As for Google Chrome, it makes perfect sense to bind the user to the webmaster's control. After all, for many important things like e-mail, calendaring, and many more, that webmaster is probably Google. (After all, how many yahoo.com or live.com users would install a Google browser?) And Google loves it when you can't block their cookies or stop them from doing whatever they want to spy on you.
This can't be true because Google said they would do no evil. Unless OH SH-
You've never been to a Microsoft seminar, have you? To answer you, they spout nonsense like that pretty much at every moment they can muster. Every Microsoft peon mumbles things like that to sound knowledgeable. (paraphrasing) "We have an intimate knowledge of our OS so we have a natural competitive advantage."
This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.
This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.
Microsoft is a victim of their own feature-rich corporate culture. They are a victim of their customers non-uniform demands.
The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.
Firefox loads what you need to surf and also lets you modify the experience -- you are in control.
Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.
Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.
Too true. (98.2% of our CURRENT customers love us. LOL)
EA Before: "Hey Gamers, buy our wicked game because it's totally fun to play!!!"
EA Later: "Hey Gamers, buy our new game because it has newer technology, better lighting, and it produces 100% more warm fuzzies than its predecessor!"
Whenever email scripts have too many recipients, they do tend to refresh and try again, which can cause dupes. These addresses were likely supposed to be in the BCC field, or nonexistent (duh). So it was a mistake.
That's an embarassing blunder, to hold a seminar on keeping private info secure and then spamming who is attending the seminar. I wonder how much time they will spend on that blunder, explaining how it can happen to anyone, even the mighty Verizon, but this foolishness will not strengthen Verizon's sales pitch.
Spammers attend these conferences. Now spammers have known email addresses of everyone there.
This would only make a difference if spammers made money based on sending targeted email. They don't. They make money based on volume of addresses when a shady merchant pays them. So maybe they could make $25 on this list?
Apart from making one person in Verizon look stupid, this also enforces the theory that it only takes one idiot to... the whole internet.
IANAL, but the second part is a warning to TDS against trying to waste more court time. The judge is saying that he's busy enough and therefore if TDS tries to revisit this, it would be another costly loss.
TDS lost a lot of money going after the city. They also lost a lot of revenue because they are now going to try and compete with the city (lol). And they lost the support of their community, who knows they sued the city for unwarranted tax dollars, and taxpayers love bailouts.
But as for the second, "You have to pay people to go after those that would try to strip public privacy away or try to curtail democracy. Obama appears to want the USA to compete freely with other countries, but in a positive way." What on earth does that have to do with Net Neutrality in EITHER of it's interpretations?
You didn't follow the ball. Netneutrality.ca on the subject of Net Neutrality:
"Net Neutrality in Canada is the principle that consumers should be in control of what content, services and applications they use on the public Internet."
Obama will support funding to go after companies and organizations who would try to disrupt the freedoms of American citizens on the internet. That's my interpretation, at least.:)
Politicians typically utilize the most self-serving interpretations of their policies after the election, but my interpretation was pretty fluid on this subject.
I think this will play out as McCain wanting to shake down the pornographers and pedos, but also clamp down on anti-amerian sentiment on the net. Free speech has already taken a huge nosedive with the Bush administration at the helm. Many more years of that and everyone, not just the USA, is in trouble.
Obama seems to approve of funding to enforce net neutrality, something that maybe hasn't been considered. You have to pay people to go after those that would try to strip public privacy away or try to curtail democracy. Obama appears to want the USA to compete freely with other countries, but in a positive way. You can't enforce that unless you put money towards it.
EXT. Stonetalon Mountains (North West of Orgrimmar)
ENTER: Mackror the Mighty Orc Huntar
Mackror (yells): "I HAS CAPTURED 9/15 SPIDAR DEEPMOSS EGGS!!! FEW MORE TO GO!!!"
[ENTER: Homing Pigeon]
(makes pigeon crap on Mackror, sputters around... and lands on Macror's shoulder)
Mackror: "ARGH WAT! A NOTE!" (reads note)
"AIG Insurrance of Ogrimmar!!!! HAS GOLD. Invest to protect your new QUEST ITEM: DEEPMOSS SPIDER EGGS from decay and theft. Insure your home with the most ROCK SOLID insurance company in all Kalimdor!! We would never need to be bailed out like other institutions."
You would think that if a person said X under oath in court, then said !X under oath in court, then that person has committed perjury. I guess logic doesn't apply in a court room.
I happen to enjoy watching Judge Judy from time to time because she is too damn funny. Everyone lies in her court. Everyone. Is she going to line them all up and do separate perjury cases on each one? No. Ridiculous. She simply makes the bigger liars lose their case.
IANAL, but the problem seems to be in getting judges to want to convict people of perjury. They typically would prefer to convict on the tried offenses, not offenses happening as a result of investigation in an unrelated court (civil, not criminal). Therefore if you are in a civil case and you lie, even on Judge Judy she just slaps you around verbally, and fines you, unless your counterpart is more of an idiot.
Perjury is a criminal matter, regardless of where you are when you lie under oath.
Actually, the courts tend to weigh the cases that perjury allegedly occurred, and factor that in. Also, it's incredibly difficult to win a perjury case, irrespective of the details.
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
Really? This one regular guy was able to find them without very much effort. How much easier would it be with a subpoena or search warrant?
Collecting the money is why that got checked. Spammers are notorious for pulling every dirty trick in the book and many that are undocumented, to avoid paying penalties.
(x) The police will not put up with it
The police don't care much. In fact, I think the police like it when an open & shut case drops in their laps. It makes them look good by increasing their arrest & conviction rate without any effort.
Police hate investigating perjury cases. Ask anyone. Even when you hand them the evidence and they put a case together, there are low rates of success. Did you read the article? The judge was hostile about even exploring something that wasn't heard in his court. That kind of malaise is common in all areas of the criminal courts, right down to the police. Many of these people think going after spammers is a waste of time and money.
Have you worked in IT? People do not sympathize with admins fighting spam. They just want it to work and they blame IT for it, not spammers.
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
Spammer cooperation not required.
Uh, how else are you going to collect money, without cooperation? They wouldn't do time for perjury in these types of cases... it'd be fines.
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Not at all. But if a spammer is hit with a big fine and/or jail time maybe they will rethink their ways.
Actually in order to get a perjury case going you would need the cooperation of the courts and pretty much every court in the nation at once, or you can forget about it working.
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
No, since you have things like judges and juries who look at the evidence to determine how reliable it is.
Spammers are pretty good at what they do. They would proxy through other people and make them look guilty, thus increasing the liklihood of the person looking like they are lying on the stand, when they could be innocent.
(x) Asshats
The idea is to slap the asshats with fines and/or jail time.
Asshats are idiots that will come in and mess with this approach any way they can to screw it up, not just spammers. Asshats are the fringe of the internet that want to create chaos. eg. Anonymous and "over 9000" and you'll see what I mean.
(x) Jurisdictional problems
You just need to find a court where the spammer is located or does business.
And for spam coming from China?
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
Tax? What tax?
How are you gonna pay for all this, Einstein?
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
Ok, maybe this one is correct. A spammer could just pay the fine. However, if they get sent to jail, that is a different story.
They will never see jail for low-level perjury. Most of it can be explained away as misinterpretation.
Martha Stewart was investigated for insider trading. She wasn't sent to jail for that. There was no evidence she engaged in insider trading. She was sent to jail for lying to investigators while being investigated for insider trading. And she wasn't even under oath at the time.
Martha, is kind and trusting. She is the kind of person a spammer would like to know, for use as a patsy.
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
No, since you have things like judges and juries who look at the evidence to determine how reliable it is.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it (x) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (x) Extreme profitability of spam (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (x) Technically illiterate politicians (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
1. Does it blend? 2. Could this technology remove advertising from any potential web content, or just a key sector of the internet to focus users in only one direction? 3. When TiVO has slaughtered "the advertising golden goose that has enriched the broadcasting industry for the last 50 years," who is invited to the table for Golden Goose Liver Pate TM?
It takes a genius to hire a couple of people to do your dirty work. It takes even greater genius to accept money to damage computer systems, from a complete stranger who would never rat you out.
Do you feel that Blizzard's dominance hurts other MMORPGs?
And to follow up that question, how does it feel to bask in the glory of your defeated enemies, drinking their blood as they futility attempt to dethrone your empire, unsuccessfully and without any hope? Do you ever break out into song, perhaps in Orcish or Gutterspeak, to said victories, uncontrollably -- or have you become numbed by the whole experience?
Slashdot Mirror
This can't be true because Google said they would do no evil. Unless OH SH-
You've never been to a Microsoft seminar, have you? To answer you, they spout nonsense like that pretty much at every moment they can muster. Every Microsoft peon mumbles things like that to sound knowledgeable. (paraphrasing) "We have an intimate knowledge of our OS so we have a natural competitive advantage."
However, your argument is as logical as my response to it.
This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.
This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.
Microsoft is a victim of their own feature-rich corporate culture. They are a victim of their customers non-uniform demands.
The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.
Firefox loads what you need to surf and also lets you modify the experience -- you are in control.
Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.
Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.
Too true. (98.2% of our CURRENT customers love us. LOL)
EA Before:
"Hey Gamers, buy our wicked game because it's totally fun to play!!!"
EA Later:
"Hey Gamers, buy our new game because it has newer technology, better lighting, and it produces 100% more warm fuzzies than its predecessor!"
EA Now:
"Hey Gamers, bend over."
No, instead you just have a cool username! :P
Whenever email scripts have too many recipients, they do tend to refresh and try again, which can cause dupes. These addresses were likely supposed to be in the BCC field, or nonexistent (duh). So it was a mistake.
That's an embarassing blunder, to hold a seminar on keeping private info secure and then spamming who is attending the seminar. I wonder how much time they will spend on that blunder, explaining how it can happen to anyone, even the mighty Verizon, but this foolishness will not strengthen Verizon's sales pitch.
Spammers attend these conferences. Now spammers have known email addresses of everyone there.
This would only make a difference if spammers made money based on sending targeted email. They don't. They make money based on volume of addresses when a shady merchant pays them. So maybe they could make $25 on this list?
Apart from making one person in Verizon look stupid, this also enforces the theory that it only takes one idiot to... the whole internet.
I suggest capping the comment abilities of posters with a UID over #56.
IANAL, but the second part is a warning to TDS against trying to waste more court time. The judge is saying that he's busy enough and therefore if TDS tries to revisit this, it would be another costly loss.
TDS lost a lot of money going after the city. They also lost a lot of revenue because they are now going to try and compete with the city (lol). And they lost the support of their community, who knows they sued the city for unwarranted tax dollars, and taxpayers love bailouts.
Yes, and also in turn that protects America's best interests. However, most politicians lie, so this point is likely moot.
CANADA IS ON THE INTERNET???? Yes. It's true. Canadians need as much protection against American bad foreign policy as Americans!
Net Neutrality has one meaning and that meaning has global impact. But if you only care about America... oh wait... nevermind.
R2.0 (532027):
You didn't follow the ball.
Netneutrality.ca on the subject of Net Neutrality:
Obama will support funding to go after companies and organizations who would try to disrupt the freedoms of American citizens on the internet. That's my interpretation, at least. :)
Politicians typically utilize the most self-serving interpretations of their policies after the election, but my interpretation was pretty fluid on this subject.
I think this will play out as McCain wanting to shake down the pornographers and pedos, but also clamp down on anti-amerian sentiment on the net. Free speech has already taken a huge nosedive with the Bush administration at the helm. Many more years of that and everyone, not just the USA, is in trouble.
Obama seems to approve of funding to enforce net neutrality, something that maybe hasn't been considered. You have to pay people to go after those that would try to strip public privacy away or try to curtail democracy. Obama appears to want the USA to compete freely with other countries, but in a positive way. You can't enforce that unless you put money towards it.
EXT. Stonetalon Mountains (North West of Orgrimmar)
ENTER: Mackror the Mighty Orc Huntar
Mackror (yells): "I HAS CAPTURED 9/15 SPIDAR DEEPMOSS EGGS!!! FEW MORE TO GO!!!"
[ENTER: Homing Pigeon]
(makes pigeon crap on Mackror, sputters around... and lands on Macror's shoulder)
Mackror: "ARGH WAT! A NOTE!" (reads note)
"AIG Insurrance of Ogrimmar!!!! HAS GOLD. Invest to protect your new QUEST ITEM: DEEPMOSS SPIDER EGGS from decay and theft. Insure your home with the most ROCK SOLID insurance company in all Kalimdor!! We would never need to be bailed out like other institutions."
Mackror: "ARGH NO!!! LIARS!!!!!" (eats bird)
I happen to enjoy watching Judge Judy from time to time because she is too damn funny. Everyone lies in her court. Everyone. Is she going to line them all up and do separate perjury cases on each one? No. Ridiculous. She simply makes the bigger liars lose their case.
IANAL, but the problem seems to be in getting judges to want to convict people of perjury. They typically would prefer to convict on the tried offenses, not offenses happening as a result of investigation in an unrelated court (civil, not criminal). Therefore if you are in a civil case and you lie, even on Judge Judy she just slaps you around verbally, and fines you, unless your counterpart is more of an idiot.
Easy answer.
Actually, the courts tend to weigh the cases that perjury allegedly occurred, and factor that in. Also, it's incredibly difficult to win a perjury case, irrespective of the details.
Collecting the money is why that got checked. Spammers are notorious for pulling every dirty trick in the book and many that are undocumented, to avoid paying penalties.
Police hate investigating perjury cases. Ask anyone. Even when you hand them the evidence and they put a case together, there are low rates of success. Did you read the article? The judge was hostile about even exploring something that wasn't heard in his court. That kind of malaise is common in all areas of the criminal courts, right down to the police. Many of these people think going after spammers is a waste of time and money.
Have you worked in IT? People do not sympathize with admins fighting spam. They just want it to work and they blame IT for it, not spammers.
Uh, how else are you going to collect money, without cooperation? They wouldn't do time for perjury in these types of cases... it'd be fines.
Actually in order to get a perjury case going you would need the cooperation of the courts and pretty much every court in the nation at once, or you can forget about it working.
Spammers are pretty good at what they do. They would proxy through other people and make them look guilty, thus increasing the liklihood of the person looking like they are lying on the stand, when they could be innocent.
Asshats are idiots that will come in and mess with this approach any way they can to screw it up, not just spammers. Asshats are the fringe of the internet that want to create chaos. eg. Anonymous and "over 9000" and you'll see what I mean.
And for spam coming from China?
How are you gonna pay for all this, Einstein?
They will never see jail for low-level perjury. Most of it can be explained away as misinterpretation.
Martha, is kind and trusting. She is the kind of person a spammer would like to know, for use as a patsy.
Yo
But it won't work because:
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(x) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Direct Snail Mail and corporate-sponsored drive-bys.
Few things here:
1. Does it blend?
2. Could this technology remove advertising from any potential web content, or just a key sector of the internet to focus users in only one direction?
3. When TiVO has slaughtered "the advertising golden goose that has enriched the broadcasting industry for the last 50 years," who is invited to the table for Golden Goose Liver Pate TM?
It takes a genius to hire a couple of people to do your dirty work. It takes even greater genius to accept money to damage computer systems, from a complete stranger who would never rat you out.
Opens the door for hax. If I've been drivin liek an hero, hack hack hack... I'm teh hero!
While it was 42, it's now 80, due to the adjustment for inflationary accounting purposes.
And to follow up that question, how does it feel to bask in the glory of your defeated enemies, drinking their blood as they futility attempt to dethrone your empire, unsuccessfully and without any hope? Do you ever break out into song, perhaps in Orcish or Gutterspeak, to said victories, uncontrollably -- or have you become numbed by the whole experience?