Slashdot Mirror

I like responding to Word documents by picking another esoteric file format.

I have a canned response in as DVI which I regularly send. I follow it up with a PDF version about 20 minutes later.

If I may be so conceited, it is good rant worth reading. you can get it in many formats starting here.

I like responding to Word documents by picking another esoteric file format.

I have a canned response in as DVI which I regularly send. I follow it up with a PDF version about 20 minutes later.

If I may be so conceited, it is good rant worth reading. you can get it in many formats starting here.

This is an arrogant shameless plug, but I've got a document on this issue which also addresses the "de facto" standard question. It is available in a number of formats

This is an arrogant shameless plug, but I've got a document on this issue which also addresses the "de facto" standard question. It is available in a number of formats

Not only is this obvious, there are analytical models that have shown exactly under what conditions punishment works (also taking into account punishment of those who don't punish freeloading, and punishment of those who don't punish those who don't punish the freeloaders, etc)

This is the kind of stuff that game theory is made of. But for some strange reason, nobody cares about the proofs that have been around for ages, but only seem to pay attention to the far less informative simulations. Forgive me for plugging my own paper on the question of this kind of hype

To quote a founder of evolutionary game theory, John Maynard Smith, the idea that there is a bold new science of emergence and complexity is "absolute f*ing crap, but crap with good PR." (Reference in the paper linked to in previous paragraph.)

Spam filtering is not a viable solution for average non-technical users

Attempting content filtering to detect and junk incoming spam is counter productive. Filtering like that only makes things easier for spammers. The spammer's ideal email list would include every email address on the planet with the exception of those who are inclined to take action against spam. The spammer doesn't mind the vast majority of people who "just hit delete". If automatic filtering means that those inclined to complain about the spam don't see the spam, then filtering actually helps the spammer.

I wonder if the increase in the use of filters is related to the increase in spam.

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd welcome more legalese on documents... but any sensitive documents should really have that blurb, quoted (well, mostly) here:

The information contained in this document is proprietary and confidential and may not be transmitted to others in any form without the express written consent of $COMPANY. If you have received this document in error, please call $NAME at $PHONE and promptly destroy all copies.

has text of this nature ever been used successfully as a defense against any type of legal action

On my Stupid Email Disclaimers pages, I quote some others who think that these have no legal force and can only be used to scare people with.

Notice: Unless you are named "Arnold P. Fasnock", you may read only the "odd numbered words" (every other word beginning with the first) of the message above. If you have violated that, then you hereby owe the sender 10 GBP for each even numbered word you have read.

The most sensible analysis (from a UK perspective) of email disclaimers is on the Stupid Email Disclaimers web site. Its contains a bit of logical (and legal) analysis, some sample disclaimers and some parodies as well.

Someone pointed it out on an email list when the Registers story first came out.