What if as part of the encrypton process, you actually included some useless data that you owuld get with some wrong keys. So you would have them crack you little message that you wanted to do something which you wouldn't do. In this way, they cannot rely on looking at the randomness of the data.
Or you could encode information using a compression routine in any case. Make it look random.
First, they have to build in some redundancy otherwise peope will lose their emails. So you may actually have 2 or 3 copies of your emails lying around on their mail server. Maybe even more too.
on the flipside, hardware is probably cheap, and not very fancy, and they can also probably "underprovide", i.e., less than 1GB per person, because invariably there will be some people who will not use even 100MB. This may actually be the majority of people when they realise that 1GB sucks when you cannot usually send more than 10MB per message.
And eve if they expect usage to grow, they only have to keep up, and provide more as is needed, and storage is constantly becoming cheaper too, so by the end of next year, tey may be able to get 1GB for less than $0.50
There is nothing wrong in putting marketing considerations high on the list when thnking up new features. Its just that some people concentrate on gimmicks instead.
I want (have) a reasonably small phone, does everything i want it to, make and receive calls, sms, and so on, and it looks modern. do not care for too much. I also hate cheap looking/feeling phones. I like a phone whose buttons are nicely weighted so that I can tell without looking when a button press produces the desired result. I have a phone whose keypad I can lock, but the buttons are weighted so nicely, the do not depress in my pockets.
If the marketers started with a brief to make a phone people would actually like, then this would help create better products.
I think terrorists would rely on them to communicate. I mean, what is more convenient than a line that cannot be traced to a specific person. Maybe I am wrong, but I am sure you can get unregistered cellphone lines there. They cannot attack if they cannot coordinate, because they probably need to consistently appraise each other about responses to their actions. these people lke to se their target environment as much as possible. Example, when they attacked the twin towers, they wouldn't want to first cause a disruption of flight systems and networks. They would likely want to make sure these are operational so they can use them.
ditto here.
To be fair to XP, 98 was not exactly built for networking, so its network based vulnerabilities were rather lacking anyways.
Still think there is not much help if someone can't login. I mean, I could get a livecd (careful there, they might just become illegal) and use that to get what I want from a PC and even change a few things, remove a file, put my own file, put a trojan.
I think remote vulenrabilities are more likely to be stoppable, not local "have access to the machine type" vulenerabilities.
Rest assured companies such as Redhat have people on hand to fix problems with products which they ship. They have kernel hackers, desktop hackers and all in their organizations, just waiting for a chance to spring into action. They usually have fixes ready in hours when problems arise, and do undertake audits of the code they use in their business. Al ot of vulnerabilities have been found this way in the past.
This is exactly what people pay Redhat to do.
You conveniently forget that because of their situations foistered by years of organised oppression, they are unable to get good paying jobs actually. Just the menial stuff which I do not want to do.
And also criminals will be criminals, and I do not like to think there is any more reason for black people to take to crime more than white people. Except their poverty. Which all goes back to the oppression from back then. Its easy to say so someone "You are free now" but are these people compensated for the damage done to them for years to come. hell no.
Racing on two wheels seems harder than racing on four, but in F1, there is not a lot of margin for error. Take for example Kimi Raikonnen, at the 2002 French GP. He was leading the race, and he went of with Michael following right behind. Michael immediately stepped up and took the lead. The smallest mistake is punished and it may well be impossible to recover.
So it not only important to be fast, when you are fast is equally important. Michael Schumacher has won races because he was fast when he needed to be, even when he didn't have the fastest car.
A few seconds off the pace is a lifetime in F1. Some pole positions for example have been won by literally thousandths of a second. For the last 2 years, the qualifying has been a single lap affair, and so there is no recovering, but there is no compromise either. PLus F1 is really punishing in terms of the G forces involved when turning and braking.
This may require an overhaul of the email system though. One may be to have multiple addresses bound together. So you would give one email address and only "authenticated" or approved contacts could get your second address. Now sending an email simultaneously to the two email addresses would result in the email being delivered directly. mail sent to only one of the 2 addresses would be delivered as per normal, and would be subject to the normal filtering. But i guess the spammers would find ways to get both addresses too and defeat that, but it sould be doubly difficult, if not actually an order of magnitude more difficult. How may people get the same spam on different email addresses? This could be useful.
The other is to hit spammers where it hurts, audience. By rolling out a proper ad delivery system (yuck) which was separate from email, if people used their email less for getting information about products, but had it collected by some RSS type system, the spammers would be left with a dwindling audience unless they switched too. The ads would be strictly opt in.
Or mail collection rather than mail delivery. If people collected mail rather than got it delivered to them, they could in theory just not collect spam. why would anyone collect spam?
Lastly is education. if people kept their own whitelists of approved mailers, they could in theory get rid of most spam by keeping good whitelists.
Slashdot Mirror
What if as part of the encrypton process, you actually included some useless data that you owuld get with some wrong keys. So you would have them crack you little message that you wanted to do something which you wouldn't do. In this way, they cannot rely on looking at the randomness of the data.
Or you could encode information using a compression routine in any case. Make it look random.
Two arguments to this story though.
First, they have to build in some redundancy otherwise peope will lose their emails. So you may actually have 2 or 3 copies of your emails lying around on their mail server. Maybe even more too.
on the flipside, hardware is probably cheap, and not very fancy, and they can also probably "underprovide", i.e., less than 1GB per person, because invariably there will be some people who will not use even 100MB. This may actually be the majority of people when they realise that 1GB sucks when you cannot usually send more than 10MB per message.
And eve if they expect usage to grow, they only have to keep up, and provide more as is needed, and storage is constantly becoming cheaper too, so by the end of next year, tey may be able to get 1GB for less than $0.50
There is nothing wrong in putting marketing considerations high on the list when thnking up new features. Its just that some people concentrate on gimmicks instead. I want (have) a reasonably small phone, does everything i want it to, make and receive calls, sms, and so on, and it looks modern. do not care for too much. I also hate cheap looking/feeling phones. I like a phone whose buttons are nicely weighted so that I can tell without looking when a button press produces the desired result. I have a phone whose keypad I can lock, but the buttons are weighted so nicely, the do not depress in my pockets. If the marketers started with a brief to make a phone people would actually like, then this would help create better products.
I think terrorists would rely on them to communicate. I mean, what is more convenient than a line that cannot be traced to a specific person. Maybe I am wrong, but I am sure you can get unregistered cellphone lines there. They cannot attack if they cannot coordinate, because they probably need to consistently appraise each other about responses to their actions. these people lke to se their target environment as much as possible. Example, when they attacked the twin towers, they wouldn't want to first cause a disruption of flight systems and networks. They would likely want to make sure these are operational so they can use them. ditto here.
To be fair to XP, 98 was not exactly built for networking, so its network based vulnerabilities were rather lacking anyways.
Still think there is not much help if someone can't login. I mean, I could get a livecd (careful there, they might just become illegal) and use that to get what I want from a PC and even change a few things, remove a file, put my own file, put a trojan.
I think remote vulenrabilities are more likely to be stoppable, not local "have access to the machine type" vulenerabilities.
Rest assured companies such as Redhat have people on hand to fix problems with products which they ship. They have kernel hackers, desktop hackers and all in their organizations, just waiting for a chance to spring into action. They usually have fixes ready in hours when problems arise, and do undertake audits of the code they use in their business. Al ot of vulnerabilities have been found this way in the past. This is exactly what people pay Redhat to do.
You conveniently forget that because of their situations foistered by years of organised oppression, they are unable to get good paying jobs actually. Just the menial stuff which I do not want to do.
And also criminals will be criminals, and I do not like to think there is any more reason for black people to take to crime more than white people. Except their poverty. Which all goes back to the oppression from back then. Its easy to say so someone "You are free now" but are these people compensated for the damage done to them for years to come. hell no.
What about, "John Smith, New York"
Seriously, such systems are not going to take off. Unless everyone has a unique name like a web address, DNS for names is unworkable.
I think stuff like advanced bookmarking will be more likely, where all your important contacts are transparently saved.
But what is realy wrong with the current phone number paradigm, made easier by phones with phone books?
Racing on two wheels seems harder than racing on four, but in F1, there is not a lot of margin for error. Take for example Kimi Raikonnen, at the 2002 French GP. He was leading the race, and he went of with Michael following right behind. Michael immediately stepped up and took the lead. The smallest mistake is punished and it may well be impossible to recover. So it not only important to be fast, when you are fast is equally important. Michael Schumacher has won races because he was fast when he needed to be, even when he didn't have the fastest car. A few seconds off the pace is a lifetime in F1. Some pole positions for example have been won by literally thousandths of a second. For the last 2 years, the qualifying has been a single lap affair, and so there is no recovering, but there is no compromise either. PLus F1 is really punishing in terms of the G forces involved when turning and braking.
I have 3 ideas that may overcome spam.
This may require an overhaul of the email system though. One may be to have multiple addresses bound together. So you would give one email address and only "authenticated" or approved contacts could get your second address. Now sending an email simultaneously to the two email addresses would result in the email being delivered directly. mail sent to only one of the 2 addresses would be delivered as per normal, and would be subject to the normal filtering. But i guess the spammers would find ways to get both addresses too and defeat that, but it sould be doubly difficult, if not actually an order of magnitude more difficult. How may people get the same spam on different email addresses? This could be useful.
The other is to hit spammers where it hurts, audience. By rolling out a proper ad delivery system (yuck) which was separate from email, if people used their email less for getting information about products, but had it collected by some RSS type system, the spammers would be left with a dwindling audience unless they switched too. The ads would be strictly opt in.
Or mail collection rather than mail delivery. If people collected mail rather than got it delivered to them, they could in theory just not collect spam. why would anyone collect spam?
Lastly is education. if people kept their own whitelists of approved mailers, they could in theory get rid of most spam by keeping good whitelists.