Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Live and let spam is EVIL (Score 2) 42

Do we need to rehash the reasons why? You might not have any sympathy for the suckers, or you might not care about attacks on corporate reputations and customers. You might not have any children for the spammers to target, but in that case I think I should extend my sympathies. You don't care about false positives that lose your actual email and you think your time spent with false negatives is too small to matter (and don't care about the multiplication of that time by the millions). You're still getting victimized by the general inefficiency the spammers impose on everyone. Or perhaps worst of all, the basic spammers create noise that helps mask the serious threats of the serious scammers, such as spear-phishermen and identity thieves.

It seems like all of the big email providers have adopted the motto of "Live and Let Spam." Obviously didn't work for Yahoo, did it? Whatever Microsoft paid for the Hotmail brand must have been written off for similar reasons. The google is the saddest case of all, but perhaps that was just the generalized result of dropping "Don't be evil" in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." Anyway, at this point I monitor all three and Gmail clearly has the worst filters, both for false positives and false negatives and for feebleness of their countermeasures. Proof? In the preferences of the spammers themselves, blessing Gmail with the most spam of all.

Doesn't have to be that way. The rational spammers do have economic models that could be attacked. Dropboxes can be nuked and external email services that provide the dropboxes can be pressured. Link shorteners can be subverted against the spammers. Lots of other countermeasures are possible, but the google don't care (and Yahoo can't afford to care and who cares about Outlook).

*sigh* Just venting again, but I really wish someone provided a really good email system, one with tools that would let me help fight the spammers. Why not convert some of the universal hatred of spammers into positive sentiments towards an email system that scares the spammers?

Comment Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena? (Score 1) 49

Okay if that's how you feel. At what point would you regard the profits as harmful or even obscene?

I hope I'm not confusing you, but I'm also going to ask if you understand what a monopoly profit is? Also, do you understand the concept of a natural monopoly?

Pretty sure this is stretching you much too far, but if you understand the problems, do you have anything like a remotely constructive solution?

Comment Re:Resolution of the Fermi Paradox? (Score 1) 279

Well, I think you are projecting quite a bit there, but I certainly would admit to not being an expert in anything, though most of my career was spent supporting them.

However, before I waste any time on a probable troll, why don't you present your "link budget equations". At this point you have to convince me you have any credibility.

Comment Re:A troll is ALWAYS under some other rock (Score 1) 25

I sort of agree with you, but it's only an accident from the troll's perspective and I have other ways to seek serendipitous stimulation. Any other way.

At this point my only interest is... Well, actually I can't think of a point of interest. Once I have recognized a waste of time, my only interest is in reducing the waste. I certainly don't expect a troll to value its own time any more than I would expect a spammer to value the vast amounts of other people's time he wastes.

Therefore, I'd prefer you not feed it around me. Your use of your own time is your own decision.

Comment Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena? (Score 1) 49

With regards to your first question about the $31 billion in revenue and the $22 billion in profits: The marginal profits seem a bit excessive. For example, they could put some of those profits into improving the security model.

Regarding your second question, you are touching the heart of the matter, but you don't seem to see the obvious. There are good business models that are aligned with the best interests of all of the people who are involved. There are also bad business models that increase the EVIL, and the google is going down the rathole. I think the good business models are oriented around making the world better and solving problems, but the google's business model is just more profit, and this is not a real problem with any possible solution. No matter how large the profit, there is a bigger number available. You can't cure greed with any amount of cash or booze.

One concrete example that addresses both of these topics would be to expose the developers' business models in Google Play. The developers should have the option to tell us how they plan to make money, and the google should be able to comment on the business model. This would allow us, the people who are interested in downloading apps, to have a better idea of the legitimacy of the apps. In most cases the developers should be able to pick from standard business models like "advertising" or "demo version of full feature app" and the google would just say something like "We confirm substantial advertising revenue" or "We confirm many downloads of the full app." (Out of time, but details on request.)

Comment Re:So that's where the trolls came from? (Score 1) 614

Not sure how to take your comment, but if I take it on it's face value, then the obvious question is "How can they keep it a secret? Or even maintain partial secrecy?"

It's like imagining there are hordes of voters who are working in secret to vote twice so they can affect elections. Someone would be sure to leak it. You can't have a secret conspiracy with too many people involved or it has to unravel when someone leaks the secret.

In the case of the 50-cent Party, the lack of secrecy doesn't matter. They want to increase the paranoia. Is he working for the 50-cent Party? Is he a sincere believer in the propaganda? Or is he maybe working on a portfolio to get hired by the 50-cent Party? Whichever the case, if you are a sincere dissident who posted something in public, then having noticed and noted your disagreeing comment, he's likely to pass your name up the chain.

Comment How do mod points work? (Score 2, Insightful) 614

It's Trump's emphasis on "defeat them quickly" that led me to the same conclusion. I don't think a few nuclear bombs will do that much damage, though they would still be war crimes. The real risk is that Trump bungles his "limited" nuclear attack and somehow sucks Pakistan or Israel into the mess... Given the Donald's record of bungling everything he touches, I wouldn't bet on a good outcome. There are some Trump supporters who would gladly welcome a permanent state of war with 1.6 billion Muslims.

On the Hillary thing, I don't even like her, but I don't see how to get to "dystopia" if she wins. Seems most likely that she'll pretty much stay the course, and we certainly haven't gotten to dystopia yet. I'd prefer her to change the course in a more positive direction, but I don't expect her to do it unless we give her a progressive Congress and they put the pressure on her. There used to be a time when that could have included some progressive Republicans, but they've been exterminated from today's so-called Republican Party.

On my Subject: question, I really have no idea. Too many years since I got one.

Comment So that's where the trolls came from? (Score 0) 614

I think I'd give you a mod point for that, if I ever got one. However, it's rather shallow for "insightful" and there is no "obvious" mod...

My related question would be: How many of the Slashdot trolls are working for Palmer Luckey?

It's hard to believe anyone could be so sincerely ignorant or profoundly stupid, but easy to believe such people can't earn any money except by pretending to be insane. It's like the 50-cent Party run by the Chinese communists to stifle dissent on the Internet, but I bet Palmer pays better. He probably includes incentive bonuses for replies to the the trollage.

It's been quite obvious for a long time that much of the hatred of Hillary is insane or worse. I don't like her, but I basically dislike all lawyers. Looking at the evidence, there's nothing to hate there. Heck, I don't even hate the big dick Cheney, and I believe he has LOTS of blood on his hands, far beyond the most insane accusations against Hillary.

Ought to be a song about the artificial scarcity of Slashdot mod points. It's not like the moderation has as much value as an extremely small hill of beans.

Comment Re:trepanning (Score 0) 193

Ditto on the mod points, and now I realize this comment already harvested the low hanging fruit of my comment... Sorry, I forgot what a trepan was.

Point of order on the (broken as usual) moderation system: The first mod point doesn't count properly? It takes two "funny" modes before the comment becomes "funny"?

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.