> Here we see the solution to the problem of too many comments about a/. story. Simply obfuscate the story so much that no one can figure out what it's about, or even find the link to the original. Hats off to Gregus and CowboyNeal for the idea.
Yeah, but it sure makes it hard to figure out who to flame for not reading the story.
> Can we have an anti-goatse version? Maybe one that brings up a page saying 'Hello Slashdot newbie, you have been linked to some sick shit by someone, trust us when we say you do NOT want to look.'
Shouldn't that be controlled by a preferences setting, for the benefit of pervos who do want to look?
> The new one i've run into recently is they use some kinda script so that the reply-to address in my address....which makes fintering really easy becuase how often do I send mail from my account TO the same account. However I could see some stuipd user getting very confused.
> First you get millions of bounces. Then you get hundreds of angry replies. "TAKE ME OFF THIS LIST!"
What I hate is when the spam includes all the victims' e-dresses in the header, and a bunch of people reply/all demanding to be taken off the list. Then a bunch more people reply/all saying "you're an idiot", and then a bunch more reply/all saying "so are you, idiot". You could probably bring down the internet if you included enough e-dresses in the header.
> Why intentionally spoof someone's legitimate email address in the reply-to field?
Who knows? Once in a while I get spam faked to look like I sent it to myself.
Spammers are the only "businesses" in the world who think it's best to be as offensive as possible to potential customers. The mentality is astonishing.
> wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up? what ever happened there?
The more pro-business of America's two political parties beat the more pro-consumer one in the national elections. The winner gets to appoint the Attorney General, who in turn gets to decide which cases should be dropped because they don't fit the winning party's ideology.
The winner also gets to decide which countries to invade, but that's another story.
> I must say I'm a bit surprised that most of the comments here seem to be in the "not global warming" camp. Must be that the doom-n-gloomers are still asleep?
Sorry, I just wanted to snuggle under all those warm blankets for a few more minutes. What are we talking about today?
>...or do I see a "Bubba's School for Making Porn" getting bubba-pr0n-school.edu right around the corner?
Inspired by your post, I'm going to found a school called Prestigious Occupations in Registered Nursing. I've already reserved porn.edu, and since I'm still drumming up funding for the school I created a placeholder site full of pictures of nurses ministering to their patients, their doctors, and sometimes even each other.
Don't be alarmed if you have to pay to view the placeholder site; that's just a way of raising more money for this good cause.
> Sorry, but that's spoken like someone parroting the party line, not someone with experience in both.
OK, I have experience in Ada, BASIC, C, and C++, and I spend far less time debugging stupid errors in the strongly typed language: Ada.
> One, my experience and the experience of a lot of others says the opposite. You spend an unbelievable amount of time jumping through compiler hoops in a static typed language, and sometimes the smallest change cascades down your entire static hierarchy.
Were we talking about "strong" typing or "static" typing?
> The other thing is again, "mechanically checking" code isn't possible for anything but type-correctness. No other goodness properties can be checked that way
But that's a rather weak reason for not doing whatever checking we can do.
> If type safety could give me something above and beyond type safety, I might be interested. But all it does is "prevent" a class of problems that don't exactly plague most coders anyhow. It's an incredibly steep price to pay for something that doesn't do much for you.
Strong typing is nothing more than saying what you mean and meaning what you say. I don't know where the heck the purported steep price comes from, since in my experience the strong type definitions in my programs provide me with a set of abstractions to work with. If I declare some colors, they're always colors, not just facades for numbers. And thus I immediately and consistently think of them as colors rather than as obfuscated numbers.
You should learn to think of strong typing as a mechanism for providing additional constraints on the behavior of your programs. It baffles me that people think that is a bad thing. I find that using a strongly typed language moves bug discovery forward in the development process and makes me think more clearly about the higher-level algorithms I'm coding.
Slashdot Mirror
> Here we see the solution to the problem of too many comments about a
Yeah, but it sure makes it hard to figure out who to flame for not reading the story.
SCOTUS is going to be pissed if they find out they've got competition at rigging elections.
Ok... so what's behind the little door in the pyramid?
> Logo.net
Lego.net
> Can we have an anti-goatse version? Maybe one that brings up a page saying 'Hello Slashdot newbie, you have been linked to some sick shit by someone, trust us when we say you do NOT want to look.'
Shouldn't that be controlled by a preferences setting, for the benefit of pervos who do want to look?
>
Ah, I wondered why my alien abductors did that!
> So does this prove that God was left handed?
Easier to just look at the idols to see which arm's biceps is bigger.
> That reminds me of when it was cool to tell lusers that there was this huge ftp site at 127.0.0.1, just log in with your existing account...
Hey - they're selling all my stuff!
> That's what baseball bats are for.
Baseball bats? You haven't seen Pulp Fiction, have you.
> The new one i've run into recently is they use some kinda script so that the reply-to address in my address....which makes fintering really easy becuase how often do I send mail from my account TO the same account. However I could see some stuipd user getting very confused.
> First you get millions of bounces. Then you get hundreds of angry replies. "TAKE ME OFF THIS LIST!"
What I hate is when the spam includes all the victims' e-dresses in the header, and a bunch of people reply/all demanding to be taken off the list. Then a bunch more people reply/all saying "you're an idiot", and then a bunch more reply/all saying "so are you, idiot". You could probably bring down the internet if you included enough e-dresses in the header.
> Volume!
LoL.
> I can think of a few. People looking for:
> Spam lists.
Don't forget people who want to be good citizens and help Col. Wassisname get a few million dollars out of Nigeria.
But yeah, if supply and demand really works then spam lists and spamware must be in the highest demand.
> Why intentionally spoof someone's legitimate email address in the reply-to field?
Who knows? Once in a while I get spam faked to look like I sent it to myself.
Spammers are the only "businesses" in the world who think it's best to be as offensive as possible to potential customers. The mentality is astonishing.
> wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up? what ever happened there?
The more pro-business of America's two political parties beat the more pro-consumer one in the national elections. The winner gets to appoint the Attorney General, who in turn gets to decide which cases should be dropped because they don't fit the winning party's ideology.
The winner also gets to decide which countries to invade, but that's another story.
> I must say I'm a bit surprised that most of the comments here seem to be in the "not global warming" camp. Must be that the doom-n-gloomers are still asleep?
Sorry, I just wanted to snuggle under all those warm blankets for a few more minutes. What are we talking about today?
How do we know that it isn't premature births among squirrels that's causing global warming?
>
Doubly so because the author doesn't seem to know what the word means.
These guys practically have a monopoly on receiving anti-trust complaints!
> After a looking at the the results of these experiments, one question came to mind. What's up with all the fat chicks?
Robot like floating point overflow!
>
Inspired by your post, I'm going to found a school called Prestigious Occupations in Registered Nursing. I've already reserved porn.edu, and since I'm still drumming up funding for the school I created a placeholder site full of pictures of nurses ministering to their patients, their doctors, and sometimes even each other.
Don't be alarmed if you have to pay to view the placeholder site; that's just a way of raising more money for this good cause.
> Subject says it all.
Apparently the universe is 0.6% rounding error.
(YOMV, but I suspect it will ultimately cause more.)
> Sorry, but that's spoken like someone parroting the party line, not someone with experience in both.
OK, I have experience in Ada, BASIC, C, and C++, and I spend far less time debugging stupid errors in the strongly typed language: Ada.
> One, my experience and the experience of a lot of others says the opposite. You spend an unbelievable amount of time jumping through compiler hoops in a static typed language, and sometimes the smallest change cascades down your entire static hierarchy.
Were we talking about "strong" typing or "static" typing?
> The other thing is again, "mechanically checking" code isn't possible for anything but type-correctness. No other goodness properties can be checked that way
But that's a rather weak reason for not doing whatever checking we can do.
> If type safety could give me something above and beyond type safety, I might be interested. But all it does is "prevent" a class of problems that don't exactly plague most coders anyhow. It's an incredibly steep price to pay for something that doesn't do much for you.
Strong typing is nothing more than saying what you mean and meaning what you say. I don't know where the heck the purported steep price comes from, since in my experience the strong type definitions in my programs provide me with a set of abstractions to work with. If I declare some colors, they're always colors, not just facades for numbers. And thus I immediately and consistently think of them as colors rather than as obfuscated numbers.
You should learn to think of strong typing as a mechanism for providing additional constraints on the behavior of your programs. It baffles me that people think that is a bad thing. I find that using a strongly typed language moves bug discovery forward in the development process and makes me think more clearly about the higher-level algorithms I'm coding.
> This is the typical "blackbox" approach in science
That's what science is all about: figuring out how the universe works by observing it.
If the universe came with documentation, we'd just look the answers up.