Someone is thinking ahead. For once. Refreshing to see.
There are, in fact, already treaties regarding space colonization. Just because it's not possible -yet- doesn't mean we should wait until it starts happening to consider how we want it to go.
I've found a very simple solution to this problem-I use cable internet and a cell phone. It is illegal to telemarket cell phones, and I've thus far not had it happen. I get a better deal on my cell then I would on landline service anyway (same cost, give or take 2 bucks, and no cost for long distance as a bonus.)
As a side note on the spam issue, I use a "throwaway" email address for public posting. I get little spam to it even, and absolutely none to my gmail account, which is given only to friends, family, etc.
Apparently, your preview failed to catch that you misspelled "you" and "too".
An anti-phishing class?
on
Gone Phishing?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The problem seems to be people who don't know the difference. A phishing scam won't really fool anyone who is aware of them. Sure, everyone here knows about dummy e-mail accounts and is well aware what a phish looks like. The problem, as with many scams, is not those who are aware of them but those who are not.
Given that, why don't banks and the like give a simple online tutorial before allowing a user to set up any type of Net account that implies moving real money? I would think a 5-minute (at most) presentation followed by a short quiz would be sufficient.
If everyone involved in online financial transactions is thus educated about phishing, it would become quite a bit harder for the scammers to find unknowing victims.
Has no one noticed that, for the most part, the people who are hardcore downloading music (or movies, or games, or software, or...), and not using it as an "evaluation" to see if they want to purchase a real copy, are generally broke anyway? The IP industries are not "losing" these customers to downloading, if not for downloading, these people would simply be unable to purchase a copy either. Net loss to IP company, therefore, is near 0, if not a net gain through free advertising to people who have the money and are just previewing.
The premise, to me, that these broke students, if downloads were not available, would begin printing money or something in order to purchase music or other IP seems a bit flawed to me. Somehow, it seems more to me like they would borrow and trade CD's among friends.
The premise that downloading is theft also seems a bit flawed to me. I have seen this equated as stealing a car off a lot, and this seems a flawed analogy to me, there is not still a copy of the car left on the lot.
A more appropriate analogy seems to me that a friend of mine needs to use a car at various times. He is not really interested in having a second car, as he would only use it sporadically, but really has no other choice as his wife normally takes their car to work. This is about to make Ford money, until I come along and offer to allow him to borrow my car when he needs to.
I find it hard to swallow that, in the above scenario, I "stole" from Ford by keeping someone to have to purchase one of their products. I didn't do this by stealing something off a lot, but by sharing something I already have. This, to me, does not indict the sharer for theft, but rather the seller for greed.
Broadcast television is offered free of charge to the end-user, and even cable is offered at flat-rate. Why can't the same model be put into place here (free downloads of the stuff with ads in it?) Yes, some people will get up and go to the bathroom or grab another cup of coffee during the ads. Yes, some people will fast-forward through them. Yes, some people will take them out, remove them, and share them. This has been going on since they started broadcasting TV, and has not stopped advertisers paying to be featured yet.
How does this thing know when you're drinking? Monitor if you go into a bar? (GPS or other types of locator technology is easily built into a cell phone, so this isn't outside the realm of possibility.) Now, if you're in an accident later on, can that be later subpoenaed and used against you in court?
Given the popularity of nmap, wouldn't that still be a bit of a needle in a haystack? If the FBI had a 5-minute window, and knew that the attacker had connected to, say,/., in a certain 5-minute window, would getting a subpoena really have any effect besides information overload?
Really, the way people seem attached to their cellphones, I'm surprised Samsung isn't working on a way to hardwire the thing to someone's head. I really doubt if anyone would be able to take the phone away from their ear long enough to take a picture.
While I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, it was my understanding that Microsoft purchased Xerox's patent, that does not constitute a "ripoff"...
It's my understanding that pirate copies of Windows are pretty widely available in Asia. This may, in somewhat of an ironic twist, actually end up hurting implementation of Linux-if you can get a copy of "Windows" for near-free, it may actually discourage people from adapting an open-source solution.
And calls to question why they don't just use banks of Ni-MH batteries, which have about double the capacity of Ni-Cd, are not considered environmentally hazardous, and use widely-available materials. They're also already in widescale production.
Granted, that they can do nothing about this -particular- instance, if they're specifically offering amnesty. However, that's not to say that NEXT time, they can't bring that to court...
"Please admit to us that you are using pirated software, and just send us your name and mailing address. We will happily ship you a copy."
Now, even presuming that they're not installing any overt spying stuff on the "real" CD they're sending you (which is possible, although they may not given the risk and bad PR if it's found out), do you really think they're just going to destroy this information as soon as they've got the package shipped?
And what if John Q. Jackass has a vendetta against the store he bought his PC from? Easy enough to settle -that- score, go find a pirated copy, install, send the letter off to Microsoft, and make sure they know that store X sold me this PC with this! While on the surface it sounds like MS is just trying to be a nice, fuzzy and warm corporation, I just find that a little hard to believe.
I can do the 23rd root of a 163 digit number in 5.8 seconds, and I wasn't even trying. I've climbed Mt. Everest in an hour and a half. I can rewrite the Linux kernel in under an hour. I can count up to ten thousand coins in no more than a minute.
And yet, curiously, it takes me almost...-checks watch- five minutes to make a stupid, useless post on/. Strange eh?
...it actually looks like a fairly high percentage of geeks prefer to use a computer. No, it's true! In fact, I hear a lot of them hang out around some...slashed dot, or something like that?
You didn't get the memo? They just discovered in the Bible that God forbids having a sense of humor. I heard the Senate's already got a few bills against it.
To start with, how would they sort through the massive amounts of IRC traffic, the vast majority of which is some sort of banal, everyday conversation? Any type of automated system would be problematic at best, and if they're doing it by hand, I think our job shortage is solved, they'd have to hire millions of people.
This also, of course, raises privacy concerns, in that many Internet protocols very much blur the line between public and private communication. A search warrant is needed to listen in on a conversation you hold in your home, but if a police officer overhears you planning a crime in a restaurant no such requirement is there. Where is the line drawn in this case? Is a public IRC channel public or private communication? What about a restricted access channel? A private message on a public channel to one person? Current laws are really not set up to address these questions, and we need to think about them.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone is thinking ahead. For once. Refreshing to see.
There are, in fact, already treaties regarding space colonization. Just because it's not possible -yet- doesn't mean we should wait until it starts happening to consider how we want it to go.
I wrote a program that did this for my daughter in my own voice. If Microsoft wants to come sue me, they're welcome to go ahead and try.
I've found a very simple solution to this problem-I use cable internet and a cell phone. It is illegal to telemarket cell phones, and I've thus far not had it happen. I get a better deal on my cell then I would on landline service anyway (same cost, give or take 2 bucks, and no cost for long distance as a bonus.)
As a side note on the spam issue, I use a "throwaway" email address for public posting. I get little spam to it even, and absolutely none to my gmail account, which is given only to friends, family, etc.
Yes, I'm feeding the troll.
Most of us know and are sympathetic to the Tibet situation. Now will you quit hijacking other people's topics and trolling with it?
Apparently, your preview failed to catch that you misspelled "you" and "too".
The problem seems to be people who don't know the difference. A phishing scam won't really fool anyone who is aware of them. Sure, everyone here knows about dummy e-mail accounts and is well aware what a phish looks like. The problem, as with many scams, is not those who are aware of them but those who are not.
Given that, why don't banks and the like give a simple online tutorial before allowing a user to set up any type of Net account that implies moving real money? I would think a 5-minute (at most) presentation followed by a short quiz would be sufficient.
If everyone involved in online financial transactions is thus educated about phishing, it would become quite a bit harder for the scammers to find unknowing victims.
Complaining about the existence of a post rather than commenting on its content, though, strangely enough does not.
Has no one noticed that, for the most part, the people who are hardcore downloading music (or movies, or games, or software, or...), and not using it as an "evaluation" to see if they want to purchase a real copy, are generally broke anyway? The IP industries are not "losing" these customers to downloading, if not for downloading, these people would simply be unable to purchase a copy either. Net loss to IP company, therefore, is near 0, if not a net gain through free advertising to people who have the money and are just previewing.
The premise, to me, that these broke students, if downloads were not available, would begin printing money or something in order to purchase music or other IP seems a bit flawed to me. Somehow, it seems more to me like they would borrow and trade CD's among friends.
The premise that downloading is theft also seems a bit flawed to me. I have seen this equated as stealing a car off a lot, and this seems a flawed analogy to me, there is not still a copy of the car left on the lot.
A more appropriate analogy seems to me that a friend of mine needs to use a car at various times. He is not really interested in having a second car, as he would only use it sporadically, but really has no other choice as his wife normally takes their car to work. This is about to make Ford money, until I come along and offer to allow him to borrow my car when he needs to.
I find it hard to swallow that, in the above scenario, I "stole" from Ford by keeping someone to have to purchase one of their products. I didn't do this by stealing something off a lot, but by sharing something I already have. This, to me, does not indict the sharer for theft, but rather the seller for greed.
Broadcast television is offered free of charge to the end-user, and even cable is offered at flat-rate. Why can't the same model be put into place here (free downloads of the stuff with ads in it?) Yes, some people will get up and go to the bathroom or grab another cup of coffee during the ads. Yes, some people will fast-forward through them. Yes, some people will take them out, remove them, and share them. This has been going on since they started broadcasting TV, and has not stopped advertisers paying to be featured yet.
How does this thing know when you're drinking? Monitor if you go into a bar? (GPS or other types of locator technology is easily built into a cell phone, so this isn't outside the realm of possibility.) Now, if you're in an accident later on, can that be later subpoenaed and used against you in court?
"Are you too stupid to think for yourself? Worry no more, the Megacorp model XL69 will take care of all of that for you!"
Given the popularity of nmap, wouldn't that still be a bit of a needle in a haystack? If the FBI had a 5-minute window, and knew that the attacker had connected to, say, /., in a certain 5-minute window, would getting a subpoena really have any effect besides information overload?
Really, the way people seem attached to their cellphones, I'm surprised Samsung isn't working on a way to hardwire the thing to someone's head. I really doubt if anyone would be able to take the phone away from their ear long enough to take a picture.
While I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, it was my understanding that Microsoft purchased Xerox's patent, that does not constitute a "ripoff"...
It's my understanding that pirate copies of Windows are pretty widely available in Asia. This may, in somewhat of an ironic twist, actually end up hurting implementation of Linux-if you can get a copy of "Windows" for near-free, it may actually discourage people from adapting an open-source solution.
And calls to question why they don't just use banks of Ni-MH batteries, which have about double the capacity of Ni-Cd, are not considered environmentally hazardous, and use widely-available materials. They're also already in widescale production.
Granted, that they can do nothing about this -particular- instance, if they're specifically offering amnesty. However, that's not to say that NEXT time, they can't bring that to court...
"Please admit to us that you are using pirated software, and just send us your name and mailing address. We will happily ship you a copy."
Now, even presuming that they're not installing any overt spying stuff on the "real" CD they're sending you (which is possible, although they may not given the risk and bad PR if it's found out), do you really think they're just going to destroy this information as soon as they've got the package shipped?
And what if John Q. Jackass has a vendetta against the store he bought his PC from? Easy enough to settle -that- score, go find a pirated copy, install, send the letter off to Microsoft, and make sure they know that store X sold me this PC with this! While on the surface it sounds like MS is just trying to be a nice, fuzzy and warm corporation, I just find that a little hard to believe.
I have 3 kids. Do THAT math. :)
it's not impossible to think 3rd party loaders will come that allow you to boot copied games."
I believe that you meant "impossible not to think."
I can do the 23rd root of a 163 digit number in 5.8 seconds, and I wasn't even trying. I've climbed Mt. Everest in an hour and a half. I can rewrite the Linux kernel in under an hour. I can count up to ten thousand coins in no more than a minute.
And yet, curiously, it takes me almost...-checks watch- five minutes to make a stupid, useless post on /. Strange eh?
Besides Intel's customary price gouging, that is. The amazing thing is that people bought enough of the chips to cause a shortage in the first place.
...it actually looks like a fairly high percentage of geeks prefer to use a computer. No, it's true! In fact, I hear a lot of them hang out around some...slashed dot, or something like that?
You didn't get the memo? They just discovered in the Bible that God forbids having a sense of humor. I heard the Senate's already got a few bills against it.
To start with, how would they sort through the massive amounts of IRC traffic, the vast majority of which is some sort of banal, everyday conversation? Any type of automated system would be problematic at best, and if they're doing it by hand, I think our job shortage is solved, they'd have to hire millions of people.
This also, of course, raises privacy concerns, in that many Internet protocols very much blur the line between public and private communication. A search warrant is needed to listen in on a conversation you hold in your home, but if a police officer overhears you planning a crime in a restaurant no such requirement is there. Where is the line drawn in this case? Is a public IRC channel public or private communication? What about a restricted access channel? A private message on a public channel to one person? Current laws are really not set up to address these questions, and we need to think about them.