Well, so long as you don't try to pass it off as real, it's not immediately obvious why you shouldn't (e.g.) make a copy for your wall. Anyway, our money paid for the thing to be designed, so why shouldn't we be allowed to make use of that design?
But how do you combat someone that essentially has your "ham"?
The beauty of Bayes is that, so long as you tell it when spam wrongly arrives in your inbox, it will quickly learn that these words don't signify that a message isn't spam. Problem solved.
If you want to see a list correctly separated by semicolons, three books I recommend are: Fowler's Modern English Usage, now in its third edition; The Oxford Guide to English Usage, which is a bit less well-respected but does the job; and The King's English, now quaintly archaic but endearingly authoritarian in tone.
Hey, I just started using the Windows version of SpamBayes today and so far I'd recommend it very highly. I used to use POPFile, but SpamBayes' integration with MS Outlook is something else. You can even have a column in your inbox view showing the % probability assigned to each message of its being spam (scores above a user-specified score are automatically moved to a junk folder). Very good stuff.
Iomega Clik! Drive: In 1999, just as recordable CDs started getting really cheap and popular, Iomega released its own proprietary way to write nearly 40 gigabytes of data to a removable disk.... it was just too expensive to compete with either CDR or flash memory. The blanks alone cost around $10. Worse, the Clik drive was doomed by a problem with Iomega's popular Zip drives. Those devices had an annoying habit of spectacularly failing - taking a user's data along to the grave, as well. Before failing, the drives emitted an ominous clicking noise, quickly dubbed the "Click of Death." The Clik! drive didn't have the Click of Death, but it quickly followed the Zip drive into hell.
Cheap shot I know but... $10 for a 40 gigabyte disc in 1999!? (These were of course 40 megabyte devices.)
But the actual thing I wanted to say was: I wonder why the author says the Clik! drive was doomed by the click of death, given that (as he points out) the problem was specific to Zip drives! OK, if the click of death had actually bankrupted Iomega then it would be a fair point - but it clearly didn't, because they're still selling (newer, higher-capacity) Zip drives, external CD-writers etc. So what is he suggesting? That nobody bought a Clik! drive because they didn't trust any Iomega product after hearing about the click of death? I guess it's possible, but since the Clik! drive was clearly unable to compete with CD-R on price, convenience or market penetration, it doesn't seem very Occam-friendly to blame the click of death.
Presumably the former. Jeez, give the guy a break. There's no shortage of people on here who talk like the US is the only country in the world. No need to get arsey because someone made the same mistake in a different direction for once.
Yes, and the number of people they kill every year is testament to the uselessness of the training.
Or it could be testament to the fact that most British cities predate cars, and have smaller, busier, twistier roads than the US, running closer to centralised pedestrian areas, of which there are more than the US.
Dunno about your iPod, but on my Windows one I can just open "My Computer", click my way into the relevant folder on the iPod and copy, play or edit my mp3s to my heart's content. The only "restriction" is that the iPod software uses a cached database of songs rather than indexing the actual drive (which seems to me like a better option than scanning thousands of ID3 tags in realtime), so if you just dump a file in that directory the iPod won't see it until you update the DB using something like EphPod. Obviously if you use iTunes / EphPod / whatever to copy the file there in the first place then that program will also update the DB for you.
Why do you people think that artists make money touring? I hate to hear that same sad argument over and over. You DON'T make money on tour. You are lucky to break even. LUCKY!
Well, Eminem makes money on tour. But I absolutely agree: those of us who are still coming up, and who can't yet sell out a venue just by announcing we'll be there... well, we still have to buy and maintain our own equipment, do our own promotion, get our stuff transported to the venue and back. It may not sound much, but in the smaller venues around London it can easily cost more than you make, and there's no guarantee you'll ever get past that stage.
But if I get spam from a "good message" source, I have a traceable route directly back to the spammer, which should make it possible to hold them liable for anything they send.
Of course, you may not believe that's realistic; but in that case presumably you don't think the system's helpful anyway - since it doesn't stop anyone from sending you anything, it just confirms where it came from.
Did I accidentally say the opposite of what I meant?
The first time you send me an email, I'll try to connect back to you to cryptographically confirm that your message really did come from you. Thereafter, if I get another email from you within a certain period via exactly the same route I won't bother checking again - I'll just take the message on trust.
What good does that do a spammer? Only legitimate routes can get onto my whitelist, and obviously if a spammer sends legitimate email then I'll still receive it even if I confirm every message that comes in. I'm afraid I don't see the problem.
I'd prefer to see companies defend and protect their business practices on a case-by-case basis in a civil court, rather than have far-reaching criminal laws. I mean, I don't want you to copy my essay, but I don't want it to be a crime to reproduce any argument you've read elsewhere.
The way I understand it, all that would do is teach your Bayesian classifier that HTML tags are slightly junkish: they show up in some junk messges and (presumably) some good ones, but HTML on its own = junk.
So if you get an HTML email from a friend, the presence of (e.g.) your name and theirs should outweigh the "junkness" of the HTML, and it won't be marked as junk. But if you get HTML spam then the presence of words like "click here" should keep the balance on the "junk" side.
Bayesian sorting really is amazingly "smart" at stuff like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, so long as you don't try to pass it off as real, it's not immediately obvious why you shouldn't (e.g.) make a copy for your wall. Anyway, our money paid for the thing to be designed, so why shouldn't we be allowed to make use of that design?
But how do you combat someone that essentially has your "ham"?
The beauty of Bayes is that, so long as you tell it when spam wrongly arrives in your inbox, it will quickly learn that these words don't signify that a message isn't spam. Problem solved.
If you want to see a list correctly separated by semicolons, three books I recommend are: Fowler's Modern English Usage, now in its third edition; The Oxford Guide to English Usage, which is a bit less well-respected but does the job; and The King's English, now quaintly archaic but endearingly authoritarian in tone.
I'd show you what it should look like, but I can't bring myself to link to goatse.
Hey, I just started using the Windows version of SpamBayes today and so far I'd recommend it very highly. I used to use POPFile, but SpamBayes' integration with MS Outlook is something else. You can even have a column in your inbox view showing the % probability assigned to each message of its being spam (scores above a user-specified score are automatically moved to a junk folder). Very good stuff.
Well, if you valued your time at more than $1 a day, you'd see you are buying a G5 for less than $600 when you account for time value.
;)
Maybe, but I don't because I'm a student, so my money is much more valuable to me than my time.
Anyway, does it take me longer to do stuff on my PC? I'm really not sure it does. And I've used Macs quite a lot (a couple of my friends have them).
Well yes, and if I could buy a G5 for 600 I'd switch tomorrow. In fact, fuck it, there's 45 minutes left of today.
Sorry, don't mean to be sarcy, but you see what I'm getting at...
Kaolin may be the only English word with "aol" as a substring.
:)
What about "gaol"?
From the article:
... it was just too expensive to compete with either CDR or flash memory. The blanks alone cost around $10. Worse, the Clik drive was doomed by a problem with Iomega's popular Zip drives. Those devices had an annoying habit of spectacularly failing - taking a user's data along to the grave, as well. Before failing, the drives emitted an ominous clicking noise, quickly dubbed the "Click of Death." The Clik! drive didn't have the Click of Death, but it quickly followed the Zip drive into hell.
Iomega Clik! Drive: In 1999, just as recordable CDs started getting really cheap and popular, Iomega released its own proprietary way to write nearly 40 gigabytes of data to a removable disk.
Cheap shot I know but... $10 for a 40 gigabyte disc in 1999!? (These were of course 40 megabyte devices.)
But the actual thing I wanted to say was: I wonder why the author says the Clik! drive was doomed by the click of death, given that (as he points out) the problem was specific to Zip drives! OK, if the click of death had actually bankrupted Iomega then it would be a fair point - but it clearly didn't, because they're still selling (newer, higher-capacity) Zip drives, external CD-writers etc. So what is he suggesting? That nobody bought a Clik! drive because they didn't trust any Iomega product after hearing about the click of death? I guess it's possible, but since the Clik! drive was clearly unable to compete with CD-R on price, convenience or market penetration, it doesn't seem very Occam-friendly to blame the click of death.
Just musing.
Presumably the former. Jeez, give the guy a break. There's no shortage of people on here who talk like the US is the only country in the world. No need to get arsey because someone made the same mistake in a different direction for once.
criminals and pranksters will hack the system
Car thieves may not have the time to stop and hack the car they've just nicked.
Yes, and the number of people they kill every year is testament to the uselessness of the training.
Or it could be testament to the fact that most British cities predate cars, and have smaller, busier, twistier roads than the US, running closer to centralised pedestrian areas, of which there are more than the US.
Of course, it doesn't make sense to spam those who vote against you...
Ah, but wait until e-Voting really gets going. "If you want to be removed from this mailing list, click here."
Dunno about your iPod, but on my Windows one I can just open "My Computer", click my way into the relevant folder on the iPod and copy, play or edit my mp3s to my heart's content. The only "restriction" is that the iPod software uses a cached database of songs rather than indexing the actual drive (which seems to me like a better option than scanning thousands of ID3 tags in realtime), so if you just dump a file in that directory the iPod won't see it until you update the DB using something like EphPod. Obviously if you use iTunes / EphPod / whatever to copy the file there in the first place then that program will also update the DB for you.
The fact of the matter is, that those children and adults would not have been able to enjoy Lord of the Rings were it not for Peter Jackson's movies.
Why's that? Has reading been outlawed in your United States?
Dude, about your sig - "outgrabe" is the imperfect of "outgribe." You probably want "outgribben." ;)
Why do you people think that artists make money touring? I hate to hear that same sad argument over and over. You DON'T make money on tour. You are lucky to break even. LUCKY!
Well, Eminem makes money on tour. But I absolutely agree: those of us who are still coming up, and who can't yet sell out a venue just by announcing we'll be there... well, we still have to buy and maintain our own equipment, do our own promotion, get our stuff transported to the venue and back. It may not sound much, but in the smaller venues around London it can easily cost more than you make, and there's no guarantee you'll ever get past that stage.
SCO's web site was only designed to handle one person at a time.
You mean they're using MS Personal Web Server?
+1, Best use of "K4HVD" as an adjective ever!
Oh, I see what you mean.
But if I get spam from a "good message" source, I have a traceable route directly back to the spammer, which should make it possible to hold them liable for anything they send.
Of course, you may not believe that's realistic; but in that case presumably you don't think the system's helpful anyway - since it doesn't stop anyone from sending you anything, it just confirms where it came from.
Huh?
Did I accidentally say the opposite of what I meant?
The first time you send me an email, I'll try to connect back to you to cryptographically confirm that your message really did come from you. Thereafter, if I get another email from you within a certain period via exactly the same route I won't bother checking again - I'll just take the message on trust.
What good does that do a spammer? Only legitimate routes can get onto my whitelist, and obviously if a spammer sends legitimate email then I'll still receive it even if I confirm every message that comes in. I'm afraid I don't see the problem.
... and then you actually will go to prison. Way to play the system!
Digital duplication! Arrest this man!
I'd prefer to see companies defend and protect their business practices on a case-by-case basis in a civil court, rather than have far-reaching criminal laws. I mean, I don't want you to copy my essay, but I don't want it to be a crime to reproduce any argument you've read elsewhere.
The way I understand it, all that would do is teach your Bayesian classifier that HTML tags are slightly junkish: they show up in some junk messges and (presumably) some good ones, but HTML on its own = junk.
So if you get an HTML email from a friend, the presence of (e.g.) your name and theirs should outweigh the "junkness" of the HTML, and it won't be marked as junk. But if you get HTML spam then the presence of words like "click here" should keep the balance on the "junk" side.
Bayesian sorting really is amazingly "smart" at stuff like this.