whenever I give out an address online, I make it unique to the recipient...
recipient_info__date@my.com
If that address ever gets spammed, I send an email to the person who gave out my address thanking them for the spam and informing them that they can have the rest of it. Then I permanently redirect that address to some permanent email address of theirs (like sales@ or service@) so they can deal with the consequences of their actions (and I no longer have to).
For telemarkerters:
tell the insurance folks you're immortal
tell the newspaper folks you're illiterate
tell the telephone folks you're telepathic
tell anyone else that you're in the middle of some satisfying goatsex, and that they can piss off unless they're Natalie Portman and want to hear the goat bleat.
Any San Diego residents reading this...
check out the tunnels every chance you get.
they're constantly creating access points when
they build new stuff
Don't do anything nasty to the user's computer, just grab all the addresses in their addressbook and email them to yourself. (make sure you have a very high powered server set up to handle the traffic).
Then sell them!
You can sell them for more money perhaps since you know something about the users (ie: they use Windows and Outlook) which makes your list a targeted list at that.
As I understand it, usolicited faxes are against federal code. Could not Microsoft be asked to pay $500 per Section 227(b)(3)(C) for transmitting this fax? They certainly can't claim "it's not our fault: the software did it" since the software is also their responsability in this case. -matt
Fatal rampages happen very very rarely in our schools. Drunk driving fatalities and date rape happen far too frequently to even make the press.
Why don't we develope a profile for these perps?
Do you think schools would be as eager to accept a profiling system if it targeted their best athletes? I don't think so, not when they cave to community presure to hire better coaches over better teachers.
You all remember Microsoft getting the bogus CSS patent a while back, right?
Well, they never sued anyone over that CSS patent.
...but Amazon is going to sue over their bogus cookies-tied-to-database patent.
Why? What's the difference here?
Well, amazon only has a few patents, and no real likelyhood for developing a vast quantity more.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has more patents (this was by no means a thourough search) and the potential to accrue a great deal more IP, including a fair amount which might be considered by you or me to be bogus.
Microsoft can use theses bogus IP claims to muscle little guys who cannot afford decent legal representation, or to procure small favors which would be less costly to a large corp than proving a patent bogus. By being carefull who they bring to court, MS can do their best to ensure that their IP is never closely scrutinzed, and that a whole mess of current and potential future bogus IP isn't removed from their possesion.
Microsoft is carefull so that they can continue to benefit from bogus IP.
Amazon has very little to gain from bogus IP, now or in the future. It serves them very little to sit on their one-click patent and try to muscle other corps for their ecommerce solution. It was probably something of a tossup to them whether they should sue or not.
Hypothetical amazon.com board room discussion:
OK guys, BN is really cutting into our market share here, what are we going to do about it?
We're already doing everything we can boss... I think we're either going to have to lower our salaries or just settle for less than 100% of the market.
There must be something we can do! I've got four alimony payments each month, and the insurance on my new jaguar is unbearable.
Well, I think we have some sort of patent or something on our shopping system. Maybe we could stiff them with that.
That's a pretty questionable patent, don't you think?
Yeah, well... what else are we going to do with the patent now that we've got it? Either we try to use it in court or we just sit on it forever.
Hmmm.... Either we win and really hurt BN and then get to screw all of our other competition as well, and even rake in some fees from non-competitors.... or we loose, and we're just out a bit of legal expense.
That's about it.
OK... I think the cost-benefit is worth it.
I'll get legal on it right away!
Next Topic: What sort of marketing crap should we package with each order next month?
.....
So, Amazon has little to loose, and a great deal to gain. It is very worth their while to sue.
It is also good for us that they sue provided that the right thing happens, and they also loose.
A loss in this suit would give nice legal precidence for folks to use when standing up to the bogus IP muscling by folks like MS.
Hmmm.... I wonder if BN will settle out of court, paying funds to Amazon.com after a mysterious "investment" from MS... or maybe just an anonymous source.
you can't fool 100,000 pairs of eyeballs, no matter how hard you try to distract them, nor can you outshout 100,000 angry mouths yelling against you
Obviously you've never used Lotus Notes. Somehow IBM still has oodles of suckers buying and using this product, and faithfully upgrading to every new buggy version, all the while complaining. The angry customers are easily outshouted, and the IS departments are easily fooled... each time. I don't pretend to understand it myself. -matt
Soon MicroSoft will be joined by real competition here. See: RFC2706 (ECML v1: Field Names for E-Commerce)
Customers are frequently required to enter substantial amounts of information at an Internet merchant site in order to complete a purchase or other transaction, especially the first time they go there. A standard set of information fields is defined as the first version of an Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML) so that this task can be more easily automated, for example by wallet software that could fill in fields. Even for the manual data entry case, customers will be less confused by varying merchant sites if a substantial number adopt these standard fields.
Slashdot Mirror
whenever I give out an address online, I make it unique to the recipient...
recipient_info__date@my.com
If that address ever gets spammed, I send an email to the person who gave out my address thanking them for the spam and informing them that they can have the rest of it. Then I permanently redirect that address to some permanent email address of theirs (like sales@ or service@) so they can deal with the consequences of their actions (and I no longer have to).
For telemarkerters:
tell the insurance folks you're immortal
tell the newspaper folks you're illiterate
tell the telephone folks you're telepathic
tell anyone else that you're in the middle of some satisfying goatsex, and that they can piss off unless they're Natalie Portman and want to hear the goat bleat.
Any San Diego residents reading this...
:)
check out the tunnels every chance you get.
they're constantly creating access points when
they build new stuff
have fun
I hope they tax the hell out of blank canvas too.
We artists are sick and tired of that stuff being
used to create forgeries of honest paintings.
err... 3.5" ...whatever...
they moved to std 3.25" floppies too
"view source" on above comment to read the formated code
-matt
Don't do anything nasty to the user's computer, just grab all the addresses in their addressbook and email them to yourself. (make sure you have a very high powered server set up to handle the traffic).
Then sell them!
You can sell them for more money perhaps since you know something about the users (ie: they use Windows and Outlook) which makes your list a targeted list at that.
-matt
As I understand it, usolicited faxes are against federal code. Could not Microsoft be asked to pay $500 per Section 227(b)(3)(C) for transmitting this fax? They certainly can't claim "it's not our fault: the software did it" since the software is also their responsability in this case. -matt
Fatal rampages happen very very rarely in our schools. Drunk driving fatalities and date rape happen far too frequently to even make the press.
Why don't we develope a profile for these perps?
Do you think schools would be as eager to accept a profiling system if it targeted their best athletes? I don't think so, not when they cave to community presure to hire better coaches over better teachers.
...sigh...
-matt
Well, they never sued anyone over that CSS patent.
Why? What's the difference here?
Well, amazon only has a few patents, and no real likelyhood for developing a vast quantity more.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has more patents (this was by no means a thourough search) and the potential to accrue a great deal more IP, including a fair amount which might be considered by you or me to be bogus.
Microsoft can use theses bogus IP claims to muscle little guys who cannot afford decent legal representation, or to procure small favors which would be less costly to a large corp than proving a patent bogus. By being carefull who they bring to court, MS can do their best to ensure that their IP is never closely scrutinzed, and that a whole mess of current and potential future bogus IP isn't removed from their possesion.
Microsoft is carefull so that they can continue to benefit from bogus IP.
Amazon has very little to gain from bogus IP, now or in the future. It serves them very little to sit on their one-click patent and try to muscle other corps for their ecommerce solution. It was probably something of a tossup to them whether they should sue or not.
Hypothetical amazon.com board room discussion:
So, Amazon has little to loose, and a great deal to gain. It is very worth their while to sue.
It is also good for us that they sue provided that the right thing happens, and they also loose.
A loss in this suit would give nice legal precidence for folks to use when standing up to the bogus IP muscling by folks like MS.
Hmmm.... I wonder if BN will settle out of court, paying funds to Amazon.com after a mysterious "investment" from MS... or maybe just an anonymous source.
-matt
Soon MicroSoft will be joined by real competition here. See: RFC2706 (ECML v1: Field Names for E-Commerce)