The author is using data from thirty-year-old production techniques to shoot down the new "buzz" about tomorrow's efficient ethanol production. At the same time, he is ignoring the current research that is generating the buzz: researchers are just now coming up with efficient ways to produce enzymes that can turn raw agricultural waste into ethanol. That means stuff like sawdust, wood pulp, cardboard, corn stems, yard waste etc can be turned into ethanol instead of going into landfills.
Data about how much energy it takes to grow corn is irrelevant, because we won't be using corn. We'll be using lawn clippings, or pulverized construction waste, or re-re-recycled paper, or whatever.
Seconded. I didn't believe it until I actually did my own testing, but ClamAV outperforms much of the commercial competition (McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro) in terms of response time, speed, and accuracy.
We used to run Trend's Interscan VirusWall for SMB on our mail hub, and would get a few false positives every week (out of approx. 40000 messages). Not anymore. Now we run ClamAV with Postfix and ClamSMTP, and we have had exactly zero false positives and zero false negatives since we switched (shortly after the MYTOB update was released).
My users are delighted that they're no longer getting viruses, and my monthly "Warning! There's a new virus that our Trend Micro scanner isn't catching yet" messages. I'm happy that I don't have to re-send and apologize for the false positives anymore. My boss is happy that he no longer has to shell out $5000 per year for Trend's crappy product. It's all been good.
Dear sirs, It has come to my attention that your CEO was asked in a recent interview to compare your flagship product with ours. Apparently, he had the balls to assert that he prefers your tools. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to respond in kind.
Blowfish screwdrivers are made to the most exacting standards possible, with the finest materials available, including custom titanium alloys. The handles are made from genuine Chilean mahogony. Every component is crafted to micron precision and individually tested by our crack team of screw-turners. There is obviously no finer mechanism in the world for turning screws than a Blowfish screwdriver. I am incensed that your CEO suggested that he prefers using a Leatherman.
Compared with our product, yours is of shameful quality. No doubt you will continue making additional 'doodads' available for your product instead of addressing these quality issues.
Sincerely, Theo DeRanged CEO Blowfish Screwdrivers
Mod parent up! RBL's are a critical component of any SpamAssassin configuration. No single RBL hit will trigger it to mark a message as spam, but RBLs are one of the most effective components of SA, along with the Bayes filter, the auto-whitelist, and the SURBLs. Yes, SA is relatively resource-hungry, but it's not THAT bad. I'm currently running it on a 1GHz Athlon with ~768MB RAM to process about 20,000 messages a day.
RBLs are a tool, and a very valuable one. Like any tool, they can be used for both good and evil. Don't complain to the people running the RBL. Complain to the mail admins who set their servers up to blindly block messages based on one single known-to-be-unreliable factor.
If I can't receive email from a friend because my mail provider, who I pay money to, is as stupid as some of the BL-supporters here, you can bet I'll yell at them.
RBL's don't kill e-mail, bad sysadmins kill e-mail. You're just demonstrating your own ignorance of spam-blocking techniques by saying "BL-supporters" are stupid.
RBLs are an incredibly valuable tool. My systems, which process about 30,000 messages per day (60-70% spam), NEVER reject a message based on a single RBL hit. But if an IP is listed on three or more different reputable RBLs and doesn't have a very low Bayes score, that message is probably getting rejected. RBLs contribute a huge amount to my (currently > 99%) spam detection accuracy.
There are great Perl modules for addressing all their design goals. Mason for templating and cacheing dynamic content, Catalyst for the MVC controller, etc... I wonder if they switched because Perl modules generally aren't tested as well on Windows and can be troublesome to maintain sometimes. God forbid they switch to Linux.
Yes, ignorant Westerners do tend to idolize Buddhism that way.
Where is the "intellectual" side to the several Buddhist hells where the wicked are tormented eternally? Where is the "intellectual" side to the hungry ghosts? Where is the "intellectual" side to stories of the Buddha's miracles, which are suspiciously similar to the stories you presumably reject of Jesus' and Mohammed's?
Where is the "intellectual" side to a religion that, in its most popular form in Japan, states that it doesn't matter what you do in this life - so long as you say "namu amida butsu" just before you die, you are guaranteed to be reborn in the paradise of Amitabha Buddha and gain Nirvana after just one more life? Seems to me that's pretty much based on faith rather than intellect.
Real Buddhism is the teachings of the Buddha, and he never said any of that stuff. Just because a lot of people call that Buddhism doesn't mean that it is. There are also lots of people saying and doing crazy things in Jesus' and Mohammed's names. Doesn't mean that their ideas and actions are in line with real Christian or Muslim teachings.
Buddhist meditation is a practice designed to help people stay grounded in the real world, instead of wrapped up in their thoughts, opinions, and other conditioned reactions to outside stimulus. For most people I know, their opinions are more real to them than the air they're breathing.
Absolutely! You would not believe the difference that a nice looking, well written resume and cover letter can make. This is one area where hiring a professional is the best financial decision you can make, unless you have an eye for layout and tasteful yet distinctive color and fonts, well-honed grammar and the ability to objectively focus on your selling points without drowning the reader in detail. A professional resume consultant is usually worth every penny they charge.
I don't see what the hell difference a super computer makes.
Information warfare is all about being asymentric.
There's this little thing you might have heard of called encryption. It's hard to break with smaller, slower computers. It's easier to break with bigger, faster computers. And if you can get custom-designed hardware for the application you have in mind, like for instance factoring very very very large numbers, then it gets a lot easier. In some cases, it can be the difference between centuries of computing time and months.
I'm not going to say our guys are smarter than their guys. But something tells me they don't have anywhere NEAR the cool toys that the CIA has to play with. Crypto smackdown, bring it on.
Even on Linux/Unix, userspace programs can still open network connections, send copies of viruses to other systems, open and listen on ports higher than 1024, act as the perfect spam zombie/open proxy, etc. All it takes is a user dumb enough to run an executable that promises to install a cool screen saver or pr0n or a new Solitaire game or whatever.
My point is that actual malware existing in the wild that exploits these problems is the exception rather than the rule. You can't blame the current explosion of virus infections on Microsoft, because the vast majority of the infections are caused entirely by user stupidity.
Should Windows prevent the user from installing any software at all? At what point does the software pop up a dialog that says, "This is obviously a trojan/worm/virus. You are too stupid to own a computer. Self-destruct sequence activated."
The fact of the matter is that many viruses don't bother taking advantage of exploiting Windows or Outlook flaws. They don't have to. By far, the biggest factor in spreading viruses is human stupidity. They don't patch their machines. They click on stuff that reads like this:
FROM: sploitr@fishyware.com SUBJECT: DO0D YOO gotta secyurtee pr0b/. BODY: Yer eemail will be canc3lled if y00 do not click the a7tached fil3. ATTACHMENT: malware.exe
The only way you can seriously argue that this is Microsoft's fault is by saying that they made it possible for people *this* clueless to get on the Internet.
HAH! You think a publisher would ever agree by contract to perpetually publish anything online? By the way, I have some fine waterfront property in Florida that I'm forced to sell far below value. Contact me offline and we'll get you set up right quick.
If they remove old material authored by her, it shows a disturbing lack of editorial integrity. That is much worse than publicing articles from Maureen O'Gara.
It's their magazine, they can do what they like. Editorial integrity? They're not removing her articles because they diagreed with her position. They're removing her articles because they finally realized she was a sensationalist hack who didn't contribute any real analysis or original research of value. Removing her articles can only raise the ratio of information to sensationalism.
Anyway, who cares? I didn't read their crap anyway and I don't plan to start anytime soon. If you find it "disturbing" maybe you should get out more.
What strikes me the most about Maureen O'Gara's smear job was how much she jumped on the "Jehovah's Witness" thing. I don't like to think of myself as intolerant, but I admit to having some prejudice against JWs.
I've read through a few issues of the Watchtower, and had decided that the only people who could find it interesting are people who want their opinions spoon-fed to them by an authority figure. So until now, for me, finding out that someone is a practicing Jehovah's Witness would have been an effective means of diminishing my respect for that person. Until now.
PJ has shown what kind of person she is through intelligent analysis, tireless research, and candid admissions of even the most minor error (of which there have been very few from what I've seen). She has demonstrated unimpeachable integrity, pursuing the facts wherever they might lead.
I find it amusing that my reaction was the opposite of what Maureen O'Gara intended. Instead of lessening my respect for PJ, Maureen's allegations (whether or not they are true) have made me realize the wrongness of my prejudice towards Jehovah's Witnesses.
I am grateful to have been reminded that one should judge people by getting to know them instead of by the categories they seem to fit. At least MOG's abandonment of integrity and common sense had one tiny positive effect. I'm sorry that this contribution to my education had to come at PJ's expense.
At least Star Trek's writers managed to be entertaining 100% of the time, and had the discipline to edit out the dreck.
I always think it's really sad when gifted writers like Card or Neil Stephenson (what the hell, I'm already going to get a troll mod for insulting the Mighty Creator of Ender) let their fans' praise go to their heads. The pattern is always the same: their early work rocks, but as their egos inflate, they stop listening to their editors. Their early work is tight, it's only their best work, and anything not meeting the highest standards is edited out. Then in later work, they go on and on in mind-numbing histories that fail to move the story forward or create any new dramatic tension. Anything flowing from their pens must be holy writ, I guess.
Flamers: Please do not assume I am referring to your favorite Card or Stephenson work. I acknowledge that both these guys are excellent writers. I'm just sayin' they have also been very self-indulgent writers at times. If you want another example of self-indulgence, look no farther than Anne Rice. Anyone read The Witching Hour? Jeebus that sucked.
Slashdot Mirror
The author is using data from thirty-year-old production techniques to shoot down the new "buzz" about tomorrow's efficient ethanol production. At the same time, he is ignoring the current research that is generating the buzz: researchers are just now coming up with efficient ways to produce enzymes that can turn raw agricultural waste into ethanol. That means stuff like sawdust, wood pulp, cardboard, corn stems, yard waste etc can be turned into ethanol instead of going into landfills.
Data about how much energy it takes to grow corn is irrelevant, because we won't be using corn. We'll be using lawn clippings, or pulverized construction waste, or re-re-recycled paper, or whatever.
Seconded. I didn't believe it until I actually did my own testing, but ClamAV outperforms much of the commercial competition (McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro) in terms of response time, speed, and accuracy.
We used to run Trend's Interscan VirusWall for SMB on our mail hub, and would get a few false positives every week (out of approx. 40000 messages). Not anymore. Now we run ClamAV with Postfix and ClamSMTP, and we have had exactly zero false positives and zero false negatives since we switched (shortly after the MYTOB update was released).
My users are delighted that they're no longer getting viruses, and my monthly "Warning! There's a new virus that our Trend Micro scanner isn't catching yet" messages. I'm happy that I don't have to re-send and apologize for the false positives anymore. My boss is happy that he no longer has to shell out $5000 per year for Trend's crappy product. It's all been good.
Attn: Leatherman Board of Directors
Dear sirs,
It has come to my attention that your CEO was asked in a recent interview to compare your flagship product with ours. Apparently, he had the balls to assert that he prefers your tools. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to respond in kind.
Blowfish screwdrivers are made to the most exacting standards possible, with the finest materials available, including custom titanium alloys. The handles are made from genuine Chilean mahogony. Every component is crafted to micron precision and individually tested by our crack team of screw-turners. There is obviously no finer mechanism in the world for turning screws than a Blowfish screwdriver. I am incensed that your CEO suggested that he prefers using a Leatherman.
Compared with our product, yours is of shameful quality. No doubt you will continue making additional 'doodads' available for your product instead of addressing these quality issues.
Sincerely,
Theo DeRanged
CEO
Blowfish Screwdrivers
Mod parent up! RBL's are a critical component of any SpamAssassin configuration. No single RBL hit will trigger it to mark a message as spam, but RBLs are one of the most effective components of SA, along with the Bayes filter, the auto-whitelist, and the SURBLs. Yes, SA is relatively resource-hungry, but it's not THAT bad. I'm currently running it on a 1GHz Athlon with ~768MB RAM to process about 20,000 messages a day.
RBLs are a tool, and a very valuable one. Like any tool, they can be used for both good and evil. Don't complain to the people running the RBL. Complain to the mail admins who set their servers up to blindly block messages based on one single known-to-be-unreliable factor.
If I can't receive email from a friend because my mail provider, who I pay money to, is as stupid as some of the BL-supporters here, you can bet I'll yell at them.
RBL's don't kill e-mail, bad sysadmins kill e-mail. You're just demonstrating your own ignorance of spam-blocking techniques by saying "BL-supporters" are stupid. RBLs are an incredibly valuable tool. My systems, which process about 30,000 messages per day (60-70% spam), NEVER reject a message based on a single RBL hit. But if an IP is listed on three or more different reputable RBLs and doesn't have a very low Bayes score, that message is probably getting rejected. RBLs contribute a huge amount to my (currently > 99%) spam detection accuracy.
There are great Perl modules for addressing all their design goals. Mason for templating and cacheing dynamic content, Catalyst for the MVC controller, etc... I wonder if they switched because Perl modules generally aren't tested as well on Windows and can be troublesome to maintain sometimes. God forbid they switch to Linux.
Look in the article! He sez:
I often find black-and-white people a bit stupid, truth be told.
See! See?!
Yes, ignorant Westerners do tend to idolize Buddhism that way.
Where is the "intellectual" side to the several Buddhist hells where the wicked are tormented eternally? Where is the "intellectual" side to the hungry ghosts? Where is the "intellectual" side to stories of the Buddha's miracles, which are suspiciously similar to the stories you presumably reject of Jesus' and Mohammed's?
Where is the "intellectual" side to a religion that, in its most popular form in Japan, states that it doesn't matter what you do in this life - so long as you say "namu amida butsu" just before you die, you are guaranteed to be reborn in the paradise of Amitabha Buddha and gain Nirvana after just one more life? Seems to me that's pretty much based on faith rather than intellect.
Real Buddhism is the teachings of the Buddha, and he never said any of that stuff. Just because a lot of people call that Buddhism doesn't mean that it is. There are also lots of people saying and doing crazy things in Jesus' and Mohammed's names. Doesn't mean that their ideas and actions are in line with real Christian or Muslim teachings.
Buddhist meditation is a practice designed to help people stay grounded in the real world, instead of wrapped up in their thoughts, opinions, and other conditioned reactions to outside stimulus. For most people I know, their opinions are more real to them than the air they're breathing.
Absolutely!
You would not believe the difference that a nice looking, well written resume and cover letter can make. This is one area where hiring a professional is the best financial decision you can make, unless you have an eye for layout and tasteful yet distinctive color and fonts, well-honed grammar and the ability to objectively focus on your selling points without drowning the reader in detail. A professional resume consultant is usually worth every penny they charge.
I don't see what the hell difference a super computer makes.
Information warfare is all about being asymentric. There's this little thing you might have heard of called encryption. It's hard to break with smaller, slower computers. It's easier to break with bigger, faster computers. And if you can get custom-designed hardware for the application you have in mind, like for instance factoring very very very large numbers, then it gets a lot easier. In some cases, it can be the difference between centuries of computing time and months.
I'm not going to say our guys are smarter than their guys. But something tells me they don't have anywhere NEAR the cool toys that the CIA has to play with. Crypto smackdown, bring it on.
Even on Linux/Unix, userspace programs can still open network connections, send copies of viruses to other systems, open and listen on ports higher than 1024, act as the perfect spam zombie/open proxy, etc. All it takes is a user dumb enough to run an executable that promises to install a cool screen saver or pr0n or a new Solitaire game or whatever.
My point is that actual malware existing in the wild that exploits these problems is the exception rather than the rule. You can't blame the current explosion of virus infections on Microsoft, because the vast majority of the infections are caused entirely by user stupidity.
Should Windows prevent the user from installing any software at all? At what point does the software pop up a dialog that says, "This is obviously a trojan/worm/virus. You are too stupid to own a computer. Self-destruct sequence activated."
Your counterexamples prove my point. Users (including you, apparently) don't update their software.
The fact of the matter is that many viruses don't bother taking advantage of exploiting Windows or Outlook flaws. They don't have to. By far, the biggest factor in spreading viruses is human stupidity. They don't patch their machines. They click on stuff that reads like this:
FROM: sploitr@fishyware.com
SUBJECT: DO0D YOO gotta secyurtee pr0b/.
BODY: Yer eemail will be canc3lled if y00 do not click the a7tached fil3.
ATTACHMENT: malware.exe
The only way you can seriously argue that this is Microsoft's fault is by saying that they made it possible for people *this* clueless to get on the Internet.
Heh, if I had teh funny mod points to give, you would so be getting them.
I'll add my own here:
(X) Similar to DCC and Razor, but far less bandwidth efficient than either
You should also have checked:
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
I'm using Thunderbird with IMAP over SSL and it works great, I've had no problems at all. What server software are you using?
HAH! You think a publisher would ever agree by contract to perpetually publish anything online? By the way, I have some fine waterfront property in Florida that I'm forced to sell far below value. Contact me offline and we'll get you set up right quick.
If they remove old material authored by her, it shows a disturbing lack of editorial integrity. That is much worse than publicing articles from Maureen O'Gara.
It's their magazine, they can do what they like. Editorial integrity? They're not removing her articles because they diagreed with her position. They're removing her articles because they finally realized she was a sensationalist hack who didn't contribute any real analysis or original research of value. Removing her articles can only raise the ratio of information to sensationalism.
Anyway, who cares? I didn't read their crap anyway and I don't plan to start anytime soon. If you find it "disturbing" maybe you should get out more.
What strikes me the most about Maureen O'Gara's smear job was how much she jumped on the "Jehovah's Witness" thing. I don't like to think of myself as intolerant, but I admit to having some prejudice against JWs.
I've read through a few issues of the Watchtower, and had decided that the only people who could find it interesting are people who want their opinions spoon-fed to them by an authority figure. So until now, for me, finding out that someone is a practicing Jehovah's Witness would have been an effective means of diminishing my respect for that person. Until now.
PJ has shown what kind of person she is through intelligent analysis, tireless research, and candid admissions of even the most minor error (of which there have been very few from what I've seen). She has demonstrated unimpeachable integrity, pursuing the facts wherever they might lead.
I find it amusing that my reaction was the opposite of what Maureen O'Gara intended. Instead of lessening my respect for PJ, Maureen's allegations (whether or not they are true) have made me realize the wrongness of my prejudice towards Jehovah's Witnesses.
I am grateful to have been reminded that one should judge people by getting to know them instead of by the categories they seem to fit. At least MOG's abandonment of integrity and common sense had one tiny positive effect. I'm sorry that this contribution to my education had to come at PJ's expense.
Best wishes, PJ.
Everyone is equal. It's just that some are more equal than others.
At least Star Trek's writers managed to be entertaining 100% of the time, and had the discipline to edit out the dreck.
I always think it's really sad when gifted writers like Card or Neil Stephenson (what the hell, I'm already going to get a troll mod for insulting the Mighty Creator of Ender) let their fans' praise go to their heads. The pattern is always the same: their early work rocks, but as their egos inflate, they stop listening to their editors. Their early work is tight, it's only their best work, and anything not meeting the highest standards is edited out. Then in later work, they go on and on in mind-numbing histories that fail to move the story forward or create any new dramatic tension. Anything flowing from their pens must be holy writ, I guess.
Flamers: Please do not assume I am referring to your favorite Card or Stephenson work. I acknowledge that both these guys are excellent writers. I'm just sayin' they have also been very self-indulgent writers at times. If you want another example of self-indulgence, look no farther than Anne Rice. Anyone read The Witching Hour? Jeebus that sucked.
Anything having to do with kernel reliability is always on-topic at Slashdot. /ducks