> > Openness about abuse is generally counter-productive for everyone. For > > example, opaque limits are harder to game and give better detection > > signals. Also, practically, limits need to be adjusted without notice > > to respond changing attacks. In the end, valid access that is > > difficult to distinguish from access overwhelmingly used for invalid > > purposes are sometimes, sadly, going to get caught in a low-latency > > high-volume countermeasure system. > > How about you just answer my question? > > What you're saying is mankind is wrong to live by well defined and > concrete rules.
Um, no. What John is saying is that Twitter doesn't live by them. And, considering that Twitter is a relatively new medium, that's pretty much by definition. > Of course the reality is Twitter is another laissez fair bums on seats > driven site and as google proved, there is nothing like the abiltiy to > change the rules on a whim, or hide a problem for a company of this > ilk. The line for Jaiku starts over there. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- Prediction is very difficult, especially ... about the future. -- Niels Bohr
