631 posts • joined 9 Apr 2007
Silly thought experiment
Let's imagine that instead of cutting off a chunk of Microsoft people, we just cut Microsoft into 3 (or even 5) equal pieces. Each new baby Microsoft would get a copy of all of the source code, and they could have a draft to divvy up the staff and the facilities. Shareholders would get new shares in the baby companies.
Now each baby Microsoft competes against the others. One baby might decide to go back to XP, and I might well switch my loyalties to that brand of Microsoft. Two of the others might stick with Windows 7 and 8 for a while, but one might focus on fixing the security problems at a slightly higher market price. Meanwhile, the last two might put their priorities on flavors of Windows 9.
The bottom line is that we would get some real choice (AKA freedom), and I bet the OSes would actually evolve much faster. Some employees would still get burned, but that's happening anyway.
Even the shareholders would benefit from the overall acceleration of the software industry. Yeah, one or two of the babies may do less well, but the whole pie of all the babies will be growing bigger. The only way for a shareholder to lose would be to sell the buy and sell the wrong shares, exactly like now.
Ditto Google and Apple, if you ask me. Any company that starts restricting choice too much should be rewarded by strongly encouraged reproduction, not penalized by temporary cancerous growth.
Not related to this week's BSoD, I presume?
So did anyone else notice a BSoD in conjunction with this week's Microsoft Update? Just asking, even though the machine seemed okay on the reboot...
It's a TRAP
Covers my key concern. However, I think it's also possible that Microsoft may be playing for some people who are dull witted enough to think the big MS has an actual concern about their human privacy.
In reality, if Microsoft feels like giving the email to the government, you'll never know. Ditto the rest of them, eh?
Battery problems prevail?
Actually on my 5th Android device now, and the only one with severe battery issues was the HTC, beginning when the phone was about a year old. The Toshiba tablet's battery is acting somewhat thermally suspicious, but it's more than 3 (or 5?) years old, so I think that's not unreasonable, if a bit scary. Too soon to say about my Samsung, but the previous Huawei was quite satisfactory, including the battery. If the carrier hadn't gone to pieces, I might have stayed with it for a while beyond its normal two years...
How is it possible for Adobe's software to be so bad?
They patch it several times a month. They do not add ANY new functions, certainly not visible ones. And yet their program is still crashing frequently, usually several times a day. Each time it crashes, my browser is locked up for a while until it releases.
Let me guess. Since Adobe has no good news, they just create bad news. At least we're still noticing them, eh?
Actually, I think they're a kind of nice company in some ways, but they need to FIX their software.
Alternatives to Android
Unfortunately, the options did not seem viable to me. These days we have to pick among the various flavors of EVIL to find the one that seems least bad. The main reason I stayed with Android this time was because the google doesn't have the same degree of stranglehold on Android that the other options suffer from...
Freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. We have precious little freedom these days. Politics or consumer products, we're forced to pick the options that merely seem less bad than the others.
Freedom is about choice, not monopoly
First, let me congratulate the google on their success, especially since most of it came before they knuckled under to the business rules of America, which demand cancerous growth of an EVIL sort.
Having said that, they are now on the wrong side. Let's pose a thought experiment. What if you had a choice of which search engine to use? What if the google were divided into two (or more) companies, each of which started with an equal share of the resources and equal copies of the data. Then the new companies would independently start growing and improving, and there would be more choice and more freedom.
Don't think of it as a penalty for success. Think of it as a reward in the form of reproduction, rather than death in the form of cancer. Every cancer ultimately destroys its host.
Why dost thou spam?
Hint: Not just because you're a sociopath. It's because thou art a sociopath and making money from the spam.
I'm not saying we can cure them. I'm saying we can attack their business models so they get less money and they will send less spam. Symantec is the wrong locus of an economic attack because their business model depends on the visibility of spammers, scammers, black-hat hackers, and various other free advertising.
The companies that have the business model that is directly related to the value of email OUGHT to be the email providers like Yahoo (hopelessly incompetent), Gmail (EVIL), and Microsoft (new spots on an old leopard?). They all pretend to hate spam, but none of them are sincere about it. If they were, then they would offer integrated anti-spam tools so we could help attack ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and protect ALL of the spammers' victims, even from themselves.
The suckers that feed the spammers are a very precious and limited resource. That's why the spammers send out billions of pieces of carp (polite fudge) to tap them. If it were easier for the wannabe good Samaritans who hate spam to get in the middle, then we could completely overwhelm the limited supply of suckers. Let's stop the spammers from feeding, eh?
Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.
You seem to be missing the entire point of Microsoft's business model. It consists of two major components:
(1) Create and enforce a EULA that removes all liability.
(2) Force computer makers to include THE OS of Microsoft.
What do users want or need? Who cares? And absolutely NOT Microsoft.
As far as the OS is concerned, I am not aware of ANY compelling feature that Microsoft has added in the last decade, or possibly two. In other words, not since TCP/IP was added to Windows 95.
The closest thing to a compelling reason for OS upgrades since then is improved security. In other words, if Microsoft was talking to peasants like us, the pitch would be "You need to buy the newest OS to protect you from our OLD security mistakes, but our EULA absolutely guarantees that the new mistakes can't be held against us, either."
Have a nice day enjoying your use of Microsoft products. Batteries and XP not included.
Re: G00gle is EVIL
Makes me laugh at my childish naivete from the days when I sort of believed the "Don't be evil" thing had any credibility. I've long understood that the rules of the business game as defined by American laws are sadly twisted. Corporations are required to be evil, to grow like mindless and vicious cancers, just to survive.
Let me clarify. I'm NOT saying that most businesspeople are bad. It's just that the rules of the game are written by the most cheaply bribed politicians, who are being bribed by the least ethical and greediest businessmen. These businessmen have an insane problem. They think they don't have enough money, and they are insane because there is NO amount of money that could solve their problem. Unfortunately, in the end the cancer always kills its host, but like cancers, these super-rich super-greedy bastards can't think that far ahead.
Returning more specifically to the topic of the article, it was actually censorship by the google that gave me my first hints they were going EVIL. This was actually many years ago, but it took some years to convince me that the google actually was as EVIL as it has become. Just another flavor of company that I am sometimes forced to be involved with because of the lack of options. Freedom? In a flying pig's eye. Capitalism? Sure, like the sheep being polled about which wolf has the prettiest teeth. We're just a bunch of sheeple playing in the games of wolves.
TINY thread of hope in the case of the google. They don't actually control the entire Internet. They barely contribute to it at all, merely harvesting directions to the creative work of OTHER people. The google actually needs some credibility, and they are losing it quite rapidly. Maybe google will fall down and go boom.
Unfortunately, when you consider the sick game of business, maybe the replacement will be worse.
Re: Two problems: Live and let spam and abuse of anonymity
Just reflecting on why I don't hate the flamers so much. I dismiss them as loonies of the essentially harmless sort.
Probably the source of the down votes, however. They might not like to be held in contempt and they don't have the sick cleverness required to become spammers?
Two problems: Live and let spam and abuse of anonymity
I think the two main problems can be tagged as the spammers and the flamers. The first are motivated by sociopathic greed, but many of the second group are apparently just plain sociopaths without rational motivations. Maybe I'm too much of an economic animal, but at least I can understand the spammers--and I actually hate them more than the flamers.
To me, the most amazing thing about the spammers is that they can only survive on our collective sufferance and tolerance. They are criminals waving signs, but we basically ignore their activities because it is too much bother to care. From the spammers perspective, the marginal cost of email is regarded as zero, so another million annoying spam messages is quite well justified if it gets one more sucker to give them a credit card number.
However, since I think most people are basically good folks, I actually think there is a solution for most of the commercial spam: Cut off the money. In simple terms, if any of the big email providers gave us better anti-spam tools, and if only a few of the annoyed people used those tools, we could completely overwhelm the tiny number of actual suckers who feed the spammers. The spammers would lose their money and hence their motivation. They wouldn't become decent human beings, but at least they would crawl under less visible rocks.
The abuse of anonymity thing is actually more difficult to deal with because there actually are legitimate cases where anonymity is called for. My weird constraint is that all legitimate secrecy is justified by other secrecy, but that doesn't break the chain. At least I haven't come up with any example where anonymity is justified for its own sake. The classic example of the secret whistleblower is predicated upon a secret crime to be reported, but if the crime was already known, then there would be no need of reporting it. How about the secret ballot? Well, if any revenge-seeking measures were public, then again there is no need for secrecy. (If the vengeful politician can take public revenge and get away with it, then it wasn't an actual election in the first place, and the secret ballot would have made no difference.)
The people who abuse anonymity to attack other people solely because they can't be caught are abusing the legitimate need for anonymity in some cases, but I don't see a solution--unless maybe it's the total collapse of all secrecy, which certainly seems to be where we are headed. Obviously if they only attack because of the secrecy, the death of secrecy will cure them. Seems to be one of those problems that will cure itself with a bit of patience, but I'm not especially comfortable with the idea of living in a goldfish bowl.
It's the humans, stupid, and boy, are they stupid
I think the single approach that would most hurt the criminals would be if the suckers would stop installing their apps, and the single kind of information that would most deter the suckers from installing the apps is knowing the REAL financial motivations of whoever is distributing the app.
Of course, that kind of "reality" is too much to hope for, but if some attempt were made to present the financial information, then it would help in a lot of cases. Most of the legitimate financial models are pretty well known, and the google could basically offer them as selectable options--and in most of those cases the google could offer some independent evidence as to whether or not the developer is telling the truth, and lock that part down so the developer can't tamper with it. Does the developer say he will get money from ads? Then the google can say they are paying advertising revenue. Is it a limited version for a paid version? Then the google can report that a paid version actually exists and is actually earning some sales.
Of course the google doesn't understand this, do they?
I am strongly opposed to censorship, but this beheading video manages to cross my line because the making of the video with the intention that people watch it and be frightened because of the video was an intrinsic part of the motivation of the vicious crime. If they knew that no one would see the video, then they might not have killed him, and anyone deliberately acting to distribute that video should be traced and arrested for aiding a crime or encouraging future crimes. By making terrorism succeed, that person is guaranteeing future acts of terrorism.
I actually think that professional journalists might be required for the sake of their work to watch it, but the general principle here is to negate the murderers' intentions by NOT watching the video. The sad punchline is that the victim died for the sake of freedom of speech, the underlying principle of serious journalism.
Abuse of the First Amendment
If you're so proud of your actions, why the mask?
In general I am quite opposed to censorship, but I just want to go on record (since the topic has apparently not been addressed clearly) that this is clearly on the other side of the bright line, and the censorship is fully justified. This was a deliberate crime performed for the sake of creating the video and with the deliberate intention of propagating the video to threaten other innocent people.
The double irony is that the victim had dedicated his life to the First Amendment. The vicious murderer in the mask would never understand why.
P.S. Other countries have other tags for the freedom of speech, but I'm just framing it from the American perspective because it was also the victim's.
So that's what was going on, but I still argue for installing over not
One of my machines (out of 4 or 5 with Windows 7) has had 3 BSODs since this patch Tuesday, but a second machine had quite a bit of problem getting the updates installed. My initial hypothesis was that some 3-letter agency was having compatibility problems with their spyware, so I'm almost relieved by this explanation of mere incompetence. Only "almost" since this article mentions Langley. I'm sure it's just another harmless coincidence.
Not that I have any reason to protect my privacy, of course. I know I'm not likely to do anything interesting, so they are just spying on my computers because the light is better over here. It's such a nuisance to look for actual terrorists in the dark shadows without conveniently pwnable computers, eh?
By the way, as regards the post by John Tserkezis, I still have to recommend quick patching. Once Microsoft reveals the latest crop of their incompetence, you are in a race condition. If the black hats can reverse engineer the patches, your computer is just an accident waiting to happen. If you patch, then at least you are in the latest and greatest race to be pwned, so to speak.
Think what a different world it would be if Microsoft were actually liable for their mistakes. You could bet that they would be much more cautious in their programming practices. Mayhaps my computer wouldn't even be smothered under over 120 mostly mysterious processes and some 150 plus services (according to what Task Manager can see), any of which might be buggy. Oh wait. I should say "Most of which are buggy, but any of which might be mostly harmless."
Frankly, I think this level of incompetence should justify an emergency patch from the Microsoft. Oh wait. I keep forgetting the EULA. Whatever happens, NOTHING is Microsoft's fault, so why would they care about how soon they fix this SNAFU?
Freedom = (Meaningful + Unconstrained) Choice ≠ Beer | Microsoft
You are only free to choose the lesser evil?
Actually the relative weakness of the google's control over Android is probably one of its most attractive features. The downside is the increased risk from malware apps.
These days it seems like most of the major companies are primarily notable for their degree of EVIL, and too often I feel like I'm being forced into a choice between lesser evils. As someone who used to think that the google was a nice company, now I just feel quite naive. Apple's evil is more philosophic, but apparently the most profitable. My interpretation is that they are basically against freedom and expect their customers to accept their products as mysterious black boxes not to be understood or interfered with. Meanwhile Microsoft is trying to convince us they've given up their evil ways, but the mask keeps slipping. If they offered an actually superior OS, then I wouldn't feel so bad about being stuck with a Windows XP box, eh? Actually, I think Microsoft has become to most resemble GE when they were sitting on FM radio because the AM profits were satisfactory.
What is the bounds on the number of years?
I thought the article was joking about the redaction on the number of years. Evidently not, but I wish they had put some bounds on the value, both for when it could have started and on when it ended (unless it is still continuing). Actually, even if they say it ended, it's probably continuing.
The main problem to me is that they are collecting vast amounts of data just because the light is better there. No, I'm not a terrorist, have no terrorist friends, and would fink on a terrorist if I ever got the chance--but the NSA still knows everyone I've ever called.
Actually, I usually use pay phones for originating calls, so I've defeated the NSA. Not that I have anything to hide. I just have a lousy and expensive calling plan--because I don't make many calls.
Sorry, NSA, I didn't mean to stand where the light was bad and deprive you of so much of my personal data.
Re: When will we take mental health seriously?
It's also the stigma attached to being average. To "succeed" in today's world, especially to succeed on a large scale (and Robin Williams certainly succeeded), you have to be more than a little bit crazy. I also suspect that he was bipolar, but if the "appropriate" chemical treatment would have threatened his success, even his ability to earn a living, then I can't blame him for wanting to succeed. I think we should blame ourselves for so badly wanting him to succeed in spite of the personal costs...
My own take is that everyone is a little crazy. In joke form, "Everyone's crazy save thee and I, and sometimes I wonder about thee/me/us." On the scale of humor as defined by Robin Williams, the joke doesn't move the needle.
How do you know if the unsubscribe is legit?
Trick question. You can't. Neither can the google, but working together it would be possible to get much closer. For example, you can report that you never requested a subscription in the first place, and google can test unsubscribe mechanisms with honeypot addresses. Together you can check if you issued an unsubscribe request in the past and see that it is not being honored.
This is actually important to distinguish some legitimate mail lists from spammers, but it isn't trivial.
The real problem, of course, is that the google has become too EVIL to care. Have you ever seen their miserable and execrable excuse for a spam-reporting form? Not worth your search if you haven't.
If the google wasn't so EVIL, then they would offer some really effective anti-spammer tools that would allow us to help destroy the spammers' business models. Less money = less spam. You don't have to be a good Samaritan, but I think there are plenty of people like me who would be glad of the opportunity to help disrupt ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and help ALL of the spammers' victims.
Well, actually I don't really care about the corporate victims or the fools who just need to be protected from themselves. My own concern is mostly with the innocent victims such as children who think they are getting a new game to play while they pwn their phones or computers. You'd be hard pressed to convince me there are more despicable bastards out there.
But the google don't care. EVIL.
The google could not possibly care less. I suppose the real question is how the google profits from the spammers. I just can't believe their also stupid enough to provide so much support for spammers without getting their beak wet. EVIL.
No reason to get so unreasonable--unless it's on the list of optins
What we need is an integrated anti-spammer anti-scammer system. Actually, it should have a provision for bringing in external scams, too, but you basically want to be as open as possible, so no matter which way the spammers and scammers turn, you can still hit them. I'm not saying that they will become decent human beings, even without the fingers, but just that they are driven by the profits, and the smaller the profits, the smaller the problem.
The system should involve several iterations of analysis and targeting. At each point the human spam-fighting volunteer will either confirm or correct the server's analysis. After a couple of rounds of analysis, the webforms will be focusing on the most effective countermeasures. The basic idea is to break ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and help (as mostly protect them from their own stupidity) ALL of the spammers' victims. Yes, I might make a mistake in my analysis of a particular piece of spam, but a bunch of people will be extremely likely to get it right and even reach an agreement on the best responses.
Look at it this way. There are LOTS of people who hate scammers, but only a few suckers out there. If you make it easier to block the spammers away from their suckers, then their money will get really small. Like their penises.
This is why "Live and let spam" is EVIL
As long as it's profitable, the spammers will continue to develop their business models.
Hey, here's a stupid idea. Why doesn't one of the big email services provide really effective anti-spammer tools? Integrate them into the email system so we can help break ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and help out ALL of the spammers' victims? Yeah, I know the spammers' human victims are idiots that need to be protected from themselves and the corporate victims are mostly EVIL, but still... Less spam would still make the Internet more valuable for all of us.
Or perhaps more to the point, wouldn't it be more valuable to you if you had an email system that the spammers feared? It could be done, but "Live and let spam" remains the dominant business model.
Of course you aren't, you EVIL lying sons of...
It was only a few years ago that I thought google was a good thing. Now it makes me feel so innocent and naive. EVIL is the rule of business in America, and google has become as EVIL as any of them.
Hey, google, would you like to get your soul back? You'd have to sacrifice a tiny fraction of your profits. Oh, not interested. Why am I not surprised?
Stop deluding yourself with silly propaganda
Yes, China did steal some IP, and so did America, Japan, and everyone else. In fact, I think I can safely defy you to name any nation that hasn't been caught stealing IP, though of course it depends on how you define steal and IP and even "value".
The current situation is that the Chinese and the Indians are churning out LOTS of highly competent engineers and even more adequately competent engineers to do the grunt work for the few great engineers. They have limitations in terms of existing resources, but that also means they have lower sunk costs and don't have to maintain or remove as much old infrastructure.
The biggest problem facing America is actually YOUR attitude, which is part of the raging xenophobia that is making it harder and harder to attract the best talent to work in the States. Yes, America still has a monetary advantage, but not everyone is for sale, so I guess that qualifies as one of the candidates for #2 problem.
I might have been interested until I saw who wrote the pitch
It's the climate change denier moron. Why would anyone trust ANY pitch or promise from such a fool? And no wonder the Register is becoming desperate for fresh blood.
No such thing as uncontested connections
The issue is NOT wireless versus wired. The issue is CONTROL, as in the big companies (and their pet governments) want to control our access to the Internet. If most of the content was moving locally via shared WiFi networks, then they wouldn't have any chokepoints. Yes, there are some natural monopolies, but information is NOT one of them.
If the spammers weren't making money, then they would stop sending the spam. Even worse, the money they do make is used to fund ever more diabolical and vicious forms of spam (like the latest round of ransom-ware), but what really angers me is that the spammers gladly target weak victims like children and people who know very little about computers.
Meanwhile, the big email companies that do understand the threats have adopted the business model of "Live and let spam", which also infuriates me. The spammers obviously LOVE filters, since the filters just give more credibility to the spam that slips through while ignoring the blizzards of spam that disguise the new and more dangerous attacks.
Why don't any of the major email providers provide REAL anti-spammer tools to break the spammers' business models? I'm not saying that we can eliminate all spam or turn the spammers into decent human beings. I'm just saying that we could reduce their profits, and that many of the spammers would respond by crawling under less visible rocks. Less spam would make the Internet more valuable for everyone.
Considering the numbers, the approach that seems most promising would be crowd-driven analysis and counterattack targeting. Essentially there are lots of people who hate spam and only a few suckers who feed the spammers. If ANY email system made it easier for the wannabe good Samaritans to help out, then the crowd can help cut the spammers away from the suckers. The integrated anti-spammer tools could allow volunteer spam-fighters to help analyze the spam in several steps. At each step the automatic analyses would be confirmed or corrected or refined, eventually focusing on the most effective countermeasures to disrupt ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, to pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and to help defend and protect ALL of the spammers' victims, even including the poor corporations whose reputations and customers are abused by the spammers. (Concrete examples of specific targeting suggestions available upon request. There are LOTS of obvious ones.)
By the way, I think you have to limit the anti-spammer tools to the targeting, and the actual kill buttons should remain under the control of the professional spam fighters working for the email services. I would be WAY too eager to pull the trigger.
P.S. Proof of concept: Stock market pump-and-dump spam has almost entirely stopped. The stock exchanges acted to block the profits, and the spammers gave up.
Shades of Couch Potatoes of the World, Unite
Seriously, that's the result of my analysis of alternative time-based economic models. I disagree with Carlos, however. Lots of people simply aren't creative, and you can't force them to be creative. They can still make contributions to the economy by their consumption of other people's creative efforts, but I am not aware of any economists who are thinking along those lines. Conventional economists are just looking where the light is bright. Easy to measure money, but time is a more difficult thing. (Actually, when I discussed it with a google guy, he put it in terms of attention, and I sort of agree, but I also think that time can be enhanced with more attention...)
Better economics: Couch Potatoes of World, Arise!
Time is a precious and limited resource. I already lack enough time to pay attention to the data I am receiving now.
Here's my offer. I want to let you legitimate companies bid for some of my time. I'll say how much advertising I'm willing to receive, and say what I want to buy now, and you can bid to reach me. Of course I can't advertise that information, but I'm willing to split the auction proceeds with the intermediary that protects my privacy.
The profits will mostly pay for content that I actually want to see. Some people might use the money in other ways, but I want some substantial and meaningful data about the real world, NOT 24/7 filler when there is NO REAL NEWS.
I actually did write a longer (if still incomplete) economic analysis of an economic system aligned along these principles. I wasn't joking about the couch potatoes.
Another advantage: Deniability?
Well, mostly I feel like these results are "intuitively obvious to the most causal observer" and I've already been doing things that way for a while. My approach to low-security passwords is slightly different, but the basic idea is the same.
However one of my secondary criteria is whether or not it may be advantageous to claim that the account was hacked. Especially appropriate for venues where you like to tell jokes and feel concern about getting too close to the edges upon occasion.
Should I try to claim my favorite nickname?
Naw, why would I care. I already got it on Outlook. Oh, wait. No improvement there.
Why doesn't ANYONE offer a sincerely anti-spammer email system?
Freedom <> Obscene profits
Freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice, but that is NOT equal to monopolistic profit maximization, which is fundamentally about removing choice. If the consumers actually have meaningful options and can freely choose among them, then the free market will effectively minimize the profits. Not eliminate profits, but certainly prevent monopolistic price gouging. Heaven forbid, but you'll have to actually WORK for a FAIR profit against your competitors. Don't you just hate that?
Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but any questions?
Actually, the last Windows OS that was probably justified by new features was Windows 95
No, you're getting confused by the two sides of the same coin. One side is the meaningless changes that create user confusion and lost productivity. The other side is the lack of meaningful changes that would justify the upgrade.
Sorry, but I don't count "We're pointing a gun at your head" as constructive justification.
Microsoft's monopoly has become quite destructive to the entire industry. No significant change is permitted without Microsoft's blessing. Meanwhile, their monopolistic position has destroyed their competitive edge and made the company lazy. There really are lots of new things that could be added at the OS level, but that would be hard work.
Considering problems without solutions is pointless, so here's the solution. Cut Microsoft into three to five pieces. Each new company starts with a complete copy of the source code and an equal share of the employees. I suppose they should use a draft system to make it as fairly competitive as possible. Then the new teams compete. One of the daughter companies may focus on security, while another pushes the OS towards higher performance and a third focuses on compatibility--and the market gets to decide which is best. The new competitors can even share as much information as they want (especially for standardization), as long as they share it with the rest of the market.
The shareholders would NOT suffer because the most important result would be faster overall growth. Even if one child company does poorly, that would be offset by others that flourished. Of course, a shareholder could hurt himself by selling off or buying the wrong shares, but that's always true. Or maybe that's only the second most important result? More freedom from meaningful and unconstrained choice is important, too.
Sadly, this model of non-cancerous growth won't happen. American law requires each large company to grow like a cancer just to survive. That's what happens when the rules of the game are written by the most cheaply bribed politicians working for the least ethical and greediest businessmen. (The 99% of nice businesspeople just don't matter anymore.)
Re: Is it just me.....
Consider it a serendipitous experiment, but one that could be quite useful. Imagine that they discover some records showing that there was more of it. If they know that the part they have is not viable, then that is a much less serious situation than if they discover it is still viable and some of it is missing.
The only good profit is an obscene profit?
Sorry, it's the rules of the game that are obscene. What do you expect when all of the laws are written by the most cheaply bribed politicians working for the least ethical and greediest businessmen based on the 'cancer is GOOD' business model. Unfortunately, it still can't help them solve their problem. You see, their problem is that they don't have enough money, and there is NO amount of money that would be "enough" for such sick personalities.
Let me make clear that most businesspeople are good folks. They just want to play the game fairly and by the rules. They are NOT the 0.1% of the businessmen who are buying the politicians to rig the game.
Oh yeah. About Samsung. I don't know if they are bribing politicians with the aggressiveness of the google. What I do know is that profit is based on the small difference between two large numbers. It is only a small fraction of the manufacturing costs and net sales income. The stock market only cares about these actually tiny fluctuations because it is just a sick gambling game that has NO relationship to the original purposes of issuing shares to pool risk for large capital expenditures.
This was the only mention of "car" besides the title
So what was the hacked car? Michael Hastings?
I couldn't imaging Russia was doing something right
Turned out I was right. No, it doesn't mean locally as in your local personal computer (where possession is nine points) but locally as in a computer they can get a hold of (as in your possession points are none).
Arguments in defense of the NSA
(1) When you do the math, it turns out that keeping the data is free. You only incur a cost when you erase the information. Therefore the NSA is just trying to save money.
(2) As the marginal cost of storing data declines, the cost of keeping your personal information is approaching zero. However, the cost of evaluating information to insure that it does not have any value and will never have any value is quite large, obviously much larger than zero. Therefore, even if they never looked at the information, the NSA can't afford to assess it for deletion.
In conclusion, we are SO screwed.
Still asking why (anything post XP)
My primary OS these days is, per force, Windows 7, but I still can't say why. Seriously, I cannot give you a single solid reason to adopt any new Microsoft OS. I was going to say "after XP", but I'm kind of hard-pressed to see anything really great about XP, now that I think about it. I suppose you can argue that XP was the ready for prime time version of Windows 2000, and Windows 95 certainly added some crucial TCP/IP support, but...
There are some fuzzy reasons, mostly in terms of speed. However, I think that's mostly a matter of Microsoft playing games. I firmly believe that Microsoft could have souped up XP to run faster than Windows 7 if they had expended about half the effort in that direction. These days it actually seems like Microsoft is trying to make Windows 7 run slower and slower, especially in booting. (Anyone else noticing increasingly slow boots on their Windows 7 boxes?)
The new feature justification is really thin, especially as the new features increase the sheer number of potential security vulnerabilities. At this point, I have given up trying to figure out what services and overhead is being wasted on my newer machines. Yeah, Microsoft has reduced the BSoDs, but Adobe seems to be picking up that slack very nicely. (My newest theory about Adobe is that they think the crashes and constant updates are some kind of cheap marketing visibility.)
How can I help fight the EVIL?
As someone who used to think the google was going to make the world better... Well, I'm not sure what to say about it, but I'm definitely sad that the google is so EVIL now. It actually took a couple of years to persuade me they had gone to the dark side, so to speak, but it still saddens me. I actually noticed the first signs at least several years ago--and I still don't know what it was about, though I ask the google from time to time. They've stopped talking to peasants, obviously, but I think that's just a secondary symptom of the creeping EVIL.
Originally my feeling was that the google was sort of innocent. As the system works in America, most businesspeople are fine and upstanding and just want to play fair, but the definition of "fair" has been attacked or even destroyed. The so-called rules of the business game in the US are written by the most cheaply bribed politicians working for the least ethical and greediest businessmen. They love the business model of cancer, and the only problem they understand is not solvable: No matter how much they rig the game, they will NEVER have enough money. Their love of money is insane, and they don't care that the cancer always kills its host.
However, as I noted, originally I thought the google was sort of innocent. Then I found out the google has become the leading lobbyist among high tech companies. In other words, the google is now helping to write the crooked laws. If you know of any evidence to the contrary, let me know, but I haven't seen it yet. (Though some of their legislative initiatives seem to be neutral or at least not obviously EVIL, I suspect it's because I just can't see the rest of the picture, and some of the legislation they are pushing is clearly EVIL.)
Constructive solution time (to be ignored, of course). A better economic model is evolutionary, not cancerous. It would also increase freedom (in the form of meaningful and unconstrained choice). If a company is sufficiently successful, the company should be obliged to reproduce, NOT simply continue with mindless and cancerous growth. Several ways to do it, though I think the amoeba offers one of the simplest models. The company splits into (at least) two independent entities that have to compete against each other, each evolving in its own ways and offering MORE choices and MORE freedom.
Where's the financial model? TANSTAAFL
I like the idea, but I spent some time on the OWM website, and the current implementation is not seriously flawed. More like MASSIVELY flawed. The technology is actually kind of clever, but only in an narrow and ignorant way.
There are some solutions that could make this work, but the fundamental problem is always the money. In brief, if you offer to give away something of any conceivable value, you can rest assured that it will be abused. It's one of those two out of three jokes. You can have accountability, privacy, and minimal investment (approximately "free" in the economic sense), but NOT all three at the same time. I could go into quite a bit of detail in the analysis, but since there is no evidence of such deep thinking on the OWM website and since this is basically a comment on what that website says, I'll skip it. If someone involved in the project wants to discuss the problems and more importantly, some SOLUTIONS, then feel free to drop me a line.
Overall I think the EFF was a good idea, but they are just too confused. Feeling charitable and based on my study of other languages, I'd be willing to say that it comes from the essential confusion in English about "free", "freedom", and related words, but since the EFF is supposed to be a pack of lawyers, that discussion would be like the opposite of trying to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.
I really wouldn't mind if you mooch off my Internet connection, but only as long as you are a nice person. As OWM stands now, it's just an invitation to not-nice persons to do not-nice things.
Freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. Not beer.
Bug me and get squashed
I know it's the Reg, but can't you think of ANY constructive solution? I know it's the Reg, so I feel like I'm wasting the keystrokes, but maybe you want to be a hero and maybe the Reg has more credibility than I've noticed, so here's the obvious solution:
Users should have the option to post a 'greeting' message to people who want to have a link. Of course everyone might be a little different, but I can make it more clear with the concrete example of what mine would say (if only I could):
(1) If you are an old friend, then I'm interested in hearing what you've been up to. However, my memory isn't so great these days, so please include enough data to convince me you really are you. (2) If you have some legitimate reason to get in touch with me, make it EXTREMELY clear, but beware the next case. (3) If you are ANY kind of spammer and you are bothering me, then I will do everything I can to nuke your account and your business model and put you in jail, too.
Unfortunately, to make (3) really work, then the SMS in question would need to get sincere about fighting spammers, and so far I haven't noticed any SMS or even any email service that is so serious. The spammers' business models certainly are vulnerable, but "Live and let spam" is the basic model of the google of EVIL and all of their friends. (That's actually a different topic, but evidently no one has the guts to offer customer-pull advertising (auctioning off the customers' LIMITED time) as an option to advertiser-driven-push advertising.)
I was at the meeting, but not many non-Japanese
I was actually in the 6th row or thereabouts, and one of the noisiest hecklers was about 4 rows behind me. However, the largest disturbance was around 10:15 in the back of the room. I think it was in the right corner and went on for some minutes.
However, I'm beginning to think this sort of thing is just sort of normal for Sony... I remember seeing a guy charge the stage at one of the meetings.
Where's my exercise bike hooked up to streetview?
I feel like bicycling through virtual Paris in the spring, eh?
Lew... That's enough
No reason to read any farther.
Credibility and integrity = 0.
P.S. Credibility is obviously 0, but I'm being charitable on the integrity part. If he actually believes what he writes, then his ignorance might be even more unbelievable than his columns. In other words, I'm guessing he can't possibly be as stupid as he writes, but has been paid off.
Shocked, shocked I say.
I'm just saying that because I'm sure I've already been on their watch lists ever since I accidentally typed the big dick Cheney. So much trouble for forgetting to capitalize a "d" and a certain lack of humor?
War crimes? Damn good thing Iraqi lives are worthless, even in the 10s or 100s of thousands. Dare I say a million? Or actually, shouldn't we just say the big dick's books are still open? You know, it's like a pitcher who left a couple of men on base and still gets their runs added to his ERA. Or maybe we should use the joke about the outfielder who messed up so badly that no one can play center field now.
Kind of makes me laugh at my naivete. When Dubya snuck into the White House in 2000, I had no capacity to imagine the mess he would leave behind. Then in 2008 I actually had a delusion that President Obama could clean it up. You know what they say: "Fool me once, shame on... You can't get fooled again." Hey, thank goodness you can't fool me any more. My vote has been cancelled to zero!
Trust American justice? ROFLMAO.
Whenever I see a suggestion like Kerry's, I'm reminded of a conversational exchange I had with a law student. This was right after Bush v. Gore, and he came right out and said that he was in law school because he believed America was becoming a judicial dictatorship, and he wanted to be one of the dictators. (I have to describe it as 'a conversational exchange' for certain reasons, perhaps even legal ones.) If he has become a judge since then, I hope he's losing sleep over his ancient honesty, but I certainly deny having any copy thereof.
It's hard not to think that America has passed a point of no return. I used to think the conspiracy theorists were nuts, and I still think that most of them are, but I'm increasingly inclined to think that some narrowly focused and small-scale conspiracies are plausible. Was Michael Hastings killed by hacking his car? It's possible that could have been done by a couple of people, and most of them wouldn't even have had to know what they were doing. Was Ron Suskinds effectively neutralized by poisoning his son? If the appropriate psychoactive chemical exists, a single actor would have sufficed. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to predict that Snowden is likely to come to a bad end, especially if he persists in bearding the giant.
John Kerry was once a man of high principle. Long time ago. At this point, I trust his words far less than Snowden's.
Push-driven advertising and extreme greed?
This push-driven model of advertising is increasingly reminding me of the cancer-style business rules of America.
American companies are basically legally obliged to grow as cancerously as possible. If they can't grow fast enough, then they get acquired or go bankrupt. At root, this is driven by the business model of a few extremely rich people who bribe the politicians to write the rules of the business game that way. It even makes a sick kind of sense when you consider their overwhelming problem. They "need" more money, and their problem is that there is NEVER enough money to satisfy their need.
As it applies in the push-driven advertising world, the "need" is for more of our time and attention, and they can NEVER get enough, no matter how many intrusions and privacy invasions they devise.
There are solutions, and some of them are obvious, but I think we need to start by rethinking economics. Money is not the only significant entity in the universe. Amazingly enough, time has a kind of fundamental equality for all of us. My 24-hour day is the same quantity as the day of Bill Gates or the Koch brothers or even a house plant. Disclaimer, I'm not equating those three (or five) entities. It's the TIME flow that is the same.
Not Snowden, but crazy oscillation
One of those weird coincidences that I'm just finishing the Cuckoo's Egg, about a time when America's cybersecurity efforts were quite ineffectual. American tends to oscillate in a crazy way, and since 9/11 the country has gone overboard in the other direction.
Then again, I don't recall whether or not anything Snowden revealed refuted the descriptions of the book. It is certain that some of the stuff he blew the whistle on took a lot of time and effort to create. Maybe Cliff Stoll was just an easy patsy? "Nobody here but us cyber-virgins!"
Why don't we put the spammers out of business?
Might sound like a rhetorical question, but we actually could do it--IF we only had better spammer-fighting tools. At least that applies to the rational spammers who are in it for the money. Basically it depends on one ratio: The number of people who feed the spammers (with money or information) is MUCH smaller than the number of people who hate spam. It is well known that the response rate of the suckers is on the order of 1 in a million. If only 1 in a thousand of the non-suckers helped out, then there would be 1,000 people blocking each sucker. I'm not saying we can eliminate ALL spam or turn the spammers into decent human beings. I'm just saying we can make spam much less profitable and that most of the sociopaths who send the spam (and who victimized the OP in this case) would crawl under less visible rocks.
How? I think the best approach would be an integrated anti-spammer tool built into the major email systems. There would be several rounds of analysis to classify the spam and focus on the best countermeasures, ultimately targeting ALL of the spammers' infrastructure and accomplices, and helping and protecting ALL of the spammers' victims, even the Joe-jobbed corporations. Some spam fighters may even earn enough reputation to pull the triggers, though I doubt I'd ever reach that level. I'd be too prone to blast away at any likely spammer, but I could still help with the targeting even if I couldn't be trusted with the nukes.
If the spammers can't target the biggies, then their entire so-called enterprise collapses. Insofar as the biggies would also profit from less spam in a more valuable Internet, I can't understand what is holding them back.
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking Crescent Bay prototype
- Teardown Pop open this iPhone 6 and see where the magic oozes from ... oh hello again, Qualcomm
- Analysis Apple's warrant canary riddle: Cock-up, conspiracy, or anti-Google point-scoring
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln