Filtering can be a good first line defense, yes. However it will never, ever solve the spam epidemic on its own. No amount of filtering ever will.
This is about a group that took a better step, in going after a botnet. That is more effective than filtering in the long term, but still won't do the trick.
The long term solution comes from acknowledging that spam is an economic problem. A lot of reactionary measures (such as filtering) treat spam almost as if it is a game or a personal attack on themselves. Spammers don't give a shit who you are or what your reaction is to spam. Spammers just want to make money. Someone is paying them to send out spam. If you want to stop spam for real, you need to stop the money. If the spammers don't get paid, they don't send out spam.
It's that simple. Everything else just kicks the can down the road.
With all due respect you have it all wrong. The one way you CANT win is without your base.
I don't necessarily disagree on that. I think where we may disagree is on the dedication of the base. My argument is that Romney would have, eventually, gotten 100% of the base to vote for him regardless just based on their collective hatred of Obama. He really could have picked anyone and won the base - after all who else are they going to vote for?
What he needed though was to reach out to independents and moderates (the GOP base is neither of those). He failed miserably to do that by picking Ryan. His best hope now is that those groups don't show up at all, but that is not likely. Much more likely is that he just gave all the swing states to Obama.
A lot of his ideas come from working with Democrats.
I am not aware of an example of that happening. Paul Ryan votes with his party far more often than not - and far more often than many others. Can you provide an example of him "working with Democrats"?
And yes, I know I am replying to an AC, and hence likely won't see a reply (or if I do see a reply it may well not be from the same person) but as the statement was made, I'd like to see an example.
Extreme will be the most commonly used word at the Democrat convention, you can bet.
Nevermind that "socialist" - and variations of the same - will be the most common word at the GOP convention. A solid argument could be made for "extreme" being a much more valid label for Ryan than "socialist" for any politician who has been elected to the presidency in the past half-century.
Your agenda is clear as a devout worshipper of ron paul. You don't actually want to grant people more "freedom" or any other such bullshit that you like you use as a veneer for your agenda.
You want to open up drug sales to collect tax to run your government. You want your own income tax to get as close to zero as possible, based on taxes you can charge to others and programs that help others that you can cancel.
Of course, you completely overlook the important functions of the federal government that have benefitted you over the years - education, transportation, health care, to name a few - and try to tell everyone else to go "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps".
In other words, you're just karma-whoring here. You know that "legalize drugs" is a popular call here, but it's not your true agenda. You just want more money in to the government so you can (presumably) pay less. You want your share of the pie for nothing, with others footing the bill.
Romney has already lost this election. When he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate he sent the middle-of-the-road independent voters running away as they want nothing to do with the extreme conservatism that he represents. He gained only the far-right voters of his own party, but they would have eventually voted for him anyways because they hate Obama. He could have chosen Bill Clinton as his running mate and the GOP far-right still would have voted for him just because they believe Obama to be the devil in the flesh.
The only way Romney can win this is if the GOP makes an even more epic voter suppression effort than they did in Ohio in 2004, coupled with crooked balloting (and counting) like they did in Florida in 2000, and who knows what else.
The real puzzler here is why the GOP even let Ryan accept the nomination to be VP on a can't-win ticket. That really doesn't look that great for his future and the GOP loves Ryan. Not many people who were VP nominee on a losing run have come back to make a significant career in national politics (and some polls are already suggesting his congressional seat is now in play, too).
The article didn't disclose who was funding the research, however there is a good chance it could have been funded at least in part by the NIH as they have a significant interest in this field. If they did help fund it, then the article will be available for free fairly soon (it isn't even indexed in pubmed yet).
Otherwise, just ask your favorite academic, or visit the library of your closest university. Most academic libraries have Nature Biotechnology included with their subscription to the regular journal Nature.
NanoElectroMechanicalSensor (NEMS) mass spec has been in development for some time, and will be worth the wait when it comes to be mature. This not only can weigh a single molecule, it also can dramatically outperform existing sensors when measuring the mass of very large molecules (think protein complexes, viruses, and so on). A lot of different groups - including one at Pacific Northwest National Labs and another at Cornell (on top of the CalTech group mentioned in this article)- have been working on this technology. The ability to further reduce the physical size (and power consumption) of a mass spec will also pay dividends for using mass spec for diagnostic applications.
PLoS Computational Biology does not have issues, it publishes continually as an online-only journal. People will also notice when clicking on the link to the abstract that they can view the full article for free, from anywhere, no paywall restrictions of any sort.
Could the reason be that the GOP convention is right around the corner?
I haven't seen any slashdot front page news about the democratic convention. Furthermore the upcoming convention doesn't explain why the slashdot front page features at least one GOP-friendly front page story every week the rest of the year, including years when there is no presidential election.
to simply decide (on his own) that an individual is a threat to the security of the US... and order their death
Do you have an example of an individual order that meets those criteria specifically? Your statement implies that Obama could just pick a name out of the white pages and say "kill this person because I don't like them". Every person I have heard of so far who has been killed by a drone strike or the military under order of Obama has been someone who he has been told of by the CIA or other intelligence organization.
Now if you're angry that no trial was conducted, no formal charges drawn up, you have a right to be angry about that. I would have much preferred to have seen OBL and the like brought in for a trial by jury, and I for one did not party over the news of his demise. But don't go making up stories about arbitrary orders with no background intel beyond Obama's gut.
That's three pro-republican stories posted to the front page by timothy in less than 3 days. Can he follow it up with something telling us how Reagan would have prevented the current economic situation (or conversely how it is all the personal fault of Bill Clinton)?
All you people who bitch about slashdot being "left-wing" or "left-leaning" can kiss my ass (I know, I will be down-modded for that statement - mods can kiss my ass, too). This is just yet more proof that slashdot is catering more to the right wing with every passing day. Notice how this one also mentions the son of Ron Paul right in the story as if he is some great prophet who is single-handedly responsible for this act.
The two are diametrically opposed to each other. Or, at least, "internet freedom" wants nothing to do with net neutrality in any way, shape, or form. The "internet freedom" bit from the tea party / libertarian / whatever-they-want-to-call-themselves-this-week group is all about maximizing profit for the companies that are making money online.
Wow, welcome to drudgedot. All conservative, all the time. I'm so glad you guys could find me a "news" source that could tell me how this is all the personal fault of Bill Clinton and can only be solved with massive tax cuts for the rich.
that in USA it is not even really possible to get medical insurance across State borders
BZZZT! Wrong!
You are free to purchase medical insurance across state borders if you want, there is no law prohibiting it currently. The problem is that you may purchase it and then find that no offices in your area accept it, or that it doesn't cover what a basic policy in your state covers.
What other lies would you like to spread today?
It is illegal for foreign insurance companies to advertise in USA.
Do you have a source for that, which doesn't come from your church? I very highly doubt it.
Slashdot has had a conservative bend for some time, and conservatives are also the loudest commentators here. Hence the convention is covered to keep the conservatives looking at slashdot a little longer.
I had no idea the Atari could actually handle that many simultaneous colors. I'm also curious to know how the programmer managed to do separate fire / jump when the controller only has one button. Does "up" on the controller do jump (could be a problem when climbing vines).
I never figured out why people love XP yet despise 2000 so much. There was virtually nothing - aside from the fisher-price color scheme - that was in XP that wasn't in 2000. 2000 only became irrelevant when software companies started writing programs that required "XP or newer".
... is because they are almost hopeless to enforce
Also, I'm pretty sure that, in most jurisdictions, the police have always had the ability to charge people with various forms of "careless driving/dangerous driving/driving without due care and attention/not being in control of the vehicle" so the laws are completely redundant.
True, however the terms you mention are somewhat open to interpretation. If some dipshit was writing a text message while driving and pulled over under those terms, they could argue that they were actually still in control of the vehicle. If however a specific law is written that says you must not read and write text on your phone while driving, then it is 100% clear they are in violation.
So while the laws are redundant with existing laws, they do clarify specific behaviors are being explicitly not legal. However they do nothing to solve the enforcement problem (which may be un-solvable).
... is because they are almost hopeless to enforce. Almost every state has banned text messaging while driving (with good reason because it is fucking dangerous to read and/or write messages while driving) yet it is seldom enforced. Drivers get away with it all the time because the chance of getting caught is quite nearly zero. Talking on the phone without handsfree - in states where it is required to use handsfree - is much easier to spot, though still not fined often.
Not only does that mean you don't really need data coverage, but you can make and receive phonecalls seamlessly via wifi calling. Myself and several other coworkers switched to tmobile specifically because wifi calling works perfectly (provided there's enough wifi signal strength) and as a result, we can make calls from our building's basement - we have wifi everywhere on campus, and as a result we have the best "cell service."
You neglected to mention that only the newest TMobile phones support that. And of course to buy a new phone from TMobile means I need to sign another 2-year contract with them.
So basically, I would be promising my money and my resources to fix their crappy network. They are supposed to fix their atrocious network with the money I pay them - instead they want more money from me so I can get around their terrible network. This may be even a bigger consumer rip-off than text messaging.
I'm a T-Mobile customer and I'd be happy if I could just get voice service from them at my house. I drop calls all the time and they always claim to be "working" on the problem. I would drop them entirely but I'm expecting to move from my current location to another location hundreds - if not thousands - of miles away fairly soon and don't want a new contract until I get there and know which company's coverage is the best there.
I can certainly tell you though that I would not sign up for a data plan with T-Mobile, at least not where I currently live. That would be a tremendous waste of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Filtering can be a good first line defense, yes. However it will never, ever solve the spam epidemic on its own. No amount of filtering ever will.
This is about a group that took a better step, in going after a botnet. That is more effective than filtering in the long term, but still won't do the trick.
The long term solution comes from acknowledging that spam is an economic problem. A lot of reactionary measures (such as filtering) treat spam almost as if it is a game or a personal attack on themselves. Spammers don't give a shit who you are or what your reaction is to spam. Spammers just want to make money. Someone is paying them to send out spam. If you want to stop spam for real, you need to stop the money. If the spammers don't get paid, they don't send out spam.
It's that simple. Everything else just kicks the can down the road.
With all due respect you have it all wrong. The one way you CANT win is without your base.
I don't necessarily disagree on that. I think where we may disagree is on the dedication of the base. My argument is that Romney would have, eventually, gotten 100% of the base to vote for him regardless just based on their collective hatred of Obama. He really could have picked anyone and won the base - after all who else are they going to vote for?
What he needed though was to reach out to independents and moderates (the GOP base is neither of those). He failed miserably to do that by picking Ryan. His best hope now is that those groups don't show up at all, but that is not likely. Much more likely is that he just gave all the swing states to Obama.
A lot of his ideas come from working with Democrats.
I am not aware of an example of that happening. Paul Ryan votes with his party far more often than not - and far more often than many others. Can you provide an example of him "working with Democrats"?
And yes, I know I am replying to an AC, and hence likely won't see a reply (or if I do see a reply it may well not be from the same person) but as the statement was made, I'd like to see an example.
Extreme will be the most commonly used word at the Democrat convention, you can bet.
Nevermind that "socialist" - and variations of the same - will be the most common word at the GOP convention. A solid argument could be made for "extreme" being a much more valid label for Ryan than "socialist" for any politician who has been elected to the presidency in the past half-century.
Your agenda is clear as a devout worshipper of ron paul. You don't actually want to grant people more "freedom" or any other such bullshit that you like you use as a veneer for your agenda.
You want to open up drug sales to collect tax to run your government. You want your own income tax to get as close to zero as possible, based on taxes you can charge to others and programs that help others that you can cancel.
Of course, you completely overlook the important functions of the federal government that have benefitted you over the years - education, transportation, health care, to name a few - and try to tell everyone else to go "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps".
In other words, you're just karma-whoring here. You know that "legalize drugs" is a popular call here, but it's not your true agenda. You just want more money in to the government so you can (presumably) pay less. You want your share of the pie for nothing, with others footing the bill.
Romney has already lost this election. When he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate he sent the middle-of-the-road independent voters running away as they want nothing to do with the extreme conservatism that he represents. He gained only the far-right voters of his own party, but they would have eventually voted for him anyways because they hate Obama. He could have chosen Bill Clinton as his running mate and the GOP far-right still would have voted for him just because they believe Obama to be the devil in the flesh.
The only way Romney can win this is if the GOP makes an even more epic voter suppression effort than they did in Ohio in 2004, coupled with crooked balloting (and counting) like they did in Florida in 2000, and who knows what else.
The real puzzler here is why the GOP even let Ryan accept the nomination to be VP on a can't-win ticket. That really doesn't look that great for his future and the GOP loves Ryan. Not many people who were VP nominee on a losing run have come back to make a significant career in national politics (and some polls are already suggesting his congressional seat is now in play, too).
The article didn't disclose who was funding the research, however there is a good chance it could have been funded at least in part by the NIH as they have a significant interest in this field. If they did help fund it, then the article will be available for free fairly soon (it isn't even indexed in pubmed yet).
Otherwise, just ask your favorite academic, or visit the library of your closest university. Most academic libraries have Nature Biotechnology included with their subscription to the regular journal Nature.
NanoElectroMechanicalSensor (NEMS) mass spec has been in development for some time, and will be worth the wait when it comes to be mature. This not only can weigh a single molecule, it also can dramatically outperform existing sensors when measuring the mass of very large molecules (think protein complexes, viruses, and so on). A lot of different groups - including one at Pacific Northwest National Labs and another at Cornell (on top of the CalTech group mentioned in this article)- have been working on this technology. The ability to further reduce the physical size (and power consumption) of a mass spec will also pay dividends for using mass spec for diagnostic applications.
PLoS Computational Biology does not have issues, it publishes continually as an online-only journal. People will also notice when clicking on the link to the abstract that they can view the full article for free, from anywhere, no paywall restrictions of any sort.
Could the reason be that the GOP convention is right around the corner?
I haven't seen any slashdot front page news about the democratic convention. Furthermore the upcoming convention doesn't explain why the slashdot front page features at least one GOP-friendly front page story every week the rest of the year, including years when there is no presidential election.
With Armstrong's passing today, the weather is holding up NASA to get them to reflect on their priorities.
A lot of people ask to have their remains sent into space, but he's already been there. Has he said what he wants done with his remains?
Of course, as best we know, nobody has operable technology right now to place a person on the moon...
to simply decide (on his own) that an individual is a threat to the security of the US... and order their death
Do you have an example of an individual order that meets those criteria specifically? Your statement implies that Obama could just pick a name out of the white pages and say "kill this person because I don't like them". Every person I have heard of so far who has been killed by a drone strike or the military under order of Obama has been someone who he has been told of by the CIA or other intelligence organization.
Now if you're angry that no trial was conducted, no formal charges drawn up, you have a right to be angry about that. I would have much preferred to have seen OBL and the like brought in for a trial by jury, and I for one did not party over the news of his demise. But don't go making up stories about arbitrary orders with no background intel beyond Obama's gut.
That's three pro-republican stories posted to the front page by timothy in less than 3 days. Can he follow it up with something telling us how Reagan would have prevented the current economic situation (or conversely how it is all the personal fault of Bill Clinton)?
All you people who bitch about slashdot being "left-wing" or "left-leaning" can kiss my ass (I know, I will be down-modded for that statement - mods can kiss my ass, too). This is just yet more proof that slashdot is catering more to the right wing with every passing day. Notice how this one also mentions the son of Ron Paul right in the story as if he is some great prophet who is single-handedly responsible for this act.
The two are diametrically opposed to each other. Or, at least, "internet freedom" wants nothing to do with net neutrality in any way, shape, or form. The "internet freedom" bit from the tea party / libertarian / whatever-they-want-to-call-themselves-this-week group is all about maximizing profit for the companies that are making money online.
Thanks Timothy... not.
Well, it's been over 24 hours since Timothy last posted a story about republicans and how awesome they are, so it was past due for another one. Just wait until the samzenpus failure machine gets going again, then we'll really be buried in spin.
Wow, welcome to drudgedot. All conservative, all the time. I'm so glad you guys could find me a "news" source that could tell me how this is all the personal fault of Bill Clinton and can only be solved with massive tax cuts for the rich.
that in USA it is not even really possible to get medical insurance across State borders
BZZZT! Wrong!
You are free to purchase medical insurance across state borders if you want, there is no law prohibiting it currently. The problem is that you may purchase it and then find that no offices in your area accept it, or that it doesn't cover what a basic policy in your state covers.
What other lies would you like to spread today?
It is illegal for foreign insurance companies to advertise in USA.
Do you have a source for that, which doesn't come from your church? I very highly doubt it.
Slashdot has had a conservative bend for some time, and conservatives are also the loudest commentators here. Hence the convention is covered to keep the conservatives looking at slashdot a little longer.
... they will claim that god spared them because he supports their cause.
I had no idea the Atari could actually handle that many simultaneous colors. I'm also curious to know how the programmer managed to do separate fire / jump when the controller only has one button. Does "up" on the controller do jump (could be a problem when climbing vines).
I never figured out why people love XP yet despise 2000 so much. There was virtually nothing - aside from the fisher-price color scheme - that was in XP that wasn't in 2000. 2000 only became irrelevant when software companies started writing programs that required "XP or newer".
... is because they are almost hopeless to enforce
Also, I'm pretty sure that, in most jurisdictions, the police have always had the ability to charge people with various forms of "careless driving/dangerous driving/driving without due care and attention/not being in control of the vehicle" so the laws are completely redundant.
True, however the terms you mention are somewhat open to interpretation. If some dipshit was writing a text message while driving and pulled over under those terms, they could argue that they were actually still in control of the vehicle. If however a specific law is written that says you must not read and write text on your phone while driving, then it is 100% clear they are in violation.
So while the laws are redundant with existing laws, they do clarify specific behaviors are being explicitly not legal. However they do nothing to solve the enforcement problem (which may be un-solvable).
... is because they are almost hopeless to enforce. Almost every state has banned text messaging while driving (with good reason because it is fucking dangerous to read and/or write messages while driving) yet it is seldom enforced. Drivers get away with it all the time because the chance of getting caught is quite nearly zero. Talking on the phone without handsfree - in states where it is required to use handsfree - is much easier to spot, though still not fined often.
Not only does that mean you don't really need data coverage, but you can make and receive phonecalls seamlessly via wifi calling. Myself and several other coworkers switched to tmobile specifically because wifi calling works perfectly (provided there's enough wifi signal strength) and as a result, we can make calls from our building's basement - we have wifi everywhere on campus, and as a result we have the best "cell service."
You neglected to mention that only the newest TMobile phones support that. And of course to buy a new phone from TMobile means I need to sign another 2-year contract with them.
So basically, I would be promising my money and my resources to fix their crappy network. They are supposed to fix their atrocious network with the money I pay them - instead they want more money from me so I can get around their terrible network. This may be even a bigger consumer rip-off than text messaging.
I'm a T-Mobile customer and I'd be happy if I could just get voice service from them at my house. I drop calls all the time and they always claim to be "working" on the problem. I would drop them entirely but I'm expecting to move from my current location to another location hundreds - if not thousands - of miles away fairly soon and don't want a new contract until I get there and know which company's coverage is the best there.
I can certainly tell you though that I would not sign up for a data plan with T-Mobile, at least not where I currently live. That would be a tremendous waste of money.