And my unit spent most of its time in the motor pool, or in the field, digging in the dirt. Not once did I train to perform a mission as a linguist with my unit while I was in uniform, because officers can't lead soldiers who aren't in the field. It doesn't get them promoted, so they uniformly oppose it. Every bit of funding for every linguist mission was cut, and the mandatory eight hours of language maintenance required for all linguists was gradually reduced to no maintenance at all.
The only time I was actually useful was while on TDY.
Any assertion that the military needs people in these specialties is not true. They had them, indeed have them, and I can pick up the phone right now, call the RSDNCO of my former unit, and ask what they will be doing on Monday. I am confident that the answer will be: "motor pool".
This is something that has been brewing since before the Kennedy Report, and it still pisses me off, especially in light of all the back-pedalling from the FBI and military that they "don't have the resources". They did have them. Due to mismanagement and fucked-up priorities (primarily the OER system), they couldn't keep them. My re-enlistment counseling with my commanding officer (whom I respected a great deal) was, "well I can offer you the Army nurse program, or physician's assistant, but unless you want to become an officer, you won't be able to transfer out of your MOS because it's short".
During my time in the military, I think about one in three linguists re-enlisted, always for choice of duty station. I cannot count the number of linguists that disappeared, that training wasted, because they spent four (or more) years doing nothing. If they left the military under good terms, they should have been actively pursued by the FBI or NSA so that training wouldn't have been wasted. But it wasn't a priority until 9/11. Then, all those three-letter agencies suddenly realized that they'd better come up with effective damage control fast, so they settled on: "we don't have the resources."
The "bachelor's degree" = "officer" assertion hasn't been true since the seventies. Of the eight people I went through basic and AIT with, five had their B.S., in engineering, physics, physical therapy, and english (2). None of us were officers.
Three did not have their B.S. The individuals without degrees tended to make a little less money from the beginning of their service, but time in service requirements are hard to get a waiver for, and so they tended to be promoted at the same time, or a little later, than those with a degree.
Doesn't webmin take care of some of this? It allows you to remotely alter configuration files, and stop and restart services. I imagine the next generation or two will see significant development, perhaps becoming the "GUI that is BETTER than mac or windows" that you seek.
I haven't installed webmin on my home machines, but I've used it at the university.
I agree with you about package management. In general, package management using RPM is not as useful or easy as it could be, and should be.
Honestly, I don't expect "trusted computing" to act as much more than a lock on the front door - it will keep honest people honest, but not do much to deter the determined. Someone will find a hole, and exploit it.
That will take time, however. In the end, Palladium won't solve any problems, just as the lock on my front door is not proof against a determined criminal with the patience, skill, or knowledge to circumvent it.
In the interim, most computers will be crippled, and useless for anything but consumption of products whose cost is based in part on Microsoft licensing fees.
But I'm speaking of the "next generation internet", where every client connection is "trusted" and provides the service provider with a way to know who, exactly, is on the other end of the connection. Note that I'm not referring only to internet service, but web services, content delivery, e-commerce, etc.
I don't doubt that supporting Linux does not make good business sense, when there is a definite limit on the amount of money an ISP can spend training their employees, and, let's face it, desktop Linux does not provide one standard way to connect to the internet; the Windows monoculture does.
But I see the future. Microsoft has been trying to turn the desktop computer into a set-top box for years, but has never succeeded because it lacked the means to effectively control what users do with their computers. It is now using its market dominance to force hardware manufacturers to give it a way to control what users can do with their own property. Once that happens, Microsoft will step right in and effectively control who is allowed to access the internet, at least, in the United States and other Western countries in which Windows is the predominant operating system.
Ask my ISP, Cox, if Cox supports any operating system other than Microsoft Windows. The answer is "no."
Now imagine the connection to my ISP needing to be "authenticated" or "verified" by Trusted Computing hardware. Fight it, or even question it, and you will be asked: "What do you have to hide? If you're not doing anything illegal, you won't notice any difference." That is what they'll say then because it's what they tell me right now.
Then imagine that when Trusted Computing becomes the standard I own a real computer, which allows me to control what the hardware is allowed to do to my computer. Imagine I disable it, or cripple it.
Unfortunately, Trusted Computing will be designed in such a way that the system will report that it has been disabled, or crippled. I will not be able to connect to my ISP, because a "handshake" is part of the connection process.
Now imagine that I will not be able to connect to my ISP, and their response will be, "we're sorry, we don't support Linux", which is their exact response now.
Extortion, pure and simple. Microsoft wants the money, and it has the market power and cash reserves to ensure that it gets it. Microsoft was a little late to the Internet party, but it has no intention of being left behind. The company simply has too much of the market to give up its attempts to "earn" a nickel every time someone connects to the internet.
I first experienced this at work (I use IE at work, so I can't disable pop-ups), and I was so disgusted that I immediately removed Wired from my favorites. The I went home and removed Wired from my faves in Mozilla.
And I haven't been back since. Wired is forever off the list, until they post a public apology.
There are better ways to generate ad revenue. My personal policy is to only allow images that are hosted on the server, and only if they're not intrusive. I appreciate and occasionally find useful Google's adwords, and kur05hin's text ads. Anything that blinks, moves, or otherwise clutters a page of text is blocked, period, including those annoying flash ads.
I'd love to see a comparison between the total cost of sending all mail the post office currently delivers (first class, bulk, non-profit, etc.) and the total cost of the fleet of extra vehicles, fuel, personnel, canvas tubs, etc. that moving the non-first class mail requires.
Of course, the post office doesn't publish its numbers that way. I suspect it's because that transparency would paint quite a different picture. I believe that the high volume of junk mail sent by the post office results in higher prices to the consumer, not lower, because of the extensive infrastructure that must be maintained to deliver it.
What the hell is wrong with you people? If you pay for internet access, you pay to send email, access the internet, etc. On top of an "access fee" you want a "per use" fee as well?
If you "get it for free" you pay for it by allowing the provider (i.e., hotmail, yahoo) to spam you and market your email address to its "partners" and "companies which may be of interest to you".
In short: YOU ALREADY PAY FOR IT.
If you want to throw more money into that hole, suit yourself, but leave the rest of us out of it. Just send your ISP a few extra dollars every month for "postage due" as a tip, or write a check to Microsoft for the balance.
I pay my ISP $40/month for the ability to send email.
It's as if you're saying, "Let's fine the offenders, and the non-offenders, too". Your suggestion has no merit - none.
I was waiting for someone to mention that.
on
GPS Jamming for $50
·
· Score: 1
The irony is killing me...
First, the fed allows a corporation to take on the power of the state and enforce the law of the land by levying massive fines based on information returned by GPS units placed in rental vehicles.
Then, we read about advertisers and marketers who are practically salivating over the thought of GPS, cell phone triangulation, and RFID tags which allow them to track consumers through a store, send real time promotions, etc.
How can anyone wonder why some people don't want to find themselves at the mercy of some corporate whore with no way to resist? Didn't they see this coming? The irony is that the fed allows infringing uses of technology (on our privacy and on the power of the state to enforce the law), encourages it, and then has the audacity to be shocked that someone has built a device to prevent it.
You said: it's likely that a national system would be implemented.
This is exactly what I hope the fed does, and believe it should do. A national sales tax, say at 1%, would allow the fed to dole the money back out to the states, as it does for the roads, to enforce compliance with federal law, and allow the fed to set uniform standards for ecommerce, ebanking, etc.
We wouldn't have fifty Louisianas trying to force Paypal to pay the tithe they feel is their due, stifling the utility of Paypal for users, subjecting Paypal to fifty different "licensing" agreements, and allowing Paypal to pursue competing (and weaker) agreements with competing states, thus reinforcing the erosive effects of state-legislated corporate sponsorship.
I think a federal internet sales tax would be of tremendous benefit for all parties concerned.
Whereas you yourself are a stellar example of human courtesy, only once jumping to an erroneous conclusion and calling a faceless stranger "fucker".
If you'd bothered to read what was posted you'd see that I was very courteous to the actual human beings with whom I was corresponding, but firm and a little incredulous because I didn't believe I was going to receive a straight answer (and I did not).
The section you quote is from a form on hotmail's website, by which more information was solicited than was given during registration, and was included for that reason to support my argument that Microsoft intends to use hotmail to reliably deliver spam to "188 million users". I was understandably dismayed by the implication that hotmail needed all that information to close my account; it was not, and is not, necessary. Only the fact that the person with access to the account (the password) wanted to close that account was necessary. In my opinion, it should have been easier.
And thank you for pointing out the painfully obvious. It proves that you have nothing to contribute, but lack the self discipline to refrain from responding anyway.
It was posted as received, for my convenience.
I suggest you take a breather, and step away from the computer, and maybe do something about that internet elitism you seem to be suffering from.
I obfuscated the names because I have nothing against the people who responded (or didn't respond, depending on your point of view) to my request. Their replies were slightly mechanistic, and it is clear (to me, yvmv) that Microsoft has no intention of giving up the information I provided to open my hotmail account. But I planned for this day, so any junk mail Microsoft may have signed "me" up for, using the name and address I generously provided, is being forwarded to the dead letters office in Leesville, Louisiana. Yeeha.
This latest move comes as no surprise, really. I can't imagine Redmond respects my privacy any more than Yahoo!, Egghead, or any one of a dozen other defunct dot coms...
===== BEGIN =====
Excellent. That is exactly what I wanted to hear. I intend to close my account presently. I will attempt to log in to hotmail in 100 days. If that attempt succeeds, I will contact you then.
From: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
To:
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:23:03 -0800
Hello mephistopheles51@hotmail.com,
Thank you for writing to Microsoft.NET Passport.
In response to your inquiry, I would just like to reiterate that your Hotmail account is an automatic Passport account as well. Therefore, if you close your Hotmail account, your Passport account will also be cancelled.
I hope I was able to help you.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Pi.
Microsoft.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
--- Original Message ---
From: mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
To: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
Sent: Tue Feb 26 19:40:25 PST 2002
Subject: RE: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
Finally, someone actually *read* my question. After receiving the exact
same response twice in a row I was becoming concerned that there was no
human being on the other end of the computer at all, but a machine, which
was parsing the question and appending the appropriate "solution".
To rephrase your reply: if I close my hotmail account, and DO NOT USE MY
PASSPORT FOR 90 DAYS, all information provided to or collected by Microsoft
will be automatically deleted, including any information provided to
marketers, advertisers, or any of Microsoft's "partners".
If you respond affirmatively, I will close my hotmail account and expect
that the non-public information provided to Microsoft by me will be deleted
as above, following 90 days of inactivity. If you must respond negatively,
please forward my question to someone who will guarantee that the non-public
information provided to Microsoft by me will be deleted as above, or who
will state, for the record, that it simply cannot (or will not) be done
prior to responding. I should like a name in the latter case. In either
case, if I have not heard from a representative of hotmail or passport in
three days, I will take this matter up again. I eagerly await your reply.
Thank you.
>From: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
>To:
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
>Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:02:00 -0800
>
>Hello Mephistopheles51,
> Thank you for writing to Microsoft.NET Passport.
> Regarding your inquiry, Email services of Hotmail Passport IDs are
>automatically deactivated after 30 days of inactivity. After such time,
>your Hotmail Passport will cease to be an email account but you can still
>continue using the ID on other Participating Passport sites.
> Should you wish to have your Passport ID purged from our system, please
>refrain from accessing the account for 90 days. Accounts are automatically
>removed from our system only after the specified period of inactivity.
> I hope I was able to answer your question, if you have other inquiries,
>please do not hesitate to write us back.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Je.
>Microsoft.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
>
>--- Original Message ---
>From: mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
>To: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
>Sent: Mon Feb 25 19:00:23 PST 2002
>Subject: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
>
>I'm afraid you don't understand, as previously explained.
> I want to delete my "passport", thereby deleting all information provided to
>or collected by Microsoft, and not just my hotmail account. As indicated by
>the recent memorandum from Bill Gates, it appears Microsoft has finally
>realized that it must earn users' trust. This is a step in the right
>direction. Users are not a cash machine for any corporation that decides to
>abuse its monopoly status for the benefit of the marketing and advertising
>departments of its many "partners".
> However, the recent attacks on hotmail, and the vulnerabilities in
>Microsoft's ".net" and "passport" services have convinced me that none of
>the information I provided to Microsoft is truly secure, not even my name,
>address, or IP, and that Microsoft cannot be trusted not to use the
>information provided or collected for its own gain, and to my detriment.
>Therefore, I would like to delete all information I provided to Microsoft,
>or which has been collected by Microsoft about me, in its entirety.
> Please tell me how to do that, or direct my inquiry to someone who can.
>Merely deleting my hotmail account simply will not suffice. Thank you.
> >From: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
> >To:
> >Subject: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
> >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:21:11 -0800
> >
> >Hello Mephistopheles51,
> >
> >
> >Thank you for writing back to Microsoft.NET Passport.
> >
> >With regard to your concern, please be guided on the procedures of deleting
> >your mephistopheles51@hotmail.com account.
> >
> > >>> To close your Hotmail account
> >
> >1. In the upper right corner of any Hotmail page, click "Help".
> >
> >2. In the MSN Hotmail Help window, click "Find", type "Close account", and
> >then click "Go".
> >
> >3. In the search results, click the "Close your Hotmail account" link. 4.
> >Follow the instructions to close your account.
> >
> >You can also close your Hotmail account by not signing in to the account
> >for 30 days or within the first 10 days after you set up your account.
> >Hotmail then marks your account as "Inactive", your stored messages are
> >permanently deleted, and inbound messages are returned to the sender. You
> >can reactivate your account by going to the sign-in page and typing your
> >sign-in name and password. If your account remains "Inactive" for 90 days,
> >Hotmail permanently deletes it. You cannot reactivate your deleted account
> >because it has been completely removed from our system. You must register
> >for a new one.
> >
> >Note: If you want to permanently close your Hotmail account, do not sign in
> >to Hotmail or any other.NET Passport site (such as Messenger or eShop) for
> >which you use your user@hotmail.com.NET Passport for a full 90 days. In
> >addition, if your Hotmail account is closed, your hotmail.com.NET Passport
> >is also closed.
> > Microsoft.NET Passport has comprehensive online help available to you.
> >For more information about Microsoft.NET Passport or help with Microsoft
> >.NET Passport features, click the Help link on a Microsoft.NET Passport
> >web page. When the help window opens, click the appropriate topic, or click
> >the All Topics link at the top of the help window for a categorized list of
> >all Microsoft.NET Passport help topics.
> >
> >Thank you for using Microsoft.NET Passport. If you have further questions,
> >please reply to this e-mail message.
> >
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Lo.
> >Microsoft.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
> >
> >--- Original Message ---
> >From: mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
> >To: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
>
> >Sent: Fri Feb 22 17:35:47 PST 2002
> >Subject: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
> >
> >I'm afraid you don't understand. I want to delete my "passport". Microsoft
> >simply cannot be trusted with the information I provided, and cannot be
> >trusted not to attempt to collect more and more associative information to
> >be sold to its marketing and advertising "partners". I do not want any
> >information I provided to Microsoft to exist on Microsoft's servers at all.
> > The help page simply states that I will be closing my hotmail account, and
> >that after 90 days my hotmail account will be deleted, but that deletion of
> >my hotmail account will not affect my passport, and that I may reactivate my
> >hotmail account at any time within 90 days simply by signing in to hotmail.
> >This is not acceptable.
> > Please direct me to a link that will allow me to delete my passport, thus
> >removing all passport information collected by Microsoft.
> > As an aside, why do hotmail.msn.com, passport.com, and msn.com need 14
> >cookies between them? Don't you find that a little excessive? I certainly do.
> > Thank you!
> > >From: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
>
> > >To:
> > >Subject: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
> > >Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:31:37 -0800
> > >
> > >Hello mephistopheles51,
> > >
> > >Thank you for writing to Microsoft.NET Passport.
> > > In response to your concern, I have provided below the procedure on how
> > >to delete your mephistopheles51@hotmail.com.NET Passport account.
> > > >>> To close your Hotmail account
> > > 1. In the upper right corner of any Hotmail page, click "Help".
> > > 2. In the MSN Hotmail Help window, click "Find", type "Close account",
> > >and then click "Go".
> > > 3. In the search results, click the "Close your Hotmail account" link.
> >4.
> > >Follow the instructions to close your account.
> > > You can also close your Hotmail account by not signing in to the account
> > >for 30 days or within the first 10 days after you set up your account.
> > >Hotmail then marks your account as "Inactive", your stored messages are
> > >permanently deleted, and inbound messages are returned to the sender. You
> > >can reactivate your account by going to the sign-in page and typing your
> > >sign-in name and password. If your account remains "Inactive" for 90 days,
> > >Hotmail permanently deletes it. You cannot reactivate your deleted account
> > >because it has been completely removed from our system. You must register
> > >for a new one.
> > > Note: If you want to permanently close your Hotmail account, do not sign
> > >in to Hotmail or any other.NET Passport site (such as Messenger or eShop)
> > >for which you use your user@hotmail.com.NET Passport for a full 90 days.
> > >In addition, if your Hotmail account is closed, your hotmail.com.NET
> > >Passport is also closed.
> > > Microsoft.NET Passport has comprehensive online help available to you.
> > >For more information about Microsoft.NET Passport or help with Microsoft
> > >.NET Passport features, click the Help link on a Microsoft.NET Passport
> > >web page. When the help window opens, click the appropriate topic, or click
> > >the All Topics link at the top of the help window for a categorized list of
> > >all Microsoft.NET Passport help topics.
> > >
> > >Thank you for using Microsoft.NET Passport. If you have further questions,
> > >please reply to this e-mail message.
> > >
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Ed.
> > >Microsoft.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
> > >
> > >--- Original Message ---
> > >From: no@alternate.com
> > >To: "Microsoft.NET Passport Support"
> >
> > >Sent: Tue Feb 19 18:51:42 PST 2002
> > >Subject: delete my account
> > >
> > >CustomerName : don't need don't need
> > >UpdateCountry : false, false
> > >CUBirthdate : don't need
> > >BrowserVersion : don't need
> > >OperatingSystem : don't need
> > >ErrorMessage : n/a
> > >Submit : Send
> > >ContactEmailAddress : mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
> > >Country : US
> > >FirstName : don't need
> > >LastName : don't need
> > >Region : 19283
> > >PostalCode : don't need
> > >Comments : you don't need any of this information to delete my account
> > >RIGHT NOW.
> >
> >Don't Believe the Hype!*
> >*and it's all hype...
that perhaps this is just a feint on Microsoft's part, a false admission so to speak, to demonstrate to an uncertain jury (Kollar-Kotelly) that the market itself will resolve some of the outstanding issues regarding Microsoft's current initiatives, and that further action on the part of the Justice Department is not only unwarranted, but may result in further destabilization of the technology sector?
We'll know once the judgement is handed down, of course...
Slashdot Mirror
And my unit spent most of its time in the motor pool, or in the field, digging in the dirt. Not once did I train to perform a mission as a linguist with my unit while I was in uniform, because officers can't lead soldiers who aren't in the field. It doesn't get them promoted, so they uniformly oppose it. Every bit of funding for every linguist mission was cut, and the mandatory eight hours of language maintenance required for all linguists was gradually reduced to no maintenance at all.
The only time I was actually useful was while on TDY.
Any assertion that the military needs people in these specialties is not true. They had them, indeed have them, and I can pick up the phone right now, call the RSDNCO of my former unit, and ask what they will be doing on Monday. I am confident that the answer will be: "motor pool".
This is something that has been brewing since before the Kennedy Report, and it still pisses me off, especially in light of all the back-pedalling from the FBI and military that they "don't have the resources". They did have them. Due to mismanagement and fucked-up priorities (primarily the OER system), they couldn't keep them. My re-enlistment counseling with my commanding officer (whom I respected a great deal) was, "well I can offer you the Army nurse program, or physician's assistant, but unless you want to become an officer, you won't be able to transfer out of your MOS because it's short".
During my time in the military, I think about one in three linguists re-enlisted, always for choice of duty station. I cannot count the number of linguists that disappeared, that training wasted, because they spent four (or more) years doing nothing. If they left the military under good terms, they should have been actively pursued by the FBI or NSA so that training wouldn't have been wasted. But it wasn't a priority until 9/11. Then, all those three-letter agencies suddenly realized that they'd better come up with effective damage control fast, so they settled on: "we don't have the resources."
It's a lie.
The "bachelor's degree" = "officer" assertion hasn't been true since the seventies. Of the eight people I went through basic and AIT with, five had their B.S., in engineering, physics, physical therapy, and english (2). None of us were officers.
Three did not have their B.S. The individuals without degrees tended to make a little less money from the beginning of their service, but time in service requirements are hard to get a waiver for, and so they tended to be promoted at the same time, or a little later, than those with a degree.
Ed Gruberman: A year? But I want to beat people up right now! I got the pajamas! Ha! Hoo! Yah!
Ti Kwan Leep - The Frantics
I didn't see enough of this point of view last time this was discussed. I completely agree.
Doesn't webmin take care of some of this? It allows you to remotely alter configuration files, and stop and restart services. I imagine the next generation or two will see significant development, perhaps becoming the "GUI that is BETTER than mac or windows" that you seek.
I haven't installed webmin on my home machines, but I've used it at the university.
I agree with you about package management. In general, package management using RPM is not as useful or easy as it could be, and should be.
Honestly, I don't expect "trusted computing" to act as much more than a lock on the front door - it will keep honest people honest, but not do much to deter the determined. Someone will find a hole, and exploit it.
That will take time, however. In the end, Palladium won't solve any problems, just as the lock on my front door is not proof against a determined criminal with the patience, skill, or knowledge to circumvent it.
In the interim, most computers will be crippled, and useless for anything but consumption of products whose cost is based in part on Microsoft licensing fees.
But I'm speaking of the "next generation internet", where every client connection is "trusted" and provides the service provider with a way to know who, exactly, is on the other end of the connection. Note that I'm not referring only to internet service, but web services, content delivery, e-commerce, etc.
I don't doubt that supporting Linux does not make good business sense, when there is a definite limit on the amount of money an ISP can spend training their employees, and, let's face it, desktop Linux does not provide one standard way to connect to the internet; the Windows monoculture does.
But I see the future. Microsoft has been trying to turn the desktop computer into a set-top box for years, but has never succeeded because it lacked the means to effectively control what users do with their computers. It is now using its market dominance to force hardware manufacturers to give it a way to control what users can do with their own property. Once that happens, Microsoft will step right in and effectively control who is allowed to access the internet, at least, in the United States and other Western countries in which Windows is the predominant operating system.
Ask my ISP, Cox, if Cox supports any operating system other than Microsoft Windows. The answer is "no."
Now imagine the connection to my ISP needing to be "authenticated" or "verified" by Trusted Computing hardware. Fight it, or even question it, and you will be asked: "What do you have to hide? If you're not doing anything illegal, you won't notice any difference." That is what they'll say then because it's what they tell me right now.
Then imagine that when Trusted Computing becomes the standard I own a real computer, which allows me to control what the hardware is allowed to do to my computer. Imagine I disable it, or cripple it.
Unfortunately, Trusted Computing will be designed in such a way that the system will report that it has been disabled, or crippled. I will not be able to connect to my ISP, because a "handshake" is part of the connection process.
Now imagine that I will not be able to connect to my ISP, and their response will be, "we're sorry, we don't support Linux", which is their exact response now.
Extortion, pure and simple. Microsoft wants the money, and it has the market power and cash reserves to ensure that it gets it. Microsoft was a little late to the Internet party, but it has no intention of being left behind. The company simply has too much of the market to give up its attempts to "earn" a nickel every time someone connects to the internet.
549 of 666 comments | yro.slashdot.org
it would be illegal.
not the story.
CNN didn't mention the leaked internal memos, the cease and desist letters, or the refusal to remove them from the internet.
No license required to create a life, but a licensing scheme for the fucking internet is proposed? Those are some odd priorities.
Throw Them In The Microwave!
I first experienced this at work (I use IE at work, so I can't disable pop-ups), and I was so disgusted that I immediately removed Wired from my favorites. The I went home and removed Wired from my faves in Mozilla.
And I haven't been back since. Wired is forever off the list, until they post a public apology.
There are better ways to generate ad revenue. My personal policy is to only allow images that are hosted on the server, and only if they're not intrusive. I appreciate and occasionally find useful Google's adwords, and kur05hin's text ads. Anything that blinks, moves, or otherwise clutters a page of text is blocked, period, including those annoying flash ads.
Junk mail subsidizes the post office.
I'd love to see a comparison between the total cost of sending all mail the post office currently delivers (first class, bulk, non-profit, etc.) and the total cost of the fleet of extra vehicles, fuel, personnel, canvas tubs, etc. that moving the non-first class mail requires.
Of course, the post office doesn't publish its numbers that way. I suspect it's because that transparency would paint quite a different picture. I believe that the high volume of junk mail sent by the post office results in higher prices to the consumer, not lower, because of the extensive infrastructure that must be maintained to deliver it.
I already get it for free.
You mean, of course, you already pay for it.
What the hell is wrong with you people? If you pay for internet access, you pay to send email, access the internet, etc. On top of an "access fee" you want a "per use" fee as well?
If you "get it for free" you pay for it by allowing the provider (i.e., hotmail, yahoo) to spam you and market your email address to its "partners" and "companies which may be of interest to you".
In short: YOU ALREADY PAY FOR IT.
If you want to throw more money into that hole, suit yourself, but leave the rest of us out of it. Just send your ISP a few extra dollars every month for "postage due" as a tip, or write a check to Microsoft for the balance.
I pay my ISP $40/month for the ability to send email.
It's as if you're saying, "Let's fine the offenders, and the non-offenders, too". Your suggestion has no merit - none.
The irony is killing me...
First, the fed allows a corporation to take on the power of the state and enforce the law of the land by levying massive fines based on information returned by GPS units placed in rental vehicles.
Then, we read about advertisers and marketers who are practically salivating over the thought of GPS, cell phone triangulation, and RFID tags which allow them to track consumers through a store, send real time promotions, etc.
How can anyone wonder why some people don't want to find themselves at the mercy of some corporate whore with no way to resist? Didn't they see this coming? The irony is that the fed allows infringing uses of technology (on our privacy and on the power of the state to enforce the law), encourages it, and then has the audacity to be shocked that someone has built a device to prevent it.
Simply amazing.
You said: it's likely that a national system would be implemented.
This is exactly what I hope the fed does, and believe it should do. A national sales tax, say at 1%, would allow the fed to dole the money back out to the states, as it does for the roads, to enforce compliance with federal law, and allow the fed to set uniform standards for ecommerce, ebanking, etc.
We wouldn't have fifty Louisianas trying to force Paypal to pay the tithe they feel is their due, stifling the utility of Paypal for users, subjecting Paypal to fifty different "licensing" agreements, and allowing Paypal to pursue competing (and weaker) agreements with competing states, thus reinforcing the erosive effects of state-legislated corporate sponsorship.
I think a federal internet sales tax would be of tremendous benefit for all parties concerned.
Whereas you yourself are a stellar example of human courtesy, only once jumping to an erroneous conclusion and calling a faceless stranger "fucker".
If you'd bothered to read what was posted you'd see that I was very courteous to the actual human beings with whom I was corresponding, but firm and a little incredulous because I didn't believe I was going to receive a straight answer (and I did not).
The section you quote is from a form on hotmail's website, by which more information was solicited than was given during registration, and was included for that reason to support my argument that Microsoft intends to use hotmail to reliably deliver spam to "188 million users". I was understandably dismayed by the implication that hotmail needed all that information to close my account; it was not, and is not, necessary. Only the fact that the person with access to the account (the password) wanted to close that account was necessary. In my opinion, it should have been easier.
And thank you for pointing out the painfully obvious. It proves that you have nothing to contribute, but lack the self discipline to refrain from responding anyway.
It was posted as received, for my convenience.
I suggest you take a breather, and step away from the computer, and maybe do something about that internet elitism you seem to be suffering from.
Regards.
I obfuscated the names because I have nothing against the people who responded (or didn't respond, depending on your point of view) to my request. Their replies were slightly mechanistic, and it is clear (to me, yvmv) that Microsoft has no intention of giving up the information I provided to open my hotmail account. But I planned for this day, so any junk mail Microsoft may have signed "me" up for, using the name and address I generously provided, is being forwarded to the dead letters office in Leesville, Louisiana. Yeeha.
This latest move comes as no surprise, really. I can't imagine Redmond respects my privacy any more than Yahoo!, Egghead, or any one of a dozen other defunct dot coms...
===== BEGIN =====
Excellent. That is exactly what I wanted to hear. I intend to close my account presently. I will attempt to log in to hotmail in 100 days. If that attempt succeeds, I will contact you then.
From: "Microsoft .NET Passport Support"
To:
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:23:03 -0800
Hello mephistopheles51@hotmail.com, .NET Passport.
.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
Thank you for writing to Microsoft
In response to your inquiry, I would just like to reiterate that your Hotmail account is an automatic Passport account as well. Therefore, if you close your Hotmail account, your Passport account will also be cancelled.
I hope I was able to help you.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Pi.
Microsoft
--- Original Message --- .NET Passport Support"
From: mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
To: "Microsoft
Sent: Tue Feb 26 19:40:25 PST 2002
Subject: RE: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
Finally, someone actually *read* my question. After receiving the exact same response twice in a row I was becoming concerned that there was no human being on the other end of the computer at all, but a machine, which was parsing the question and appending the appropriate "solution". To rephrase your reply: if I close my hotmail account, and DO NOT USE MY PASSPORT FOR 90 DAYS, all information provided to or collected by Microsoft will be automatically deleted, including any information provided to marketers, advertisers, or any of Microsoft's "partners". If you respond affirmatively, I will close my hotmail account and expect that the non-public information provided to Microsoft by me will be deleted as above, following 90 days of inactivity. If you must respond negatively, please forward my question to someone who will guarantee that the non-public information provided to Microsoft by me will be deleted as above, or who will state, for the record, that it simply cannot (or will not) be done prior to responding. I should like a name in the latter case. In either case, if I have not heard from a representative of hotmail or passport in three days, I will take this matter up again. I eagerly await your reply.
Thank you.
>From: "Microsoft .NET Passport Support"
.NET Passport.
.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
>To:
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
>Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:02:00 -0800
>
>Hello Mephistopheles51,
> Thank you for writing to Microsoft
> Regarding your inquiry, Email services of Hotmail Passport IDs are
>automatically deactivated after 30 days of inactivity. After such time,
>your Hotmail Passport will cease to be an email account but you can still
>continue using the ID on other Participating Passport sites.
> Should you wish to have your Passport ID purged from our system, please
>refrain from accessing the account for 90 days. Accounts are automatically
>removed from our system only after the specified period of inactivity.
> I hope I was able to answer your question, if you have other inquiries,
>please do not hesitate to write us back.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Je.
>Microsoft
>
>--- Original Message --- .NET Passport Support"
>From: mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
>To: "Microsoft
>Sent: Mon Feb 25 19:00:23 PST 2002
>Subject: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
>
>I'm afraid you don't understand, as previously explained.
> I want to delete my "passport", thereby deleting all information provided to
>or collected by Microsoft, and not just my hotmail account. As indicated by
>the recent memorandum from Bill Gates, it appears Microsoft has finally
>realized that it must earn users' trust. This is a step in the right
>direction. Users are not a cash machine for any corporation that decides to
>abuse its monopoly status for the benefit of the marketing and advertising
>departments of its many "partners".
> However, the recent attacks on hotmail, and the vulnerabilities in
>Microsoft's ".net" and "passport" services have convinced me that none of
>the information I provided to Microsoft is truly secure, not even my name,
>address, or IP, and that Microsoft cannot be trusted not to use the
>information provided or collected for its own gain, and to my detriment.
>Therefore, I would like to delete all information I provided to Microsoft,
>or which has been collected by Microsoft about me, in its entirety.
> Please tell me how to do that, or direct my inquiry to someone who can.
>Merely deleting my hotmail account simply will not suffice. Thank you.
> >From: "Microsoft .NET Passport Support"
.NET Passport.
.NET Passport site (such as Messenger or eShop) for
.NET Passport for a full 90 days. In
.NET Passport
.NET Passport has comprehensive online help available to you.
.NET Passport or help with Microsoft
.NET Passport
.NET Passport help topics.
.NET Passport. If you have further questions,
.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
> >To:
> >Subject: RE: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
> >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:21:11 -0800
> >
> >Hello Mephistopheles51,
> >
> >
> >Thank you for writing back to Microsoft
> >
> >With regard to your concern, please be guided on the procedures of deleting
> >your mephistopheles51@hotmail.com account.
> >
> > >>> To close your Hotmail account
> >
> >1. In the upper right corner of any Hotmail page, click "Help".
> >
> >2. In the MSN Hotmail Help window, click "Find", type "Close account", and
> >then click "Go".
> >
> >3. In the search results, click the "Close your Hotmail account" link. 4.
> >Follow the instructions to close your account.
> >
> >You can also close your Hotmail account by not signing in to the account
> >for 30 days or within the first 10 days after you set up your account.
> >Hotmail then marks your account as "Inactive", your stored messages are
> >permanently deleted, and inbound messages are returned to the sender. You
> >can reactivate your account by going to the sign-in page and typing your
> >sign-in name and password. If your account remains "Inactive" for 90 days,
> >Hotmail permanently deletes it. You cannot reactivate your deleted account
> >because it has been completely removed from our system. You must register
> >for a new one.
> >
> >Note: If you want to permanently close your Hotmail account, do not sign in
> >to Hotmail or any other
> >which you use your user@hotmail.com
> >addition, if your Hotmail account is closed, your hotmail.com
> >is also closed.
> > Microsoft
> >For more information about Microsoft
> >.NET Passport features, click the Help link on a Microsoft
> >web page. When the help window opens, click the appropriate topic, or click
> >the All Topics link at the top of the help window for a categorized list of
> >all Microsoft
> >
> >Thank you for using Microsoft
> >please reply to this e-mail message.
> >
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Lo.
> >Microsoft
> >
> >--- Original Message --- .NET Passport Support"
> >From: mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
> >To: "Microsoft
>
> >Sent: Fri Feb 22 17:35:47 PST 2002
> >Subject: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
> >
> >I'm afraid you don't understand. I want to delete my "passport". Microsoft
> >simply cannot be trusted with the information I provided, and cannot be
> >trusted not to attempt to collect more and more associative information to
> >be sold to its marketing and advertising "partners". I do not want any
> >information I provided to Microsoft to exist on Microsoft's servers at all.
> > The help page simply states that I will be closing my hotmail account, and
> >that after 90 days my hotmail account will be deleted, but that deletion of
> >my hotmail account will not affect my passport, and that I may reactivate my
> >hotmail account at any time within 90 days simply by signing in to hotmail.
> >This is not acceptable.
> > Please direct me to a link that will allow me to delete my passport, thus
> >removing all passport information collected by Microsoft.
> > As an aside, why do hotmail.msn.com, passport.com, and msn.com need 14
> >cookies between them? Don't you find that a little excessive? I certainly do.
> > Thank you!
> > >From: "Microsoft .NET Passport Support"
.NET Passport.
.NET Passport account.
.NET Passport site (such as Messenger or eShop)
.NET Passport for a full 90 days.
.NET
.NET Passport has comprehensive online help available to you.
.NET Passport or help with Microsoft
.NET Passport
.NET Passport help topics.
.NET Passport. If you have further questions,
.NET Passport Customer Support Representative
>
> > >To:
> > >Subject: RE: CST60498798ID - delete my account
> > >Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:31:37 -0800
> > >
> > >Hello mephistopheles51,
> > >
> > >Thank you for writing to Microsoft
> > > In response to your concern, I have provided below the procedure on how
> > >to delete your mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
> > > >>> To close your Hotmail account
> > > 1. In the upper right corner of any Hotmail page, click "Help".
> > > 2. In the MSN Hotmail Help window, click "Find", type "Close account",
> > >and then click "Go".
> > > 3. In the search results, click the "Close your Hotmail account" link.
> >4.
> > >Follow the instructions to close your account.
> > > You can also close your Hotmail account by not signing in to the account
> > >for 30 days or within the first 10 days after you set up your account.
> > >Hotmail then marks your account as "Inactive", your stored messages are
> > >permanently deleted, and inbound messages are returned to the sender. You
> > >can reactivate your account by going to the sign-in page and typing your
> > >sign-in name and password. If your account remains "Inactive" for 90 days,
> > >Hotmail permanently deletes it. You cannot reactivate your deleted account
> > >because it has been completely removed from our system. You must register
> > >for a new one.
> > > Note: If you want to permanently close your Hotmail account, do not sign
> > >in to Hotmail or any other
> > >for which you use your user@hotmail.com
> > >In addition, if your Hotmail account is closed, your hotmail.com
> > >Passport is also closed.
> > > Microsoft
> > >For more information about Microsoft
> > >.NET Passport features, click the Help link on a Microsoft
> > >web page. When the help window opens, click the appropriate topic, or click
> > >the All Topics link at the top of the help window for a categorized list of
> > >all Microsoft
> > >
> > >Thank you for using Microsoft
> > >please reply to this e-mail message.
> > >
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Ed.
> > >Microsoft
> > >
> > >--- Original Message --- .NET Passport Support"
> > >From: no@alternate.com
> > >To: "Microsoft
> >
> > >Sent: Tue Feb 19 18:51:42 PST 2002
> > >Subject: delete my account
> > >
> > >CustomerName : don't need don't need
> > >UpdateCountry : false, false
> > >CUBirthdate : don't need
> > >BrowserVersion : don't need
> > >OperatingSystem : don't need
> > >ErrorMessage : n/a
> > >Submit : Send
> > >ContactEmailAddress : mephistopheles51@hotmail.com
> > >Country : US
> > >FirstName : don't need
> > >LastName : don't need
> > >Region : 19283
> > >PostalCode : don't need
> > >Comments : you don't need any of this information to delete my account
> > >RIGHT NOW.
> >
> >Don't Believe the Hype!*
> >*and it's all hype...
that perhaps this is just a feint on Microsoft's part, a false admission so to speak, to demonstrate to an uncertain jury (Kollar-Kotelly) that the market itself will resolve some of the outstanding issues regarding Microsoft's current initiatives, and that further action on the part of the Justice Department is not only unwarranted, but may result in further destabilization of the technology sector?
We'll know once the judgement is handed down, of course...
in the "groundswell of support" for Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
I'm surprised more /.ers haven't mentioned it.
Bill?
Is that you?