ALL filters, Bayesian or otherwise, have to be able to properly interpret and translate an email. It is insane to think you can filter email without being able to properly decode it. This is a limitation of the message decoder, not Bayesian filtering.
Huh? Many times the message decoder and the filter are two different systems. The filter might be middlewear and the decoder might be part of the GUI. Under those circumstances, the message decoder can present readable text to the user that the filter ignores (read: that's bad).
Good point. I guess we're all screwed now. I'm not going to do anything to their DRM because I'm not going to buy CDs ever again. Not just these kind, all kinds are out.
So sue me for circumventing your DRM by not buying them!
No matter what their credentials or rationale, it is wrong to use one's knowledge and the cover of academia to facilitate piracy and theft of digital property.
Magic markers and shift keys asside, I guess using a "slim-jim" to gain access to one's own car is wrong too. The car door was certianly never designed to allow entry using this method. Where's the DMCA when you really need it??
They obviously have no case, but is there a way for Hamilton to effectively defend himself in case it's allowed to go to trial?
We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.
Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000. Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.
If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you will use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating system, please continue.
What and odd thing to say. They also don't even mention Windows 98, which in all the stats pages I've seen, is currently between XP and 2000 in popularity. Well, good luck to them.
We've seen first hand how the early Bayesian filters were circumvented. Remember the images instead of text, then the HTML Entities (like A instead of the letter 'A')? The second and third generations of the Bayesian filters had to account for them. I can just see how a DoS filter would be circumvented early: redirects and browser scripts.
If a filter spiders a spam, all the spammer needs to do is use a redirect or, for smart filters, a small page with javascript that the browser would understand, but would confuse the filter. So yes, the DoS would work at first, but the spammers would realize what was going on and adapt.
I'm sure meta refresh tags would work in the beginning, but it's simple enough to get a filter to look for those. Eventually, a good filter will have to mimic what the browser does very closely. Maybe it'd be better to actually use a browser that the user can't see.
I'm in California, and I've gotten South Dakota. What's the charge for calling New York from Ontario? Well, if it does turn out to help them scam us, we'll always be able to say, "Blame Canada!"
Yeah, you call them up and they reply, "DNC? Call the other department starting with F and ending with C, and please stop calling us. We're on the DNC too, you know."
It works as long as you don't have morons for designers. Software design is an expertise, and as such includes benefits of experience. Lacking the expertise and experience (or the budget for it), some will instead attach to a dogmatism, a "one true way" which is always correct in lieu of any expertise or lack thereof.
But we do have morons for designers. XP is a great way to shove the responsibility for design into the process rather than force it to be flushed out in the beginning of the project where it's less likely to have form.
XP, like those dogmas before it, is designed to take a group of young, aspiring and inepensive programmers who don't know any better, have a huge amount of enthusiasm but the attention span of a flea, and give them focus in order to exert some common direction and control over their productivity. The XP methodology is a specifically defined and fixed target and not itself an example of it's own design methodologies.
Hey, whatever works to get the pack moving. But I think you're wrong about XP being a fixed target. Maybe in a given iteration of XP, that's true. But it undergoes changes just like it recommends project specifications do. Isn't that what this book is about, "Extreme Programming Refactored?"
You're right. XP projects are incompatible with this. If none of the developers were on the original project, and the project is suddenly passed on to a completely new team, the project is pretty much toast.
The advise XP gives is to avoid this. If a new team is to take over a project, it should happen slowly and over time. If this is not possible, and this is my advice, not XP, the project should start over, using the original project only as a guide.
But "real design" doesn't work, at least, not very well.
"Real design," as you call it, requires that you keep to yourself, code code code in secret and hope what was defined in the beginning is still what the customer wants.
XP requires everyone to stretch beyond the "standard" development method. But for some reason, developers don't think they need to stretch.
The lack of future planning in XP is not a flaw, it's like that on purpose. I believe that hacking is the best most ideal way to code. XP facilitates hacking on a company wide scale, so even non-developers understand the progress being made.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our new Uranium Eating Bacterial overloads.
Not at all. I use Apple's Music Store(tm). I am less disgusted by their DRM.
It stole MP3's.
Napster didn't steal MP3s. People steal MP3s.
That's my point. There are a lot of implications to saying that the filter's decoder must do exactly what the GUI's decoders does.
ALL filters, Bayesian or otherwise, have to be able to properly interpret and translate an email. It is insane to think you can filter email without being able to properly decode it. This is a limitation of the message decoder, not Bayesian filtering.
Huh? Many times the message decoder and the filter are two different systems. The filter might be middlewear and the decoder might be part of the GUI. Under those circumstances, the message decoder can present readable text to the user that the filter ignores (read: that's bad).
Good point. I guess we're all screwed now. I'm not going to do anything to their DRM because I'm not going to buy CDs ever again. Not just these kind, all kinds are out.
So sue me for circumventing your DRM by not buying them!
When are we going to sue spammers for circumventing our spam filters?
No matter what their credentials or rationale, it is wrong to use one's knowledge and the cover of academia to facilitate piracy and theft of digital property.
Magic markers and shift keys asside, I guess using a "slim-jim" to gain access to one's own car is wrong too. The car door was certianly never designed to allow entry using this method. Where's the DMCA when you really need it??
They obviously have no case, but is there a way for Hamilton to effectively defend himself in case it's allowed to go to trial?
Here's what I got whilest using my TiBook:
We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.
Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000. Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.
If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you will use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating system, please continue.
What and odd thing to say. They also don't even mention Windows 98, which in all the stats pages I've seen, is currently between XP and 2000 in popularity. Well, good luck to them.
We've seen first hand how the early Bayesian filters were circumvented. Remember the images instead of text, then the HTML Entities (like A instead of the letter 'A')? The second and third generations of the Bayesian filters had to account for them. I can just see how a DoS filter would be circumvented early: redirects and browser scripts.
If a filter spiders a spam, all the spammer needs to do is use a redirect or, for smart filters, a small page with javascript that the browser would understand, but would confuse the filter. So yes, the DoS would work at first, but the spammers would realize what was going on and adapt.
I'm sure meta refresh tags would work in the beginning, but it's simple enough to get a filter to look for those. Eventually, a good filter will have to mimic what the browser does very closely. Maybe it'd be better to actually use a browser that the user can't see.
That's just 450,000 M.O.s, if you ask me.
Apparently Apple is trying use this launch to steal the thunder from the Chinese launch. I just wonder which one will crash first
Finally, an Apple Update that doesn't require a reboot! My uptime has been preserved.
Bill Nye: The grass is green. The GRASS is GREEN!
Bill Handel: The grass is green. The GRASS is GREEN! Well there you go.
Coincidence? I think not.
And, they just look cool.
I was half expecting to find a person on one of the notes wearing sun glasses.
I'm in California, and I've gotten South Dakota. What's the charge for calling New York from Ontario? Well, if it does turn out to help them scam us, we'll always be able to say, "Blame Canada!"
Will someone please tell me what would prevent a telemarketing company outside the US from obtaining this very accurate list of phone numbers?
Like this?
All I know is that Windows XP is the best $300 game of Solitaire I've ever played.
XP does not suggest coding without considering design.
You obviously don't know anything about XP. Take a look.
Yeah, you call them up and they reply, "DNC? Call the other department starting with F and ending with C, and please stop calling us. We're on the DNC too, you know."
It works as long as you don't have morons for designers. Software design is an expertise, and as such includes benefits of experience. Lacking the expertise and experience (or the budget for it), some will instead attach to a dogmatism, a "one true way" which is always correct in lieu of any expertise or lack thereof.
But we do have morons for designers. XP is a great way to shove the responsibility for design into the process rather than force it to be flushed out in the beginning of the project where it's less likely to have form.
XP, like those dogmas before it, is designed to take a group of young, aspiring and inepensive programmers who don't know any better, have a huge amount of enthusiasm but the attention span of a flea, and give them focus in order to exert some common direction and control over their productivity. The XP methodology is a specifically defined and fixed target and not itself an example of it's own design methodologies.
Hey, whatever works to get the pack moving. But I think you're wrong about XP being a fixed target. Maybe in a given iteration of XP, that's true. But it undergoes changes just like it recommends project specifications do. Isn't that what this book is about, "Extreme Programming Refactored?"
Try translating that statement to dollars sometime and you'll learn pretty quick why that's not smart.
That's true, it's never smart to change teams in the middle of a project. There are always drawbacks to transition.
You're right. XP projects are incompatible with this. If none of the developers were on the original project, and the project is suddenly passed on to a completely new team, the project is pretty much toast.
The advise XP gives is to avoid this. If a new team is to take over a project, it should happen slowly and over time. If this is not possible, and this is my advice, not XP, the project should start over, using the original project only as a guide.
But "real design" doesn't work, at least, not very well.
"Real design," as you call it, requires that you keep to yourself, code code code in secret and hope what was defined in the beginning is still what the customer wants.
XP requires everyone to stretch beyond the "standard" development method. But for some reason, developers don't think they need to stretch.
The lack of future planning in XP is not a flaw, it's like that on purpose. I believe that hacking is the best most ideal way to code. XP facilitates hacking on a company wide scale, so even non-developers understand the progress being made.