You might be right--Linux might be eating into commercial Unix faster than the Win32, but that might be just as scary to Microsoft. Once large organizations (generally the ones that have paid for commercial Unix implementations) find their mission-critical Unix applications are working fine under Linux it's not going to take much of a leap for them to conclude, "Heck, if we can save on the commercial server side, what about all those Windows boxes we have out there? How much can we save there?" Switching commercial Unix to Linux is the "Ready.... Set..." and switching the Windows PCs to Linux will be the "Go!"
I just finished switching my personal workstation from Windows XP (came preinstalled on my new laptop 6 months ago) to Linux. I'm loving life and it wasn't nearly as painful as I expected. It won't be long before IT departments that have had a successful server migration to Linux start thinking about doing the same on the desktop. It would be extremely easy and save big bucks--especially if there are any kind of hardware standard across the organization where a single configuration could be dumped onto each machine--perhaps for the price of a new hard drive for each machine with the new Linux distro pre-installed. Plug and play and no more licesning fees!
There were some episodes that seemed to just come completely out of the blue ("uh, why are my clothes all white?").
I thought that episode (or two, it was actually a two-parter) was one of the better ones. Call it cliche, but it had a deeper message than "just trying to get home." After all, how long can you "just be trying to get home" before it gets boring? A nice spiritual twist was refreshing and also suggested that as advanced as their (BSG) technology supposedly was, there were still things they couldn't understand.
Of course, I'm sure it rubbed the atheists the wrong way. But the atheists are a delicate bunch--witness their typical reaction to my sig.:)
I more or less agree. I actually tried this approach about a year and a half ago. I modified my Sendmail server to analyze incoming mail during the DATA phase of the SMTP connection. While it was just a simple text filter rather than a cool Bayesian approach, the idea was the same: Cause pain to the spammer because even if I filter the spam before I see it, the spammer has already done his damage. The problem is you can't really do anything to slow him down once they're on the DATA phase and the data is coming in because there is no handshaking at that point. So all I did was have Sendmail close the connection as soon as it recognized something that was sure to be spam.
I gave up on this approach. While there was a satisfaction in looking at my message log and seeing all the spam I had hung up on, spammers would often just keep trying to deliver. Some of the worst software would try a second or two after I hung up on them so they literally pounded my system. It didn't cause any problems except for a little bit of bandwidth, but it certainly didn't seem to phase the spammer.
The fact is, there's not much you can technically do to hurt the spammer. Even if everyone implements this there's no reason why spam software can't open up hundreds of tasks running in parallel and simply be patient when necessary. It could even make spam worse because spam software might evolve to where it DOES send spam out in parallel hundreds at a time by default [forgive me if this is already the case, I have no idea what capabilities spam software has].
The fact is, the only way to make spam go away is to make the response rate go down. This approach gives you, as the admin, a certain satisfaction but it really won't reduce spam--it'll just make spam software more advanced. The only way to make the response rate go down is make sure the spam doesn't get to the user, and that's filtering. Feel free to implement this system, but once the thrill of sticking it to some spammers gets old you'll be back to where you were--with the filters doing the real work.
While on the scale of "good to bad" I'd much rather see patents awarded to Google than Microsoft based on history of constructive contribution to their respective fields, I can't help but say that this patent, like so many others, is "obvious" to experts in the field.
If you want an automated way to determine how useful a link is, how would an expert do it? You have two choices: 1) Base it on the content of the page in question. 2) Base it on the content of other pages. Some engines tried #1 and that's where you found with 1k of content and 50k of metacommands with repeated keywords or totally irrelevant keywords. Since #1 obviously failed, #2 is the obvious choice. If 1000 pages are link to page "X" and 20 pages are linking to page "Y", which is the best candidate for higher ranking?
I can't blame Google for patenting their idea--it's the "in thing to do." But I do feel that their approach, regardless of how effective it is and how much we all like Google, is not particulary "non-obvious" and shouldn't merit a patent.
Gotta love Slashdot. Dare to say anything straying from liberal and you are moderated as a troll. It wasn't a troll, idiot moderator, it was a very accurate statement of reality. Get a clue!
No problem, got Karma to burn... Feel free to moderate this down as well.
Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
Heh heh, true. Actually, they are every bit as bad as the American INS in terms of deporting. It's just that they usually deport people from China or Guatemala. Mexicans often complain about treatment in the U.S., but it turns out Mexico treats people from Guatemala much worse than the U.S. treats people from Mexico.
As for renewing with them, basically it seems to be a source of income for them. I pay about $150 each year to renew my visa. They pretty much rubber-stamp the authorization. I asked the people at their INS office once if I could get turned down and the lady told me that as long as I hadn't gotten in trouble in Mexico in the previous year that renewal was pretty much guaranteed.
That said, they DO know where I live. Which is apparently more than we can say about the INS and foreigners in the U.S.
NON-US Citizens...I have no problem, I don't see that non-citizens are due the same rights as a US citizen....they should be watched..
You got that right!
I'm an American citizen who has been living in Mexico for the last 7 years. I have a special document given to me by the Mexican government which is essentially my Visa. It has my picture, my Mexican address, my fingerprint, the specific business which I may conduct in Mexico, and for how long. And every year I have to go in to the Mexican INS and renew it. When I got married, I had to inform Mexico. When I moved after getting married I had to tell Mexico within 30 days what my new address was. If I change employers, I have to tell them.
This is pretty standard stuff, guys. Borders must be protected, even before 9/11. What scares me isn't that the INS is asking for this information now, what scares me is that they WEREN'T before. It appears that MEXICO keeps better track of foreigners in their country than the INS was keeping track of within the U.S.
How absurd. Of course, that's essentially how it's supposed to work in most states. I don't know if other states have a line to enter that amount, but I technically think you're supposed to pay it.
That said, you shouldn't have to. If I live in Kentucky but bought something whike I was in California, why should Kentucky get a cut? And if it does, why doesn't California refund the taxes I paid?
The current system, where you only charge in-state transactions, is acceptable. In-state customers certainly should pay the going in-state sales tax, that's just logical. But why should a customer in California pay taxes to Colorado if that's where the Internet company is? Should Colorado be able to tax California citizens?
Then we have the "new" approach: Tax everything, which is apparently what KY wants to do when they ask you to declare things you bought somewhere else. That's silly. If you were physically in a different state, why should Kentucky get a cut?
If, however, we assume that we're going to pay sales tax on everything, it HAS to be levied based on the state of the SELLER or MERCHANT. That gives all states an incentive to keep taxes as low as reasonably possible to keep their merchants competitive. If you charge based on where the BUYER is, aside from being complicated for the merchant that has to collect different sales taxes for every state as well as make payments to each state, states have no incentive to keep their tax rates in check.
And I know enough to not help out gangs of criminals and seem to be able to differentiate between "good guys" and "badguys" without a lot of effort. I don't support badguys, any scale. I don't trade or do business with badguys. I wish my nation followed those sorts of principles too.
While it would be nice if your analogy applied, international politics is significantly more complicated than the principles you subscribe to as an individual. To think it's as simple as "not doing business with the bad guys" is truly naive.
so do millions and millions of people, in our nation, and around the world.
And millions and millions more understand that international politics can't always be based on feel-good policies. Would I kill my neighbor? No. Would I go to war? There are times I would. Whether there is any difference is a matter of debate, but the fact that people that wouldn't kill their neighbor WILL go and fight a war is just further indication that you can't apploy local or individual norms to international politics.
To get away from artificially created wars, to not be lead around by the nose ring by various tinpot dictators, kings, potentates and "rulers".
There are a number of reasons the U.S. was founded. I don't remember "getting away from artificially created wars" as being one of them. I do remember things such as taxation without representation, the pursuit of happiness, etc.
You can have your imperial blood profits centric politicians and political parties and international corporations, I find them..distasteful.
And I find the last sentence... trite. Every time there is a war or pressure in the Gulf, it's always "about oil." Always about profits. Always about power. Again, those that want to believe that are free to do so. I find it not only distasteful, but also cynical and naive.
There is more to international politics than most peaceniks are willing to acknowledge or even understand.
Do you blame him? He needs to get the money somewhere to pay back the French since they're obviously opposing war in the hopes of seeing some debt repaid.
If your credit card was stolen, the terrorist have already won!:)
How many people will die because others refuse to accept the evidence that high level "leaders" in various western nations created, sponsored, armed, equipped and encouraged saddam hussein, al queda, and etc, and are currently conveniently "forgetting" those facts?
They did what they believed to be in the best interest of the U.S. at the time--which was mostly challenging the Soviet Union. They didn't have a crystal ball to know that the Soviet Union would fall (or maybe it fell, in part, due to their efforts). They didn't know the shady people they were working with would turn against us two decades later. This is not a crime nor a conspiracy. It's called 20/20 hindsight.
... and where the linkages up stream go directly not only to far off afghanistan, but to western intelligence services, large corporations, and various stock brokerages, and this information was "overlooked" or dismissed as "intelligence failures", when it obviously wasn't?
You've read too many conspiracy websites. Yes, the airplane does fit into the hole in the Pentagon and, no, Pearl Harbor wasn't "allowed" to happen.
I would like to see the high level US leaders (other nations in the west need a similar action to take place) who decided to fund and bankroll that goon saddam exposed, and busted. Busted, exposed, prosecuted.
For what? Not having a crystal ball? Unless any of them consciously armed some country with the expectation of creating a future threat against the U.S., I don't see the crime.
And that we did this partly to counter iran, but that the iraninan problem itself was AGAIN partly our fault
Read the history of Iraq and Iran back a thousand years or so. In fact, the whole area. We are a latecomer to "the problem," believe me.
You see, there's connections. You can't stop at one point and say "here is where it started and it's all these other guy's fault!"
I didn't try to stop at one point and say that, although you sort of did. It goes back way further than this century. There was infighting there before the U.S. existed. And we can't change that. All we can do is face the threats we see today--and the threat today is Iraq, whether it was armed by the U.S. or France or both.
Would I have any claim to moral superiority, would I have any rational basis to claim I had no hand in the crimes committed?
You'd have no moral superiority, but it would be understandable if you slapped the monster, even if you had helped create it.
Or would the local prosecutor say I was in fact a part of this gang?
That would depend on circumstances, obviously.
This picking and choosing just "some" of the gang members to "prosecute", while completely ignoring the other gang members is just intellectually and ethically and morally bankrupt,
Until someone in this power elite starts attempting to obtain and hide biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons in their backyard in Texas I could care less. I want them taken away from someone who has shown they will attack his neighbors and lob bombs at Israel just to pick a fight.
Then I guess it's not completely evil for me to hope that, by some strange science fiction manifestation of karma, you find yourself fleeing across the desert, dodging angry Iraqui bullets.
If I was called on, I would. I tried to enlist in 1990. Got pretty far along on the phone interview when they asked if I needed any medication. My asthma inhaler prevented them from accepting me. But I did try.
Hey, maybe if I hadn't refused to go hang bombs on F-111s in Bangkok, maybe we'd have "won" the war in Vietnam. You think?
No. You missed my point. My problem is with the peaceniks that are marching around in the street looking silly. If you have a true moral issue with something you are asked to do, as in your case, I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in--and you didn't harm the war effort. The people marching around may be acting based on their conviction, but in their case they are making war MORE likely--which is supposedly what they're trying to avoid.
The point is that the "peaceniks" are making a moral choice. Even if you don't agree with their choice,
We are talking about different peaceniks. If there are U.S. soldiers in Iraq that have a moral issue at stake I would not be bothered if they didn't fight. It's the people in the street acting silly that are actually being downright counterproductive and making it more likely that U.S. soldiers with moral issues will be forced to make a moral choice in the desert of Iraq..
who are making the decision for purely utilitarian purposes.
And what do you calculate those utilitarian purposes are, exactly?
Finally, a little quote from a speech last fall by Sen. Byrd
Well the president has effectively had that power for decades now. Nothing new today except that the president is actually bothering to seek congressional support.
Wow, you sure do have an axe to grind with peaceniks.
Yes, they're naive and annoying. They know more about marching and building signs than they know about international politics. Much like celebrities that seem to think because they are famous that they know more about international politics than those that have been in the "field" for decades.
Bush is DEAD SET on war with Iraq, and here you are trying to blame protestors for making it happen?
I don't blame them for MAKING it happen. But they are making the war outcome more likely, as I explained above. Sorry if common sense doesn't work for you.
Saddam displaying marches on TV and stating 'World against USA' is just him practicing the long-standing American tradition of spin control.
The difference is that in America you get to see both sides of a debate and then experience the spin. In countries such as Iraq, you see the marches against the war--do you see Powell's evidence broadcast? Do you see Bush's State of the Union address? No, you just hear what Saddam wants you to hear. You can't compare THAT spin to the spin that happens in free societies.
If I was being threatened constantly by the USA, I'd want to convince my population there wasn't really going to be a war, because it would scare the shit out of them otherwise.
What? If you were being threatened constantly and knew that war was imminent, you'd want your population to believe there wasn't going to BE a war? Wow... How honest you are, just like Saddam. If you represent the peaceniks, I rest my case. It appears yours is based on disinformation--or would be if you were the ruler of a country as opposed to an anonymous coward on Slashdot.
Everyone knows how dirty the US fights.
As opposed to Saddam? Anyone that prefers the way that Saddam fights to the way the U.S. fights is either uninformed or, probably, just has a bone to pick with the U.S. Either way, the person isn't in a position to make an educated comment on the topic.
The question is, why is Bush so interested in taking on iraq all of a sudden ? And not 2 or 5 years ago when the people in iraq were also suffering ? Are iraq hiding terrorists ? Not according to what we've been told.
I don't know why. Like I (think) I said before, I'm not pro-war. I'm just 100% against the antiwar people that are counterproductive. They wave their signs, flags, and dream of the 60's when their very actions will probably increase the chance of the conflict they supposedly want to avoid.
As for why, I would have to assume that there is information that we don't know about. Bush is burning a ton of political capital on this and I truly believe that politicians only burn capital this quickly when it is absolultely necessary. And I don't buy the whole "Bush wants more oil for his companies or his friends' companies." I don't realistically think Bush (or any president) would start a war just to improve their business position. And even if they were to consider it, I don't think they'd burn this much domestic and international political capital on it.
I believe there is more information than what we, the public, knows. That's generally the case on any international issue.
And of course Saddam have or have had weapons of mass-destruction, Bush sr sold them to him ! Well that's what I've heard. How's that for hypocrisy ?
I've also heard we didn't land on the moon and that the Israelis were the true masterminds of 9/11.
And not speaking up against a war because it might "empower" Saddam must be the most silly reason ever, it's not the "peaceniks" who will pull the triggers.
Wrong, my dear sir. Just check the news on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday: Nice, photo-op marches. Sunday: Those same marches broadcast on Iraqi TV with the slogan "World against America" or something like that. This sort of thing certainly doesn't turn the heat up on Saddam--the only possible effect it can have is for Saddam to think, "Oh, look at that. There's no way they can attack with so much public opinion against it" (never mind that less than 1% of the population of the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia, and Australia actually marched).
You can argue that Saddam might not read anything into the marches. However, you can't argue that Saddam is now more likely to cooperate. If there is any effect, the only effect those marches can have on Saddam is to embolden him under the false assumption that the protests make him safe. Saddam, thus, continues to resist--making a war more likely.
Speaking up against war is fine. It's clear that many don't agree. I'm not even sure I agree. But street protests such as these show countries and allies divided, and that only helps Iraq.
Saddam will be gone in two months, probably one. I expect it to be messier than the last war but by in large I expect that the war will be won quickly and the peaceniks will be made to look like fools for making so much noise about it. And France will look like idiots. Of course, both of these are already true. 1960's peaceniks are now viewed pretty much as utopian drug-using hippies. France is looked upon as an old world power that was grandfathered into the "new masters of the world" even though they had to be saved in WWII from the Germans and really have no business being on the U.N. Security Council as a veto-wielding member. What did they do to deserve THAT position?
Well, perhaps they are just more concerned about the potential loss of life, than some computing thing that they've never heard of?
Off-topic, but my karma can take the hit.
Ironically, the anti-war protesters this weekend have actually made war MORE probable and probably cost many lives. They went out there, looked like 1960's peaceniks, and the next day Saddam transmitted that on Iraqi TV and said that it showed the world united against America, yadda yadda yadda. So now Iraqis (may) be more inclined to think their leader is innocent. They may be more inclined to fight to the death because they think their cause is just. Saddam himself may think that all that public opinion in his favor is going to protect him. And what you have is an emboldened Iraq that is more likely to resist and draw this out, leading to war. Thanks, Peaceniks, what a great job you did this weekend.
If the peaceniks wanted to help they should have gone to the streets protesting: "Saddam, cooperate NOW to avoid war!" THAT makes sense. THAT'S what peace-hugging France is even saying. That would convey that the peaceniks are against war but the burden is placed on Iraq to avoid it.
I'm not pro-war. But I'm 100% anti-peaceniks. They have the right to protest, of course. But it is sad that those who do so truly don't realize the consequences of their actions and don't realize that their actions probably emboldened the target and will end up costing lives on both sides.
It is screwy. My 1040 book for 2002 just came and it looks to be about 200+ pages.
If we're going to have an income tax it should be something like:
1. How much did you make in 2002?
2. Subtract $10,000 for personal allowance.
3. Subtract $4000 for each dependent.
4. Multiply remaining amount by 10%.
5. That's your tax.
In fact, we shouldn't have an income tax, especially a punishing one that taxes more the more you make. Rather, we should have a consumption or sales tax. The rich will pay more because they spend more. Goods such as food can be exempt. No need to do an income tax return because you pay your taxes on a daily basis when you buy something. No income tax evasion. The IRS can be MUCH smaller since it just collects the taxes from businesses--heck, that can be done by the state in most states where a sales tax already exists. In all, a national sales tax just makes sense--but only if it is INSTEAD of an income tax.
You want to hear something evil? In Mexico they have a national sales tax of 15% *AND* they have an income tax that goes all the way up to 35%. Talk about double taxation.
Thus it is best to move such individualized and resource-intensive applications to the client-side anyway.
The problem is that for that to happen the client has to have already downloaded the spam. Granted with faster connections that doesn't always take TOO long, but the idea is to protect the client from spam--if they've already downloaded it then you're just not showing everything that was downloaded.
Additionally, having that on the client side means all the clients have to have the filtering software. All the clients need to update the filters or approaches as necessary. This is a perfect application for a server-side system.
Baynesian can and should be done on the server. A big help will be when commonly used email programs have a feature to automatically submit missed spam to their server so the server can refine their Baynesian statistics--but the solution is on the server, not on the client.
Me: If you can somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection without even touching the box or property belonging to the electric company, I'd support your right to do so.
You: I think you might be wrong. I am too lazy to look it up, but, I am quite sure that the courts have rulled against this. Some guy was "sucking" power from the powerlines strung over his property(farm???). Power company noticed, sued and won.
Re-read my post, please. I said if you could somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection WITHOUT EVEN TOUCHING THE BOX OR PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, I'd support your right to do so. Two dollars says the person you are talking about tapped into the electric company power lines which is not what I was saying I'd support your right to do.
The EMISSIONS of the electric company produces the hum you hear on a portable radio if you get too close to power lines. If you bring a portable radio close to power lines and hear the hum, I support your right to do that without paying for it. If you actually TAP INTO the electric company's infrastructure and steal power, that's something else and of course you're going to get busted for it.
Killing massive numbers of unarmed civilians to protect armed troops is generally supposed to be not ok.
That's certainly the case now, but it's certainly not clear how respected that was during WWII. Especially in Europe everyone was boming everyone elses population centers. Other posts in this thread elaborate on why.
Could the American psyche really reconcile all those schools and hospitals and homes with shortening the war?
Let's put it this way: If someone launches a surprise attack on my country while still publically searching for peace, kills thousnads of my countrymen including civilians, have caused the country to be on a war footing for years and we just want it over, and am faced with the prospect of losing potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of additional countrymen, yes, I could deal with that.
It's war, people get killed. And if it's a choice of one of my countrymen getting killed or 2 enemy deaths, sorry, I'll go for the 2 enemy deaths. It's not nice, it's not fair, maybe not even moral. But it's war.
Understandable, but the reality is that France is no longer relevant. They might have the third largest nuclear arsenal but since nuclear bombs haven't been used in 50+ years and hopefully won't be, that doesn't mean much.
What was the last war that France won?
The only reason they have a place on the security council is to make them feel better after WWII. They lost. We had to rescue them. If there's going to be permanent security council members it ought to be the U.S., England, Russia, and maybe China (based on sheer population). France is neither geographically large nor does it have a large population nor does it have much of a recent record on military strength or success in wars. They are just part of the "old world" that got grandfathered into the new "masters of the universe." France's only clout is really in their history and in their status as a permanent member of the security council. Otherwise it'd be no different than Belgium, Italy, or Spain.
France is irrelevant. They are a dog that barks but doesn't bite. Waiting for more inspections and peace in the middle east might not be the wrong approach, but France is putting all their eggs in one basket on this one. If the U.S. and England attack Iraq anyway then France's illusions to actually having influence in world events will officially be over.
We Americans are right now living in an extremist right wing fascist regime.
As opposed to the left-wing communistic tendencies of the past administration and its wife.
Don't let the Republicans fool you, they're extremely racist
You look stupid when you make comments like that. Everyone is different and just because someone believes in smaller government, free market, and personal responsibility doesn't mean they are racist.
Acquisition of more power
I don't see Bush as president as any more powerful today then he was when he took office. The government has got some new powers (worrisome), but they were passed by Democrats as well as Republicans.
Acquisition of oil.
What oil has been acquired?
Acquisition of power or oil for his cronies who put him in office.
Again, what power (other than that passed by Congress which is close to 50/50 and had Democratic support) and what oil?
Ken Lay still walks free, after having bilked the retirement of thousands of employees and worth of the shares of perhaps millions of shareholders.
And Saddam still walks free after gassing his own people and starting conflicts with Iraq and Kuwait that led to millions of deaths. Which is the bigger crime?
Ken Lay nearly singlehandedly put W in office.
Hmm, and I could have sworn it was the voters.
Bush is a criminal, plain and simple.
Oh hogwash. You can disagree with his policies and priorities and politics, but he's not a criminal. What has he done that is illegal? Even Clinton has him beat based on actual crimes committed. Please learn the difference between someone being a criminal and someone having different beliefs than you do. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I just finished switching my personal workstation from Windows XP (came preinstalled on my new laptop 6 months ago) to Linux. I'm loving life and it wasn't nearly as painful as I expected. It won't be long before IT departments that have had a successful server migration to Linux start thinking about doing the same on the desktop. It would be extremely easy and save big bucks--especially if there are any kind of hardware standard across the organization where a single configuration could be dumped onto each machine--perhaps for the price of a new hard drive for each machine with the new Linux distro pre-installed. Plug and play and no more licesning fees!
I rest my case!! Man, you guys make it easy. :)
I thought that episode (or two, it was actually a two-parter) was one of the better ones. Call it cliche, but it had a deeper message than "just trying to get home." After all, how long can you "just be trying to get home" before it gets boring? A nice spiritual twist was refreshing and also suggested that as advanced as their (BSG) technology supposedly was, there were still things they couldn't understand.
Of course, I'm sure it rubbed the atheists the wrong way. But the atheists are a delicate bunch--witness their typical reaction to my sig. :)
I gave up on this approach. While there was a satisfaction in looking at my message log and seeing all the spam I had hung up on, spammers would often just keep trying to deliver. Some of the worst software would try a second or two after I hung up on them so they literally pounded my system. It didn't cause any problems except for a little bit of bandwidth, but it certainly didn't seem to phase the spammer.
The fact is, there's not much you can technically do to hurt the spammer. Even if everyone implements this there's no reason why spam software can't open up hundreds of tasks running in parallel and simply be patient when necessary. It could even make spam worse because spam software might evolve to where it DOES send spam out in parallel hundreds at a time by default [forgive me if this is already the case, I have no idea what capabilities spam software has].
The fact is, the only way to make spam go away is to make the response rate go down. This approach gives you, as the admin, a certain satisfaction but it really won't reduce spam--it'll just make spam software more advanced. The only way to make the response rate go down is make sure the spam doesn't get to the user, and that's filtering. Feel free to implement this system, but once the thrill of sticking it to some spammers gets old you'll be back to where you were--with the filters doing the real work.
If you want an automated way to determine how useful a link is, how would an expert do it? You have two choices: 1) Base it on the content of the page in question. 2) Base it on the content of other pages. Some engines tried #1 and that's where you found with 1k of content and 50k of metacommands with repeated keywords or totally irrelevant keywords. Since #1 obviously failed, #2 is the obvious choice. If 1000 pages are link to page "X" and 20 pages are linking to page "Y", which is the best candidate for higher ranking?
I can't blame Google for patenting their idea--it's the "in thing to do." But I do feel that their approach, regardless of how effective it is and how much we all like Google, is not particulary "non-obvious" and shouldn't merit a patent.
No problem, got Karma to burn... Feel free to moderate this down as well.
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
As for renewing with them, basically it seems to be a source of income for them. I pay about $150 each year to renew my visa. They pretty much rubber-stamp the authorization. I asked the people at their INS office once if I could get turned down and the lady told me that as long as I hadn't gotten in trouble in Mexico in the previous year that renewal was pretty much guaranteed.
That said, they DO know where I live. Which is apparently more than we can say about the INS and foreigners in the U.S.
You got that right!
I'm an American citizen who has been living in Mexico for the last 7 years. I have a special document given to me by the Mexican government which is essentially my Visa. It has my picture, my Mexican address, my fingerprint, the specific business which I may conduct in Mexico, and for how long. And every year I have to go in to the Mexican INS and renew it. When I got married, I had to inform Mexico. When I moved after getting married I had to tell Mexico within 30 days what my new address was. If I change employers, I have to tell them.
This is pretty standard stuff, guys. Borders must be protected, even before 9/11. What scares me isn't that the INS is asking for this information now, what scares me is that they WEREN'T before. It appears that MEXICO keeps better track of foreigners in their country than the INS was keeping track of within the U.S.
Sheesh!
That said, you shouldn't have to. If I live in Kentucky but bought something whike I was in California, why should Kentucky get a cut? And if it does, why doesn't California refund the taxes I paid?
The current system, where you only charge in-state transactions, is acceptable. In-state customers certainly should pay the going in-state sales tax, that's just logical. But why should a customer in California pay taxes to Colorado if that's where the Internet company is? Should Colorado be able to tax California citizens?
Then we have the "new" approach: Tax everything, which is apparently what KY wants to do when they ask you to declare things you bought somewhere else. That's silly. If you were physically in a different state, why should Kentucky get a cut?
If, however, we assume that we're going to pay sales tax on everything, it HAS to be levied based on the state of the SELLER or MERCHANT. That gives all states an incentive to keep taxes as low as reasonably possible to keep their merchants competitive. If you charge based on where the BUYER is, aside from being complicated for the merchant that has to collect different sales taxes for every state as well as make payments to each state, states have no incentive to keep their tax rates in check.
While it would be nice if your analogy applied, international politics is significantly more complicated than the principles you subscribe to as an individual. To think it's as simple as "not doing business with the bad guys" is truly naive.
so do millions and millions of people, in our nation, and around the world.
And millions and millions more understand that international politics can't always be based on feel-good policies. Would I kill my neighbor? No. Would I go to war? There are times I would. Whether there is any difference is a matter of debate, but the fact that people that wouldn't kill their neighbor WILL go and fight a war is just further indication that you can't apploy local or individual norms to international politics.
To get away from artificially created wars, to not be lead around by the nose ring by various tinpot dictators, kings, potentates and "rulers".
There are a number of reasons the U.S. was founded. I don't remember "getting away from artificially created wars" as being one of them. I do remember things such as taxation without representation, the pursuit of happiness, etc.
You can have your imperial blood profits centric politicians and political parties and international corporations, I find them..distasteful.
And I find the last sentence... trite. Every time there is a war or pressure in the Gulf, it's always "about oil." Always about profits. Always about power. Again, those that want to believe that are free to do so. I find it not only distasteful, but also cynical and naive.
There is more to international politics than most peaceniks are willing to acknowledge or even understand.
If your credit card was stolen, the terrorist have already won! :)
They did what they believed to be in the best interest of the U.S. at the time--which was mostly challenging the Soviet Union. They didn't have a crystal ball to know that the Soviet Union would fall (or maybe it fell, in part, due to their efforts). They didn't know the shady people they were working with would turn against us two decades later. This is not a crime nor a conspiracy. It's called 20/20 hindsight.
You've read too many conspiracy websites. Yes, the airplane does fit into the hole in the Pentagon and, no, Pearl Harbor wasn't "allowed" to happen.
I would like to see the high level US leaders (other nations in the west need a similar action to take place) who decided to fund and bankroll that goon saddam exposed, and busted. Busted, exposed, prosecuted.
For what? Not having a crystal ball? Unless any of them consciously armed some country with the expectation of creating a future threat against the U.S., I don't see the crime.
And that we did this partly to counter iran, but that the iraninan problem itself was AGAIN partly our fault
Read the history of Iraq and Iran back a thousand years or so. In fact, the whole area. We are a latecomer to "the problem," believe me.
You see, there's connections. You can't stop at one point and say "here is where it started and it's all these other guy's fault!"
I didn't try to stop at one point and say that, although you sort of did. It goes back way further than this century. There was infighting there before the U.S. existed. And we can't change that. All we can do is face the threats we see today--and the threat today is Iraq, whether it was armed by the U.S. or France or both.
Would I have any claim to moral superiority, would I have any rational basis to claim I had no hand in the crimes committed?
You'd have no moral superiority, but it would be understandable if you slapped the monster, even if you had helped create it.
Or would the local prosecutor say I was in fact a part of this gang?
That would depend on circumstances, obviously.
This picking and choosing just "some" of the gang members to "prosecute", while completely ignoring the other gang members is just intellectually and ethically and morally bankrupt,
Until someone in this power elite starts attempting to obtain and hide biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons in their backyard in Texas I could care less. I want them taken away from someone who has shown they will attack his neighbors and lob bombs at Israel just to pick a fight.
If I was called on, I would. I tried to enlist in 1990. Got pretty far along on the phone interview when they asked if I needed any medication. My asthma inhaler prevented them from accepting me. But I did try.
Hey, maybe if I hadn't refused to go hang bombs on F-111s in Bangkok, maybe we'd have "won" the war in Vietnam. You think?
No. You missed my point. My problem is with the peaceniks that are marching around in the street looking silly. If you have a true moral issue with something you are asked to do, as in your case, I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in--and you didn't harm the war effort. The people marching around may be acting based on their conviction, but in their case they are making war MORE likely--which is supposedly what they're trying to avoid.
The point is that the "peaceniks" are making a moral choice. Even if you don't agree with their choice,
We are talking about different peaceniks. If there are U.S. soldiers in Iraq that have a moral issue at stake I would not be bothered if they didn't fight. It's the people in the street acting silly that are actually being downright counterproductive and making it more likely that U.S. soldiers with moral issues will be forced to make a moral choice in the desert of Iraq..
who are making the decision for purely utilitarian purposes.
And what do you calculate those utilitarian purposes are, exactly?
Finally, a little quote from a speech last fall by Sen. Byrd
Well the president has effectively had that power for decades now. Nothing new today except that the president is actually bothering to seek congressional support.
Yes, they're naive and annoying. They know more about marching and building signs than they know about international politics. Much like celebrities that seem to think because they are famous that they know more about international politics than those that have been in the "field" for decades.
Bush is DEAD SET on war with Iraq, and here you are trying to blame protestors for making it happen?
I don't blame them for MAKING it happen. But they are making the war outcome more likely, as I explained above. Sorry if common sense doesn't work for you.
Saddam displaying marches on TV and stating 'World against USA' is just him practicing the long-standing American tradition of spin control.
The difference is that in America you get to see both sides of a debate and then experience the spin. In countries such as Iraq, you see the marches against the war--do you see Powell's evidence broadcast? Do you see Bush's State of the Union address? No, you just hear what Saddam wants you to hear. You can't compare THAT spin to the spin that happens in free societies.
If I was being threatened constantly by the USA, I'd want to convince my population there wasn't really going to be a war, because it would scare the shit out of them otherwise.
What? If you were being threatened constantly and knew that war was imminent, you'd want your population to believe there wasn't going to BE a war? Wow... How honest you are, just like Saddam. If you represent the peaceniks, I rest my case. It appears yours is based on disinformation--or would be if you were the ruler of a country as opposed to an anonymous coward on Slashdot.
Everyone knows how dirty the US fights.
As opposed to Saddam? Anyone that prefers the way that Saddam fights to the way the U.S. fights is either uninformed or, probably, just has a bone to pick with the U.S. Either way, the person isn't in a position to make an educated comment on the topic.
I don't know why. Like I (think) I said before, I'm not pro-war. I'm just 100% against the antiwar people that are counterproductive. They wave their signs, flags, and dream of the 60's when their very actions will probably increase the chance of the conflict they supposedly want to avoid.
As for why, I would have to assume that there is information that we don't know about. Bush is burning a ton of political capital on this and I truly believe that politicians only burn capital this quickly when it is absolultely necessary. And I don't buy the whole "Bush wants more oil for his companies or his friends' companies." I don't realistically think Bush (or any president) would start a war just to improve their business position. And even if they were to consider it, I don't think they'd burn this much domestic and international political capital on it.
I believe there is more information than what we, the public, knows. That's generally the case on any international issue.
And of course Saddam have or have had weapons of mass-destruction, Bush sr sold them to him ! Well that's what I've heard. How's that for hypocrisy ?
I've also heard we didn't land on the moon and that the Israelis were the true masterminds of 9/11.
And not speaking up against a war because it might "empower" Saddam must be the most silly reason ever, it's not the "peaceniks" who will pull the triggers.
Wrong, my dear sir. Just check the news on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday: Nice, photo-op marches. Sunday: Those same marches broadcast on Iraqi TV with the slogan "World against America" or something like that. This sort of thing certainly doesn't turn the heat up on Saddam--the only possible effect it can have is for Saddam to think, "Oh, look at that. There's no way they can attack with so much public opinion against it" (never mind that less than 1% of the population of the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia, and Australia actually marched).
You can argue that Saddam might not read anything into the marches. However, you can't argue that Saddam is now more likely to cooperate. If there is any effect, the only effect those marches can have on Saddam is to embolden him under the false assumption that the protests make him safe. Saddam, thus, continues to resist--making a war more likely.
Speaking up against war is fine. It's clear that many don't agree. I'm not even sure I agree. But street protests such as these show countries and allies divided, and that only helps Iraq.
Saddam will be gone in two months, probably one. I expect it to be messier than the last war but by in large I expect that the war will be won quickly and the peaceniks will be made to look like fools for making so much noise about it. And France will look like idiots. Of course, both of these are already true. 1960's peaceniks are now viewed pretty much as utopian drug-using hippies. France is looked upon as an old world power that was grandfathered into the "new masters of the world" even though they had to be saved in WWII from the Germans and really have no business being on the U.N. Security Council as a veto-wielding member. What did they do to deserve THAT position?
Also gotta love the new congestion tax they implemented in London.
Off-topic, but my karma can take the hit.
Ironically, the anti-war protesters this weekend have actually made war MORE probable and probably cost many lives. They went out there, looked like 1960's peaceniks, and the next day Saddam transmitted that on Iraqi TV and said that it showed the world united against America, yadda yadda yadda. So now Iraqis (may) be more inclined to think their leader is innocent. They may be more inclined to fight to the death because they think their cause is just. Saddam himself may think that all that public opinion in his favor is going to protect him. And what you have is an emboldened Iraq that is more likely to resist and draw this out, leading to war. Thanks, Peaceniks, what a great job you did this weekend.
If the peaceniks wanted to help they should have gone to the streets protesting: "Saddam, cooperate NOW to avoid war!" THAT makes sense. THAT'S what peace-hugging France is even saying. That would convey that the peaceniks are against war but the burden is placed on Iraq to avoid it.
I'm not pro-war. But I'm 100% anti-peaceniks. They have the right to protest, of course. But it is sad that those who do so truly don't realize the consequences of their actions and don't realize that their actions probably emboldened the target and will end up costing lives on both sides.
Oh well.
If we're going to have an income tax it should be something like:
1. How much did you make in 2002?
2. Subtract $10,000 for personal allowance.
3. Subtract $4000 for each dependent.
4. Multiply remaining amount by 10%.
5. That's your tax.
In fact, we shouldn't have an income tax, especially a punishing one that taxes more the more you make. Rather, we should have a consumption or sales tax. The rich will pay more because they spend more. Goods such as food can be exempt. No need to do an income tax return because you pay your taxes on a daily basis when you buy something. No income tax evasion. The IRS can be MUCH smaller since it just collects the taxes from businesses--heck, that can be done by the state in most states where a sales tax already exists. In all, a national sales tax just makes sense--but only if it is INSTEAD of an income tax.
You want to hear something evil? In Mexico they have a national sales tax of 15% *AND* they have an income tax that goes all the way up to 35%. Talk about double taxation.
The problem is that for that to happen the client has to have already downloaded the spam. Granted with faster connections that doesn't always take TOO long, but the idea is to protect the client from spam--if they've already downloaded it then you're just not showing everything that was downloaded.
Additionally, having that on the client side means all the clients have to have the filtering software. All the clients need to update the filters or approaches as necessary. This is a perfect application for a server-side system.
Baynesian can and should be done on the server. A big help will be when commonly used email programs have a feature to automatically submit missed spam to their server so the server can refine their Baynesian statistics--but the solution is on the server, not on the client.
IMHO.
You: I think you might be wrong. I am too lazy to look it up, but, I am quite sure that the courts have rulled against this. Some guy was "sucking" power from the powerlines strung over his property(farm???). Power company noticed, sued and won.
Re-read my post, please. I said if you could somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection WITHOUT EVEN TOUCHING THE BOX OR PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, I'd support your right to do so. Two dollars says the person you are talking about tapped into the electric company power lines which is not what I was saying I'd support your right to do.
The EMISSIONS of the electric company produces the hum you hear on a portable radio if you get too close to power lines. If you bring a portable radio close to power lines and hear the hum, I support your right to do that without paying for it. If you actually TAP INTO the electric company's infrastructure and steal power, that's something else and of course you're going to get busted for it.
That's certainly the case now, but it's certainly not clear how respected that was during WWII. Especially in Europe everyone was boming everyone elses population centers. Other posts in this thread elaborate on why.
Could the American psyche really reconcile all those schools and hospitals and homes with shortening the war?
Let's put it this way: If someone launches a surprise attack on my country while still publically searching for peace, kills thousnads of my countrymen including civilians, have caused the country to be on a war footing for years and we just want it over, and am faced with the prospect of losing potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of additional countrymen, yes, I could deal with that.
It's war, people get killed. And if it's a choice of one of my countrymen getting killed or 2 enemy deaths, sorry, I'll go for the 2 enemy deaths. It's not nice, it's not fair, maybe not even moral. But it's war.
Unless the monument is religious, screw it. He who parks targets next to historical monuments will be the proud owner of fewer historical monuments.
Understandable, but the reality is that France is no longer relevant. They might have the third largest nuclear arsenal but since nuclear bombs haven't been used in 50+ years and hopefully won't be, that doesn't mean much.
What was the last war that France won?
The only reason they have a place on the security council is to make them feel better after WWII. They lost. We had to rescue them. If there's going to be permanent security council members it ought to be the U.S., England, Russia, and maybe China (based on sheer population). France is neither geographically large nor does it have a large population nor does it have much of a recent record on military strength or success in wars. They are just part of the "old world" that got grandfathered into the new "masters of the universe." France's only clout is really in their history and in their status as a permanent member of the security council. Otherwise it'd be no different than Belgium, Italy, or Spain.
France is irrelevant. They are a dog that barks but doesn't bite. Waiting for more inspections and peace in the middle east might not be the wrong approach, but France is putting all their eggs in one basket on this one. If the U.S. and England attack Iraq anyway then France's illusions to actually having influence in world events will officially be over.
As opposed to the left-wing communistic tendencies of the past administration and its wife.
Don't let the Republicans fool you, they're extremely racist
You look stupid when you make comments like that. Everyone is different and just because someone believes in smaller government, free market, and personal responsibility doesn't mean they are racist.
Acquisition of more power
I don't see Bush as president as any more powerful today then he was when he took office. The government has got some new powers (worrisome), but they were passed by Democrats as well as Republicans.
Acquisition of oil.
What oil has been acquired?
Acquisition of power or oil for his cronies who put him in office.
Again, what power (other than that passed by Congress which is close to 50/50 and had Democratic support) and what oil?
Ken Lay still walks free, after having bilked the retirement of thousands of employees and worth of the shares of perhaps millions of shareholders.
And Saddam still walks free after gassing his own people and starting conflicts with Iraq and Kuwait that led to millions of deaths. Which is the bigger crime?
Ken Lay nearly singlehandedly put W in office.
Hmm, and I could have sworn it was the voters.
Bush is a criminal, plain and simple.
Oh hogwash. You can disagree with his policies and priorities and politics, but he's not a criminal. What has he done that is illegal? Even Clinton has him beat based on actual crimes committed. Please learn the difference between someone being a criminal and someone having different beliefs than you do. Thank you.