GMail uses HTTPS and POPS. Good luck on tracking that!!
You don't understand. GMail will provide the data. This is not a Carnivore-like system. GMail will provide the data. All the major webmail software providers have added modules to their software that will automatically generate the necessary logs. They are not intercepting raw traffic, they are getting their data straight from GMail, or whatever other ISP your webmail is.
This isn't some fancy stuff. I've seen the specs, I know that ISPs have been talking with their software providers for over a year. Most likely, the software is already installed and ready to be switched on.
For a busy ISP, that would mean GBs and GBs of data. Where's it going to be stored
EMC, for example, offers mass storage devices capable of coping with that. I know a major ISP in Europe who has an EMC storage with several TB of capacity.
and who's going to pay for it?
The ISP. Which in the end means you, the customer. Nice, isn't it? Not only are you now under constant surveilance, you also pay for it yourself.
GMail will have to provide the data. Yes, they thought about webmail. I had a copy of the specifications for the whole thing in my hands once. Everything passing through an ISP or other service provider (such as GMail) will be captured. The only way to be safe is to run your own mailserver and use TLS. And even then, your mails will be logged on the "other end", i.e. the guy you talk to, unless he's also running his own mailserver.
If this is anything close to the MTV we get over here in Germany, then the only thing they'll offer will be ring tones for your cell phone. But 25 billion of those.
Cry me a river. You already have my money from back when I bought the CDs. You don't expect me to buy them again when I get a new stereo, so why do you expect me to buy again when I get an iPod?
Make a good product and I'll buy it. Continue crying and I'll continue telling you that I pay for music, not for tears.
Yes, but Apple understands that the "stupid" in that abbrev. doesn't refer to the user. The beauty of Apple is that they know what they're doing and that there are different user needs. And they managed to build a UI for all of them - as a novice, you can just get going, as an intermediate user you have more controls than you can (but don't have to) tune, and a poweruser can go full-out and if that doesn't do it, pop open a shell.
There's a huge difference between removing a functionality and moving it out of the way.
You must be using a different Gnome than the one that is at gnome.org. None of the screenshots there look even remotely like any MacOS nor OSX. What it does have remarkable similarity to, however, is windos.
In 1998, I was a very active participant on the Gnome UI mailing list. In fact, the very first Gnome User Interface Guideline was in part based on my proposed one (google for "Rogue GNOME style guide" if you care about the details).
Two things shocked me back then, and from Linus comments it appears that neither of them have changed.
One is that Gnome has a ton of great contributors - and just as many who are not as great. Unfortunately, in areas where the matter is more discussion and consensus based and you can't prove your point by just coding it, the vocal trolls crowd out the valuable contributors.
Two is that within those who contributed the the UI discussion there was a surprising lack not only of experience in the HCI field (ok, I had just started out there myself) but also a strong resistance to pick up the vast literature available or trust in actual end-user studies.
The last was what caused me to quit. How can you design a user interface without talking to the users? You can't. Anyone working in HCI knows that. Assumptions == Disaster
Does eBay receive kickbacks from their top sellers?
Ah! Now we're in the "see, monopolies are good" area. That was fast.:) Quite frankly, we are at the start of the "information age", and the Sun Tsu of info manipulation hasn't been written yet, and neither the Machiavelli nor the Clausewitz of the field has written his book, yet. I'm quite certain that in maybe 20 years, your average megacorporation will have an arsenal of standard info manipulation tools and techniques that make Goebbels propaganda look almost truthful.
John Lott has written two books on the subject of government protection of the people, and he found that more people are mugged and raped in areas where the police protection was high but personal protection was illegal (no gun permits).
Was that a US-only study or did he look at other countries, too? Because you know, if I'm a burglar and I know that here people have guns at home but 50 miles away they don't, then of course I'll travel that distance.
Government creates laws that criminals will break.
Yes, for about 80% of the laws, that is true. Because a huge volume of law deals with tax evasion, speed limits and other victimless crime. But the area we were talking about is where society pretty much agreed that killing or robbing people is a bad thing long before someone wrote that down. Government just puts into words what is the consensus.
it is more and more likely that we'll be able to moderate criminals out of existance, rather than try to catch them in the act and put them in jail.
You're forgetting the vital fact of online business: Transaction and installation costs. As the cost for setting up yet another scam business goes towards zero, the damage you do to the scammers by taking them down also goes towards nil.
The only "market solution" to this problem is that all but a few very well known and highly respected companies go out of business. If everyone only trusts A, B and C then each of them has way too much of a market share and too much to lose to the other two to pull a fast one. The problem is, of course, that one day A will merge with B, put C out of business and become the only game in town. And suddenly the incentive for staying honest goes poof.
I'd like to see an SMS server where you can message a number "JohnPhotoShop.com" and have it return "50 positives, 300 negatives, 15 neutrals"
And soon, there will be 50 competing services of that kind, half of which receive kickbacks from the companies they rate well. How do you choose which service to trust? Maybe a meta-service that rates the info-services? Soon, there will be 50 competing meta-services...
I don't think government has protected us from scammers, ever.
I actually think it has. Not 100%, not ever perfectly and completely. However when I travel on the train and I'm not afraid of robbers, then to be quite honest it's not because I think any of my fellow travellers would stand up and stop them - it's because government has been successful in keeping crime rates at such a level that being robbed is an unlikely event.
I have a feeling this sort of scam will disappear in due time.
You're new to this life, aren't you? The birth rate in the sucker demographics category is way too high for these scams to disappear anywhere within the forseable future.
Being pro-market, I see the scammers as the worst aspect of any market.
Being pro-market, you support a dreamworld that doesn't and will never exist. The problem is that you (and way too many people in way too important positions) don't realize that free market theory is based on a number of highly unrealistic assumptions and will thus never work the way it is advertised.
In an ideal free market, this problem would not even exist. One of the assumptions is that all participants have complete, truthful information. Obviously, that would be the end of any and all scammers.
What you're seeing is just one of the many corners where the whole free market thing is failing. And yes, maybe government's job is to make sure the whole thing doesn't fall apart because of the trouble near the edges. Throwing a few people in jail certainly isn't a part of free market theory, but it does a fairly good job at replacing perfect information with honest, which while not perfect is a reasonably close substitute.
The problem is, of course, that our governments, pretty much no matter which one you choose, are not exactly breeding pools or good examples of honesty and integrity.
What is he supposed to do, remember all two hundred peoples faces that pass him in a day? Get a grip!
200 faces is nothing, especially if they remain largely the same. England during the 1600s had prisons with wardens, but no gates. Visitors could enter and leave freely, but the guards quite knew their inmates.
Yes, especially considering that I'd be surprised if there were not others who were rejected in favour of Beatles. Quite frankly, the collaboration between ScuttleMonkey and Beatles is far too obvious to be a coincidence.
While you are correct, the main purpose of guards next to biometrics devices is to ensure that users can not tamper with the devices.
Biometrics are notoriously trivial to bypass if you can tamper with them at will. That's why in a serious environment, you put a guard next to the scanner so nobody can walk up with a severed hand and get waved through.
The problem is that as long as vital signs can be faked, fingerprints deteriorate from "something you are" to "something you have" through the use of a large knife or sharp scissors and a few seconds with the person "that is".
"They" is essentially one person. If we were talking about EA, it might be a matter of priorities or market share. With one dud, it's more likely a matter of deciding which things he'll likely get done in time and which not, always provided his cat doesn't eat the power cable and there's no traffic accident in the family.
I'm all for standards and interoperability, but if I insert a CD-R into my toaster on the theory that one burner is basically the same as another I don't expect my toaster to fix my mistake.
No, but if I put a disc that shows the DVD logo into a DVD player, I do expect it to play it. But since apparently these non-DVDs don't show the logo, it's a non-issue. I was just wondering.
"Rethinking our strategy" is just marketing speech for "please don't beat us anymore, it hurts but we don't want to do anything serious about it anyways".
I'll believe in a change when heads start rolling. And I mean highly placed heads. Hesse is an excellent candidate in fact, after some of the things he said early on, he should be first to go. And if you ask me, he should be first to go straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect a huge parting gift.
Slashdot Mirror
GMail uses HTTPS and POPS. Good luck on tracking that!!
You don't understand. GMail will provide the data.
This is not a Carnivore-like system. GMail will provide the data. All the major webmail software providers have added modules to their software that will automatically generate the necessary logs. They are not intercepting raw traffic, they are getting their data straight from GMail, or whatever other ISP your webmail is.
This isn't some fancy stuff. I've seen the specs, I know that ISPs have been talking with their software providers for over a year. Most likely, the software is already installed and ready to be switched on.
I, alone, have average bandwidth usage over 200GB per month.
RTFA. They keep only connection data, i.e. From:, To:, Date:, etc. That's a tiny fraction of your bandwidth usage.
For a busy ISP, that would mean GBs and GBs of data. Where's it going to be stored
EMC, for example, offers mass storage devices capable of coping with that.
I know a major ISP in Europe who has an EMC storage with several TB of capacity.
and who's going to pay for it?
The ISP. Which in the end means you, the customer. Nice, isn't it? Not only are you now under constant surveilance, you also pay for it yourself.
So how can they keep track of my gmail account?
GMail will have to provide the data.
Yes, they thought about webmail. I had a copy of the specifications for the whole thing in my hands once. Everything passing through an ISP or other service provider (such as GMail) will be captured. The only way to be safe is to run your own mailserver and use TLS. And even then, your mails will be logged on the "other end", i.e. the guy you talk to, unless he's also running his own mailserver.
We're talking about GUI here. In GUI, visual appearance and functionality meet.
If this is anything close to the MTV we get over here in Germany, then the only thing they'll offer will be ring tones for your cell phone. But 25 billion of those.
Cry me a river. You already have my money from back when I bought the CDs. You don't expect me to buy them again when I get a new stereo, so why do you expect me to buy again when I get an iPod?
Make a good product and I'll buy it. Continue crying and I'll continue telling you that I pay for music, not for tears.
Hm, that's interesting. Seems the two lists are very much alike. Hmm...
There is merit to having a GUI that is KISS.
Yes, but Apple understands that the "stupid" in that abbrev. doesn't refer to the user. The beauty of Apple is that they know what they're doing and that there are different user needs. And they managed to build a UI for all of them - as a novice, you can just get going, as an intermediate user you have more controls than you can (but don't have to) tune, and a poweruser can go full-out and if that doesn't do it, pop open a shell.
There's a huge difference between removing a functionality and moving it out of the way.
GNOME is made by people who try to be like Apple,
You must be using a different Gnome than the one that is at gnome.org. None of the screenshots there look even remotely like any MacOS nor OSX. What it does have remarkable similarity to, however, is windos.
We're aiming for "Just Works". Some people will hate that. Some will love it.
Some people already did it. They work for Apple.
Gnome sucks because it copies mostly from Windos, i.e. from the UI loser who simply muscled his way to the top. KDE, btw., sucks for the same reason.
Start copying from Apple and I'll start believing you the "just work" marketing bullshit.
That is quite possible - I left the mailing list in early 1999 and that's a hell of a lot of time.
Also: I don't like KDE any better. I use XFCE4 myself.
In 1998, I was a very active participant on the Gnome UI mailing list. In fact, the very first Gnome User Interface Guideline was in part based on my proposed one (google for "Rogue GNOME style guide" if you care about the details).
Two things shocked me back then, and from Linus comments it appears that neither of them have changed.
One is that Gnome has a ton of great contributors - and just as many who are not as great. Unfortunately, in areas where the matter is more discussion and consensus based and you can't prove your point by just coding it, the vocal trolls crowd out the valuable contributors.
Two is that within those who contributed the the UI discussion there was a surprising lack not only of experience in the HCI field (ok, I had just started out there myself) but also a strong resistance to pick up the vast literature available or trust in actual end-user studies.
The last was what caused me to quit. How can you design a user interface without talking to the users? You can't. Anyone working in HCI knows that. Assumptions == Disaster
Does eBay receive kickbacks from their top sellers?
:)
Ah! Now we're in the "see, monopolies are good" area. That was fast.
Quite frankly, we are at the start of the "information age", and the Sun Tsu of info manipulation hasn't been written yet, and neither the Machiavelli nor the Clausewitz of the field has written his book, yet.
I'm quite certain that in maybe 20 years, your average megacorporation will have an arsenal of standard info manipulation tools and techniques that make Goebbels propaganda look almost truthful.
John Lott has written two books on the subject of government protection of the people, and he found that more people are mugged and raped in areas where the police protection was high but personal protection was illegal (no gun permits).
Was that a US-only study or did he look at other countries, too? Because you know, if I'm a burglar and I know that here people have guns at home but 50 miles away they don't, then of course I'll travel that distance.
Government creates laws that criminals will break.
Yes, for about 80% of the laws, that is true. Because a huge volume of law deals with tax evasion, speed limits and other victimless crime. But the area we were talking about is where society pretty much agreed that killing or robbing people is a bad thing long before someone wrote that down. Government just puts into words what is the consensus.
it is more and more likely that we'll be able to moderate criminals out of existance, rather than try to catch them in the act and put them in jail.
You're forgetting the vital fact of online business: Transaction and installation costs. As the cost for setting up yet another scam business goes towards zero, the damage you do to the scammers by taking them down also goes towards nil.
The only "market solution" to this problem is that all but a few very well known and highly respected companies go out of business. If everyone only trusts A, B and C then each of them has way too much of a market share and too much to lose to the other two to pull a fast one.
The problem is, of course, that one day A will merge with B, put C out of business and become the only game in town. And suddenly the incentive for staying honest goes poof.
I'd like to see an SMS server where you can message a number "JohnPhotoShop.com" and have it return "50 positives, 300 negatives, 15 neutrals"
And soon, there will be 50 competing services of that kind, half of which receive kickbacks from the companies they rate well. How do you choose which service to trust? Maybe a meta-service that rates the info-services? Soon, there will be 50 competing meta-services...
I don't think government has protected us from scammers, ever.
I actually think it has. Not 100%, not ever perfectly and completely. However when I travel on the train and I'm not afraid of robbers, then to be quite honest it's not because I think any of my fellow travellers would stand up and stop them - it's because government has been successful in keeping crime rates at such a level that being robbed is an unlikely event.
I have a feeling this sort of scam will disappear in due time.
You're new to this life, aren't you? The birth rate in the sucker demographics category is way too high for these scams to disappear anywhere within the forseable future.
Being pro-market, I see the scammers as the worst aspect of any market.
Being pro-market, you support a dreamworld that doesn't and will never exist. The problem is that you (and way too many people in way too important positions) don't realize that free market theory is based on a number of highly unrealistic assumptions and will thus never work the way it is advertised.
In an ideal free market, this problem would not even exist. One of the assumptions is that all participants have complete, truthful information. Obviously, that would be the end of any and all scammers.
What you're seeing is just one of the many corners where the whole free market thing is failing. And yes, maybe government's job is to make sure the whole thing doesn't fall apart because of the trouble near the edges.
Throwing a few people in jail certainly isn't a part of free market theory, but it does a fairly good job at replacing perfect information with honest, which while not perfect is a reasonably close substitute.
The problem is, of course, that our governments, pretty much no matter which one you choose, are not exactly breeding pools or good examples of honesty and integrity.
What is he supposed to do, remember all two hundred peoples faces that pass him in a day? Get a grip!
200 faces is nothing, especially if they remain largely the same. England during the 1600s had prisons with wardens, but no gates. Visitors could enter and leave freely, but the guards quite knew their inmates.
Yes, especially considering that I'd be surprised if there were not others who were rejected in favour of Beatles. Quite frankly, the collaboration between ScuttleMonkey and Beatles is far too obvious to be a coincidence.
While you are correct, the main purpose of guards next to biometrics devices is to ensure that users can not tamper with the devices.
Biometrics are notoriously trivial to bypass if you can tamper with them at will. That's why in a serious environment, you put a guard next to the scanner so nobody can walk up with a severed hand and get waved through.
The problem is that as long as vital signs can be faked, fingerprints deteriorate from "something you are" to "something you have" through the use of a large knife or sharp scissors and a few seconds with the person "that is".
I'm one more article away to flag ScuttleMonkey as an editor I don't want to read from anymore in my settings.
"They" is essentially one person. If we were talking about EA, it might be a matter of priorities or market share. With one dud, it's more likely a matter of deciding which things he'll likely get done in time and which not, always provided his cat doesn't eat the power cable and there's no traffic accident in the family.
I'm all for standards and interoperability, but if I insert a CD-R into my toaster on the theory that one burner is basically the same as another I don't expect my toaster to fix my mistake.
No, but if I put a disc that shows the DVD logo into a DVD player, I do expect it to play it. But since apparently these non-DVDs don't show the logo, it's a non-issue. I was just wondering.
"Rethinking our strategy" is just marketing speech for "please don't beat us anymore, it hurts but we don't want to do anything serious about it anyways".
I'll believe in a change when heads start rolling. And I mean highly placed heads. Hesse is an excellent candidate in fact, after some of the things he said early on, he should be first to go. And if you ask me, he should be first to go straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect a huge parting gift.