Fake Reviews: Amazon's Rotten Core

[Stoic Joker]

I don't see why every stage of the journey would need to be different to now - you could leave the certificate verification to the last leg of the journey...

-Carol Haynes (August 29, 2012, 11:56 AM)

Because the only time you can verify the sender is when something is sent. Otherwise you're just getting the MITM's version of who the sender is/was/should have been. Which would most likely make it easier to spoof because the servers would be tied up focusing on a cert instead of the rest of the message header.

The SPF (Sender Policy Framework) was supposed to be a cure for server validation ... it just never got off the ground. Because as simple as it is ... It's still too friggin complicated for fried admins to get setup right ... So they just declaw the thing and move on.

[joiwind]

...and the lawyers, and the politicians.  And especially the lawyers turned politicians.

-wraith808 (August 29, 2012, 01:01 PM)

Here in France when a politician leaves political life he usually becomes a lawyer ... 

[Renegade]

If I had my way, SEO fscktards would be publicly tortured, they're ruining the interwebs.

-f0dder (August 29, 2012, 02:28 AM)

+1

-Renegade (August 29, 2012, 02:41 AM)

Only if they crucify the spammers first.

...and the lawyers, and the politicians.  And especially the lawyers turned politicians.

-wraith808 (August 29, 2012, 01:01 PM)

Then you'd need step ladders to get up there to torture them. I guess that's ok though.

[rxantos]

Whenever people can take an advantage of something, they will.

Lying is effective. More so if it comes accompanied by some truth.

Since the Internet has become the alternative to Mass Media. And mass Media is all about lying to get people to buy your clients products (so they can charge more to their clients), it follows that the Internet would have become a lying cesspool. And indeed, it has.

Heck, even Wikipedia has being found doing information manipulation, eliminating information that is against the believes of whoever is an op there while putting propaganda as the truth.

But this is not only a problem in the Internet. Lying have become the norm in courts. The trick is doing it in a way that the other party cannot prove that you lied. Bonus points if you buy the judge (far too many ways, not all based on money).

And politics. I wonder if one can make a candidate sign a contract in which if he/she does not makes good on his promises, they are automatically, and personally,  in debt for 1 million, per each incident. Is far too easy to lie and then do the exact opposite of what you said you would do.

[ewemoa]

Heck, even Wikipedia has being found doing information manipulation, eliminating information that is against the believes of whoever is an op there while putting propaganda as the truth.

-rxantos (August 30, 2012, 11:49 PM)

Do you know if they have manipulated the history of edits for any page?

[TaoPhoenix]

Heck, even Wikipedia has being found doing information manipulation, eliminating information that is against the believes of whoever is an op there while putting propaganda as the truth.

-rxantos (August 30, 2012, 11:49 PM)

Do you know if they have manipulated the history of edits for any page?

-ewemoa (August 30, 2012, 11:57 PM)

I believe they have, but it is beyond my mere mortal powers to provide the Citation Needed.

[40hz]

I wonder if one can make a candidate sign a contract in which if he/she does not makes good on his promises, they are automatically, and personally,  in debt for 1 million, per each incident.

-rxantos (August 30, 2012, 11:49 PM)

Probably not legally since it would be a violation of an oath of office to sign such a contract. And it might also be illegal in that it could be viewed as a form of coercion employed against an elected official. Something which is a crime.

There's already been some discussion about US reps who have signed a public pledge (i.e. Norquest No-Tax Pledge) that they will oppose and attempt to block any new tax bills no matter what the circumstances. In a Huffington Post editorial, retired judge H. Lee Sarokin raises the issue of whether this may constitute a violation of the oath of office or a dereliction of duty on the part of the reps signing it.

Interesting question.

[wraith808]

I wonder if one can make a candidate sign a contract in which if he/she does not makes good on his promises, they are automatically, and personally,  in debt for 1 million, per each incident.

-rxantos (August 30, 2012, 11:49 PM)

Probably not legally since it would be a violation of an oath of office to sign such a contract. And it might also be illegal in that it could be viewed as a form of coercion employed against an elected official. Something which is a crime.

There's already been some discussion about US reps who have signed a public pledge (i.e. Norquest No-Tax Pledge) that they will oppose and attempt to block any new tax bills no matter what the circumstances. In a Huffington Post editorial, retired judge H. Lee Sarokin raises the issue of whether this may constitute a violation of the oath of office or a dereliction of duty on the part of the reps signing it.

Interesting question.

-40hz (August 31, 2012, 12:02 PM)

The large thing is that there are IMO two different things at play here:
1. Those that make promises they never intend to deliver on to get elected, and
2. Those that make promises in good faith, but can't deliver on them because of the realities of the political situation, naivete, or both.

A good example of the latter is Clinton.  He made several promises, and tried to make them happen.  He spent a lot of political capital in the pursuit of the Health Care mandate and the stance of the military in regard to LGBT servicemen.  He was able to deliver on neither of these.  But it wasn't for lack of trying- it was because of opposition and the political realities.

To penalize someone because of that seems... wrong.

[mouser]

Guys and gals, please do not bring another real thread into politics debate land please.

[40hz]

Guys and gals, please do not bring another real thread into politics debate land please.

-mouser (August 31, 2012, 01:54 PM)

Apologies...Must be tired. Won't bring the 'real' world into a 'real' DoCo discussion ever again. Promise. (And this time I reeally mean it. )
 

[mouser]

Thanks for understanding  

What I was trying to get at with the comment about "real" thread is that I think politics+religion don't really belong on DC, but they especially doesn't belong in active threads that are productively discussing some other issue.  Injecting such issues into an active thread is harmful and likely to derail things -- even if the diversion to politics and religion starts out harmlessly and without controversy -- because it inevitably gets ugly.

[f0dder]

What I was trying to get at with the comment about "real" thread is that I think politics+religion don't really belong on DC, but they especially doesn't belong in active threads that are productively discussing some other issue.  Injecting such issues into an active thread is harmful and likely to derail things -- even if the diversion to politics and religion starts out harmlessly and without controversy -- because it inevitably gets ugly.

-mouser (August 31, 2012, 02:55 PM)

Sorry. There are things that definitely don't belong on DoCo, since we want to keep a friendly environment for everybody. Sometimes people (read: stupid f0dder ) get carried away, and I hope we can all end up getting along even if we're radically opposed. We obviously have some issues we're pretty darn passionate about, but even if you're a flaming religious person and I'm a flaming atheist, I'm sure there's some thing we don't disagree about.

And while I obviously know that I AM RIGHT , I will try not rubbing it in your face... until the next time this happens... when we'll settle things peacefully once again. I don't wish to quarrel, but just like you guys, I have "just no shadow of doubt."

I hope we can coexist peacefully with the occasional blurt when the other side seems too ludicrous - I certainly mean you no harm, I just have a different belief. And I'll try not to impose in on you, as I value the rest of DoCo too much.

[barney]

I'm sure there's some thing we don't disagree about

-f0dder (August 31, 2012, 04:40 PM)

Obviously there's one (1) commonality already - DC  !  Another tends to be software/development, a good part of the time  .  Then there's the urge just to help others  .  I cannot think of a higher calling that that last.  And that's what DC, as a group, as a community, does.  On a regular basis, the DC community comes to the assistance of all and sundry . (Dismounts soapbox, stores it for further usages, retreats into the crowd.)