So instead of wasting a couple seconds every time you sign up for a mailing list, you prefer to waste money on bandwidth to download thousands of spam e-mails?
Are you trying to suggest that if spam were eliminated, the price of bandwidth would suddenly drop dramatically? Instead of jacking my rates up each year, Comcast will actually start decreasing them?! Wow, where the hell do I sign up?
As a USER of email, I find the need to maintain a white-list simply because spammers are fucking assholes is UNACCEPTABLE. I won't do it. Right now, my Bayesian filters completely hide spam from me. I will not move from that system to a system which requires MORE WORK FOR ME, i.e., maintaining a whitelist.
Feel free to sit there and feel smug about your "solution" which requires you to waste your time.
I find that the people who most strongly advocate sender-side blocking, like HashCash, invariably are network administrators who don't want "their" bandwidth wasted. Guess what: I'm a customer. It's my bandwidth. I really don't give a fuck if spammers are violating the sanctity of your precious network. I am only interested in not seeing spam, not thinking about spam, and not worrying about spam. HashCash is a horrid solution in those respects, and I won't accept it.
Sorry. I refuse to waste my time maintaining such a list simply because spammers are assholes, and those who advocate HashCash are blind. Instead of being happily unaware of spam as by Bayesian filter silently tosses it, I now have to consciously manage a white list.
This makes it difficult to send any kind of mass mail.
For example, Sourceforge sends site-wide update messages about once a month or so. They have tens, if not hundreds of thousands of users. If every one of those users used HashCash, Sourceforge would practically need a dedicated server farm computing hashes simply in order to send out its update notices.
I'll forgive you for not grasping his mathematical language...
He was suggesting that a sentence should have a factor of N in it. That means that, among the other factors in choosing the sentence, one of those factors should be N.
In other words, if the number of people getting away with theft (or murder, or fraud, or whatever) doubles, then the sentences should double.
If you understand the language of CS, he's saying that sentences should be O(N). There are, of course, other factors.
What this means is that you can't use lethal force to protect property (although, as far as I know, it is permissible to use the THREAT of lethal force to protect property).
How can the threat of lethal force be a legitimate deterrent, if the attacker knows that you are not actually allowed to apply that force?
I mean, of all fields, IT is the one field where putting yourself out of work is the goal.
A sysadmin writes tools to automate more and more of what he does. Soon, there's nothing left for him to do.
Other IT jobs are constantly being eliminated by the advancement of technology. This trend should have been obvious from the beginning to anyone working in this industry. This industry is about automation!
The saving point is that, although more and more things are becoming automated, more and more problems to automate are being found every day. These problems require new skills to tackle. Thus, the IT worker who wishes to be perpetually employed must focus on continually adding to his skillset. Unfortunately, as many are starting to figure out, this requires something called "intelligence."
The fact is, in the 90's boom, many of the supposed "critical" IT positions were, in fact, automatable, or performable by monkeys. It was simply a matter of time before the software to automate those jobs was written. Businesses have realized this fact, and the market for less skilled IT workers has reduced dramatically. This is as it should be.
A large number of "IT Professionals" in the boom were horrifically unqualified, and they are now surprised that they can't find work. Well, I'm not surprised.
What a shallow, empty life you must lead, if you can drop it all at any given moment in exchange for a few bucks.
Have fun waking up to reality when you're 50 and you realize you have no lifelong friends, no wife, no children, and no happiness. But hey, at least you got to work your ass off for someone else your entire life.
It is illegal (at least in the US) to "booby trap" your residence. For example, a shotgun with a string around the trigger, running through a pulley to the front doorknob.
Suppose this device fired a disc into an intruder's eye, and did some sort of damage. I wonder if that intruder could successfully bring a case against the property owner for booby trapping his/her property.
This is absolutely correct. To be precise about it, the theoretical maximum data rate of a channel, in bits per second, is equal to W*log2(1+SNR) where W is the bandwidth in hertz, and SNR is the signal to noise ratio.
In this case, however, they have not changed the bandwidth or power. Notice that the data rate formula (called the Shannon limit) indicates the maximum possible data rate. In practice, the data rate is lower because modulation schemes are not perfect. In this case, they have switched to a better modulation scheme, and as a result they are not "wasting" as much of their bandwidth.
Re:Exit the room or there will be... trouble!
on
Automated Sentry Robots
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You wouldn't be modded down anyway, due to your 2 digit UID.
What, saving money isn't working so you have to belittle others for not helping in your gamble that the stock market will be profitable for you?
Saving money NEVER works. There's this little thing called "inflation." Investing is the only way to actually retain wealth. Take the goddamn blindfold (or idiot hat, or whatever) off.
Gaaah! Why, whenever someone has a delicious story like this, the ending is never finished? Why didn't you go back over to Vauxhall for a bit of gloating? At least teach the guy a lesson...
The =/== bug is so commonplace that you should always be subconsciously checking for it every time you write a test condition. I've typed this bug before, but it has never gone unnoticed because I actively check for it.
Reversing the test is a bogus method. It gives you false confidence. It doesn't work for comparing two variables. The proper way to handle this problem is to LOOK for it.
but he is afraid to do anything else because pricks like you will go accuse him of lieing about his condition when you don't know squat about what his condition actually is.
I see. A guy scams people out of money and claims to have a disability. We doubt the truth of that, given the fact that he's a corrupt fraudster, but I guess that makes us pricks?
Well, no. Ensuring that every vote is magically 'BUSH' (Golly gosh gee, he's sure getting a lot!) is probably the point he was trying to make.
I don't think so. He used 'BUSH' in single quotes, which leads me to believe he's never actually written any C code, and thus would probably not even be aware of the distinction between the two operators, or the significance of this class of problem.
I didn't mean to imply that. Linguists observe grammar. My point (and the point of the majority of people who study language) is that, given the fact that double negatives are used extensively in many human languages, it does not follow that they must logically cancel each other.
I agree with you that the usage is incorrect in terms of mainstream English. This just happens to be a peeve of mine.
Slashdot Mirror
So your argument is that, if scheme A is applicable to domain X but not to domain Y, that therefore you should not apply scheme A to domain X?
Are you trying to suggest that if spam were eliminated, the price of bandwidth would suddenly drop dramatically? Instead of jacking my rates up each year, Comcast will actually start decreasing them?! Wow, where the hell do I sign up?
Ain't gonna happen, so where's my incentive?
As a USER of email, I find the need to maintain a white-list simply because spammers are fucking assholes is UNACCEPTABLE. I won't do it. Right now, my Bayesian filters completely hide spam from me. I will not move from that system to a system which requires MORE WORK FOR ME, i.e., maintaining a whitelist.
Feel free to sit there and feel smug about your "solution" which requires you to waste your time.
I find that the people who most strongly advocate sender-side blocking, like HashCash, invariably are network administrators who don't want "their" bandwidth wasted. Guess what: I'm a customer. It's my bandwidth. I really don't give a fuck if spammers are violating the sanctity of your precious network. I am only interested in not seeing spam, not thinking about spam, and not worrying about spam. HashCash is a horrid solution in those respects, and I won't accept it.
Sorry. I refuse to waste my time maintaining such a list simply because spammers are assholes, and those who advocate HashCash are blind. Instead of being happily unaware of spam as by Bayesian filter silently tosses it, I now have to consciously manage a white list.
No thanks.
For example, Sourceforge sends site-wide update messages about once a month or so. They have tens, if not hundreds of thousands of users. If every one of those users used HashCash, Sourceforge would practically need a dedicated server farm computing hashes simply in order to send out its update notices.
This is a really, really stupid idea.
He was suggesting that a sentence should have a factor of N in it. That means that, among the other factors in choosing the sentence, one of those factors should be N.
In other words, if the number of people getting away with theft (or murder, or fraud, or whatever) doubles, then the sentences should double.
If you understand the language of CS, he's saying that sentences should be O(N). There are, of course, other factors.
You're absolutely right. The typical sentences for rape and negligent homicide are far too short.
How can the threat of lethal force be a legitimate deterrent, if the attacker knows that you are not actually allowed to apply that force?
A sysadmin writes tools to automate more and more of what he does. Soon, there's nothing left for him to do.
Other IT jobs are constantly being eliminated by the advancement of technology. This trend should have been obvious from the beginning to anyone working in this industry. This industry is about automation!
The saving point is that, although more and more things are becoming automated, more and more problems to automate are being found every day. These problems require new skills to tackle. Thus, the IT worker who wishes to be perpetually employed must focus on continually adding to his skillset. Unfortunately, as many are starting to figure out, this requires something called "intelligence."
The fact is, in the 90's boom, many of the supposed "critical" IT positions were, in fact, automatable, or performable by monkeys. It was simply a matter of time before the software to automate those jobs was written. Businesses have realized this fact, and the market for less skilled IT workers has reduced dramatically. This is as it should be.
A large number of "IT Professionals" in the boom were horrifically unqualified, and they are now surprised that they can't find work. Well, I'm not surprised.
Have fun waking up to reality when you're 50 and you realize you have no lifelong friends, no wife, no children, and no happiness. But hey, at least you got to work your ass off for someone else your entire life.
Suppose this device fired a disc into an intruder's eye, and did some sort of damage. I wonder if that intruder could successfully bring a case against the property owner for booby trapping his/her property.
When will you realize that Slashdot is inherently a US website? Why do you think the "Politics" Slashdot Logo has an AMERICAN FLAG on it?
If you don't like it, go start EuroSlash or something.
In this case, however, they have not changed the bandwidth or power. Notice that the data rate formula (called the Shannon limit) indicates the maximum possible data rate. In practice, the data rate is lower because modulation schemes are not perfect. In this case, they have switched to a better modulation scheme, and as a result they are not "wasting" as much of their bandwidth.
You wouldn't be modded down anyway, due to your 2 digit UID.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems odd about the term "5-quadrant."
I still don't agree with it at all :-/
Saving money NEVER works. There's this little thing called "inflation." Investing is the only way to actually retain wealth. Take the goddamn blindfold (or idiot hat, or whatever) off.
Oh, I'm SO sorry. I don't have my Capitalism License, so I'm not allowed to turn a buck.
I'm sure Best Buy's License is proudly displayed on the back wall...
Gaaah! Why, whenever someone has a delicious story like this, the ending is never finished? Why didn't you go back over to Vauxhall for a bit of gloating? At least teach the guy a lesson...
Reversing the test is a bogus method. It gives you false confidence. It doesn't work for comparing two variables. The proper way to handle this problem is to LOOK for it.
I see. A guy scams people out of money and claims to have a disability. We doubt the truth of that, given the fact that he's a corrupt fraudster, but I guess that makes us pricks?
I don't think so. He used 'BUSH' in single quotes, which leads me to believe he's never actually written any C code, and thus would probably not even be aware of the distinction between the two operators, or the significance of this class of problem.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Certainly not by procreating with the type of person you'd find in a night club...
Sex != procreation. I don't think too many guys go to clubs with the goal of getting a woman pregnant :-)
I didn't mean to imply that. Linguists observe grammar. My point (and the point of the majority of people who study language) is that, given the fact that double negatives are used extensively in many human languages, it does not follow that they must logically cancel each other.
I agree with you that the usage is incorrect in terms of mainstream English. This just happens to be a peeve of mine.