Unfortunately, Turkey is not the only one with such issues. Check this article from the Seattle Times about Sami, a Saudi Ph.D. student from Idaho that was stupid enough to help out with maintaining a web site. In post 911 America this can mean that you get locked up for two years and finally get kicked out of the country for minor visa application errors.
Up until OS-X, Macs did suck, hard. Imagine an operating system that still did cooperative multi-tasking in the 21st century, meaning that if one application would hang, the entire machine would need a reboot. MacOS is dead and good riddens. My next laptop might very well be a Mac.
I personally set up a wget loop to all linked sites in the article, redirect them to/dev/null and reply to random comments without actually reading these as well. Am I a seperate [s.i.c] category?
Let's see, I use a laptop running linux, just got an ipod mini (thanks IBM!). The hfsplus kernel-module allowed me to mount the ipod filesystem without needing to go to FAT and the ipod charges itself through the USB 2 port on my laptop. I use gtkpod that maintains a music DB that the ipod seems to be perfectly happy to use, I can upload and download music without breaking a sweat. No iTunes though, just listening to my own CD's. And If I want to I've got a carry on HD of 4 Gig that is powered through the host. I don't see many disadvantages here, am I missing something?
That's quite a bit of convoluted logic going on there. The message simply says that there's an EULA in the box, it doesn't say what that EULA is. Extending this, you can possibly claim from this that because practically all software comes with a license agreement, joe average has enough information to decide not to buy any software ever because he might not agree with the license.
It is all very simple, if there is a big EULA attached to a bit of software it either needs to be printed outside of the box, or be obtained as a seperate sheet in the box (that can be read without abiding the EULA), or should have a url with the full EULA on the box. Anything else should make the EULA void as there's no way to know what's in it. Being bound by contracts that you cannot access without being bound by the contract itself should simply be unlawful. That this is not the case already is mindboggling, as the vendor/producer has plenty of opportunity to let the buyer read the contract before buying. Current practice really smells like fraud.
OO has nothing to do with data hiding, it has everything to do with data protection: you want to know at every point in your code that the data in the object is in a meaningful state. This meaningful state is called the invariant of the class. I you cannot state an invariant for a collection of data, you either think harder or make the data publically available. Data hiding is not an end, it is a means of making sure that the invariant is maintained. If there's no invariant, there is no use for data hiding. Classes without an invariant are usually the ones that need getters and setters: in that case, just make the data public and be done with it.
Constructors establish the invariant and methods are the only functions that are allowed to temporarily destroy the invariant to achieve a new state. As long as they re-establish the invariant when they return you're ok. All functions that manipulate the object, but don't need to touch the invariant (i.e., can work by using only the methods), should not be methods themselves, but should preferably be put in in a library.
Good OO design recognizes that OO is not the solution to all problems, it is however a damn good solution for a specific set of problems: managing data with strong interdependencies and relationships. Maintaining these relationships is all a class should do. No more, no less. The rest is handled by simple functions. The way Java is usually taught and practiced breaks this very simple idea in so many ways and at so many levels that it really isn't funny anymore.
Furthermore, regardless of if it might swing the vote, if there's enough evidence of tampering, the election should be cancelled in total and a new election should be held.
I think that if we allow business methods, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude methods of law to the benefits of patenting. Judicial arguments, tactics for influencing the jury, methods for interrogating witnesses, all these would really benefit from the innovative force of patents. Imagine the rise in productivity and innovation for the entire litigation section if their Intellectual Property could be adequately protected! So I think that whenever a argument from a lawyer is made in favour of patents we should immediately point him to the backwardness of his own sector and point him to the wonders of innovation that can be achieved there by IP.
It said that it disproportionally rewards large businesses, not that it large businesses get more of those patents (which probably is true also). I work for a small IT firm that is also into the IP-biz. This is mainly for two purposes: (a) defensive, and (b) being worth more in case of an acquisition/increasing shareholder value. As far as I can see, there is no intrinsic worth seen in the patents themselves, they are more a means to achieve a higher valuation in the eye of other companies/shareholders. Licensing the technology is a non-issue, as there's a clear understanding that the process of doing that will turn a technology firm in a litigation firm.
The companies actually seeking license revenue are the large ones. Them and the litigation sharks.
I'm the one doing the research for this company and so I'm involved in both the invention process (yes, I'm an inventor! Big deal. I think of something less than trivial and if it serves the companies purposes, we pursue it.), and the strategic pursuit of the patents themselves. We will patent anything that is even remotely interesting for us as the perceived value is found in the amount of patents, not their actual content. I'm in contact with quite a few other companies of small scale and the situation does not seem to be radically different there.
This works both ways. I often check out GUI apps for doing some stuff that I would otherwise do with a command line, simply because I can't be bothered to try to find the cl utility and read its man page. Almost invariably I end up with a disillusion where I'm looking like mad through various inaptly named menu structures in the hope I find something that does what I need it to do.
The problem with the menu approach is that first you don't know if the function is supported by the app, then you have to look in 'Tools', 'Data', 'View', 'Edit' main menus in the hope that the feature is hidden there.
Usually I get frustrated after 10 minutes, wipe the GUI app from my system, find the proper utility, read the manpage and am done in 5, cursing myself that I once again fell for that gui-is-easy myth. CLI's aren't easy and neither are GUI's, they both take time to become competent in.
Not at all. I claim bias in the media because they state as settled fact things very much in dispute, like Global Warming, they report the claims of left leaning groups as fact and the claims of the right as "claims from the right wing thinktank.....". And so on and so on.
Global warming is mostly in dispute because it is (a) not an immediate consequence of Newtonian laws, the only stuff regarded as being completely true, and (b) politically highly inconvenient, as no-one likes this. The theory of global warming is one century old, it has been predicted, and it is measured. It's now one degree warmer than a century ago. It is merely highly inconvenient for current governments, hence lots of funding goes to efforts to disprove it, to no avail. The political bias in science you mention is not for global warming, it's against it. Lots of funding has gone to dispel the global warming hypothesis, all to no avail, the evidence is on the side of the global warming hypothesis.
Just to put it bluntly: if you see an avenue to divorce the measured global warming from the consequences of human action, I'm sure your current government will be eager to fund you. So on whose side is the political bias here?
Interesting take on this, but do tell, what other nation outside of the US thinks the US media portrayal of events is even remotely centrist?
I've been thinking hard, but indeed Western Europe doesn't qualify, neither does Canada, New Zealand, nor Australia. Russia doesn't have free press (nor does Italy), Brazil and the rest of South American nation as so far they have a free press seem to be more left-wing than Europe. Eastern Europe loves their new-found freedom but are still very socialist. Which leaves Africa, the Arab countries, Japan, Persia, India and China who probably view CNN as an American propaganda machine.
Thus, as far as I can see, the US media landscape is globally seen as a complete right-wing outlier.
(*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
Care to explain?
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Not really, it can start as a positive filter with an immediate reply to mails not abiding it if you so chose.
(*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
So they don't use it for a while.
(*) Asshats
They're here to stay.
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
This simply makes spam more expensive, hence less profitable.
(*) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
Second order effects. If (and it's a big if) 'some' measure against spam proves to be effective, spam will get caught earlier. I personally believe hash cash is not the best of solutions, but it might be a start without going to two-way verification of sender-recipient right away.
(*) Whitelists suck
Yeah, but their not that bad. AOL, MSN, Yahoo! and others that send tens of thousands of messages a day to people that do not find the message interesting enough to whitelist them can simply go to hell.
Re:The real problem here is not header forging.
on
Beat Spam Using Hashcash
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
hmm, you're right. Didn't think of web-based email. Still, you might be able to hack something together with javascript in order to do the calculation client-side. Getting it widely implemented doesn't seem to be such a big deal, as you might be able to start with whitelisting anything that used a hash to generate the email and notify people that didn't use it that their mail was almost rejected.
White-lists are the ultimate form of opt-in. If you subscribe to a bulk email list such as a mailing list, it is very easy for them to point you to various ways to white-list them in your mailer. If you don't want to do this, don't subscribe to bulk email. For all other purposes there's a calculation to be performed.
The 'bayesian' filters are actually very naive. Spammers do get through to them. For me it's about 10% that gets through. This still amounts to about 20 emails a day that I have to throw into my spam bin for retraining, and when spammers find a new way to trick the filter, it goes way up. So I don't think this is a long term solution.
For header-forging, you need to know what mailing lists the recipient is subscribed to.
For normal use (except mailing lists), the cpu-cycles to calculate the hash are non-consequential. Modern day computers are too powerful for everyday needs anyway, who cares that it takes 20 extra seconds to send a single email, if its done in the background, no one would notice. If you need to send to 100 addresses, it takes 2000 seconds, still no big deal. What language is that in?
Mathematical English.
If so, it's because none have been shown to be practical.
No, it's just reluctance to change. Email currently is a very open system and has been around for a long time. Any change in that system is bound to be opposed, and it takes a long time to change. The solution to spam can take three forms:
Abandon email alltogether
Evolve into a system that is robust to spammers (hash cash combined with server-side tracing of senders)
Replace it by something completely different (probably corporate, think Microsoft email)
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, Turkey is not the only one with such issues. Check this article from the Seattle Times about Sami, a Saudi Ph.D. student from Idaho that was stupid enough to help out with maintaining a web site. In post 911 America this can mean that you get locked up for two years and finally get kicked out of the country for minor visa application errors.
Up until OS-X, Macs did suck, hard. Imagine an operating system that still did cooperative multi-tasking in the 21st century, meaning that if one application would hang, the entire machine would need a reboot. MacOS is dead and good riddens. My next laptop might very well be a Mac.
I personally set up a wget loop to all linked sites in the article, redirect them to /dev/null and reply to random comments without actually reading these as well. Am I a seperate [s.i.c] category?
Let's see, I use a laptop running linux, just got an ipod mini (thanks IBM!). The hfsplus kernel-module allowed me to mount the ipod filesystem without needing to go to FAT and the ipod charges itself through the USB 2 port on my laptop. I use gtkpod that maintains a music DB that the ipod seems to be perfectly happy to use, I can upload and download music without breaking a sweat. No iTunes though, just listening to my own CD's. And If I want to I've got a carry on HD of 4 Gig that is powered through the host. I don't see many disadvantages here, am I missing something?
Why is the URL not on the box?
It is all very simple, if there is a big EULA attached to a bit of software it either needs to be printed outside of the box, or be obtained as a seperate sheet in the box (that can be read without abiding the EULA), or should have a url with the full EULA on the box. Anything else should make the EULA void as there's no way to know what's in it. Being bound by contracts that you cannot access without being bound by the contract itself should simply be unlawful. That this is not the case already is mindboggling, as the vendor/producer has plenty of opportunity to let the buyer read the contract before buying. Current practice really smells like fraud.
Wow! Now that's a perceptive comment. I'll have to think about this a bit more, but I think you're right.
Constructors establish the invariant and methods are the only functions that are allowed to temporarily destroy the invariant to achieve a new state. As long as they re-establish the invariant when they return you're ok. All functions that manipulate the object, but don't need to touch the invariant (i.e., can work by using only the methods), should not be methods themselves, but should preferably be put in in a library.
Good OO design recognizes that OO is not the solution to all problems, it is however a damn good solution for a specific set of problems: managing data with strong interdependencies and relationships. Maintaining these relationships is all a class should do. No more, no less. The rest is handled by simple functions. The way Java is usually taught and practiced breaks this very simple idea in so many ways and at so many levels that it really isn't funny anymore.
Furthermore, regardless of if it might swing the vote, if there's enough evidence of tampering, the election should be cancelled in total and a new election should be held.
I think that if we allow business methods, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude methods of law to the benefits of patenting. Judicial arguments, tactics for influencing the jury, methods for interrogating witnesses, all these would really benefit from the innovative force of patents. Imagine the rise in productivity and innovation for the entire litigation section if their Intellectual Property could be adequately protected!
So I think that whenever a argument from a lawyer is made in favour of patents we should immediately point him to the backwardness of his own sector and point him to the wonders of innovation that can be achieved there by IP.
The companies actually seeking license revenue are the large ones. Them and the litigation sharks.
I'm the one doing the research for this company and so I'm involved in both the invention process (yes, I'm an inventor! Big deal. I think of something less than trivial and if it serves the companies purposes, we pursue it.), and the strategic pursuit of the patents themselves. We will patent anything that is even remotely interesting for us as the perceived value is found in the amount of patents, not their actual content. I'm in contact with quite a few other companies of small scale and the situation does not seem to be radically different there.
Please note that in that quote the eulogy was delivered by a programming language, not a GUI.
A bit messy and maybe not to your liking as well, but have you tried chaining dvi2ps and ps2ascii?
This works both ways. I often check out GUI apps for doing some stuff that I would otherwise do with a command line, simply because I can't be bothered to try to find the cl utility and read its man page. Almost invariably I end up with a disillusion where I'm looking like mad through various inaptly named menu structures in the hope I find something that does what I need it to do. The problem with the menu approach is that first you don't know if the function is supported by the app, then you have to look in 'Tools', 'Data', 'View', 'Edit' main menus in the hope that the feature is hidden there. Usually I get frustrated after 10 minutes, wipe the GUI app from my system, find the proper utility, read the manpage and am done in 5, cursing myself that I once again fell for that gui-is-easy myth. CLI's aren't easy and neither are GUI's, they both take time to become competent in.
Global warming is mostly in dispute because it is (a) not an immediate consequence of Newtonian laws, the only stuff regarded as being completely true, and (b) politically highly inconvenient, as no-one likes this. The theory of global warming is one century old, it has been predicted, and it is measured. It's now one degree warmer than a century ago. It is merely highly inconvenient for current governments, hence lots of funding goes to efforts to disprove it, to no avail. The political bias in science you mention is not for global warming, it's against it. Lots of funding has gone to dispel the global warming hypothesis, all to no avail, the evidence is on the side of the global warming hypothesis.
Just to put it bluntly: if you see an avenue to divorce the measured global warming from the consequences of human action, I'm sure your current government will be eager to fund you. So on whose side is the political bias here?
I've been thinking hard, but indeed Western Europe doesn't qualify, neither does Canada, New Zealand, nor Australia. Russia doesn't have free press (nor does Italy), Brazil and the rest of South American nation as so far they have a free press seem to be more left-wing than Europe. Eastern Europe loves their new-found freedom but are still very socialist. Which leaves Africa, the Arab countries, Japan, Persia, India and China who probably view CNN as an American propaganda machine.
Thus, as far as I can see, the US media landscape is globally seen as a complete right-wing outlier.
No problem, calculate the hash offline, go online when it's complete. Yes, it's a pain, but so is putting a stamp on an envelope.
Care to explain?
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Not really, it can start as a positive filter with an immediate reply to mails not abiding it if you so chose.
(*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
So they don't use it for a while.
(*) Asshats
They're here to stay.
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
This simply makes spam more expensive, hence less profitable.
(*) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
Second order effects. If (and it's a big if) 'some' measure against spam proves to be effective, spam will get caught earlier. I personally believe hash cash is not the best of solutions, but it might be a start without going to two-way verification of sender-recipient right away.
(*) Whitelists suck
Yeah, but their not that bad. AOL, MSN, Yahoo! and others that send tens of thousands of messages a day to people that do not find the message interesting enough to whitelist them can simply go to hell.
(*) then stop mailing me!
hmm, you're right. Didn't think of web-based email. Still, you might be able to hack something together with javascript in order to do the calculation client-side. Getting it widely implemented doesn't seem to be such a big deal, as you might be able to start with whitelisting anything that used a hash to generate the email and notify people that didn't use it that their mail was almost rejected.
The 'bayesian' filters are actually very naive. Spammers do get through to them. For me it's about 10% that gets through. This still amounts to about 20 emails a day that I have to throw into my spam bin for retraining, and when spammers find a new way to trick the filter, it goes way up. So I don't think this is a long term solution.
For normal use (except mailing lists), the cpu-cycles to calculate the hash are non-consequential. Modern day computers are too powerful for everyday needs anyway, who cares that it takes 20 extra seconds to send a single email, if its done in the background, no one would notice. If you need to send to 100 addresses, it takes 2000 seconds, still no big deal.
What language is that in?
Mathematical English.
If so, it's because none have been shown to be practical.
No, it's just reluctance to change. Email currently is a very open system and has been around for a long time. Any change in that system is bound to be opposed, and it takes a long time to change. The solution to spam can take three forms:
Abandon email alltogether
Evolve into a system that is robust to spammers (hash cash combined with server-side tracing of senders)
Replace it by something completely different (probably corporate, think Microsoft email)
(*) They do indeed, but spam sucks more.
A single white-list only for sollicited bulk email is not such a big problem. All others can go through the effort to calculate the hash.
(*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
One word, one hyphen: white-listing.
(*) Users of email will not put up with it
Why? It's not costing them anything
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Need an order more worm riddled boxes, i.e. ONE ORDER LESS SPAM.
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
None have ever been tried.
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Sorry dude, I think it will not solve the problem, but will make it appr. one order less effective.