Well if they keep making popular movies people will still _pay_ to watch them. Iron Man is going to be profitable after just a few weeks, so I don't see a good reason they'd need copyrights that last for longer than say 7 years.
With modern day technology and advances, any movie or album that isn't profitable after being in the market for 7 years doesn't deserve further protection anyway.
Microsoft has made plenty of money from Windows 2000 already. If it comes out of copyright now, and competes against Vista, well they should have made something much better than Windows 2000, instead of some crap like Vista right?
If you're an artist and you need 100 year copyrights on your _single_ album just so you can buy food etc, I'd say get another job, and do that "artist" thing as a hobby.
I think 7 years is more than long enough for a monopoly. Any longer and you are just holding back the pace of progress.
Well if it "does not end" when you die, then I'd say eternity is a long time if you are still imperfect in your "eternal life" after you die. Way too long.
The first 10000 years might be fun, maybe still fun after 100,000 years too, but eternity is a very very very long time. After a few trillion years do you think you can tell the difference between what you are experiencing and Hell?
The prospect of eternal existence without being somehow "fixed/changed" by God (or whatever) so that I can continue to _enjoy_ it, does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
To put it in perspective, if your game fits on one 4.7GB DVD and the drive was infinitely fast, it would take 1.5 seconds to read 4.7GB into DDR-400 memory, whereas it would take 0.75 seconds to 0.9 seconds for DDR2.
It takes 78 seconds to read 4.7GB at 60MB/sec from a drive.
So it makes more sense that the slower performance you saw is due to disk fragmentation/layout. A heavily fragmented file can lower the transfer rate down to 7-15MB/sec.
Maybe sustained RAM transfer rates might be less than the peak rates due to overheads etc, but even at half speed, the drive is the limiting factor.
As I have been saying, it makes sense now to buy DDR2 instead of DDR, since DDR2 is cheaper and more stuff supports it.
But it most certainly does not make sense to buy DDR3 unless you have some specialized needs, like you need to clear out the piles of cash that are stopping you from easily getting out of your house.
If you land on Mars you have to expend lots of energy to get off, whereas if you mine the asteroids, it's a lot cheaper.
We're doing things the wrong way.
Steps should be: 1) Space station with artificial gravity (classic spinning wheel, or stuff on tether) 2) Space station with artificial gravity and decent radiation shielding 3) Figure out how to build space stations from asteroid materials 4) Send space stations to asteroid belts or wherever. 5) Space colonies.
Whereas right now, there's crazy talk of 1) Space trip to Mars
That sure sounds like a one way trip. That's only worth the $$$$ if we can vote for politicians to send on that one way trip. Do that regularly and it'll be a net benefit to the world;).
"However, neither the producer nor the buyer pays for the additional CO2 output"
But they do. They pay for the fuel (that produces the CO2 and the energy) used to make the item, transport it, run the machines that build the factories, warehouses etc. That fuel is not free, it is cheap but the price is going up.
If that extra fuel was not needed, they wouldn't have to pay for it.
But yes, China is indeed sacrificing a lot for marketshare. Thing is if they didn't they would also have other problems - keeping 1 billion people from being too pissed off is not an easy task. They'll put up with a lot, but there are limits (and the leaders and sheep know that).
And maybe China is actually giving $$$ to everyone, and not charging the "proper" cost - after all they appear to be having problems getting enough coal.
China should probably switch to a cleaner energy source, but nuclear takes time to do properly.
But I assume you're using different CPUs and drives right? So it doesn't say anything about RAM speed, it only says your friend's computer is faster than your's.
My guess is the differences are mainly due to the drives and the layout of the app on the drive, very little to do with the RAM if at all.
When you do such benchmarks the drives used must be identical - e.g. use the same drive in the exact same state as it was before each run.
Even if you're using the same model drives, if you are using different drives you could have the case where one drive has the application on the faster part of the drive and the other app on the slower part, or have different fragmentation.
Of course, if you have tested a set of drives (with cloned data) and found them to be identical to the point of experimental error, then you can treat them as similar in tests for convenience.
Many benchmarkers out there get benchmarking wrong. Even some popular tech sites get it wrong sometimes.
I judge by developer track record, not by whether some thing is OSS or commercial.
I was in the IT security line for some years, in my experience developers who produce good code, continue to produce good code (and often better). Whereas developers who produce crap, tend to continue producing crap (maybe a bit better after years).
Just look at bugtraq, bug reports, and the sort of bugs that get found, and you'll have a good idea how good the developers are, and what the future holds for the code. Of course with OSS you often can see the mailing lists so that gives you even better insight on how the developers think.
So for example, I have reasonable confidence in the Postgresql developers, and that they will try to do the right thing for the long run.
The Linux kernel bunch seem a lot more "yeehaw cowboy", so it's a good thing the various distros are around, and you can pick a distro that matches your risk aversion levels;).
As for "personal responsibility", I'm not an OSS developer and I also have a sense of personal responsibility for my code. So far I have had very few bugs reported with the stuff I wrote for the company. I don't actually think I'm a great programmer just my IT security background makes me more paranoid than most coders (hey it's not paranoia when they're really out to get you!), and I'm really lazy, so I try to write/do things as correctly the first time round. Maybe I pick the easy projects too (I stick to using perl and avoid things that require C or C++ if I can). Leaves me a lot more time to post on slashdot;).
I think my dhcpd is better than the ISC's, but it's closed source so you'll just have to take my biased word for it:). So far people don't seem to complain about it that much. Except the config part, which honestly is not my fault - someone had the bright idea of outsourcing the development of the web config frontend for all our stuff to India (and we're cheaper than the Indians! ). Summary - now some people in other depts actually prefer to use SQL statements to configure our stuff... Sad.
I think there are only a few benchmarks/apps where the mem transfer rate becomes a big bottleneck. So far most of the real world benchmarks out there seem to indicate just like the DDR vs DDR2 days, DDR3 is not worth it.
This is because once the data set is big enough - disk becomes the bottleneck. Whereas below a few MB, a lot fits in the CPU cache - processing loops in games etc, so you don't get such a huge hit in performance for having a slower channel. In fact when there's a cache miss, lower latency counts about as much as raw throughput if not more - since you want that missed mem right NOW.
It's still a good _starting_ point (and good for guesstimates). It's a lot better than nothing (or wishful thinking which many seem to go by).
Example a lot of people seem to think just because it's biofuel it's green.
But if it's bioethanol from corn that needs to be subsidized (with not much hope of improvement in the future), it means it's expensive and not green.
Whereas if it is cheap ethanol from sugar from sugarcane it's not as bad.
Re:Just a tad over the top?
on
DDR3 RAM Explained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually I don't think DDR2 was (is?) significantly faster than DDR for normal PCs.
The only reason to buy DDR2 over DDR is because it is cheaper (and compatible with more stuff you want).
At the moment is DDR3 cheaper? No. The last I checked it's about 4X more expensive or more.
Who cares if RAR is 10% faster (just making up figures;) ), because you use DDR3? If it's so expensive, most gamers would rather pump the extra money into their video card where they get more bang _nowadays_ especially with the new AMD/ATI vs Nvidia battle.
For people who need CPU power? They buy a higher end CPU instead or more DDR2 RAM.
But shouldn't you be using mysql_genuine_advantage_escape_string() instead;).
It's stupid stuff like that and "Magic Quotes" that make PHP a sad joke.
Magic Quotes = mixing input layer filtering with output layer filtering = bad. You tend to get data corruption amongst other things.
Then there's addslashes and friends.
PHP: "Making The Wrong Ways Easy, and The Right Ways Hard".
Oh well, I guess php6 is where they are finally trying to do things right now.
All the pain is because php coders were doing things terribly wrong in the first place. Don't forget the PHP devs were encouraging them to do things wrong for years.
"The only reason why we usually consider new hardware to be cheaper is that it's not produced where we use it"
If that's true manufacturers would in effect be giving $$$ to you when you buy stuff. They aren't.
It's the accountants job to figure out costs of stuff, and they do come up with all sorts of things like depreciation etc. Their job is to make sure companies aren't giving away extra $$$ when they don't intend to;).
But you are right that it can be more efficient to use the older more energy inefficient hardware instead of replacing it, use the $$$ costs as a guide and you won't be that far wrong, unless the accountants screwed up.
So when you see "green stuff" like solar panels being really expensive in $$$ terms, don't be surprised if they really ARE expensive in resource terms.
Where it breaks is if something is "too cheap" _everywhere_ and to everyone, because the "true" costs aren't factored in - e.g. oil, "pristine land". That said in some ways - oil really is that cheap, it's just that we're probably going to run out (like a product being phased out - not easy to factor that in, in costs). Artificially making it extremely expensive just to get people used to it in advance etc, isn't automatically a brilliant idea.
In short, when something is cheap, it might not be "cheap in green terms", but when something is expensive, it probably isn't cheap in green terms. Now maybe the costs can go down with mass production, but too often it's just talk...
And the currency used does fluctuate, so to be more accurate you may need to convert the currency to units of energy or something... Go get some top accountants, economists and scientists to talk to each other somehow and work it out;).
Sure. But what if you keep rotating the mold as it cools down? Or do something similar?
But yeah, people often don't want a homogeneous material, they want stuff like the material being different at the edges from the core. So maybe "weightless" environments might help (lots more control), but without real numbers - significant difference in alloy strength or other characteristics, it's just not very exciting to me.
"this bug would have remained forever, or at least until the code was dumped"
The "good old" weaknesses of proprietary code make it likely to get dumped way before 25 years. a) the company having the source could go bust, or decide to do something different. b) people could lose track and/or understanding of the source and since it's not "mirrored and documented by everyone", it's gone. c) someone could decide to throw it away and write a new version from scratch, and so the old version will vanish.
Often you don't have to wait longer than 7 years before the code is dumped.
I have found security bugs in proprietary software, and notified the vendor to get it fixed, but they had trouble getting the fixes right, in the end they only fixed it properly in version 5 (I first found it in version 2, found a different variation of it in version 3 and 4).
Lastly, there aren't that many quality eyes, and they often have more fun things to do, so they just copy old BSD code "as is"...
Sure it's found, but after 20+ years? That's not what I call a good approach.
"many eyes make bugs shallow" is equivalent to the "infinite number of monkeys..." thing.
In my experience it's better to have quality than quantity when it comes to the eyes used for finding bugs.
Any idiot can tell you about obvious bugs, and it's kind of waste of time to see 1 million duplicate bug reports, because it's too slow to search through 100 million other bugs (with dupes) for dupes;).
For UI stuff, you get the naive (as in not yet unexposed to your evil software;) ) users in and watch them, and even then you MUST have _trained_ eyes to watch them. The trained eyes can often spot problems the naive users are experiencing - the naive users may not even realize they are experiencing problems or realize what is wrong...
Re:Please no more stories by Roland Piquepaille.
on
Creating Designer Isotopes
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't see how Sue Nichols is wrong.
She said: "Isotopes are the different versions of an element. Their nuclei have different numbers of neutrons, and thus give them different properties".
It is fairly accurate to say that isotopes are different versions of an element.
As for your remark: "Maybe she was in a hurry to go shopping", maybe you should slow down a bit?:).
You sure your reject_non_fqdn_XXX causes no false positives?
I won't personally be that sure.
You have to do a bit more checking - e.g. try sending an email to a nonexistent user in some other company and see if you still receive bounces after your changes.
Imagine if your users make a typo and don't realize it till a week later, because they never got the bounce.
1) If you're not always on that computer, I don't see the difference in "isn't always instantaneous". Most sane email service isn't that slow. 2) You don't have to leave your IM on all the time to collect IM messages if you use Yahoo Messenger- you can receive offline messages. When you re-login, you get those messages.
Nowadays, in _theory_ MSN's IM (or whatever they are calling it this week) allows you to do that, but in my experience(I use both), they are a lot more unreliable than yahoo.
1) They don't seem much better than the usual OSS antispam stuff 2) They seem to generate bounces 3) I've had a false positives to _work_ _related_ stuff I sent from home to office. I do NOT write like a spammer (if spambayes can tell and barracuda can't, it's a waste of money).
Example of 2) + 3): Your message to: <redacted>@<redacted> was blocked by our Spam Firewall. The email you sent with the following subject has NOT BEEN DELIVERED: Subject: Contract of Employment Reporting-MTA: dns; mx.<redacted>.com Received-From-MTA: smtp; mx.<redacted>.com ([127.0.0.1]) Arrival-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:18:48 +0800 (MYT)
That said I wouldn't be surprised if the box isn't configured right, causing higher false negative and false positive rates. But it's supposed to be one of those "boxes for dummies", if you need to have so much clue, then why use them?
On my personal spambayes set up at home, while there are "false positives" that end up in my "SPAM" folder, they're typically "forwarded emails from that aunt/friend" which I don't mind being filed as spam, so they're not exactly false positives;). And I like the "unsure" concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah that's my point, eternity even in my "best" mortal imperfect state is going to stop being so fun within the first billion years.
And if there really is no external party to fix me, I don't think I'd be able to fix myself.
Well if they keep making popular movies people will still _pay_ to watch them. Iron Man is going to be profitable after just a few weeks, so I don't see a good reason they'd need copyrights that last for longer than say 7 years.
With modern day technology and advances, any movie or album that isn't profitable after being in the market for 7 years doesn't deserve further protection anyway.
Microsoft has made plenty of money from Windows 2000 already. If it comes out of copyright now, and competes against Vista, well they should have made something much better than Windows 2000, instead of some crap like Vista right?
If you're an artist and you need 100 year copyrights on your _single_ album just so you can buy food etc, I'd say get another job, and do that "artist" thing as a hobby.
I think 7 years is more than long enough for a monopoly. Any longer and you are just holding back the pace of progress.
Well if it "does not end" when you die, then I'd say eternity is a long time if you are still imperfect in your "eternal life" after you die. Way too long.
The first 10000 years might be fun, maybe still fun after 100,000 years too, but eternity is a very very very long time. After a few trillion years do you think you can tell the difference between what you are experiencing and Hell?
The prospect of eternal existence without being somehow "fixed/changed" by God (or whatever) so that I can continue to _enjoy_ it, does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Only a few religions address this problem.
"You're a dozen times more likely to die in a car accident than you are from a chute malfunction."
;).
;).
I'd say a lot higher than that, since the most likely way he's going to die from a chute malfunction is if a skydiver crash lands on him
Still, base jumpers have a pretty bad death/trip or death/hour rate compared to car travel.
Base jumping is a lot more dangerous than skydiving, which is more dangerous than driving a car.
BUT, skydiving is a lot more fun than being stuck in a traffic jam
Mod parent up.
How do you know uninitialized = random or even different?
You could end up reading some BIOS junk that's the same even after cold reboots.
The speed you can load a game level is usually limited by the drive speed.
A single desktop drive doesn't usually get much faster than 50-70MB/sec (15krpm server drives are faster of course).
It's hard for me to believe that DDR2 is going to make a maxed out 60MB/sec read from the hard drive much faster.
DDR-400 RAM = 3200MB/sec.
DDR2-667 RAM = 5333MB/sec
DDR2-800 RAM = 6400MB/sec
To put it in perspective, if your game fits on one 4.7GB DVD and the drive was infinitely fast, it would take 1.5 seconds to read 4.7GB into DDR-400 memory, whereas it would take 0.75 seconds to 0.9 seconds for DDR2.
It takes 78 seconds to read 4.7GB at 60MB/sec from a drive.
So it makes more sense that the slower performance you saw is due to disk fragmentation/layout. A heavily fragmented file can lower the transfer rate down to 7-15MB/sec.
Maybe sustained RAM transfer rates might be less than the peak rates due to overheads etc, but even at half speed, the drive is the limiting factor.
As I have been saying, it makes sense now to buy DDR2 instead of DDR, since DDR2 is cheaper and more stuff supports it.
But it most certainly does not make sense to buy DDR3 unless you have some specialized needs, like you need to clear out the piles of cash that are stopping you from easily getting out of your house.
If you land on Mars you have to expend lots of energy to get off, whereas if you mine the asteroids, it's a lot cheaper.
;).
We're doing things the wrong way.
Steps should be:
1) Space station with artificial gravity (classic spinning wheel, or stuff on tether)
2) Space station with artificial gravity and decent radiation shielding
3) Figure out how to build space stations from asteroid materials
4) Send space stations to asteroid belts or wherever.
5) Space colonies.
Whereas right now, there's crazy talk of
1) Space trip to Mars
That sure sounds like a one way trip. That's only worth the $$$$ if we can vote for politicians to send on that one way trip. Do that regularly and it'll be a net benefit to the world
Well also depends on how many coal miners were affected by the quake.
I think I'd rather be a window washer falling than a coal miner stuck underground because of the quake.
"However, neither the producer nor the buyer pays for the additional CO2 output"
But they do. They pay for the fuel (that produces the CO2 and the energy) used to make the item, transport it, run the machines that build the factories, warehouses etc. That fuel is not free, it is cheap but the price is going up.
If that extra fuel was not needed, they wouldn't have to pay for it.
But yes, China is indeed sacrificing a lot for marketshare. Thing is if they didn't they would also have other problems - keeping 1 billion people from being too pissed off is not an easy task. They'll put up with a lot, but there are limits (and the leaders and sheep know that).
And maybe China is actually giving $$$ to everyone, and not charging the "proper" cost - after all they appear to be having problems getting enough coal.
China should probably switch to a cleaner energy source, but nuclear takes time to do properly.
But I assume you're using different CPUs and drives right? So it doesn't say anything about RAM speed, it only says your friend's computer is faster than your's.
My guess is the differences are mainly due to the drives and the layout of the app on the drive, very little to do with the RAM if at all.
When you do such benchmarks the drives used must be identical - e.g. use the same drive in the exact same state as it was before each run.
Even if you're using the same model drives, if you are using different drives you could have the case where one drive has the application on the faster part of the drive and the other app on the slower part, or have different fragmentation.
Of course, if you have tested a set of drives (with cloned data) and found them to be identical to the point of experimental error, then you can treat them as similar in tests for convenience.
Many benchmarkers out there get benchmarking wrong. Even some popular tech sites get it wrong sometimes.
I judge by developer track record, not by whether some thing is OSS or commercial.
;).
;).
:). So far people don't seem to complain about it that much. Except the config part, which honestly is not my fault - someone had the bright idea of outsourcing the development of the web config frontend for all our stuff to India (and we're cheaper than the Indians! ). Summary - now some people in other depts actually prefer to use SQL statements to configure our stuff... Sad.
I was in the IT security line for some years, in my experience developers who produce good code, continue to produce good code (and often better). Whereas developers who produce crap, tend to continue producing crap (maybe a bit better after years).
Just look at bugtraq, bug reports, and the sort of bugs that get found, and you'll have a good idea how good the developers are, and what the future holds for the code. Of course with OSS you often can see the mailing lists so that gives you even better insight on how the developers think.
So for example, I have reasonable confidence in the Postgresql developers, and that they will try to do the right thing for the long run.
The Linux kernel bunch seem a lot more "yeehaw cowboy", so it's a good thing the various distros are around, and you can pick a distro that matches your risk aversion levels
As for "personal responsibility", I'm not an OSS developer and I also have a sense of personal responsibility for my code. So far I have had very few bugs reported with the stuff I wrote for the company. I don't actually think I'm a great programmer just my IT security background makes me more paranoid than most coders (hey it's not paranoia when they're really out to get you!), and I'm really lazy, so I try to write/do things as correctly the first time round. Maybe I pick the easy projects too (I stick to using perl and avoid things that require C or C++ if I can). Leaves me a lot more time to post on slashdot
I think my dhcpd is better than the ISC's, but it's closed source so you'll just have to take my biased word for it
Any benchmarks?
I think there are only a few benchmarks/apps where the mem transfer rate becomes a big bottleneck. So far most of the real world benchmarks out there seem to indicate just like the DDR vs DDR2 days, DDR3 is not worth it.
This is because once the data set is big enough - disk becomes the bottleneck. Whereas below a few MB, a lot fits in the CPU cache - processing loops in games etc, so you don't get such a huge hit in performance for having a slower channel. In fact when there's a cache miss, lower latency counts about as much as raw throughput if not more - since you want that missed mem right NOW.
It's still a good _starting_ point (and good for guesstimates). It's a lot better than nothing (or wishful thinking which many seem to go by).
Example a lot of people seem to think just because it's biofuel it's green.
But if it's bioethanol from corn that needs to be subsidized (with not much hope of improvement in the future), it means it's expensive and not green.
Whereas if it is cheap ethanol from sugar from sugarcane it's not as bad.
Actually I don't think DDR2 was (is?) significantly faster than DDR for normal PCs.
;) ), because you use DDR3? If it's so expensive, most gamers would rather pump the extra money into their video card where they get more bang _nowadays_ especially with the new AMD/ATI vs Nvidia battle.
The only reason to buy DDR2 over DDR is because it is cheaper (and compatible with more stuff you want).
At the moment is DDR3 cheaper? No. The last I checked it's about 4X more expensive or more.
Who cares if RAR is 10% faster (just making up figures
For people who need CPU power? They buy a higher end CPU instead or more DDR2 RAM.
But shouldn't you be using mysql_genuine_advantage_escape_string() instead ;).
It's stupid stuff like that and "Magic Quotes" that make PHP a sad joke.
Magic Quotes = mixing input layer filtering with output layer filtering = bad. You tend to get data corruption amongst other things.
Then there's addslashes and friends.
PHP: "Making The Wrong Ways Easy, and The Right Ways Hard".
Oh well, I guess php6 is where they are finally trying to do things right now.
All the pain is because php coders were doing things terribly wrong in the first place. Don't forget the PHP devs were encouraging them to do things wrong for years.
"The only reason why we usually consider new hardware to be cheaper is that it's not produced where we use it"
;).
;).
If that's true manufacturers would in effect be giving $$$ to you when you buy stuff. They aren't.
It's the accountants job to figure out costs of stuff, and they do come up with all sorts of things like depreciation etc. Their job is to make sure companies aren't giving away extra $$$ when they don't intend to
But you are right that it can be more efficient to use the older more energy inefficient hardware instead of replacing it, use the $$$ costs as a guide and you won't be that far wrong, unless the accountants screwed up.
So when you see "green stuff" like solar panels being really expensive in $$$ terms, don't be surprised if they really ARE expensive in resource terms.
Where it breaks is if something is "too cheap" _everywhere_ and to everyone, because the "true" costs aren't factored in - e.g. oil, "pristine land". That said in some ways - oil really is that cheap, it's just that we're probably going to run out (like a product being phased out - not easy to factor that in, in costs). Artificially making it extremely expensive just to get people used to it in advance etc, isn't automatically a brilliant idea.
In short, when something is cheap, it might not be "cheap in green terms", but when something is expensive, it probably isn't cheap in green terms. Now maybe the costs can go down with mass production, but too often it's just talk...
And the currency used does fluctuate, so to be more accurate you may need to convert the currency to units of energy or something... Go get some top accountants, economists and scientists to talk to each other somehow and work it out
Sure. But what if you keep rotating the mold as it cools down? Or do something similar?
But yeah, people often don't want a homogeneous material, they want stuff like the material being different at the edges from the core. So maybe "weightless" environments might help (lots more control), but without real numbers - significant difference in alloy strength or other characteristics, it's just not very exciting to me.
"this bug would have remained forever, or at least until the code was dumped"
The "good old" weaknesses of proprietary code make it likely to get dumped way before 25 years.
a) the company having the source could go bust, or decide to do something different.
b) people could lose track and/or understanding of the source and since it's not "mirrored and documented by everyone", it's gone.
c) someone could decide to throw it away and write a new version from scratch, and so the old version will vanish.
Often you don't have to wait longer than 7 years before the code is dumped.
I have found security bugs in proprietary software, and notified the vendor to get it fixed, but they had trouble getting the fixes right, in the end they only fixed it properly in version 5 (I first found it in version 2, found a different variation of it in version 3 and 4).
Lastly, there aren't that many quality eyes, and they often have more fun things to do, so they just copy old BSD code "as is"...
I'm too lazy to look Mark Steyn up, is he a "Jack Thompson"?
e.g. some nut doing outlandish stuff, and causing things to be polarized beyond reasonable debate.
Yeah and we need some thing like "template sandboxes" on top of something like AppArmor.
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-bugs/2007-09/msg02994.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
Sure it's found, but after 20+ years? That's not what I call a good approach.
;).
;) ) users in and watch them, and even then you MUST have _trained_ eyes to watch them. The trained eyes can often spot problems the naive users are experiencing - the naive users may not even realize they are experiencing problems or realize what is wrong...
"many eyes make bugs shallow" is equivalent to the "infinite number of monkeys..." thing.
In my experience it's better to have quality than quantity when it comes to the eyes used for finding bugs.
Any idiot can tell you about obvious bugs, and it's kind of waste of time to see 1 million duplicate bug reports, because it's too slow to search through 100 million other bugs (with dupes) for dupes
For UI stuff, you get the naive (as in not yet unexposed to your evil software
I don't see how Sue Nichols is wrong.
:).
She said: "Isotopes are the different versions of an element. Their nuclei have different numbers of neutrons, and thus give them different properties".
It is fairly accurate to say that isotopes are different versions of an element.
As for your remark: "Maybe she was in a hurry to go shopping", maybe you should slow down a bit?
You sure your reject_non_fqdn_XXX causes no false positives?
I won't personally be that sure.
You have to do a bit more checking - e.g. try sending an email to a nonexistent user in some other company and see if you still receive bounces after your changes.
Imagine if your users make a typo and don't realize it till a week later, because they never got the bounce.
1) If you're not always on that computer, I don't see the difference in "isn't always instantaneous". Most sane email service isn't that slow.
2) You don't have to leave your IM on all the time to collect IM messages if you use Yahoo Messenger- you can receive offline messages. When you re-login, you get those messages.
Nowadays, in _theory_ MSN's IM (or whatever they are calling it this week) allows you to do that, but in my experience(I use both), they are a lot more unreliable than yahoo.
We use them the company I work for, and:
;). And I like the "unsure" concept.
1) They don't seem much better than the usual OSS antispam stuff
2) They seem to generate bounces
3) I've had a false positives to _work_ _related_ stuff I sent from home to office. I do NOT write like a spammer (if spambayes can tell and barracuda can't, it's a waste of money).
Example of 2) + 3):
Your message to: <redacted>@<redacted> was blocked by our Spam Firewall. The email you sent with the following subject has NOT BEEN DELIVERED: Subject: Contract of Employment Reporting-MTA: dns; mx.<redacted>.com
Received-From-MTA: smtp; mx.<redacted>.com ([127.0.0.1])
Arrival-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:18:48 +0800 (MYT)
That said I wouldn't be surprised if the box isn't configured right, causing higher false negative and false positive rates. But it's supposed to be one of those "boxes for dummies", if you need to have so much clue, then why use them?
On my personal spambayes set up at home, while there are "false positives" that end up in my "SPAM" folder, they're typically "forwarded emails from that aunt/friend" which I don't mind being filed as spam, so they're not exactly false positives