I don't mean to interrupt this thread, but has anyone seen this. Its an RFC that adds an new bit field to TCP/IP headers for packets that have malicious intent.
So it'd go something like "Parental warning your kid won't be able to copy this broke ass shit"
I propose the following boilerplate text:
Dear Parent,
This CD is copy prohibited, to preserve our valuable digital content.
Normally your kid would burn a copy of this and give it to all his little friends, and receive copies of other new albums in return. Now, he can't, and believe-you-me, he's *still* gonna want those other new albums. This is gonna cost you big. We, however, will be fucking rolling in cash. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha...
Err nope. I keep stats on these things. Of the last 8,000 spams I've received, over 5,500 originated from APNIC IP addresses, the vast majority of those from Korea, China and Taiwan. Add to that that Telstra recently imposed a Usenet Death Penalty on itself -- to avoid an external one -- because of the amount of spam coming from its servers. I have no problem with Chinese or Korean people, and the only reason I don't like Australians is because they're too good at cricket.
The amount of US (Roadrunner, SWBell and Pacbell) and UK (Ntlworld ADSL) spam *is* on the increase, though.
Now that world + dog is online, we have all sorts of ne'er do wells screwing around in there, causing all sorts of trouble.
The only real problem is that of open relays (mainly in Asia, Latin America and Spain) and large ADSL/Broadband ISPs who don't give a fuck (RoadRunner, PacBell, SWBell -- this means you). If these were eliminated, forging From: lines would be irrelevant, since everyone would be easily traceable to their SMTP server where they injected the spam in the first place. Spammers are easily traced now, its just that their upstream providers turn a blind eye for the money.
What do you think of the credentials of the Leipzig signees?
Unsurprised. The statement is an expression of "apprehension" concerning the particular terms of Kyoto and a statement that climate change is not a hard fact (everyone in the field knows this). Fair enough. They may be right, although I don't feel they -- or I -- am qualified to predict the economic effects of it, anymore than economists can predict climate. Frankly, giving its limited scope, I'm amazed they only got about 120 signatories. I bet I could do better than that with a stand at EGS next month.
It also describes the '92 Global Climate Treaty as having "unrealistic goals". I know no-one who would disagree with this. The '92 Treaty is a dog's breakfast of good intentions, lofty principles and hand waving.
Sorry, the way you and most others supporting the global warming theory right is as if it's an established, undisputed fact throughout the scientific community I work in climatology, and I'm very aware of the degree of uncertainty there is about the issue. I've been to conferences were little else was debated. Climatologists, as a whole, are considerably less sure about *anything* than Cato, Greenpeace and other pressure groups are about *everything*.
Climate modelling is hard, and no one is particularly confident. But many people, who understand the science very, very well and have no axes to grind are worried.
Possible, yes. Anything's possible if you work the statistics right.
Thats why I said distinct. And it is a distinct, non-trivial, non-vanishingly small, possibility. Glib answers like yours won't cut it, because this is like Pascal's wager -- the consequences of ignoring climate change (we all die) and being wrong are *much* more severe than taking preventative action and being wrong (the economy takes a hit -- how bad? we don't know, except that the Western European countries that *have* ratified Kyoto are not doing any worse in the present recession than the US.)
You do need a higher level of certainty than currently exists before putting into place the current economy-destroying proposals.
I note you don't require the same level of certainty that Kyoto is "economy destroying" as you do for global warming. Many economists do not believe Kyoto to be nearly as drastic is certain people (i.e. the US government) have made out.
A quick look through the signees does show an awful lot of Ph.D.s though.
If there is such a scientific unity on the subject, why did 15,000 U.S. scientists sign a statement against the Kyoto Protocol saying that the available data do not support the computer climate models being made?
Find me where I said there was scientific unity, and I'll address that point.
There's a lot of work left to be done before you can claim that man-made global warming is a fact.
Correct. It is, however, a distinct possibility.
Therefore, before we go crazy trying to do something about it, let's find out if it's true first.
Errr. No. I can't agree. Thats madness. If there is a distinct possibility of anthropogenic climate change on decadal timescales (and there is), moderate preventative action is called for. Now. You don't need certainty before you take precautions, and if you do, you'll often find that the certainty arrives too late...
Think of reduction of greenhouse emissions as the condom of global warming (sure theres a good chance that (i) She won't get pregnant and (ii) I won't get the clap). Safety first.
PS : Pop quiz : How many anti-Kyoto signatories were even familiar with the literature?
They forgot to mention that the paper as a whole did a very good job of equating the 1970s myth with today's. Thanks for pointing me indirectly to that paper, very informative.
They miss the salient point though. Informed scientists are worried about the possibility of global warming. That was never the case of the cooling scare. Ehrlichman -- its main (sole?) proponent -- was a flake, who knew no climatology.
The Cato Institutes opinions on global warming are about as accurate as most climatologists predictions about the stock market. They're economists and, frankly, economists with agendas. Greenpeace, etc, have agendas too. Why would someone accept either of their readings of the literature, and reject, say, the International Panel on Climate Change, or the NRC's "Committee on the Science of Climate Change"?
I thought we were to all have died from Global Cooling by now, at least that was what they were saying in the 1970s. How did cooling switch to warming so fast?
You did think that. Allow me to correct your (extremely popular) misconception. http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/iceage/ Executive Summary : No peer reviewed journal printed a single paper predicting an anthropmorphic global iceage. Not one. Anywhere. Really.
It's not costing anyone "lots of money." That's a fiction used to justify these overreaching actions.
Except the person who called for it doesn't mention money at all. Just that spam unwanted, and Telstra pump out more spam than non-spam.
Thats it. No fiction, just facts, and a modest proposal to stop propagating their input. (After all, why should ISPs feel the need to help outsiders annoy the ISPs own users. And its not overreaching, they're just saying "If you won't play by our rules, you can't play" -- an axiom of nearly all cooperative activity.
Believe me, guys (and gals) muchsmarter than Nash have been defeated by the Riemann Hypothesis. They just haven't been bonkers enough to deserve a cheesy, hagiographical Hollywood movie...
Captain Pedantic writes:where k is some non-zero constant Eigenvalues don't have to be non-zero. It's eigenvectors that have to be non-zero...
ObEditorial : Until this is peer reviewed and appears in a reputable journal,feel free to skip onto the next story. Its probably about Microsoft. Or John Carmack. Nothing to see here.
Re:Whatever happened to Katz?
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
A real job, and one more suited to his skills. He's now a canine journalist (although, presumably, his bad experience with a C64 means he won't write about Afghans...)
Slashdot Mirror
When the forums outnumber the posts, you know you've ound a real classical sourceforge project.
I've been running it under the Berlin windowing system on my GNU/Hurd box for 12 hours, and it r0x...
Its really helped my productivity. I've got an amazing amount of work done today.
[OK, I admit it. That last bit was clearly an April Fool]
I don't mean to interrupt this thread, but has anyone seen this. Its an RFC that adds an new bit field to TCP/IP headers for packets that have malicious intent.
/. , and its hilarious.
I haven't seen it at
Thank you, and I apologise.
Indeed. And in this case, its debunking the one about Green Party activists being singled out for rough treatement... Sheesh
Err nope. I keep stats on these things. Of the last 8,000 spams I've received, over 5,500 originated from APNIC IP addresses, the vast majority of those from Korea, China and Taiwan. Add to that that Telstra recently imposed a Usenet Death Penalty on itself -- to avoid an external one -- because of the amount of spam coming from its servers. I have no problem with Chinese or Korean people, and the only reason I don't like Australians is because they're too good at cricket.
The amount of US (Roadrunner, SWBell and Pacbell) and UK (Ntlworld ADSL) spam *is* on the increase, though.
China, Korea and Telstra have new WiFi link! Now they can spam the rest of world without having to leave the comfort of their armchairs...
It even has a name. In Martian the word "Grok" means "to know", "to eat", "body" and, of course "water".
M. V. Smith
PS: Anyone want to join my weird telepathic sex cult?
It also describes the '92 Global Climate Treaty as having "unrealistic goals". I know no-one who would disagree with this. The '92 Treaty is a dog's breakfast of good intentions, lofty principles and hand waving.
Climate modelling is hard, and no one is particularly confident. But many people, who understand the science very, very well and have no axes to grind are worried.Thats why I said distinct. And it is a distinct, non-trivial, non-vanishingly small, possibility. Glib answers like yours won't cut it, because this is like Pascal's wager -- the consequences of ignoring climate change (we all die) and being wrong are *much* more severe than taking preventative action and being wrong (the economy takes a hit -- how bad? we don't know, except that the Western European countries that *have* ratified Kyoto are not doing any worse in the present recession than the US.)I note you don't require the same level of certainty that Kyoto is "economy destroying" as you do for global warming. Many economists do not believe Kyoto to be nearly as drastic is certain people (i.e. the US government) have made out.Well, who hasn't got one of those?
Errr. No. I can't agree. Thats madness. If there is a distinct possibility of anthropogenic climate change on decadal timescales (and there is), moderate preventative action is called for. Now. You don't need certainty before you take precautions, and if you do, you'll often find that the certainty arrives too late...
Think of reduction of greenhouse emissions as the condom of global warming (sure theres a good chance that (i) She won't get pregnant and (ii) I won't get the clap). Safety first.
PS : Pop quiz : How many anti-Kyoto signatories were even familiar with the literature?
The Cato Institutes opinions on global warming are about as accurate as most climatologists predictions about the stock market. They're economists and, frankly, economists with agendas. Greenpeace, etc, have agendas too. Why would someone accept either of their readings of the literature, and reject, say, the International Panel on Climate Change, or the NRC's "Committee on the Science of Climate Change"?
Thats it. No fiction, just facts, and a modest proposal to stop propagating their input. (After all, why should ISPs feel the need to help outsiders annoy the ISPs own users. And its not overreaching, they're just saying "If you won't play by our rules, you can't play" -- an axiom of nearly all cooperative activity.
Believe me, guys (and gals) much smarter than Nash have been defeated by the Riemann Hypothesis. They just haven't been bonkers enough to deserve a cheesy, hagiographical Hollywood movie...
Eigenvalues don't have to be non-zero. It's eigenvectors that have to be non-zero...
ObEditorial : Until this is peer reviewed and appears in a reputable journal,feel free to skip onto the next story. Its probably about Microsoft. Or John Carmack. Nothing to see here.
A real job, and one more suited to his skills. He's now a canine journalist (although, presumably, his bad experience with a C64 means he won't write about Afghans...)
Stop talking bollocks.