their content that sucks. That's why I've gotten off the blockbuster bandwagon. I've found a couple of independent theatres that serve up real entertainment. Where they count on brain power and style to entertain you rather than blowing all your money into special effects and advertising. Don't be fooled. Your money is a vote. If you use your movie money to see these movies than you are paying for all the advertising and effects as well.
In conclusion, let Hollywood go bankrupt and we'll all enjoy the resurgence of true art in the theatres again.
There is a very simple solution. Don't watch it. Alternatively, actively boycot all products advertised on these shows that you disaprove of.
We need to understand that you do not pay for television. It is entirely paid for by advertising. This means that you have little voting control over what you see on TV. TV is not a passive process. It is a well monitored science. The advertising corportations know very well how many people are watching (channel surfing) at any time and they know (or at least try) the best ways to get you to stop surfing and watch their show.
The problem is that TV is broadcast (ie. broadband). That means that many millions of viewers are watching a limited set of news channels. They are all competing to capture as many viewers as possible, so they will target for the average viewer. This means that the average viewer wants to see hyped news or doesn't care to make the choice of shuting off the TV. In this respect TV is simply a reflection of what the average viewer wants to see.
This could change if TV moved to a pay-per view structure as it would allow us to send money directly to the content we desire (allowing us to directly vote/reward good programming). This would be bad news for producers as it would allow you to pay to be informed rather than being paid to be a consumer.
This is more than a problem with news coverage. It is a problem with TV, magazines, radio (actually it is a problem with the corporate model as a whole). It is profit based. Corporations have no built in morality. They answer only to stock holders who generally put their money on the most profitable business without much concern about the integrity of the content.
Your best solution for promoting change is to shut off your TV. Cancel your cable. Seek your news on the Internet where you select the content. Avoid news sites that engage in junk news.
After all, the cable companies now have a nearly 100% market saturation in urban areas. If everyone decided to cut cable unless they provide quality content, then that is what would happen.
So, cut the cable and then go see a movie. But walk out and demand a refund when they show advertising. After all, your paying for it.
So your telling us that the phone company is going to watchdog the FBI. Then it's going to second guess the FBI's decisions and inform the public when it looks as if the agency may be abusing its power. I guess the phone companies will be setting aside there own investigative team to monitor all the activities of the FBI investigators.
Oh yes, you don't imagine that the FBI will abuse its power? Do you understand history?
Is this flame bait?
This is a great idea. Next they should send out fake spam and when people reply they will be sent an email informing them that replying to spam only increases the likelyhood of more spam.
In the spirit of legal debate over the meaning of the specific usage of words, what is meant by 'known'?
Since Microsoft anounced it's policy of attempting to keep the lid on the security holes that exist within it's software, I would assume that 'known' means ones that they are willing to reveal to us.
So the word 'all' preceeding 'known' has no meaning since Microsoft itself admits to witholding the true extent of the damage its software can do to your system through security holes.
I consider this another decietful marketing attempt to make consumers feel safe about their products despite their worse than poor track record. They may not be outright lying, but there planting the seeds for others to do it for them. How many sysadmins will now send out an email saying that "IE will be free from all security bugs by installing this patch"? Of course that is a lie.
I agree with the opinion of many others that the connection drawn between this simulation and capitalism is a little far fetched. The modivation behind human behaviour is far more complex. Besides group production is rewarded through profit sharing, bonuses and stock options.
However, I do think this simulation shows something useful on a far more obvious level. That is that rewarding group behavoir of autonomous agents may produce better group behaviour than individualistic behaviour. As opossed to some behaviour such as bird flocking which has been shown to coorelate well with a purely individual reward (motivation) system.
I think one fundemental flaw in his reward system is that rewards are only based on goals. In an individual sense, this will never produce a goalie. So without the proper reward stimulation you can not expect the team to perform well on all levels.
A useful experiment to show what's really happening here would be to set up two sets of 50 (or more) teams. Then keep statistics on each player such as scoring, saves, take-aways, etc. For the first set of 50 use an individual reward system. For the second set of 50 use a team reward system. Then draft two teams consisting of the top players from each division and pit them against one another. This might give a better understanding of which reward system really produces better players. Perhaps the individual reward system would produce some real supper stars, where the group reward system only produces good teams, but no stars.
Jettra
There are a few good points in this article. It's true that most people who use security holes to exploit insecure services are simply following a set of steps. This can be shown by simply moving exploited services over to non standard ports (but don't). In these cases security by obscurity is somewhat effective. However, this will not prevent experienced users from deviant behaviour.
Providing information about a security hole or bug to the company is a nice thought, but does not apply to open source. The code is maintained and updated by the Internet community as a whole. So bugs must be presented openly in order to get noted and fixed.
Besides 'hacker' groups with malicious intent will share information privately without the companies knowledge. Instead, making this information public as soon as possible is good for everyone. It's good for the company because they will know about the vunerability. It's good for the customer because they can see the unresolved security issues specific to the application and decide wether to shut it down or switch to a more stable solution (or better yet, don't buy into it in the first place). Also, having an outstanding security issue puts pressure on the company providing proprietary solutions to fix thier sloppy mess.
Perhaps Microsoft should consider reducing the feature set within IIS in order to provide a product that they can properly maintain. Otherwise, they might want to try moving IIS to open source. Seems to work well for Apache.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. I don't know how intelligent Mr. Bush is. Perhaps he will show me someday, but until then I'm left to read that book by its cover. I have to judge by the limited coverage provided by our stelar national news. As such, I feel that he "looks" like an idiot. Even though I suspect that the news is trying to put a good spin on the president. Especially in times (or near times) of war. I don't mean to suggest that I am right. I don't mean to offend people who feel differently. I just think that it is very important for the leader of America to look intelligent and I don't think he does.
This is why I agree with the original post suggesting that IQ tests should be given to politicians. The president would benefit greatly from this if he really could show an above average IQ. Still I remain skeptical.
> People like you will wake up some day and realize Bush isn't the moron you think he is.
> You'll also realize exceptionally high intelligence doesn't necessarly make for good
> Presidents.
The preceding (parent) message has been paid for by the Friends of Bush society. Their motto: "Low intelligent people deserve a shot at office too"
Personally, I think saying the IQ in question is low is being kind. I've never heard anyone in much lower office make up so many words, use words incorrectly and stumble around with his grammar. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so important. Remember, besides being a leader the president is an international ambassador. His manner speaks volumes about America even though it really shouldn't. I wouldn't tell anyone if he was my father.
In any case, if you think the prez is reasonably smart (just a case of 'Texan stupid' as you say), why are you so touchy about the IQ test. Of course the drug test is a much better idea... one which could also be difficult for Bush to pass.
This is a non-problem. You are suggesting that Internet voting is bad simply because the voter data would be well organized. You claim that this is less safe because it involves less people, but we can look at this the other way. For example, I could say that it is more safe since you need to find less honest people to oversee the privacy of the data. This is not a bad arguement at all as you have to agree that security becomes more difficult as the number of people involved goes up. See Florida's past presidential election for an example of how easy it is to get unethical results despite using a large staff.
But if one still worried about this, then the system could be set up to mimic a poorly stored system by taking the vote, parsing the selection, printing out the vote selection to paper and then deleting the original vote as received. This would leave them with a final vote tally but no way to track this back to the voters selection. Unless one wishes to go through the thousands of pages printed out for each vote (like the crapy old system we have).
You are so wrong. The poor do not hate the rich. It's when the rich use their position to extract more riches from the poor... Or when they hold the poor down and keep them from claiming what is rightfully theirs.
Examples of this are when (mostly American) corporations negotiate tax free zones within poor countries and set up the equivalent of sweat shops. Or when an oil company stands by (encourages) the killing of locals that protest the pillaging of their countries resources.
Yes. I did notice that. Very disturbing that the media doesn't see this as important. And these are just the ones we know about. With the new patriot laws approved, there's no need to let us know when an immigrant is taken in for questioning.
Reminds me of those horrible stories I used to here about the KJB when I was a kid and the cold war was on. Well now our secret service can do the same.
Scary.
This is not about 7 people getting arrested. This is about 1. It's about Runner and someone who has a grievance to settle with him. This poor guy looses his job over some coffee and paper. Face it... we've all done worse things at work. And if you haven't you know someone who has and only got a slap on the wrists for it. Then he gets rounded up by the FBI for no real reason. No company would call the FBI for this type of behavior. It's bad for business to do so. Even the news report makes it questionable how the ISP feels about it. So I know I'm reading between the lines, but here's my take. - lawyer pisses someone off. - pissed off person is or knows the detective who sets him up to get fired. - setup succeeds and lawyer is fired. - lawyer (or his friends) knows the law and lashes back at those who set up the surveilence. - detective forced to resign as a result. - someone with connection at FBI (like a police detective) asks for help to get back at the lawyer. - FBI knows the lawyers ISP and also knows of some people committing fraud by 'uncapping' their cable modems. The lawyer may or may not be one of these people, but then again... who's going to question the FBI? - so FBI takes 7 customers computers and newspaper publishes this story. There's definately more to this story. For example what did the lawyer originally do to upset someone so much to ask for this trouble. And who is it that has it in for this lawyer. Meanwhile I'm left wondering what is on that lawyers computer.
This is a story about two characters, a police detective and a lawyer, and their needs.
For some reason the police detective really has it in for the lawyer. Maybe there is something in their past... an unkempt promise, a defamation of character or friction around some common party. Well for whatever reason, the detective concocts a plan to rid himself of the lawyer.
Act 1 opens with a small room. There is a lunch table with some chairs, some cabinets, a fridge and a sink. A man stands in the center with a brown tan Columbo jacket and a hat.
"I know!" the detective schemes to himself as he rolls his palms together, a thin smile creeping across his face. "I'll hit him where it hurts most... in the integrity".
He leaves stage right, only to emerge a moment later with an armful of wires, batteries and other gadgets. He runs around the set, dancing and spinning as he gingerly sets all the equipment in place. On tippie toes he retreats to hide behind the supply cabinet.
Moments later, the lawyer emerges stage left. "What a particularly long and grueling trial that was." He says out loud to the seemingly empty room. He then proceeds to pour himself a cup of rich dark roast coffee. He takes a long deep breath from his cup, looks up and stairs wide eyed into open space. For a moment he's hypnotized by the coffees calming Brazilian aroma as he slides sideways over to the fridge and slips a vacuum packed coffee pouch from the freezer into his pocket.
"I'll save this one for later", he says to himself with a wink as he touches his nose.
Suddenly, a siren whistles out among red and blue flashes. The detective waddles out from behind the cabinet displaying a silver star pinned into his open wallet. He applies the handcuff to one wrist then spins the thief around.
"You're going down Runner".
Runner feels the detectives hot breath against his ear as he snaps the second cuff on. His face pushed into the supply cabinet for a frisk. The detective moves his hands slowly along Runners body.
"You got nothin" Runner states defiantly.
"We'll see about that" the detective retorts as his hands rub across Runners hard nipples. He reaches into the breast pocket and pulls out two creamers. The detective holds these up to Runners face.
"I brought those with me this morning" Runner replies to the unstated question.
"Then why are they still cold" the detective cleverly notices as he thrusts his free hand into the air, index finger extended to accentuate the point.
The searching continues as the detectives open palm run down Runner's torso and revolve to slide his fingers into his back pocket. Runner's back arches slightly.
"What's this?" The detective questions as a small note pad springs from his ass, now held dangling next to him.
"Umm... Why that's my minutes journal... of course." The lawyer quickly replies.
"Then why is it empty?" The detective arches the small pad in his hand and allows the pages to quickly flip open one at a time revealing only blank pages.
Runner turns his face back into the cabinet. There will be no reply.
"I thought so." The detective says, closing the moment of silence.
He continues the search. Sliding both hands down the back of his legs, up the front and then pauses near his inner thighs. Runner's body tightens.
"What's that?" the detective questions once again.
"Why, whatever do you mean?" Runner stammers... trying to sound innocent, but clearly bothered.
In a whirl, the detectives left hand pulls at the thief's belt, his right hand now flat thrusts down the open crack and latches on to the buried contents. What can only be described as an 'eep' like sound emerges from Runners tight lips. The detective rips his hand out from the lawyer's pants to reveal a small brown and silver wrapped pouch.
"Aaa ha!" The detective proclaims. The coffee bag left hanging high from the gallows of his stiff arm.
For a moment we see terror, fear or the desire for time to run backwards on the lawyers face. But it jiggles and weakens and his eyes flutter than squeeze together until tears begin to drip out.
"I admit it... I stole it." Runners lips quiver as he turns to look the into the blue pools of the detectives eyes. "Can you forgive me? I took it from the freezer only a moment ago."
"Then why is it so warm?"
For a second they both contemplate the question and the insinuation behind the tone. Then as drawn by some common force their lips meet and the lights fade to black.
First of all this is a poorly written article. He says that people see movies less, and then states that the price of seeing movies has skyrocketed. Wouldn't this be a counteracting force? Besides, box office receipts are on the rise. Those stats are easily searched online. So whose ass is he picking these numbers from? And so what if everything "isn't a Titanic" success like he mentions. As if every movie needs to make over a billion dollars at the box office to succeed. Boo woo.
Besides, should a movies success really depend on people seeing it over and over again? Instead, go 5 times and see 5 different movies. You'll get more out of it... unless MTV has already rotted away your ability to remember.
I hope these big budget movies do become a titanic flop. I'm tired of big flicks that reek of Hollywood's baby formula. Let's see if I can give it to you. Handsome leading actor, flashes of cleavage, same plot as last years success, 2 or 3 catch phrases (oh, the water jug humour), the latest computer effects and of course the neatly wrapped happy ending (even though it looked as though it might not just end that way. Yes, it was close... ya right!). Then it's push on you over and over again through the lies of advertising. After a while you really do start to believe that you wanted to see it all along. Then they're disappointed when you don't see it twice.
Don't get me wrong. I love the theatres. No home entertainment system I've seen can compete with their colossal size. It's their content that sucks. That's why I've gotten off the blockbuster bandwagon. I've found a couple of independent theatres that serve up real entertainment. Where they count on brain power and style to entertain you rather than blowing all your money into special effects and advertising. Don't be fooled. Your money is a vote. If you use your movie money to see these movies than you are paying for all the advertising and effects as well.
In conclusion, let Hollywood go bankrupt and we'll all enjoy the resurgence of true art in the theatres again.
There is a very simple solution. Don't watch it. Alternatively, actively boycot all products advertised on these shows that you disaprove of.
We need to understand that you do not pay for television. It is entirely paid for by advertising. This means that you have little voting control over what you see on TV. TV is not a passive process. It is a well monitored science. The advertising corportations know very well how many people are watching (channel surfing) at any time and they know (or at least try) the best ways to get you to stop surfing and watch their show.
The problem is that TV is broadcast (ie. broadband). That means that many millions of viewers are watching a limited set of news channels. They are all competing to capture as many viewers as possible, so they will target for the average viewer. This means that the average viewer wants to see hyped news or doesn't care to make the choice of shuting off the TV. In this respect TV is simply a reflection of what the average viewer wants to see.
This could change if TV moved to a pay-per view structure as it would allow us to send money directly to the content we desire (allowing us to directly vote/reward good programming). This would be bad news for producers as it would allow you to pay to be informed rather than being paid to be a consumer.
This is more than a problem with news coverage. It is a problem with TV, magazines, radio (actually it is a problem with the corporate model as a whole). It is profit based. Corporations have no built in morality. They answer only to stock holders who generally put their money on the most profitable business without much concern about the integrity of the content.
Your best solution for promoting change is to shut off your TV. Cancel your cable. Seek your news on the Internet where you select the content. Avoid news sites that engage in junk news.
After all, the cable companies now have a nearly 100% market saturation in urban areas. If everyone decided to cut cable unless they provide quality content, then that is what would happen.
So, cut the cable and then go see a movie. But walk out and demand a refund when they show advertising. After all, your paying for it.
So your telling us that the phone company is going to watchdog the FBI. Then it's going to second guess the FBI's decisions and inform the public when it looks as if the agency may be abusing its power. I guess the phone companies will be setting aside there own investigative team to monitor all the activities of the FBI investigators. Oh yes, you don't imagine that the FBI will abuse its power? Do you understand history? Is this flame bait?
This is a great idea. Next they should send out fake spam and when people reply they will be sent an email informing them that replying to spam only increases the likelyhood of more spam.
Let's hope not!
Jettra
Since Microsoft anounced it's policy of attempting to keep the lid on the security holes that exist within it's software, I would assume that 'known' means ones that they are willing to reveal to us.
So the word 'all' preceeding 'known' has no meaning since Microsoft itself admits to witholding the true extent of the damage its software can do to your system through security holes.
I consider this another decietful marketing attempt to make consumers feel safe about their products despite their worse than poor track record. They may not be outright lying, but there planting the seeds for others to do it for them. How many sysadmins will now send out an email saying that "IE will be free from all security bugs by installing this patch"? Of course that is a lie.
I agree with the opinion of many others that the connection drawn between this simulation and capitalism is a little far fetched. The modivation behind human behaviour is far more complex. Besides group production is rewarded through profit sharing, bonuses and stock options. However, I do think this simulation shows something useful on a far more obvious level. That is that rewarding group behavoir of autonomous agents may produce better group behaviour than individualistic behaviour. As opossed to some behaviour such as bird flocking which has been shown to coorelate well with a purely individual reward (motivation) system. I think one fundemental flaw in his reward system is that rewards are only based on goals. In an individual sense, this will never produce a goalie. So without the proper reward stimulation you can not expect the team to perform well on all levels. A useful experiment to show what's really happening here would be to set up two sets of 50 (or more) teams. Then keep statistics on each player such as scoring, saves, take-aways, etc. For the first set of 50 use an individual reward system. For the second set of 50 use a team reward system. Then draft two teams consisting of the top players from each division and pit them against one another. This might give a better understanding of which reward system really produces better players. Perhaps the individual reward system would produce some real supper stars, where the group reward system only produces good teams, but no stars. Jettra
Providing information about a security hole or bug to the company is a nice thought, but does not apply to open source. The code is maintained and updated by the Internet community as a whole. So bugs must be presented openly in order to get noted and fixed.
Besides 'hacker' groups with malicious intent will share information privately without the companies knowledge. Instead, making this information public as soon as possible is good for everyone. It's good for the company because they will know about the vunerability. It's good for the customer because they can see the unresolved security issues specific to the application and decide wether to shut it down or switch to a more stable solution (or better yet, don't buy into it in the first place). Also, having an outstanding security issue puts pressure on the company providing proprietary solutions to fix thier sloppy mess.
Perhaps Microsoft should consider reducing the feature set within IIS in order to provide a product that they can properly maintain. Otherwise, they might want to try moving IIS to open source. Seems to work well for Apache.
Chow