Fool? Is his middle initial really R? If so, how is that "fooling" the system? If they are looking for John Q Lewis and he is John R Lewis, then using his middle initial is just adding enough information to allow the system to work. I would be more worried if his name was John Q Lewis and he used John R Lewis, but according to http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/bio.html the R is his actual middle initial.
The real problem seems to be that the name is common and there is a John Lewis (with whatever middle initial) who is on the no-fly list. This is one of the few parts of the system that actually seem to relate to 9/11. Those people *were* on the watch lists, but they were allowed to fly anyway. This just offers a method to keep people like the hijackers off the plane.
No, every copyright holder. For example, someone could have contributed the copyright to the FSF (or to Linus). These people would not have to be contacted. Some projects will not incorporate code unless the copyright is assigned for exactly this reason.
But yes, a headache and a half to implement now. They would probably find themselves rewriting a lot of the code to eliminate GPLed contributions (contributor either won't change the license or is no longer available to do so).
This is even worse. The whole point of RFID is that it works over distance. Thus, you can walk around the airport and *collect* passports. At least with a paper passport, you have to actually get physical posession of the passport to forge it.
This is the Microsoft Windows of passport systems: easy to use for both users and crackers.
"You could possibly build this waiving into the sign-up process - "click here to confirm your subscription and waive all Penny Black costs"."
That's backwards. Build the sign-up into the waiver process instead, "Click here to waive all Penny Black costs and send a subscribe message to the new sender." Thus, the opt-in management server will manage the subscription as well. Security is much easier in that direction. Further, the server that bears the burden if security fails is the one responsible for security.
ObAOL: you're absolutely correct on the issues with integrating micropayments into SMTP. It's an elegant solution on paper, but not one that has a simple implementation.
"...when only half of the second amandment is brought out and waved around."
It never states that only those *in* the militia should have the right to bear arms. It just says that the reason for the right is to prepare people to be in a militia (army) if necessary. This was before the time of standing armies; they needed people who were familiar with weapons in case of war.
With the solution described, the affiliates could not send you email, just the company with which you originally signed. That company could send you emails other than what you requested, but then you can cancel their original access. It's not a matter of clauses in a legal agreement. You would have to approve each new sender separately (it's a technical solution).
"As long as sending SPAM is cheaper than sending junk snail mail, there will be SPAM."
Cheaper per sale. Spam has always been less effective than junk mail, but it didn't matter since it was much cheaper (i.e. a million spams to make one sale only costs a few dollars to send, where the ten junk mails that could have been sent for the same price won't net a single sale on average). If spam gets up to even a penny per email, it will probably be more economical to only use targetted snail mail lists or other more traditional advertising (radio, TV, etc.).
"The only way spammers could have found it would be by pouring thousands of e-mails into my work's domain, hoping that one of them would find a matching e-mail address."
A lot of small email domains are set up incorrectly and will allow spammers to collect lists of valid usernames (from which email addresses can be derived). Are you sure that your work email server does not do this?
"Why my private information needs to be made public just because I want to run a website with a personalized domain name is beyond me."
To provide contact info for complaints. A domain name is governed by similar rules to a business. If you want to operate (the domain) in public, you need to make public your contact info.
For that matter, phone numbers are the same way. By default, your number, name, and address are public info. One must pay extra to get an unlisted number.
"the simple situation is that I don't need _any_ advertising through email"
That's a bit draconian. I would like to be notified when Blizzard is releasing a new game or the new Glen Cook book is being released. To get this info from the web sites, I would have to poll (check regularly) the web sites. I would rather receive a notification.
The key to this is opt in only lists. One way to do this is to make a server with your email provider that allows you to register an email as requested (bulk mail whitelist). Those can go through. Other bulk mail is prevented. There are other methods as well; that is just one example to handle both.
The real key is no *unsolicited* email advertising. If I request it, I want to be able to see it. Frankly, if a newspaper (to get back to that example) drops off their product unrequested, I would like to be able to prosecute them for littering. Further, a newspaper includes other things besides advertising. Spam does not.
Here's a question, where would you file the fraud (not perjury; one doesn't swear to a patent under oath) charge? Redmond? DC? Maybe we just need a friendly DC district attorney and we could put a stop to some of the more ridiculous patents.
"Is there any penalty for filing patents for which you KNOW prior art exists?"
Well, if the system worked, you would lose your filing fee without getting a patent.
I strongly suspect that this is a reaction to the Eolas patent. Microsoft is now patenting *everything* they want to do. If the patent doesn't stand up due to prior art in the public domain, no problem: no one will be able to enforce that kind of patent *against* them either. If it does hold up, then they have prevented anyone else from patenting the same thing. Either way, they avoid the embarassment of the Eolas situation. Worst case scenario: they have to license from someone else because the patent already exists.
Re:Outsourcing vs. Offshoring
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 1
"a team situated halfway around the world"
That is called offshoring, not outsourcing. Outsourcing is often offshore now, but it does not have to be. Outsourcing can be as simple as having Sun do all your hardware installs and repairs.
Btw, technically, all my work is outsourcing (I am a consultant). I am located in the US but do a lot of work for British customers (so I guess that they are offshoring as well). Many of my customers keep coming back, so I'm taking that to mean that they are happy.
Re:Other IT Myths
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Most IT professionals are hired by PHBs, not other IT professionals. Yes, IT professionals know that an MCSE is worthless. The problem is that PHBs do not. In government jobs, a certification is almost a requirement.
I think that you will find that 50% is way high for rebate redemption. Further, the people who actually use rebates are those who wouldn't pay full price anyway. Thus, they aren't losing anything (unless the rebate is so high that they lose money, but you will find that this rarely happens; generally, a manufacturer actually pays for the rebate in order to get the store to buy advertising). If they give the discount, then they are losing the (profitable) customers who wouldn't redeem the rebate and the customers who only came in for the rebate.
Pennsylvania actually sent me a form to fill out one year. Btw, when the customer pays it, it is called Use Tax, not Sales Tax (same tax, just a different name).
The other problem is that this is practically the default color scheme now. *Most*/. stories fall under the IT umbrella, particularly of those I read. The games color scheme doesn't matter to me as much (and IMO isn't as bad as the IT scheme), since my main games are from www.popcap.com, www.idiotsdelight.net, and www.blizzard.com; none of whom is frequently discussed on/. Are there people who regularly read/. and skip the IT articles?
"All I can say is... why would Google do pop ups?"
For the same reason that they now have placement ads above the search results (not on every search, but occasionally at the moment): to make more money.
Of course, there is also the other side of the coin. If Google becomes just as annoying as MSN search, why won't people just stick with MSN search (which will be the default in over 90% of new computers).
The AC is absolutely correct. Buying their way in is absolutely the Microsoft way. However, this is more a revision of the grandparent's point than a refutation. Once in, Microsoft simply abuses their market share in other areas until they bury the competition. They do not buy out competitors. They only buy to get a foothold in that market. Then they outsource (recently offshore but traditionally in the US) improvements to that software.
Another aspect of Microsoft: they team up with a company to develop an extension to their current software then dump the partner. Both Roxio and Citrix fell for this.
Microsoft probably would buy out the competition but for those pesky anti-trust laws.
"The amount of money in reverse spam is sure to be lower than in normal SPAM"
On what do you base this?
If I am the number two link on Google and I get the top link's site shut down, I will probably make more money from increased Google referrals than I would from spam (realize that a spam that successfully reaches one person in fifty targets is considered effective even though less than one person in a thousand will buy; thus, one purchase in 50,000 emails is considered very good). Further, note that the amount of spam to be sent out is smaller. Send out a few thousand emails and have a friend enter the spam complaint. Thus, for a spam effort that would not have netted a single purchase, you can cancel a whole competitor. I know of at least one niche site that gets about ten orders (from 2000 referrals) a day from Google (it is first for many of its products). Thus, the better Google rank from a reverse spam is probably more profitable than regular spam.
Someone else also pointed out that it is likely that spammers will start randomly targetting legitimate web sites to confuse the issue. Much the way they use legitimate addresses as the sender of spams (joe jobs).
I would agree that increased attention to this would be a good thing, but it is easy to see how the system can be abused.
Slashdot Mirror
"all they have to do is obtain ID with a minor variation on their actual name"
And how is that easier than obtaining an ID with an entirely new name?
"Oh, he had no trouble flying"
I think that the previous poster meant George *H* W Bush, who crashed his airplane during WWII. The father, not the son.
"If the system is so friggin' easy to fool,"
Fool? Is his middle initial really R? If so, how is that "fooling" the system? If they are looking for John Q Lewis and he is John R Lewis, then using his middle initial is just adding enough information to allow the system to work. I would be more worried if his name was John Q Lewis and he used John R Lewis, but according to http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/bio.html the R is his actual middle initial.
The real problem seems to be that the name is common and there is a John Lewis (with whatever middle initial) who is on the no-fly list. This is one of the few parts of the system that actually seem to relate to 9/11. Those people *were* on the watch lists, but they were allowed to fly anyway. This just offers a method to keep people like the hijackers off the plane.
"wouldn't every contributor to a given project"
No, every copyright holder. For example, someone could have contributed the copyright to the FSF (or to Linus). These people would not have to be contacted. Some projects will not incorporate code unless the copyright is assigned for exactly this reason.
But yes, a headache and a half to implement now. They would probably find themselves rewriting a lot of the code to eliminate GPLed contributions (contributor either won't change the license or is no longer available to do so).
This is even worse. The whole point of RFID is that it works over distance. Thus, you can walk around the airport and *collect* passports. At least with a paper passport, you have to actually get physical posession of the passport to forge it.
This is the Microsoft Windows of passport systems: easy to use for both users and crackers.
"You could possibly build this waiving into the sign-up process - "click here to confirm your subscription and waive all Penny Black costs"."
That's backwards. Build the sign-up into the waiver process instead, "Click here to waive all Penny Black costs and send a subscribe message to the new sender." Thus, the opt-in management server will manage the subscription as well. Security is much easier in that direction. Further, the server that bears the burden if security fails is the one responsible for security.
ObAOL: you're absolutely correct on the issues with integrating micropayments into SMTP. It's an elegant solution on paper, but not one that has a simple implementation.
"...when only half of the second amandment is brought out and waved around."
It never states that only those *in* the militia should have the right to bear arms. It just says that the reason for the right is to prepare people to be in a militia (army) if necessary. This was before the time of standing armies; they needed people who were familiar with weapons in case of war.
With the solution described, the affiliates could not send you email, just the company with which you originally signed. That company could send you emails other than what you requested, but then you can cancel their original access. It's not a matter of clauses in a legal agreement. You would have to approve each new sender separately (it's a technical solution).
"As long as sending SPAM is cheaper than sending junk snail mail, there will be SPAM."
Cheaper per sale. Spam has always been less effective than junk mail, but it didn't matter since it was much cheaper (i.e. a million spams to make one sale only costs a few dollars to send, where the ten junk mails that could have been sent for the same price won't net a single sale on average). If spam gets up to even a penny per email, it will probably be more economical to only use targetted snail mail lists or other more traditional advertising (radio, TV, etc.).
"The only way spammers could have found it would be by pouring thousands of e-mails into my work's domain, hoping that one of them would find a matching e-mail address."
A lot of small email domains are set up incorrectly and will allow spammers to collect lists of valid usernames (from which email addresses can be derived). Are you sure that your work email server does not do this?
"Why my private information needs to be made public just because I want to run a website with a personalized domain name is beyond me."
To provide contact info for complaints. A domain name is governed by similar rules to a business. If you want to operate (the domain) in public, you need to make public your contact info.
For that matter, phone numbers are the same way. By default, your number, name, and address are public info. One must pay extra to get an unlisted number.
"the simple situation is that I don't need _any_ advertising through email"
That's a bit draconian. I would like to be notified when Blizzard is releasing a new game or the new Glen Cook book is being released. To get this info from the web sites, I would have to poll (check regularly) the web sites. I would rather receive a notification.
The key to this is opt in only lists. One way to do this is to make a server with your email provider that allows you to register an email as requested (bulk mail whitelist). Those can go through. Other bulk mail is prevented. There are other methods as well; that is just one example to handle both.
The real key is no *unsolicited* email advertising. If I request it, I want to be able to see it. Frankly, if a newspaper (to get back to that example) drops off their product unrequested, I would like to be able to prosecute them for littering. Further, a newspaper includes other things besides advertising. Spam does not.
Here's a question, where would you file the fraud (not perjury; one doesn't swear to a patent under oath) charge? Redmond? DC? Maybe we just need a friendly DC district attorney and we could put a stop to some of the more ridiculous patents.
"Is there any penalty for filing patents for which you KNOW prior art exists?"
Well, if the system worked, you would lose your filing fee without getting a patent.
I strongly suspect that this is a reaction to the Eolas patent. Microsoft is now patenting *everything* they want to do. If the patent doesn't stand up due to prior art in the public domain, no problem: no one will be able to enforce that kind of patent *against* them either. If it does hold up, then they have prevented anyone else from patenting the same thing. Either way, they avoid the embarassment of the Eolas situation. Worst case scenario: they have to license from someone else because the patent already exists.
"a team situated halfway around the world"
That is called offshoring, not outsourcing. Outsourcing is often offshore now, but it does not have to be. Outsourcing can be as simple as having Sun do all your hardware installs and repairs.
Btw, technically, all my work is outsourcing (I am a consultant). I am located in the US but do a lot of work for British customers (so I guess that they are offshoring as well). Many of my customers keep coming back, so I'm taking that to mean that they are happy.
Most IT professionals are hired by PHBs, not other IT professionals. Yes, IT professionals know that an MCSE is worthless. The problem is that PHBs do not. In government jobs, a certification is almost a requirement.
That way, when you leave Best Buy in disgust, you go to Future Shop and ... still give the same people your money.
"redeeming 50% of those"
I think that you will find that 50% is way high for rebate redemption. Further, the people who actually use rebates are those who wouldn't pay full price anyway. Thus, they aren't losing anything (unless the rebate is so high that they lose money, but you will find that this rarely happens; generally, a manufacturer actually pays for the rebate in order to get the store to buy advertising). If they give the discount, then they are losing the (profitable) customers who wouldn't redeem the rebate and the customers who only came in for the rebate.
Pennsylvania actually sent me a form to fill out one year. Btw, when the customer pays it, it is called Use Tax, not Sales Tax (same tax, just a different name).
The other problem is that this is practically the default color scheme now. *Most* /. stories fall under the IT umbrella, particularly of those I read. The games color scheme doesn't matter to me as much (and IMO isn't as bad as the IT scheme), since my main games are from www.popcap.com, www.idiotsdelight.net, and www.blizzard.com; none of whom is frequently discussed on /. Are there people who regularly read /. and skip the IT articles?
"All I can say is... why would Google do pop ups?"
For the same reason that they now have placement ads above the search results (not on every search, but occasionally at the moment): to make more money.
Of course, there is also the other side of the coin. If Google becomes just as annoying as MSN search, why won't people just stick with MSN search (which will be the default in over 90% of new computers).
The AC is absolutely correct. Buying their way in is absolutely the Microsoft way. However, this is more a revision of the grandparent's point than a refutation. Once in, Microsoft simply abuses their market share in other areas until they bury the competition. They do not buy out competitors. They only buy to get a foothold in that market. Then they outsource (recently offshore but traditionally in the US) improvements to that software.
Another aspect of Microsoft: they team up with a company to develop an extension to their current software then dump the partner. Both Roxio and Citrix fell for this.
Microsoft probably would buy out the competition but for those pesky anti-trust laws.
These are investors not *SELLING* their stock. In other words, they believe that at $85, the stock was undervalued.
Me neither. The grandparent poster should give both of us a million dollars so we can fit in.
"The amount of money in reverse spam is sure to be lower than in normal SPAM"
On what do you base this?
If I am the number two link on Google and I get the top link's site shut down, I will probably make more money from increased Google referrals than I would from spam (realize that a spam that successfully reaches one person in fifty targets is considered effective even though less than one person in a thousand will buy; thus, one purchase in 50,000 emails is considered very good). Further, note that the amount of spam to be sent out is smaller. Send out a few thousand emails and have a friend enter the spam complaint. Thus, for a spam effort that would not have netted a single purchase, you can cancel a whole competitor. I know of at least one niche site that gets about ten orders (from 2000 referrals) a day from Google (it is first for many of its products). Thus, the better Google rank from a reverse spam is probably more profitable than regular spam.
Someone else also pointed out that it is likely that spammers will start randomly targetting legitimate web sites to confuse the issue. Much the way they use legitimate addresses as the sender of spams (joe jobs).
I would agree that increased attention to this would be a good thing, but it is easy to see how the system can be abused.