Other responders have adequately answered the question and demonstrated why--that spammers really do make good money this way. The question that lies past that one is: Why are people foolish enough to buy from spam, and what do we do about it? I have... a modest proposal.
Why don't we deal this problem the same way we deal with prostitution? Make buying in response to spam a crime, just like soliciting a prostitute is a crime? The commercial relationship is already quite similar, in that the consumer usually pays money and ends up getting screwed (and is more likely to get a virus).
Maybe if responding to a spam solicitation was illegal, people would show more discretion. It would at least add a little bit of needed chlorine to the on-line gene pool...
So, I guess your definition of sci-fi is too narrow to include guys like Robert Heinlein and H.G. Wells and Jack Chalker? Arthur C. Clarke invented the satellite and all, so he probably gets to stay, and maybe Larry Niven and Neal Stephenson; but what about Isaac Asimov? I mean, how much real science was there in Foundation?
Why do we need to be so exclusionary with the genre title? Is there a generally accepted standard list of criteria from which you believe space epics like Star Wars diverge, or is this just a troll?
My wife is an orientation and mobility (O&M) instructor, teaching independent travel skills to the blind and visually impaired. A specific task is to teach them how to navigate through cities and make safe intersection crossings. This is the sort of thing that can make O&M people and their clients crazy: "When you reach this intersection, go to the right and find the pedestrian signal activation button. Not that it matters."
Technology neither introduces nor relieves stress; it just is. Some technology is well-designed and useful, some isn't. Some users are well-designed, and effectively use technology; some not. As a good tool user, when I have high-quality, appropriate tools, my day is less stressful because I can be effective and efficient in my work, which promotes my job satisfaction.
Technology can sometimes appear problematical because work force gets replaced by technology. However, it is frequently true that while the cost to the employer (in terms of hours and net outlay) in that process is reduced, the amount of "stuff" for which someone must be responsible is not reduced; and therefore, the responsibility per person (and the associated stress) is increased. Technology plays a role in this vicious cycle, of course, since the work-force reduction is made possible by technology; but it is really a function of short-term thinking, bottom-line-oriented management decision-makers.
Or, to summarize, "Technology doesn't kill people. People kill people."
Technology ends up reducing my stress because I have good tools and know how to use them, and because I have a reasonably competent boss. But that's me. I don't think one could generalize from my experience.
Similarly, there is a bar in Milwaukee called The Safe House. If you go into the Get Smart phone booth and dial the secret phone number, it's hacked so that instead of dialing out it opens the secret back door out of the place. (How's that for a backdoor hack!)
Conversely, it can be fun to work in an office of old-time Win weasels, who know nothing about Unix, but manage to have much cooler workstations than I do. A simple amusement is to wait until they have someone in their office (or on the phone) to whom they are loudly bragging about their technical prowess, and then telnet in and run some nice.au like a toilet flushing.
BTW, our Sun systems have the flush.au installed by default in/usr/demo. I always thought this was very considerate of them, but I do wonder what the intended use for it was...
discount(ing of) the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide,
the published information does not include the percentages. Raw numbers are meaningless. If you tell me 10 of one OS and 100 of another got cracked, what does that mean? 10 out of 100 out there vs. 100 out of 100,000 out there is a totally different result than 10/100 vs. 100/200. More data is needed for this to be anything but an advertisement for that company's services.
Perhaps this will also help out non-profit groups like churches and community theaters which use (or would like to use) LPFM to cheaply transmit their audio to Walkman-like radios to help their attendees who need hearing assistance. These typically reach no further than a block--just enough to get to the other side of a complex. They've been squeezed by regulations and restrictions designed to protect the large commercial interests.
Our group is currently not able to purchase a replacement transmitter because of current FCC regs; we can only continue using what we have because we bought before the most recent tightening, and when the old heap finally dies our older members who need a little help will be the ones getting the short end of the stick.
Mr. Coward (may I call you Noel?) raises a good point about alternate sources of news and perspective. One of the things NYT doesn't get is that, by putting up roadblocks to its content, it is losing influence in the broader public. When it's a hassle to go to their site, and there are other sites to which we can go, we don't go to their site--and that costs them influence in how we see the news, which ultimately diminishes their brand's value and (at some point not far down the road) their bottom line.
If more papers want to make the same short-sighted mistake, well (to quote my favorite author-pair), "Think of it as evolution in action."
Yes, I have the same problem. Can't have a phone with a camera, whether I'm on base or just in our off-base commercial office. (I can't take my PDA onto the base, either, because of the infrared port.) Many companies that are not government contractors have also instituted no-camera policies, too.
It seems like there are two threads emerging on this. One is proving who did something based on which computer; the other is liability when your computer was used without your knowledge.
It is entirely possible to convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence. IANAL (though I watched every Perry Mason episode), but the standard test a prosecutor must meet is means, motive, and opportunity. If your car was used in a hit-and-run, and driven by someone who looked like you, but you have an alibi, you're off the hook. If your most advanced level of programming is setting the clock on the VCR, you're probably off the hook. If they cannot show a motive, they will have a hard time convicting.
I don't think there will be more than a handful of criminal convictions of computer owners based solely on identifying the originating computer.
There will undoubtedly be lawsuits based on failure to properly secure your computer. There are several precedents for that, including gun lock laws and attractive nuissance laws. But if your computer is used to hack some big company and billions of dollars of damage is done, they know that they won't recoup that from your paycheck. They'll be more interested in seeing the real offender severely punished as an example to others.
...for several boneheads to notify us via virus-generated e-mail that they have self-selected their names to the top of the list for the next round of layoffs. Our names being thus lowered on the list, we immediately justify our continued employment by deploying a patch that is, by that time, fully tested.
No one will ever commit the money to a space elevator, regardless of its relative TCO, because there is no way to defend something that large with a fixed location from terrorists who fly Boeings into things--and they would aim for such an attractive target. It could never be insured, so no investor would consider that an acceptable level of risk. Save the space elevator idea for Martian colonization. (Or send all terrorists to Mars without one.)
There has been some research that suggests that a certain level of conceptual development is required to retain memories, if one is define a "memory" as the structured recall of a specific moment in time. Before that point (which may or may not map directly to the acquisition of language), we take in data from our senses in a disordered, impressionistic way, and therefore we cannot retrieve that data and express it in a meaningful, narrative way. However, there seems to be evidence that some people can retain impressions or feelings from before that point.
As to how far back one can go to pull those early memories, it seems to depend on how one develops and on how vivid an event is. An example is my earliest memory, which was when I was about 13 months.
It was a beautiful late summer's late afternoon in Southern California. The newly-cut grass was dark green and fragrant, and waning sun and smog created vibrant reds and oranges in the sky. A baseball game was blaring from the radio. My father stood in the midst of it all, watering the roof as though an approaching wildfire was a fairly common occurrence.
The only memory I can access between then and sometime around age 3 or 4 was a birthday party (either 2nd or 3rd), wherein some odd custom of setting a perfectly good cake on fire was re-enacted.
It's the vividity that matters. Supposedly, all of our memories are in there somewhere, but we usually need something about them to stand out in order to access them.
I understand that you are trying to differentiate between us geeks and the great unwashed masses... but I think that, as some posters are already implying, the question is too broad to be entirely useful. When you say "widespread adoption amongst the mainstream", what software are you really trying to ask about? There are really probably 4 vastly different categories to consider.
1. Components transparent to end users. This would include, for example, sendmail and Apache, which the average Internet user makes use of every day without knowing it.
2. Utility level components. Little things to help people print in pretty formats, that sort of thing. These might be more typically used from a command line. A user might pick these up from a friend or have them installed by an admin, and be aware that they are using it, but not necessarily know if it is free/open/etc.
3. Applications. Web browsers, word processors, etc. Users of these would like be aware of an app's parentage, and could (and do) use them in proprietary/closed environments. They would buy these in computer stores or download them.
4. Operating environments/systems. This includes your OS, your desktop manager, etc. Obviously, this is a major commitment. The low-end end user you're thinking about it would not install this; it would come with the computer they buy.
Thinking in these classifications, my answers are: already; typically not the realm of a low-end user; yes, increasingly; and, that's the question being asked by a lot of people smarter than I.
If the management of your former company did not see fit to keep the personnel they need to meet their business needs, it's really their problem, not yours. Helping them only puts you in the role of "enabler". If a friend of mine calls--whether they're at my former company or somewhere else--I always help them via phone or e-mail; but if it's an ex-boss calling on behalf of the company, I tell them that I cannot afford the liability of providing services to them without a contractual agreement.
Because corp IT standardized on MS Exchange for mail services, and MS Office is the productivity standard, we all have to have at least MS on the desktop. (Many of us have multiple boxes or dual-boot our PCs.) So, if I need to bring work home with me or RAS in, I have to have MS & Office at home. Also, since the customers I support run MS, I have to run my apps on MS and exchange MS documents with them.
I always have Linux and/or Solaris boxes available to me in every location, and use them whenever possible. But MS will be hard to really get rid of for several years yet. (Kind of like how it took many years for Windows to get rid of MS-DOS!)
Slashdot Mirror
WordPerfect is available for Linux. See the WP FAQ on LinuxMafia.com or other on-line sources.
Other responders have adequately answered the question and demonstrated why--that spammers really do make good money this way. The question that lies past that one is: Why are people foolish enough to buy from spam, and what do we do about it? I have... a modest proposal.
Why don't we deal this problem the same way we deal with prostitution? Make buying in response to spam a crime, just like soliciting a prostitute is a crime? The commercial relationship is already quite similar, in that the consumer usually pays money and ends up getting screwed (and is more likely to get a virus).
Maybe if responding to a spam solicitation was illegal, people would show more discretion. It would at least add a little bit of needed chlorine to the on-line gene pool...
I agree that blocking is preferable to filtering. Filtering is like solving gun violence by improving emergency room medicine.
However, as an interim step, it's better than not to have Bayesian filters and well-staffed ERs.
Really gives new meaning to the phrase "idiot box"...
So, I guess your definition of sci-fi is too narrow to include guys like Robert Heinlein and H.G. Wells and Jack Chalker? Arthur C. Clarke invented the satellite and all, so he probably gets to stay, and maybe Larry Niven and Neal Stephenson; but what about Isaac Asimov? I mean, how much real science was there in Foundation?
Why do we need to be so exclusionary with the genre title? Is there a generally accepted standard list of criteria from which you believe space epics like Star Wars diverge, or is this just a troll?
My wife is an orientation and mobility (O&M) instructor, teaching independent travel skills to the blind and visually impaired. A specific task is to teach them how to navigate through cities and make safe intersection crossings. This is the sort of thing that can make O&M people and their clients crazy: "When you reach this intersection, go to the right and find the pedestrian signal activation button. Not that it matters."
Technology neither introduces nor relieves stress; it just is. Some technology is well-designed and useful, some isn't. Some users are well-designed, and effectively use technology; some not. As a good tool user, when I have high-quality, appropriate tools, my day is less stressful because I can be effective and efficient in my work, which promotes my job satisfaction.
Technology can sometimes appear problematical because work force gets replaced by technology. However, it is frequently true that while the cost to the employer (in terms of hours and net outlay) in that process is reduced, the amount of "stuff" for which someone must be responsible is not reduced; and therefore, the responsibility per person (and the associated stress) is increased. Technology plays a role in this vicious cycle, of course, since the work-force reduction is made possible by technology; but it is really a function of short-term thinking, bottom-line-oriented management decision-makers.
Or, to summarize, "Technology doesn't kill people. People kill people."
Technology ends up reducing my stress because I have good tools and know how to use them, and because I have a reasonably competent boss. But that's me. I don't think one could generalize from my experience.
Similarly, there is a bar in Milwaukee called The Safe House. If you go into the Get Smart phone booth and dial the secret phone number, it's hacked so that instead of dialing out it opens the secret back door out of the place. (How's that for a backdoor hack!)
Conversely, it can be fun to work in an office of old-time Win weasels, who know nothing about Unix, but manage to have much cooler workstations than I do. A simple amusement is to wait until they have someone in their office (or on the phone) to whom they are loudly bragging about their technical prowess, and then telnet in and run some nice .au like a toilet flushing.
/usr/demo. I always thought this was very considerate of them, but I do wonder what the intended use for it was...
BTW, our Sun systems have the flush.au installed by default in
It'll be okay. Just reach around behind your ear and hit the degauss button.
Right. Tossing aside the debate-worthy
discount(ing of) the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide,
the published information does not include the percentages. Raw numbers are meaningless. If you tell me 10 of one OS and 100 of another got cracked, what does that mean? 10 out of 100 out there vs. 100 out of 100,000 out there is a totally different result than 10/100 vs. 100/200. More data is needed for this to be anything but an advertisement for that company's services.
Perhaps this will also help out non-profit groups like churches and community theaters which use (or would like to use) LPFM to cheaply transmit their audio to Walkman-like radios to help their attendees who need hearing assistance. These typically reach no further than a block--just enough to get to the other side of a complex. They've been squeezed by regulations and restrictions designed to protect the large commercial interests.
Our group is currently not able to purchase a replacement transmitter because of current FCC regs; we can only continue using what we have because we bought before the most recent tightening, and when the old heap finally dies our older members who need a little help will be the ones getting the short end of the stick.
Mr. Coward (may I call you Noel?) raises a good point about alternate sources of news and perspective. One of the things NYT doesn't get is that, by putting up roadblocks to its content, it is losing influence in the broader public. When it's a hassle to go to their site, and there are other sites to which we can go, we don't go to their site--and that costs them influence in how we see the news, which ultimately diminishes their brand's value and (at some point not far down the road) their bottom line.
If more papers want to make the same short-sighted mistake, well (to quote my favorite author-pair), "Think of it as evolution in action."
But isn't it great to see so much money being spent to prop up the closed source system? I think these guys are "The Mole"...
Yes, I have the same problem. Can't have a phone with a camera, whether I'm on base or just in our off-base commercial office. (I can't take my PDA onto the base, either, because of the infrared port.) Many companies that are not government contractors have also instituted no-camera policies, too.
Yeah, great... Did you get that memo about the cover sheets were putting on the TPS reports now?
It is entirely possible to convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence. IANAL (though I watched every Perry Mason episode), but the standard test a prosecutor must meet is means, motive, and opportunity. If your car was used in a hit-and-run, and driven by someone who looked like you, but you have an alibi, you're off the hook. If your most advanced level of programming is setting the clock on the VCR, you're probably off the hook. If they cannot show a motive, they will have a hard time convicting.
I don't think there will be more than a handful of criminal convictions of computer owners based solely on identifying the originating computer.
There will undoubtedly be lawsuits based on failure to properly secure your computer. There are several precedents for that, including gun lock laws and attractive nuissance laws. But if your computer is used to hack some big company and billions of dollars of damage is done, they know that they won't recoup that from your paycheck. They'll be more interested in seeing the real offender severely punished as an example to others.
...for several boneheads to notify us via virus-generated e-mail that they have self-selected their names to the top of the list for the next round of layoffs. Our names being thus lowered on the list, we immediately justify our continued employment by deploying a patch that is, by that time, fully tested.
...until Slashdot can be accessed some other way.
No one will ever commit the money to a space elevator, regardless of its relative TCO, because there is no way to defend something that large with a fixed location from terrorists who fly Boeings into things--and they would aim for such an attractive target. It could never be insured, so no investor would consider that an acceptable level of risk. Save the space elevator idea for Martian colonization. (Or send all terrorists to Mars without one.)
There has been some research that suggests that a certain level of conceptual development is required to retain memories, if one is define a "memory" as the structured recall of a specific moment in time. Before that point (which may or may not map directly to the acquisition of language), we take in data from our senses in a disordered, impressionistic way, and therefore we cannot retrieve that data and express it in a meaningful, narrative way. However, there seems to be evidence that some people can retain impressions or feelings from before that point.
As to how far back one can go to pull those early memories, it seems to depend on how one develops and on how vivid an event is. An example is my earliest memory, which was when I was about 13 months.
It was a beautiful late summer's late afternoon in Southern California. The newly-cut grass was dark green and fragrant, and waning sun and smog created vibrant reds and oranges in the sky. A baseball game was blaring from the radio. My father stood in the midst of it all, watering the roof as though an approaching wildfire was a fairly common occurrence.
The only memory I can access between then and sometime around age 3 or 4 was a birthday party (either 2nd or 3rd), wherein some odd custom of setting a perfectly good cake on fire was re-enacted.
It's the vividity that matters. Supposedly, all of our memories are in there somewhere, but we usually need something about them to stand out in order to access them.
I understand that you are trying to differentiate between us geeks and the great unwashed masses... but I think that, as some posters are already implying, the question is too broad to be entirely useful. When you say "widespread adoption amongst the mainstream", what software are you really trying to ask about? There are really probably 4 vastly different categories to consider.
1. Components transparent to end users. This would include, for example, sendmail and Apache, which the average Internet user makes use of every day without knowing it.
2. Utility level components. Little things to help people print in pretty formats, that sort of thing. These might be more typically used from a command line. A user might pick these up from a friend or have them installed by an admin, and be aware that they are using it, but not necessarily know if it is free/open/etc.
3. Applications. Web browsers, word processors, etc. Users of these would like be aware of an app's parentage, and could (and do) use them in proprietary/closed environments. They would buy these in computer stores or download them.
4. Operating environments/systems. This includes your OS, your desktop manager, etc. Obviously, this is a major commitment. The low-end end user you're thinking about it would not install this; it would come with the computer they buy.
Thinking in these classifications, my answers are: already; typically not the realm of a low-end user; yes, increasingly; and, that's the question being asked by a lot of people smarter than I.
If the management of your former company did not see fit to keep the personnel they need to meet their business needs, it's really their problem, not yours. Helping them only puts you in the role of "enabler". If a friend of mine calls--whether they're at my former company or somewhere else--I always help them via phone or e-mail; but if it's an ex-boss calling on behalf of the company, I tell them that I cannot afford the liability of providing services to them without a contractual agreement.
Because corp IT standardized on MS Exchange for mail services, and MS Office is the productivity standard, we all have to have at least MS on the desktop. (Many of us have multiple boxes or dual-boot our PCs.) So, if I need to bring work home with me or RAS in, I have to have MS & Office at home. Also, since the customers I support run MS, I have to run my apps on MS and exchange MS documents with them.
I always have Linux and/or Solaris boxes available to me in every location, and use them whenever possible. But MS will be hard to really get rid of for several years yet. (Kind of like how it took many years for Windows to get rid of MS-DOS!)