Their listeners should take responsability for being easy marks and learn not to be one.
Most people are easy marks when they are dealing with an unfamiliar subject. If your doctor prescribes a drug for your condition, what will you do if you are not a doctor yourself? Buy it and become an "easy mark", or refuse and potentially die? I think I know a most common answer to that.
TCP-only may be a blessing, since most [corporate] firewalls don't forward UDP back to the LAN. I have NAT in my office, and I set up some static rules with "ipmasqadm portfw" to do what I need.
I would agree with you, of course, if we are discussing VoIP/SIP/RTP - TCP is worthless there - but broadcasts are just fine over TCP, and no dropouts:-)
Better to become an ISV. The money is made where dissimilar technologies meet. None of geeks I know are doctors, and though they could write great medical software, they wouldn't know where to start.
It is easier for a doctor to write s/w than for a programmer to learn medicine.
The lawyer's style answer - only to address the original question - would be dishonest here. If you ask how to get to some address you would probably appreciate mentioning that a direct route is suicidal because of a gang war in progress. Or maybe you'd like that omitted, as something that you didn't ask in first place?
The problems are not even hidden, they are listed right there, in the SPF FAQ.
First of all, domains are cheap, and a spammer can definitely get one and enable his SMTP server. You will have to subscribe to some blacklisting service in order to recognize his mailings as spam. These services are mostly not free, and they mostly don't work reliably, and they are often seen as a solution that is worse than the problem...
Secondly, SPF does not stop spam that is sent through rooted boxes or stolen accounts.
Besides, I have some domains and I use Dotster's DNS services, but Dotster does not allow me to create TXT records... That may change, though.
In any case, SPF looks like a kludge, probably because it is a kludge. Is it useful? Probably. I have only one SMTP server that is supposed to receive and send my mail, and once I configure it, things should work. But practically speaking, this change requires a lot of work - the whole world has to [re]configure their DNS records and to replace their SMTP software with something newer that supports SPF (I use Postfix.)
Myself, I would prefer the "sender pays" scheme, where you can easily exercise your option to charge the sender if you want. However there are many practical limitations, such as the need to have a world-wide and free email escrow service - or some way to get your $0.05 from some dude hiding behind a throwaway IP address in some faraway country...
One intermediate option would be to demand mandatory GPG encryption for all incoming email, and make the recipient's public keys available for only non-automated retrieval (such as using fuzzy images as access passwords.) If this won't stop spam, at least we will make major progress in image recognition:-) Of course, if you keep your public key available to your normal circle of senders then no spammer will ever be able to send you anything. Also you can have several keys, and make some of them public; these will be accepted, but treated as likely spam (and you can go through them once a week or so.)
But generally speaking, if you make your email address (or the key) available to everyone (with more or less difficulty to obtain) then you can be spammed.
The only way to prevent this is to force the sender to pay. As long as sending remains free, spammers will be sending. You either make it impossible to send (which you can't do if you want mail from unknown people - most users are like that) or you make it financially unrewarding. Either way will do. Anything less than that will not work.
So this SPF proposal is a technical hack that tries to make it more difficult to send some forms of spam. I don't think it will really make any dent in the spam stream. It will only take lots of time (and money) to implement, and spammers will be simply using their shiny new domains from the same faraway countries, or hacking into Mom & Pop's unpatched WinXP boxes that sit on cable. I think AOL implemented SPF only as a specific measure to shield itself from spamming accusations; it has little to do with stopping spam in general.
I know a little about these things; but I left that company many Moons (or Marses?) ago. Most of conditions that you refer to are not common on Mars.
Sub-zero temperatures are bad for any equipment, and satellites usually have their own thermal insulation, heat sinks and internal airflow to keep the temperature optimal. I don't think Spirit cools down to 150K at night. That would kill the batteries for sure. Temperature differentials are also eliminated this way.
The strongest vibration occurs on launch, and there are many successful designs that take care of that (pretty much any satellite which has any electronics:-)
The strongest G forces, as far as Spirit is concerned, are on Earth.
Radiation is a problem. Mars has no magnetic field or dense atmosphere, and so it is unprotected. I would suggest good shielding, besides redundant design and self-repair capabilities.
In any case, 10 flash chips wouldn't occupy much more space than one. If you can get them there (rad hardened or not) then you benefit. Another issue is that Flash is a poor choice for this mission anyway...
but if you've broken the law, you probably know you've done it.
And more specifically, if you haven't murdered anyone then you know that you are innocent. You don't need a lawyer to know that. But you *do* need a lawyer to find out if you violated some part of Partiot law or other. Maybe you unknowingly carried an almanac at some time... or lent $10,001 to your father and then failed to report him to authorities...
I think this is possible only if it can be shown that the responsible individuals did what they did not as a collective corporate entity but as a group of individuals. More here. IANAL, of course...
Surely nobody will be sent to Mars, whichever way, unless the machinery to produce food, water and air is available. Goals of today's robotic Mars expeditions include analysis of local rocks to find out if they are of any use.
One way to find out would be to drag the "engineers" to the witness stand. These guys have nothing to gain from lying, and after being briefed on perjury law by an IBM lawyer the witnesses will tell it all.
In the meantime, we will deal with ordinary issues like rising retirement and health care costs.
I wonder if anyone cared to predict how bad the riots will be if Social Security collapses, leaving the recipients with no money? The movie "Escape from New York" comes to mind.
does anyone really think that we will pick it up after a four year lapse of no real launches by the US?
Any programmer can tell that if s/he does not work with some code for some time, the skills are lost. And that is even if you still work there. The problem with Saturn is similar - the people who knew are now either retired or dead; and there is no guarantee that they'd remember how to do things even if they were still working for NASA. Four years is a lot of time, and good engineers, facing red tape and paper shuffling (since there is no real work for them any more) will move to other places, to other companies - where they can actually be productive. They won't be back if they are good, and those matter the most.
You generally need to have cheap antigravity to haul rock and metals back from the Moon. There are very limited energy resources on the Moon, mostly the sunlight. The photovoltaics will cost a lot, and they will be damaged daily by tiny meteors because there is no atmosphere to stop them. The Moon station will be doing very good if it can sustain itself; sending anything back is unlikely to be efficient.
There are some interesting ideas, though. A rail gun shooting metal containers toward Earth would count as one. But the containers have to have a good heat shielding, and they will stay on Earth. So they'd better contain something really valuable for all that trouble...
Many people say that the Moon is a dead world, where even walking on the surface is dangerous due to meteors and radiation, not even mentioning hundreds of degrees difference in temperature between night and day... Moon's low gravity lunaforms your body; if you have children, they are restricted to low gravity forever.
The Moon is usually seen as a launch base for larger spacecraft, and not much else. You can not easily terraform the Moon, it has not much of resources. Future settlements will be likely subterranean, and that will not be easy on many people who grew up on the surface.
Do not forget that engineers in Russia get paid $6k/yr, and a sum that in US pays for lawn mowing around one NASA building, in Russia can get a ship launched into space.
Russia will not go to the Moon. That is because there is no prestige of being the second. The article linked above explains how exactly ISS will be used as a LEO assembly station for a larger ship, major parts of which are already in use in ISS itself. The reuse part is important, and many of the bits and pieces of the program are already in place, with rockets being just COTS. So what the article says is quite realistic.
They would have to be "man rated" first. I'm not sure what is involved with that
All mission-critical systems made redundant in triplicate, a Crew Ejection System installed, and tens of successful (or not so successful, as it happens) test flights. That would be a good starting point. NASA has the knowledge, but the test flights will unavoidably take some time and some losses.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people are easy marks when they are dealing with an unfamiliar subject. If your doctor prescribes a drug for your condition, what will you do if you are not a doctor yourself? Buy it and become an "easy mark", or refuse and potentially die? I think I know a most common answer to that.
I would agree with you, of course, if we are discussing VoIP/SIP/RTP - TCP is worthless there - but broadcasts are just fine over TCP, and no dropouts :-)
Complexity of server install is not really important if it makes the client side operations easier.
Someone who leaves the charger at home.
It is easier for a doctor to write s/w than for a programmer to learn medicine.
The lawyer's style answer - only to address the original question - would be dishonest here. If you ask how to get to some address you would probably appreciate mentioning that a direct route is suicidal because of a gang war in progress. Or maybe you'd like that omitted, as something that you didn't ask in first place?
First of all, domains are cheap, and a spammer can definitely get one and enable his SMTP server. You will have to subscribe to some blacklisting service in order to recognize his mailings as spam. These services are mostly not free, and they mostly don't work reliably, and they are often seen as a solution that is worse than the problem...
Secondly, SPF does not stop spam that is sent through rooted boxes or stolen accounts.
Besides, I have some domains and I use Dotster's DNS services, but Dotster does not allow me to create TXT records... That may change, though.
In any case, SPF looks like a kludge, probably because it is a kludge. Is it useful? Probably. I have only one SMTP server that is supposed to receive and send my mail, and once I configure it, things should work. But practically speaking, this change requires a lot of work - the whole world has to [re]configure their DNS records and to replace their SMTP software with something newer that supports SPF (I use Postfix.)
Myself, I would prefer the "sender pays" scheme, where you can easily exercise your option to charge the sender if you want. However there are many practical limitations, such as the need to have a world-wide and free email escrow service - or some way to get your $0.05 from some dude hiding behind a throwaway IP address in some faraway country...
One intermediate option would be to demand mandatory GPG encryption for all incoming email, and make the recipient's public keys available for only non-automated retrieval (such as using fuzzy images as access passwords.) If this won't stop spam, at least we will make major progress in image recognition :-) Of course, if you keep your public key available to your normal circle of senders then no spammer will ever be able to send you anything. Also you can have several keys, and make some of them public; these will be accepted, but treated as likely spam (and you can go through them once a week or so.)
But generally speaking, if you make your email address (or the key) available to everyone (with more or less difficulty to obtain) then you can be spammed.
The only way to prevent this is to force the sender to pay. As long as sending remains free, spammers will be sending. You either make it impossible to send (which you can't do if you want mail from unknown people - most users are like that) or you make it financially unrewarding. Either way will do. Anything less than that will not work.
So this SPF proposal is a technical hack that tries to make it more difficult to send some forms of spam. I don't think it will really make any dent in the spam stream. It will only take lots of time (and money) to implement, and spammers will be simply using their shiny new domains from the same faraway countries, or hacking into Mom & Pop's unpatched WinXP boxes that sit on cable. I think AOL implemented SPF only as a specific measure to shield itself from spamming accusations; it has little to do with stopping spam in general.
In any case, 10 flash chips wouldn't occupy much more space than one. If you can get them there (rad hardened or not) then you benefit. Another issue is that Flash is a poor choice for this mission anyway...
Don't forget that getting away from Earth is priceless :-)
To confuse Martian Defense, of course!
Talk about poor return on investment... Use 10 cheaper ones and have more forward error correction than you will ever need.
And more specifically, if you haven't murdered anyone then you know that you are innocent. You don't need a lawyer to know that. But you *do* need a lawyer to find out if you violated some part of Partiot law or other. Maybe you unknowingly carried an almanac at some time... or lent $10,001 to your father and then failed to report him to authorities...
I think this is possible only if it can be shown that the responsible individuals did what they did not as a collective corporate entity but as a group of individuals. More here. IANAL, of course...
The Unicast demos don't play on RH 9.0 / Firebird / Privoxy. I have mplayer installed, but I guess the deed was interrupted way earlier.
I tried the same on Linux, with Mozilla Firebird and privoxy... and nothing was played, as expected.
I think you missed SCOundrel ...
I am unsure if this is the best way to develop a large Martian colony :-)
Surely nobody will be sent to Mars, whichever way, unless the machinery to produce food, water and air is available. Goals of today's robotic Mars expeditions include analysis of local rocks to find out if they are of any use.
One way to find out would be to drag the "engineers" to the witness stand. These guys have nothing to gain from lying, and after being briefed on perjury law by an IBM lawyer the witnesses will tell it all.
A nuclear submarine would be about $1B, I guess.
I wonder if anyone cared to predict how bad the riots will be if Social Security collapses, leaving the recipients with no money? The movie "Escape from New York" comes to mind.
Any programmer can tell that if s/he does not work with some code for some time, the skills are lost. And that is even if you still work there. The problem with Saturn is similar - the people who knew are now either retired or dead; and there is no guarantee that they'd remember how to do things even if they were still working for NASA. Four years is a lot of time, and good engineers, facing red tape and paper shuffling (since there is no real work for them any more) will move to other places, to other companies - where they can actually be productive. They won't be back if they are good, and those matter the most.
There are some interesting ideas, though. A rail gun shooting metal containers toward Earth would count as one. But the containers have to have a good heat shielding, and they will stay on Earth. So they'd better contain something really valuable for all that trouble...
Many people say that the Moon is a dead world, where even walking on the surface is dangerous due to meteors and radiation, not even mentioning hundreds of degrees difference in temperature between night and day... Moon's low gravity lunaforms your body; if you have children, they are restricted to low gravity forever.
The Moon is usually seen as a launch base for larger spacecraft, and not much else. You can not easily terraform the Moon, it has not much of resources. Future settlements will be likely subterranean, and that will not be easy on many people who grew up on the surface.
Russia will not go to the Moon. That is because there is no prestige of being the second. The article linked above explains how exactly ISS will be used as a LEO assembly station for a larger ship, major parts of which are already in use in ISS itself. The reuse part is important, and many of the bits and pieces of the program are already in place, with rockets being just COTS. So what the article says is quite realistic.
All mission-critical systems made redundant in triplicate, a Crew Ejection System installed, and tens of successful (or not so successful, as it happens) test flights. That would be a good starting point. NASA has the knowledge, but the test flights will unavoidably take some time and some losses.