Agreed. Single-factor authentication based on something that's not reissuable is a recipe for failure.
Very true, and very bad. On top of that, add a horribly broken authentication protocol:
You send your username to the authenticating party in the clear, and they verify that it matches their stored copy of your username.
Hello... ? What's the password, here? I can't think of any way to copy your fingerprint off that laptop I just stole from you. Nor do I ever get the idea to produce a workable replica of your iris from the hi-res photo I have in my database.
On the web, where you send your site-specific password (use pwdhash or your own concoction), encrypted, to the authenticating party (say, a hypothetical sane slashdot), so they can match it against their stored copy, fine; they can't authenticate as you anywhere else [because you use different passwords] and no one else can authenticate as you on slashdot because they only got the encrypted password.
If you could have a different iris per username, that'd be fine if you walked around with sunglasses all day. Or if you had a different finger per site and always wore gloves.
Biometric data: fine for naming a person. Not fine for proving that you are the named person [or else I'm gonna' be Sleeping Katana Warrior, Mask-and-Cape Blogger and Glowing-Eye Spaceman all in one just because I say so].
I consider biometrics something that is intended to replace typing in a username
And wisely so. Biometric data is an identifier--it's something with a one-to-one mapping to an identity (here: a pile of cells). Other common identifiers are SSNs, usernames, user IDs, RSA public keys and sha1 hashes [the one-to-one-ness works well in practice for sha1, but of course not in theory].
Identifiers are not authenticators. A good authenticator for any given identifier requires that only the identified thing can produce the authenticator; except in one-time schemes, performing the authentication should not allow anyone else to authenticate as you later on. It also requires that they one you're trying to prove something to can verify what you're claiming.
A good authenticator for a public key is a signature on a random string. [make sure the one validating you knows how the signature looks before you send it; use a commitment scheme].
A bad way to authenticate is by sending a copy of the private key [or for sha1 hashes, the string that hashes to the given hash].
Biometric authentication "works" by having the identifier be the authenticator, and the authentication protocol works by sending a copy of the authenticator:
You put your iris in front of the scanner and it does a "SELECT permissions FROM users WHERE iris = %s" [without the horrible SQL injection possibilities, of course]. What's to stop those who look up your iris from creating a replica? If you work by fingerprints, I send my goons to follow you around. When you open or close a door, they take your print and produce a rubber replica.
An analogy would be that you learn a word that only you can pronounce, and the authentication works by you saying the word aloud, such that everyone in your vicinity can hear it. "Only you can pronounce", I don't buy that.
Back then I was still in high school [now I'm a Ph.D. student]. The twin towers still stood. The Bush administration hasn't shown its true colors yet. The Fellowship of the Ring was all the buzz, as was the first Harry Potter film. I had just dipped my feet into "this Linux thing", with Red Hat 6.2. Back then, fips [First Indestructive Partitioning System or something] didn't exactly live up to its name. Good thing I never keep backups:(
Think back seven years. Where were you? How many times have you changed occupation, had kids, changed partner, moved to a new city, changed your lifestyle habits, reconsidered your core values and beliefs, or made some other big change in your life?
Lego was at the European Court gestapt in the fight against the Canadia competitor Mega Brands, who has brought to the market a block that passes for those from Lego. The court oordeelde vandaag that the ontwerp van Lego isn't proctected through the European trademark and that er dus geen sprake mag is van exclusive right.
Run that through dict-freedict-nld-eng and a copywriter to get some sensible english. Or run it through kenny to get
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money. (X) The police will not put up with it. (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business. (X) Jurisdictional problems. (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries
And my favorite...
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
You're (in most cases) right: the cause of spam is the profitability of spam. We need to make it not profitable.
There's technical problems in altering the flow of mail, and there's jurisdictional problems in handling the flow of cash.
Maybe if we start requiring emails to be signed by a user's keys, and keys would only be certified if you donated money to a charity or something; then we could blacklist keys if enough users reported them as sending spam [uh-oh, joe job ahead]... oh well...
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP (X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack (X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck (X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
We're certainly hearing voices of people who aren't present; those of RMS, Larry Lessig and NYCL in particular.
Our thoughts are incoherent: watch the word salad that some of the trolls spew out.
We're also delusional: we hold the fixed belief that Microsoft are evil and Open Source is good, despite Novell selling out and Microsoft uhmm... well they do try to do something good.
Social cognition is pretty impaired in all of us, and there's a lot of avolition going on: we all sit on our asses and complain instead of doing something about it.
Yep, it matches pretty good;)
Perhaps you meant multiple or dissociative personality disorder?
In addition: explain how one can build an altimeter from an accelerometer of a known mass by using Newton's laws of gravity. Explain that the wiimote is too coarse-grained to measure the difference between ocean level and the peak of mount everest.
If I remember my calculations right, it might juuuust be feasible to measure the difference between the deepest ocean and the tallest mountain (here on earth, of course), but you need a very steady hand to pick up the difference. It'll be lost in noise.
I'm probably not one of the first million people to come up with this idea, but a wiimote can be used as a hook to get the target audience interested (if they like it, of course).
There's the infrared camera. You can use that to teach about light and the visible vs. invisible spectrum. If you have a good lens, or a glass of water, you can bend the light of some infrared source and go into optics.
There's the speaker, which lets you talk about sound waves. If it ever gets done and I publish it, look out for "wiitones", a program that lets you generate sinus tones with frequencies controlled by pointing the wiimote. Or write one yourself (I recommend SDL for audio: it's simple and portable).
It runs on batteries. You can talk about electricity and the chemistry of batteries.
There's a circuit board with some logic. That lets you talk about higher abstraction level electronics, and the engineering wisdom of abstraction.
There's the accelerometer. That lets you talk about acceleration and Newtonian mechanics. It also lets you talk about how one might build an accelerometer. I think I heard that using conductive springs and measuring the some electric property works. You can talk about springs here if you like.
It does communication via bluetooth. That lets you talk about radio, and how it's similar to and different from light.
You can drop it and see that it holds together. Then drop it from a taller height and see that it breaks. Talk about the physics behind it [kinetic energy enters into it].
If you have two wiimotes and want to find the breaking height of a wiimote on a discrete axis with only one of them breaking, you can talk about dynamic programming.
And you can bring home the point that there's a lot of science made manifest in the engineering around us all the time.
I'm not commenting on who of the two is the lesser evil. If you want to know my political views, read my other posts or ask me. I claim to be indifferent to race; I'm a white male in a white culture and an independent observer is a better judge of whether my behavior matches my thoughts, so take it with a grain of salt, but at the same time compare it to people who explicitly say they prefer one race over another in some way.
Sorry for the self-reply. I just don't want people to be unclear about whether I'm only joking or also bringing out implicit racial slurs. I'm only joking:)
I mean, assume for argument's sake that this technique actually worked.
Clearly it doesn't! If it worked, we should expect more people to be in search of the divine being after seeing the growing presence of the holy attire, now things are cooling off.
I would have thought that hundreds of years of dogs tracking people would have proved this, but it's nice to know that science has figured it out officially now.
. First of all, tracking is not identifying. Second of all, if two people have the same scent but non-overlapping movement paths, you can successfully track the one whose path you're on, so ability to track is not a very pure way of measuring smell-based distinguishability. Thirdly, dogs probably have vastly different ability levels for tracking by smell vs. tracking by fingerprint due to the two leaving different amounts of trail material. Fourthly throughout these years, have comparisons been made between smell-dogs and print-dogs? And fifthly, just because the market uses dogs to track on smell doesn't mean it's the best way to even track people: there may be market inertia factors and/or cost/benefit ratios that favor using smelling dogs. . Science has not figured out that hunting by smell works. They've found out that odors are better than fingerprints for identifying people. If it had gone the other way, should we all go and replace our dogs? No, they probably work best in practice, due to better hardware support for the odor-based tracking.
but I want to see every nook and cranny available to me.
If you just want to see it, that probably leans towards archieve/explorer. If you also want to win the nooks and crannies at some point, that learn more towards a pure archiever.
I know self-replies are bad form. I also know that I wrote Microsoft some places where 'Linux' would've been more appropriate. Sorry for the confusion.
This post advocates a
(X) common sense ( ) spell-checker ( ) semantic verifier
approach to fighting Micorsoft. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from sovereign nation to sovereign nation before a bad UN law was passed.)
(X) Nigerians can easily use it to harvest dollars ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop Microsoft for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it (X) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from Spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Microsoft cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy Microsoft's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (X) Nigerian reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of Microsoft ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (X) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
What really fascinates me is that the people high up in the EU governance food chain think that the business interests of a US company is more important to the citizens of the European Union than information about what their money is being spent on.
Slashdot Mirror
The Lazy Gun was invented by Shampoo.
Agreed. Single-factor authentication based on something that's not reissuable is a recipe for failure.
Very true, and very bad. On top of that, add a horribly broken authentication protocol:
You send your username to the authenticating party in the clear, and they verify that it matches their stored copy of your username.
Hello... ? What's the password, here? I can't think of any way to copy your fingerprint off that laptop I just stole from you. Nor do I ever get the idea to produce a workable replica of your iris from the hi-res photo I have in my database.
On the web, where you send your site-specific password (use pwdhash or your own concoction), encrypted, to the authenticating party (say, a hypothetical sane slashdot), so they can match it against their stored copy, fine; they can't authenticate as you anywhere else [because you use different passwords] and no one else can authenticate as you on slashdot because they only got the encrypted password.
If you could have a different iris per username, that'd be fine if you walked around with sunglasses all day. Or if you had a different finger per site and always wore gloves.
Biometric data: fine for naming a person. Not fine for proving that you are the named person [or else I'm gonna' be Sleeping Katana Warrior, Mask-and-Cape Blogger and Glowing-Eye Spaceman all in one just because I say so].
I consider biometrics something that is intended to replace typing in a username
And wisely so. Biometric data is an identifier--it's something with a one-to-one mapping to an identity (here: a pile of cells). Other common identifiers are SSNs, usernames, user IDs, RSA public keys and sha1 hashes [the one-to-one-ness works well in practice for sha1, but of course not in theory].
Identifiers are not authenticators. A good authenticator for any given identifier requires that only the identified thing can produce the authenticator; except in one-time schemes, performing the authentication should not allow anyone else to authenticate as you later on. It also requires that they one you're trying to prove something to can verify what you're claiming.
A good authenticator for a public key is a signature on a random string. [make sure the one validating you knows how the signature looks before you send it; use a commitment scheme].
A bad way to authenticate is by sending a copy of the private key [or for sha1 hashes, the string that hashes to the given hash].
Biometric authentication "works" by having the identifier be the authenticator, and the authentication protocol works by sending a copy of the authenticator:
You put your iris in front of the scanner and it does a "SELECT permissions FROM users WHERE iris = %s" [without the horrible SQL injection possibilities, of course]. What's to stop those who look up your iris from creating a replica? If you work by fingerprints, I send my goons to follow you around. When you open or close a door, they take your print and produce a rubber replica.
An analogy would be that you learn a word that only you can pronounce, and the authentication works by you saying the word aloud, such that everyone in your vicinity can hear it. "Only you can pronounce", I don't buy that.
Oxygen is good.
Oxygen was invented by Shampoo.
RESET_REG_SUP was invented by Shampoo
I'd be happier if they changed it to "News for Labradors"
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
zsh% apt-cache search kaspersky
zsh%
Back in March 2001
Back then I was still in high school [now I'm a Ph.D. student]. The twin towers still stood. The Bush administration hasn't shown its true colors yet. The Fellowship of the Ring was all the buzz, as was the first Harry Potter film. I had just dipped my feet into "this Linux thing", with Red Hat 6.2. Back then, fips [First Indestructive Partitioning System or something] didn't exactly live up to its name. Good thing I never keep backups :(
Think back seven years. Where were you? How many times have you changed occupation, had kids, changed partner, moved to a new city, changed your lifestyle habits, reconsidered your core values and beliefs, or made some other big change in your life?
The name LEGO is derived from the Danish words "LE GOdt" (play good).
"Le godt" [pron: ~~~"meh gut", s/m/l/] means "laugh well". "Leg godt" [pron: ~"lie gut"] means "play well".
"godt" also means "good", but "well" is the right word to use here.
I can make out this:
Lego was at the European Court gestapt in the fight against the Canadia competitor Mega Brands, who has brought to the market a block that passes for those from Lego. The court oordeelde vandaag that the ontwerp van Lego isn't proctected through the European trademark and that er dus geen sprake mag is van exclusive right.
Run that through dict-freedict-nld-eng and a copywriter to get some sensible english. Or run it through kenny to get
Pmfmppmfmppf fppmmmfmm mmmfmp fmpmfpmpp Mppfmfpffppfpfmmppmmmppp Mmfppffmfpfffmp mfmmppfmmfmpmmmpfmfmp mffppp fmpmfpmpp mpfmffmfmmfpfmp mmmmfmmmmmffpppfmmfmp fmpmfpmpp Mmfmmmpppmmmmpmmffmmm mmfppfppmpfmmppfmpmfffmpppfpff Ppmmppmfmmmm Mmppffmmmpppmpmfmm, fppmfpppf mfpmmmfmm mmppffppffmfmfmmfpfmp fmpppf fmpmfpmpp ppmmmmpffpmpmppfmp mmm mmppmfppfmmfpmp fmpmfpmmmfmp pfmmmmfmmfmmmppfmm mpfppfpff fmpmfpppffmmmpp mpfpffppfppm Pmfmppmfmppf. Fmpmfpmpp mmfppffmfpfffmp ppfppfpffmpmmppmpppmfmpmmpp fpmmmmpppmpmmmmmmmmfm fmpmfpmmmfmp fmpmfpmpp ppfpppfmpfppmpppffpfm fpmmmmppp Pmfmppmfmppf mfffmmppp'fmp pfmpffppfmmffmpmppmmffmpmppmpm fmpmfppffppffmfmfmmfp fmpmfpmpp Mppfmfpffppfpfmmppmmmppp fmppffmmmmpmmppppmmmmpffpmp mmmpppmpm fmpmfpmmmfmp mpppff mpmfmffmm mfmmppmppppp fmmpfmpffmmmpmpmpp ppmmmmmfm mfffmm fpmmmmppp mppfpfmmfpmffmffmmmfffpmmpp pffmffmfmmfpfmp.
(apt-get install filters)
The ONLY way to attack this problem is to go after the advertisers who are willing to use spam as a medium to sell product.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative (X) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money.
(X) The police will not put up with it.
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business.
(X) Jurisdictional problems.
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
And my favorite...
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
You're (in most cases) right: the cause of spam is the profitability of spam. We need to make it not profitable.
There's technical problems in altering the flow of mail, and there's jurisdictional problems in handling the flow of cash.
Maybe if we start requiring emails to be signed by a user's keys, and keys would only be certified if you donated money to a charity or something; then we could blacklist keys if enough users reported them as sending spam [uh-oh, joe job ahead]... oh well...
Or change the protocol set to something that can still work with anonymous yet non-commercial/legal mail.
Sure, that's easy. Here's a few things to think about:
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Slashdot is schizophrenic about copyright
We're certainly hearing voices of people who aren't present; those of RMS, Larry Lessig and NYCL in particular.
Our thoughts are incoherent: watch the word salad that some of the trolls spew out.
We're also delusional: we hold the fixed belief that Microsoft are evil and Open Source is good, despite Novell selling out and Microsoft uhmm... well they do try to do something good.
Social cognition is pretty impaired in all of us, and there's a lot of avolition going on: we all sit on our asses and complain instead of doing something about it.
Yep, it matches pretty good ;)
Perhaps you meant multiple or dissociative personality disorder?
(laundry list of symptoms taken from wikipedia).
In addition: explain how one can build an altimeter from an accelerometer of a known mass by using Newton's laws of gravity. Explain that the wiimote is too coarse-grained to measure the difference between ocean level and the peak of mount everest.
If I remember my calculations right, it might juuuust be feasible to measure the difference between the deepest ocean and the tallest mountain (here on earth, of course), but you need a very steady hand to pick up the difference. It'll be lost in noise.
I'm probably not one of the first million people to come up with this idea, but a wiimote can be used as a hook to get the target audience interested (if they like it, of course).
And you can bring home the point that there's a lot of science made manifest in the engineering around us all the time.
Men compete over the stupidest shit. Literally.
The pun works much better by replacing "stupid" with "dense" :)
I'm not commenting on who of the two is the lesser evil. If you want to know my political views, read my other posts or ask me. I claim to be indifferent to race; I'm a white male in a white culture and an independent observer is a better judge of whether my behavior matches my thoughts, so take it with a grain of salt, but at the same time compare it to people who explicitly say they prefer one race over another in some way.
Sorry for the self-reply. I just don't want people to be unclear about whether I'm only joking or also bringing out implicit racial slurs. I'm only joking :)
I mean, assume for argument's sake that this technique actually worked.
Clearly it doesn't! If it worked, we should expect more people to be in search of the divine being after seeing the growing presence of the holy attire, now things are cooling off.
See http://www.google.com/trends?q=pirates%2Cglobal+warming%2Cflying+spaghetti+monster&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
Also, around election time, we should have seen a big blue spike.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=lesser+evil%2Ccthulhu&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
I would have thought that hundreds of years of dogs tracking people would have proved this, but it's nice to know that science has figured it out officially now.
.
First of all, tracking is not identifying. Second of all, if two people have the same scent but non-overlapping movement paths, you can successfully track the one whose path you're on, so ability to track is not a very pure way of measuring smell-based distinguishability. Thirdly, dogs probably have vastly different ability levels for tracking by smell vs. tracking by fingerprint due to the two leaving different amounts of trail material. Fourthly throughout these years, have comparisons been made between smell-dogs and print-dogs? And fifthly, just because the market uses dogs to track on smell doesn't mean it's the best way to even track people: there may be market inertia factors and/or cost/benefit ratios that favor using smelling dogs.
.
Science has not figured out that hunting by smell works. They've found out that odors are better than fingerprints for identifying people. If it had gone the other way, should we all go and replace our dogs? No, they probably work best in practice, due to better hardware support for the odor-based tracking.
but I want to see every nook and cranny available to me.
If you just want to see it, that probably leans towards archieve/explorer. If you also want to win the nooks and crannies at some point, that learn more towards a pure archiever.
Nothing's black and white, of course :)
I know self-replies are bad form. I also know that I wrote Microsoft some places where 'Linux' would've been more appropriate. Sorry for the confusion.
This post advocates a
(X) common sense ( ) spell-checker ( ) semantic verifier
-based approach to reading my above post.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) spam-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting Micorsoft. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws which used to vary from sovereign nation to sovereign nation before a bad UN law was passed.)
(X) Nigerians can easily use it to harvest dollars
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop Microsoft for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from Spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Microsoft cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy Microsoft's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(X) Nigerian reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of Microsoft
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
I'm sure the point is that you shouldn't be igniting any plant substances in these places as per the fire code.
If fire safety depends on people not smoking, perhaps they shouldn't run around singing "I built this house of straw"...
So what you're trying to say is something like this:
ip law add route null
What really fascinates me is that the people high up in the EU governance food chain think that the business interests of a US company is more important to the citizens of the European Union than information about what their money is being spent on.