514 posts • joined Monday 9th April 2007 06:24 GMT
How much free speech can you afford?
If it means disagreeing with the Koch brothers, maybe you should keep your fingers far away from the keyboard, eh?
Watch me get in trouble now: I think they are worthless scum. They did NOTHING to earn their fortune, and everything they have done to protect and increase their fortune has been on the scale from morally despicable to purely evil.
It's not that there are no new ideas under the sun
The problem is that Microsoft doesn't own the sun. Basically just an agreement with the post I'm replying to, but I would like to dig a bit deeper into the fundamental anti-innovation company that Microsoft has become. There are lots of new things that could be done with PCs, and some of them that even call for legitimate improvements in the OS, but unless Microsoft sees the SAFE profits, they are going to continue doing everything they can to stifle all significant innovation.
The dynamics are kind of simple. There are only a few basic ways to get to the top. Being lucky is the most common, though I'm willing to say that Microsoft may have simply had good timing. Extremely hard work is a possibility, but actually one of the least likely paths unless combined with some luck and good timing.
However, once a company does get to the top, by any path, the situation changes. There are only three basic options. One, continue struggling harder than ever to remain #1. Two, relax and slump down in the ratings. Three, do everything you can to prevent anyone else from getting close to you. These days that mostly means bribing politicians to make laws that perpetuate your monopoly position, where the monopoly is more or less disguised.
Borrowing from the Microsoft economic models
I think it is more significant to compare this with Microsoft's business models in terms of distancing Apple from the actual users. It's quite a bit like Microsoft selling directly to the manufacturers and to the devil with the software preferences of the actual users at the bottom of the hole. I think this will be ultimately destructive of Apple just as it has make Microsoft into a brake against innovation. I'm not quite sure how it will work, because I do admit that Apple has been genuinely innovative in many cases in the past, whereas Microsoft has only purchased or stolen the relatively few innovations it has propagated.
Hey, morons! You want to make your email system compelling attractive?
If Yahoo wanted to make their email system compellingly attractive, all they have to do is remove the spam. Okay, they can't get all of it, but they can certainly do VASTLY better than the current patty-cake games.
What I would like to have would be a integrated spam-fighting system WAY beyond the stupid 'report spam' button. It would run through several rounds of analysis and confirmation, identifying just what the spam is and letting me help with the targeting of the most appropriate countermeasures. The objectives are simple: Disrupt ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and help and protect ALL of the spammers' victims. Remove the profits and the spammers will not become decent human beings, but most of them will move under other rocks of much lower visibility and annoyance. If Yahoo Mail actually the best system of this type, then the spammers would develop and allergy to Yahoo.
Lots of wrinkles possible, but sadly Yahoo is too near bankruptcy to tackle it. Though it would be an inconvenience to me and many other people, at this point I believe that Yahoo's bankruptcy would be an even bigger hassle for the spammers.
If the spam problem were reduced, then this would be reduced, too
Excellent example of why the major email providers should actually try to disrupt the spammers' business models. It's the total volume of garbage that makes it easier for these sorts of crooks to run their scams.
My own suggestion remains integrated multi-round anti-spammer tools that would allow volunteers to disrupt every part of the spammers' infrastructure and pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices. No, you better not give me a rope or a nuclear bomb, because I would push that button several times a second, but I really want to help with the targeting against the spammers.
Here's another trivial wrinkle that could be done with this approach: You could agree to let other spam fighters use your probable spam in their spam-fighting efforts. As I would like to set it, if I'm not online when spam arrives, other volunteers could compare it with their own fresh spam, and if two of them agree it's spam, then it would disappear from my spam folder or move from my inbox to the spam folder.
By the way, the reason freshness matters is because the spammers need time to reach the human suckers. If their dropboxes and websites are nuked before they can get any suckers, then their business model stops working so well.
You mean the google is going to loosen up their ToS?
The headline really made me laugh. The google has been censoring me for several years. I'm not even sure what services it covers, though it certainly spans most of their help systems. However, the infuriating part is that the google never said which of the many clauses of the ToS I was in violation of. This started a couple of years ago, so they've had plenty of time to say something, ANYTHING, if they wanted to, but they obviously don't want to. To heck with you puny human life forms, says the google of EVIL.
For what little it's worth, my theory is that it was my potty mouth that got me in trouble. The research claims that obscenities may reveal your emotional sincerity, and sometimes I get a bit too sincere? Or is it my military experience? Serving my country seems to have expanded my vocabulary in the wrong directions, but I've heard that they don't swear nearly as much these days. (They just go nuts from insanely repeated deployments. My timing was much luckier, and I am happy to note (or claim?) that I had no actual combat experience.)
Silly idea, but how about if Yahoo increases it's value?
For example, Yahoo could stop being the spammer's BFF. Yahoo could create anti-spammer tools that would disrupt or even destroy many of the spammers' business models. I know Yahoo doesn't have the resources anymore, but they could ask us for help, and leverage some of our spammer dislike (and hatred) into an actual fondness for Yahoo. Silly idea, eh what?
The amusing part is that by reducing the spam, Yahoo could actually increase the value of the entire Internet along with their own value. ROFLMAO. Yahoo? Do something to make the world better?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Not saying this power is absolute, but the google is already far down the path of EVIL, especially in censorship, and I don't see how this new power is going to make things better. Guess who is going to decide what is included in the excerpts and what gets censored.
Hint: Guck foogle and the horse it rode in on.
(My theory is that much of the censorship targeted against me is due to my emotional and sincere use of profanity, but I learned it when I was supposedly serving my country. Well, most of it, and certainly the frequency was increased.)
Business model of domain squatting versus REAL value
I hate to beg for the upvotes, but how many of you think that Yahoo should focus on REAL value.
For a while I actually worked for a fellow who 'invested' a lot of the VC money in domain speculation. After a while I left and a while after that he went bankrupt. Yahoo is overdue.
My own favorite REAL investment for Yahoo would be to add some EFFECTIVE anti-spammer-business-model tools into Yahoo Mail. The basic idea would be to make it MUCH easier for people who hate spam to disrupt the spammers' business models.
Can you imagine how much value it would add to Yahoo Mail if the spammers were actually afraid of Yahoo because spamming there tended to lose money? I'm not advocating for vigilante tools, I just think we should be allowed to help with the targeting, especially faster targeting so that the spammers can't reach their suckers and get any money.
Then again, if I did have a button to push to nuke the spammers, I can't guarantee I wouldn't press it. At least not oftener than several times per second.
Linux needs better financial models
Pretty good example of what is wrong with the big donor financial model. When the big donor makes bad decisions, the project goes down. Rather late for Ubuntu, which has already suffered from far too many bad decisions. At one point I had high hopes that Ubuntu would become a viable competitor for Windows and iOS, but now I cannot recommend Ubuntu to anyone (though I still run it on at least three or four computers).
Rather than go into the weeds of what went wrong, let me just briefly refer to the economic model that I think would be better. I don't think there's anything wrong with Linux in a technical sense, but it is absolutely clear that the economic models used by Microsoft and Apple work, even in support of inferior software, whereas the economic model used by Ubuntu has not worked. I recommend "reverse auction charity shares", where the donors would in essence pool their donations to guide the specific direction of the software development.
Re: Cool..but also oddly disturbing
My conclusion or belief is that they are out there, but after evolving into machine intelligences, they are basically just amused by watching the various solutions of the natural intelligences. In other words, I strongly suspect the evolution of the machine intelligences is convergent, but that they leave us alone, either because they don't care or because they are gambling on whether or not we will exterminate ourselves. I suppose another possibility is that they might occasionally intervene to prevent us from exterminating ourselves. (Maybe that's what happened when we almost went extinct about 50,000 years ago...)
In more detail, some of my old ramblings on the topic:
Fast horizontal elevator?
Interesting idea, but how often would you want to ride in what is essentially a fast horizontal elevator? I think it might more sense to rethink it in economic terms of network linkage where you can actually justify the cost in terms of sufficient numbers of human beings who have to move between points.
At least in my case, I certainly doubt that I would often want to ride an elevator for 30 minutes at a time.
Can't blame you for being so afraid of the EVIL google 2.0 that you prefer the AC. There must be some reason why I don't care anymore.
At one point I used to like the google and think the company might even make the world a better place.
Now I regard the google as EVIL leaders, including in their lobbying expenses. The reality is that most businesspeople are not evil, but most businesspeople are not bribing the politicians. It is a small minority of the greediest and least ethical businessmen who are paying the cheapest professional politicians to write the laws that basically require all large American companies to become EVIL just to survive. Last reports I read said that the google is the leading legalized briber among high tech companies.
guck foogle, and twice on Sundays.
the google is now officially EVIL
In theory, the google has the information to warn you if you may be at risk. In reality, guck foogle and the horse you rode in on.
Here's a related story from Japan. It's from a couple of months ago, which mostly proves that the google is too EVIL to fix or even look at such problems even AFTER the barn door has been left open.
Today I'm actually in the same prefecture where the criminals were arrested. There were (at least) 7 of them (as reported to the public), led by a poker shark, which I translate as a professional gambler and probably yakuza (a kind of professional criminal in Japan, sort of like being in a biker gang, but generally with better discipline). The scam involved a number of Android apps, some of which had apparently been available on the Google Play website for a long time. There were a variety of apps, none of which were labeled "software supporting crime". Surprise, surprise.
After the story hit the papers and Web, I actually contacted the police to see if they could identify the apps. The vague report indicated that several of them were games of the sort that I might have tried for the sake of Japanese study. I'm not surprised that the police couldn't answer, but I also pursued the matter with the google. I accept that the police are not especially competent when it comes to cyber-crime, but the google has no excuse save being EVIL.
By the way, I used to think it wasn't the google's fault. They are forced to play the game by American rules, which means according to laws that are written by the most easily bribed politicians working for the (tiny minority of) least ethical and greediest businessmen. Of course large American companies are basically forced to become evil just to survive. Then I found out that the google has become a large, probably the largest, lobbyist among high-tech companies. That is the google's fault. EVIL is as the google does.
Why not tell us if we are at risk for the crimes the google sponsored? Evidently because we don't work for the NSA.
The crowd HATES spam
I think this would basically work, but you would need to have an interface to SMTP email, and that side of the email would remain polluted. I think a better way to attack the spammers' business models would be an integrated anti-spam tool built into the email system.
Right now we have "Report spam" button that simply tunes the spam filters a bit. Imagine a "Hunt spam" button that would trigger an analysis of the spam. You would get a webform of your analyzed spam, with embedded radio buttons to confirm the analysis. You would confirm or reject the various results, and then submit, and it would send you another webform based on those results. The second analysis would be more refined, and it might go for several rounds until all of the aspects of the spam had been confirmed, and you had recommended the most plausible countermeasures.
Of course we shouldn't be allowed to form a lynch mob, but we can help with the targeting against the spammers. We can disrupt ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and help ALL of the spammers' victims. The profits of spam will go down, and the value of the Internet will go up.
This is not the spam your filter was looking for
That's why the spammers' love spam filtering. Live and let spam is the business motto of such incompetents as Yahoo and EVIL spam-lovers as the google. I'll give Microsoft a bit of credit for at least hitting on the spammers upstream.
Why doesn't anyone give US (the vast majority of people who hate spam and spammers) some integrated and effective spam-fighting tools? Don't you want to disrupt the spammers' infrastructure? Wouldn't you like to pursue all of the spammers' accomplices? How about helping the spammers' victims?
Actually, it doesn't matter if you personally say no. There are lots of good people who want to be better, and if we had the tools, we would make the spammers' lives much more miserable than they are. You may think that is difficult, but don't you even want to find out?
Well, I suppose every little bandaid helps, but...
Why doesn't Yahoo go after the spammers' business models? Well, apart from their increasingly evident incompetence, maybe it's because they just don't have enough humanpower. So why don't they let us help?
Here's the numbers. There aren't that many spammers and they are hunting for an extremely small number of fools who feed them. In contrast, there are a VAST number of people who don't like, dare I say HATE, spam. If Yahoo leveraged the big number against the small ones, then the spammers could not make money. I'm not saying they would become decent human beings, but at least they would go looking for more profitable rocks to live under.
I'm suggesting integrated spam-fighting tools that would allow us to annotate the characteristics of the spam for the most suitable countermeasures. Of course they can't let us pull the triggers (talk about your instant lynch mobs), but at least we can help aim the weapons. Yahoo obviously can't do it alone, but I really want to help go after ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and help or protect ALL of the spammers' victims. (Well, maybe not quite all of the spammers' victims. I confess that there are some despicable companies that rather deserve abuse from the spammers--but that's okay. Insofar as those companies are not despicable to other people, I'm sure they'll get some help anyway and it's no skin off my nose, as they say.)
Sounds crazy and backwards
The proper solution is to put a base station in each carriage. Perfect wireless signal all the time. The 'backbone' could either be handled with a wired connection, perhaps transmitted in the rails, or with an expansion of the same system the railway company uses to communicate with the drivers on the trains. If it is a wireless link, there's certainly no shortage of power there. Compared to the juice they need to move the trains, the communicates power would be a blip in the error term.
However, what I really want is a talking car where all the phone people can go. I want it so I can sit elsewhere. Unfortunately, I think if you put it to a vote of the passengers, you'd probably wind up with 9 talking cars full of NOISE for each quiet car.
Okay, now I have to go to far. How about USB electricity vending sockets on the talking cars?
Blackmail as a business model, eh?
Life imitates art, and Microsoft must be imitating the neo-GOP in America. Blackmail is NOT the best way of doing business, but bean counters have no qualms about extortion if it seems to add shareholder value (or attract more lobbyists, in the Congressional case).
I've been using Windows 7 for a while now on a couple of machines. If I had the choice, I don't see any reason to do so. As far as I know, there is not a single new feature that I need or use. (There is one feature I do like and probably would use, but it is deliberately crippled by the ISP involved with that machine. However, even that feature is possible with Windows XP, though it's more difficult to do.)
In short, I'm only using Windows 7 because I was forced to adopt it. There is NOTHING there that would actually make me want to replace Windows XP. If Microsoft had the guts to offer the choice, I would probably be willing to pay a SMALL amount for improvements to Windows XP, but if Windows XP were competing FREELY against Windows 7, it would have to be a very small amount.
WIndows 8? Sorry, Microsoft, your extortion needs to be ramped up. However, I hate dealing with extortionists.
Let's fix the #1 problem with email: SPAM
Hey, here's a silly idea. Gmail doesn't need more capacity, it needs LESS spam. Why doesn't the google give us some powerful and effective anti-spam tools that allow us (the VAST majority of us who hate spam) help target and destroy the spammers' business models? If you cut them away from the few suckers who feed them money or personal data or zombie computers, then the spammers will not become decent human beings, but at least some of them will move under less visible rocks. Apart from their sociopathic greed, the spammers are also lazy bastards, and if you increase the required effort, many of them will look for easier scams.
Actually, I admit that Gmail has more anti-spammer tools than some of the other email systems. You could even argue that Gmail is the leading email system--but you'd have to twist and turn to find the justifications. For example, below is the link to one of their "best" anti-spammer tools, but if you study how it actually works, you have to conclude it is a piece of garbage compared to what it could be.
Tedious and effectively useless, but it could be made into something useful--though it has been substantially unchanged for as long as I can recall.
So why is the google so tolerant of spammers? I'm convinced it is because of the EVIL that has taken over the company. I used to think it mostly wasn't their fault. After all, the American legal system is written by the most easily corrupted politicians working for the least ethical and greediest businessmen. Of course the rules of the business game reward EVIL. Then I found out that the google is so EVIL as to be the leading lobbyist among tech firms. If you can't beat 'em, join in the EVIL game, eh?
Following the money to security
That's why Google Play should have a "financial model" tab in the Android app library. The developer should explain where the money is supposed to come from or why he is developing and offering this app, and Google should add a comment (that the developer cannot modify). It can be as vague or as specific as the developer wants to get, and Google doesn't have to say anything substantive about it. Here are some examples:
Developer: My revenue will come from the professional version of the app.
Google: For every 10 free versions, 3 professional versions have been downloaded.
Developer: My revenue will come from advertising.
Google: The developer is participating in our advertising program and has received revenue ranking him in the second quartile of advertising-based developers.
Developer: My application development is supported by Company X to support their hardware.
Google: We contacted Company X and did receive confirmation that this developer is receiving some funding, but no details.
Developer: I am independently wealthy and I'm creating this app out of the goodness of my heart.
Google: We have no evidence supporting this funding model.
Just what I was thinking
I'm okay with it as long as they let ME store MY personal data at MY specified location under MY specified disclosure policies. If someone wants to check ANY of MY personal information, first they should tell me why, and then MY preferences would control whether or not the access is granted.
As it would apply in this case, the hash code for my fingerprint would be stored on my system. When I clocked into their system, it would have to contact the system where MY data was stored and ask for permission to look at it. Their system would have to prove its identity and explain why they wanted to check it, and then I would (under normal circumstances) have granted the permission. Retention of MY personal information for ANY other purposes than those to which I agreed should be a crime.
Possession is nine points of the law. Wage slavery still a form of slavery.
Kiss of Death
At least that's what came to mind as I considered the ramifications this morning... To the bean counters, the idea is trivial. They stick a number on the thing they want to buy, and then they see if they can buy it for less than that number. How can they deduct for Microsoft's abysmal track record in hardware? Especially small hardware?
Wait a minute? Did Microsoft ever make a profit on their mice?
As ye sow, so shall ye reap--SPAM
One of the best backbones--for the SPAMMERS. They've evolved to be especially good at ignoring reports of network abuse, the value of the Internet declines--and so does THEIR precious corporate value and profits.
Sorry, I hope every company with such tolerance of spammers goes down. Yahoo, are you listening?
You'd think Yahoo might be desperate enough to implement some powerful and effective anti-spammer tools. Not vigilante justice, but at least let us help with the targeting.
If anyone can convince me that the spammers add ANY positive value to anything, then I think I should buy someone a beer for spraining my brain.
Cult of Personality
That's how they refer to Stalin's religion. Odd coincidence of the day: I'm in the middle of Gorky Park, which heavily features the peculiarities of the Soviet Union, though some years after Stalin. In the recovery phase? However, I have some reservations since it seems the author (Martin Cruz Smith) doesn't actually speak any Russian. Notwithstanding questions about its historical or sociological accuracy, he does write well, and it's certainly been quite entertaining so far.
Lack of insight is depcressing? Wise crowds?
I was expecting to see more insight here and I am sorely disappointed. At least in the first page of comments all of my searches came up dry, and I'm scarcely motivated to search further. Ergo, let me state the obvious:
Touch interfaces suck, both absolutely and relative to the existing alternative of keyboards and mice and the future alternative of voice interfaces. Most users have enough common sense to figure this out, and THAT is the underlying reason Windows 8 shall die the big death.
Touch is good for certain things. For example, if the computers really could suck, then there are some people who would find that a major selling point. (Just a negative side effect of reading another of Ryu Murakami's books?) However, in general touch lacks utility, precision, and flexibility. Typing is quite accurate for text input and the finger is probably the least accurate pointing device, at least on the scale of computers. A bit speculative, but I do think that voice interfaces will mature in the future, which partly means more precision (based on context awareness) but mostly means more flexibility and intelligence. I definitely expect to live long enough to work with computers that emulate human assistants, at least for basic stuff.
In conclusion, if I were a speculator I would be betting strongly AGAINST touch interfaces, but especially on the long term. Even on the recent short term, it is clear there was money to be made in shorting them...
Already a bit late
How do you think Michael Hastings was murdered? Hint: Start with the source code for all of the car's electronic systems, including the brakes, accelerators, GPS controls, wireless network, and of course the airbags, windows, and door locks. Make the evidence go away? Just run the hack from volatile memory so it disappears as soon as the power is lost. Chain of command to trace? Sorry, it was just an independent contractor operating on his own initiative. No orders given, none received, no reports filed. Just a wink and a nudge, and probably a bonus for unspecified special services on behalf of "national security". Nothing to see here.
Remember, he was not drunk or chemically impaired. He was a cautious driver. And his leg was fractured from stomping on the brake pedal very hard. Obviously to no effect. Can't you just wait for the self-driving cars?
Me? No thanks.
Re: Partition the project in a MANAGED mannger
When I said "Ubuntu" will no longer support, I think I was supposed to refer to Canonical or some other entity.
The situation now is that I've mostly lost interest in and quit using Ubuntu, though at one point I had high hopes for it as a real-world populist alternative to the tyrannies of Microsoft and Apple. How is Ubuntu managed these days? I don't know and I no longer care.
Partition the project in a MANAGED mannger
The main reason I don't support crowd-funded projects is the lack of project management at the level of the funding organization. I actually expect that this massive project had relatively mature project planning, but if I don't financially support Ubuntu through his existing websites, why would I find this approach better? Is it supposed to be an advertising or trendy thing?
Let me repeat the ancient suggestion for "reverse auction charity shares". The projects should be planned in a managed way, including a reasonable scale and success criteria against a KNOWN budget. If they get more supporters, then the price per share should go down. AFTER each project is completed, it should be evaluated, and THEN you can consider what additional projects should follow it.
If Ubuntu was responsive to the users, I bet that there are still a lot of us who would be funding ongoing support for some of the older versions. The latest and greatest Ubuntu is consistently driven by programmers who want to program for hardware I do not want to buy for the sake of running Ubuntu. My own real-world and residual uses for Ubuntu are for older machines--that Ubuntu will no longer run on or support, even for security patches.
Price is no object?
Actually, you'd still have to pay me to use another mobile phone with ANY Microsoft OS on it. Once bitten, twice shy as hell.
The thing that most pissed me off about that phone was how it would lose imported data. I would reimport the data from the non-Microsoft sources, and it would disappear again and again. I still can't figure out if it was deliberate, incompetence, or just indifference to the world outside Microsoft. Not sure when I maxed out on my hatred of Microsoft, but that may have been when.
For-profit medical care is fundamentally risky
Yours was the only comment that mentioned profits, though rather tangentially. I think that's the root of this problem. The Americans were only concerned about profits, and I'm even willing to wager that they lied about their capabilities to land the contract in hopes of getting those big profits. The British healthcare system is not focused on profits, but on health and controlled costs. Almost inevitable that the crossed signals would bollix things up.
How much profit did the Americans manage to pocket amidst this snafu? All we can hope is that it wasn't too outrageous? Oh, wait. I'm already outraged.
Not all outages are created equal
An outage that requires me to reload a webpage is trivial and can be ignored.
An outage that allows a hacker to install a man in the middle and take my bank information is not so trivial and ignorable.
Re: How odd-
At one point I was impressed by Ricardo's equations. He essentially argued that specialists should be treated as profitable insects, not human beings. As equations, they seem mathematically sound, even though a lot of the conclusions of his economic theories seem crazy. Now I'm convinced the equations must be bogus, too.
We need new economic theories that deal with the only REAL scarcity that we ALL share. Time. Yes, it's hard to value, because we fundamentally don't know how much we have, but in the end, it's only valuable thing any of us actually does have. Also, we can't put dollar values on the memories we create with our time. Nevertheless, how we used our time in this world is the real metric of the value of our lives.
Main beef with LinkedIn is the SPAM
The main reason I can't take LinkedIn seriously is the amount of spam in their name. Some of it is quite sophisticated phishing, while a lot of it is just abuse of their link shorteners. Some of the phishing is so good that the only way I'm sure is because it arrives at an email address that was never known to my LinkedIn account. The link shortening stuff could be cured by hijacking the links--but only IF LinkedIn actually cared about their reputation.
I think the endorsement thing is silly, but I don't rate it as a major negative. Just another reason to ignore LinkedIn. Perhaps it could be made credible if the reputation of the endorsers was verified outside of the network? In other works, hierarchical endorsements would be okay, but circular endorsements would be reduced in value...
Journalism is dead, long live the Queen
I'd say the point was to kill journalism, but it's already a bit late. The only question is whether or not they have to kill the journalists. (Yes, I'm still and increasingly convinced they killed Michael Hastings.)
We are heading for a future where regular people like you and I have no privacy and are completely enslaved by the corporations and governments, whereas the richest and most powerful people have complete privacy and all power. It isn't just the negative personal information, though those threats are easy to understand. Even the most positive information about your tastes, interests, and personal strengths can be used to control and manipulate you and effectively remove your freedom.
It's possible that the flow of information will become uncontrollable and even the rich and powerful people will be stripped of the secrecy. However, even in that case, I'm sure they will continue to abuse our personal information and us. Sometimes the future just looks too bleak and I'm glad of my age...
OTHER is NOT an option for security
Does reply post this count as an open letter to Facebook? I also tried to report some problems to Facebook via the official Facebook channels. I don't think they were listening, and anyone who trusts Facebook with ANY sensitive data is a gigantic fool
Hey, let's try persuading the black hat hackers that they have to play by the rules! Isn't that a brilliant idea?
Listen here, you morons of Facebook:
The essential nature of security threats is that you do NOT know what they are in advance--or you would have blocked them already and they would NOT exist as security threats. Sometimes that means the reporting mechanism may not be suitable for accepting the information. You ALWAYS need an OTHER channel. Shooting the messenger for YOUR incompetence is NOT a solution.
In conclusion, I do NOT trust Facebook at all. However, I don't think they are yet as EVIL as the google has become. It's just that the amazing incompetence of Facebook combined with the sensitive personal data makes Facebook much more dangerous.
You'd have to pay me to use it
I'm not joking. I wouldn't use it unless someone was paying me.
Come to think of it, that pretty much describes all of my relationships with Microsoft products. If I had any viable choices, I would be strongly biased against Microsoft, but in every case I can think of, there was no choice. Microsoft's software was just there and I was being paid to deal with it.
You thought flying killer robots were bad?
Flying killer robots are NOTHING compared to this monster.
Have you ever made a mistake that would embarrass you? Well, it's out there now.
Have you ever tip-toed over the legal line? "Book 'im, Dano" whenever it suits 'em.
Do you have any interests or special talents? Well, now they're just bait to pull you in.
Remember the joke from the funny movie: "Wherever you go, there you are." The new version is "Wherever you went, they already know, and wherever you think of going, they will be there waiting for you."
Freedom of speech is too expensive in today's Amerika
Hey, if you had a battery of lawyers, maybe you could have survived.
Privacy in America? Try to intrude on the Kolk brothers or the big dick Cheney. They can afford to break you into small shiny pieces.
Hey, it could be worse. You could have gotten murdered by your hacked car a la Michael Hastings.
After all, SpamCop and the google have surrendered to the spammers, and Yahoo has been on their side for years already.
As someone who really hates spammers and who wants to make their business models less profitable, I have to express extra dismay this week, since SpamCop has evidently thrown in the towel, too. Maybe it was inevitable since CIsco acquired them a couple of years ago. After all, from Cisco's position, there's nothing wrong with spam as long as someone is willing to pay for the extra hardware to handle the extra packets created by the spammers. At least that's how it looks to the short-term bean counters.
What I don't understand is why the major email providers continue to support the spammers. I'll offer a prize to anyone who can convince me there is ANY positive value added to ANY part of the Internet by any spammer. They just suck value from everyone in their desperate search for suckers, and especially from the value of email systems.
There have been some cosmetic 'improvements' in the email systems I use, but the #1 problem remains the same as it ever was: SPAM. Does anyone know of an email system that has integrated spam-fighting tools? I'm talking about a system that would let me help in targeting ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, help pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and even help and protect ALL of the spammers' victims, including the suckers, the email systems, and even the companies whose reputations are abused by the spammers.
Yes, I know that we can't create a perfect world and eliminate all of the spam. However, I believe we can reduce their profits and have less spam, and I even believe that the email system that did it first and best would be significantly more valuable.
Who's at risk?
Actually called the Japanese police to see if they were going to publish a list of the dangerous apps so I could check against the Japanese apps I've downloaded. Absolutely no clue that I could detect. Either there is a clue somewhere else, or someone delivered the gang on a platter.
Linkage to spam?
I'd like to know about the linkages to the spammers. Yes, many of the spammers do seem to be minor-league nuisances, though they are much more visible in our lives, but I'm curious about such factors as (1) How many major criminals started as spammers? (2) How much cover do the big-league criminals get from the massive noise of the spam? (3) How much of the spammer infrastructure is shared with the big-league criminals?
In short, I do regard these guys as smarter than the average spammer, but about the same level of evil.
Speaking of EVIL that reminds me of the new spammer-friendly policies of the google and Yahoo. Anyone want to report on recent changes in Microsoft's email systems? I'm not using them these days because of their excessive spammer friendliness in the past (and even though Microsoft has done some good work against spammers upstream--I'm still on the downstream end).
Now I'm running scared
From the description, I'm pretty sure that I've been receiving that spam--but to the best of my knowledge I've never installed such a poison app. How did they get my email address?
At this point, I'm not even certain they haven't somehow registered me on such a website, though I certainly wouldn't have done it on my own, given the limited state of my Japanese... I haven't noticed any suspicious credit card charges, but maybe I haven't been looking carefully enough.
Do you suppose the google would help by warning all of the people who downloaded the dodgy apps? Don't hold your breath waiting for the google to become less EVIL. Another positive thing the google could do would be to add a 'financial model' tab to their app website. In this case, the warning would have been something to the effect "The creator of this app claims an advertising-based financial model, but the creator is not using Google's advertising system and has not received any advertising-related revenue from Google."
Still, in terms of supporting spammers and scammers, I think Yahoo is #1. Hmm... Returning to the original question, maybe that's how the scammer got my email address without actually getting me to install anything on my phone?
Such a bright future...
Yahoo has such a bright future that he wants no part of it? Take the money and run.
Like he contributed a big fart to the success?
Seriously, since Yahoo is becoming the best friend of spammers, I'm increasingly convinced the best thing for everyone would be immediate bankruptcy. Yes, it would inconvenience lots of people--but especially the spammers. I'm guessing Yahoo will never get desperate enough to react.
Hint: How about mail-system-integrated anti-spammer tools that target every part of the spammers' business models? ALL of the spammers' infrastructure and ALL of spammers' accomplices. Separate the spammers from ALL of the suckers who feed them.
Turn some of that spammer hatred into Yahoo fondness? ROFLMAO at Yahoo.
Re: Probably get spit out immediately.
But maybe the whales were doing research, like the Japanese 'researchers'. While the whales might have disliked the taste of humans, I haven't heard many reports of Japanese who don't like the taste of whales.
Yes, Gertrude, they still have 'research samples' of whale meat at the local grocery stores in Japan. I certainly saw some within the last few weeks, though I don't pay close enough attention to see if it is sometimes 'out of research'.
I hope Icahn wins and LOSES
I hope that worthless vulture "wins" and completely destroys the value of Dell. Nothing personal against Dell the company or the man, but I want to see Icahn spend the rest of his life fighting lawsuits for his greed and incompetence and selfish bastardy.
Hard to believe it was possible
I have to give some credit to Kickstarter, though I still think it needs to incorporate some project management...
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
- Apple's spamtastic iBeacon retail alerts launch with Frisco FAIL
- Submerged Navy submarine successfully launches drone from missile tubes
- Pix Astroboffins spot HOT, YOUNG GIANT where she doesn't belong