The difference is in the sophistication of the lie. If SCO's claims could have been easily and simply refuted, then they might have found themselves in hot water. As it stands, their lies are sufficiently carefully crafted that a suit of IBM can be constructed around them. That doesn't make the lies more true, but it does prevent the SEC from smacking SCO down.
I don't think it's the technology itself that depresses. It's that technology can be used to eliminate the business need for most direct human contact - the kind of contact that humans have had with other humans in their daily lives since the Beginning (whichever one you believe in). Normal levels of human self-doubt or self-loathing can rise to become unbearable when a person is sufficiently isolated from reassuring social interaction. So, nothing about using the computer itself causes problems. Using IM, email, telephone, etc. to the extent that you rarely get to share a smile with a coworker will definitely cause problems.
Am I the only one who really wants to go crack Sony's warranty registration database and get the phone numbers of VAIO owners, and call them? I'm bound to get a few hits.
3. Criticism. Politicians do not respond well to criticism. In fact, the more they get, the more stubborn they become. Flattery is the surest route to their heart, and this means making them feel important. Wining and dining, listening, applauding their insight and then putting your point across
This probably explains why Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet.
Email spam didn't take off until a few things became widely available: harvestable email addresses and email clients with clickable URLs. Cell phone numbers/addresses cannot (yet, to my knowledge) be gathered automatically in large quantities. And cell phones aren't such a good click-thru medium. Most of my email spams say "Want to buy this? Want to see learn how to? Want to see her naked? *Click here*" Those same propositions are going to be even less interesting on my little Nokia LCD. If email spam has a razor thin margin, how profitable will phone spam be?
Sure, gateways can be brute-forced. What if SMS gateway providers throttled senders: no more than say ~10 uniquely addressed texts per hour from the same sender IP address?
Slashdot Mirror
Just the CEO should be sufficient:
Criminals, criminals, criminals, criminals, criminals! criminals! criminals! criminals! CRIMINALS! CRIMINALS! CRIMINALS! CRIMINALS!
I didn't see any physical threats, which is really what you have to worry about.
Well, he *did* mention shooting their horse.
The difference is in the sophistication of the lie. If SCO's claims could have been easily and simply refuted, then they might have found themselves in hot water. As it stands, their lies are sufficiently carefully crafted that a suit of IBM can be constructed around them. That doesn't make the lies more true, but it does prevent the SEC from smacking SCO down.
I don't think it's the technology itself that depresses. It's that technology can be used to eliminate the business need for most direct human contact - the kind of contact that humans have had with other humans in their daily lives since the Beginning (whichever one you believe in). Normal levels of human self-doubt or self-loathing can rise to become unbearable when a person is sufficiently isolated from reassuring social interaction. So, nothing about using the computer itself causes problems. Using IM, email, telephone, etc. to the extent that you rarely get to share a smile with a coworker will definitely cause problems.
Point maser at incoming missle
Destroy incoming missle
Profit!
You left out next to last step: "Conquer resource-rich, defense-poor sovereign state."
Am I the only one who really wants to go crack Sony's warranty registration database and get the phone numbers of VAIO owners, and call them? I'm bound to get a few hits.
Not pleasant? Oh ho! I wish this fate for spammers.
This probably explains why Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet.
Email spam didn't take off until a few things became widely available: harvestable email addresses and email clients with clickable URLs. Cell phone numbers/addresses cannot (yet, to my knowledge) be gathered automatically in large quantities. And cell phones aren't such a good click-thru medium. Most of my email spams say "Want to buy this? Want to see learn how to? Want to see her naked? *Click here*" Those same propositions are going to be even less interesting on my little Nokia LCD. If email spam has a razor thin margin, how profitable will phone spam be?
Sure, gateways can be brute-forced. What if SMS gateway providers throttled senders: no more than say ~10 uniquely addressed texts per hour from the same sender IP address?