You see the iphone-wannabes on ebay, craigslist, etc, all the time. Even more impressive is how little time it takes the counterfeiters to crank out the clones. A while ago I did a search on ebay for the blackberry 8520 - which is a pretty recent model - and came up with quite a few clones along with the genuine phones. They even list them as "8520", and they fake the RIM blackberry logo, but they don't mention until the end of the listing that the phone is is a fake. A fake with many similar features and a much lower price, that is.
When I was starting my junior year of high school I was taking the last science (and math) classes that were available at my school. I did that partially by doubling up on some classwork that year, but nonetheless I had nothing left for my senior year. Then I heard about the Post Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO) progam. It allowed me to start at the University full-time during my senior year, and the state picked up the tab. I was only required to pay my own transportation and supplies costs; they even bought my books.
From my point of view the MN program was actually better than what is proposed in this article, because the tuition was paid by the state. The credits I earned that year counted both towards my high school diploma and my BS. Graduating early would have been an option for me as well, although had I done that instead I would have had to pay for those credits I took under PSEO.
The spammer can only profit because their overhead is being spread to unsuspecting users on a global scale.
That statement doesn't match reality. The money the spammers pull in could easily purchase a cluster to pump out spam. However the botnets create one element of the great game of spam whack-a-mole in how difficult they are to shut down as they dynamically resize and pull in new nodes.
And if you look at how much the spammers pay their ISPs, you'll realize that the spammers are in no way hurting for money.
How do you tell the difference between a spamvertiser and a joe job?
That is an excellent question. If one were to presume that there is no (or next to no) overlap between the two sets, then you can identify the difference based on the registration of the domain. Often a great number of spamvertised domains are all resolved by a very short list of DNS servers, which is why I advocate looking at the spamvertised domains as well as the domains that resolve and register them. If you follow that reasoning, you could also differentiate spamvertised domains from legitimate domains that are being subjected to joe jobs from spammers.
However, if a legitimate domain were to for some reason use the spammer's DNS servers and find itself the target of a joe job, then they would be targeted by those combined signs.
If you want to do something about the spamming problem, start looking beyond your own nose. Stop adjusting your filtering rules constantly. Pay attention to the cause of the problem - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done about the profit-motive (and the insane margins of profit) behind spam, the problem will only continue to grow.
Two problems with this idea. First, the people who actually buy stuff from spam can be difficult to identify. I think many of them know deep down that they are doing something exquisitely stupid and will deny it if asked
I apologize if I was overly vague, but that is generally the opposite direction from where I would go. Indeed I expected that most people by now would have given up on the noble (but impractical) aim of "educate every internet user to not buy spamvertised products", hence I advocate instead working to make it more difficult for the spammers themselves to turn a profit. Currently the system unfortunately is doing exactly the opposite of that and making it exceedingly easy for spammers to turn a profit. There are places where a well-placed (metaphorical) wrench in their system could change that.
Second, even if we can identify these spam patrons, it is quite illegal in most places to bash their empty skulls in with a baseball bat. Barring some significant changes in legislation, I just don't see how the problem can be tackled from this end.
I have never condoned the killing of anyone, and indeed my message history here shows a long-standing opposition to murder as an answer to the spam problem. As popular as that suggestion is here on slashdot, murder is wrong and will never solve the spam problem, period.
Rather the answer I offer is to go after the people who profit by enabling spam. This would be in particular the registrars for the spamvertised domains, the ISPs of the spamvertised domains, the registrars for the DNS servers that resolve spamvertised domains, and the ISPs of the DNS servers that resolve spamvertised domains. In the case of a significant portion of all spam, those four groups are all in cahoots with the spammers themselves and are getting a cut of the action in exchange for turning a blind eye to the (often illegal) activities of their customers.
Notice also that I specifically mention the spamvertising domains, not the spamming domains. We know that a good portion of spam is now sent through botnets, which makes it increasingly meaningless to try to go after open relays. Spam costs the spammers almost nothing and nets them tremendous profit. Increase the costs of doing business and you'll see more spammers find other ways to make money; perhaps some of those will even be within the confines of the law.
Yeah, we can see how much of a wonderful difference all those filtering programs that are on the market today are doing for the worldwide spamming problem. That is, no difference.
If you want to do something about the spamming problem, start looking beyond your own nose. Stop adjusting your filtering rules constantly. Pay attention to the cause of the problem - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done about the profit-motive (and the insane margins of profit) behind spam, the problem will only continue to grow.
every single one of these colliders will be recycled and reprocessed into long term and far more useful gear like wind turbines
You are right in the first part of that statement, the colliders are being recycled. However I am not aware of any being turned into wind turbines.
I know someone on the D0 group at Fermi, and was talking about collider fate with him recently. He pointed out that many of the facilities that are now serving as synchrotons (or high-energy light sources, such as Cornell's CHESS) which make significant contributions to structural biology. Currently we have less than 10 synchrotrons in the US - and many more structural biologists - so increasing that total can help a lot.
However your assertion of "far more useful gear" is a statement of opinion. High energy physics creates a lot of jobs, and a lot of valuable research for the public good.
To be more verbose I should have specified "operating system for personal computers"; where they have two notable retractions OS/2, and the lesser-acknowledged PC-DOS. While you mentioned several significant operating systems that indeed IBM does still develop, they are almost entirely irrelevant to the operation of a personal computer.
So apparently even though IBM couldn't keep up development on an operating system, Lenovo decided to give it a go anyways. It will be interesting to see how this pans out for the company that bought IBM's personal computer division...
A long time ago in a galaxy far away there was a store called "Dexis" in Eden Prairie MN. They had a retail storefront but the fun was in the back rooms. All sorts of odd stuff was for sale back there; much of it sold "best offer / as-is". I found many things back there that I didn't know (before going in) that I needed. Unfortunately for the consumer they found that they could sell that stuff for more money on ebay. Then they eventually folded up completely. Now dexis.com is a dental x-ray business. RIP Dexis.
I think there is something wrong with the slashdot tagging system. I see this story has been simultaneously tagged "microsoft" and "bug". We all know that Microsoft turns out only the highest quality of code, hence those two sets should be mutually exclusive. Perhaps the "bug" tag refers to an error in the slashdot code that allows the sets "bug" and "microsoft" to overlap?
I heard on the radio that after the final shuttle mission NASA will be selling off the shuttles. Why try to smuggle out the information when you can just buy the shuttle outright and reverse engineer the entire thing in your own country?
Yest I am posting this reply - to my own reply - just to egg you on. You probably don't have any mod points left or you would have tagged some of my other posts with "flamebait" as well.
Your attempt to knock me down failed. Indeed it failed miserably as my karma remains at excellent. You really should have found a better way to use your mod points then following every post I made in this discussion with "flamebait". Even better yet would have been for you to actually voice your opposition with a reply, but apparently that was above you.
In the end, your efforts were for naught. If you ever get mod points again perhaps you will use your points more wisely. Currently I am laughing in your general direction.
As computational resources on the market continue to expand, I would suspect that we could soon come to see the opposite of scalability becoming more important - getting more done with less space and energy.
If you think the solution to scaling issues is to 'throw more silicone' at the problem,
I have no idea how you could have possibly derived that from what I said. Indeed I was saying the opposite of that - I was questioning whether scaling itself is relevant.
you are about the worse programmer in the universe
I am not a programmer by profession, nor do I play one on TV.
I'm not sure that scalability will be all that relevant as long as Moore's Law continues to hold. IIRC it has taken on average less than 10 years for the computing power of a top10 supercomuter to be available in a consumer laptop. As computational resources on the market continue to expand, I would suspect that we could soon come to see the opposite of scalability becoming more important - getting more done with less space and energy.
That said, any admin worth their salt who focused on scalability should still be an excellent sys admin anyways, so they shouldn't be heading towards the bread line. I'm just not convinced that focusing on learning skills for network scaling is the best idea unless you want to build clusters for research groups.
Did you expect the extra componentry to somehow consume zero space?
I think there are more intelligent ways to consume physical space than this. For example, if we look at Hard Disk Form Factors we see that in the physical space allocated for a single 3.5 hard disk drive bay (4 x 1.63 x 8 inches) we can easily fit two 2.5 hard disk drives (2.75 x 0.374-0.59 x 3.945 inches each). Instead they waste the space by placing only a single 2.5" (or smaller) SSD into a 3.5" bay. And being as most 3.5" drives are now only 1" tall (in a 1.63" tall bay), there is enough space to place the SSD on top of the HDD and still fit the space.
And there is history of adapters taking up (essentially) zero space - look for 80pin SCA to 68pin SCSI adapters. And if you want to cache your HDD access, a hardware caching controller could well be a more intelligent choice (and would be OS-agnostic as well).
That is exactly the problem I have with it. The device itself is a waste of physical space inside a computer case.
Well, it wastes space and money, to be more specific...
caching disk controllers usually require special drivers
I don't know what kind of ultra-shitty walmart-grade caching controller you have in mind. A quality caching controller (like the ones DPT made back in the day) is completely OS-agnostic. No special drivers - or drivers of any sort - required. A good hardware caching controller does its job in hardware.
Indeed you are a scholar and a gentleman. I will cherish this wonderful conversation for the rest of my days and then some. I hope you a lifetime of peace and happiness for the kindness you have bestowed upon me and indeed the whole of the world. We all could never be adequately grateful for a kind soul such as yours.
The 2.5 caddy is for your SSD. Mount your 3.5 wherever you like.
So the caddy is just a collossal waste of space and money, then. You should be able to fit a 2.5 HD with a 2.5 SSD into a single 3.5 bay. Instead you're going to use a 3.5 bay for your SSD, so that you can achieve some minor performance gains on your regular HD?
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, is that really the only thing that this person could think of that is fundamentally flawed with flash?
You see the iphone-wannabes on ebay, craigslist, etc, all the time. Even more impressive is how little time it takes the counterfeiters to crank out the clones. A while ago I did a search on ebay for the blackberry 8520 - which is a pretty recent model - and came up with quite a few clones along with the genuine phones. They even list them as "8520", and they fake the RIM blackberry logo, but they don't mention until the end of the listing that the phone is is a fake. A fake with many similar features and a much lower price, that is.
When I was starting my junior year of high school I was taking the last science (and math) classes that were available at my school. I did that partially by doubling up on some classwork that year, but nonetheless I had nothing left for my senior year. Then I heard about the Post Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO) progam. It allowed me to start at the University full-time during my senior year, and the state picked up the tab. I was only required to pay my own transportation and supplies costs; they even bought my books.
From my point of view the MN program was actually better than what is proposed in this article, because the tuition was paid by the state. The credits I earned that year counted both towards my high school diploma and my BS. Graduating early would have been an option for me as well, although had I done that instead I would have had to pay for those credits I took under PSEO.
... how many of these errors have been committed by slashdot?
little profit in spam from a legitimate business
While the meaning of "legitimate business" may be debated with regards to the businesses that employ spam, the profit is indisputable. Here is someone who made millions before age 28 from spam. There is also an Olympic skier who is a millionaire spam mogul. Here is yet another spammer who made millions off of spam. Most of the top spammers on the SpamHaus list are doing quite well financially as well - well enough that many of them jet around the world with their spam profits.
The spammer can only profit because their overhead is being spread to unsuspecting users on a global scale.
That statement doesn't match reality. The money the spammers pull in could easily purchase a cluster to pump out spam. However the botnets create one element of the great game of spam whack-a-mole in how difficult they are to shut down as they dynamically resize and pull in new nodes.
And if you look at how much the spammers pay their ISPs, you'll realize that the spammers are in no way hurting for money.
How do you tell the difference between a spamvertiser and a joe job?
That is an excellent question. If one were to presume that there is no (or next to no) overlap between the two sets, then you can identify the difference based on the registration of the domain. Often a great number of spamvertised domains are all resolved by a very short list of DNS servers, which is why I advocate looking at the spamvertised domains as well as the domains that resolve and register them. If you follow that reasoning, you could also differentiate spamvertised domains from legitimate domains that are being subjected to joe jobs from spammers.
However, if a legitimate domain were to for some reason use the spammer's DNS servers and find itself the target of a joe job, then they would be targeted by those combined signs.
If you want to do something about the spamming problem, start looking beyond your own nose. Stop adjusting your filtering rules constantly. Pay attention to the cause of the problem - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done about the profit-motive (and the insane margins of profit) behind spam, the problem will only continue to grow.
Two problems with this idea. First, the people who actually buy stuff from spam can be difficult to identify. I think many of them know deep down that they are doing something exquisitely stupid and will deny it if asked
I apologize if I was overly vague, but that is generally the opposite direction from where I would go. Indeed I expected that most people by now would have given up on the noble (but impractical) aim of "educate every internet user to not buy spamvertised products", hence I advocate instead working to make it more difficult for the spammers themselves to turn a profit. Currently the system unfortunately is doing exactly the opposite of that and making it exceedingly easy for spammers to turn a profit. There are places where a well-placed (metaphorical) wrench in their system could change that.
Second, even if we can identify these spam patrons, it is quite illegal in most places to bash their empty skulls in with a baseball bat. Barring some significant changes in legislation, I just don't see how the problem can be tackled from this end.
I have never condoned the killing of anyone, and indeed my message history here shows a long-standing opposition to murder as an answer to the spam problem. As popular as that suggestion is here on slashdot, murder is wrong and will never solve the spam problem, period.
Rather the answer I offer is to go after the people who profit by enabling spam. This would be in particular the registrars for the spamvertised domains, the ISPs of the spamvertised domains, the registrars for the DNS servers that resolve spamvertised domains, and the ISPs of the DNS servers that resolve spamvertised domains. In the case of a significant portion of all spam, those four groups are all in cahoots with the spammers themselves and are getting a cut of the action in exchange for turning a blind eye to the (often illegal) activities of their customers.
Notice also that I specifically mention the spamvertising domains, not the spamming domains. We know that a good portion of spam is now sent through botnets, which makes it increasingly meaningless to try to go after open relays. Spam costs the spammers almost nothing and nets them tremendous profit. Increase the costs of doing business and you'll see more spammers find other ways to make money; perhaps some of those will even be within the confines of the law.
Yeah, we can see how much of a wonderful difference all those filtering programs that are on the market today are doing for the worldwide spamming problem. That is, no difference.
If you want to do something about the spamming problem, start looking beyond your own nose. Stop adjusting your filtering rules constantly. Pay attention to the cause of the problem - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done about the profit-motive (and the insane margins of profit) behind spam, the problem will only continue to grow.
... I suspect that dissolving the cards with nitric acid probably won't help his efforts to get help from Kingston.
every single one of these colliders will be recycled and reprocessed into long term and far more useful gear like wind turbines
You are right in the first part of that statement, the colliders are being recycled. However I am not aware of any being turned into wind turbines.
I know someone on the D0 group at Fermi, and was talking about collider fate with him recently. He pointed out that many of the facilities that are now serving as synchrotons (or high-energy light sources, such as Cornell's CHESS) which make significant contributions to structural biology. Currently we have less than 10 synchrotrons in the US - and many more structural biologists - so increasing that total can help a lot.
However your assertion of "far more useful gear" is a statement of opinion. High energy physics creates a lot of jobs, and a lot of valuable research for the public good.
... someone do Wii boxing with a laptop.
I suspect he made this primarily because he is Ben Heck, and this is the kind of thing he does. Nonetheless I can't help but ask "what is the point".
To be more verbose I should have specified "operating system for personal computers"; where they have two notable retractions OS/2, and the lesser-acknowledged PC-DOS. While you mentioned several significant operating systems that indeed IBM does still develop, they are almost entirely irrelevant to the operation of a personal computer.
So apparently even though IBM couldn't keep up development on an operating system, Lenovo decided to give it a go anyways. It will be interesting to see how this pans out for the company that bought IBM's personal computer division...
A long time ago in a galaxy far away there was a store called "Dexis" in Eden Prairie MN. They had a retail storefront but the fun was in the back rooms. All sorts of odd stuff was for sale back there; much of it sold "best offer / as-is". I found many things back there that I didn't know (before going in) that I needed. Unfortunately for the consumer they found that they could sell that stuff for more money on ebay. Then they eventually folded up completely. Now dexis.com is a dental x-ray business. RIP Dexis.
I think there is something wrong with the slashdot tagging system. I see this story has been simultaneously tagged "microsoft" and "bug". We all know that Microsoft turns out only the highest quality of code, hence those two sets should be mutually exclusive. Perhaps the "bug" tag refers to an error in the slashdot code that allows the sets "bug" and "microsoft" to overlap?
I heard on the radio that after the final shuttle mission NASA will be selling off the shuttles. Why try to smuggle out the information when you can just buy the shuttle outright and reverse engineer the entire thing in your own country?
Yest I am posting this reply - to my own reply - just to egg you on. You probably don't have any mod points left or you would have tagged some of my other posts with "flamebait" as well.
Your attempt to knock me down failed. Indeed it failed miserably as my karma remains at excellent. You really should have found a better way to use your mod points then following every post I made in this discussion with "flamebait". Even better yet would have been for you to actually voice your opposition with a reply, but apparently that was above you.
In the end, your efforts were for naught. If you ever get mod points again perhaps you will use your points more wisely. Currently I am laughing in your general direction.
As computational resources on the market continue to expand, I would suspect that we could soon come to see the opposite of scalability becoming more important - getting more done with less space and energy.
If you think the solution to scaling issues is to 'throw more silicone' at the problem,
I have no idea how you could have possibly derived that from what I said. Indeed I was saying the opposite of that - I was questioning whether scaling itself is relevant.
you are about the worse programmer in the universe
I am not a programmer by profession, nor do I play one on TV.
I'm not sure that scalability will be all that relevant as long as Moore's Law continues to hold. IIRC it has taken on average less than 10 years for the computing power of a top10 supercomuter to be available in a consumer laptop. As computational resources on the market continue to expand, I would suspect that we could soon come to see the opposite of scalability becoming more important - getting more done with less space and energy.
That said, any admin worth their salt who focused on scalability should still be an excellent sys admin anyways, so they shouldn't be heading towards the bread line. I'm just not convinced that focusing on learning skills for network scaling is the best idea unless you want to build clusters for research groups.
idspispopd
Somehow I don't see that being easy to enter on an iphone while playing doom...
Although the important one was really IDKFA
Did you expect the extra componentry to somehow consume zero space?
I think there are more intelligent ways to consume physical space than this. For example, if we look at Hard Disk Form Factors we see that in the physical space allocated for a single 3.5 hard disk drive bay (4 x 1.63 x 8 inches) we can easily fit two 2.5 hard disk drives (2.75 x 0.374-0.59 x 3.945 inches each). Instead they waste the space by placing only a single 2.5" (or smaller) SSD into a 3.5" bay. And being as most 3.5" drives are now only 1" tall (in a 1.63" tall bay), there is enough space to place the SSD on top of the HDD and still fit the space.
And there is history of adapters taking up (essentially) zero space - look for 80pin SCA to 68pin SCSI adapters. And if you want to cache your HDD access, a hardware caching controller could well be a more intelligent choice (and would be OS-agnostic as well).
The device requires TWO 3.5" bays.
That is exactly the problem I have with it. The device itself is a waste of physical space inside a computer case.
Well, it wastes space and money, to be more specific...
caching disk controllers usually require special drivers
I don't know what kind of ultra-shitty walmart-grade caching controller you have in mind. A quality caching controller (like the ones DPT made back in the day) is completely OS-agnostic. No special drivers - or drivers of any sort - required. A good hardware caching controller does its job in hardware.
You have now apparently read the article (or at least looked at the picture)
I read the article - and looked at the picture - before my first post on this topic.
and you now hate it for the right reasons.
I don't really hate it. I dislike it. It has not wronged me so significantly that I would use the word hate as a description of how I feel about it.
I previously disliked it for being a waste of space and money. I now dislike it for being a waste of space and money.
tl;dr
Indeed you are a scholar and a gentleman. I will cherish this wonderful conversation for the rest of my days and then some. I hope you a lifetime of peace and happiness for the kindness you have bestowed upon me and indeed the whole of the world. We all could never be adequately grateful for a kind soul such as yours.
The 2.5 caddy is for your SSD. Mount your 3.5 wherever you like.
So the caddy is just a collossal waste of space and money, then. You should be able to fit a 2.5 HD with a 2.5 SSD into a single 3.5 bay. Instead you're going to use a 3.5 bay for your SSD, so that you can achieve some minor performance gains on your regular HD?
Why not just buy a caching HD controller instead?