I'm just a bit surprised that it's starting to have an effect, it's hard to compete with basically free server capacity and bandwidth.
It still takes resources to secure those resources. Botnets are not free. Lists are not free. Spammer time is not free.
I'm surprised it has taken this long. There's no reason why the average person should even be getting spam in their inbox at all. If you're still getting spam, you need a new email provider. My gmail address is published all over the goddamn place, including usenet of all places, and I haven't seen spam in months. Even if the cost of sending me spam is next to nothing, it is still wasted.
No, but filters have. If people don't get the spam, they can't fall for it.
but the idiots are still there, so the profitability is still there. Give the bad guys a little time. They’ll come up with new ways of getting around our current filters.
Well, they haven't so far. Unlike other areas like viruses and trojans, spam filters have pretty consistently stayed one step ahead of spammers once people took spam filtering seriously.. I remember maybe 4 years ago there were a couple months where spammers figured out how to embed their messages in images in such a way as to pass filters, but that was fixed and since then filters have been so good that I haven't seen a single spam message in my gmail inbox in months. I did get a couple messages through poorly maintained mailing lists. So I just unsubscribed from the lists.
Sure, someone is going to find a way to slip by, but it definitly won't last long and it definitely won't be all spammers. Seriously, there's no reason why anyone should still be receiving SPAM these days. We've won.
Of course the other theory is that spam has become “less interesting” in light of other new and exciting ways of screwing with people. Once those dry up though, I think the guys with the suits will fall back on classic reliable spam to make their money.
The guys with the suits are using "legit" channels to screw with us. THere's just no way to make spam look professional these days. It will continue to be the domain of the gray market scumbags, not the suits.
Because there's no one definition of "social networking." You'd have to break it down into to discreet, independent services and then make standards/protocols out of it. And then it would become a lowest common denominator sort of thing. Everything would be reduced to he least amount of information needed to make it work and you wouldn't be able to depend on other people supporting such and such service.
Pretty close. They patented "anything that blocks annoying content using a rating system and content patterns." Not only is it extremely vague in terms of how it is implementing the system and where it can be used, but I'm pretty sure prior art can be found in many different spam filters. It is a bullshit patent that never should have been granted.
I do understand the difference and what I'm saying is that from what I've gathered of this patent, it is, like so many software patents, too broad. I'm annoyed that do-no-evil Google would patent such a thing. At least in principle. Practically speaking, I don't really care. I simplify the whole thing and block all advertising because I find it all to be annoying unless I'm seeking it out.
The news isn't that they're making such an attempt to get rid of those ads. The news is that they're patenting it, which is completely ridiculous. So now other people can't rate/filter ads without payign Google. Fuck you, Google.
Simpler solution would just not allow anything to execute on such media. This can be accomplished in Linux and OS X. Though there's no quick and easy GUI for it.
If you could collect significant amounts of electricity from the kinetic energy of the particles, why would you bother doing it in space? Why not do it on Earth and skip the whole beaming step?
The problem is that the unit price scales very poorly once you scale up from making five to test to five million to sell.
There's that, and the material used for the printer is not necessarily the one you want in your final product. And this certainly applies if your material is sand.
Ten years from now our purchase decisions could very well boil down to "cheap and generic from China" or "customized and immediate from the local shop"
A 3D printer is not a replicator, you know. You don't just plug in "iPhone" and come out with a fully functional iPhone.
Right. First-generation design doesn't do everything, film at 11.
No, you don't get it. Even current industrial 3D printers that use carefully selected materials and lasers still do not produce qualtiy end products. They're primarily used for prototyping. You're not going to take rubble from some random planetoid, shine some sunlight on it, and produce an airtight habitable structure. You're just not.
Making real glass is a carefully controlled process. Honestly? If you're really that hard up for building material, happen to have suitable type of sand, and strong enough sunlight, you probably want to look into using the sun to make an oven and try to make glass blocks. That is, if you can't just cut the rock.
It's a proof of concept chief.
It is a neat project. That's it. The concept of 3D printer had already proven.
The first cars didn't have 4-5 star crash safety ratings while able to carry you at 80mph while achieving 40mpg (which my wife's Camry Hybrid does)
This glass 3D printer isn't even at the level of the first cars. Really, I don't mean to trivialize it because it is pretty neat considering who made it and what materials were used, but I don't see any real practical uses for it. You just can't make quality glass like that. And even if you could, the applications for glass are pretty limited.
But what useful objects could you possibly make with it? An ash tray? A dildo? I'm not saying this isn't cool, but come on. Lets be real. Equipment used by astronauts is pretty sophisticated and materials are carefully selected for a reason.
Um, pretty sure this is not intended for any type of commercial use. Even normal 3D printers are more for prototyping than actual production, as I understand it. The results are rather brittle and you can only use a very specific material. In this case, "glass." So yeah, if you happen to need brittle glass components on Mars... I guess this might help...?
I don't know about you, but if I was standing in the store holding 3 copies of a game because I can't share one copy between all of us, I would put them down and walk out. That's really going to drive home just how ridiculous the situation is. Even if I was willing to pay $60 for the game and I knew that's how much 1 copy would cost of it was replayable, it is the principle of the matter. And I'm not one to normally politicize my consumption. I mean, I'll still buy stuff from Apple, Sony, or whatever other questionable companies you can think of as long as they're not killing babies in Africa or something. I'd have to really desperately want that fucking game to make me walk through the checkout with 3 new copies of it.
I want an unopened package with crisp, clean packaging
That's a really strange thing to pay for unless you plan on keeping it as a collectors item or something. You're just going to tear open the package when you get home, What's bloody difference? As for scratch-free, it is easy enough to inspect the disc before you take it home. Again, what are you paying extra for? You're definitely an outlier here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just a bit surprised that it's starting to have an effect, it's hard to compete with basically free server capacity and bandwidth.
It still takes resources to secure those resources. Botnets are not free. Lists are not free. Spammer time is not free.
I'm surprised it has taken this long. There's no reason why the average person should even be getting spam in their inbox at all. If you're still getting spam, you need a new email provider. My gmail address is published all over the goddamn place, including usenet of all places, and I haven't seen spam in months. Even if the cost of sending me spam is next to nothing, it is still wasted.
People en-masse haven’t gotten any smarter.
No, but filters have. If people don't get the spam, they can't fall for it.
but the idiots are still there, so the profitability is still there. Give the bad guys a little time. They’ll come up with new ways of getting around our current filters.
Well, they haven't so far. Unlike other areas like viruses and trojans, spam filters have pretty consistently stayed one step ahead of spammers once people took spam filtering seriously.. I remember maybe 4 years ago there were a couple months where spammers figured out how to embed their messages in images in such a way as to pass filters, but that was fixed and since then filters have been so good that I haven't seen a single spam message in my gmail inbox in months. I did get a couple messages through poorly maintained mailing lists. So I just unsubscribed from the lists.
Sure, someone is going to find a way to slip by, but it definitly won't last long and it definitely won't be all spammers. Seriously, there's no reason why anyone should still be receiving SPAM these days. We've won.
Of course the other theory is that spam has become “less interesting” in light of other new and exciting ways of screwing with people. Once those dry up though, I think the guys with the suits will fall back on classic reliable spam to make their money.
The guys with the suits are using "legit" channels to screw with us. THere's just no way to make spam look professional these days. It will continue to be the domain of the gray market scumbags, not the suits.
Who sees the ads? Why aren't you blocking them? That's what I'd like to know.
Because there's no one definition of "social networking." You'd have to break it down into to discreet, independent services and then make standards/protocols out of it. And then it would become a lowest common denominator sort of thing. Everything would be reduced to he least amount of information needed to make it work and you wouldn't be able to depend on other people supporting such and such service.
Pretty close. They patented "anything that blocks annoying content using a rating system and content patterns." Not only is it extremely vague in terms of how it is implementing the system and where it can be used, but I'm pretty sure prior art can be found in many different spam filters. It is a bullshit patent that never should have been granted.
I do understand the difference and what I'm saying is that from what I've gathered of this patent, it is, like so many software patents, too broad. I'm annoyed that do-no-evil Google would patent such a thing. At least in principle. Practically speaking, I don't really care. I simplify the whole thing and block all advertising because I find it all to be annoying unless I'm seeking it out.
But hate that they patented it. Patent implementations, motherfuckers, not ideas!
The news isn't that they're making such an attempt to get rid of those ads. The news is that they're patenting it, which is completely ridiculous. So now other people can't rate/filter ads without payign Google. Fuck you, Google.
Simpler solution would just not allow anything to execute on such media. This can be accomplished in Linux and OS X. Though there's no quick and easy GUI for it.
If you could collect significant amounts of electricity from the kinetic energy of the particles, why would you bother doing it in space? Why not do it on Earth and skip the whole beaming step?
I don't get it. What exactly are you collecting? Alpha particles? Can you really keep them in a "beam" from orbit to surface like that?
The problem is that the unit price scales very poorly once you scale up from making five to test to five million to sell.
There's that, and the material used for the printer is not necessarily the one you want in your final product. And this certainly applies if your material is sand.
Ten years from now our purchase decisions could very well boil down to "cheap and generic from China" or "customized and immediate from the local shop"
A 3D printer is not a replicator, you know. You don't just plug in "iPhone" and come out with a fully functional iPhone.
Right. First-generation design doesn't do everything, film at 11.
No, you don't get it. Even current industrial 3D printers that use carefully selected materials and lasers still do not produce qualtiy end products. They're primarily used for prototyping. You're not going to take rubble from some random planetoid, shine some sunlight on it, and produce an airtight habitable structure. You're just not.
Making real glass is a carefully controlled process. Honestly? If you're really that hard up for building material, happen to have suitable type of sand, and strong enough sunlight, you probably want to look into using the sun to make an oven and try to make glass blocks. That is, if you can't just cut the rock.
It's a proof of concept chief.
It is a neat project. That's it. The concept of 3D printer had already proven.
The first cars didn't have 4-5 star crash safety ratings while able to carry you at 80mph while achieving 40mpg (which my wife's Camry Hybrid does)
This glass 3D printer isn't even at the level of the first cars. Really, I don't mean to trivialize it because it is pretty neat considering who made it and what materials were used, but I don't see any real practical uses for it. You just can't make quality glass like that. And even if you could, the applications for glass are pretty limited.
You can fuse material together to create air-tight shelters, a necessity on other worlds.
It isn't even real glass. It is brittle and porous. You're not going to make an air-tight shelter with it.
Because a brittle glass brick structure is exactly what your average astronaut needs to shelter him from he harsh elements....
But what useful objects could you possibly make with it? An ash tray? A dildo? I'm not saying this isn't cool, but come on. Lets be real. Equipment used by astronauts is pretty sophisticated and materials are carefully selected for a reason.
Um, pretty sure this is not intended for any type of commercial use. Even normal 3D printers are more for prototyping than actual production, as I understand it. The results are rather brittle and you can only use a very specific material. In this case, "glass." So yeah, if you happen to need brittle glass components on Mars... I guess this might help...?
No problem. I wasn't using my soul anyway. I can do everything with iMojo.
True, but what is Gamestop going to do? Not carry the game and miss out on that first sale? That would be kind of dumb.
I don't know about you, but if I was standing in the store holding 3 copies of a game because I can't share one copy between all of us, I would put them down and walk out. That's really going to drive home just how ridiculous the situation is. Even if I was willing to pay $60 for the game and I knew that's how much 1 copy would cost of it was replayable, it is the principle of the matter. And I'm not one to normally politicize my consumption. I mean, I'll still buy stuff from Apple, Sony, or whatever other questionable companies you can think of as long as they're not killing babies in Africa or something. I'd have to really desperately want that fucking game to make me walk through the checkout with 3 new copies of it.
I want an unopened package with crisp, clean packaging
That's a really strange thing to pay for unless you plan on keeping it as a collectors item or something. You're just going to tear open the package when you get home, What's bloody difference? As for scratch-free, it is easy enough to inspect the disc before you take it home. Again, what are you paying extra for? You're definitely an outlier here.
Especially if the structures they're air conditioning are mobile and not well insulated.
That's what I get for not using Google like the challenge said. :-)
There's an award for that. I'm sure of it.
You haven't quite captured the "sci-fi/fantasy" type person in there. The difference between geek and nerd in your solution is too subtle.