@Kilroy: I suspect you speak one of the American dialects.
English speakers that abbreviate using the dd/mm format often use "12th of December, 2008" when speaking the date. I supose the original usage was something like "Friday, 12th day of December, year of the Lord, etc." With the propagation of US culture via Hollywood and US TV syndication, the American usage is not uncommon either.
Not that this makes a difference if, as Mike has commented above the long form is presented in Wikipedia.
In theory they are already making an effort to actually stop spam. Catching and prosecuting a spammer should stop them from spamming and maybe deter others from taking the practice up.
It's disappointing that it doesn't seem to be have been as effective as most people had hoped.
I would tend towards the view that the botnet is automated and someone needs to shut it down first.
But there was one more possibility that you didn't mention:
Spam is the dark side of the economics of infinite goods. No promotion relying on physical promotional material could afford the low sale:copy ratios that spam has. But it costs little to set up, the promotional materials (emails) are infinite and they use the infinite goods to sell the limited physical goods (herbal penis enlargement pills) to enough fools that there is actually money to be made.
Where am I going with this? With low barrier to entry and low operating costs, I think that there are just so many other spammers out there that the claimed 30% (forgive the term) market share seems a touch inflated.
I wonder if the people making these proposals really believe that they are taking effective counter-terrorist action; or if they are cynically just ensuring that they are seen to be taking action rather than admit that they are effectively unable to alleviate the fears of an ignorant public.
So far WinTel's overwhelming user base has negated the need for non-WinTel viruses and botnets.
So far we do not have a mobile device (or family of devices) that is/are widely enough deployed to make it worth the effort. Sure mobile devices are getting more powerful. No doubt they could find exploitable security holes if they wanted to. Certainly they could try "CLICK NOW HERE FOR VIRUS REMOVE" social exploits. But why bother when there are more than enough WinTel marks out there to exploit?
That's not to say that the situation wont ever change. But it's too early to be doing the chicken little act just yet.
I was going to ask if you could define what you mean by "Bad Stuff" - it's a bit of a grey term. By then I realised it was perfect, because without rules in place to show what is and isn't permitted, these guys are going to play around the edges in the grey areas between what is clearly acceptable and what is clearly not.
Shaming by itself would not be enough.
I suppose that an industry code of conduct that clearly defines the boundaries along side "Shaming" might work - provided that the forum properly engaged all of the stakeholders.
Ultimately though, regulation and law would make me feel better.
The question that I had over this was how were the rights outside of the US and Canada acquired?
Through ignorance/stupidity (duh what? the internet is global now?) those rights were devalued. By disclaiming all responsibility to placate an audience he's effectively saying caveat emptor to whoever holds them now and assuming some cash was involved, he just became an example subject for one of his own documentaries.
Re: re: Apple have got to be feeling quietly confident
Yeah but Microsoft had overwhelming PC market share that approached a monopoly. Suppressing application competition on their OS platform suppressed application competition period.
Apple have a long way to go before they have overwhelming handset market share.
Unless you narrowly define "the market" as two handset models designed by a single company, Apple are not in a position to prevent competition. Sure their entry caused quite a stir and the number of units shipped is impressive given they started with nothing, but it will be a long time before an apple firmware update prevents you from buying a Nokia.
It's not like Apple are secretly brainwashing Californians into fanatics that are no longer able to consider the alternatives, is it?
I was planning to add another comment to the GigaOM post but was struggling to do this without writing an essay - now I can just link to this post!
The only thing I am uncomfortable with in your post is the Wikipedia thing. As you've demonstrated, there are enough holes in the paper as it is. Many of them come down to hasty preparation and I'm willing to accept that this was an unintentional over site.
The bottom line with reverting to some variant of metered usage is that some people will pay more. I don't have a problem with that. The real concern is how to avoid this morphing into 'most people pay more'?
I don't buy the argument that the "Mental Transaction Costs" are prohibitive - this says something negative about the capabilities of your average Netizen.
So I am in favor of some kind of user pays principle being applied to 'broadband' but I do buy the argument that in a market with little competition, there has to be some way to keep the bastards honest.
A person or company may choose to lodge a patent application for a variety of reasons. And this looks like a defensive patent - Google know its pretty obvious but don't trust a court using a lower standard of obviousness to agree.
I wouldn't take what Mike has said as a personal criticism of either the good Doctor or similarly qualified persons. Take rather as a frustrated howl that the system encourages obvious applications for reasons that have little to do with innovation.
Of course the politicians are going to look for someone or something to blame. Otherwise they might have to admit that they are ineffectual and powerless to prevent this.
On the other hand having read the article, and in particular the paragraphs surrounding the quotation you quote I don't think he was blaming the internet. I think that he was suggesting that police use of information from the internet needs to be reviewed.
If you make generic SMS too reliable then you undermine any premium emergency service that you want to offer. It's not that they cant make the service more reliable even to the point where it might be acceptable for real emergency use, it just that they prefer not to.
I think that you will find that the First Amendment limits the power of the various branches of US government from creating laws that inhibit/prevent free speech.
Google caving to some US Senator's request is wrong, but I dont think it's a constitutional issue.
The UK government is certainly going overboard in making these requests, but last time I checked the UK was not one of the 52 states to which the [US] first amendment applies.
To avoid any question of impropriety there should be an employment embargo that prevents a senior regulator taking a position with those they have regulated for a reasonable period.
@ David, take a chill pill man, whether or not she isn't allowed to lobby her ex-colleges, doesn't change the central point that the system could use some improvement.
This experiment had pretty much the outcome you might expect, but, I think that you've got to give them a little bit of credit for trying. Maybe next time they'll come with an idea that has a hope of working.
Even putting aside the question of whether or not they are responsible for their users, how is it that individual questions (as opposed to the whole paper) don't represent some kind of fair use in the first place?
It might be nice if they were intended to inform the user first but,
I think that most privacy policies are written to cover the website owner's @rse first and inform their hapless audience second.
It doesn't matter how complex they are as long as it helps some judge to decide that X did enough to inform the user that X was selling email addresses to the highest bidder.
But the complaints about an 'exaflood' aren't about the end points of the network
Maybe I've read different papers:
"The problem is at the fringes, not the center. Companies that carry the highest volume of Internet traffic are capable of managing their growth, given sufficient investment capital. It is at the outer edges of the Internet, where users connect, that the biggest problems will be experienced." - The Exabyte Internet, US Internet Industry Association
I've been basing my responses to your posts on the above.
A report on the core of the network tells you about the core of the network. You can not reach any conclusions on other parts/layers of the network. There is insufficient data to do so.
Here is a straw man arguing that it is feasible that there is a problem, just not in the core.
Enormous amounts of money were invested in core fibre networks and submarine networks the late 90's and early 00's. There was so much oversupply in core infrastructure that demand is really only just starting to catch up. Even after all of the chapter 11 restructuring, outright bankruptcies and industry consolidation earlier this decade the networks have continued to invest in core infrastructure.
I used to work for a (non US) Telco building that core infrastructure.
So another report measuring the utilisation of the core of the internet is concluding that there is no congestion in the core. Hardly a revelation.
The question though, is to what level did the combatants invest in the last mile, the local access and regional networks connecting the consumer to the core of the network? Did it come anywhere close to the billions that Enron, etc. frittered away?
I suspect not.
The conclusion: comcast et.al. are facing problems (or potential problems) in their broadband access networks through a lack of investment there. The same problems are not evident in the core because of early over investment and sufficient on going investments.
On the post: The Uneasy Balance Between Wikipedia And Truth
Re: Re:
English speakers that abbreviate using the dd/mm format often use "12th of December, 2008" when speaking the date. I supose the original usage was something like "Friday, 12th day of December, year of the Lord, etc." With the propagation of US culture via Hollywood and US TV syndication, the American usage is not uncommon either.
Not that this makes a difference if, as Mike has commented above the long form is presented in Wikipedia.
On the post: No Spam Decrease, Despite The Big Spam Bust
It's disappointing that it doesn't seem to be have been as effective as most people had hoped.
I would tend towards the view that the botnet is automated and someone needs to shut it down first.
But there was one more possibility that you didn't mention:
Spam is the dark side of the economics of infinite goods. No promotion relying on physical promotional material could afford the low sale:copy ratios that spam has. But it costs little to set up, the promotional materials (emails) are infinite and they use the infinite goods to sell the limited physical goods (herbal penis enlargement pills) to enough fools that there is actually money to be made.
Where am I going with this? With low barrier to entry and low operating costs, I think that there are just so many other spammers out there that the claimed 30% (forgive the term) market share seems a touch inflated.
On the post: UK Phone Buyers: Must Show Passport & Register In National Database
On the post: All Fear The Mobile Phone Botnets... That Don't Actually Exist
It's about critical mass
So far we do not have a mobile device (or family of devices) that is/are widely enough deployed to make it worth the effort. Sure mobile devices are getting more powerful. No doubt they could find exploitable security holes if they wanted to. Certainly they could try "CLICK NOW HERE FOR VIRUS REMOVE" social exploits. But why bother when there are more than enough WinTel marks out there to exploit?
That's not to say that the situation wont ever change. But it's too early to be doing the chicken little act just yet.
On the post: Is Public Shame Enough To Keep ISPs From Doing Bad Stuff With Your Data?
Shaming by itself would not be enough.
I suppose that an industry code of conduct that clearly defines the boundaries along side "Shaming" might work - provided that the forum properly engaged all of the stakeholders.
Ultimately though, regulation and law would make me feel better.
On the post: Michael Moore Admits He Doesn't Care About International Downloads, But He Has To Pretend To
Irony.
Through ignorance/stupidity (duh what? the internet is global now?) those rights were devalued. By disclaiming all responsibility to placate an audience he's effectively saying caveat emptor to whoever holds them now and assuming some cash was involved, he just became an example subject for one of his own documentaries.
On the post: Judge Lets iPhone Antitrust Trial Move Forward
Re: re: Apple have got to be feeling quietly confident
Apple have a long way to go before they have overwhelming handset market share.
On the post: Judge Lets iPhone Antitrust Trial Move Forward
Apple have got to be feeling quietly confident
It's not like Apple are secretly brainwashing Californians into fanatics that are no longer able to consider the alternatives, is it?
On the post: Let's Be Honest About Bandwidth Rationing
I was planning to add another comment to the GigaOM post but was struggling to do this without writing an essay - now I can just link to this post!
The only thing I am uncomfortable with in your post is the Wikipedia thing. As you've demonstrated, there are enough holes in the paper as it is. Many of them come down to hasty preparation and I'm willing to accept that this was an unintentional over site.
The bottom line with reverting to some variant of metered usage is that some people will pay more. I don't have a problem with that. The real concern is how to avoid this morphing into 'most people pay more'?
I don't buy the argument that the "Mental Transaction Costs" are prohibitive - this says something negative about the capabilities of your average Netizen.
So I am in favor of some kind of user pays principle being applied to 'broadband' but I do buy the argument that in a market with little competition, there has to be some way to keep the bastards honest.
On the post: Google Tries To Patent Least Cost Routing?
Re:
I wouldn't take what Mike has said as a personal criticism of either the good Doctor or similarly qualified persons. Take rather as a frustrated howl that the system encourages obvious applications for reasons that have little to do with innovation.
On the post: What Does The Internet Have To Do With The Finnish School Shooting?
Blaming the internet or the police procedure?
On the other hand having read the article, and in particular the paragraphs surrounding the quotation you quote I don't think he was blaming the internet. I think that he was suggesting that police use of information from the internet needs to be reviewed.
On the post: People Finally Realizing That SMS Isn't Good For Emergency Alerts
It depends on the network.
On the post: Will YouTube Ban Videos Of Putting Your Head In The Sand Next?
Re: Re: UMmmm
On the post: Will YouTube Ban Videos Of Putting Your Head In The Sand Next?
Re: UMmmm
I think that you will find that the First Amendment limits the power of the various branches of US government from creating laws that inhibit/prevent free speech.
Google caving to some US Senator's request is wrong, but I dont think it's a constitutional issue.
The UK government is certainly going overboard in making these requests, but last time I checked the UK was not one of the 52 states to which the [US] first amendment applies.
On the post: Revolving Door Undermines FCC's Watchdog Role
Is a lobbying embargo enough?
@ David, take a chill pill man, whether or not she isn't allowed to lobby her ex-colleges, doesn't change the central point that the system could use some improvement.
On the post: Looks Like That Plan To Remove Songs From iTunes Didn't Work Out So Well
On the post: 84 GMAT Scores Cancelled For Students Who Used 'Copyright Infringing' Test Prep Site
Gotta agree.
On the post: Does It Really Matter How Complex Privacy Policies Are?
It might be nice if they were intended to inform the user first but,
It doesn't matter how complex they are as long as it helps some judge to decide that X did enough to inform the user that X was selling email addresses to the highest bidder.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: The Internet Isn't At Risk Of Running Out Of Bandwidth
Re: Re: An investment driven straw man.
Maybe I've read different papers:
I've been basing my responses to your posts on the above.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: The Internet Isn't At Risk Of Running Out Of Bandwidth
An investment driven straw man.
A report on the core of the network tells you about the core of the network. You can not reach any conclusions on other parts/layers of the network. There is insufficient data to do so.
Here is a straw man arguing that it is feasible that there is a problem, just not in the core.
Enormous amounts of money were invested in core fibre networks and submarine networks the late 90's and early 00's. There was so much oversupply in core infrastructure that demand is really only just starting to catch up. Even after all of the chapter 11 restructuring, outright bankruptcies and industry consolidation earlier this decade the networks have continued to invest in core infrastructure.
I used to work for a (non US) Telco building that core infrastructure.
So another report measuring the utilisation of the core of the internet is concluding that there is no congestion in the core. Hardly a revelation.
The question though, is to what level did the combatants invest in the last mile, the local access and regional networks connecting the consumer to the core of the network? Did it come anywhere close to the billions that Enron, etc. frittered away?
I suspect not.
The conclusion: comcast et.al. are facing problems (or potential problems) in their broadband access networks through a lack of investment there. The same problems are not evident in the core because of early over investment and sufficient on going investments.
OK. Knock me down.
Next >>