Email spam is getting filtered and blocked more and more by email users and ISP's. Gives a lot of hassle. This makes email more and more a ineffective medium for spammer. The people that don't have their email filtered are switching to IM because the anount of spam they get with email.
It's sad, but just logical that spammers will switch to IM. We should stop trying to stop spammers by technological means, they will find ways around it or we will end op with a hardly usable messaging system. What we should do is find ways of taking the profit away from them. Either by educating people not to by spamvertized products, by sueing their ass off or just 'SlashDot' them in some dark alley. As long as it possible to make profit from spam ther will be spammers...
From the bottom of the site: And remember, copyright infringement is illegal. If you have any question whether what you're doing constitutes an infringement,
visit the RIAA's great anti-piracy website.
Kissing asses here, scared allready or just kidding?
Should we fine and arrest people who keep vulnerable systems on the web?
It whould sure help to keep the internet a pleasant place. Arresting them is a bit overdone, but a fine whould be fine. All in proportion ofcourse. There are a lot of offenses that don't kill people, but these are punished as well. Ofcourse there are difference between crimes, but there are different sentences as well...
Besides, the people that run the risk of being fined are also the ones that benefit the most of this. I won't (ok, never say never...) get caught by a virus comming from someone with an unpatched computer and a won't get any spam send from trojanized systems. Joe Sixpack will. All the trouble that currently causes for an average web user is IMHO more likely to make them look for something else to do then the risk of being fined.
So if you are planning a big hack, the best way is doing it through the system of a CS student. It shouldn't be to difficult to find one that doesn't have his system properly secured...
It whould be fun to see judge say somthing like 'You install OS something, Guilty as charged'. But with the current focus on security the big OS vendors have that won't happen...
(Or was it because of the big amounts of money?)
That whould make me either use an OS i can edit and compile myself, as i'm allready doing, or i'll just crack my 'perfectly normal home computer' myself using my 'sup3r s3cr37 1337 1@p70p'.
I guess i'll opt for the first option...
Keyloggers will only help proving it wasn't done by the guy that say's it's computer was hijacked, it will not help getting the right man. Since the guy with the hijacked computer can use that argument now allready and we all hope 'Innocent until proven otherwise' still applies it won't help anybody except the hacker gaining access to this data, dataminers of all kinds, Microsoft (don't know why yet, but they'll find a way), your wife that wants to read your email, hardware verdors, ISP's (you type to much, upgrade your account please) and of course your Big Brother.
It's just that people hijacking computers prefer not to be found in logs. If they successfully take over a computer they will be able to edit log accordingly. If the computer in question is running windows (like most 'Joe Average' computers) there likely won't be usefull logs anyway, as a previous poster already noted.
Why would anyone want to buy AOL after when Time Warner dropped AOL from it's name? I thought it was already a fact that AOL isn't making money.
Well, first off, T-Online sure is making money and this whould be a way of buying a huge amount of customers. T-Online wants to grow and will have a hard time doing so by just attracting new customers, must people are online somewhere allready, so it's either convincing people to switch to T-Online wich will costs loads of marketing money and will require massive infrastructure investments, or buying those customers. The article talks about a price of 1 billion dollar. For 25 million customers plus the infrastrucure to support them plus a very well known brand name this might be a good purchase. Just compare the price of 40 dollar per customer to a 'Switch now, get the first 6 months for free' campain...
Secondly, T-Online has money to burn, so they can afford to take some time to turn it into a profitable company, starting by dumping all personnel that will be 'duplicate' when the two company's merge.
How about this: open sourcing means it's easier to introduce a back door. Consider the development teams. On one hand you have a larger pool of anonymous developers
You seem to miss the point about the discussion here. The whole opensource argument has nothing to do whith who builds the software and in what way. It's like we whould like everybody and it's cat to contribute fancy features to a voting system.
The point is that, in a democracy, the people should be able to verify the correctness of the voting. It's good enough, IMHO, if it's all done by a commercial company, as long as they show their code for testing and review by the public and proof that's the code that's actually running on the voting machines. They can copyright it, even patent it, just give the public a change to verify it.
I simply cannot trust some binary in some black box machine to count votes in a correct and fair manner.
even with peer review on open coude this sort of bug might still happen
But in that case we at least get to see the bug *and* the fix. Now someone has 'fixed' the count and but he could just as well have done that by inserting some hardcoded reasonable looking numbers.
You'd have to dig for a link, but i'm pretty sure Ericsson had just that. A cellular that used a local dect station when (close enough to) home and the GSM network when away from home...
Reminds me of a story i read in the newspaper a way back. It was about a German driver that trusted his nav system a little to much. He was told to cross a bridge and drove straight into the river, since there was no bridge but a ferry instead...
True, and these companies will die eventually. As will sites with just too much ads and too little content. Their is a lot of movement in this area, but a'm sure we will reach a balance at some point.
Think of me, that whould be at least one. I'm sure the other person is hanging out on/. as well.
Really, if the a website has to much, to annoying ads, I just don't use it. If the signal to noise ratio is OK (and the content interesting) then i will be using it. Tell me, what newspaper do you read, one that is free and doesn't contain any ads at all?
So, whould you pay for slashdot? Or whould take their bandwith bill should OSDN decide it's becoming to expensive to support?
You are right when you say that advertising does not create the medium, but you will either pay for the medium yourself or have the advertiser to pay for it. The choice is yours, but advertising is not a parasite, but has a normal place in the 'food-chain' of the internet.
It's not really different from the other media. Want commercial free TV? Pay for it. Want free television, get commercials. (With several shades of gray inbetween).
Exchanging advertisements between businesses for mutual benefit is not a good way to ensure continued success anyway.
Providing valuable content for free alongside payed advertising has been a succesfull business model in the publishing industry. Same goes for commercial television. Why shouldn't it work on the web?
Banner ads have already failed. The global click through ratio is under three tenths of a percent.
So what, how high do you think the click through ratio on TV commercials is? Loads of TV commercials show URL these days, but that not what it's about. Branding is more important than the click through ratio. Think about the fact that most banners look fancy, prominently show brand and product names and often domain names as well. Especially showing a domain is pretty pointless if click-through was the most important thing.
Between 70 and 100 per cent of the population show signs of previous reovirus infection, which is usually confined to the respiratory or gastrointestinal systems in the body.
This makes it extremely likely that you've been infected with the virus before you got cancer. The article talks about 20 days before the immune systems eleminates the virus in the body, when you first get it. The next time you will likely be resitent and get rid of it way before it has a significant effect on a tumor. This might be the reason that it is injected in high dosis directly into the tumor.
There are people that got rid of tumors 'spontaneously'. These cases might be explained by the fact the got the cancer before they ever got this virus. In wich case their immune system whould be slower to remove the virus allowing it to reach and significantly infect a tumor. Again, it might be, their is no way to be sure about this little theory, but their is no way to prove that no one got cured by a common cold as well, since there are cases where people got cured that were not explained. The fact that it's so common makes it an easy thing to overlook...
First, this is why beta versions are released. To get a (massive, for the bigger projects) testing effort. This will show must bugs and will show the most annoying bug fist.
Second, I really doubt structured testing will show all bugs. It sure helps, but only when combined with clear functional specifications and and a thoroughly described implementation. That whould require a central design and a central development process as well.
In some respect this does mean that Balmer is right, extremely good software comes from a controlled process, but it whould be really expensive software as well. MS clearly cuts corners in this process wich is killing for quality. This is why OSS development still is better than half-harted controled development. Balmer whould be right is his top priority whould be quality, Cringly is right when he say's that isn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Email spam is getting filtered and blocked more and more by email users and ISP's. Gives a lot of hassle. This makes email more and more a ineffective medium for spammer. The people that don't have their email filtered are switching to IM because the anount of spam they get with email.
It's sad, but just logical that spammers will switch to IM. We should stop trying to stop spammers by technological means, they will find ways around it or we will end op with a hardly usable messaging system. What we should do is find ways of taking the profit away from them. Either by educating people not to by spamvertized products, by sueing their ass off or just 'SlashDot' them in some dark alley. As long as it possible to make profit from spam ther will be spammers...
From the bottom of the site:
And remember, copyright infringement is illegal. If you have any question whether what you're doing constitutes an infringement,
visit the RIAA's great anti-piracy website.
Kissing asses here, scared allready or just kidding?
Should we fine and arrest people who keep vulnerable systems on the web?
It whould sure help to keep the internet a pleasant place. Arresting them is a bit overdone, but a fine whould be fine. All in proportion ofcourse. There are a lot of offenses that don't kill people, but these are punished as well. Ofcourse there are difference between crimes, but there are different sentences as well...
Besides, the people that run the risk of being fined are also the ones that benefit the most of this. I won't (ok, never say never...) get caught by a virus comming from someone with an unpatched computer and a won't get any spam send from trojanized systems. Joe Sixpack will. All the trouble that currently causes for an average web user is IMHO more likely to make them look for something else to do then the risk of being fined.
So if you are planning a big hack, the best way is doing it through the system of a CS student. It shouldn't be to difficult to find one that doesn't have his system properly secured...
It whould be fun to see judge say somthing like 'You install OS something, Guilty as charged'. But with the current focus on security the big OS vendors have that won't happen...
(Or was it because of the big amounts of money?)
That whould make me either use an OS i can edit and compile myself, as i'm allready doing, or i'll just crack my 'perfectly normal home computer' myself using my 'sup3r s3cr37 1337 1@p70p'.
I guess i'll opt for the first option...
Keyloggers will only help proving it wasn't done by the guy that say's it's computer was hijacked, it will not help getting the right man. Since the guy with the hijacked computer can use that argument now allready and we all hope 'Innocent until proven otherwise' still applies it won't help anybody except the hacker gaining access to this data, dataminers of all kinds, Microsoft (don't know why yet, but they'll find a way), your wife that wants to read your email, hardware verdors, ISP's (you type to much, upgrade your account please) and of course your Big Brother.
It's just that people hijacking computers prefer not to be found in logs. If they successfully take over a computer they will be able to edit log accordingly. If the computer in question is running windows (like most 'Joe Average' computers) there likely won't be usefull logs anyway, as a previous poster already noted.
Why would anyone want to buy AOL after when Time Warner dropped AOL from it's name? I thought it was already a fact that AOL isn't making money.
Well, first off, T-Online sure is making money and this whould be a way of buying a huge amount of customers. T-Online wants to grow and will have a hard time doing so by just attracting new customers, must people are online somewhere allready, so it's either convincing people to switch to T-Online wich will costs loads of marketing money and will require massive infrastructure investments, or buying those customers. The article talks about a price of 1 billion dollar. For 25 million customers plus the infrastrucure to support them plus a very well known brand name this might be a good purchase. Just compare the price of 40 dollar per customer to a 'Switch now, get the first 6 months for free' campain...
Secondly, T-Online has money to burn, so they can afford to take some time to turn it into a profitable company, starting by dumping all personnel that will be 'duplicate' when the two company's merge.
How about this: open sourcing means it's easier to introduce a back door. Consider the development teams. On one hand you have a larger pool of anonymous developers
You seem to miss the point about the discussion here. The whole opensource argument has nothing to do whith who builds the software and in what way. It's like we whould like everybody and it's cat to contribute fancy features to a voting system.
The point is that, in a democracy, the people should be able to verify the correctness of the voting. It's good enough, IMHO, if it's all done by a commercial company, as long as they show their code for testing and review by the public and proof that's the code that's actually running on the voting machines. They can copyright it, even patent it, just give the public a change to verify it.
I simply cannot trust some binary in some black box machine to count votes in a correct and fair manner.
even with peer review on open coude this sort of bug might still happen
But in that case we at least get to see the bug *and* the fix. Now someone has 'fixed' the count and but he could just as well have done that by inserting some hardcoded reasonable looking numbers.
The Amount_paid variable was used where it should have been Vote_Count...
You'd have to dig for a link, but i'm pretty sure Ericsson had just that. A cellular that used a local dect station when (close enough to) home and the GSM network when away from home...
I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it :-)
You forgot the must important advantage of VMWare, it not only runs linux, but it also runs on linux.
rely too much on GPS
Reminds me of a story i read in the newspaper a way back. It was about a German driver that trusted his nav system a little to much. He was told to cross a bridge and drove straight into the river, since there was no bridge but a ferry instead...
True, and these companies will die eventually. As will sites with just too much ads and too little content. Their is a lot of movement in this area, but a'm sure we will reach a balance at some point.
Think of me, that whould be at least one. I'm sure the other person is hanging out on /. as well.
Really, if the a website has to much, to annoying ads, I just don't use it. If the signal to noise ratio is OK (and the content interesting) then i will be using it. Tell me, what newspaper do you read, one that is free and doesn't contain any ads at all?
So, whould you pay for slashdot? Or whould take their bandwith bill should OSDN decide it's becoming to expensive to support?
You are right when you say that advertising does not create the medium, but you will either pay for the medium yourself or have the advertiser to pay for it. The choice is yours, but advertising is not a parasite, but has a normal place in the 'food-chain' of the internet.
It's not really different from the other media. Want commercial free TV? Pay for it. Want free television, get commercials. (With several shades of gray inbetween).
Exchanging advertisements between businesses for mutual benefit is not a good way to ensure continued success anyway.
Providing valuable content for free alongside payed advertising has been a succesfull business model in the publishing industry. Same goes for commercial television. Why shouldn't it work on the web?
Banner ads have already failed. The global click through ratio is under three tenths of a percent.
So what, how high do you think the click through ratio on TV commercials is? Loads of TV commercials show URL these days, but that not what it's about. Branding is more important than the click through ratio. Think about the fact that most banners look fancy, prominently show brand and product names and often domain names as well. Especially showing a domain is pretty pointless if click-through was the most important thing.
Between 70 and 100 per cent of the population show signs of previous reovirus infection, which is usually confined to the respiratory or gastrointestinal systems in the body.
This makes it extremely likely that you've been infected with the virus before you got cancer. The article talks about 20 days before the immune systems eleminates the virus in the body, when you first get it. The next time you will likely be resitent and get rid of it way before it has a significant effect on a tumor. This might be the reason that it is injected in high dosis directly into the tumor.
There are people that got rid of tumors 'spontaneously'. These cases might be explained by the fact the got the cancer before they ever got this virus. In wich case their immune system whould be slower to remove the virus allowing it to reach and significantly infect a tumor. Again, it might be, their is no way to be sure about this little theory, but their is no way to prove that no one got cured by a common cold as well, since there are cases where people got cured that were not explained. The fact that it's so common makes it an easy thing to overlook...
That whould be a good idea, your the 4th person to tell it's a duplicate...
Well, someone allready suggested this in a reply to that article. ;-)
It remains to be seen if he is going to get fired as well
The fact that we regard this radio broadcast as fiction shows the how effectively the conquering Martians have infiltrated all organs of the state.
And the fact that OP got modded funny proves his point...
Well, use a shrink-wrap license, if there aren't holes in the license it should work perfectly...
First, this is why beta versions are released. To get a (massive, for the bigger projects) testing effort. This will show must bugs and will show the most annoying bug fist.
Second, I really doubt structured testing will show all bugs. It sure helps, but only when combined with clear functional specifications and and a thoroughly described implementation. That whould require a central design and a central development process as well.
In some respect this does mean that Balmer is right, extremely good software comes from a controlled process, but it whould be really expensive software as well. MS clearly cuts corners in this process wich is killing for quality. This is why OSS development still is better than half-harted controled development. Balmer whould be right is his top priority whould be quality, Cringly is right when he say's that isn't the case.