You know, this reminds me of a story that one of my favourite authors wrote called "Nightside City", a futuristic tale of an outer-space Las Vegas, where small bots would fly around and use target lasers and hovering units to fly in front of you and display their advertising where you couldn't avoid it.
Not exactly up and coming soon, but wouldn't the advertisers of today love that?
I think again, like someone mentioned a few posts ago, that there is a difference between "free speech" and "right to an audience". You can say whatever you want, but you can't FORCE me to listen to it.
Yes, the usage agreement was amended last year sometime to say, essentially, that they don't care if you run servers, as the upload bandwidth is limited anyway. However, they make sure to state that it is YOUR responsibility to secure that server.
They don't say, however, what the penalties are for someone who doesn't secure the server.
Windows XP/2k have an option that allows you to right-click on a program file and go to "run as" to change your running user permissions for that program.
The problem is, that it's not ALWAYS available on every link/program/etc. Getting Control Panel and the likes to run under administrator is a bitch when you aren't logged on as admin - You have to create a shortcut to it, then enable that feature under the shortcut settings.
I can't see why MS didn't enable this feature for EVERYTHING by default. Otherwise, it works really slick.
I've seen Gator/whatever they've changed their name to now as both malware attached to stuff and a "security window" popup that actually ASKS you if you want to install this software from Gator corporation.
Nowhere in that page, of course, do they tell you that it's malware.:)
Uhmm, why would this absolutely NOT be a hijack attempt?
All Ad-Aware sees is something strange in the homepage field. So it's alerting you that something is odd about it, it's not blowing up or claiming false shit on your system.
If you set it that way, ignore that message. If you DIDN'T.... well, then maybe there's a problem, right?
While not perfect, I could live with that outcome.
Yeah, I guess I could too as a "first step", but it does nothing to combat the massive network loads that spammers cause (all free or near-0 cost to them, of course.)
I'm actually more surprised that some of the "outer fringes" of the/. community haven't banded together and done some more vigilante-style DDOS attacks and so forth against known spammer machines and ISP's. Steve Gibson, decompile a few more of those zombies, tell us how to control them ourselves, and make those spammer's lives miserable!
Not that I'm condoning that sort of action, of course...;)
You're about five years too late for this kind of paranoia.
Eek, well, that's not exactly encouraging.
However, this has no bearing as to whether ADVERTISERS would stoop this low. The capability is there.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the world's NOT out to get you, after all.;)
Yeah, I'm waiting for one that reprograms the BIOS EEPROM with a flashing program to display thier adds when you boot up, in the logo space that most BIOS chips have now.
My only question is, will they bother to tell you before they reboot your machine so you see it? They already act as if they have a RIGHT to do whatever they want to your machine anyway...
All I ever hear is the "US supports Israel" complaint.
Why anyone would fight over that godforsaken dry strip of sand in the first place is what I don't get. At least in Unreal Tournament (etc) it's all about a spectator sport.:)
My question is: Who in the hell actually BUYS from spam? Why would anyone click on these websites/links/etc?
Pr0n spam I can understand, because hey, you're buying pictures/movies/etc. You're not getting a tangible product of unknown quality. You know what you are getting pretty straight away.
But Viagra, etc? Who in the hell buys this stuff and then ingests it? At best, you are getting the product described, but at worst, you could be getting something harmful or dangerous.
Spammers indulge in this behavior because PEOPLE CLICK ON THE LINKS and make them money. If noone clicked on the links, then they would not make money. Spammers would have to move on to the next scam, or get real jobs.
IMHO spam is very much user fault.
Yes, except for those people who have had their e-mail address scammed from dishonest things ("please give us your e-mail address so we can contact you in the event of problems"), or if their mail was harvested from spyware running on someone ELSE'S machine, or posted on an innocent webpage.
I agree to the basic premise of your post, but not everyone can be as informed as/. posters, especially if they are new to the internet.
Yes, there are steps people can take to help reduce the possibility. But that won't solve everything.
For instance, I work for a helpdesk that has it's e-mail address on a webpage for those using our product to e-mail us if they need help, which generates a new ticket. Now, None of the 5 of us here at our helpdesk used that address to sign up for ANY dumb-ass promotion, etc. But we still get 5-10 spam mails a DAY, which costs time and money deleting the garbage trouble tickets that are automatically entered about buying V.!.A.G.A.R.A and so forth.
Oh, and not everyone knows that you can create additional mailboxes, or has access to mailservers that they can create their own.
Unfortunately, it would probably only cause the US Postal Service to raise the postal rates again because of the massive amount of mail they'd have to return to the sender.
Their services cost them money as well, which is what you are paying for when you use a stamp.
As the original poster stated, the problem with spam is that all the costs are on the receiving end, and the route in between. There is virtually NO cost (per mail) to the spammer.
Can you imagine how horrible it would be if they tried? Imagine Starship Troopers on a TV budget! Cheap cockpit views made of poorly-constructed plywood, and cheap CGI animations of robots. They'd just spoil the whole damn series in the memory of the fans, or worse, make it into another power rangers clone.
No matter what they did, though, they'd have to make it similar to what they recently did to the Transformers: Ruin it to appeal to the Short-Attention-Span, "reality-tv" watching Pokemon generation. I'm coming to the conclusion that's the only way to get something new onto television these days, and make it so that the TV Executives will buy off on it. Look at what happened to the live-action version of The Tick.
That series was brilliant, and the acting superb, but it was too cerebral and off-beat for the TV execs to give it time to catch the attention of the consumer.
Actually, looks to me that aside from their obviously-photoshopped pictures, the photo on the NYT website might be showing the standard hologram. If you take into account where he's sitting and the position of the camera, and the fact that you won't get the stereoscopic 3d effect from a single-lens camera, the little prototype box might very well be displaying a holo a couple of inches above where the "glass" is. No great feat in this case (I remember playing Time Traveller 10 years or more ago using that tech,) but as others have said the patent's more about the input method than the holography itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly up and coming soon, but wouldn't the advertisers of today love that?
I think again, like someone mentioned a few posts ago, that there is a difference between "free speech" and "right to an audience". You can say whatever you want, but you can't FORCE me to listen to it.
They don't say, however, what the penalties are for someone who doesn't secure the server.
-Alyred
"The body is but a coffin for the soul."
The problem is, that it's not ALWAYS available on every link/program/etc. Getting Control Panel and the likes to run under administrator is a bitch when you aren't logged on as admin - You have to create a shortcut to it, then enable that feature under the shortcut settings.
I can't see why MS didn't enable this feature for EVERYTHING by default. Otherwise, it works really slick.
Nowhere in that page, of course, do they tell you that it's malware. :)
All Ad-Aware sees is something strange in the homepage field. So it's alerting you that something is odd about it, it's not blowing up or claiming false shit on your system.
If you set it that way, ignore that message. If you DIDN'T.... well, then maybe there's a problem, right?
Yeah, I guess I could too as a "first step", but it does nothing to combat the massive network loads that spammers cause (all free or near-0 cost to them, of course.)
I'm actually more surprised that some of the "outer fringes" of the /. community haven't banded together and done some more vigilante-style DDOS attacks and so forth against known spammer machines and ISP's. Steve Gibson, decompile a few more of those zombies, tell us how to control them ourselves, and make those spammer's lives miserable!
Not that I'm condoning that sort of action, of course... ;)
Yeah, I know... and by telling them those steps I've probably saved untold numbers of inboxes the horror of some spam.
But ya can't reach everyone...
Eek, well, that's not exactly encouraging.
However, this has no bearing as to whether ADVERTISERS would stoop this low. The capability is there. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the world's NOT out to get you, after all. ;)
My only question is, will they bother to tell you before they reboot your machine so you see it? They already act as if they have a RIGHT to do whatever they want to your machine anyway...
Why anyone would fight over that godforsaken dry strip of sand in the first place is what I don't get. At least in Unreal Tournament (etc) it's all about a spectator sport. :)
Pr0n spam I can understand, because hey, you're buying pictures/movies/etc. You're not getting a tangible product of unknown quality. You know what you are getting pretty straight away.
But Viagra, etc? Who in the hell buys this stuff and then ingests it? At best, you are getting the product described, but at worst, you could be getting something harmful or dangerous.
Spammers indulge in this behavior because PEOPLE CLICK ON THE LINKS and make them money. If noone clicked on the links, then they would not make money. Spammers would have to move on to the next scam, or get real jobs.
I agree to the basic premise of your post, but not everyone can be as informed as /. posters, especially if they are new to the internet.
Yes, there are steps people can take to help reduce the possibility. But that won't solve everything.
For instance, I work for a helpdesk that has it's e-mail address on a webpage for those using our product to e-mail us if they need help, which generates a new ticket. Now, None of the 5 of us here at our helpdesk used that address to sign up for ANY dumb-ass promotion, etc. But we still get 5-10 spam mails a DAY, which costs time and money deleting the garbage trouble tickets that are automatically entered about buying V.!.A.G.A.R.A and so forth.
Oh, and not everyone knows that you can create additional mailboxes, or has access to mailservers that they can create their own.
Their services cost them money as well, which is what you are paying for when you use a stamp.
As the original poster stated, the problem with spam is that all the costs are on the receiving end, and the route in between. There is virtually NO cost (per mail) to the spammer.
God No!
Can you imagine how horrible it would be if they tried? Imagine Starship Troopers on a TV budget! Cheap cockpit views made of poorly-constructed plywood, and cheap CGI animations of robots. They'd just spoil the whole damn series in the memory of the fans, or worse, make it into another power rangers clone.No matter what they did, though, they'd have to make it similar to what they recently did to the Transformers: Ruin it to appeal to the Short-Attention-Span, "reality-tv" watching Pokemon generation. I'm coming to the conclusion that's the only way to get something new onto television these days, and make it so that the TV Executives will buy off on it. Look at what happened to the live-action version of The Tick. That series was brilliant, and the acting superb, but it was too cerebral and off-beat for the TV execs to give it time to catch the attention of the consumer.
All for the love of Profit!
-113 grams, 10 milliliters... He's lead, Jim.
Actually, looks to me that aside from their obviously-photoshopped pictures, the photo on the NYT website might be showing the standard hologram. If you take into account where he's sitting and the position of the camera, and the fact that you won't get the stereoscopic 3d effect from a single-lens camera, the little prototype box might very well be displaying a holo a couple of inches above where the "glass" is. No great feat in this case (I remember playing Time Traveller 10 years or more ago using that tech,) but as others have said the patent's more about the input method than the holography itself.