Any of the intervening machines can use an RBL - with or without your knowledge or permission
I also run my own mailserver and find that zen.spamhaus blocks so much of the spam that I was able to stop using spamassassin, whose extra load was not worth the few spam emails that got through to it. I don't generally see "intervening machines" - the email comes right from the sender's institution or email provider (gmail, etc.) to my server. It might go through a few machines inside the sender's organization, but if one of those uses spamhaus that's that organization's decision. Spamhaus mainly blocks mail coming from dynamic IPs, which is where is spam is coming from.
Actually, the new interface allows you to click on a moderation modifier as well as voting '+' or '-'. So you are indicating how you would have moderated the comment, and since the system presumably knows how the comment was actually moderated, it can use your input as metamoderation. It's not exactly the same, no, but seems to be nearly equivalent to the old system, but with a different interface. I think the new design may introduce less bias and do a better job of gathering metamoderation data, since you don't see how the moderator voted.
Also, why are you complaining if you are not even willing to moderate? I'm also not thrilled with the quality of many of the comments and certain tendencies among the moderators, but at least I moderate to try to make it a little better.
Metamoderation is now accomplished by a system that takes the form of voting on comments - but the system uses your votes to judge the previous comments' moderation. it's the same thing with a different interface.
Never tried it; had to look it up. It looks interesting. It's a dwm derivative and may not have been around when I adopted dwm. I like that dwm is 2000 lines of C and nothing else. Another interesting WM that I would look at if I were in the mood to look at WMs is xmonad.
I appreciate the reply, but I don't think I understand it. I like my setup because it saves me time; I don't fret over what color the close boxes should be, because my windows don't have any close boxes.
The only one of your items that means anything to me is your mention of the apps being "better integrated". But whenever I've looked at this it seems to mean I need to use the apps that, as you put it, are "blessed" by the DE, and those are inferior to the programs that I prefer to use. I was really looking for examples of this famous "integration" that are compelling and flexible enough that I would consider altering my setup in order to enjoy them.
Can someone explain to me, preferably by giving me a link to an excellent write-up, why Gnome or any other desktop environment would be better than what I have been happy with for five years now - the dwm window manager with no desktop environment at all? For example, I can start a GUI application by typing alt-p and hitting the first letters of any executable; I don't seem to need any task bars or icons; I can move windows around at will and tile them in different ways without taking my hands away from the keyboard. And my old Thinkpad x31 seems plenty snappy, for some reason. I'm sure there are some real advantages to using a desktop environment that I'm just not getting, so please educate me.
If you're going to use python as a shell you don't use the simple interpreter, in which you will have to do all that. You use ipython, especially in its system shell mode. Then you just need to type this:
ls
All the power of python in your command line! You just don't get job control, because you're one layer up, running on bash or whatever. Perhaps some day someone will create a real python shell; that would be even greater.
no sane judge would issue a search warrant based on this type of flimsy circumstantial evidence alone
I wish this were true, but either it's not or we have a significant number of insane judges. It's legal to buy electricity, too, and lightbulbs, but search warrants are commonly issued for suspicious patterns of power usage or evidence of the installation of grow lights (thermal imaging).
We really-really need some decentralized social networking thing.
My social networking thing is completely decentralized. It consists of my own domains and websites and email. I am in complete control and it works exactly the way I make it work. Why do I need to use some company's product?
Just when Slashdot seems to be devolving into a stagnant pool of mediocrity, along comes an eloquent comment like this. That's a wonderful quote; it reminds me of an interview with Nabokov, where he was asked for his assessment of his position in the world of letters. He replied that the "view is pretty good from up here." Like Picasso, whom I think he admired, he was fully aware of the timeless value of his own work.
That's not nearly as bad as it sounded. Thank you for the clarification. But I still wouldn't want to have to work that way. One minute run + looking at the output + get interrupted by a phonecall = one hour charge. If they billed by actual CPU time that would be much more attractive.
That's helluva lot of computing power right there, at $0.76 an hour.
I've never used the service, but if what another poster says is true, that you pay for a full hour when you use any time at all, the cost per hour can be huge (theoretically infinite). The first debugging session will use up all your money. (There is no avoiding doing some debugging and testing on the finial compute configuration, which will involve a bunch of short runs of your code - each run of a few seconds will count as an hour.)
The summary: "implementing it on GPUs is an open research problem and not the topic of research." Not every problem is well suited to GPUs, which is what FASTRA uses.
Slashdot Mirror
I also run my own mailserver and find that zen.spamhaus blocks so much of the spam that I was able to stop using spamassassin, whose extra load was not worth the few spam emails that got through to it. I don't generally see "intervening machines" - the email comes right from the sender's institution or email provider (gmail, etc.) to my server. It might go through a few machines inside the sender's organization, but if one of those uses spamhaus that's that organization's decision. Spamhaus mainly blocks mail coming from dynamic IPs, which is where is spam is coming from.
So how is the summary "incorrect"?
I use classic as well; this does not seem to affect the metamoderation or moderation interface.
Actually, the new interface allows you to click on a moderation modifier as well as voting '+' or '-'. So you are indicating how you would have moderated the comment, and since the system presumably knows how the comment was actually moderated, it can use your input as metamoderation. It's not exactly the same, no, but seems to be nearly equivalent to the old system, but with a different interface. I think the new design may introduce less bias and do a better job of gathering metamoderation data, since you don't see how the moderator voted.
Also, why are you complaining if you are not even willing to moderate? I'm also not thrilled with the quality of many of the comments and certain tendencies among the moderators, but at least I moderate to try to make it a little better.
Metamoderation is now accomplished by a system that takes the form of voting on comments - but the system uses your votes to judge the previous comments' moderation. it's the same thing with a different interface.
What do you mean? I just metamoderated.
Never tried it; had to look it up. It looks interesting. It's a dwm derivative and may not have been around when I adopted dwm. I like that dwm is 2000 lines of C and nothing else. Another interesting WM that I would look at if I were in the mood to look at WMs is xmonad.
I learned two new words from your comment; for that, at least, I thank you.
I appreciate the reply, but I don't think I understand it. I like my setup because it saves me time; I don't fret over what color the close boxes should be, because my windows don't have any close boxes.
The only one of your items that means anything to me is your mention of the apps being "better integrated". But whenever I've looked at this it seems to mean I need to use the apps that, as you put it, are "blessed" by the DE, and those are inferior to the programs that I prefer to use. I was really looking for examples of this famous "integration" that are compelling and flexible enough that I would consider altering my setup in order to enjoy them.
Can someone explain to me, preferably by giving me a link to an excellent write-up, why Gnome or any other desktop environment would be better than what I have been happy with for five years now - the dwm window manager with no desktop environment at all? For example, I can start a GUI application by typing alt-p and hitting the first letters of any executable; I don't seem to need any task bars or icons; I can move windows around at will and tile them in different ways without taking my hands away from the keyboard. And my old Thinkpad x31 seems plenty snappy, for some reason. I'm sure there are some real advantages to using a desktop environment that I'm just not getting, so please educate me.
Does anyone understand the first sentence of the summary? Or most of the review, for that matter?
Not true. Commands that conflict with python names need escaping; others can be typed just as in a normal shell.
If you're going to use python as a shell you don't use the simple interpreter, in which you will have to do all that. You use ipython, especially in its system shell mode. Then you just need to type this:
ls
All the power of python in your command line! You just don't get job control, because you're one layer up, running on bash or whatever. Perhaps some day someone will create a real python shell; that would be even greater.
Very few Christians keep kosher, so, yes.
I wish this were true, but either it's not or we have a significant number of insane judges. It's legal to buy electricity, too, and lightbulbs, but search warrants are commonly issued for suspicious patterns of power usage or evidence of the installation of grow lights (thermal imaging).
The original article is pretty incoherent, too. And the 'summary' is a clumsy and shameless attempt to plagiarise it.
I've done each one of those things. They're trivial.
My social networking thing is completely decentralized. It consists of my own domains and websites and email. I am in complete control and it works exactly the way I make it work. Why do I need to use some company's product?
Just when Slashdot seems to be devolving into a stagnant pool of mediocrity, along comes an eloquent comment like this. That's a wonderful quote; it reminds me of an interview with Nabokov, where he was asked for his assessment of his position in the world of letters. He replied that the "view is pretty good from up here." Like Picasso, whom I think he admired, he was fully aware of the timeless value of his own work.
This is my first time, so I hope I do this right. Here goes:
WHOOOOOOOSH!
That's not nearly as bad as it sounded. Thank you for the clarification. But I still wouldn't want to have to work that way. One minute run + looking at the output + get interrupted by a phonecall = one hour charge. If they billed by actual CPU time that would be much more attractive.
I've never used the service, but if what another poster says is true, that you pay for a full hour when you use any time at all, the cost per hour can be huge (theoretically infinite). The first debugging session will use up all your money. (There is no avoiding doing some debugging and testing on the finial compute configuration, which will involve a bunch of short runs of your code - each run of a few seconds will count as an hour.)
The summary: "implementing it on GPUs is an open research problem and not the topic of research." Not every problem is well suited to GPUs, which is what FASTRA uses.
The wonderful short story by Rex Stout called "The Next Witness" is germane here.