Changing ISP's is a very costly event, and one that no company worth anything takes on lightly.
The problem is it may be fine for you to want to press hard against ISPs and potentially drive them out of business if they're light on spammers. Fine, that's your choice, make your voice heard with your dollar. The rest of us have to make do with the resulting mess.
I don't care how easy it is to get un-blocked, the problem is there's still lag between being blocked, and finding that out, and then figuring out how, and sucessfully un-blocking your ip.
How do you verify that at no point now or in the future will a spammer ever exist on your ISP's network?
Answer: YOU CAN'T!
Many times spam is sent from cracked machines, or from people violating the ISP's terms of use. Whether or not the ip is likely to send spam again in the future is never taken into account. An entire ip block may be rendered useless by overzealous blacklists, just because of one cracked computer.
You claim it's a false analogy, but everything you bring up makes the analogy more apt in my mind.
These lists are basically operating under the assumption that punishing a large group of people weakly associated with undesired behavior will result in the elimination of that behavior by the minority of that group. The innocents are unable to do anything about the people they are affiliated with. The ISP is like a zoning commission. Yes, with enough complaints from their customers/constituents, they might change their ways, but in the short term, the people punished have no real control over the situation.
You also show why this tactic is doomed to failure. The honest non-spammers will continue to not spam, but be incredibly inconvenienced, while the spammers will ignore the edict and run around spamming on other networks.
Arguably that's linux's greatest strength. Windows has a single set of libraries, so intertwined that it's really impossible to build something new on top of it.
Linux, with multiple layers which get really good at just doing their particular job, allows you to put whatever you want on top (or yank pieces in and out of the middle layer).
People seem to forget that Linux is built by the people who use it. When people ask why things work the way they do, the short answer is that the people who use it like it that way, or at least don't hate it enough to spend effort changing it.
You don't like it, fine, write your own, or if you can't do that, convince someone who can that your ideas have merit. If you lack even ideas, then stop criticizing the people who do!
I would not see another film with Lopez or Affleck because the 20 million each of them got from the film makes me want to puke
That's what I'm worried about. They both worked on Kevin Smith's movie "Jersey Girl," which finished shooting quite a while ago, but hasn't been released. I don't think they'll be able to release it for quite a while, given the horrible associations people now have with Affleck and Lopez.
No, that is incorrect. By that logic, you could legally have showers at swimming pools which gassed and killed their occupants, as long as they were properly warned.
This is not the case, you cannot commit illegal acts by simply warning the person in advance.
Does anyone remember battletech? It was kind of like an arcade, but just with the one game, a Mech type battle simulator, complete with cockpit, joystick, and multiple screens for views just like this. I remember playing at the Navy Pier in Chicago many years ago....
It's amazing how much multiple screens increases the realism. You look left, right, and there's still more game!
I seriously doubt that for any driver these systems will add more risk than they reduce.
Yes you're adding the very small chance that they system will not function properly in some contrived situation where the driver would have been able to compensate properly, but in the vast majority of the time, the system will kick in when the driver is not paying proper attention to what they are doing.
You also have to consider your risk from other drivers on the road when determining your risk. Even if you are a perfect driver, any aid which reduces the probability of someone else hitting you should noticeably reduce your overall chances of being involved in an accident.
That's the argument people always used to use with seatbelts... what if I were trapped inside the car and it was burning, and I couldn't get out because of the seat belt?
You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis... as long as the new technology saves more lives than it endangers, it's worth pursuing... you can always improve it to reduce the false positives.
I doubt very much that the people who write the majority of the software for these missions even work directly for NASA.
Usually they'll work for whatever University is heading up the project, or for the contractors who are actually building the spacecraft (although there are various levels of projects in NASA, some are just NASA funded, some are actually NASA projects).
The software written for manned launches naturally recieves better support and funding, since lives are at risk.
The problem with unmanned exploration craft is it's much easier to cut back on software development spending, particularly when trying to follow the mantra of faster, better, cheaper.
Let's take a little thought experiment... say there's a species of predetory bird in New Zealand, and it is also beeing kept in check by the rat population. Remove the rats, and this other species of bird starts taking over, finishing off species put on the brink by the rats.
Obviously this is contrived, but ecosystems are some of the most complex systems we know of; we don't even know all the rules! It is impossible to predict all the consequences of removing the rats after 2 centuries.
That said, ecosystems are also very good at self-repair, so removing the rats may (note MAY) work out fine. I'm just worried that we will bury ourselves in a cycle of trying to fine-tune ecosystems, but instead push them so far out of equilibrium they can't recover.
Human short-sightedness and selfishness created the problem, and I have serious doubts whether further action on our part will be helpful, certainly enough to play devil's-advocate here;)
I do think they are very serious issues, which is why I worry that in the effort to undo our f*ups we will do further damage.
Please note, I never advocated doing nothing, but trying to force a system back to its state before human meddling suffers from 2 problems:
1) we don't really have enough information to perfectly reproduce the former system. Instead all we're doing is trying to cut out the obvious variable of a single human introduced species. Does killing all the rats make everything go back to normal?
2) Even if we did know exactly what changes were made, it's doubtful that we could exert a level of control over the ecosystem to return all pieces to pre-human conditions. It's far more likely that we'll simply create further imbalance. What about the species which are already extinct, how do you reintroduce them?
These two problems together make it very unlikely that we can undo our changes without causing more damage. On the basis of this assumption I think it's wiser to learn how to stop future harm, rather than fail to undo what has already been done.
Seriously... at some point we need to decide how much backtracking we want to do. Lets say we achieve a level of technology where we can hold the entire echosystem at it's present state. That's not necessarily a good thing. Ecosystems evolve. New species arive, old ones die out. Obviously we're accelerating that process dramatically, and we should try our best to prevent such human-caused changes, but once they occur, do we have the ability to reverse our changes without introducing new problems? I doubt it.
There's no inherent reason why a wider aspect ratio is any better in the first place.
I disagree... I think we're used to seeing the world in a pretty wide aspect ratio... compare how your peripheral vision compares left to right as up and down. I can see ~40-60 degrees more left to right (just a quick approximation).
I think the wider view is more immersive... not necessarily as good as having an IMAX type screen where you can't see the whole screen unless you turn your head, but we can't all afford that:)
You have a selection effect you're not considering, in that the quasars with jets pointed directly at us are much brighter (relativistic beaming effects) and are thus MUCH easier to see than those which aren't pointed at us.
It's clear by reading your source that the person writing it really doesn't have a good understanding of the current theory on Quasars (or the observational evidence for that matter). I'd suggest you look around a bit more for a better source.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing ISP's is a very costly event, and one that no company worth anything takes on lightly.
The problem is it may be fine for you to want to press hard against ISPs and potentially drive them out of business if they're light on spammers. Fine, that's your choice, make your voice heard with your dollar. The rest of us have to make do with the resulting mess.
I don't care how easy it is to get un-blocked, the problem is there's still lag between being blocked, and finding that out, and then figuring out how, and sucessfully un-blocking your ip.
Doug
How do you verify that at no point now or in the future will a spammer ever exist on your ISP's network?
Answer: YOU CAN'T!
Many times spam is sent from cracked machines, or from people violating the ISP's terms of use. Whether or not the ip is likely to send spam again in the future is never taken into account. An entire ip block may be rendered useless by overzealous blacklists, just because of one cracked computer.
Doug
You claim it's a false analogy, but everything you bring up makes the analogy more apt in my mind.
These lists are basically operating under the assumption that punishing a large group of people weakly associated with undesired behavior will result in the elimination of that behavior by the minority of that group. The innocents are unable to do anything about the people they are affiliated with. The ISP is like a zoning commission. Yes, with enough complaints from their customers/constituents, they might change their ways, but in the short term, the people punished have no real control over the situation.
You also show why this tactic is doomed to failure. The honest non-spammers will continue to not spam, but be incredibly inconvenienced, while the spammers will ignore the edict and run around spamming on other networks.
Doug
To be fair, I had a tuition waiver, so I didn't care about the tuition hike (plus I graduated before the big one).
The in-state tuition is still an incredible bargain though, you really can't do better.
Doug
Especially America's best, brightest, and laziest ;)
Ahhh University of Arizona, a wonderful place for a slacker.
Doug
Arguably that's linux's greatest strength. Windows has a single set of libraries, so intertwined that it's really impossible to build something new on top of it.
Linux, with multiple layers which get really good at just doing their particular job, allows you to put whatever you want on top (or yank pieces in and out of the middle layer).
People seem to forget that Linux is built by the people who use it. When people ask why things work the way they do, the short answer is that the people who use it like it that way, or at least don't hate it enough to spend effort changing it.
You don't like it, fine, write your own, or if you can't do that, convince someone who can that your ideas have merit. If you lack even ideas, then stop criticizing the people who do!
Doug
I would not see another film with Lopez or Affleck because the 20 million each of them got from the film makes me want to puke
That's what I'm worried about. They both worked on Kevin Smith's movie "Jersey Girl," which finished shooting quite a while ago, but hasn't been released. I don't think they'll be able to release it for quite a while, given the horrible associations people now have with Affleck and Lopez.
Doug
Exactly! That's the WHOLE POINT!!!
Killing people is already illegal, so no contract and no amount of prior warning can allow you to do it!
Thus, if video taping someone is illegal, warning them about it does not make it legal.
Doug
No, that is incorrect. By that logic, you could legally have showers at swimming pools which gassed and killed their occupants, as long as they were properly warned.
This is not the case, you cannot commit illegal acts by simply warning the person in advance.
Doug
I can guarantee you this for N=1.... just pick any numbers you want, I promise you you'll win at least 0 times.
Doug
I think if the satellite crashes, that pretty much resolves any dependecy problems now doesn't it :)
He meant it's worthless to you, since you can easily replace it with insurance money.
No matter how much you insure it for, though, you can never replace the data.
Doug
How about 16 year ago, because I sure was....
Doug
*wipes drool off of floor*
Does anyone remember battletech? It was kind of like an arcade, but just with the one game, a Mech type battle simulator, complete with cockpit, joystick, and multiple screens for views just like this. I remember playing at the Navy Pier in Chicago many years ago....
It's amazing how much multiple screens increases the realism. You look left, right, and there's still more game!
Doug
I seriously doubt that for any driver these systems will add more risk than they reduce.
Yes you're adding the very small chance that they system will not function properly in some contrived situation where the driver would have been able to compensate properly, but in the vast majority of the time, the system will kick in when the driver is not paying proper attention to what they are doing.
You also have to consider your risk from other drivers on the road when determining your risk. Even if you are a perfect driver, any aid which reduces the probability of someone else hitting you should noticeably reduce your overall chances of being involved in an accident.
Doug
That's the argument people always used to use with seatbelts... what if I were trapped inside the car and it was burning, and I couldn't get out because of the seat belt?
You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis... as long as the new technology saves more lives than it endangers, it's worth pursuing... you can always improve it to reduce the false positives.
Doug
I doubt very much that the people who write the majority of the software for these missions even work directly for NASA.
Usually they'll work for whatever University is heading up the project, or for the contractors who are actually building the spacecraft (although there are various levels of projects in NASA, some are just NASA funded, some are actually NASA projects).
Doug
The software written for manned launches naturally recieves better support and funding, since lives are at risk.
The problem with unmanned exploration craft is it's much easier to cut back on software development spending, particularly when trying to follow the mantra of faster, better, cheaper.
Doug
I skipped it in the theatres and watched it on someone else's dvd copy.
No money from me, Mr. Lucas, until you get yourself a writer.
Doug
Let's take a little thought experiment... say there's a species of predetory bird in New Zealand, and it is also beeing kept in check by the rat population. Remove the rats, and this other species of bird starts taking over, finishing off species put on the brink by the rats.
;)
Obviously this is contrived, but ecosystems are some of the most complex systems we know of; we don't even know all the rules! It is impossible to predict all the consequences of removing the rats after 2 centuries.
That said, ecosystems are also very good at self-repair, so removing the rats may (note MAY) work out fine. I'm just worried that we will bury ourselves in a cycle of trying to fine-tune ecosystems, but instead push them so far out of equilibrium they can't recover.
Human short-sightedness and selfishness created the problem, and I have serious doubts whether further action on our part will be helpful, certainly enough to play devil's-advocate here
Doug
I do think they are very serious issues, which is why I worry that in the effort to undo our f*ups we will do further damage.
Please note, I never advocated doing nothing, but trying to force a system back to its state before human meddling suffers from 2 problems:
1) we don't really have enough information to perfectly reproduce the former system. Instead all we're doing is trying to cut out the obvious variable of a single human introduced species. Does killing all the rats make everything go back to normal?
2) Even if we did know exactly what changes were made, it's doubtful that we could exert a level of control over the ecosystem to return all pieces to pre-human conditions. It's far more likely that we'll simply create further imbalance. What about the species which are already extinct, how do you reintroduce them?
These two problems together make it very unlikely that we can undo our changes without causing more damage. On the basis of this assumption I think it's wiser to learn how to stop future harm, rather than fail to undo what has already been done.
Doug
Save the rats!
Seriously... at some point we need to decide how much backtracking we want to do. Lets say we achieve a level of technology where we can hold the entire echosystem at it's present state. That's not necessarily a good thing. Ecosystems evolve. New species arive, old ones die out. Obviously we're accelerating that process dramatically, and we should try our best to prevent such human-caused changes, but once they occur, do we have the ability to reverse our changes without introducing new problems? I doubt it.
Doug
Sure, I'll supply the 5:3 vision if you supply the $1300 ;)
Doug
There's no inherent reason why a wider aspect ratio is any better in the first place.
:)
I disagree... I think we're used to seeing the world in a pretty wide aspect ratio... compare how your peripheral vision compares left to right as up and down. I can see ~40-60 degrees more left to right (just a quick approximation).
I think the wider view is more immersive... not necessarily as good as having an IMAX type screen where you can't see the whole screen unless you turn your head, but we can't all afford that
Doug
You have a selection effect you're not considering, in that the quasars with jets pointed directly at us are much brighter (relativistic beaming effects) and are thus MUCH easier to see than those which aren't pointed at us.
It's clear by reading your source that the person writing it really doesn't have a good understanding of the current theory on Quasars (or the observational evidence for that matter). I'd suggest you look around a bit more for a better source.
Doug