We can't ever have a workable spam filter because of the adaptability of spam.
This is because the solutions of the day focus on content instead of anonymity.
I've said it before, I'll probably say it again, get rid of unauthenticated email and the spam problem becomes a thousand times easier to fight. SPF and various RMX solutions exist in design today. If people want the spam problem to go away, that can be done today. Unfortunately people would rather piss and moan and call for legislation or perfect solutions than deal with these good ones today.
In the case of spam the perfect is the enemy of the good enough. We should stop spam today.
Pure socialism has been used in countries where no one is selfish. That's why it has worked so well so far.
Exactly. And pure capitalism has been used where the owners of the companies are *all* in agreement to not exploit their customers, workers or the environment.:-)
I think you are right though an economic model based mostly on market idioms with some (and I'm sure we could argue about how many and what kind) socialist constructs is probably the best.
Thanks. I'll skip the part where you mistake soviet communism for socialism then.;-)
1) You don't have to convince everyone at once. Just get support for a couple of the quite reasonable proposals into exim, sendmail and exchange and that's probably 80% of the battle.
2) Not everyone has to switch at the same time. However, once one of these ideas gains traction the momentum will make anyone who doesn't adopt look like a luddite.
That note does reflect the problem though. People constantly look for an excuse to fail even while the spam fills their mail spool. Shame.
You know why I get [checks his logs] a few hundred spams a day? Because of that attitude.
Most spam comes from open relays and with reply addresses which are fake. If this is removed as an option the spam problem *immediately* goes down by something like 95% according to my logs.
Then, with the other 5%, because you know who sent it you can take legal or technical action to limit their ability to bug you.
PEOPLE. READ THIS AND BE INFORMED. THE PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD IN THIS PROBLEM DOMAIN. WE SHOULD AGREE ON A PRETTY GOOD TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION AND USE IT!
Spam that complies with CANSPAM would not be affected by SPF, actualy, as there are no forged headers. But it would be obvious who sent it and it would allow much better prevention.
Of course it would be affected. It would be complying with the law and *no longer anonymous*. Far in excess of 95% of the spam I receive is untraceable. This would change if SPF (or it's peers) were in place.
Suddenly spam would have a known origin and be subject to effective blocking.
IOW, think of SPF as the most powerful tool in a toolchest against spam instead of a single stand alone solution for the entire problem.
The problem is anonymity. Remove it and the problem essentially goes away.
Can someone please mod up the parent. This is one of a handful of technological solutions that will virtually eliminate spam, but require community acceptance.
For christs sake people, the solutions exist. It's time to stop talking as if this is a hard problem and start acting like we know what we're doing.
I think we all ought to seriously consider the costs and benifits of cell phones. I went without for a while and found it liberating.
Once I realized that, just like when I'm at home, I can use caller id to screen my calls I realized that *having* a cell phone was what I found liberating. I can go to my farm in the country and not have to worry about whether the servers have gone to hell because my contact point is one number, always. If I don't answer the voicemail takes a message and I can review that for urgency.
First rule of owning a cell phone. If it rings, you don't have to answer...
Where did you find the figure of 2.5lbs per day? I'd like to see that.
According to google the standard figure is 2.2lbs and I rounded up.
Did you mean 75lbs per human per day?
Yes. But it was extrapolated from other numbers.
Your 7B number is better. I found the same as real numbers instead of extrapolations when I looked. So globally we're at about five pounds per day of production, plus 2.2 pounds from breathing.
However, for the U.S. the average is 20 tons per capita per year, or a bit over a hundred pounds per capita per day.
Look at all sides of the issue, and come up with your own informed opinion. It makes you look smarter that way.
Yes. Let's do that.
A human produces about 2.5lbs of CO2 a day.
The global production of CO2 per day supporting humans (think gas, power, industry...) is 75lbs per day. And that's averaged over all people. The U.S. average is probably more like 150-200lbs per day.
So, look at both sides indeed. Humans are a drop in the bucket compared to what they produce by non-metobalic mechanisms.
Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.
I've done this and found the truth does not lay somwewhere in the middle this time. The scientists are correct and should be taken seriously.
This is called a "back of the envelope" calculation, not an in-depth analysis. The idea isn't to get a precise answer but rather to come up with a reasonable educated guess.
But it isn't reasonable if it doesn't take into account the very techology being discussed, right?
The new process is three times more efficient and can turn a number of different scenarios from losers or break evens into big winners.
Yes. In the vernacular "100 bushel corn" is 100 per acre.
Not being of an agricultural bent, I don't know if this is a realistic yield or not.
For my area it is a good yield. I suppose some people might go as low as 80-100, but they aren't making anything at that. Really pro farmers on really good soil might go 175 or even 200 if the weather works with them.
Is this measured on the cob or off?
Off.
For each bushel, how much waste (stalks & cobs, etc) is produced?
A ton. Perhaps literally.
Would burning 150 bushels' worth of (sun-dried) waste produce enough heat to distil 150 bushels' worth of mash?
Dunno. But it may not be the right question anyway. It may well be better to cut the corn like you would for silage and use the entire plant for mash, then use the increased energy production to heat to mix. I'm just speculating though, I haven't fact one to back up that guess.
How much gas does your tractor take to plant & harvest a 1 acre cornfield?
None. We use deisel.;-)
In truth that answer depends on how many times you have to pass over the field. A no-till planter is going to cost you half a gallon an acre and combining is about a gallon and a half.
However, you will typically double or triple that without getting into nutty scenarios. If you are doing zone building that's going to be another gallon and a half, fertilizing can vary between a tenth and a half. If you chop for silage (as I suggest above) you burn three and a quarter per acre right there.
So, the amount varies widly depending on what you're doing.
Growing all that corn also takes a Lot of Water. more water than rain.
I grow corn in wisconsin and am very surprised to learn that it takes more water than rain. We, for reasons of topology, don't irrigate and our corn and still grow 125-150 bushel corn.
In short, the parent should be modded -1 overgeneralized.
also, best answer to spam, don't click on the links in it, don't read it, just delete it, if it wasn't profitable they wouldn't send it out. Sadly dumb people buy shit from telemarketers and spammers.
Sadly it only takes one purchase in a few hundred thousand to make money. This solution requires perfection that will never be acheived in a society which think janet jacksons boob is news (or worse, that it's offensive) and watches the simple life.
Sorry, your experience is anecdotal and deosn't give you enough information to judge accurately.
He was just replying to the previous anecdote. If one looks at studies instead of anecdotes, Canada creams the U.S.
They live longer, they are happier with their system, their doctors are happier though making less money. I'll leave you to google, those keywords should be sufficient.
In the war of anecdotes the U.S. wins, but not in the world of fact. There is a reason the U.S. is the only first world country with a pure market approach to health care but spends twice as much as the next country per capita for lower care levels. (Hint, it isn't because market approaches are the hammer to solve every problem)
Not to beat an OT discussion to death, but no where does it say you have to be professionally trained to be part of the militia.
That's right. You don't.
The brilliant part, that many miss, is that the second amendment, due to its specification of a militia, pushed gun control the state level. Congress can do nothing, but a state can declare every person to be a member of its militia. This is, IMO, as it should be. Let the states decide is all the founding brothers asked and all we should grant.
There wasn't a single thing wrong in my note, much less completely wrong.
The infrared will be replaced by Webb. The visible by ground based with adaptive optics. The UV not at all.
I think it's stupid to spend so much money on hubble for UV only. We don't live in a world of infinite money and there are far better ways to spend it than on an outdated platform.
Which of those advanced systems are going to allow for observing at wavelengths to which our atmosphere is opaque?
None.
Which of the wavelengths that the hubble can shoot which ground based cannot will fail to be served far, far better by Webb?
The fact is that most of the work being done by hubble can be done from the ground today and what cannot is being replaced by Webb with greatly improvments. This is by design.
2. Money. Believe it or not, most people in government agencies really want to save money, not spend all of it.
Honest. I suppose I believe you, but even assuming it really is true, the efforts of those trying to save can be completely wiped out by the minimal efforts of those few that don't give a damn.
Just like in the private sector.
Unlike the private sector, at least in my experience, people in the public sector are there for reasons other than a large paycheck, so the signal to noise ratio is higher.
The judge should reply, "Well show us what you have so far. I'm sure it's great stuff given the amount of time and money we've spent on this. Then we can decide whether to give you access to another corporations IP."
I mean, for christs sake, they are demanding that others turn over exactly what SCO *claims* to be suing over, IP.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't ever have a workable spam filter because of the adaptability of spam.
This is because the solutions of the day focus on content instead of anonymity.
I've said it before, I'll probably say it again, get rid of unauthenticated email and the spam problem becomes a thousand times easier to fight. SPF and various RMX solutions exist in design today. If people want the spam problem to go away, that can be done today. Unfortunately people would rather piss and moan and call for legislation or perfect solutions than deal with these good ones today.
In the case of spam the perfect is the enemy of the good enough. We should stop spam today.
Pure socialism has been used in countries where no one is selfish. That's why it has worked so well so far.
:-)
Exactly. And pure capitalism has been used where the owners of the companies are *all* in agreement to not exploit their customers, workers or the environment.
I think you are right though an economic model based mostly on market idioms with some (and I'm sure we could argue about how many and what kind) socialist constructs is probably the best.
;-)
Thanks. I'll skip the part where you mistake soviet communism for socialism then.
You might like to read an old book Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery which basically says "the mix in the u.s. may not be perfect, but what it doesn't have you don't need."
What's wrong with free markets?
1) They only work with an educated and interested population.
2) They depend on the information from which to gain an education be available.
3) They often only motivate people to become interested by failing dramatically.
History has proved this economic model fallacious.
Really? Where was pure socialism used? Where was a pure market economy used?
The fact of the matter is that the most successful economic model is a blend of some socialist and mostly market idioms.
1) You don't have to convince everyone at once. Just get support for a couple of the quite reasonable proposals into exim, sendmail and exchange and that's probably 80% of the battle.
2) Not everyone has to switch at the same time. However, once one of these ideas gains traction the momentum will make anyone who doesn't adopt look like a luddite.
That note does reflect the problem though. People constantly look for an excuse to fail even while the spam fills their mail spool. Shame.
Nice try, but no cigar.
You know why I get [checks his logs] a few hundred spams a day? Because of that attitude.
Most spam comes from open relays and with reply addresses which are fake. If this is removed as an option the spam problem *immediately* goes down by something like 95% according to my logs.
Then, with the other 5%, because you know who sent it you can take legal or technical action to limit their ability to bug you.
PEOPLE. READ THIS AND BE INFORMED. THE PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD IN THIS PROBLEM DOMAIN. WE SHOULD AGREE ON A PRETTY GOOD TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION AND USE IT!
Hell. We should have done that two years ago.
Spam that complies with CANSPAM would not be affected by SPF, actualy, as there are no forged headers. But it would be obvious who sent it and it would allow much better prevention.
Of course it would be affected. It would be complying with the law and *no longer anonymous*. Far in excess of 95% of the spam I receive is untraceable. This would change if SPF (or it's peers) were in place.
Suddenly spam would have a known origin and be subject to effective blocking.
IOW, think of SPF as the most powerful tool in a toolchest against spam instead of a single stand alone solution for the entire problem.
The problem is anonymity. Remove it and the problem essentially goes away.
Can someone please mod up the parent. This is one of a handful of technological solutions that will virtually eliminate spam, but require community acceptance.
For christs sake people, the solutions exist. It's time to stop talking as if this is a hard problem and start acting like we know what we're doing.
The rubber-tracked Challenger agricultural tractor looks like nothing ever seen on a farm.
Unless you buy a rubber tracked ag tractor from Case or Deere
I think we all ought to seriously consider the costs and benifits of cell phones. I went without for a while and found it liberating.
Once I realized that, just like when I'm at home, I can use caller id to screen my calls I realized that *having* a cell phone was what I found liberating. I can go to my farm in the country and not have to worry about whether the servers have gone to hell because my contact point is one number, always. If I don't answer the voicemail takes a message and I can review that for urgency.
First rule of owning a cell phone. If it rings, you don't have to answer...
Where did you find the figure of 2.5lbs per day? I'd like to see that.
According to google the standard figure is 2.2lbs and I rounded up.
Did you mean 75lbs per human per day?
Yes. But it was extrapolated from other numbers.
Your 7B number is better. I found the same as real numbers instead of extrapolations when I looked. So globally we're at about five pounds per day of production, plus 2.2 pounds from breathing.
However, for the U.S. the average is 20 tons per capita per year, or a bit over a hundred pounds per capita per day.
Look at all sides of the issue, and come up with your own informed opinion. It makes you look smarter that way.
Yes. Let's do that.
A human produces about 2.5lbs of CO2 a day.
The global production of CO2 per day supporting humans (think gas, power, industry...) is 75lbs per day. And that's averaged over all people. The U.S. average is probably more like 150-200lbs per day.
So, look at both sides indeed. Humans are a drop in the bucket compared to what they produce by non-metobalic mechanisms.
Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.
I've done this and found the truth does not lay somwewhere in the middle this time. The scientists are correct and should be taken seriously.
This is called a "back of the envelope" calculation, not an in-depth analysis. The idea isn't to get a precise answer but rather to come up with a reasonable educated guess.
But it isn't reasonable if it doesn't take into account the very techology being discussed, right?
The new process is three times more efficient and can turn a number of different scenarios from losers or break evens into big winners.
Where does this analysis take into account the greatly improved effeciency of the system noted in the article?
I assume you mean 125-150 bushels per acre?
;-)
Yes. In the vernacular "100 bushel corn" is 100 per acre.
Not being of an agricultural bent, I don't know if this is a realistic yield or not.
For my area it is a good yield. I suppose some people might go as low as 80-100, but they aren't making anything at that. Really pro farmers on really good soil might go 175 or even 200 if the weather works with them.
Is this measured on the cob or off?
Off.
For each bushel, how much waste (stalks & cobs, etc) is produced?
A ton. Perhaps literally.
Would burning 150 bushels' worth of (sun-dried) waste produce enough heat to distil 150 bushels' worth of mash?
Dunno. But it may not be the right question anyway. It may well be better to cut the corn like you would for silage and use the entire plant for mash, then use the increased energy production to heat to mix. I'm just speculating though, I haven't fact one to back up that guess.
How much gas does your tractor take to plant & harvest a 1 acre cornfield?
None. We use deisel.
In truth that answer depends on how many times you have to pass over the field. A no-till planter is going to cost you half a gallon an acre and combining is about a gallon and a half.
However, you will typically double or triple that without getting into nutty scenarios. If you are doing zone building that's going to be another gallon and a half, fertilizing can vary between a tenth and a half. If you chop for silage (as I suggest above) you burn three and a quarter per acre right there.
So, the amount varies widly depending on what you're doing.
Growing all that corn also takes a Lot of Water. more water than rain.
I grow corn in wisconsin and am very surprised to learn that it takes more water than rain. We, for reasons of topology, don't irrigate and our corn and still grow 125-150 bushel corn.
In short, the parent should be modded -1 overgeneralized.
also, best answer to spam, don't click on the links in it, don't read it, just delete it, if it wasn't profitable they wouldn't send it out. Sadly dumb people buy shit from telemarketers and spammers.
Sadly it only takes one purchase in a few hundred thousand to make money. This solution requires perfection that will never be acheived in a society which think janet jacksons boob is news (or worse, that it's offensive) and watches the simple life.
Sorry, your experience is anecdotal and deosn't give you enough information to judge accurately.
He was just replying to the previous anecdote. If one looks at studies instead of anecdotes, Canada creams the U.S.
They live longer, they are happier with their system, their doctors are happier though making less money. I'll leave you to google, those keywords should be sufficient.
In the war of anecdotes the U.S. wins, but not in the world of fact. There is a reason the U.S. is the only first world country with a pure market approach to health care but spends twice as much as the next country per capita for lower care levels. (Hint, it isn't because market approaches are the hammer to solve every problem)
Not to beat an OT discussion to death, but no where does it say you have to be professionally trained to be part of the militia.
That's right. You don't.
The brilliant part, that many miss, is that the second amendment, due to its specification of a militia, pushed gun control the state level. Congress can do nothing, but a state can declare every person to be a member of its militia. This is, IMO, as it should be. Let the states decide is all the founding brothers asked and all we should grant.
There wasn't a single thing wrong in my note, much less completely wrong.
The infrared will be replaced by Webb.
The visible by ground based with adaptive optics.
The UV not at all.
I think it's stupid to spend so much money on hubble for UV only. We don't live in a world of infinite money and there are far better ways to spend it than on an outdated platform.
Yeah, damn straight, it was cool.
Now it's old and only a small fraction as useful.
Which of those advanced systems are going to allow for observing at wavelengths to which our atmosphere is opaque?
None.
Which of the wavelengths that the hubble can shoot which ground based cannot will fail to be served far, far better by Webb?
The fact is that most of the work being done by hubble can be done from the ground today and what cannot is being replaced by Webb with greatly improvments. This is by design.
The correct answer is:
Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.
2. Money. Believe it or not, most people in government agencies really want to save money, not spend all of it.
Honest.
I suppose I believe you, but even assuming it really is true, the efforts of those trying to save can be completely wiped out by the minimal efforts of those few that don't give a damn.
Just like in the private sector.
Unlike the private sector, at least in my experience, people in the public sector are there for reasons other than a large paycheck, so the signal to noise ratio is higher.
Exactly.
The judge should reply, "Well show us what you have so far. I'm sure it's great stuff given the amount of time and money we've spent on this. Then we can decide whether to give you access to another corporations IP."
I mean, for christs sake, they are demanding that others turn over exactly what SCO *claims* to be suing over, IP.