Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
Somehow, I seriously doubt blacklists would block every ISP, or even something approximating every ISP. They'd piss off too many of their users that way.
Here in Washington, most girls are nature loving hikers/bikers.
Riiiiiight. I take it you've never been to Seattle, then. Sure, there are obvious punk-types,hippies, and goths who don't wear them for various reasons, but diamonds on female fingers are far from a rarity in Washington or any other state.
I think that the problem I hear with most of the analogies stated so far, is that they just don't fit (I will refrain from using the comparing apples to oranges analogy).
I think an appropriate comparison would be if I was a non-mind-reader in a mind-reading community, and my child couldn't read minds either. If I learned of a new procedure that could give my child mind-reading abilities, I might not run out to get her a mindwave 2000 implant for a variety of reasons (jealousy, fear, not understanding the need).
For the communities of people who have always lived without a given sense, the above scenario would probably be a good approximation of what they'd have to struggle with. I don't see myself as being hampered by my inability to know what other people are thinking, and I might see it as silly to have my child have an operation to be able to do so. People fear change and things that are different from their experiences, and that's something to keep in mind when making comments about situations like that one.
You know what? If I didn't have clear memories of MS hacking Messenger to connect to AOL's AIM network, I'd be siding with them on this, since it is their network, and their client. The problem is that they were all about open messaging standards a couple of years ago, and this pretty much flies in the face of that.
I didn't say because *I* don't know how to do it...I said because *nobody* knows how to do it. If it looks random to everybody, it's random. Once we find an algorithm, method, rule, theory, etc to accurately predict those numbers, they cease to be random, but until then, they are random if they appear so to everybody. When the cryptosystem falls, that is evidence that the numbers are not random, but that doesn't disagree with what I'm saying.
Fair enough...should have posted that to begin with, though, especially if it didn't take more than 5 minutes on google. Closest thing I found to refuting info was from here, where a sub-$600,000 sum was mentioned for federal cases, but even there, they mentioned the cost was likely higher, since costs associated with expert witnesses, etc. weren't included.
Thanks for actually responding...it's refreshing to see a challenge answered, rather than screamed at.
Not to be rude, but, prove it. If you're going to make a statement like that, at least explain the numbers. How much does an average capital murder case cost vs. life in prison for them (assume they're 30 and will die at the ripe old age of 60)? The issues you mention so clearly with the death penalty being applied fairly are probably more to do with human beings than the justice system itself...hard to say, since you don't mention what they are. If you're going to stick your neck out like that, do it all the way, or think really hard about it first.
Okay...some good points, and some misunderstandings...lets just take them in order...
Who determines what overcharging is? Damn good question, and the short answer is nobody does (until after the price goes down)..50 for media is a good cost for the media, the cost of the software is up to the market to decide. What is happening now is that the second, less profitable (for large software companies, anyway) model of a software company (OSS) is beginning to take away user-share. I won't say market-share, because in terms of dollars, it's not a symmetric equation.
Microsoft has determined that users that don't get windows XP bundled with their PC, are willing to pay $199 for it in those cases where they are willing to purchase it themselves. This is one determination of value. The fact that some people are beginning to wonder why they should pay $199 for windows instead of anywhere from.50 to the same amount for Linux is what's at the heart of this debate. People will *always be the determining factor in the value of a thing, when there is more than one alternative. In my recent experience, Windows 2000 and RedHat 9.0 require about the same amount of effort to get running as a basic workstation...that changes market perception about value.
I don't *think* I said any company had the power to keep me from using someone else's products...that'd kind of be the anti-point to what I was saying. My bullying example had to do with SCO, and the shitty behavior they've been exhibiting of late. Market share by litigation seems a pretty childish venture to me, so that was the analogy I used. Microsoft, AFAIK hasn't done anything like this.
OSS software definitely tends to be much like the software it competes against, but then, so does a lot of other software (Photoshop and Paintshop Pro, for example). The reason for this is not always lack of innovation, it's often meant as an easy way to get users to try the OSS software in the first place. I have definitely seen some ugly stuff on sourceforge, and I hear what you're saying, just part of the bottom of the OSS barrel.
From a strictly monetary point of view, Free Software does nothing. From a psychological point of view, it probably makes buyers less willing to part with cash, since they know they don't have to. Money is money, and there are many ways to spend it. I could buy a cadillac, or I could buy a daewoo, I could even build a kit-car from parts I have laying around, and parts my friends give me. All three do the same job, but appeal to distinctly different groups of people.
I use Windows 2000 at home on my main PC because it doesn't crash much, and my wife likes it (plus, she gets a strange red gleam in her eyes when I mention how I'd like to put linux on it).
I once tried OS/2, but it didn't support my video card at any color depth over 256 colors...I ditched it and bought Windows 95. One example of a consumer determining the market value of something. To me, OS/2 was worth nothing, and Windows 95 was worth the $89 I spent for all 15+ floppies. Now, I've tried RedHat 9.0, and it supports the video card on the machine I installed it on, what's more, it's not costing me $89.00. You seem to have reached the same conclusion. You have free software, but it obviously hasn't killed the value of your windows 2000 PC.
I disagree with the whole "destroying value" argument. In order to agree to it, I would have to assume that *only* the companies with the "destroyed" value are competent to produce the thing they're trying to hock.
I *would* agree that GPL'ed software destroys the business model of larger software companies who have managed to find ways to get people to pay them a lot of money for ideas (programs), that might have been created by someone else, if not by them. The current corporate software market is kind of like:
"Dibs!!! I was here first! Give me a quarter, and I'll let you ride my bike!".
Then when somebody else comes along, doesn't like the looks of things, and decides to donate bike-building instructions to people they say:
"[punch]No way! You can't ride that bike, you have to ride [slap]MINE, and you have to [kick]PAY me, dammit!"
Free software companies won't have the same market cap as Microsoft, that's true. That's because they don't work the same way. Microsoft is in the business of selling software to people who don't know any better (a fairly large population). RedHat is in the business of selling services to people who are too busy to do things that they could otherwise handle themselves. Linux vendors will never have the kind of leverage available to apply to their customers that MS does, because those customers could support themselves if they chose to (in most circumstances).
There's no less value in any of the products that vendors are selling, there's just less ability for them to overcharge for those products.
Do you really think that we should be catching and/or imprisoning people who *might* do something illegal?
Who makes that determination?
What if they're wrong occasionally?
How would you know how often they were wrong?
Hopefully re-reading what you wrote scares the shit out of you as badly as it does me...oh, and was "treasonable" supposed to be "reasonable", or was that a freudian slip?
"...and claims that touch tones infringe on it's intellectual property, citing suspicious similarities between the tones heard when pressing buttons on the phones, and the sound the tab on a Coke can makes when plucked"
I disagree with your take on marketing...surely some savvy person could find a way to promote music on the internet (search engine anyone?) put in a few meta "keywords" "rock, metal, cars, chicks, music, fire, beavis" on a page where you offer a sample of the tune in question. Marketing isn't science, it's repetition and saturation...get something in front of people's eyes enough times, and they'll look at it. This means that (for typical internet users, at least) there are a number of ways that artists might get their own material "out there"...just having it hosted by an impartial online music retailer would help...charge a flat percentage based on the size of the download (to offset bandwidth costs)...it'd be beautiful. Smaller artists could get recognition based on word-of-mouth and number of downloads...only downside is that small-time musicians would have low-quality recordings until they got popular enough to afford good recording equipment, but poor recordings seldom hamper good music.
You don't honestly believe that George Bush Jr. is the first, last, or only president (republican or democrat) to give government positions to people that he knows, do you? Let me introduce you to politics. Do some research, it's a fascinating subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow, I seriously doubt blacklists would block every ISP, or even something approximating every ISP. They'd piss off too many of their users that way.
Here in Washington, most girls are nature loving hikers/bikers.
Riiiiiight. I take it you've never been to Seattle, then. Sure, there are obvious punk-types,hippies, and goths who don't wear them for various reasons, but diamonds on female fingers are far from a rarity in Washington or any other state.
oh, great, thanks...now I have to have in the back of my head Christopher Lloyd saying "One point twenty-one JEEGAWATTS???"
Neither was that Lawinski blowjob
Pretty sure that should have read blowjobs (plural). Just want to make sure accuracy is kept high (as usual) on slashdot...
I think an appropriate comparison would be if I was a non-mind-reader in a mind-reading community, and my child couldn't read minds either. If I learned of a new procedure that could give my child mind-reading abilities, I might not run out to get her a mindwave 2000 implant for a variety of reasons (jealousy, fear, not understanding the need).
For the communities of people who have always lived without a given sense, the above scenario would probably be a good approximation of what they'd have to struggle with. I don't see myself as being hampered by my inability to know what other people are thinking, and I might see it as silly to have my child have an operation to be able to do so. People fear change and things that are different from their experiences, and that's something to keep in mind when making comments about situations like that one.
And I can find out how many episodes of the Vicar of Dibley never got shown on KERA...
why? your friends are stupid. make them use aim/gaim/anything that doesnt suck.
Did you really just say that AIM doesn't suck? It's bad enough what they (AOL) did to ICQ, but to say AIM is a non-vacuum-based product...[shudder].
You know what? If I didn't have clear memories of MS hacking Messenger to connect to AOL's AIM network, I'd be siding with them on this, since it is their network, and their client. The problem is that they were all about open messaging standards a couple of years ago, and this pretty much flies in the face of that.
And works, too, unless you also use Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, and enjoy them starting in less than a minute.
This is contrived, but what the hell...ahem:
"All your MAC user base are belong to us"
I didn't say because *I* don't know how to do it...I said because *nobody* knows how to do it. If it looks random to everybody, it's random. Once we find an algorithm, method, rule, theory, etc to accurately predict those numbers, they cease to be random, but until then, they are random if they appear so to everybody. When the cryptosystem falls, that is evidence that the numbers are not random, but that doesn't disagree with what I'm saying.
Thanks for actually responding...it's refreshing to see a challenge answered, rather than screamed at.
Not to be rude, but, prove it. If you're going to make a statement like that, at least explain the numbers. How much does an average capital murder case cost vs. life in prison for them (assume they're 30 and will die at the ripe old age of 60)? The issues you mention so clearly with the death penalty being applied fairly are probably more to do with human beings than the justice system itself...hard to say, since you don't mention what they are. If you're going to stick your neck out like that, do it all the way, or think really hard about it first.
Okay...some good points, and some misunderstandings...lets just take them in order...
Who determines what overcharging is? Damn good question, and the short answer is nobody does (until after the price goes down). .50 for media is a good cost for the media, the cost of the software is up to the market to decide. What is happening now is that the second, less profitable (for large software companies, anyway) model of a software company (OSS) is beginning to take away user-share. I won't say market-share, because in terms of dollars, it's not a symmetric equation.
Microsoft has determined that users that don't get windows XP bundled with their PC, are willing to pay $199 for it in those cases where they are willing to purchase it themselves. This is one determination of value. The fact that some people are beginning to wonder why they should pay $199 for windows instead of anywhere from .50 to the same amount for Linux is what's at the heart of this debate. People will *always be the determining factor in the value of a thing, when there is more than one alternative. In my recent experience, Windows 2000 and RedHat 9.0 require about the same amount of effort to get running as a basic workstation...that changes market perception about value.
I don't *think* I said any company had the power to keep me from using someone else's products...that'd kind of be the anti-point to what I was saying. My bullying example had to do with SCO, and the shitty behavior they've been exhibiting of late. Market share by litigation seems a pretty childish venture to me, so that was the analogy I used. Microsoft, AFAIK hasn't done anything like this.
OSS software definitely tends to be much like the software it competes against, but then, so does a lot of other software (Photoshop and Paintshop Pro, for example). The reason for this is not always lack of innovation, it's often meant as an easy way to get users to try the OSS software in the first place. I have definitely seen some ugly stuff on sourceforge, and I hear what you're saying, just part of the bottom of the OSS barrel.
From a strictly monetary point of view, Free Software does nothing. From a psychological point of view, it probably makes buyers less willing to part with cash, since they know they don't have to. Money is money, and there are many ways to spend it. I could buy a cadillac, or I could buy a daewoo, I could even build a kit-car from parts I have laying around, and parts my friends give me. All three do the same job, but appeal to distinctly different groups of people.
I use Windows 2000 at home on my main PC because it doesn't crash much, and my wife likes it (plus, she gets a strange red gleam in her eyes when I mention how I'd like to put linux on it).
I once tried OS/2, but it didn't support my video card at any color depth over 256 colors...I ditched it and bought Windows 95. One example of a consumer determining the market value of something. To me, OS/2 was worth nothing, and Windows 95 was worth the $89 I spent for all 15+ floppies. Now, I've tried RedHat 9.0, and it supports the video card on the machine I installed it on, what's more, it's not costing me $89.00. You seem to have reached the same conclusion. You have free software, but it obviously hasn't killed the value of your windows 2000 PC.
Maybe he only needed an end-user license. I was going to call you a dumbass, too, but I decided against it, at the last minute.
I *would* agree that GPL'ed software destroys the business model of larger software companies who have managed to find ways to get people to pay them a lot of money for ideas (programs), that might have been created by someone else, if not by them. The current corporate software market is kind of like:
"Dibs!!! I was here first! Give me a quarter, and I'll let you ride my bike!".
Then when somebody else comes along, doesn't like the looks of things, and decides to donate bike-building instructions to people they say:
"[punch]No way! You can't ride that bike, you have to ride [slap]MINE, and you have to [kick]PAY me, dammit!"
Free software companies won't have the same market cap as Microsoft, that's true. That's because they don't work the same way. Microsoft is in the business of selling software to people who don't know any better (a fairly large population). RedHat is in the business of selling services to people who are too busy to do things that they could otherwise handle themselves. Linux vendors will never have the kind of leverage available to apply to their customers that MS does, because those customers could support themselves if they chose to (in most circumstances).
There's no less value in any of the products that vendors are selling, there's just less ability for them to overcharge for those products.
mod parent up, +1 interesting
Do you really think that we should be catching and/or imprisoning people who *might* do something illegal?
Who makes that determination?
What if they're wrong occasionally?
How would you know how often they were wrong?
Hopefully re-reading what you wrote scares the shit out of you as badly as it does me...oh, and was "treasonable" supposed to be "reasonable", or was that a freudian slip?
"On advice from SCO legal counsel..."
and
"...and claims that touch tones infringe on it's intellectual property, citing suspicious similarities between the tones heard when pressing buttons on the phones, and the sound the tab on a Coke can makes when plucked"
Mod parent up! +5 informative
I disagree with your take on marketing...surely some savvy person could find a way to promote music on the internet (search engine anyone?) put in a few meta "keywords" "rock, metal, cars, chicks, music, fire, beavis" on a page where you offer a sample of the tune in question. Marketing isn't science, it's repetition and saturation...get something in front of people's eyes enough times, and they'll look at it. This means that (for typical internet users, at least) there are a number of ways that artists might get their own material "out there"...just having it hosted by an impartial online music retailer would help...charge a flat percentage based on the size of the download (to offset bandwidth costs)...it'd be beautiful. Smaller artists could get recognition based on word-of-mouth and number of downloads...only downside is that small-time musicians would have low-quality recordings until they got popular enough to afford good recording equipment, but poor recordings seldom hamper good music.
yeah, that was me up there...stupid cookies.
You don't honestly believe that George Bush Jr. is the first, last, or only president (republican or democrat) to give government positions to people that he knows, do you? Let me introduce you to politics. Do some research, it's a fascinating subject.
Do you, by any chance, write jokes for Late Night with Conan O'Brien? That was spooky