Swapping the yellow with another colour won't work. The whole point of using yellow is that it is very difficult to see a tiny speck of yellow printed on white paper (RTFA!). Magenta, black and cyan will stand out on a white background, even when less than 1/300th on an inch, but yellow will not. The only way you can do it is by printing on a similarly coloured paper, like using cyan ink on blue paper.
How do you know it's your liver? Did you try crossing the threshold without it? Did you had it to someone else to take accross the threshold? "Excuse me, sir, will you hold this for a moment?"
"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." Nike tried this. They took a lot of flak for the way the asian third-party manufacturers operate, especially in regards to the human rights of their employees.
In response, Nike implemented several programs to enforce a formal code of conduct on their contractors, making them give their workers a bill-of-rights card to wear, pay their workers at least minimum wage, and limit their hours.
Whenever an auditor comes, they will always learn that their factories are always run strictly according to the code-of-conduct specified by Nike......only because the contractors instruct their employees to lie to auditors or get fired. The contractors instruct their employees not to complain about "rights" violations or they get fired. The contractors prolly had several sets of books too, one for the tax man, one for Nike auditors, and one for their real day-to-day operations.
The point is that a code of conduct is very difficult to enforce when contractors put up a strong resistance and are very skilled at lying to naive American companies.
"If you want to do things right, you ahve to do it yourself".
I used to drive an SUV. I was originally looking for a used luxury wagon, but at that time there weren't many available as they hadn't been popular long enough, so I had a choice between a luxury sedan and an SUV. The sedan I found to be awkward to drive because of its footprint and low seating position and the lack of cargo space, exacerbated by the fact that there were no luxury sedans with folding rear seats (by luxury I meant Cadillac and Lincoln), so I settled on the SUV. It was very confortable, even after 20 hours on the road, very nice on the highway. I took advantage of its towing ability and its 4wd capabilities every once in a while. However, I recently traded it in for a car platform truck (Subaru Baja).
I applaud the auto industry for growing the market for crossovers - car platform SUVs, for people who want the confort and capacity of and SUV, but the gas bill and handling of a car. I recently traded my SUV in for a car platform pickup truck (Subaru Baja)
A couple points that I want to note, though.
I'm not sure what you mean by Jackass with illegal tint. Most SUVs, and many cars and minivans have a very deep tint in all but the front windows from the factory. There is no law that says any window beyond the B-pillar has to be kept clear. Windows in front of that contribute very little to visibility for other drivers if the other ones are blocked
Ladder frames may be stronger than unibody, but they are not stiffer. Generally vehicles with unibody construction offer more torsion resistance (aids handling) and better intrusion protection in the crash suvival space. The only reasons trucks still use ladder frames are because it does a better job of taking up the stresses of heavy hauling and towing and it allows the box to be removed and replaced with custom equipment for industrial uses (such as a winch for towtrucks, etc).
Minivans are much safer now than when they were first introduced, partly because of safety regulations being tighened up for them, and partly because of consumer demand. Now minivan manufacturers advertise their crash test ratings as a prime selling point. Too bad they can't shake the soccer-mom image. This is one place where the car-platform SUVs shine.
You must live in the south if you like rear wheel drive. Better performace, but it's harder to drive on ice. Easier to get out of skid, but a whole lot easier to get into a skid too. I personally prefer full-time all wheel drive (though, I admit, some truck-platform SUVs have awd now). The main reason trucks still have rear wheel drive is because it's a lot more difficult to tow or haul heavy loads with front wheel. Front wheel drive requires the majority of the vehicle's weight to be on the front axle.
I won't go on the record saying a crossover (like a car platform SUV, or my car platform truck) is a "real" SUV or truck, but I won't challenge its legitimacy either. My truck doesn't have the same carrying capacity as "real" truck, doesn't tow as much as a "real" truck, doesn't have the same ground clearance as a "real" truck, but it handles much better, full-time all-wheel-drive is nice (though I do beleive that some "real" SUVs have that, no other truck does), it's more fun to drive, the box, being lower, is more convenient to use, it's safer in a crash (disclaimer: not yet verified through crash testing), and not having any industrial need for a truck, nor any boats or RVs to tow, it does everything I need it to.
While a fully beleive that the "real" SUV is a legitimate vehicle and irreplaceable for some uses, I strongly encourage those who don't need to tow or have industrial uses for a "real" truck or "real" SUV to not simply reject the crossovers out of principle. If you can give up the weight carrying capability, you might find that you are, in fact, more satisfied with the car-platform.
That would be unfortunate - the open source zealots overwhelming the pro-sco message board the same way the pro-sco zealots were overwhelming the groklaw message boards.
I used to read Groklaw all the time, but the pro-sco zealots would flame me to a crisp any time I said anything remotely pro-linux.
In Northern Canada there aren't a whole lot of 18-wheelers either. The population is so sparse that the economics aren't there. Most trucks run in Norther Canada are super-B's. They have two trailers and 30 wheels.
Peak Oil is already here. The reason OPEC hasn't increased their production capacity lately is because they can't. Saudi Arabia is the only country left with spare capacity left but they don't have much.
Oil in the ground is worthless until it is brought to the surface, refined, and distributed to the gas pump. Oil only comes up so fast and if you poke too many holes in the ground there won't be enough pressure left to carry the oil up the pipe. This happenned in southern Alberta - the oil wells lost pressure because they were drawn too fast, now there isn't enough pressure left to lift the oil up to the ground, meaning you actually have to send equipment down to push the oil up (expensive, and slow). In areas where that is not a problem (like the tar sands in northern Alberta that have to be strip mined anyways) you still have to build a facility to mine it and purify it at a cost of over a billion dollars and a lag time of several years.
Peak oil is here, and it will be until we (USA) can reduce our dependancy on it and China's economy sees a correction (only a temporary reprive).
What I would like to see is a mandatory amount of alcohol in fuel that is determined by the climate and fuel injectors that can adjust themselves according to the alcohol content in the fuel. I think the south can run on mostly alcohol for most of the year and the north can run mostly alcohol at least during the summer months and switch to a more gas-rich fuel during the winter so we can still start our cars. That's 3/4 of oil used for automobiles cut right there. Brazil has been running on alcohol for decades. Why can't we?
Power storage is only needed to convert 100% to wind power. In most areas where power is supplied mainly (and sufficiently) by coal or nukes, there are still benifits to adding windmills. On a windy day you can reduce the load on the coal (or nuke) plants so less fuel is used during those times. The coal (or nuke) plant is only running full capacity on calm days.
I left that one checked in error - but yes, people are reluctant to accept weird forms of money. The general feeling is that there are always strings attached, especially when there are governments involved.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (x) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Mod parent informative... that's the exact definition of "ORBIT". An object in orbit is constantly falling but moving laterally fast enough that it's always missing the earth (ie relative to the falling object, the earth is always moving out of its way).
Slashdot Mirror
What are you taking about? Diebold voting machines were working exactly as designed. Bush "won", didn't he?
- Thomas;
Send them to the same place they have to go to get their prescription drugs?
- Thomas;
- Thomas;
Swapping the yellow with another colour won't work. The whole point of using yellow is that it is very difficult to see a tiny speck of yellow printed on white paper (RTFA!). Magenta, black and cyan will stand out on a white background, even when less than 1/300th on an inch, but yellow will not. The only way you can do it is by printing on a similarly coloured paper, like using cyan ink on blue paper.
- Thomas;
Yellow is only a primary colour in subractive schemes. In additive, yellow is the combination of red and green.
- Thomas;
Comes equipped with fuzzy logic...
- Thomas;
How do you know it's your liver? Did you try crossing the threshold without it? Did you had it to someone else to take accross the threshold? "Excuse me, sir, will you hold this for a moment?"
ew
- Thomas;
His secretary prints his e-mails out for him so he can read them.
- Thomas;
I sure hope posession isn't illegal like the distribution is. I've got a mega stash dude
- Thomas;
Don't forget that the Iranian government has endorsed Bush.
- Thomas;
"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." Nike tried this. They took a lot of flak for the way the asian third-party manufacturers operate, especially in regards to the human rights of their employees.
...only because the contractors instruct their employees to lie to auditors or get fired. The contractors instruct their employees not to complain about "rights" violations or they get fired. The contractors prolly had several sets of books too, one for the tax man, one for Nike auditors, and one for their real day-to-day operations.
In response, Nike implemented several programs to enforce a formal code of conduct on their contractors, making them give their workers a bill-of-rights card to wear, pay their workers at least minimum wage, and limit their hours.
Whenever an auditor comes, they will always learn that their factories are always run strictly according to the code-of-conduct specified by Nike...
The point is that a code of conduct is very difficult to enforce when contractors put up a strong resistance and are very skilled at lying to naive American companies.
"If you want to do things right, you ahve to do it yourself".
- Thomas;
I applaud the auto industry for growing the market for crossovers - car platform SUVs, for people who want the confort and capacity of and SUV, but the gas bill and handling of a car. I recently traded my SUV in for a car platform pickup truck (Subaru Baja)
A couple points that I want to note, though.
- I'm not sure what you mean by Jackass with illegal tint. Most SUVs, and many cars and minivans have a very deep tint in all but the front windows from the factory. There is no law that says any window beyond the B-pillar has to be kept clear. Windows in front of that contribute very little to visibility for other drivers if the other ones are blocked
- Ladder frames may be stronger than unibody, but they are not stiffer. Generally vehicles with unibody construction offer more torsion resistance (aids handling) and better intrusion protection in the crash suvival space. The only reasons trucks still use ladder frames are because it does a better job of taking up the stresses of heavy hauling and towing and it allows the box to be removed and replaced with custom equipment for industrial uses (such as a winch for towtrucks, etc).
- Minivans are much safer now than when they were first introduced, partly because of safety regulations being tighened up for them, and partly because of consumer demand. Now minivan manufacturers advertise their crash test ratings as a prime selling point. Too bad they can't shake the soccer-mom image. This is one place where the car-platform SUVs shine.
- You must live in the south if you like rear wheel drive. Better performace, but it's harder to drive on ice. Easier to get out of skid, but a whole lot easier to get into a skid too. I personally prefer full-time all wheel drive (though, I admit, some truck-platform SUVs have awd now). The main reason trucks still have rear wheel drive is because it's a lot more difficult to tow or haul heavy loads with front wheel. Front wheel drive requires the majority of the vehicle's weight to be on the front axle.
I won't go on the record saying a crossover (like a car platform SUV, or my car platform truck) is a "real" SUV or truck, but I won't challenge its legitimacy either. My truck doesn't have the same carrying capacity as "real" truck, doesn't tow as much as a "real" truck, doesn't have the same ground clearance as a "real" truck, but it handles much better, full-time all-wheel-drive is nice (though I do beleive that some "real" SUVs have that, no other truck does), it's more fun to drive, the box, being lower, is more convenient to use, it's safer in a crash (disclaimer: not yet verified through crash testing), and not having any industrial need for a truck, nor any boats or RVs to tow, it does everything I need it to.While a fully beleive that the "real" SUV is a legitimate vehicle and irreplaceable for some uses, I strongly encourage those who don't need to tow or have industrial uses for a "real" truck or "real" SUV to not simply reject the crossovers out of principle. If you can give up the weight carrying capability, you might find that you are, in fact, more satisfied with the car-platform.
Just my $0.02
- Thomas;
That would be unfortunate - the open source zealots overwhelming the pro-sco message board the same way the pro-sco zealots were overwhelming the groklaw message boards.
I used to read Groklaw all the time, but the pro-sco zealots would flame me to a crisp any time I said anything remotely pro-linux.
- Thomas;
I should take a pool on when the dome finally bursts.
- Thomas;
In Northern Canada there aren't a whole lot of 18-wheelers either. The population is so sparse that the economics aren't there. Most trucks run in Norther Canada are super-B's. They have two trailers and 30 wheels.
- Thomas;
The VW Beetle is the top rated small car for crash safety by the IIHS.
Just my $0.02
- Thomas;
Peak Oil is already here. The reason OPEC hasn't increased their production capacity lately is because they can't. Saudi Arabia is the only country left with spare capacity left but they don't have much.
Oil in the ground is worthless until it is brought to the surface, refined, and distributed to the gas pump. Oil only comes up so fast and if you poke too many holes in the ground there won't be enough pressure left to carry the oil up the pipe. This happenned in southern Alberta - the oil wells lost pressure because they were drawn too fast, now there isn't enough pressure left to lift the oil up to the ground, meaning you actually have to send equipment down to push the oil up (expensive, and slow). In areas where that is not a problem (like the tar sands in northern Alberta that have to be strip mined anyways) you still have to build a facility to mine it and purify it at a cost of over a billion dollars and a lag time of several years.
Peak oil is here, and it will be until we (USA) can reduce our dependancy on it and China's economy sees a correction (only a temporary reprive).
What I would like to see is a mandatory amount of alcohol in fuel that is determined by the climate and fuel injectors that can adjust themselves according to the alcohol content in the fuel. I think the south can run on mostly alcohol for most of the year and the north can run mostly alcohol at least during the summer months and switch to a more gas-rich fuel during the winter so we can still start our cars. That's 3/4 of oil used for automobiles cut right there. Brazil has been running on alcohol for decades. Why can't we?
Just my $0.02
- Thomas;
Power storage is only needed to convert 100% to wind power. In most areas where power is supplied mainly (and sufficiently) by coal or nukes, there are still benifits to adding windmills. On a windy day you can reduce the load on the coal (or nuke) plants so less fuel is used during those times. The coal (or nuke) plant is only running full capacity on calm days.
- Thomas;
- Thomas;
I left that one checked in error - but yes, people are reluctant to accept weird forms of money. The general feeling is that there are always strings attached, especially when there are governments involved.
Your company advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Would be a nice way to catch one - pose as an advertiser. Now spammers don't know who to trust.
- Thomas;
The rest of us are just plugged into the matrix.
(+1, Informative)
- Thomas;
Mod parent informative... that's the exact definition of "ORBIT". An object in orbit is constantly falling but moving laterally fast enough that it's always missing the earth (ie relative to the falling object, the earth is always moving out of its way).
- Thomas;