because few gateways scan for FTP attachments these days.
Er, that's because there's no such thing as an FTP attachment? If you are referring to links, then I'm not aware of any virus checkers that automatically download and check HTTP links either.
Can anybody translate this into something that makes sense?
I believe the writer of the summary has mixed up two things:
Gateways don't bother with FTP traffic
Instead of malicious attachments, e-mails include links to ftp servers.
The problem is that they've set themselves up as an elite group, outside the normal wikipedia democratic processes. But Wikipedia is not a democracy...
Spam detection has got to be something like 99.999% accurate So given the volume of spam what do you get, 200 or 300 a day? Nah, that'd mean he'd there are 20 or 30 million spam e-mails addressed to him that he'd get if he didn't have any filtering.
Myself, I thought the figure of 99.999% would be a bit on the high side.
GP mentioned he occasionally gets the odd Nigerian scam letter -- let's say once a month, i.e. 0.03 per day. Let's further assume that without any spam filtering, you receive 300 spam messages a day, is that a fair estimate? That means a factor of 10,000 yielding 99.99% accuracy. I made a few assumptions, so GP's figure wasn't that far off.
When you are done voting it prints up your votes and srolls them in front of the glass so you can see that it accurately recorded what you voted. It also then prints a 2D barcode, which I suppose is for easy scanning, though of course there's no way to tell if the barcode matches the votes.
There's another problem with the barcode. How do you know it doesn't encode information that can be used to trace the voter? That could be something as simple as the exact time of your vote coupled with the ID of the voting machine. This information could then be used for vote buying (which is only really possible if the vote can be traced back to the voter).
Something else that comes to mind but which they may have dealt with: what if the printed vote is not what you intended? Is there a way to scrap your vote and "?REDO FROM START"?
No, this is not a duplicate, but an improvement on the Draw A Secret technology discussed there, as is stated in the summary:
The people behind the new work have refined the technique by parsing the shapes with a flexible grid, and using existing images as a background to reinforce memory of the password. This as opposed to the DAS technology, that uses a rigid grid and a user-drawn background image.
If Einstein murdered his wife, he would be a murderer, not a genius. He would have been both a murderer and a genius. Maybe you meant he would have been remembered today as a murderer only, but I very much doubt that.
However, the possible reasons you point out don't apply to the post that was actually modded down. Neither do I feel that using the word 'redundant' twice, the way I did, was actually redundant (ironic though that would be).
I don't mean to whine, but why was I modded 'Redundant'? Nitpicky though my comment was, the information I provided was neither in the summary, nor in the article linked to, nor in any comment. This doesn't seem 'Redundant' to me.
[...] the external military pressures of the "barbarians" (it's a Roman word). Actually, it's a Greek word: people whose speech goes like "bar bar" and can't be understood.
Also, if you think about pouring large quantities of viscous liquid, you'd realize that "dropping" a cannonball wouldn't work; rather than forming a sphere, you'd probably form a teardrop or ellipsoidal shape* due to the air resistance. Are you sure about the teardrop shape? Contrary to popular belief, rain drops don't have this form; see here.
I'll equate nuclear fission energy to other forms of energy when somebody finally releases the true figures of the cost per kW/h. Many people get it wrong, but the unit of energy you mean is actually the kWh: kilowatt times hours. 1 kWh = 1000 J/s * 3600 s = 3.6 MJ.
This sounds like what was in Dune... A rehydrator from excrement (sweat, fecal matter, urine). Only sweat would be recycled directly, the fecal matter and urine were stored to be processed later.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is a bug fix a new feature?
Er, that's because there's no such thing as an FTP attachment? If you are referring to links, then I'm not aware of any virus checkers that automatically download and check HTTP links either.
Can anybody translate this into something that makes sense?
I believe the writer of the summary has mixed up two things:what does that say about me?
In short, your personal messages are not personal. And they are being read by an agency somewhere. (...)
It is real and it's happening now.
And, most importantly and frighteningly, the average user doesn't give a damn.Please, mod parent AC comment up. I couldn't have expressed myself more clearly.
Would you let us know your 'ridiculous' nickname please? We'll promise not to laugh!
Do the recipes actually include smearing headmasters over the turkey, or was 'principles' meant?
There's another problem with the barcode. How do you know it doesn't encode information that can be used to trace the voter? That could be something as simple as the exact time of your vote coupled with the ID of the voting machine. This information could then be used for vote buying (which is only really possible if the vote can be traced back to the voter).
Something else that comes to mind but which they may have dealt with: what if the printed vote is not what you intended? Is there a way to scrap your vote and "?REDO FROM START"?
"To keep track of students' whereabouts" -- is anyone else reminded of the Marauder's Map from Harry Potter?
That reminds me of the Commodore 64 web server that slashdot reported about 5 1/2 years ago. That site went down within no time too, but ink's mirror is still online.
I stand corrected; I was under the impression that their background image was user-drawn, but in fact it wasn't.
However, in that article, there is no mention of a flexible grid; in this one, there is.
hehe :-)
However, the possible reasons you point out don't apply to the post that was actually modded down. Neither do I feel that using the word 'redundant' twice, the way I did, was actually redundant (ironic though that would be).
I don't mean to whine, but why was I modded 'Redundant'? Nitpicky though my comment was, the information I provided was neither in the summary, nor in the article linked to, nor in any comment. This doesn't seem 'Redundant' to me.
The abstract of their publication says they in fact read 301 letters, not 300.
I wonder why they read 300 letters and only 99 emails? I can't imagine the total amount of emails was smaller than the total amount of letters...