If I understand correctly, we should be moving towards the maximum after the minimum in 2006-ish, but we are not; instead the number of spots is still going down. See the raw data, and take into account that the cycle is on average about 10.5 years long.
There is basically no noise at all. The sample size for "z" is about 5 million emails.
So you think that 5 million is, magically, a "safe" sample size. For anything, using any method of measurement with or without deficiencies. Yeah, sure, why not.
Even if it was, the total volume of spam is not a measure of anything significant. The volume of spam relative to the total volume is, which the line represents. And it shows no decrease as you move to the right, contrary to what they claim.
If they impose the condition that only 'real' addresses are considered, the graph changes to one with a higher percentage spam for A addresses than for Z addresses, as asserted in the summary.
But probably not significantly higher (the difference being greater than the noise). Again, the data tells us nothing interesting.
There being less spam naturally implies there is less traffic. Most traffic is spam; so if there were no spam, there would be very little traffic.
Look at the graph. Spam accounts for around 60% of the traffic for all groups of email addresses, regardless of total number of messages. My point is, it's likely that there are far more addresses starting with 'a' than with 'z', and that's all the data tells us. There is no proof of correlation between starting letter of the address and amount of spam.
The conclusion is ridiculous. There's more spam for addresses starting with 'a' than with 'z' because there is more traffic to those addresses. See the the graph. The line in the graph is the only solid piece of information, and it is just a lot of noise around the mean value of 56%; if anything, it indicates the opposite conclusion.
"For every packet your country sends through the U.S., you will automatically be entered in a drawing for one of your citizens to win an all-expenses paid trip to exotic, sunny Cuba!"
"And depending on the packet's contents, participants may qualify for accommodation in our luxury Guantanamo Bay resort."
The question is, does the author of that use any other languages, and does he/she use GOTO in those?
I don't know, this is an ACM TOMS routine which dates back to 1981 (so I would guess they didn't use much besides Fortran). It does its job beautifully and is still widely used.
My point is about how difficult it is to understand a piece of massively GOTOed code, and this is a great example of that. It is also, unintendedly, an example of how "bad" coding practices can still produce excellent software.
It's just a matter of what language you're used to in the first place; then you try to make other languages look like that one.
that's a terrible advice!
I was being descriptive, not advisory. I was pointing out one reason why I (and potentially other people) prefer a given arrangement over another which doesn't exactly match the natural syntax of the language.
For new language elements I obviously use non-Fortran syntax and arrangements, but for basic things like conditionals I tend to stick to my formatting habits.
when you learn a new language/library/framework/etc (and that should be every few weeks at least)
That sounds like an overstatement, but that might depend on what your job is. In my case, I certainly have better things to do than learn 15 programming languages a year. Like, actually use them to write something.
Never did understand the fuss about GOTO... you need them everywhere in machine code, FORTRAN and (original) BASIC because that's the way the language works.
Perhaps you may be able to say you need them in Fortran 77 and before, but certainly not in later versions.
The fuss about GOTO is that people used them everywhere compulsively, making the code impossible to read. As an example, try to read the body of routine NL2ITR in NL2SOL and see how long it takes you to understand the flow of control. Good luck.
For projects where RMS was personally involved, gunzip|grep for 'Stallman' in your/usr/share/man/man1. For me this gives cat, comm, diff, dir, gdb, ls, make, rm, split, tee, uniq and vdir, most of which I use very often. Of course this leaves out large programs where the author list is not given explicitly, such as gcc or emacs.
For software linked with the GNU project, have a look at this list.
The guy's had a great influence over many important free-software projects, both directly and indirectly.
The synthesized voice telling me "virus DAtabase has been UP DAted" makes me smile.
Well, it scared the crap out of me when I first heard it. Moral: turn down the volume of your speakers when not in use, especially at 3am when it's all quiet.
Slashdot Mirror
If I understand correctly, we should be moving towards the maximum after the minimum in 2006-ish, but we are not; instead the number of spots is still going down. See the raw data, and take into account that the cycle is on average about 10.5 years long.
I just created the e-mail address zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm@hotmail.com (yes, seriously)
And posting it on the web is a great idea to avoid spam.
There is basically no noise at all. The sample size for "z" is about 5 million emails.
So you think that 5 million is, magically, a "safe" sample size. For anything, using any method of measurement with or without deficiencies. Yeah, sure, why not.
Even if it was, the total volume of spam is not a measure of anything significant. The volume of spam relative to the total volume is, which the line represents. And it shows no decrease as you move to the right, contrary to what they claim.
If they impose the condition that only 'real' addresses are considered, the graph changes to one with a higher percentage spam for A addresses than for Z addresses, as asserted in the summary.
But probably not significantly higher (the difference being greater than the noise). Again, the data tells us nothing interesting.
There being less spam naturally implies there is less traffic.
Most traffic is spam; so if there were no spam, there would be very little traffic.
Look at the graph. Spam accounts for around 60% of the traffic for all groups of email addresses, regardless of total number of messages. My point is, it's likely that there are far more addresses starting with 'a' than with 'z', and that's all the data tells us. There is no proof of correlation between starting letter of the address and amount of spam.
The conclusion is ridiculous. There's more spam for addresses starting with 'a' than with 'z' because there is more traffic to those addresses. See the the graph. The line in the graph is the only solid piece of information, and it is just a lot of noise around the mean value of 56%; if anything, it indicates the opposite conclusion.
Yes, that was the fucking joke.
Yup, I know. What's your point again?
"For every packet your country sends through the U.S., you will automatically be entered in a drawing for one of your citizens to win an all-expenses paid trip to exotic, sunny Cuba!"
"And depending on the packet's contents, participants may qualify for accommodation in our luxury Guantanamo Bay resort."
And as short as they aren't very short.
Wikipedia has a million entries
Make that 2.5 million. Man is it big..
The question is, does the author of that use any other languages, and does he/she use GOTO in those?
I don't know, this is an ACM TOMS routine which dates back to 1981 (so I would guess they didn't use much besides Fortran). It does its job beautifully and is still widely used.
My point is about how difficult it is to understand a piece of massively GOTOed code, and this is a great example of that. It is also, unintendedly, an example of how "bad" coding practices can still produce excellent software.
It's just a matter of what language you're used to in the first place; then you try to make other languages look like that one.
that's a terrible advice!
I was being descriptive, not advisory. I was pointing out one reason why I (and potentially other people) prefer a given arrangement over another which doesn't exactly match the natural syntax of the language.
For new language elements I obviously use non-Fortran syntax and arrangements, but for basic things like conditionals I tend to stick to my formatting habits.
when you learn a new language/library/framework/etc (and that should be every few weeks at least)
That sounds like an overstatement, but that might depend on what your job is. In my case, I certainly have better things to do than learn 15 programming languages a year. Like, actually use them to write something.
Each jump or longjump is a GOTO. Each function call in a program is a GOTO (or GOSUB).
Which is why we have compilers to take care of that mess.
Never did understand the fuss about GOTO... you need them everywhere in machine code, FORTRAN and (original) BASIC because that's the way the language works.
Perhaps you may be able to say you need them in Fortran 77 and before, but certainly not in later versions.
The fuss about GOTO is that people used them everywhere compulsively, making the code impossible to read. As an example, try to read the body of routine NL2ITR in NL2SOL and see how long it takes you to understand the flow of control. Good luck.
if( condition ) {
statement1;
} else {
statement2;
}
I do that when I write Javascript. The reason is that I'm used to Fortran, where you write
if(condition)then
statement1
else
statement2
endif
Similarly when I write bash scripts I do
if condition ; then
statement1
else
statement2
fi
(of 'condition && statement1 || statement2' if it fits in one line and statement1 always exits with 0).
It's just a matter of what language you're used to in the first place; then you try to make other languages look like that one.
Or even better, go here, since the above address is an https and Firefox won't accept its self-signed certificate..
I would guess you have the 'proposed' repository enabled.
Oh, very simple: I have a fr
Yeah, I've never had a problem with my rou
Diablo 3 ends with a guitar battle against Lou^H^H^HSatan?
Yup, but in the hardest setting you face Jack Black instead.
For projects where RMS was personally involved, gunzip|grep for 'Stallman' in your /usr/share/man/man1. For me this gives cat, comm, diff, dir, gdb, ls, make, rm, split, tee, uniq and vdir, most of which I use very often. Of course this leaves out large programs where the author list is not given explicitly, such as gcc or emacs.
For software linked with the GNU project, have a look at this list.
The guy's had a great influence over many important free-software projects, both directly and indirectly.
I did later, but that's how I found out there was a voice.
The synthesized voice telling me "virus DAtabase has been UP DAted" makes me smile.
Well, it scared the crap out of me when I first heard it. Moral: turn down the volume of your speakers when not in use, especially at 3am when it's all quiet.
X = X+1, goto 1
Every time someone writes goto, a kitten dies.
Damn, I've done it.
100,000 mad physicists can't be wrong. Use fortran.