"The crucial element here is "if enforced". I'm also not sure how you plan to get companies to produce self-incriminating evidence that they paid for a spam run. The only means I can think of is to file a lawsuite and then use discovery to subpeona the records, but this would be prohibitively expensive. Few people would spend $1000 or more for a chance to collect a $500 judgement."
Again, if a company is running "spamcains" there will be an obvious pattern of incriminating evidence. The local prosecutors should then step in and do the investigating.
This won't net sleazeballs that do a quick, one time only, "hit and run" spamcain, but how many do that now? Most of them run CONTINUOUS spamcains, as that is the only way the law of averages (given the.005 response rate) catches up to make significant money.
Good anti-spam laws will make doing this in the bulk required to achieve profit difficult to impossible.
"There's a little flaw in this logic: It ignores the "joe job", which is spam that is sent to get someone else in trouble by making it look like they are spamming. What do you do when the apparent beneficiary of the spam claims they were joe-jobbed?"
If they are a legitimate company, they are required to maintain records.
Records of payments to the spammer should be sufficient. No sane company is NOT going to record an advertising expense, as to not do so is to pay for it twice over.
Sure there will be illegitimate businesses that DONT do this, but if they are involved in "spamcains" to sell their wares, there will be MORE THAN ONE complaint. Claiming that they were "framed" may work once. Maybe twice, but over and over? Won't work.
The fact is, anti-spam laws WILL work if enforced, even if spam is originated overseas, because at SOME POINT, to make money from Americans, money and/or product has to be exchanged IN America...
"So stores WILL be able to determine your buying history if you use a CC to pay(Grocery stores do now - with that little card they extorted you into giving them each time). And I bet the RFID manufacturer ends up selling these things in consecutive runs of ID #'s - making it EASY for the feds to determine where the panties were bought and to correlate them with a CC#, then a mailing address, etc. "
One thing I did with the grocery cards I have: I lied like HELL on the apps. They don't have my correct name, or address, or anything else.
IMO, it IS extortion to extract such data from you just to avoid being OVERCHARGED for stuff on the shelf.
Back when these first started, I remember that you got some truly great deals constantly at Kroger with them, but now, most of the time I hand the card over reflexively and save NOTHING for having done so...
"The conclusion drawn may be oversimplified but nonetheless pragmatic: 1) forged headers should be illegal 2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited Why does everyone in the USA assume that everyone else in the world will somehow obey US law when it is made "illegal"? "
From inside the USA this makes sense.
Why? Because the only way for a spammer to make money by spamming US computers is to sell products to Americans. To do that one must put themself under US law.
I'd add another provision... Make the company that is being advertised as liable as the spammer.
"Non-profit does not mean people do not get paid to work. It means the organization as a whole is not a for-profit organization: It does not exist in order to make a profit for it's owners. THe goal of the organisation is to reduce software piracy. The fact that the people who work for them get paid has no bearing."
No, the purpose of the BSA is to make more money for the FOR PROFIT businesses that founded and fund it.
Which seems to me to be skirting the spirit, if not the letter of the law concerning nonprofit orgs.
Neither are copyrights (see Constitution), but that doesn't stop the RIAA/MPAA from bribing legislators from extending them into eternity every time anything after 1920 is in danger of passing into the "public domain".
What needs to end are these corporate cartels. The RIAA is a NON PROFIT ORG! WHAT an abuse of th term.
Multi-corporate groups should be limited to industry standard setting bodies ONLY.
And I don't think it will, it's time to head to Washington, DC with your torches and pitchforks.
To legislate a TAX, the proceeds of which to pass to a corporate entity that is a CONVICTED FELON (twice for price fixing) is certainly grounds for drastic action.
Fact is, we as individuals don't own our government anymore. Corps and other "groups" do.
They are tiny minorities, yet they usurp the majority. Money talks, after all.
What we need is reform of the corporation. If Hillary were PERSONALLY liable for the illegal price fixing collusion the RIAA has been convicted of, would she be more or less likely to promote it?
What do you call it when a cartel colludes to fix prices at an artificially high level?
"SearchKing is a 'service' that says they will improve your score on search engines like Google. They do this by trying to exploit the algorithms of engines like the Google PageRank system. So Google updated their algorithm to prevent the abuse."
And doesn't that deliberate manipulation amount to a "denial of service" attack against Google?
SearchScum is taking money to manipulate search results...
"Now, this is cool tech, so it's a fun read. But is anyone really holding there breath for this thing? This thing is doomed without support from Microsoft, and they are going to be in bed with Intel as usual. AMD should stick to what it does best, emulating Intel's CPUs, until it can amass enough market share and forge enough partnerships with OS makers to strike out on their own."
Actually, Microsoft has endorsed AMD's 64 bit platform. They are also pressuring Intel to adopt a x86 approach as well. Why? Easier to code for. The Itanium has been nothing but a disaster so far.
The Opteron could be a real turning point, with Intel for once forced to clone AMD designs...
"hen the game came home. What a horrible, horrible dissapointment it was. Ugh. I think that was the beginning of the end for Atari. They pissed off a lot of kids (and parents) with that piece of crap.
This was also about the time that the TRaSh 80 was out, along with the Commodore and Vic machines (I think). Anyway, some of us started getting interested in computer based games after the Pac man debacle. Shortly after that, a number of us left our 2600's behind for the promise of real computers."
Ditto. I had the 2600... The Pac-Man fiasco made me want my first computer, a VIC-20. Followed by a C-64 and a C-128, followed by PC's.
"Personally, I haven't had a new game console since the 2600. Not because of the Pac Man mess though. I don't see the point of having a dedicated, fixed hardware game platform. A PC does so much more, and the games are generally better than those available on a console."
I have owned only ONE other console since the 2600, that being the Sega Genesis.
I've seen nothing since to make me buy another console, though the PS/2 is tempting thanks to the lack of a PC release for GTA: Vice City...
"The kind of trouble you describe is that your records might make it more difficult to lie. I'm not too sympathetic."
Dude, the vast majority of sexual harassment lawsuits are bogus. I've seen more than one incompetent woman try to sue the company for harassment when she was let go.
"Now... excuse me.. but am I the only one who finds that f*cking laughable? Its down to the motor industry to cover for some lazy fool who decides that today he wont bother to use his seatbelt, and will sue because he gets seriously injured in a car accident?"
Not to mention that most airbags are more dangerous to me (I'm 5'2) than not having them. I'd rather use my seatbelt, thank you.
And removing stupid people who don't wear them from the gene pool can only be a good thing.
"I do have serious concerns about this, though. In particular, I don't want to get a ticket in the mail because I went 60 in a 45 while passing some other car, and I don't want to get a call from my insurance company because some guy backed into me and dented my front bumper a little. But as long as this information is released in a way that doesn't personally identify me, I'd have no problem with it in my car. And if people were allowed to flip a switch and shut it off completely, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all."
Wouldn't accessing such information collected by a computer that is in YOUR car, that YOU own be called "hacking"?
If breaking into GM's computers to collect information by me is a crime, so should accessing one that I own, whether GM sold it to me or not.
Just because IBM sold me a computer doesnt' give them the right to collect information from it. Why should GM, Ford, etc be exempt?
"If the police were really interested in catching the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, that's where they'd wait for speeders. Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour. You tell me where their priorities are."
Speed enforcement=revenue patrol.
Seldom is speed enforcement done for safety. Which is why cops are most likely to be found on interstates and expressways than they are surface streets.
"5. Morality. If we can actually make sense of all the data collected in this way, would we also require manufacturers to meet some criteria in safety? Accept it, "inequality" exists. You'll be much safer in an S-class/7series at 200 Kmph then in an Corolla/Civic at 100 Kmph. Manufacturers are always trying to give more to consumers. There is good competetion already. We don't need asinine regulations."
What determines your auto safety?
1. How safely YOU drive (85%) 2. How safely everyone else (15%)
The car you are driving has little to do with it. The best way to survive an accident is to AVOID one.
I've avoided several accidents in my driving lifetime by being alert and ready. And my little tin can Ford Escort might offer little protection from a lumbering Explorer, but it does offer far superior manuverability, which has saved my ass a half dozen times...
I'll guarantee you the mindless 30-something soccermom driving 3 screaming kids in the latest Ford Monstrosity SUV is less safe than I am in my little tin can.
"On the plus side, police could finally catch the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, instead of setting up speed traps. IMO this tech could lead to less silly tickets (like the 2MPH over the limit example you give) and more legitimate ones."
How many people do this?
Not many that I've seen. You fall for the "Big Brother" fallacy, that monitoring the 99% of innocents is justified by the fact that you might catch the 1% guilty.
I'm sorry, I believe that the cops should have to WORK for a living, to PROVE guilt by solid conventional means of investigation. It's worked for 220 years.
"Not likely. You ain't gonna be able to snip the sensor wires without some consequence. This ain't like ripping the polution control equipment off of a '72 Mustang. You won't be able to remove the sensors without the ECM screaming bloody murder and disabling the auto after a while. If you're good at figuring out what code the ECM is using, you might be able to disable the checks in software - at least until they start encrypting the code in the ECM ROM's. Bottom line, a car is more a set of sensors and actuators on wheels these days, all controlled by your friend "software". Good luck, but I think the days of being able to randomly remove parts is numbered."
And who said everyone HAS to buy new cars?
I'm quite happy with my battered `93 Escort. It still gets me to work and back quite efficiently and reliably, and gets good gas mileage.
There will always be a supply of old cars and parts to repair them.
If enough people refuse to buy "spyware cars" there will be no incentive to produce them.
Sadly, however, the sheep masses would buy cars that have bombs implanted in them that the police could trigger remotely so long as the marketer copy was slick enough...
"Well, as I understood it, the police actually have the data (bits) - SAAB is just refusing to tell how to interpret them... On grounds of privacy - they will use the data anonymized/in bulk for statistics - and they hadn't really informed the buyers about the feature (mentioned somewhere in the manual though) I'm not sure exactly what a company can be ordered to do, by the courts, here in Sweden"
I guess EULA's for buying a car are soon to come...
"They have denied the Swedish police force access to the data
Really, how? In the U.S. that info could probably be subpoenaed anyway (i.e., demanded by formal court process)"
Yep. Recording information is in some cases a mistake in the USA.
Some misguided managers love to fall prey to the glossy copy of some "Big Brother" internet monitoring crap (such as "I Caught You") but the marketspeak NEVER informs the customer of the single LARGEST pitfall:
If you record it, you may have to produce it. Any record may be subpoened by anyone in any court proceeding involving the company.
For example, it'd be a lot harder for a fired female employee with an axe to grind to prove "sexual harassment" because she once saw pr0n on a co-worker's screen if no record of that activity is recorded...
Similarly, I can see this working AGAINST car makers, as the class action sharks suddenly discover that it's much easier to prove certain defects...
""Holding car drivers to the same standards as aircraft is such a huge leap that the paperwork generated by it could likely employ everyone in America." I think you just solved all our economic problems in a single stroke!"
No it wouldn't.
It'd cause overnight economic collapse as the cost of driving leaps beyond that of 95% of Americans, and whole industries collapse because they can't employ anyone who lives more than 10 miles away...
Our whole economy is structured around the automobile. Take it away, and it will collapse.
"Looks like we found the answer to today's Ask Slashdot: Sometimes it appears like the U.S. is losing its edge in technology. Well, I was wondering what the Slashdot community at large thinks is wrong (or right) with the U.S. and technological innovation?" "
Yep. Out of control trial lawyers and antiquated tort laws are consuming innovation in this country. It's not a coincidence that the trial lawyers are the biggest contributor to one of the two major parties (Democrats).
Lawsuits are supposed to be remedies for those who actually suffer HARM because of the misdeeds of others. Instead, they've become a means of wealth redistrobution---to lawyers.
The legal industry does not generate wealth and income, it consumes it.
"But actually suing people is a much more risky business plan. You can never be sure that the men and women on the jury are going to act in the best interest of your bottom line."
Ask Rambust. The little IP company that could (sue) went after everyone who wanted to produce DDR, and ended up with the judge in the case that was initiated BY THEM ruling them guilty of fraud...
Slashdot Mirror
"The crucial element here is "if enforced".
.005 response rate) catches up to make significant money.
I'm also not sure how you plan to get companies to produce self-incriminating evidence that they paid for a spam run. The only means I can think of is to file a lawsuite and then use discovery to subpeona the records, but this would be prohibitively expensive. Few people would spend $1000 or more for a chance to collect a $500 judgement."
Again, if a company is running "spamcains" there will be an obvious pattern of incriminating evidence. The local prosecutors should then step in and do the investigating.
This won't net sleazeballs that do a quick, one time only, "hit and run" spamcain, but how many do that now? Most of them run CONTINUOUS spamcains, as that is the only way the law of averages (given the
Good anti-spam laws will make doing this in the bulk required to achieve profit difficult to impossible.
"There's a little flaw in this logic: It ignores the "joe job", which is spam that is sent to get someone else in trouble by making it look like they are spamming.
What do you do when the apparent beneficiary of the spam claims they were joe-jobbed?"
If they are a legitimate company, they are required to maintain records.
Records of payments to the spammer should be sufficient. No sane company is NOT going to record an advertising expense, as to not do so is to pay for it twice over.
Sure there will be illegitimate businesses that DONT do this, but if they are involved in "spamcains" to sell their wares, there will be MORE THAN ONE complaint. Claiming that they were "framed" may work once. Maybe twice, but over and over? Won't work.
The fact is, anti-spam laws WILL work if enforced, even if spam is originated overseas, because at SOME POINT, to make money from Americans, money and/or product has to be exchanged IN America...
"So stores WILL be able to determine your buying history if you use a CC to pay(Grocery stores do now - with that little card they extorted you into giving them each time). And I bet the RFID manufacturer ends up selling these things in consecutive runs of ID #'s - making it EASY for the feds to determine where the panties were bought and to correlate them with a CC#, then a mailing address, etc. "
One thing I did with the grocery cards I have: I lied like HELL on the apps. They don't have my correct name, or address, or anything else.
IMO, it IS extortion to extract such data from you just to avoid being OVERCHARGED for stuff on the shelf.
Back when these first started, I remember that you got some truly great deals constantly at Kroger with them, but now, most of the time I hand the card over reflexively and save NOTHING for having done so...
"The conclusion drawn may be oversimplified but nonetheless pragmatic: 1) forged headers should be illegal 2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited
Why does everyone in the USA assume that everyone else in the world will somehow obey US law when it is made "illegal"? "
From inside the USA this makes sense.
Why? Because the only way for a spammer to make money by spamming US computers is to sell products to Americans. To do that one must put themself under US law.
I'd add another provision... Make the company that is being advertised as liable as the spammer.
"Non-profit does not mean people do not get paid to work. It means the organization as a whole is not a for-profit organization: It does not exist in order to make a profit for it's owners.
THe goal of the organisation is to reduce software piracy. The fact that the people who work for them get paid has no bearing."
No, the purpose of the BSA is to make more money for the FOR PROFIT businesses that founded and fund it.
Which seems to me to be skirting the spirit, if not the letter of the law concerning nonprofit orgs.
"Business are not meant to last an eternity."
Neither are copyrights (see Constitution), but that doesn't stop the RIAA/MPAA from bribing legislators from extending them into eternity every time anything after 1920 is in danger of passing into the "public domain".
What needs to end are these corporate cartels. The RIAA is a NON PROFIT ORG! WHAT an abuse of th term.
Multi-corporate groups should be limited to industry standard setting bodies ONLY.
And I don't think it will, it's time to head to Washington, DC with your torches and pitchforks.
To legislate a TAX, the proceeds of which to pass to a corporate entity that is a CONVICTED FELON (twice for price fixing) is certainly grounds for drastic action.
Fact is, we as individuals don't own our government anymore. Corps and other "groups" do.
They are tiny minorities, yet they usurp the majority. Money talks, after all.
What we need is reform of the corporation. If Hillary were PERSONALLY liable for the illegal price fixing collusion the RIAA has been convicted of, would she be more or less likely to promote it?
What do you call it when a cartel colludes to fix prices at an artificially high level?
Stealing?
"SearchKing is a 'service' that says they will improve your score on search engines like Google. They do this by trying to exploit the algorithms of engines like the Google PageRank system. So Google updated their algorithm to prevent the abuse."
And doesn't that deliberate manipulation amount to a "denial of service" attack against Google?
SearchScum is taking money to manipulate search results...
"Now, this is cool tech, so it's a fun read. But is anyone really holding there breath for this thing? This thing is doomed without support from Microsoft, and they are going to be in bed with Intel as usual. AMD should stick to what it does best, emulating Intel's CPUs, until it can amass enough market share and forge enough partnerships with OS makers to strike out on their own."
Actually, Microsoft has endorsed AMD's 64 bit platform. They are also pressuring Intel to adopt a x86 approach as well. Why? Easier to code for.
The Itanium has been nothing but a disaster so far.
The Opteron could be a real turning point, with Intel for once forced to clone AMD designs...
"They should have called this article "Top Ten Shameful Games on Consoles No One Under 20 Has Ever Heard Of"
20? Try 30 (my age)... I heard of all those machines and games. No one younger than me likely has...
"hen the game came home. What a horrible, horrible dissapointment it was. Ugh. I think that was the beginning of the end for Atari. They pissed off a lot of kids (and parents) with that piece of crap.
This was also about the time that the TRaSh 80 was out, along with the Commodore and Vic machines (I think). Anyway, some of us started getting interested in computer based games after the Pac man debacle. Shortly after that, a number of us left our 2600's behind for the promise of real computers."
Ditto. I had the 2600... The Pac-Man fiasco made me want my first computer, a VIC-20. Followed by a C-64 and a C-128, followed by PC's.
"Personally, I haven't had a new game console since the 2600. Not because of the Pac Man mess though. I don't see the point of having a dedicated, fixed hardware game platform. A PC does so much more, and the games are generally better than those available on a console."
I have owned only ONE other console since the 2600, that being the Sega Genesis.
I've seen nothing since to make me buy another console, though the PS/2 is tempting thanks to the lack of a PC release for GTA: Vice City...
"The kind of trouble you describe is that your records might make it more difficult to lie. I'm not too sympathetic."
Dude, the vast majority of sexual harassment lawsuits are bogus. I've seen more than one incompetent woman try to sue the company for harassment when she was let go.
"Now... excuse me.. but am I the only one who finds that f*cking laughable? Its down to the motor industry to cover for some lazy fool who decides that today he wont bother to use his seatbelt, and will sue because he gets seriously injured in a car accident?"
Not to mention that most airbags are more dangerous to me (I'm 5'2) than not having them. I'd rather use my seatbelt, thank you.
And removing stupid people who don't wear them from the gene pool can only be a good thing.
"I do have serious concerns about this, though. In particular, I don't want to get a ticket in the mail because I went 60 in a 45 while passing some other car, and I don't want to get a call from my insurance company because some guy backed into me and dented my front bumper a little. But as long as this information is released in a way that doesn't personally identify me, I'd have no problem with it in my car. And if people were allowed to flip a switch and shut it off completely, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all."
Wouldn't accessing such information collected by a computer that is in YOUR car, that YOU own be called "hacking"?
If breaking into GM's computers to collect information by me is a crime, so should accessing one that I own, whether GM sold it to me or not.
Just because IBM sold me a computer doesnt' give them the right to collect information from it. Why should GM, Ford, etc be exempt?
"If the police were really interested in catching the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, that's where they'd wait for speeders. Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour. You tell me where their priorities are."
Speed enforcement=revenue patrol.
Seldom is speed enforcement done for safety. Which is why cops are most likely to be found on interstates and expressways than they are surface streets.
"5. Morality. If we can actually make sense of all the data collected in this way, would we also require manufacturers to meet some criteria in safety? Accept it, "inequality" exists. You'll be much safer in an S-class/7series at 200 Kmph then in an Corolla/Civic at 100 Kmph. Manufacturers are always trying to give more to consumers. There is good competetion already. We don't need asinine regulations."
What determines your auto safety?
1. How safely YOU drive (85%)
2. How safely everyone else (15%)
The car you are driving has little to do with it. The best way to survive an accident is to AVOID one.
I've avoided several accidents in my driving lifetime by being alert and ready. And my little tin can Ford Escort might offer little protection from a lumbering Explorer, but it does offer far superior manuverability, which has saved my ass a half dozen times...
I'll guarantee you the mindless 30-something soccermom driving 3 screaming kids in the latest Ford Monstrosity SUV is less safe than I am in my little tin can.
"On the plus side, police could finally catch the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, instead of setting up speed traps. IMO this tech could lead to less silly tickets (like the 2MPH over the limit example you give) and more legitimate ones."
How many people do this?
Not many that I've seen. You fall for the "Big Brother" fallacy, that monitoring the 99% of innocents is justified by the fact that you might catch the 1% guilty.
I'm sorry, I believe that the cops should have to WORK for a living, to PROVE guilt by solid conventional means of investigation. It's worked for 220 years.
"Not likely. You ain't gonna be able to snip the sensor wires without some consequence. This ain't like ripping the polution control equipment off of a '72 Mustang. You won't be able to remove the sensors without the ECM screaming bloody murder and disabling the auto after a while. If you're good at figuring out what code the ECM is using, you might be able to disable the checks in software - at least until they start encrypting the code in the ECM ROM's. Bottom line, a car is more a set of sensors and actuators on wheels these days, all controlled by your friend "software". Good luck, but I think the days of being able to randomly remove parts is numbered."
And who said everyone HAS to buy new cars?
I'm quite happy with my battered `93 Escort. It still gets me to work and back quite efficiently and reliably, and gets good gas mileage.
There will always be a supply of old cars and parts to repair them.
If enough people refuse to buy "spyware cars" there will be no incentive to produce them.
Sadly, however, the sheep masses would buy cars that have bombs implanted in them that the police could trigger remotely so long as the marketer copy was slick enough...
"Well, as I understood it, the police actually have the data (bits) - SAAB is just refusing to tell how to interpret them... On grounds of privacy - they will use the data anonymized/in bulk for statistics - and they hadn't really informed the buyers about the feature (mentioned somewhere in the manual though) I'm not sure exactly what a company can be ordered to do, by the courts, here in Sweden"
I guess EULA's for buying a car are soon to come...
What's next, "per seat" licensing?
"Insurance companies will probably give you a discount if you let them install a data recorder in your car... :-/"
;)
Install it, then find the main power leads... Remove the connectors, soak them in salt water until it corrodes beyond connectivity.
Replace them, and blame the maufacturer when there is nothing on the recorder
"They have denied the Swedish police force access to the data
Really, how? In the U.S. that info could probably be subpoenaed anyway (i.e., demanded by formal court process)"
Yep. Recording information is in some cases a mistake in the USA.
Some misguided managers love to fall prey to the glossy copy of some "Big Brother" internet monitoring crap (such as "I Caught You") but the marketspeak NEVER informs the customer of the single LARGEST pitfall:
If you record it, you may have to produce it. Any record may be subpoened by anyone in any court proceeding involving the company.
For example, it'd be a lot harder for a fired female employee with an axe to grind to prove "sexual harassment" because she once saw pr0n on a co-worker's screen if no record of that activity is recorded...
Similarly, I can see this working AGAINST car makers, as the class action sharks suddenly discover that it's much easier to prove certain defects...
For me to hang on to my 1993 Ford Escort with a quarter million miles on it.
""Holding car drivers to the same standards as aircraft is such a huge leap that the paperwork generated by it could likely employ everyone in America." I think you just solved all our economic problems in a single stroke!"
No it wouldn't.
It'd cause overnight economic collapse as the cost of driving leaps beyond that of 95% of Americans, and whole industries collapse because they can't employ anyone who lives more than 10 miles away...
Our whole economy is structured around the automobile. Take it away, and it will collapse.
"Looks like we found the answer to today's Ask Slashdot:
Sometimes it appears like the U.S. is losing its edge in technology. Well, I was wondering what the Slashdot community at large thinks is wrong (or right) with the U.S. and technological innovation?" "
Yep. Out of control trial lawyers and antiquated tort laws are consuming innovation in this country. It's not a coincidence that the trial lawyers are the biggest contributor to one of the two major parties (Democrats).
Lawsuits are supposed to be remedies for those who actually suffer HARM because of the misdeeds of others. Instead, they've become a means of wealth redistrobution---to lawyers.
The legal industry does not generate wealth and income, it consumes it.
"But actually suing people is a much more risky business plan. You can never be sure that the men and women on the jury are going to act in the best interest of your bottom line."
Ask Rambust. The little IP company that could (sue) went after everyone who wanted to produce DDR, and ended up with the judge in the case that was initiated BY THEM ruling them guilty of fraud...