Or post your spam on/. as an "article". FTspammyA:
The webinar (which you can view here), was presented by Brad Gurley, the "Director of Deliverability" for WhatCounts, who has worked in the email "deliverability" industry for 10 years.
Just from that sentence, there is no way I would ever do business with them.
Even if any statements in the webinar happened to be incorrect, it's still safe to assume that the presentation represents mainstream thinking in the email deliverability industry, which will determine what recommendations are made to email senders.
Sounds like I should mentally replace "email deliverability industry" with "SPAM industry".
(If you ask every new subscriber for their name and geographic location, I would call that an "erosion" of privacy if it normalizes the practice of collecting more user data than you need, but it's not a privacy violation as long as the user willingly gives it to you.)
I wonder how many times Mr. Fuck You has subscribed to their lists.
(I give people the option of replying with the word "unsubscribe", even though that creates some hassle for me to process those requests manually, because many of our users are on censored networks and cannot access the unsubscribe link on the peacefire.org website.)
Setup your system to they are processed automatically. It is 2013. This is/. Please submit an "ask Slashdot" if you require assistance with that.
Nothing sounds wrong with that, except that to "tailor" the mailings based on demographic data, you have to have that demographic data -- i.e. ask users for their age, sex, location, income bracket, or other information at the time that they join the list.
And most people I know will lie when asked that kind of information because we do not trust the people running the list to NOT SELL THAT AS OFTEN AS THEY CAN.
... you have to plant a surreptitious "web bug" image into the email,...
If my email system detects a web bug then it is more likely to be flagged as spam.
How about you only subscribe them for a set time period? If they're really interested in your messages then they'll read them and see that they have X more messages before they're automatically unsubscribed. Again, "ask Slashdot" if you need advice on how to do that.
... Gurley's presentation also suggests trying to win them back with one last message with a "teaser" subject line like "We're saying goodbye...", or "Are we not going to talk to you any more?", or "Are we breaking up?".
Which will immediately be added to every spammer's database. Which will almost as quickly be added to the anti-spam rule sets.
If you don't want your "newsletters" to be flagged as spam then do not act like a spammer. That includes "advertisements" and "opportunities" and such.
You have to trust someone, somewhere along the line.
Even the compiler can be compromised. Ken Thompson showed that.
Where I think "anonymous coward" is wrong is that he's implying the Bruce Schneier would NEED to be compromised by the NSA. He wouldn't.
There are two aspects to "crypto". 1. The math. 2. The implementation.
Bruce can validate that the math seems to be correct (or he can be compromised into saying that it seems to be correct) but it is the implementation that gets used.
So even if Bruce actually believed that the math was correct, the NSA could compromise the people/organisation/company that turned that math into a product that you would use.
And it is much easier to claim that a flawed implementation was an innocent mistake than to compromise EVERYONE who can understand the math behind it.
No, it isn't. This is about the Cognitive Reflection Test, which is correlated with IQ, and which has no direct relationship to education.
Maybe it is to you but that's not what the links quote. Here is what they say:
The "science comprehension" measure is a composite of 11 items from the National Science Foundation's "Science Indicators" battery, the standard measure of "science literacy" used in public opinion studies (including comparative ones), plus 10 items from an extended version of the Cognitive Reflection Test, which is normally considered the best measure of the disposition to engage in conscious, effortful information processing ("System 2") as opposed to intuitive, heuristic processing ("System 1").
So no, it is NOT about IQ. No matter how many times you claim it is.
At any rate, the point still stands that people can understand something and still disagree with it. In fact, that is quite common in the scientific community.
Really? Like, say, evolution? The foundation of all of our biological and medical science? It is "common" for people in the "scientific community" to disagree with evolution?
I have found this smug attitude about IQ on the part of liberals...
This is about scientific knowledge. Not IQ. They are not the same.
At least read that link you posted all the way to the end.
Next time I collect data, too, I won't be surprised at all if the correlations between science comprehension and political ideology or identification with the Tea Party movement disappear or flip their signs.
Why is that?
These effects are trivially small, & if I sample 2000+ people it's pretty likely any discrepancy I see will be "statistically significant"--which has precious little to do with "practically significant."
Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. Understand what you're measuring and how to measure it.
No.
Yes. He divided the results into 3 groups. 1. Liberal 2a. Conservative 2b. Tea Party
When 1 is compared to 2 then he sees one set of results. When 1 is combined with 2a and then compared to 2b he sees a different set of results.
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes - Excessively high taxes are a burden for those exercising their personal liberty to work hard and prosper as afforded by the Constitution. A fiscally responsible government protects the freedom of its citizens to enjoy the fruits of their own labor without interference from a government that has exceeded its necessary size, scope and reach into the lives of its citizens.
Exactly what are "excessive taxes"?
Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".
Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.
Feel free to argue any of those points, but don't just make up stuff.
All that that site has are generalities. So say... cutting the military... bad! That's making things up. Okay, how about... cutting medicare... bad! That's making things up. Okay, how about... cutting X... bad! That's making things up.
I guess the assumption was that if you don't agree with something, you couldn't possibly know about it or understand it?
That's usually how it works with scientific subjects.
I guess that's why there are so many atheists better versed in one or more bibles and religions than the supposedly devout followers of them?
Completely different subject.
Anyway, back to the subject. A law professor ran some data about political beliefs through a program and got out results that seem to contradict his bias about scientific knowledge.
The first problem is that just because the data was sufficiently random/representative for X does not mean that it is sufficiently random/representative for Y.
Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.
So far it conforms to the cultural expectations.
However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didnâ(TM)t,
So when the people who are "conservative" but not "tea party" are included with the people who are "liberal" then that group scores worse than the group that is "tea party".
And you have to realize that not everyone on the team has the same goals.
How much do the contractor companies get paid for overtime or change requests?
When I'm a contractor I will tell you what problems there could be that I can see. But if you tell me to do it your way I'll do it your way and collect my check.
If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree.
James Clapper can lie to Congress about the NSA's activities and there are no repercussions.
How about we start with that? If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).
I sent it from a gmail account specially setup ahead of time, then logged in over a supposedly secure 'ssl' connection.
So the company you worked for was able to crack the SSL encryption for Google?
Because otherwise the connection should have shown ONLY that it was connected to the gmail server.
Once it was delivered to the gmail server THEN Google would have tried to deliver it to the destination. There should not have been any way (aside from cracking Google's SSL connection) that the company could read the final destination on that message.
In my experience, it's much more rare to find a company that knows about security than to find one that doesn't.
In my experience it is more about the managers and CxO's viewing it as a status issue. They are so important that they cannot be hampered by the demands of the lowly IT people. And the same goes for their people.
Security is IT's problem and if something goes wrong then it is the IT people who will be fired. Starting with the ones who were the loudest about there being a problem in the first place.
After all, other companies don't have those problems. So it must be because the IT people are incompetent.
They are about human behaviour when the constraints of civilization have been removed. Zombies are just the easy explanation why civilization collapsed (and stays collapsed).
Ideally, that is to show insights into society and the roles within it and how various types of people fit into those.
But after a couple of years I don't think there would be that much of a difference.
As long as all the on-line commercial entities in that country were okay with never having any US business. Otherwise the NSA (and others) can demand access to their data in exchange for access to our markets.
And that isn't even considering the old spy standby of either getting one of your spies hired by them or offering one of their employees money to get you access.
The problems are not technological. They are human nature.
The real question is whether you install all the apps on all the servers OR whether you assign specific servers to specific apps.
After that, QoS can help but we're rapidly getting to the point where every app vendor wants their app to have priority. It's fine with VoIP... and admin utilities... and video conferencing... and Citrix... and... video apps running over Citrix...
I'm serious. I've had to support video apps running over Citrix and it completely changes the methodology of what can be cached where to provide decent performance. Is it because people don't understand multicasting?
And more to the "why do people do things the hard way" theme of TFA, why did Bennett Haselton decide to go Burning Man?
The "why" of why you go will also determine the "how" of how you do things there.
There is a HUGE gap between the people who go and construct their art and participate in the gift culture and those who go so that they can say "yeah, I went to Burning Man".
But maybe he should also admit (at least to himself) that he's a horrible piece of shit that hates free speech.
Read a bit of his website. That is not going to happen. Here's a chunk of it.
I decide to include a screencap of the pterodactyl in the source code of Inmanâ(TM)s webpage and its weird, coded-in threat to "ptero you a new asshole." That sort of defines weird, hidden aggression, and has overtones of conjuration and magic that are rather sinister.
Pay particular attention to that last sentence. And he put that up on his own web page. He thinks that that is reasonable.
I never thought that people would say things about me that they did.
Mean people say mean things about him.
If you'd like to see a picture of Carreon's criticsâ"including an Ars Technica writerâ"spewing fecal matter out of their mouths, that too can be accommodated.
But that's okay because... because...
My goal is to help people to realize that youâ(TM)re not the only person who gets rapeutated.
... because I'm the victim.
Rapeutated. Heh heh heh. Get it?
I bet that he'll be digging that hole for years to come. Just not as expensively as before. Yet.
... and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
Will I be held accountable if it is damaged or destroyed? Y/N
Will I have to wait for a replacement? Y/N
Y-Y - I'm keeping this thing in the original packaging. Y-N - I'm still keeping this thing in the original packaging. N-Y - I'm keeping this thing until I absolutely need it. N-N - ROBOWARS! Grab a beer and bet on which one will win. I've already requisitioned the replacement parts.
But the question that still hasn't been properly answered (at least in my opinion) is why the use of these weapons on a small number of victims relative to the total number killed in the conflict should suddenly lead the international community to "need to act".
Seconded.
I understand the concept in a battle between nations. It takes a lot of chemical agent to kill someone (dispersed through the air). But it does not take much to cause life-long problems. Like blindness or breathing issues or nerve damage. So using them on an enemy nation means that that nation will take longer to recover from the war. Their former troops will not be able to return to their pre-war jobs.
Now you can apply that same reasoning to insurgents in this case. But it is only their own future that they're wrecking. And they were on course to do that any way. Killing 100,000 is okay but killing 1,000 is unacceptable.
In the case of chemical weapons, months after an attack someone a few villages away can drink the water from their local well, contract a horrible disease and die.
I think you're talking about bio weapons.
Most chemical weapons degrade quickly. Even the "persistent" ones.
Being able to tell the difference between human beings and ghetto trash (of any race and income level) is a vital skill.
Rather it is an example of "confirmation bias".
You can tell the false negatives - the people you thought were "good" turn out to be "bad".
But you have no way to verify the false positives - the people you thought were "bad" are really "good". So you do not believe there were false positives.
The result being that the number of "bad" category characteristics keeps increasing. But each one has a clear example that you can cite. Therefore, it is completely rational. And anyone who does not agree is being irrational (opposing that which is rational).
If all the neighborhoods where green people live.. have a higher crime rate and higher risk of $badthing, am I being racist against green people? I don't think so.
The first point is that racists seldom believe that they're being racist. Because that would be irrational and they all have very rational (to them) reasons for believing whatever they believe.
The second point is that you would be basing your opinion upon a visual characteristic when the real reason might be something you cannot see. Such as economics. Bad neighborhoods have low property values. So poor people live in bad neighborhoods. Not because they're bad people but because that is what they can afford.
Maybe when I'm in the good side of town, I see a green person and I greet them normally.
Maybe. But if you're aware that you're greeting him "normally" then you're probably a racist.
When I see an old Chinese woman walking her poodle on the street I treat her the same as I would any other person who was not... Old? Chinese? Female? Poodle-orientated?
Slashdot Mirror
Or post your spam on /. as an "article". FTspammyA:
Just from that sentence, there is no way I would ever do business with them.
Sounds like I should mentally replace "email deliverability industry" with "SPAM industry".
I wonder how many times Mr. Fuck You has subscribed to their lists.
Setup your system to they are processed automatically. It is 2013. This is /. Please submit an "ask Slashdot" if you require assistance with that.
And most people I know will lie when asked that kind of information because we do not trust the people running the list to NOT SELL THAT AS OFTEN AS THEY CAN.
If my email system detects a web bug then it is more likely to be flagged as spam.
How about you only subscribe them for a set time period? If they're really interested in your messages then they'll read them and see that they have X more messages before they're automatically unsubscribed. Again, "ask Slashdot" if you need advice on how to do that.
Which will immediately be added to every spammer's database. Which will almost as quickly be added to the anti-spam rule sets.
If you don't want your "newsletters" to be flagged as spam then do not act like a spammer. That includes "advertisements" and "opportunities" and such.
You have to trust someone, somewhere along the line.
Even the compiler can be compromised. Ken Thompson showed that.
Where I think "anonymous coward" is wrong is that he's implying the Bruce Schneier would NEED to be compromised by the NSA. He wouldn't.
There are two aspects to "crypto".
1. The math.
2. The implementation.
Bruce can validate that the math seems to be correct (or he can be compromised into saying that it seems to be correct) but it is the implementation that gets used.
So even if Bruce actually believed that the math was correct, the NSA could compromise the people/organisation/company that turned that math into a product that you would use.
And it is much easier to claim that a flawed implementation was an innocent mistake than to compromise EVERYONE who can understand the math behind it.
Maybe it is to you but that's not what the links quote. Here is what they say:
So no, it is NOT about IQ. No matter how many times you claim it is.
Really? Like, say, evolution? The foundation of all of our biological and medical science? It is "common" for people in the "scientific community" to disagree with evolution?
This is about scientific knowledge. Not IQ. They are not the same.
At least read that link you posted all the way to the end.
Why is that?
Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. Understand what you're measuring and how to measure it.
Yes.
He divided the results into 3 groups.
1. Liberal
2a. Conservative
2b. Tea Party
When 1 is compared to 2 then he sees one set of results.
When 1 is combined with 2a and then compared to 2b he sees a different set of results.
I'll take the first one.
Exactly what are "excessive taxes"?
Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".
Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.
All that that site has are generalities. So say ... cutting the military ... bad! That's making things up. Okay, how about ... cutting medicare ... bad! That's making things up. Okay, how about ... cutting X ... bad! That's making things up.
That's usually how it works with scientific subjects.
Completely different subject.
Anyway, back to the subject. A law professor ran some data about political beliefs through a program and got out results that seem to contradict his bias about scientific knowledge.
The first problem is that just because the data was sufficiently random/representative for X does not mean that it is sufficiently random/representative for Y.
So far it conforms to the cultural expectations.
So when the people who are "conservative" but not "tea party" are included with the people who are "liberal" then that group scores worse than the group that is "tea party".
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
And you have to realize that not everyone on the team has the same goals.
How much do the contractor companies get paid for overtime or change requests?
When I'm a contractor I will tell you what problems there could be that I can see. But if you tell me to do it your way I'll do it your way and collect my check.
If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree.
James Clapper can lie to Congress about the NSA's activities and there are no repercussions.
How about we start with that? If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).
Speaking of Seattle, don't forget the Living Computer Museum.
http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/
So the company you worked for was able to crack the SSL encryption for Google?
Because otherwise the connection should have shown ONLY that it was connected to the gmail server.
Once it was delivered to the gmail server THEN Google would have tried to deliver it to the destination. There should not have been any way (aside from cracking Google's SSL connection) that the company could read the final destination on that message.
In my experience it is more about the managers and CxO's viewing it as a status issue. They are so important that they cannot be hampered by the demands of the lowly IT people. And the same goes for their people.
Security is IT's problem and if something goes wrong then it is the IT people who will be fired. Starting with the ones who were the loudest about there being a problem in the first place.
After all, other companies don't have those problems. So it must be because the IT people are incompetent.
Zombie movies are not about zombies.
They are about human behaviour when the constraints of civilization have been removed. Zombies are just the easy explanation why civilization collapsed (and stays collapsed).
Ideally, that is to show insights into society and the roles within it and how various types of people fit into those.
Initially, yes.
But after a couple of years I don't think there would be that much of a difference.
As long as all the on-line commercial entities in that country were okay with never having any US business. Otherwise the NSA (and others) can demand access to their data in exchange for access to our markets.
And that isn't even considering the old spy standby of either getting one of your spies hired by them or offering one of their employees money to get you access.
The problems are not technological. They are human nature.
The real question is whether you install all the apps on all the servers OR whether you assign specific servers to specific apps.
After that, QoS can help but we're rapidly getting to the point where every app vendor wants their app to have priority. It's fine with VoIP ... and admin utilities ... and video conferencing ... and Citrix ... and ... video apps running over Citrix ...
I'm serious. I've had to support video apps running over Citrix and it completely changes the methodology of what can be cached where to provide decent performance. Is it because people don't understand multicasting?
And more to the "why do people do things the hard way" theme of TFA, why did Bennett Haselton decide to go Burning Man?
The "why" of why you go will also determine the "how" of how you do things there.
There is a HUGE gap between the people who go and construct their art and participate in the gift culture and those who go so that they can say "yeah, I went to Burning Man".
Read a bit of his website. That is not going to happen. Here's a chunk of it.
Pay particular attention to that last sentence. And he put that up on his own web page. He thinks that that is reasonable.
It's still going on. From TFA:
Mean people say mean things about him.
But that's okay because ... because ...
Rapeutated. Heh heh heh. Get it?
I bet that he'll be digging that hole for years to come. Just not as expensively as before. Yet.
Will I be held accountable if it is damaged or destroyed? Y/N
Will I have to wait for a replacement? Y/N
Y-Y - I'm keeping this thing in the original packaging.
Y-N - I'm still keeping this thing in the original packaging.
N-Y - I'm keeping this thing until I absolutely need it.
N-N - ROBOWARS! Grab a beer and bet on which one will win. I've already requisitioned the replacement parts.
Bullshit.
From TFA:
Just because they're French instead of Russian does not change the fact that they're selling exploits.
The problem is that the chemical weapons breakdown into hazardous chemicals. And those hazardous chemicals have to be safely disposed of.
So instead of killing you because it is a nerve agent it will give you cancer and birth defects.
Seconded.
I understand the concept in a battle between nations. It takes a lot of chemical agent to kill someone (dispersed through the air). But it does not take much to cause life-long problems. Like blindness or breathing issues or nerve damage. So using them on an enemy nation means that that nation will take longer to recover from the war. Their former troops will not be able to return to their pre-war jobs.
Now you can apply that same reasoning to insurgents in this case. But it is only their own future that they're wrecking. And they were on course to do that any way. Killing 100,000 is okay but killing 1,000 is unacceptable.
I think you're talking about bio weapons.
Most chemical weapons degrade quickly. Even the "persistent" ones.
Rather it is an example of "confirmation bias".
You can tell the false negatives - the people you thought were "good" turn out to be "bad".
But you have no way to verify the false positives - the people you thought were "bad" are really "good". So you do not believe there were false positives.
The result being that the number of "bad" category characteristics keeps increasing. But each one has a clear example that you can cite. Therefore, it is completely rational. And anyone who does not agree is being irrational (opposing that which is rational).
The first point is that racists seldom believe that they're being racist. Because that would be irrational and they all have very rational (to them) reasons for believing whatever they believe.
The second point is that you would be basing your opinion upon a visual characteristic when the real reason might be something you cannot see. Such as economics. Bad neighborhoods have low property values. So poor people live in bad neighborhoods. Not because they're bad people but because that is what they can afford.
Maybe. But if you're aware that you're greeting him "normally" then you're probably a racist.
When I see an old Chinese woman walking her poodle on the street I treat her the same as I would any other person who was not ...
Old?
Chinese?
Female?
Poodle-orientated?