I'm going to be the one LMAO when you try to carry a refrigerator... on your back
Are you claiming that a lardarse that would drive two minutes to the store is then going to load/unload that refrigerator themselves, rather than having it delivered? Seems unlikely.
Serendipitously, Gary Younge's article America is a class act was published yesterday, discussing how meritocracy has decreased in the US in the last 30 years.
I am reminded of something I once read : We do not live in a meritocracy - both shit and cream float
Re: your sig. I personally don't see it as an improvement either, but I do note that one can't now see the numbers of moderations, and sometimes that tells a story in itself...*cough* post of doom *cough*
I'm trying to solve private e-mail problems here, not corporate
I'm saying it's not possible to disentangle the two without weakening the effect you're after (a disincentive to spam). We all use SMTP. It's the same mail systems, transport mechanisms and protocols whether an email is "personal" or "business". Any global "solution" to the spam "problem" (not everyone using mail even agrees it is a problem) has to be one that works universally, not just for certain types of communication. And it also has to deal with those who deliberately subvert and break protocols (I'm sick to death of spam mailers that will simply ignore SMTP 5xx Permanent Fsck 0ff -type errors and will bang on your mail server several times a second until you drop them at your firewall). It's not that I disagree with anything you write, but as you wind up hinting yourself, this is an issue that is unlikely to be solved by technical tweaks alone. The reason I find Paul Graham and the others' work interesting, is that they're trying to defend against the message itself, because that will always be there, regardless of the delivery mechanism. Protocol tweaks will never keep up with modifications to delivery techniques (cf when did IPv6 first start going through committees? How many years away is it still?).
I actually use many of the types of technique you've been describing, but not on my personal accounts (which fortunately don't really suffer the problem, good hygiene in the first place etc). Many of my users are not so fortunate. I can't see myself putting TMDA-type barriers on my personal account. It would seem, well, rude. But as the admin of a mailing list with thousands of recipients, it would be rude bordering on negligence not to take basic anti-spam precautions, and that includes TMDA for subscription and submission.
I would counter that it's not an annoyance that people haven't gone through before
I can think of plenty of occasions when I've sent a message, that if I got back a "jump through this hoop" response, I would just say, "screw that, it's your loss that you didn't get my message". That obviously doesn't apply to double opt-in lists that I'm actively wanting to receive, but how about the email I send you telling you your webserver is not secure? There are many occasions where the message is more important to the recipient than the sender, and TMDA type systems often fail in those situations.
It needs to be set up so that somebody can't send me anything until they are authorized
OK, your choice, but recognise that you are fundamentally altering the nature of mail when you make this decision - it will interfere with your communications and it will cost you more in time and complexity. You may well get less spam, but you will also not receive other messages that you may have wanted. More importantly, not everyone else is going to make the same choice; without widespread adoption, the technique isn't going to solve the problem globally. TMDA is great for lists and similar niches, but I don't think it's a solution for all email communications.
Re:Fairly Simple Spam Mail reduction tips.
on
Plan for Spam, Version 2
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Without using filtering software.
1. Change your e-mail address and drop the old one.
Off to an ugly start. Joe Average will abort on your list before he's even begun
2. Make sure your ISP dosent post or sell your e-mail address.
I'd love to know how you're going to ensure this
5. Only give your e-mail to people you can relitvly trust. If you cant trust them then give them a link to you weppage.
"No mom, you can't have my email address. You just use it to send me e-greetings and I hate getting those from you..."
6. When filling out forms on the network asking for your e-mail... read the companies privicy clames and make sure that you do not check or uncheck something stating that they will send you e-mail or adds.
Spammers lie. We wouldn't have all these problems if spammers were truthful
7. Use spamassasan or other email filtering on your system
How do I do that "without using filtering software" ?
8. Forward all spam to ucs@ftc.gov with all the headers.
You mean uce@ftc.gov. Also note that (depending on the email client) just forwarding a message usually destroys the headers of interest.
9. See if your email client has a automatic bounce back. If so bounce the message back to sender.
How exactly does sending a response to an address that either (a) doesn't exist, (b) exists, but is irrelevant (joe-job), or (c) is an address-validation mechanism, help anything?
10. if you want to post your e-mail address then I would make a graphical jpg, png as your e-mail. That way it slows down most computers from reading it
This one I can't find fault with:) (but note there will be some people get confused/annoyed when they can't just click on a mailto: link, I'm just not of them).
Aside from the sheer annoyance value to users (on both ends) of such a system, how is it going to cope with automated (and wanted) email where the sender is a program, not a person? When I sign up to a new distribution list, I don't necessarily know in advance what the headers are going to look like, so I can't pre-white list it before signing up, and the sending DL-software sure as hell isn't going to be able to tell the colour of the flower in the middle. I suppose I could look for other mail headers which indicate it's a list message and white-list that way, but then that's an open invitation for spammers to use the same technique to circumvent your filter.
The spam problem cannot be solved from the client side alone (I'm tempted to say you can't fix a social problem with a technical solution); the ultimate solution will have to remove the incentive for people to spam in the first place. Client-side filters may add to that dis-incentive a little, but not much (only a minority will be using filters). See, spammers don't really care about recipients who are using filters - such people are not likely to fall for the spam anyway. We need a solution that makes it financially untenable to operate a spam business in the first place. And no, I don't have a better solution (no-one does yet - this problem is hard), but I do know that client-side filtering alone is never going to be good enough.
People like searchking should be lined up and shot next to all the spammers
Funny you should mention that, there's a post at Lawmeme:
First, according to OpenRBL SearchKing either IS, or is affiliated with, Mach 10 Hosting, a known spammer. I have to wonder if Bob Massa is in fact the owner of, or a principal in, Mach 10 Hosting (i.e. a spammer) in addition to being a purveyor of banner ads? I think it's funny that his web site's IP address (209.217.135.144) has a reverse-DNS name of "dave144.mach10hosting.com" instead of any name concerning "searchking.com"...
We can save Bob Massa's bullet and have two for Alan Ralsky
Client-side filtering is useful, as far as it goes, but it's much better to do this ju-ju server-side.
I'd rather have seen the effort put in to fixing a basic UI issue - not being able to view sender and/or recipient for any mail folder. The current mechanism only makes sense if you keep all your sent mail in a single folder. It's madness, and it's been this way for years
Not true. Canada was most certainly not selling at a loss; selling at a price that would represent a loss for US producers perhaps, but then, that's what this all boils down to : some regions produce certain goods and services more cheaply than others. Do we want free trade or fair trade?
If we were to tax imports, then China would complain to the UN that we were using our position as the world's biggest buyer to extort extra money in the form of taxes from our trading partners
What do you mean "If..."? Thanks to pork barrel policies, the US already does have extortionate import duties. The 29% duty on softwood lumber for example. The 30% duties on steel for another. In the case of softwood lumber, the issue has come up before the WTO several times in the last few years, and on each occasion the US was deemed to be in blatant violation of the rules. But the tariffs remain...
...that only biotech corps do research, which is patently false. As an aside, note also that these corps typically spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research.
What is really outrageous is that these jerks learned about the gene and how to test for it using PUBLIC tax monies, then they split into 'private' industry, file patents and start gouging - exploiting
This has become the standard model and once you start looking, you can see it everywhere:
My own concern is not how GOL will be used by government (spelled out by the Privacy Act), but the potential for abuse by third parties. PKI systems are no panacea, but done right, offer assurances at least as good as what we currently have. I say bravo for my government taking this bold step.
I'm off to get mine right now - I'm keen to see what kind of certificate I'll be issued
Ever wondered *why* you're not getting jobs?
on
Resume Tips For Jobs
·
· Score: 1
If a job applicant can't even take the time to tailor the resume to the job I'm offering them, then why should I bother reading it?
Speaking as a person who's been looking since the end of April, I find myself getting very, very tired of customizing even cover letters for a job opportunity. I don't bother with customizing the resume anymore.
Your practice of not customizing obviously hasn't worked for you these last five months, so why are you offering this bad suggestion to others? Tailoring your application to the position is absolutely *vital*. When I'm recruiting, I want to see a cover letter that addresses what I'm looking for, before I even look at the resume. I also expect the resume to be arranged in such a way as to highlight the specific skills and experiences I've requested in the position posting. I don't care whether you have an "Objective" field or not, provided that if you do have one, it's not a lame "to get this job" type inanity. Likewise with hobbies - use your judgment as to whether listing a particular non-work interest will add value to the application. Most always, listing hobbies is a waste of time.
As you admit in your third paragraph, you're mostly sending off standardised letters to positions you're not even that interested in. Has it not occurred to you that this is plainly evident to the recruiters?
If you think you can craft a good application letter and resume in 30 mins you're mistaken. My advice would be to concentrate your applications on the positions you want. Read the posting carefully (it's amazing the percentage of applications I throw straight in the bin because it's obvious from the first paragraph that the applicant hasn't even bothered to more than skim the posting). Do some research on the company. Then write a cover letter that states succinctly why you think you're the best candidate for the position. This doesn't need to be an essay - one or two well written sentences will get you that interview. Finally, you may need to tweak your resume to highlight specific areas. This should take way less time than writing the cover letter, since your resume is already written and is only two pages.
Mostly though, this is not about design and layout (very subjective, as you say, although terrible design obviously doesn't help) it's about communication. If a candidate is not able to write a cover letter that states plainly why they should be considered for the position, then they don't get considered. Conversely, I've also called candidates in for interview based on an excellent cover letter, even when the resume was very mundane or even missing a skill or two.
I have never understood why people use this phrase. The answer to "which came first?" is quite clear : the egg, by many millenia. The first chicken was a mutated version of its non-chicken parents, but it hatched from an egg.
In this case, "chicken & egg" actually is a useful metaphor, but not in the way the original poster means. We already have the egg (ability to use strong encryption); tech evangelism of the kind you describe will bring us chickens.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to be the one LMAO when you try to carry a refrigerator ... on your back
Are you claiming that a lardarse that would drive two minutes to the store is then going to load/unload that refrigerator themselves, rather than having it delivered? Seems unlikely.
Pot, meet kettle.
Serendipitously, Gary Younge's article America is a class act was published yesterday, discussing how meritocracy has decreased in the US in the last 30 years.
I am reminded of something I once read : We do not live in a meritocracy - both shit and cream float
Definition 5 is false in the US. Is the current president in the whitehouse thanks solely to his own abilities and merits?
Adobe would publish ebook with ROL-26 encryption
Surely you meant ROFL-26?
Re: your sig. I personally don't see it as an improvement either, but I do note that one can't now see the numbers of moderations, and sometimes that tells a story in itself...*cough* post of doom *cough*
That is all.
Behold the awesome sight of an AC +5 first post
[Previews] wtf? it's been deleted! I didn't think they did that round here?
I'm saying it's not possible to disentangle the two without weakening the effect you're after (a disincentive to spam). We all use SMTP. It's the same mail systems, transport mechanisms and protocols whether an email is "personal" or "business". Any global "solution" to the spam "problem" (not everyone using mail even agrees it is a problem) has to be one that works universally, not just for certain types of communication. And it also has to deal with those who deliberately subvert and break protocols (I'm sick to death of spam mailers that will simply ignore SMTP 5xx Permanent Fsck 0ff -type errors and will bang on your mail server several times a second until you drop them at your firewall). It's not that I disagree with anything you write, but as you wind up hinting yourself, this is an issue that is unlikely to be solved by technical tweaks alone. The reason I find Paul Graham and the others' work interesting, is that they're trying to defend against the message itself, because that will always be there, regardless of the delivery mechanism. Protocol tweaks will never keep up with modifications to delivery techniques (cf when did IPv6 first start going through committees? How many years away is it still?).
I actually use many of the types of technique you've been describing, but not on my personal accounts (which fortunately don't really suffer the problem, good hygiene in the first place etc). Many of my users are not so fortunate. I can't see myself putting TMDA-type barriers on my personal account. It would seem, well, rude. But as the admin of a mailing list with thousands of recipients, it would be rude bordering on negligence not to take basic anti-spam precautions, and that includes TMDA for subscription and submission.
I would counter that it's not an annoyance that people haven't gone through before
I can think of plenty of occasions when I've sent a message, that if I got back a "jump through this hoop" response, I would just say, "screw that, it's your loss that you didn't get my message". That obviously doesn't apply to double opt-in lists that I'm actively wanting to receive, but how about the email I send you telling you your webserver is not secure? There are many occasions where the message is more important to the recipient than the sender, and TMDA type systems often fail in those situations.
It needs to be set up so that somebody can't send me anything until they are authorized
OK, your choice, but recognise that you are fundamentally altering the nature of mail when you make this decision - it will interfere with your communications and it will cost you more in time and complexity. You may well get less spam, but you will also not receive other messages that you may have wanted. More importantly, not everyone else is going to make the same choice; without widespread adoption, the technique isn't going to solve the problem globally. TMDA is great for lists and similar niches, but I don't think it's a solution for all email communications.
Without using filtering software.
1. Change your e-mail address and drop the old one.
Off to an ugly start. Joe Average will abort on your list before he's even begun
2. Make sure your ISP dosent post or sell your e-mail address.
I'd love to know how you're going to ensure this
5. Only give your e-mail to people you can relitvly trust. If you cant trust them then give them a link to you weppage.
"No mom, you can't have my email address. You just use it to send me e-greetings and I hate getting those from you..."
6. When filling out forms on the network asking for your e-mail ... read the companies privicy clames and make sure that you do not check or uncheck something stating that they will send you e-mail or adds.
Spammers lie. We wouldn't have all these problems if spammers were truthful
7. Use spamassasan or other email filtering on your system
How do I do that "without using filtering software" ?
8. Forward all spam to ucs@ftc.gov with all the headers.
You mean uce@ftc.gov. Also note that (depending on the email client) just forwarding a message usually destroys the headers of interest.
9. See if your email client has a automatic bounce back. If so bounce the message back to sender.
How exactly does sending a response to an address that either (a) doesn't exist, (b) exists, but is irrelevant (joe-job), or (c) is an address-validation mechanism, help anything?
10. if you want to post your e-mail address then I would make a graphical jpg, png as your e-mail. That way it slows down most computers from reading it
This one I can't find fault with :) (but note there will be some people get confused/annoyed when they can't just click on a mailto: link, I'm just not of them).
Aside from the sheer annoyance value to users (on both ends) of such a system, how is it going to cope with automated (and wanted) email where the sender is a program, not a person? When I sign up to a new distribution list, I don't necessarily know in advance what the headers are going to look like, so I can't pre-white list it before signing up, and the sending DL-software sure as hell isn't going to be able to tell the colour of the flower in the middle. I suppose I could look for other mail headers which indicate it's a list message and white-list that way, but then that's an open invitation for spammers to use the same technique to circumvent your filter.
The spam problem cannot be solved from the client side alone (I'm tempted to say you can't fix a social problem with a technical solution); the ultimate solution will have to remove the incentive for people to spam in the first place. Client-side filters may add to that dis-incentive a little, but not much (only a minority will be using filters). See, spammers don't really care about recipients who are using filters - such people are not likely to fall for the spam anyway. We need a solution that makes it financially untenable to operate a spam business in the first place. And no, I don't have a better solution (no-one does yet - this problem is hard), but I do know that client-side filtering alone is never going to be good enough.
Funny you should mention that, there's a post at Lawmeme :
We can save Bob Massa's bullet and have two for Alan Ralsky
Site seems /.ed already...
cf : Benjamin Pell aka Benji the Binman, who has made a career of poking through folks rubbish. Not illegal, but not exactly reputable either.
For me, this is putting the cart before the horse
Client-side filtering is useful, as far as it goes, but it's much better to do this ju-ju server-side.
I'd rather have seen the effort put in to fixing a basic UI issue - not being able to view sender and/or recipient for any mail folder. The current mechanism only makes sense if you keep all your sent mail in a single folder. It's madness, and it's been this way for years
[grumbles...]
Certainly not - not when it's given us a new word. Slashturbation. There, I said it again
kudos OP d.k
Surely you meant "mearly smoke, mirrors, and speaches"?
Not true. Canada was most certainly not selling at a loss; selling at a price that would represent a loss for US producers perhaps, but then, that's what this all boils down to : some regions produce certain goods and services more cheaply than others. Do we want free trade or fair trade?
What do you mean "If..."? Thanks to pork barrel policies, the US already does have extortionate import duties. The 29% duty on softwood lumber for example. The 30% duties on steel for another. In the case of softwood lumber, the issue has come up before the WTO several times in the last few years, and on each occasion the US was deemed to be in blatant violation of the rules. But the tariffs remain...
...that only biotech corps do research, which is patently false. As an aside, note also that these corps typically spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research.
This has become the standard model and once you start looking, you can see it everywhere :
Socialise costs
Privatise profits
...but pharm corps spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R+D.
Thank you! A voice of reason!
My own concern is not how GOL will be used by government (spelled out by the Privacy Act), but the potential for abuse by third parties. PKI systems are no panacea, but done right, offer assurances at least as good as what we currently have. I say bravo for my government taking this bold step.
I'm off to get mine right now - I'm keen to see what kind of certificate I'll be issued
Take a look at OpenCA
Your practice of not customizing obviously hasn't worked for you these last five months, so why are you offering this bad suggestion to others? Tailoring your application to the position is absolutely *vital*. When I'm recruiting, I want to see a cover letter that addresses what I'm looking for, before I even look at the resume. I also expect the resume to be arranged in such a way as to highlight the specific skills and experiences I've requested in the position posting. I don't care whether you have an "Objective" field or not, provided that if you do have one, it's not a lame "to get this job" type inanity. Likewise with hobbies - use your judgment as to whether listing a particular non-work interest will add value to the application. Most always, listing hobbies is a waste of time.
As you admit in your third paragraph, you're mostly sending off standardised letters to positions you're not even that interested in. Has it not occurred to you that this is plainly evident to the recruiters?
If you think you can craft a good application letter and resume in 30 mins you're mistaken. My advice would be to concentrate your applications on the positions you want. Read the posting carefully (it's amazing the percentage of applications I throw straight in the bin because it's obvious from the first paragraph that the applicant hasn't even bothered to more than skim the posting). Do some research on the company. Then write a cover letter that states succinctly why you think you're the best candidate for the position. This doesn't need to be an essay - one or two well written sentences will get you that interview. Finally, you may need to tweak your resume to highlight specific areas. This should take way less time than writing the cover letter, since your resume is already written and is only two pages.
Mostly though, this is not about design and layout (very subjective, as you say, although terrible design obviously doesn't help) it's about communication. If a candidate is not able to write a cover letter that states plainly why they should be considered for the position, then they don't get considered. Conversely, I've also called candidates in for interview based on an excellent cover letter, even when the resume was very mundane or even missing a skill or two.
I have never understood why people use this phrase. The answer to "which came first?" is quite clear : the egg, by many millenia. The first chicken was a mutated version of its non-chicken parents, but it hatched from an egg.
In this case, "chicken & egg" actually is a useful metaphor, but not in the way the original poster means. We already have the egg (ability to use strong encryption); tech evangelism of the kind you describe will bring us chickens.