You're almost certainly correct; this isn't the kind of architecture LINPACK was designed for, and porting it to scale well in this environment would be probably be difficult, though perhaps there's a way to break up that type of problem to get adequate performance. But there are a lot of problems that need supercomputer levels of horsepower that do adapt well, and raw TFLOPS are a horrendlously crude start at comparing performance levels.
I happen to think that security is much more likely to be important than space aliens, but 4.7 million people today apparently thought space aliens were either more important or at least came with a better screen saver. If there actually *are* any space aliens within shouting range, they're a lot more important in the long run, but when I've had spare network-connected CPUs to use for distributed projects, I've usually had them doing prime numbers or crypto or protein folding or AIDS research.
On the other hand, all this nuclear weapons work makes everybody's nation less secure, including the people developing the weapons as well as the Usual Suspect target nations and their neighbors. Nations aren't a particularly good idea, but the best way to get rid of them is to notice they're obsolete, like Microsoft, rather than to nuke them.
OK, I don't get the phone calls, but some days it seems my procmail filters get 300-500 Nigerian 419 scams. Usually it's a lot less, since most of the spam's Viagra or other drugs instead.
It's not easy to do a good comparison, because the Top500 List is officially based on LINPACK, and SETI@Home is of course running SETI calculations instead. But if their figures are vaguely comparable, the world's fastest computer is a volunteer effort to look for Space Aliens, and the second fastest is modelling Earth and the weather, and it's not till you get to the third fastest that you get to machines used to design weapons of mass destruction or all the things the nuke guys do that they pretend aren't quite directly weapons-related.
More correctly, the boxes were Pizza'd together. It took 600-700 pizzas for the students to get 1100 Macs installed in the cluster, so that's about 2/3 Pizza per Mac.
I'm sorry, but the RIAA won't let you listen to recordings of the big bang without buying the CD from them. If you missed the original concert, tough luck for you.
Of course you're not forced to use GPL software. But "if you don't like the license, you're free to write the code yourself" isn't the end of the story - there are alternative free software licenses, ranging from BSD-style "Leave our name on it and agree that we disclaim all responsibility if Bad Things happen" to the Artistic License to postcardware to public domain or whatever. I like the LGPL better than the GPL for most applications, and I still remember way back when it was the "Library GPL" rather than the Stallmanesque renaming as the "Lesser GPL".
RMS has been very successful in promoting his obsessive viewpoints on Exactly How Free Software Should Be, and enough people have been willing to go along with it that there's not a significant body of work covered by the GPL. How many of the authors would have been just as satisfied contributing to something with an Artistic License or a Not My Fault license is debatable; once you attach it to GPLed stuff, it tends to get GPLed unless you're very careful about how you build and use interfaces, and that may not be the best _technical_ choice or may be more work than people want to bother with.
There's Free like in Free Speech, and Free like in Free Beer, and then there's Free like in Free Kittens...
If hackers want an emblem, it's "A black T-shirt with some random geekish logo on it, losing extra points unless it's one you actually worked on rather than a vendor tradeshow giveaway." (Or if it's a band T-shirt, then it should be a band you were/are actually in, or at least one that's really really obscure.) Or a penguin that you've modified yourself.
But no, there's really no point, and it's a silly idea.
..
OTOH, yes, the Game of Life was cool. But still no thanks.
What's really sad is that both Lenselet's web page and the Reuters article refer to luggage screening, so no, the spin is really there, even if it's only buzzword-compliance to try to suck in Homeland Security dollars (those are the new yellow-colored ones...)
When I first read the Reuters article, I saw Page 1 referred to safer airports and nastier military weapons, and on Page 2 I saw the mention of radars and weather forecasting, which are two applications that can typically soak up all the CPU they can get and were what I'd been expectign to see. But the "luggage screening" phrase linewrapped and I didn't notice it...
But radars and weather forecasting really can make airports much safer, doing something about the real risks rather than the bogus ones.
SCO seems to be trying to split the possible interpretations of GPL validity into three positions
GPL is unenforceable and anything GPLed is public domain
GPL is potentially enforceable but SCO's license to IBM prevents IBM from contributing anything useful to it
GPL is unenforceable and everything with a GPL attached is still owned by the original authors and each and every one of them retains the right to collect statutory copyright damages against anybody who copies their software without their direct and explicit permission.
If they go for the "Public Domain" extreme, the fact that they've given out 2.4.13 means that all that material's public domain now, as well as any earlier Linux material IBM had access to when developing their versions, so there's not much covered by their alleged contracts except some of the multi-processor scheduling stuff in SVR4.2 and later versions, and there are other sources of multi-processor scheduler work that IBM may also have drawn on. They certainly can't nail anybody who's not using those post-2.4.13 modules.
But if they go for the "Invalid, and everybody who contributed anything can still sue" part, it may be arguable that they've still got no claim over anything in 2.4.13, since they gave that away for free, or to derived works from that, and if they want to mess around suing anybody other than IBM for material that was in other Linuxen, they'd better be willing to defend themselves against the Death of a Thousand Lawsuits from anybody who contributed to 2.4.13 or to other GPL material SCO is continuing to use or distribute along with their licensed Unix versions (though they're probably safe leaving the BSD stuff in.) They'd certainly better ditch any EMACS and GCC because of RMS's direct contributions.
The Middle Case leaves Linux off the hook except for a few IBM scheduler additions and perhaps a few other features they haven't named, and IBM may or may not be able to beat the rap for sharing their trade secret on the rest of it. The Evil DMCA Cases leave IBM's position a bit shakier, but unlike the DVDCCA's ability to judge-shop and harass random teenagers first, SCO is stuck with fighting the 800-pound gorilla first and then hitting any weaker players later if they win.
And at first glance, SCO's assertion that the GPL is unconstitutional suggests that they're consuming substances that were frowned upon by the majority religion in Utah but are quite popular in Santa Cruz, or alternatively that they've been overusing substances that even Santa Cruzers view as harsh and ill-advised. Their best bet is to file a motion of "Withdrawing because we wuz drunk at the time we filed it, Yer Honor" with the court and get out, or see if they can get the Governator to go back in time and stop Linux and RMS.
Look, just because Stupidity is clearly in effect here doesn't mean there isn't also Malice....
SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus. It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software. However, SCO does appear to be the first group that's sufficiently well-funded, aggressive, and boneheaded to attack it with a large crash-and-burn lawsuit.
They do have a partial case - the Unix source license terms were always unclear and dodgy in terms of exactly how closely derived something from Unix source had to be covered, and it's possible that IBM or Sequent or SGI slipped close enough to the edge to sue, but the BSD lawsuits pretty much established that reverse-engineered work-almost-alikes are ok, at least with sufficiently careful clean-room techniques, and IBM has more experienced software-issue lawyers than anybody except possibly Microsoft or remotely possibly the US Government (who also suffer from combinations of malice and incompetence.) However, SCO's distribution of Linux 2.4.x weakens their position substantially.
Me? I've probably still got my Usenix "Mentally Contaminated" pin from a few years ago, though Unix source has evolved a bit from the System V Release 2.0p days when I last looked at licensed kernel source, or from the early 90s when I was using licensed user-space code, and it's amazing how much bit-rot can set in...
Most of this software, while some of it is Ethically Challenged, doesn't have legal problems, at least in the US. The stuff claims to be free or cheap, and usually tells you that you'll get advertising, and even though it doesn't always tell you how much data it's collecting, it's usually not breaking any laws by doing it. Even the annoying features like popups or making your machine dog-slow aren't illegal, they're just misfeatures. Often you even have to press a "Pretended to read the fine print of the license" button for it to install.
Some of it's not even broken ethically - if all they're doing with it is deciding which ads to show you, rather than tracking your every move online, especially if they didn't collect personal information about you, and if they didn't lie to you about what they were doing, and if they have a privacy policy that actually reflects what they're doing, that's ok. Not necessarily something you want to run, but ok. Some particular examples are the adware versions of Eudora and Opera.
European data collection laws may have terms that popular spyware violates, but usually the spyware companies aren't based in Europe so there's no legal jurisdiction. The data collection laws themselves are often effectively spyware - in return for "protecting" you, they're also subjecting you to possible audits of your machines because you *might* have personal information about other people on your computer or your PDA or your cell phone. (Sure, they mostly pretend they wouldn't do that to regular citizens, only businesses, but it's pretty much a selective enforcement thing. And you are registering all your computers with the data protection bureau, aren't you?) But at least it doesn't slow your machine down when they're not auditing you.
I'm about 90% sure it was hotbar. My mother-in-law (technophobic AOL user) had clicked on some banner ad about "Upgrade your browser for FREEEE!!!" and it installed its extra toolbars for IE. Kept getting their advertising whenever it was on. She doesn't use Outlook, so at least it only seems to have annoyed IE.
PC104 is an older standard for a small (3.8"x3.6") low-powered modular stackable form factor that's mainly intended for the embedded markets. Typical PC104 systems had one board with CPU and memory, and other boards for peripherals as needed. Newer versions of the standard support PCI busses as well as the older ISA versions.
This always struck me as a good way to build a PC, if you don't need a high-powered system with lots of peripherals. Is anybody doing much with it these days, or has it pretty much died out?
shady spiders that ignored robots.txt?? This isn't somebody's private website that has data that non-privileged people shouldn't be looking at. This is the public record of the political statements made by OUR government, and they put things here for us to see. Unfortunately, I'd be surprised if they're not doing a lot of log analysis to find out who's reading what parts of the site, to look for political opponents of various sorts and other patterns that could be useful.
It's appropriate to use robots.txt or similar mechanisms to discourage spiders from requesting data too fast and slashdotting the site, and while you'd hope that spammerbots would have the sense not to search the site, as long as they're rate-limited, that's ok too. There may be some honeypots to slow them down...
(Stuff they don't want us to see goes on cia.gov or halliburton.com.)
The White House web site, while important for the Administration's efforts to put out press releases informing or convincing the public about whatever its agenda is this week, is also important for historical work and analysis. How it reacted to previous events, and to earlier phases of an ongoing situation, are quite important in understanding what they're doing today, and having a Ministry of Truth to make previous statements into unhistory is _not_ a good thing.
This isn't the first time somebody's caught the White House or other government web sites changing data or "correcting" or deleting speeches. Is anybody keeping a mirror of whitehouse.gov and additions, deletions, and changes?
I can't check archive.org (&*^@!*&$^ censorware) or whitehouse.com (:-) from work, but I'm assuming that it's polite about obeying robots.txt. However, the White House is impolite about changing data, so somebody ought to run a robot that ignores it.
Maybe the electromagnetic radiation from power lines won't hurt you, but in much of the US, there are risks from living near power lines because of herbicides used to keep the right-of-way clear underneath them. Maybe they've backed off on that, but it used to be very common.
On the other hand, that doesn't affect WiFi-equipped schools, unless they're built on chemical waste dumps like the school that cause the Love Canal problem.
DARE wasn't just crypto-fascist. It was a program run by Darryl Gates, the crypto-fascist former LA police honcho, which made tons of money for cops and their friends. While they did hope to get kids not to use drugs, there was little to no sincerity about it. (And as far as Mickey Mouse goes, it was based in Orange County, near the shrine of the big mouse, but they weren't connected.)
I remember one day driving into Livermore California and seeing that it was DARE Red Ribbon Day. If you drive in on 580, you go past the big wine barrel sign celebrating the town and surrounding area's wine-making industry....
Actually, the regulations that affect you there aren't the FDA's limitations on what drugs Americans use - they're Canadian limitations on the prices of the drugs when the Americans don't limit them. The FDA does affect whether a given drug is available in the US, and raises the initial costs of drug development, but that's not what affects most of the US-Canadian price difference.
With books and the UK, on the other hand, it's primarily a market issue - textbooks cost less in Britain because students have less money, so the publishers can't get away with charging as much. (There may be some tax differences, but the taxes are probably higher in the UK with VAT.) And unlike gray-market electronics, where the same thing happens, textbooks don't have warrantees or repairs to worry about.
Textbooks from Greater China are a different issue - at least traditionally, those have been much less expensive because Chinese publishers of European-language western textbooks didn't bother with copyright or royalties. They'd often print them with covers in Chinese, or cookbook covers, or things like that. (I forget how much this was students from Taiwan vs. Hong Kong, but there was a lot of it when I was in school.)
It's got holes so big you can drive a fleet of truck-bombs through them.
It looks like you can create business relationships with people by sending them relationship mail, and then exploit those relationships to send them "transactional mail".
It looks like any $50 Delaware Corporation that manages to somehow break the anti-spam laws and get caught can get sued and whacked and bankrupted (what a shame. You'll just have to start up another corporation.)
The bill does make a vague attempt at banning hiring spammers to promote your products, but it doesn't look like it bans hiring "marketing companies" that promise to use spam-free opt-in email to promote your products, and if it does, then you can apply another level of indirection with another disposable corporation, or use a foreign corporation instead of a Delaware one.
It looks like the definition of ISP, while excluding "telecommunications providers" (i.e. ISPs), is flexible enough that you can be an ISP if you want, just like you can be a journalist with journalistic works in progress on your computers, so you can get around the fact that only governments and ISPs can sue for money.
It looks like it's easy enough to dodge most of the bill by moving offshore, and the requirement for a physical postal address doesn't specify that it's in the US, so if you're a spammer you can safely provide your genuine absolutely true physical postal address at [insert Unicode characters here] the Mailboxes Etc. in Outer Mongolia.
You can probably buy an opt-in list from some Korean corporation, which maybe you own.
It looks like many of the rules only apply when using a "protected computer" to initiate the spam - that term isn't explicitly defined in this law (it points to another law), but it usually tends to refer only to US machines that the government has some interest in protecting (theirs, banks, big corporations, etc., sometimes members of the publics' as well.) So you can use an unprotected machine to send the spam to the relay.
It's 2:13 AM here in California - if you want to find six more unfixable things before breakfast, you've got plenty of time.
The proposed bill doesn't quite ban anonymous speech , and definitely doesn't ban anonymous remailers, but it sure threatens to harass them, and to make it possible for the enforcement bureaux to define futher policies (such as clarifying "misleading") that could lead to trouble for providers of anonymous email. The real question is whether this is an unintended consequence or an intended one.
Feds have disliked anonymous communication for years. You'd think that if they wanted to ban anonymous communications using this as an excuse, they'd have done a clearer job of it, and that I'm just a raving paranoid, but hey, raving paranoids are the type of people that court rulings on anonymous speech are intended to protect, and given that they can't write a bill that does even a half-assed job of forbidding spam, their lack of completeness in banning anonymous speech may just be incompetence rather than malice. Or it may be a competent understanding of how far they can toe the line, and how much they can leave in slack for regulators and prosecutors to finish the job later.
Meanwhile, the spam bill is full of so many holes that are big enough to drive a fleet of truck bombs through that it's good that it probably won't pass. The bad part is that many of these sections may be trial balloons for later bills, though many of them are just in there to make incompetents like Schumer look good.
Slashdot Mirror
You're almost certainly correct; this isn't the kind of architecture LINPACK was designed for, and porting it to scale well in this environment would be probably be difficult, though perhaps there's a way to break up that type of problem to get adequate performance. But there are a lot of problems that need supercomputer levels of horsepower that do adapt well, and raw TFLOPS are a horrendlously crude start at comparing performance levels.
I happen to think that security is much more likely to be important than space aliens, but 4.7 million people today apparently thought space aliens were either more important or at least came with a better screen saver. If there actually *are* any space aliens within shouting range, they're a lot more important in the long run, but when I've had spare network-connected CPUs to use for distributed projects, I've usually had them doing prime numbers or crypto or protein folding or AIDS research.
On the other hand, all this nuclear weapons work makes everybody's nation less secure, including the people developing the weapons as well as the Usual Suspect target nations and their neighbors. Nations aren't a particularly good idea, but the best way to get rid of them is to notice they're obsolete, like Microsoft, rather than to nuke them.
OK, I don't get the phone calls, but some days it seems my procmail filters get 300-500 Nigerian 419 scams. Usually it's a lot less, since most of the spam's Viagra or other drugs instead.
- #0 - 58 TFLOPS - SETI@HOME
- #1 - 35.8 TFLOPS - NEC Earth Simulator
- #2 - 13.8 TFLOPS - LANL ASCI Q - HP Alphaservers
- New #3 - 9.55 - Big Mac
- Old #3 - 7.6 LLNL - MCR - Xeon Cluster
It's not easy to do a good comparison, because the Top500 List is officially based on LINPACK, and SETI@Home is of course running SETI calculations instead. But if their figures are vaguely comparable, the world's fastest computer is a volunteer effort to look for Space Aliens, and the second fastest is modelling Earth and the weather, and it's not till you get to the third fastest that you get to machines used to design weapons of mass destruction or all the things the nuke guys do that they pretend aren't quite directly weapons-related.More correctly, the boxes were Pizza'd together. It took 600-700 pizzas for the students to get 1100 Macs installed in the cluster, so that's about 2/3 Pizza per Mac.
I'm sorry, but the RIAA won't let you listen to recordings of the big bang without buying the CD from them. If you missed the original concert, tough luck for you.
Really, if you don't see the fnords, they won't eat you....
RMS has been very successful in promoting his obsessive viewpoints on Exactly How Free Software Should Be, and enough people have been willing to go along with it that there's not a significant body of work covered by the GPL. How many of the authors would have been just as satisfied contributing to something with an Artistic License or a Not My Fault license is debatable; once you attach it to GPLed stuff, it tends to get GPLed unless you're very careful about how you build and use interfaces, and that may not be the best _technical_ choice or may be more work than people want to bother with.
There's Free like in Free Speech, and Free like in Free Beer, and then there's Free like in Free Kittens...
But no, there's really no point, and it's a silly idea.
..
OTOH, yes, the Game of Life was cool. But still no thanks.
When I first read the Reuters article, I saw Page 1 referred to safer airports and nastier military weapons, and on Page 2 I saw the mention of radars and weather forecasting, which are two applications that can typically soak up all the CPU they can get and were what I'd been expectign to see. But the "luggage screening" phrase linewrapped and I didn't notice it...
But radars and weather forecasting really can make airports much safer, doing something about the real risks rather than the bogus ones.
If they go for the "Public Domain" extreme, the fact that they've given out 2.4.13 means that all that material's public domain now, as well as any earlier Linux material IBM had access to when developing their versions, so there's not much covered by their alleged contracts except some of the multi-processor scheduling stuff in SVR4.2 and later versions, and there are other sources of multi-processor scheduler work that IBM may also have drawn on. They certainly can't nail anybody who's not using those post-2.4.13 modules.
But if they go for the "Invalid, and everybody who contributed anything can still sue" part, it may be arguable that they've still got no claim over anything in 2.4.13, since they gave that away for free, or to derived works from that, and if they want to mess around suing anybody other than IBM for material that was in other Linuxen, they'd better be willing to defend themselves against the Death of a Thousand Lawsuits from anybody who contributed to 2.4.13 or to other GPL material SCO is continuing to use or distribute along with their licensed Unix versions (though they're probably safe leaving the BSD stuff in.) They'd certainly better ditch any EMACS and GCC because of RMS's direct contributions.
The Middle Case leaves Linux off the hook except for a few IBM scheduler additions and perhaps a few other features they haven't named, and IBM may or may not be able to beat the rap for sharing their trade secret on the rest of it. The Evil DMCA Cases leave IBM's position a bit shakier, but unlike the DVDCCA's ability to judge-shop and harass random teenagers first, SCO is stuck with fighting the 800-pound gorilla first and then hitting any weaker players later if they win.
And at first glance, SCO's assertion that the GPL is unconstitutional suggests that they're consuming substances that were frowned upon by the majority religion in Utah but are quite popular in Santa Cruz, or alternatively that they've been overusing substances that even Santa Cruzers view as harsh and ill-advised. Their best bet is to file a motion of "Withdrawing because we wuz drunk at the time we filed it, Yer Honor" with the court and get out, or see if they can get the Governator to go back in time and stop Linux and RMS.
SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus. It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software. However, SCO does appear to be the first group that's sufficiently well-funded, aggressive, and boneheaded to attack it with a large crash-and-burn lawsuit.
They do have a partial case - the Unix source license terms were always unclear and dodgy in terms of exactly how closely derived something from Unix source had to be covered, and it's possible that IBM or Sequent or SGI slipped close enough to the edge to sue, but the BSD lawsuits pretty much established that reverse-engineered work-almost-alikes are ok, at least with sufficiently careful clean-room techniques, and IBM has more experienced software-issue lawyers than anybody except possibly Microsoft or remotely possibly the US Government (who also suffer from combinations of malice and incompetence.) However, SCO's distribution of Linux 2.4.x weakens their position substantially.
Me? I've probably still got my Usenix "Mentally Contaminated" pin from a few years ago, though Unix source has evolved a bit from the System V Release 2.0p days when I last looked at licensed kernel source, or from the early 90s when I was using licensed user-space code, and it's amazing how much bit-rot can set in...
Partial win but not able to collect much money from anyone, and none from IBM.
It seems to be a matter of deciding that if the world's going to end, might as well go out with a bang rather than a whimper.
Eudora has one version that's adware. It's not the one I'm using, so I don't know how targeted it is.
Some of it's not even broken ethically - if all they're doing with it is deciding which ads to show you, rather than tracking your every move online, especially if they didn't collect personal information about you, and if they didn't lie to you about what they were doing, and if they have a privacy policy that actually reflects what they're doing, that's ok. Not necessarily something you want to run, but ok. Some particular examples are the adware versions of Eudora and Opera.
European data collection laws may have terms that popular spyware violates, but usually the spyware companies aren't based in Europe so there's no legal jurisdiction. The data collection laws themselves are often effectively spyware - in return for "protecting" you, they're also subjecting you to possible audits of your machines because you *might* have personal information about other people on your computer or your PDA or your cell phone. (Sure, they mostly pretend they wouldn't do that to regular citizens, only businesses, but it's pretty much a selective enforcement thing. And you are registering all your computers with the data protection bureau, aren't you?) But at least it doesn't slow your machine down when they're not auditing you.
I'm about 90% sure it was hotbar. My mother-in-law (technophobic AOL user) had clicked on some banner ad about "Upgrade your browser for FREEEE!!!" and it installed its extra toolbars for IE. Kept getting their advertising whenever it was on. She doesn't use Outlook, so at least it only seems to have annoyed IE.
This always struck me as a good way to build a PC, if you don't need a high-powered system with lots of peripherals. Is anybody doing much with it these days, or has it pretty much died out?
It's appropriate to use robots.txt or similar mechanisms to discourage spiders from requesting data too fast and slashdotting the site, and while you'd hope that spammerbots would have the sense not to search the site, as long as they're rate-limited, that's ok too. There may be some honeypots to slow them down...
(Stuff they don't want us to see goes on cia.gov or halliburton.com.)
The White House web site, while important for the Administration's efforts to put out press releases informing or convincing the public about whatever its agenda is this week, is also important for historical work and analysis. How it reacted to previous events, and to earlier phases of an ongoing situation, are quite important in understanding what they're doing today, and having a Ministry of Truth to make previous statements into unhistory is _not_ a good thing.
Is anybody keeping a mirror of whitehouse.gov and additions, deletions, and changes?
I can't check archive.org (&*^@!*&$^ censorware) or whitehouse.com (:-) from work, but I'm assuming that it's polite about obeying robots.txt. However, the White House is impolite about changing data, so somebody ought to run a robot that ignores it.
On the other hand, that doesn't affect WiFi-equipped schools, unless they're built on chemical waste dumps like the school that cause the Love Canal problem.
I remember one day driving into Livermore California and seeing that it was DARE Red Ribbon Day. If you drive in on 580, you go past the big wine barrel sign celebrating the town and surrounding area's wine-making industry....
With books and the UK, on the other hand, it's primarily a market issue - textbooks cost less in Britain because students have less money, so the publishers can't get away with charging as much. (There may be some tax differences, but the taxes are probably higher in the UK with VAT.) And unlike gray-market electronics, where the same thing happens, textbooks don't have warrantees or repairs to worry about.
Textbooks from Greater China are a different issue - at least traditionally, those have been much less expensive because Chinese publishers of European-language western textbooks didn't bother with copyright or royalties. They'd often print them with covers in Chinese, or cookbook covers, or things like that. (I forget how much this was students from Taiwan vs. Hong Kong, but there was a lot of it when I was in school.)
Feds have disliked anonymous communication for years. You'd think that if they wanted to ban anonymous communications using this as an excuse, they'd have done a clearer job of it, and that I'm just a raving paranoid, but hey, raving paranoids are the type of people that court rulings on anonymous speech are intended to protect, and given that they can't write a bill that does even a half-assed job of forbidding spam, their lack of completeness in banning anonymous speech may just be incompetence rather than malice. Or it may be a competent understanding of how far they can toe the line, and how much they can leave in slack for regulators and prosecutors to finish the job later.
Meanwhile, the spam bill is full of so many holes that are big enough to drive a fleet of truck bombs through that it's good that it probably won't pass. The bad part is that many of these sections may be trial balloons for later bills, though many of them are just in there to make incompetents like Schumer look good.