I was first wondering how they knew this guy's domain would be profitable, but then I realized it could be done en masse. With "domain tasting" it coudl even be done without much financial risk.
Register a ton of old expired domains. Set up catch-all email accounts. See what legit services send you marketing emails implying you had a prior relationship. If you don't find any, cancel the domain registration. If you do, pay for it, reset passwords, and start harvesting.
While I have your attention, shame on you for letting your business go dark without tying up the loose ends (e.g., informing your customers). I feel for your customers.
To be fair, he didn't say the customers are paying. It's entirely possible that he did tidy up loose ends, and now former customers are contacting him directly and saying, "Uh, what's going on? We stopped doing business years ago..."
Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies
Irrelevant. They sold the console as providing features X and Y. Then, after the sale and without consent they remove feature "Y". They failed to predict the financial results of feature "Y", but that's their own fault. I can't see any way in which this is either justifiable or legal.
Plus, they're just bone-headed. Clearly there not only a hobby, but also a serious tech market for these devices. They're missing a great opportunity by not simply selling a fully unlocked version (that doesn't support games) at four times the production cost. That would still be cheap for the processing power, yet it would turn a nice profit for them.
I think at some point, when all the young generation is grown up. They expect to see compromising pictures on your facebook. And if you don't have those they wont trust you and you won't get a job.
That's what you would think, but in reality when the young generation is all grown up they are become us...
(Nope, that really doesn't mean very much... but it sounds kind of profound doesn't it?)
For at least three hours a day, I try to turn off my IM client and ignore my email. If I don't, I am not able to get enough focused effort on any one task in order to get things done.
The problem with replacing face-to-face with IMs and emails is that you turn what should be a few short meetings into long, drawn-out discussions that can continue pulling attention away for hours.
Big surprise. Twitter going to sell ads. Who would have guessed that.
Just once, I'd like to see a "web 2.0" company come up with a business model that does not depend on either: selling the attention of their users to the highest bidder, selling information about their users, or selling the ability for customers to try to sell things to their users.
What if the market is defined as "Phones with one button and a touch screen interface"?
That would be like saying, "Toyota has a monopoly in hybrid cars called Prius."
I think a more reasonable definition would be "smart phone". Competition is fierce in this area. Apple isn't even top in the market .
The "typical user" scenarios discussed don't really apply, because a "typical user" has only the vaguest idea of what an "operating system" is. To a "typical user", Windows is the computer. There's no artificial separation between the hardware, the things they do, and the environment in which they do it. If the "typical user" wants to try something new and different, he knows he can go buy a Mac.
The computer is an appliance to the "typical user". It is not an end unto itself.
In other words, this entire book is targeted at users who will never even learn of its existence.
In expert-sex-change, you can find the answers just by scrolling down.
It looks like there's just a big footer under the question, but if you keep scrolling down, you'll find the answers.
That only works if your browser sends a Google referrer URL..
Still I have to wonder how/why they show up so often. Does anyone actually link to that site? How does it get the pagerank that it does... it's a great mystery of our time...
I am sorry, but I do not buy your argument about 2 million lines being closely tangled to a security hole. Usually code is structured into independent modules and especially the authentication/authorization part is encapsulated into a server.
That various vastly, depending on the product and nature of the security flaw.
Second, a few weeks is not that much of a problem - if the customers are aware of the problem, they can apply workarounds to mitigate the problem while waiting for the fix.
In the worst case they can stop using the software.
Consider the worst case for the 'responsible disclosure' where the vendor hides their head in the sand while an exploit is being circulated in the black hat community.
Very true, but none of this builds a valid argument for "just tell the world and let the chips fall where they may".
Because customers can predict the future?
Certainly they can't be expected to know about the vulnerability ahead of time, if it hasn't been released yet.. .
What's due influence, if not the people who (probably) elected you and who you serve, telling you how they think that you should do your job?
None at all is appropriate. Once a judge is elected (which is kind of crappy, but better than appointment), the only thing he should be taking into consideration is interpretation of the law as applies to a specific case. This is not the same as what the popular opinion is on how that law should be interpreted.
There are two problems I see with that. First, no matter how well-intentioned your actions, it's not the company that pays - it's the people and companies who have the software installed; in essence making the person who publishes this directly responsible (though not legally) for damages caused by the exploit. The company will just say, "oops", shrug, and move on.
The second one is the fact that for large software packages, there is no such thing as "quick fix". When you have a few million lines of a code, a regression test is non-trivial. And when you have thousands or millions of customers, you have to regression test before you can release. This process can take weeks or even months.
And unfortunately, even in the case where the company is being a complete jackass and simply ignoring you (or asking to to consult for free) , the first issue still applies. Say what you will about "security through obscurity" -- the fact remains that it is one of many valid and valuable tools in security. (Lest someone interpret that as an anti-OSS comment let me also add that "many eyes" is another such valid and valuable tool. Not all tools are available to all people/products.)
Because the Internet should not be a place which does not play by any society's rules, like the high seas.
That's great. Now if you could just tell me which societies found among the 1.8billion+ people who access the Internet should determine which rules are in effect?
If your firm is not primarily a technology company, you'd be surprised at how little management cares about shit code - as long as the requirements are met and the expense is lower, they're happy.
Whatever you do, never suggest that people write to their senators or congressmen! Certainly the system needs reform when requesting people petition the legal system on your behalf is somehow a crime.
That's kind of analogous, but not quite. The actions of a judge are not (or should not be) subjected to popular opinion. So while the emails were intended in the same way as emailing a member of congress, the intended effect is quite different-- basically attempting to directly influence the judge's decision which is not to be subject to undue influence.
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
The difference here is that it's an email campaign intended to subvert the judicial process. That seems to fit the confines of contempt: "Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority"
In other words, it's not directed at the judge personally, it's directed at the judge in his official capacity as arbiter of the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Register a ton of old expired domains. Set up catch-all email accounts. See what legit services send you marketing emails implying you had a prior relationship. If you don't find any, cancel the domain registration. If you do, pay for it, reset passwords, and start harvesting.
Ugh.
Clearly the modder misread and thought it said Inciteful when he made his choice.
While I have your attention, shame on you for letting your business go dark without tying up the loose ends (e.g., informing your customers). I feel for your customers.
To be fair, he didn't say the customers are paying. It's entirely possible that he did tidy up loose ends, and now former customers are contacting him directly and saying, "Uh, what's going on? We stopped doing business years ago..."
Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies
Irrelevant. They sold the console as providing features X and Y. Then, after the sale and without consent they remove feature "Y". They failed to predict the financial results of feature "Y", but that's their own fault. I can't see any way in which this is either justifiable or legal.
Plus, they're just bone-headed. Clearly there not only a hobby, but also a serious tech market for these devices. They're missing a great opportunity by not simply selling a fully unlocked version (that doesn't support games) at four times the production cost. That would still be cheap for the processing power, yet it would turn a nice profit for them.
Clearly this is a derivative work of their copyrighted sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZgwNutwK0Y
I think at some point, when all the young generation is grown up. They expect to see compromising pictures on your facebook. And if you don't have those they wont trust you and you won't get a job.
That's what you would think, but in reality when the young generation is all grown up they are become us...
(Nope, that really doesn't mean very much... but it sounds kind of profound doesn't it?)
Nothing says "I'm always going to live alone" more then this.
Indeed. The baby was clearly a rental from Babies R Us. Or an automaton. I, for one, welcome our new automa... aw, skip it.
Don't know how it will work with multiple people though.
Project the appropriate image for each person directly onto his or her retina. Duh.
The problem with replacing face-to-face with IMs and emails is that you turn what should be a few short meetings into long, drawn-out discussions that can continue pulling attention away for hours.
Just once, I'd like to see a "web 2.0" company come up with a business model that does not depend on either: selling the attention of their users to the highest bidder, selling information about their users, or selling the ability for customers to try to sell things to their users.
What if the market is defined as "Phones with one button and a touch screen interface"?
That would be like saying, "Toyota has a monopoly in hybrid cars called Prius." I think a more reasonable definition would be "smart phone". Competition is fierce in this area. Apple isn't even top in the market .
Can Microsoft do that as well? It's their platform right? Oh, wait, it's Apple so it's fine now.
Could you describe in detail what monopoly apple holds here?
The computer is an appliance to the "typical user". It is not an end unto itself.
In other words, this entire book is targeted at users who will never even learn of its existence.
No, but it all-too-often cheaper to hire idiots, then send it back to them for correction until they get it right.
In expert-sex-change, you can find the answers just by scrolling down. It looks like there's just a big footer under the question, but if you keep scrolling down, you'll find the answers.
That only works if your browser sends a Google referrer URL..
Still I have to wonder how/why they show up so often. Does anyone actually link to that site? How does it get the pagerank that it does... it's a great mystery of our time...
Not to mention that every supporting link in the posting is broken...
I am sorry, but I do not buy your argument about 2 million lines being closely tangled to a security hole. Usually code is structured into independent modules and especially the authentication/authorization part is encapsulated into a server.
That various vastly, depending on the product and nature of the security flaw.
Second, a few weeks is not that much of a problem - if the customers are aware of the problem, they can apply workarounds to mitigate the problem while waiting for the fix. In the worst case they can stop using the software. Consider the worst case for the 'responsible disclosure' where the vendor hides their head in the sand while an exploit is being circulated in the black hat community.
Very true, but none of this builds a valid argument for "just tell the world and let the chips fall where they may".
Because customers can predict the future? Certainly they can't be expected to know about the vulnerability ahead of time, if it hasn't been released yet.. .
is not to be subject to undue influence.
What's due influence, if not the people who (probably) elected you and who you serve, telling you how they think that you should do your job?
None at all is appropriate. Once a judge is elected (which is kind of crappy, but better than appointment), the only thing he should be taking into consideration is interpretation of the law as applies to a specific case. This is not the same as what the popular opinion is on how that law should be interpreted.
The second one is the fact that for large software packages, there is no such thing as "quick fix". When you have a few million lines of a code, a regression test is non-trivial. And when you have thousands or millions of customers, you have to regression test before you can release. This process can take weeks or even months.
And unfortunately, even in the case where the company is being a complete jackass and simply ignoring you (or asking to to consult for free) , the first issue still applies. Say what you will about "security through obscurity" -- the fact remains that it is one of many valid and valuable tools in security. (Lest someone interpret that as an anti-OSS comment let me also add that "many eyes" is another such valid and valuable tool. Not all tools are available to all people/products.)
Because the Internet should not be a place which does not play by any society's rules, like the high seas.
That's great. Now if you could just tell me which societies found among the 1.8billion+ people who access the Internet should determine which rules are in effect?
If your firm is not primarily a technology company, you'd be surprised at how little management cares about shit code - as long as the requirements are met and the expense is lower, they're happy.
Whatever you do, never suggest that people write to their senators or congressmen! Certainly the system needs reform when requesting people petition the legal system on your behalf is somehow a crime.
That's kind of analogous, but not quite. The actions of a judge are not (or should not be) subjected to popular opinion. So while the emails were intended in the same way as emailing a member of congress, the intended effect is quite different-- basically attempting to directly influence the judge's decision which is not to be subject to undue influence.
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
The difference here is that it's an email campaign intended to subvert the judicial process. That seems to fit the confines of contempt: "Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority"
In other words, it's not directed at the judge personally, it's directed at the judge in his official capacity as arbiter of the case.
OOXML is the word document format that Microsoft
No it's not. It's the document format for representing all supported document types within the Office suite.
Yeah, OK, we all know what he's talking about. But still... is it really that hard to get the basics right in a summary?