...but I can't do anything about the amount of idiots endorsing the more intrusive anti-spam measures.
I suspect that the number of such idiots is directly proportional to the percentage of spam in relation to legitimate email, which is approaching a crushing level in my opinion. Really fix the spam problem, and the idiots will go away. Filtering is not a fix, but only a way to ignore the problem
Hmm.. Win98, WinNT, WinME, Win2000, WinXP, and I think I saw a couple days ago mention of a completely new Win, that was going to leave a lot of compatibility behind (read break many apps). Oh, and Word95, Word98, Word2000, Word2002, Word whatever for the Mac. Somehow, I expect more to come here too.
They probably need to keep the signal above the water a bit to prevent interference with signals skipping off the water. The antenna at San Diego is undoubtedly on a tower. And most of the edge of San Clemente island on the side facing California is a pretty high cliff, much higher than even a large ship. Presumably they picked a high point on the island for placing antenna.
Watch carefully at the airport. The jets never leave the ground until the nose is pointed up, which is done using the "elevator" (the flap on the tail). No, even in a hurricane, this thing won't fly much better than a car.
Having lived in both LA and Florida, the drivers in LA in the rain are a lot worse. I knew this place had a different view of rain when during the first year after arriving here (from southern Louisiana in '88) after a small rain, there was a front page headline on the LA Times (the biggest LA paper) the next day that read "Rain in the Southland".
... but the practical goal of course is earthquake forecasting.
Hmm.. I see no mention in the story of using this kind of technology to do earthquake forecasting. I think CowboyNeal got a bit carried away. My own opinion; earthquake forecasting is in the very distant future.
Err, well I realize that was an attempt at humor. But since I tend to be pedantic, the "chemicals" in the tank, hydrogen and oxygen, are only highly explosive when mixed.
That is one of those vague numbers that really does not mean much in the real world. A few years ago, a project I had been working on, SRTM, finally went to Florida to be launched on the shuttle. One of the surprising things I found out was that they were also bolting several hundred pounds of lead weight into the cargo bay, basically to balance the load. This is for the same reason airplane pilots (are supposed to) calculate "weight and balance".
So basically, something as lightweight as this camera, even counting the two S band antennas and transmitters, probably has no real effect on fuel consumption.
Generally, the preferred solution to this would be for the company to fix or implement the API call, and submit the fix back to Wine. Really! Some companies do this.
The problem, and the reason that the Concords was grounded, was that a tire failure caused the destruction of the aircraft. It is indeed quite okay for a tire to fail. It happens occasionally, even without a piece of titanium on the runway.
Umm... why was this modded up? This is just plain ridiculous, and the person posting has no idea what he/she is talking about. NASA only puts nuclear power cells on probes that are headed to deep space, where the light from the sun is too weak to use solar power. No NASA satellite in orbit around the earth uses nuclear power, period. It is just too big of a hassle compared to the ease of solar panels and batteries.
And again, the reason that the prediction is vague is because the satellite is reentering the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. This makes it impossible to accurately predict when, and therefore where, the satellite will reenter.
If they still have control of the satellite, then that is exactly what they do. Remember MIR last year? They deliberately steered it so that it would fall in a large mostly sparsely inhabited area of the southern Pacific.
If you mean would they shoot it down, then the answer is that it is unlikely. We really don't have missiles that can reliably hit orbiting objects yet.
That is almost certainly because the satellite is grazing the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. When satellites, and for that matter space shuttles, reenter the atmosphere deliberately, the reentry is made a little steeper, which allows for accurate predictions of when and where it will reenter. With very shallow reentry angles, even the slight day to day variation in the "height" of the upper fringes of the atmosphere will change when and where the reentry will occur.
Seems to me that culling addresses from a whois database for the purposes of spamming would be somewhat self defeating. Maybe I am offbase here, but I would expect that email addresses in whois records would have a far lower than average percentage of people who would fall for spams, and a far higher percentage of people who will complain. And sometimes those complaints actually get spammers nuked (yea I know, rarely).
Still, I would think that if a spammer actually thought it through, they would use the whois database to do list washing, to minimize complaints.
Umm... the current license explicitely allows the license to be changed. And anyone who submitted code was, by their submission, accepting that license. The wine project did not accept any code that came with restrictions. So no one can now ask for their code to be removed.
Over on news.admin.net-abuse.email, there is occasionally a posting from someone who has discovered an open spammers computer. They poke around and often find logs of responses. Most of the responses fall in the hate mail category, but there are usually a couple of "good" hits.
I remember once awhile ago, someone posted about how they had actually called up one of the people on the "good hit" list, and pointed out to them that they had to be a fool to fall for the spam. Presumably the spammer lost that customer, but you never know...
I think the point the article made, which got lost in the summary on/., is that the web page was up for awhile (the article only says A while ago) without receiving spam at the associated email address. When it finally received spam, they went back to the web logs, and found the entry corresponding to the unique email address that was generated for that particular hit. And they discovered that the particular web page hit corresponding to the spammer happened 8 hours before the spam arrived.
The interesting part to me is the conclusion that all subsequent spam over a 9 month period was the result of that single web page hit. That tells me that addresses are harvested off obscure web pages only occasionally. I suspect that most spammers get email addresses come from other sources.
they will take other steps to remain competitive - maybe cutting their ticket prices...
Ahahahaha! That was you good one. I almost thought this was a serious post. But the assumption of 5 bucks per person at the concession stand sounded way off to me. And then that statement about ticket prices proved it was just a troll:-)
Just a little teasing; don't take what I say seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that the number of such idiots is directly proportional to the percentage of spam in relation to legitimate email, which is approaching a crushing level in my opinion. Really fix the spam problem, and the idiots will go away. Filtering is not a fix, but only a way to ignore the problem
Hmm.. Win98, WinNT, WinME, Win2000, WinXP, and I think I saw a couple days ago mention of a completely new Win, that was going to leave a lot of compatibility behind (read break many apps). Oh, and Word95, Word98, Word2000, Word2002, Word whatever for the Mac. Somehow, I expect more to come here too.
Finished you said?
They probably need to keep the signal above the water a bit to prevent interference with signals skipping off the water. The antenna at San Diego is undoubtedly on a tower. And most of the edge of San Clemente island on the side facing California is a pretty high cliff, much higher than even a large ship. Presumably they picked a high point on the island for placing antenna.
Watch carefully at the airport. The jets never leave the ground until the nose is pointed up, which is done using the "elevator" (the flap on the tail). No, even in a hurricane, this thing won't fly much better than a car.
Having lived in both LA and Florida, the drivers in LA in the rain are a lot worse. I knew this place had a different view of rain when during the first year after arriving here (from southern Louisiana in '88) after a small rain, there was a front page headline on the LA Times (the biggest LA paper) the next day that read "Rain in the Southland".
Okay....
A nice small little app. Works fine under Linux and Wine for me, too.
Oops, my bad. I do see the mention in the article. Sigh...
Hmm.. I see no mention in the story of using this kind of technology to do earthquake forecasting. I think CowboyNeal got a bit carried away. My own opinion; earthquake forecasting is in the very distant future.
Err, well I realize that was an attempt at humor. But since I tend to be pedantic, the "chemicals" in the tank, hydrogen and oxygen, are only highly explosive when mixed.
The article I read indicates it will be one starting 10 minutes before launch and last until a short time after separation.
That is one of those vague numbers that really does not mean much in the real world. A few years ago, a project I had been working on, SRTM, finally went to Florida to be launched on the shuttle. One of the surprising things I found out was that they were also bolting several hundred pounds of lead weight into the cargo bay, basically to balance the load. This is for the same reason airplane pilots (are supposed to) calculate "weight and balance".
So basically, something as lightweight as this camera, even counting the two S band antennas and transmitters, probably has no real effect on fuel consumption.
Generally, the preferred solution to this would be for the company to fix or implement the API call, and submit the fix back to Wine. Really! Some companies do this.
Umm, you might want to try actually reading the article. The Hyatt bridge did not fail due to harmonics.
The problem, and the reason that the Concords was grounded, was that a tire failure caused the destruction of the aircraft. It is indeed quite okay for a tire to fail. It happens occasionally, even without a piece of titanium on the runway.
Umm... why was this modded up? This is just plain ridiculous, and the person posting has no idea what he/she is talking about. NASA only puts nuclear power cells on probes that are headed to deep space, where the light from the sun is too weak to use solar power. No NASA satellite in orbit around the earth uses nuclear power, period. It is just too big of a hassle compared to the ease of solar panels and batteries.
And again, the reason that the prediction is vague is because the satellite is reentering the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. This makes it impossible to accurately predict when, and therefore where, the satellite will reenter.
If they still have control of the satellite, then that is exactly what they do. Remember MIR last year? They deliberately steered it so that it would fall in a large mostly sparsely inhabited area of the southern Pacific.
If you mean would they shoot it down, then the answer is that it is unlikely. We really don't have missiles that can reliably hit orbiting objects yet.
That is almost certainly because the satellite is grazing the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. When satellites, and for that matter space shuttles, reenter the atmosphere deliberately, the reentry is made a little steeper, which allows for accurate predictions of when and where it will reenter. With very shallow reentry angles, even the slight day to day variation in the "height" of the upper fringes of the atmosphere will change when and where the reentry will occur.
*Bold* text in plain ascii. Maybe not everyone understands it, but that is the correct way.
Umm.. he says he took his site down because of the threat of jail time. Can't say I blame him.
Seems to me that culling addresses from a whois database for the purposes of spamming would be somewhat self defeating. Maybe I am offbase here, but I would expect that email addresses in whois records would have a far lower than average percentage of people who would fall for spams, and a far higher percentage of people who will complain. And sometimes those complaints actually get spammers nuked (yea I know, rarely).
Still, I would think that if a spammer actually thought it through, they would use the whois database to do list washing, to minimize complaints.
Umm... the current license explicitely allows the license to be changed. And anyone who submitted code was, by their submission, accepting that license. The wine project did not accept any code that came with restrictions. So no one can now ask for their code to be removed.
Over on news.admin.net-abuse.email, there is occasionally a posting from someone who has discovered an open spammers computer. They poke around and often find logs of responses. Most of the responses fall in the hate mail category, but there are usually a couple of "good" hits.
I remember once awhile ago, someone posted about how they had actually called up one of the people on the "good hit" list, and pointed out to them that they had to be a fool to fall for the spam. Presumably the spammer lost that customer, but you never know...
I think the point the article made, which got lost in the summary on /., is that the web page was up for awhile (the article only says A while ago) without receiving spam at the associated email address. When it finally received spam, they went back to the web logs, and found the entry corresponding to the unique email address that was generated for that particular hit. And they discovered that the particular web page hit corresponding to the spammer happened 8 hours before the spam arrived.
The interesting part to me is the conclusion that all subsequent spam over a 9 month period was the result of that single web page hit. That tells me that addresses are harvested off obscure web pages only occasionally. I suspect that most spammers get email addresses come from other sources.
they will take other steps to remain competitive - maybe cutting their ticket prices...
Ahahahaha! That was you good one. I almost thought this was a serious post. But the assumption of 5 bucks per person at the concession stand sounded way off to me. And then that statement about ticket prices proved it was just a troll :-)
Just a little teasing; don't take what I say seriously.
Sheesh, chill out. I take it you haven't been around /. very long. I suggest a couple beers, and who cares what Guppy06 thinks?