Use spamassassin's Bayesian filter. It combines the Bayesian method with old school regex matching. I get maybe two spams a week that don't get marked as spam.
I'm not sure if SA does this, but I think the ideal approach is to take the Bayesian approach and, in addition to going from tokens, use Bayesian methods on the regexes matched. Thus, you could use a huge number of regexes that would work at a higher level than simple tokenizing (they could discern the bogus HTML code that's used to confuse naive Bayesian scanners).
Madden's still not as good as FoF in that regard, though.
The number one issue I have with Madden 2004 is the inability to load the NFL Europe teams into NFL divisions. I'd like to run a franchise-mode simulation where I put an NFLE team in the NFL.
Except that every few years, EA performs such major surgery on the engine (at least that's what they do for Madden) that it is, for all intents and purposes a new engine.
Globalization makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Why do you think the WTO is protested everywhere it goes?
The WTO is to free trade as Budweiser is to a quality beer. It is an enemy to free trade and should be done away with.
Meanwhile, though, I will challenge your assertion directly. Throughout history, free trade has done nothing less than make the rich richer and the poor even richer than that.
The most recent example that can provide a framework for understanding the economics of outsourcing is that of the current Asian Tiger economies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore). Thirty and fifty years ago, they were, for all intents and purposes, Third World economies (Japan being there because of military devastation). They all realized that their only real resource was the labor of their populations. In order to build wealth, that labor would need to be converted into wealth.
Any businessman will tell you that, when you're selling something in a new market where there's already well-established competition, you need to either make a product that is much, much better than the competition or be the cheaper one.
In the labor market at that time, Japanese/Korean/Taiwanese/etc. labor was inferior to that of the West. So that meant that they had to underprice the West to get through the door. And the workers were virtual slaves. But what happened? A middle class developed from those virtual slaves. That middle class was able to educate itself and start its own businesses, accelerating its economic growth.
The USA became the dominant economy on earth by being cheaper than European (specifically British) industry.
So what do these instructive examples indicate that, as more and more labor gets outsourced to India, and other Third World countries, those countries will develop functional Western style economies and become economically on a par with the West (with the aforementioned Asian Tigers being part of the West for this purpose).
Indeed, the outsourcing is one of those fads in business. It's the latest snake oil being sold to business by MBAs.
You know what the last such snake oil was? It was IT. For around 25 years, the mantra was that it didn't matter how much you spent on IT, any investment in IT would pay off tenfold. As a result of this IT mania, we had the dot-com boom and bust.
Lo and behold, businesses discovered that some IT investments were paying off massively. But many of the investments ended up being disastrous losers.
The same will happen with outsourcing. Businesses will realize that it's not a panacea. In two or three years, we'll see a front-cover story in Forbes reporting just that. And with that, the shareholders will stop clamoring for management to outsource. It will become a case of, "what are the specific costs and benefits of outsourcing this project?"
Actually the biggest barriers to trade are erected by the US.
I speak of agricultural subsidies. They're little more than robbing from the productive (industries and services) to support the unproductive (farmers). It's for this reason that the Republicans are enemies of capitalism and this country will not be well unless and until we can swim in the blood of Republicans and Democrats.
You presume, of course, that you get a benefit from Social Security. The fact is, given essentially inexorable trends, you're not going to see a single benefit from Social Security if you're under 35.
There are ways that the system can be extended. One is to increase taxation to the point where essentially everybody on SS has a private slave.
Another is to increase the labor pool. This would necessitate a few social changes, such as:
a total ban on abortions
gov't sanctioned rape
a total ban on birth control
Another way to increase the labor pool is to find some Third World country with a large, poor population with low life expectancies and invade them. The ideal candidate for this, Mexico, is getting better economically. We'd better act fast.
Assuming that you dislike slavery, support women's rights, and generally believe that peace is a good thing, it seems that you prefer a system with a zero-chance of winning (hey, at least it's certainty!) to a system with a non-zero chance of winning.
You, sir, and your ilk are a disgrace to conservatism.
In the 1960's, the goal of the New Left was nothing less than the destruction of Western Civilization. Now the demon spawn of the New Left is a new conservatism that has decided that the best way to defend conservatism is by attacking Western Civilization.
We're conservatives, we're better people than the Left. And idiots like you are entirely willing to join the Left in beating down what you purport to protect.
Of course, if no one in the US has a job, then the employment will go up because there's all of a sudden a rather large supply of labor. At that point the US becomes the low-cost supplier of labor that's taking jobs from Indians and Chinese.
What globalization will do is reduce the inequality between rich and poor. The "left" that is intent on derailing economic globalization is no different than the landed gentry that opposed the industrial revolution because it threatened their hold on wealth.
We hear the talk of the "wealthiest 10%" and how they're oppressing the other 90% through their wealth. Well, I've got news for you: the median USian is in the wealthiest 10% of the world's population. In any redistribution of wealth, it is patently obvious that it is the wealthy who will decline.
So what happens? The US "declines" to the point where the average USian is in the top 50% worldwide. Wow, that's so unfair!
Why would burning AAC's to CD and then ripping to MP3 be any less lossy than straight transcoding?
Considering that all transcoding does is render the AAC data into a waveform and then translate the waveform into MP3, what difference would storing the waveform on some intermediate medium make?
In my town, the police 7-digit number (867-6000) is to the station. However, late at night, when there's only one cop in town (small town of 4,500 over 20 square miles; this being Massachusetts, there's no county cops [the Sheriff's departments exist strictly for patronage and providing the courts with cops]), calling that number will connect you with an answering machine.
Then set your node to 'transient', and set your datastore size to an arbitrarily low size.
In which case I'm nothing more than a leech, which is unethical in a network such as Freenet (as well as depriving me, unless I'm mistaken) of the ability to publish.
Otherwise, simply don't run a Freenet node. I choose to run a node because I believe in both the cause of the project, and the very real life-saving benefit it serves to dissidents every single day.
As do I. But any system that does not provide me with a level of control over what I relay (even if it's simple killfiling). Freenet in effect subsumes the speech rights of the individual (of which the highest right is the right not to speak) in favor of the group. As a result, Freenet is, paradoxically, a network that is opposed to free speech.
Any of the criticisms of Freenet can be equally applied to the internet as a whole. That some would abuse it does not stop me from using it as it was meant to be used. I don't think there are many who are more disgusted by child pornography than Ian, but he can't control it without allowing for control of every other "objectionable material" on Freenet.
On Freenet, is it not true that if a given piece of data goes more than a certain amount of time without being requested, it ages out and basically disappears? Thus, if someone comes along 1 microsecond after the last aging, it is as censored as if someone had decided to explicitly delete the data. In a similar way, if some method could be developed where a node could decide not to pass on data matching a given hash, this should not adversely affect the network, assuming a sufficiently interconnected topology. It would take a large number of nodes deciding to block a given hash to censor something, much as it would take a large number of users to decline to search for something to age data out of the network.
What would happen is that lists of objectionable material with keys would be disseminated, probably in some type of collaborative system (much like the anti-spam blacklists). I am generally opposed to the anti-spam lists, but in the case of Freenet, I don't believe that the anti-spam problems come into play. My main objection to the anti-spam lists (and the admins who use them) is the fact that users are effectively chained to a given mailserver. Assuming that Freenet nodes connect to many others (and even better, change which ones they connect with constantly), this objection fades.
I suspect that there are many who would be completely willing to join Freenet and actively participate in relaying content if support for this was implemented. This would have the side-effect of making it even harder to censor content, because there would be many more nodes.
I do think that Speech should be absolutely free. I don't even think that child porn should be illegal.
However, I think that Freenet is a bad idea.
Free Speech is a right. However, with rights come responsibilities. Anonymity destroys responsibility (as reading the AC comments to Slashdot demonstrates quite easily). For this reason, I oppose Freenet, as I oppose any system that delivers anonymity for this reason.
This does not mean that I think that Freenet should be outlawed; to think so would of course be fundamentally incompatible with a belief in free speech.
The question is one of choice. You do not (afaik) have the power to say that you will not transmit material signed by a given key or matching a given checksum.
For instance, I find certain genres of music (country-pop most notably) abhorrent. This does not mean that I in any wish for country-pop music to be outlawed. But it does mean that I do not want to see my property used for country-pop music. If a friend wants to use my computer to play country-pop music, I refuse to allow them to do so. If I owned a record store, I would not carry music I deemed to be country-pop.
When licensing software under the GPL, the FSF recommends doing it along these lines: this software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, either version 2 of said license or (at your [the licensee's] option) any later version.
Thus, when GPL3 is published, you can take any code licensed to you (assuming the license was through a clause like the above) under GPL2 and consider it to be GPL3 for your further distribution.
Qt is dual-licensed. There's a GPL licensed version, which is what every Linux distributor (afaik) includes, and a proprietarily licensed version, which is identical to the GPL version. The effect of this is that if you distribute a piece of software that was compiled with a GPL version of Qt, the only license you can use is the GPL. If you were to distribute it under any other license, TrollTech could sue you claiming statutory damages (in the US) of $150,000 per build.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you considered vesafb? Then at least you can get to 1280x1024...
Apt is in contribs. Not sure if it works with urpmi repositories, though.
Hmmm... there's an idea... apt-urpmi, a simple wrapper script that converts as many apt-get commands into relevant urpmi commands....
Wasn't Paul Vixie, the creator of anti-spam vigilantes MAPS, the CTO of AboveNet?
Use spamassassin's Bayesian filter. It combines the Bayesian method with old school regex matching. I get maybe two spams a week that don't get marked as spam.
I'm not sure if SA does this, but I think the ideal approach is to take the Bayesian approach and, in addition to going from tokens, use Bayesian methods on the regexes matched. Thus, you could use a huge number of regexes that would work at a higher level than simple tokenizing (they could discern the bogus HTML code that's used to confuse naive Bayesian scanners).
Madden's still not as good as FoF in that regard, though.
The number one issue I have with Madden 2004 is the inability to load the NFL Europe teams into NFL divisions. I'd like to run a franchise-mode simulation where I put an NFLE team in the NFL.
Except that every few years, EA performs such major surgery on the engine (at least that's what they do for Madden) that it is, for all intents and purposes a new engine.
As one might expect, you're ignoring facts.
The WTO is to free trade as Budweiser is to a quality beer. It is an enemy to free trade and should be done away with.
Meanwhile, though, I will challenge your assertion directly. Throughout history, free trade has done nothing less than make the rich richer and the poor even richer than that.
The most recent example that can provide a framework for understanding the economics of outsourcing is that of the current Asian Tiger economies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore). Thirty and fifty years ago, they were, for all intents and purposes, Third World economies (Japan being there because of military devastation). They all realized that their only real resource was the labor of their populations. In order to build wealth, that labor would need to be converted into wealth.
Any businessman will tell you that, when you're selling something in a new market where there's already well-established competition, you need to either make a product that is much, much better than the competition or be the cheaper one.
In the labor market at that time, Japanese/Korean/Taiwanese/etc. labor was inferior to that of the West. So that meant that they had to underprice the West to get through the door. And the workers were virtual slaves. But what happened? A middle class developed from those virtual slaves. That middle class was able to educate itself and start its own businesses, accelerating its economic growth.
The USA became the dominant economy on earth by being cheaper than European (specifically British) industry.
So what do these instructive examples indicate that, as more and more labor gets outsourced to India, and other Third World countries, those countries will develop functional Western style economies and become economically on a par with the West (with the aforementioned Asian Tigers being part of the West for this purpose).
Indeed, the outsourcing is one of those fads in business. It's the latest snake oil being sold to business by MBAs.
You know what the last such snake oil was? It was IT. For around 25 years, the mantra was that it didn't matter how much you spent on IT, any investment in IT would pay off tenfold. As a result of this IT mania, we had the dot-com boom and bust.
Lo and behold, businesses discovered that some IT investments were paying off massively. But many of the investments ended up being disastrous losers.
The same will happen with outsourcing. Businesses will realize that it's not a panacea. In two or three years, we'll see a front-cover story in Forbes reporting just that. And with that, the shareholders will stop clamoring for management to outsource. It will become a case of, "what are the specific costs and benefits of outsourcing this project?"
Actually the biggest barriers to trade are erected by the US.
I speak of agricultural subsidies. They're little more than robbing from the productive (industries and services) to support the unproductive (farmers). It's for this reason that the Republicans are enemies of capitalism and this country will not be well unless and until we can swim in the blood of Republicans and Democrats.
You presume, of course, that you get a benefit from Social Security. The fact is, given essentially inexorable trends, you're not going to see a single benefit from Social Security if you're under 35.
There are ways that the system can be extended. One is to increase taxation to the point where essentially everybody on SS has a private slave.
Another is to increase the labor pool. This would necessitate a few social changes, such as:
Another way to increase the labor pool is to find some Third World country with a large, poor population with low life expectancies and invade them. The ideal candidate for this, Mexico, is getting better economically. We'd better act fast.
Assuming that you dislike slavery, support women's rights, and generally believe that peace is a good thing, it seems that you prefer a system with a zero-chance of winning (hey, at least it's certainty!) to a system with a non-zero chance of winning.
You, sir, and your ilk are a disgrace to conservatism.
In the 1960's, the goal of the New Left was nothing less than the destruction of Western Civilization. Now the demon spawn of the New Left is a new conservatism that has decided that the best way to defend conservatism is by attacking Western Civilization.
We're conservatives, we're better people than the Left. And idiots like you are entirely willing to join the Left in beating down what you purport to protect.
Of course, if no one in the US has a job, then the employment will go up because there's all of a sudden a rather large supply of labor. At that point the US becomes the low-cost supplier of labor that's taking jobs from Indians and Chinese.
What globalization will do is reduce the inequality between rich and poor. The "left" that is intent on derailing economic globalization is no different than the landed gentry that opposed the industrial revolution because it threatened their hold on wealth.
We hear the talk of the "wealthiest 10%" and how they're oppressing the other 90% through their wealth. Well, I've got news for you: the median USian is in the wealthiest 10% of the world's population. In any redistribution of wealth, it is patently obvious that it is the wealthy who will decline.
So what happens? The US "declines" to the point where the average USian is in the top 50% worldwide. Wow, that's so unfair!
Why would burning AAC's to CD and then ripping to MP3 be any less lossy than straight transcoding?
Considering that all transcoding does is render the AAC data into a waveform and then translate the waveform into MP3, what difference would storing the waveform on some intermediate medium make?
Per the Massachusetts General Laws:
MGL Chapter 166, Section 14A, Subsection E
In my town, the police 7-digit number (867-6000) is to the station. However, late at night, when there's only one cop in town (small town of 4,500 over 20 square miles; this being Massachusetts, there's no county cops [the Sheriff's departments exist strictly for patronage and providing the courts with cops]), calling that number will connect you with an answering machine.
IIRC, his daughter was 16... she could have been driving.
"heure" can translate as either "hour" or as an indeterminate period of time. English inherits some of the latter usages ("Man of the Hour").
Where do you get the idea that I'm saying it's morally wrong to donate to freenet?
Are you sure you're replying to the right post?
In which case I'm nothing more than a leech, which is unethical in a network such as Freenet (as well as depriving me, unless I'm mistaken) of the ability to publish.
As do I. But any system that does not provide me with a level of control over what I relay (even if it's simple killfiling). Freenet in effect subsumes the speech rights of the individual (of which the highest right is the right not to speak) in favor of the group. As a result, Freenet is, paradoxically, a network that is opposed to free speech.
On Freenet, is it not true that if a given piece of data goes more than a certain amount of time without being requested, it ages out and basically disappears? Thus, if someone comes along 1 microsecond after the last aging, it is as censored as if someone had decided to explicitly delete the data. In a similar way, if some method could be developed where a node could decide not to pass on data matching a given hash, this should not adversely affect the network, assuming a sufficiently interconnected topology. It would take a large number of nodes deciding to block a given hash to censor something, much as it would take a large number of users to decline to search for something to age data out of the network.
What would happen is that lists of objectionable material with keys would be disseminated, probably in some type of collaborative system (much like the anti-spam blacklists). I am generally opposed to the anti-spam lists, but in the case of Freenet, I don't believe that the anti-spam problems come into play. My main objection to the anti-spam lists (and the admins who use them) is the fact that users are effectively chained to a given mailserver. Assuming that Freenet nodes connect to many others (and even better, change which ones they connect with constantly), this objection fades.
I suspect that there are many who would be completely willing to join Freenet and actively participate in relaying content if support for this was implemented. This would have the side-effect of making it even harder to censor content, because there would be many more nodes.
I do think that Speech should be absolutely free. I don't even think that child porn should be illegal.
However, I think that Freenet is a bad idea.
Free Speech is a right. However, with rights come responsibilities. Anonymity destroys responsibility (as reading the AC comments to Slashdot demonstrates quite easily). For this reason, I oppose Freenet, as I oppose any system that delivers anonymity for this reason.
This does not mean that I think that Freenet should be outlawed; to think so would of course be fundamentally incompatible with a belief in free speech.
And a system in which my property can be used for purposes I find repugnant is a system where I may as well not have the property at all.
The question is one of choice. You do not (afaik) have the power to say that you will not transmit material signed by a given key or matching a given checksum.
For instance, I find certain genres of music (country-pop most notably) abhorrent. This does not mean that I in any wish for country-pop music to be outlawed. But it does mean that I do not want to see my property used for country-pop music. If a friend wants to use my computer to play country-pop music, I refuse to allow them to do so. If I owned a record store, I would not carry music I deemed to be country-pop.
There's a huge difference between tolerating something and actively propagating it.
When licensing software under the GPL, the FSF recommends doing it along these lines: this software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, either version 2 of said license or (at your [the licensee's] option) any later version.
Thus, when GPL3 is published, you can take any code licensed to you (assuming the license was through a clause like the above) under GPL2 and consider it to be GPL3 for your further distribution.
Qt is dual-licensed. There's a GPL licensed version, which is what every Linux distributor (afaik) includes, and a proprietarily licensed version, which is identical to the GPL version. The effect of this is that if you distribute a piece of software that was compiled with a GPL version of Qt, the only license you can use is the GPL. If you were to distribute it under any other license, TrollTech could sue you claiming statutory damages (in the US) of $150,000 per build.