Users are administrators by default on Windows boxes.
No, that's not the case, and it has not been the case (IIRC) in any version of Windows that had user privilege settings.
It's true that it can be difficult or impossible to get many Windows programs to work correctly in non-administrator accounts. And it's true that in many offices, the IT department has "solved" the problem by making every account an administrator.
It's not a good situation, but I think everyone's better served by accurate information about why it is so. In this case, it's mostly the third-party software developers (i.e., not Microsoft) who have been slow to adopt a user/administrator model, or who have not made their software easy to use in such an environment.
Microsoft is an evil, evil corporation, but you can't really dump the blame on them for this one.
Ok let us compare, my Windows partition to my Linux partition...
Uh, you've gotten some wrong ideas along the way there, somehow. I hardly know jack about Linux, actually. I booted a Knoppix live CD once. I use Win2K and WinXP for my desktop systems.
I understand the allure of startup speed, but I think integrating 80% of the UI into one giant glob of code is a poor way to make it happen. There are other ways.
You could pre-load the browser - which is what happens with IE, in essence - either with a "Quick Start" installation option (like Mozilla uses) or with a simple Startup shortcut. You could use an integrated suite (like Mozilla) for mail and browsing - since the process is all set up to check mail all the time anyway, the browser opens very fast. Or the browser authors could engineer the browser to start up more quickly.
Or you could use the simplest and fastest option of all - just don't close the browser once it's started up. (You don't put a library book back in the library every time you close it, after all.) I understand what you're saying - that your own personal style of working seems to work best with a browser that starts very quickly. I just don't think that it's the shell integration of IE per se that's helping you out - it's just that you can't really close it down once windows is running.
It really depends on how one defines "legacy 32 bit code," doesn't it? I would assume that "legacy" code would include circa-1993 stuff like code for NT 3.x and the Win32s add-on for Win3.1x, and that essentially all the code running on a typical 2K/XP box will work fine on Longhorn.
Browser Integration into the primary GUI. Nice. Really nice. Without it using a GUI is insane. Broadband net access tends to do that to a person, if I want to look something up, open new window, go to dictionary, type in word.
I'm not seeing it. You're opening a new window to look at something new - in what way is that "integrated?" Or perhaps more to the point, in what way is that usefully integrated? Is is somehow better to have that new window initially display files and folders than to just show your home-page? How is this any better - or any different - than just launching an IE window?
I also use broadband and (for example) dictionary.com or wikipedia.org as a handy always-ready reference. But I do not find the desktop "integration" of IE to be any more convenient than just using whatever browser is available on the machine.
For myself, personally, one of the beefs I have with the Windows GUI is that Windows Explorer tries to do too many things - what do the control panels or network printers have in common with my files, anyway? All of that integrating slows Windows Explorer down without providing anything that looks (to me, at least) like a clear benefit.
This might be useful in proving that a particular machine is NOT the one that you are looking for, but it will likely suffer from a high false-positive rate... this would be like saying "the criminal has blond hair and blue eyes, and is 6'2". This would rule out 95% or more of the population, but the false positive rate would still be high.
Yes, but from a law-enforcement point of view, it is very helpful to be able to eliminate members of a suspect list.
It seems to me that the main trouble is that it's going to be so easy to defeat, at least for the really dangerous technically savvy criminals. This could get 14-year-old Johnny in trouble for sharing those albums he downloaded, but Mr. I-Stole-500,000-Credit-Card Numbers will shrug this right off.
Which brings up a point, what's the point in LIMITING the characters that can be used in passwords? How horrible are these designers that their apps choke on '&Dkf*l,@a', but 'b4dp4ass' is OK? What could they be doing that would disallow a number as the first character?
One guess: it's much harder to convey such characters over the phone, or to scrawl them clearly on Post-Its and cocktail napkins.
Another guess: passwords with weird symbols in them are probably more likely to be mis-typed - repeatedly, even - causing more false lock-outs and more frustrated calls to the help desk.
And sure, you're not supposed to be writing passwords down or repeating them to faceless voices over the phone, but the operation of real-world IT departments is often considerably lubricated by such shortcuts. Certainly the common practice of allowing only alphanumeric characters is an old one, much older than the web. Heck, I've got so many web passwords by now that I have to keep a written list.
It's not just ugly, it's pretty non-intuitive too.
For example, what's the difference between "Save" and "OK?" Why are "Save" and "OK" in the middle of the dialog, in a seprate sub-pane? Why not put them at the bottom? What do the sub-panes indicate, anyway? Why is there a list of accounts in the account options dialog? Surely the options here apply to only one account at a time. How do I add a New Server on the "Novice Controls" page - type in the name and then -- what? The "Protocols" section - are those check boxes or radio buttons? If they're radio buttons with zero explanitory text, why not just use a combo box? What is the relationship between users and servers - and shouldn't this be obvious from the interface?
The fact is, good user interface design is a discipline unto itself, and people who are good coders or good system architects aren't necessarily any good at UI design. It's hard, and it's full of trade-offs, like engineering is. It doesn't get the respect it deserves from anyone (with the possible exception of Apple, who still make a few horrifying blunders if you ask me). And I say this as someone who has been responsible for some UI design decisions, and who can see from that personal experience that he didn't (initially) appriciate the difficulty of the task and still isn't very good at it.
The fact also is this: this paper has been conveniently released after the fact and before the election. Ask yourself, if these "scientific" facts were so vital to the question of the war and our leadership, why weren't they promulgated before the war?
The scientific community was indeed giving the lie to BushCo's claims about WMD long before the war. Apparently you weren't paying any attention. And neither was much of anyone else, major media included.
And "after the fact?" Responses are by nature "after the fact," that's just the way it is, Sparky.
As for "before the election," what do you want them to do, sit on this stuff until after the election? That makes no sense, and besides, altering the release date to a time that would serve a political agenda would be a political act, which is exactly what you're claiming they're doing. I guess they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't, eh?
ATI has promised - as the AnandTech article states - that 2004-model GPUs will all be available in both native PCIe and AGP form.
If you just bought a fancy new motherboard with AGP, you'll have plenty of chances to upgrade your video, and when AGP finally does go away, you'll probably be thinking about a new motherboard anyway.
That's the way it always works. Make the lanes wider, and drivers speed up. Smooth out the hairpin curves, and drivers speed up. Install anti-lock brakes on most of the fleet, and drivers don't slow down for the rain any more. Put in better headlights, and drivers drive full-speed at night. People in general don't perceive driving as a dangerous activity (even though it's easily the most dangerous activity the average USian does on a regular basis) so they always go as fast as their comfort level - as opposed to their true safety level - allows.
And a traffic-following radar will just mean that the cell-phone using right-lane passer doing 85 in his Escalade won't feel obliged to lift his right foot ever again.
Yes, Emusic has pretty much been emasculated by new management. I was a subscriber for three months in the fall of last year, just before the new policies took hold.
The incredibly useful message boards were actually canned altogether, at least for a while, and the file download limits were reduced to such a degree (only 2 or 3 album's worth per month) as to make the system far less attractive than illegal alternatives. And the balky download manager, which had been required for some time, has, AFAIK, not been improved.
However, they were offering pretty good 192KBps VBR files for most of their catalog for most of last year. They had a lot of recent stuff by independent pop artists and a lot of older jazz and classical material. I downloaded perhaps 40 albums, and still listen to many of them regularly.
To be fair, the Emusic users who were banned for too much traffic were downloading truly insane amounts of music - like 100+ tracks per day for an entire month. Yes, Emusic should have deliniated clear limits in the EULA, but most people have a little more common sense - how is a US$15 per month subscription going to pay record-label royalties (which averaged seven cents per track, as I recall) for two thousand or more tracks? (2000 x US$0.07 = US$140) Obviously, it can't. Of course Emusic had a problem with that.
...but isn't a requirement to get a patent that you disclose EVERYTHING necessary...
Maybe in theory, but it's not like the patent guys have time to verify complete documentation by sitting down and re-implementing each and every application using only the applicant's docs. Considering the way the patent system has been bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated in recent years (e.g., Amazon's one-click, Netflix's business model), less-than-complete disclosure starts to look like the least of the patent office's worries.
I've been to plenty of local library sales and not only do most people simply ignore them, but less 10% of the books are sold.
My experience has been otherwise. My family has been involved in organization, setup, and cleanup of the local library's book sale for as long as I can remember. I'd have to say, as a sort of wild guess, that if "only" 70% of the books offered sell, we consider that a poor sale.
I don't see any reason for libraries to go through the enormous trouble of organizing a local sale just to keep a handful of patrons happy.
I can't speak for all libraries, but at mine, the book sale is entirely run by a volunteer group called the "Friends of the Library." The sale costs the library essentially nothing as far as money, time, or labor are concerned.
I think you mean that 50% of the consumer's fuel bill goes to taxes, not that the tax rate is about 50%. The total tax rate for gasoline in the US hovers around 100%, doubling the cost and thus comprising half of the total cost. But I guess we all knew what you meant, and that's what's important.
Frankly, since that level of taxation doesn't even cover the construction and maintenance of the roads, let alone related costs like traffic police and health care for accident victims, I'd say it's much, much too low. Cars are, in the US, a government-subsidized and money-losing transportation system - Socialism incarnate. I think that's what's meant by "flat tax" in this case - a large portion of the bill is hidden in other taxes, which do not vary based on road use, and are therefore "flat" relative to the project they fund.
Most cars in the US run on 87 (or even 86) octane fuel. Most filling stations only offer 87, 89, and 91 octane. A few stations will have one pump with 93 for hot rods. Anything higher usually requires a specialty supplier or cans of fuel additives.
I mention this because I gather that cars in Europe generally use higher-octane fuels. (Unfortunately, US and European standards for computing octane numbers are different - I don't know how to compare the numbers directly.) Certainly, the Audis, Benzes, BMWs, Jags, VWs etc. exported to the US generally require the highest-octane (91) gas generally available here, yet they're often less powerful than the European versions. Using higher octane fuel allows higher compression ratios in the engines, which can help achieve higher MPG ratings. However, more crude is required to refine a gallon of high-octane than a gallon of low-octane. So the MPG figures for cars designed for 91 octane and 87 octane aren't comparable, if petroleum consumption is what you're trying to compare. The high-octane cars will look better than they really are.
All that said, though, the US's energy policies and taxes are admittedly, indefensibly, and completely insane. There's no question that we burn way, way more gasoline than is remotely necessary. As a single commuter, I am among the guilty. But I, for one, would support higher fuel taxes - the true cost of the car culture isn't reflected at the pump, and it should be.
My hobbyist project was picked up by Google after a while, but it wasn't until I retroactively changed my comment signature here on Slashdot and on Kuro5hin (thereby creating many links to my project page) that it went to the top of the search results. It wasn't my intent to subvert Google in any way - I was quite surprised by the dramatic result.
There have been some less-than-scrupulous advertising companies in the business of that publishing dummy machine-generated web pages to exploit this trick. The dummy pages were typically filled with repitions of some nonsense paragraph, with self-links (to other dummy pages) and client-sponsored links interspersed here and there. The idea was that the self-linking would make the site look like a large, legit site to Google, which would mark it as relatively well-trusted and influential. Then Google would dutifully note the client-sponsored links and rank them highly. I believe Google has worked on ways to stop this; I don't know how successful they've been, or if the dummy-site makers are still around.
The article makes it plain that this is the just the beginning of a five-year project that will eventually spend $38mil, and which will end up with a lot more than 300 systems (200 to be added next year alone, for example) too. Comparing this to another project without knowing all the details of both is pointless.
I don't think Forbes has a reputation for particularly honest or fair reporting.
Every Forbes story I've ever seen has had a distinct pro-business - or even a pro-rich-entepreneur - slant, much as a car magazine has a pro-cheap-gas slant, or as a nature/travel magazine has a conservationist slant.
If FSF/GPL was a for-profit concern, I'm sure Forbes would be cheering them on. I'm not surprised that they took the stance they did, I'm only surprised that they're so extremist and clueless.
The author refers to the GPL's requirements as "onerous." They're not.
The author implies that complying with the license is difficult and/or risky. It isn't.
The author says that complying with the license (as these companies agreed to do when they used GPL code) is somehow "burning down one's house," and implies that compliance is an unreasonable thing to ask. It isn't.
A Google search for Arial seems to work pretty well today. You get links to places that sell Arial fonts, articles about choosing fonts, rants from people who don't like it, etc. It doesn't return a link to every page that uses it.
Google changes so fast and so often, it seems nearly pointless to put a critique like this in writing - even if everything in it is correct now, it won't be in a month or so.
Sure, we all know it's a competitor-bashing piece, but for me, that the clincher.
Would you volunteer to sift through all of the crap that surely inundates that inbox every second?
The situation is surely no different than with snail-mail, which the White House has had to deal with in vast quantities for years. And there's no reason to expect anyone to volunteer; the White House staffers are mostly employees who are paid to do this stuff.
But with e-mail, most of the real spam at least can be automatically sifted out. If anything, it should ultimately be easier and cheaper to read, analyze, file, and respond to a large number of e-mails than paper letters.
"Tedious and boring?" He's got an application that can actually do some of the stuff Hollywood hackers have been doing for years. How could anyone think that's boring?
"Tank, find a structural drawing of this building. Find it fast."
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not the case, and it has not been the case (IIRC) in any version of Windows that had user privilege settings.
It's true that it can be difficult or impossible to get many Windows programs to work correctly in non-administrator accounts. And it's true that in many offices, the IT department has "solved" the problem by making every account an administrator.
It's not a good situation, but I think everyone's better served by accurate information about why it is so. In this case, it's mostly the third-party software developers (i.e., not Microsoft) who have been slow to adopt a user/administrator model, or who have not made their software easy to use in such an environment.
Microsoft is an evil, evil corporation, but you can't really dump the blame on them for this one.
Uh, you've gotten some wrong ideas along the way there, somehow. I hardly know jack about Linux, actually. I booted a Knoppix live CD once. I use Win2K and WinXP for my desktop systems.
I understand the allure of startup speed, but I think integrating 80% of the UI into one giant glob of code is a poor way to make it happen. There are other ways.
You could pre-load the browser - which is what happens with IE, in essence - either with a "Quick Start" installation option (like Mozilla uses) or with a simple Startup shortcut. You could use an integrated suite (like Mozilla) for mail and browsing - since the process is all set up to check mail all the time anyway, the browser opens very fast. Or the browser authors could engineer the browser to start up more quickly.
Or you could use the simplest and fastest option of all - just don't close the browser once it's started up. (You don't put a library book back in the library every time you close it, after all.) I understand what you're saying - that your own personal style of working seems to work best with a browser that starts very quickly. I just don't think that it's the shell integration of IE per se that's helping you out - it's just that you can't really close it down once windows is running.
It really depends on how one defines "legacy 32 bit code," doesn't it? I would assume that "legacy" code would include circa-1993 stuff like code for NT 3.x and the Win32s add-on for Win3.1x, and that essentially all the code running on a typical 2K/XP box will work fine on Longhorn.
I'm not seeing it. You're opening a new window to look at something new - in what way is that "integrated?" Or perhaps more to the point, in what way is that usefully integrated? Is is somehow better to have that new window initially display files and folders than to just show your home-page? How is this any better - or any different - than just launching an IE window?
I also use broadband and (for example) dictionary.com or wikipedia.org as a handy always-ready reference. But I do not find the desktop "integration" of IE to be any more convenient than just using whatever browser is available on the machine.
For myself, personally, one of the beefs I have with the Windows GUI is that Windows Explorer tries to do too many things - what do the control panels or network printers have in common with my files, anyway? All of that integrating slows Windows Explorer down without providing anything that looks (to me, at least) like a clear benefit.
Yes, but from a law-enforcement point of view, it is very helpful to be able to eliminate members of a suspect list.
It seems to me that the main trouble is that it's going to be so easy to defeat, at least for the really dangerous technically savvy criminals. This could get 14-year-old Johnny in trouble for sharing those albums he downloaded, but Mr. I-Stole-500,000-Credit-Card Numbers will shrug this right off.
One guess: it's much harder to convey such characters over the phone, or to scrawl them clearly on Post-Its and cocktail napkins.
Another guess: passwords with weird symbols in them are probably more likely to be mis-typed - repeatedly, even - causing more false lock-outs and more frustrated calls to the help desk.
And sure, you're not supposed to be writing passwords down or repeating them to faceless voices over the phone, but the operation of real-world IT departments is often considerably lubricated by such shortcuts. Certainly the common practice of allowing only alphanumeric characters is an old one, much older than the web. Heck, I've got so many web passwords by now that I have to keep a written list.
There's only one Integrated Fusion Device I'm interested in, and this ain't it.
For example, what's the difference between "Save" and "OK?" Why are "Save" and "OK" in the middle of the dialog, in a seprate sub-pane? Why not put them at the bottom? What do the sub-panes indicate, anyway? Why is there a list of accounts in the account options dialog? Surely the options here apply to only one account at a time. How do I add a New Server on the "Novice Controls" page - type in the name and then -- what? The "Protocols" section - are those check boxes or radio buttons? If they're radio buttons with zero explanitory text, why not just use a combo box? What is the relationship between users and servers - and shouldn't this be obvious from the interface?
The fact is, good user interface design is a discipline unto itself, and people who are good coders or good system architects aren't necessarily any good at UI design. It's hard, and it's full of trade-offs, like engineering is. It doesn't get the respect it deserves from anyone (with the possible exception of Apple, who still make a few horrifying blunders if you ask me). And I say this as someone who has been responsible for some UI design decisions, and who can see from that personal experience that he didn't (initially) appriciate the difficulty of the task and still isn't very good at it.
The scientific community was indeed giving the lie to BushCo's claims about WMD long before the war. Apparently you weren't paying any attention. And neither was much of anyone else, major media included.
And "after the fact?" Responses are by nature "after the fact," that's just the way it is, Sparky.
As for "before the election," what do you want them to do, sit on this stuff until after the election? That makes no sense, and besides, altering the release date to a time that would serve a political agenda would be a political act, which is exactly what you're claiming they're doing. I guess they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't, eh?
ATI has promised - as the AnandTech article states - that 2004-model GPUs will all be available in both native PCIe and AGP form.
If you just bought a fancy new motherboard with AGP, you'll have plenty of chances to upgrade your video, and when AGP finally does go away, you'll probably be thinking about a new motherboard anyway.
As "safer driving."
Only faster, more insane driving.
That's the way it always works. Make the lanes wider, and drivers speed up. Smooth out the hairpin curves, and drivers speed up. Install anti-lock brakes on most of the fleet, and drivers don't slow down for the rain any more. Put in better headlights, and drivers drive full-speed at night. People in general don't perceive driving as a dangerous activity (even though it's easily the most dangerous activity the average USian does on a regular basis) so they always go as fast as their comfort level - as opposed to their true safety level - allows.
And a traffic-following radar will just mean that the cell-phone using right-lane passer doing 85 in his Escalade won't feel obliged to lift his right foot ever again.
The incredibly useful message boards were actually canned altogether, at least for a while, and the file download limits were reduced to such a degree (only 2 or 3 album's worth per month) as to make the system far less attractive than illegal alternatives. And the balky download manager, which had been required for some time, has, AFAIK, not been improved.
However, they were offering pretty good 192KBps VBR files for most of their catalog for most of last year. They had a lot of recent stuff by independent pop artists and a lot of older jazz and classical material. I downloaded perhaps 40 albums, and still listen to many of them regularly.
To be fair, the Emusic users who were banned for too much traffic were downloading truly insane amounts of music - like 100+ tracks per day for an entire month. Yes, Emusic should have deliniated clear limits in the EULA, but most people have a little more common sense - how is a US$15 per month subscription going to pay record-label royalties (which averaged seven cents per track, as I recall) for two thousand or more tracks? (2000 x US$0.07 = US$140) Obviously, it can't. Of course Emusic had a problem with that.
Maybe in theory, but it's not like the patent guys have time to verify complete documentation by sitting down and re-implementing each and every application using only the applicant's docs. Considering the way the patent system has been bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated in recent years (e.g., Amazon's one-click, Netflix's business model), less-than-complete disclosure starts to look like the least of the patent office's worries.
I've been to plenty of local library sales and not only do most people simply ignore them, but less 10% of the books are sold.
My experience has been otherwise. My family has been involved in organization, setup, and cleanup of the local library's book sale for as long as I can remember. I'd have to say, as a sort of wild guess, that if "only" 70% of the books offered sell, we consider that a poor sale.
I don't see any reason for libraries to go through the enormous trouble of organizing a local sale just to keep a handful of patrons happy.
I can't speak for all libraries, but at mine, the book sale is entirely run by a volunteer group called the "Friends of the Library." The sale costs the library essentially nothing as far as money, time, or labor are concerned.
I think you mean that 50% of the consumer's fuel bill goes to taxes, not that the tax rate is about 50%. The total tax rate for gasoline in the US hovers around 100%, doubling the cost and thus comprising half of the total cost. But I guess we all knew what you meant, and that's what's important.
Frankly, since that level of taxation doesn't even cover the construction and maintenance of the roads, let alone related costs like traffic police and health care for accident victims, I'd say it's much, much too low. Cars are, in the US, a government-subsidized and money-losing transportation system - Socialism incarnate. I think that's what's meant by "flat tax" in this case - a large portion of the bill is hidden in other taxes, which do not vary based on road use, and are therefore "flat" relative to the project they fund.
Most cars in the US run on 87 (or even 86) octane fuel. Most filling stations only offer 87, 89, and 91 octane. A few stations will have one pump with 93 for hot rods. Anything higher usually requires a specialty supplier or cans of fuel additives.
I mention this because I gather that cars in Europe generally use higher-octane fuels. (Unfortunately, US and European standards for computing octane numbers are different - I don't know how to compare the numbers directly.) Certainly, the Audis, Benzes, BMWs, Jags, VWs etc. exported to the US generally require the highest-octane (91) gas generally available here, yet they're often less powerful than the European versions. Using higher octane fuel allows higher compression ratios in the engines, which can help achieve higher MPG ratings. However, more crude is required to refine a gallon of high-octane than a gallon of low-octane. So the MPG figures for cars designed for 91 octane and 87 octane aren't comparable, if petroleum consumption is what you're trying to compare. The high-octane cars will look better than they really are.
All that said, though, the US's energy policies and taxes are admittedly, indefensibly, and completely insane. There's no question that we burn way, way more gasoline than is remotely necessary. As a single commuter, I am among the guilty. But I, for one, would support higher fuel taxes - the true cost of the car culture isn't reflected at the pump, and it should be.
My hobbyist project was picked up by Google after a while, but it wasn't until I retroactively changed my comment signature here on Slashdot and on Kuro5hin (thereby creating many links to my project page) that it went to the top of the search results. It wasn't my intent to subvert Google in any way - I was quite surprised by the dramatic result.
There have been some less-than-scrupulous advertising companies in the business of that publishing dummy machine-generated web pages to exploit this trick. The dummy pages were typically filled with repitions of some nonsense paragraph, with self-links (to other dummy pages) and client-sponsored links interspersed here and there. The idea was that the self-linking would make the site look like a large, legit site to Google, which would mark it as relatively well-trusted and influential. Then Google would dutifully note the client-sponsored links and rank them highly. I believe Google has worked on ways to stop this; I don't know how successful they've been, or if the dummy-site makers are still around.
It may just roll off their backs, but it's a good note, and I, for one, am glad you sent it.
The article makes it plain that this is the just the beginning of a five-year project that will eventually spend $38mil, and which will end up with a lot more than 300 systems (200 to be added next year alone, for example) too. Comparing this to another project without knowing all the details of both is pointless.
I don't think Forbes has a reputation for particularly honest or fair reporting.
Every Forbes story I've ever seen has had a distinct pro-business - or even a pro-rich-entepreneur - slant, much as a car magazine has a pro-cheap-gas slant, or as a nature/travel magazine has a conservationist slant.
If FSF/GPL was a for-profit concern, I'm sure Forbes would be cheering them on. I'm not surprised that they took the stance they did, I'm only surprised that they're so extremist and clueless.
The author refers to the GPL's requirements as "onerous." They're not.
The author implies that complying with the license is difficult and/or risky. It isn't.
The author says that complying with the license (as these companies agreed to do when they used GPL code) is somehow "burning down one's house," and implies that compliance is an unreasonable thing to ask. It isn't.
QED.
A Google search for Arial seems to work pretty well today. You get links to places that sell Arial fonts, articles about choosing fonts, rants from people who don't like it, etc. It doesn't return a link to every page that uses it.
Google changes so fast and so often, it seems nearly pointless to put a critique like this in writing - even if everything in it is correct now, it won't be in a month or so.
Sure, we all know it's a competitor-bashing piece, but for me, that the clincher.
Would you volunteer to sift through all of the crap that surely inundates that inbox every second?
The situation is surely no different than with snail-mail, which the White House has had to deal with in vast quantities for years. And there's no reason to expect anyone to volunteer; the White House staffers are mostly employees who are paid to do this stuff.
But with e-mail, most of the real spam at least can be automatically sifted out. If anything, it should ultimately be easier and cheaper to read, analyze, file, and respond to a large number of e-mails than paper letters.
"Tedious and boring?" He's got an application that can actually do some of the stuff Hollywood hackers have been doing for years. How could anyone think that's boring?
"Tank, find a structural drawing of this building. Find it fast."