I honestly don't see what the "problem" is, here.;) We have a dozen or so computers running in our house (including monitors...21" and 25" monitors really generate much more heat than computers, actually). Because of these, we don't really need to pay to heat the house. Just close all the doors, open the curtains during the day, and you can maintain a pretty consistent temperature.
Just because it's from Microsoft it doesn't make it automatically "pretty".
No, it doesn't, but because it's from Microsoft -does- make it socially acceptable and "mainstream", if you will. Look at the latest fashion trends and pop hits on the radio...many people will bitch and moan about the lack of style there, but embrace the new fads simply because everyone else is doing it.
On that note, I find it a bit sad that linux programmers have stooped to the point of trying to win over users by copying the leader. And quite frankly, as interesting as this new wm looks, I think I'll stick with waimea, because it is different and not ugly.;)
This reminds me of one of those Godzilla vs. Mothra movies....both of them are big, ugly monsters, and a lot of crap is gonna get blown up before the bigger one finally wins.:/
hey, thanks for the info. good to know there are people out there that still care.;)
Re:Replacement needed for SMTP
on
ISP Chief on Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
SMTP won't just die, it needs to be replaced. If you can come up with a protocol that solves spam and works as well as SMTP, write an RFC and get some code out there.
People have said the same thing about HTTP, FTP, and pretty much every other standard protocol on the internet. So far, SMTP seems to have come under the most fire because of spam. I've been wondering when Microsoft will write their own closed mail protocol that effectively gets rid of spam, then proposes that everyone "migrate" from email to ms-mail or whatever the hell they wanna call it.
I think that we can all see that the ability to have an open, widespread protocol with spammers abusing people is a much lesser evil than microsoft controlling the entire email market. I propose that instead of getting rid of email, we add extensions to SMTP, just like they did for HTTP1.1 in order to better suit the needs of the growing net.
Yes, that's right. You probably just have to live with it. The best that ISP's can hope to achieve is a reasonable amount a spam filtering, and locking down their own systems to prevent abuse. Beyond that, quit your whining....the internet is a hostile place, and spam is just one part of it that you have to learn how to fight.
You know, I've looked around for awhile on etree and related sites, and the reason that I've never really gotten into them is a real lack of music that I want to hear (which is ok, for the most part). I don't expect every music site to cater to my tastes. What's disturbing, however, is the fact that there is a supreme lack of (ie, none whatsoever) punk bands and bootlegs from punk concerts.
You'd think that punk would have really adopted the whole linux/free software movement, given that the same 'fight the establishment'/DIY sentiment is really prevalent in both movements. I really wonder why more smaller punk bands don't put themselves up on sites like this now. Crass used to bootleg themselves all the time, and they were selling halfway decent bootlegs of themselves for the mere cost of the tape years ago.
Yes, I know that I probably shouldn't expect this from anyone on epitaph or fat records, or that whole wave of warped-tour style punk that most people tend to group everyone into. However, I really wish that punks would get with the program here and start using the net to spread their music and message more effectively.
I agree; the article doesn't really come right out and say it, but it's implied in the opening paragraphs (kind of poor form for a scientific paper if you ask me, but I wasn't really expecting much from a paper with scanned-in diagrams of the ear from a middle-school textbook). Anyways, the article doesnt' really say that MP3/digital audio causes hearing loss, it says that it causes hearing damage, as in damage to our ability to hear effectively. The author states that digital codecs work by removing parts of the audio signal that wouldn't be passed on to the conscious brain. However, these high and low frequencies may help the ear to calibrate and pass the signals along to the braing properly.
Basically, I think he was saying that digital audio can cause the ear to "go out of tune". On that note (no pun intended, I swear), I think he's kind of full of crap...of all the sounds that we are exposed to every day, digital audio probably makes up way less than 5%, if that. I can't imagine that it would make a significant difference one way or the other.
On top of that, he really presents no evidence one way or the other about this theory. At least he acknowledges it's only a hypothesis. Perhaps some research will be done on this in the future.
As far as the general public goes, they generally tend to over-dramatize the amount of "evil" that technology is responsible for. That being said, I'm sure that judges and legal panel have been made *well aware* about the true nature and uses of this technology before it is able to be used in a court of law.
That's not to say that the jury still won't have the ability to throw such evidence out. They are members of the "general public" still, and as far as lawyers go, the dumber the jury is, the better.;)
I know you're going to get modded down for being ot, troll or whatever, but I think you've got a damn good point. Does every damn crappy new movie need to get press on/.? Why do we have to fuel their fires?
Seems to me that if we are really interesting in fighting the MPAA/RIAA, we should just boycott their crap and not give them any attention at all.
Technically, billboards (and to a lesser extent, other said forms of advertising, too) are not opt-in. I don't remember ever paying to read spam. Your logic must be twisted as hell if you meant to imply "well, if you don't want to look at giant advertisements placed every 20 feet along the road, then you should move way out in the middle of nowhere and not ever come into the city."
As far as I'm concerned, billboards are far less opt-in advertising than spam, because you pretty much have to look at billboards, but you don't necessarily need to use email to communicate (there are still people out there that don't check their email 50 times a day, you know). Email, television, and magazines alike all are similar in that they offer information and communication but at the price of abundant uselessy information by way of capitalism from legitimate and not-so-legitimate sources.
I don't know if this is actually being done, but it's a rather novel concept. I did a search for ".com", and unfortunately, I got an error saying too many results had been found. However, it would be relatively easy to write a script to pick 3 random letters/digits out of the english language, and keep submitting them. That way, you'd probably not exceed the limit for returned addys and you'd get lots of data.
So is it hypothetically possible? Yes. Is there anything we can do about it that wouldn't defeat the concept of using a public-key conservatory? No, probably not. And finally, are most spammers intelligent enough to harvest email addys this way rather than use scripts they got hungry college students to write for them 4 years ago? Definitely not.;)
Re:Sueing could solve my edu's budget problems
on
AOL Wins Anti-Spam Case
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That's nothing. I worked for a company this summer which asked me to set up an entire server just for filtering out spam. Yep, an entire box had to sit on the email gateway just to filter out all the spam going to this domain (about 250,000 messages per day). It took a quad-processor sun e-420 with 4Gb of ram running qmail to get the job done. The amount of processing power it takes to fight off this much spam is unbelievable...it's seriously equivilent to a DDoS on the corporate email servers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I personally never really saw any reason to try to go after spammers legally, as I'd always just considered spam a common annoyance. But when spam gets in big enough volumes, its really an inadvertent attack.
That's not true at all. Everyone knows that the *real* reason geeks do stuff is to impress the ladies!
Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 2
Even though your post is an obvious troll, I will reply anyways because it is a Sunday morning and I've got nothing better to do.;)
At any rate, pornography is the -middleman- here. It, like any inanimate object, is not inherently responsible for how people decide to use/misuse it. This is essentially the same as saying that the Internet is bad because P2P has wrecked the music business.
Like the music business, you need to learn how to adapt to these changes, rather than coming online to gripe about them in hopes that you'll find symathizers for your poor, wretched life. Ever watched porn with your spouse? I bet not. I bet you'd find the idea embarassing and repulsive. And I bet that's the exact sentiment and emotional circumstance that would drive your wife to look at porn.
Slashdot Mirror
i thnik you spillde one too mnay code reds onyoru keybaord. :/
It's another slashvertisement!
Ok, take it easy on me here...
pic1
pic2
...what else could a guy ask for?
;P
Too easy.
I honestly don't see what the "problem" is, here. ;) We have a dozen or so computers running in our house (including monitors...21" and 25" monitors really generate much more heat than computers, actually). Because of these, we don't really need to pay to heat the house. Just close all the doors, open the curtains during the day, and you can maintain a pretty consistent temperature.
Just because it's from Microsoft it doesn't make it automatically "pretty".
;)
No, it doesn't, but because it's from Microsoft -does- make it socially acceptable and "mainstream", if you will. Look at the latest fashion trends and pop hits on the radio...many people will bitch and moan about the lack of style there, but embrace the new fads simply because everyone else is doing it.
On that note, I find it a bit sad that linux programmers have stooped to the point of trying to win over users by copying the leader. And quite frankly, as interesting as this new wm looks, I think I'll stick with waimea, because it is different and not ugly.
...but I don't think that's possible.
This reminds me of one of those Godzilla vs. Mothra movies....both of them are big, ugly monsters, and a lot of crap is gonna get blown up before the bigger one finally wins. :/
hey, thanks for the info. good to know there are people out there that still care. ;)
SMTP won't just die, it needs to be replaced. If you can come up with a protocol that solves spam and works as well as SMTP, write an RFC and get some code out there.
People have said the same thing about HTTP, FTP, and pretty much every other standard protocol on the internet. So far, SMTP seems to have come under the most fire because of spam. I've been wondering when Microsoft will write their own closed mail protocol that effectively gets rid of spam, then proposes that everyone "migrate" from email to ms-mail or whatever the hell they wanna call it.
I think that we can all see that the ability to have an open, widespread protocol with spammers abusing people is a much lesser evil than microsoft controlling the entire email market. I propose that instead of getting rid of email, we add extensions to SMTP, just like they did for HTTP1.1 in order to better suit the needs of the growing net.
Yes, that's right. You probably just have to live with it. The best that ISP's can hope to achieve is a reasonable amount a spam filtering, and locking down their own systems to prevent abuse. Beyond that, quit your whining....the internet is a hostile place, and spam is just one part of it that you have to learn how to fight.
You know, I've looked around for awhile on etree and related sites, and the reason that I've never really gotten into them is a real lack of music that I want to hear (which is ok, for the most part). I don't expect every music site to cater to my tastes. What's disturbing, however, is the fact that there is a supreme lack of (ie, none whatsoever) punk bands and bootlegs from punk concerts.
:/
You'd think that punk would have really adopted the whole linux/free software movement, given that the same 'fight the establishment'/DIY sentiment is really prevalent in both movements. I really wonder why more smaller punk bands don't put themselves up on sites like this now. Crass used to bootleg themselves all the time, and they were selling halfway decent bootlegs of themselves for the mere cost of the tape years ago.
Yes, I know that I probably shouldn't expect this from anyone on epitaph or fat records, or that whole wave of warped-tour style punk that most people tend to group everyone into. However, I really wish that punks would get with the program here and start using the net to spread their music and message more effectively.
Just my little rant.
do you have this list publically available? I personally would like a copy to merge in to my hosts file.
I agree; the article doesn't really come right out and say it, but it's implied in the opening paragraphs (kind of poor form for a scientific paper if you ask me, but I wasn't really expecting much from a paper with scanned-in diagrams of the ear from a middle-school textbook). Anyways, the article doesnt' really say that MP3/digital audio causes hearing loss, it says that it causes hearing damage, as in damage to our ability to hear effectively. The author states that digital codecs work by removing parts of the audio signal that wouldn't be passed on to the conscious brain. However, these high and low frequencies may help the ear to calibrate and pass the signals along to the braing properly.
Basically, I think he was saying that digital audio can cause the ear to "go out of tune". On that note (no pun intended, I swear), I think he's kind of full of crap...of all the sounds that we are exposed to every day, digital audio probably makes up way less than 5%, if that. I can't imagine that it would make a significant difference one way or the other.
On top of that, he really presents no evidence one way or the other about this theory. At least he acknowledges it's only a hypothesis. Perhaps some research will be done on this in the future.
It works for me and the rest of the world. Call your ISP.
As far as the general public goes, they generally tend to over-dramatize the amount of "evil" that technology is responsible for. That being said, I'm sure that judges and legal panel have been made *well aware* about the true nature and uses of this technology before it is able to be used in a court of law.
;)
That's not to say that the jury still won't have the ability to throw such evidence out. They are members of the "general public" still, and as far as lawyers go, the dumber the jury is, the better.
They should call them GNU/Carols!
I can think of at least a few people who ought to be getting coal in their stockings for this....
copywrite? COPYWRITE?
I know you're going to get modded down for being ot, troll or whatever, but I think you've got a damn good point. Does every damn crappy new movie need to get press on /.? Why do we have to fuel their fires?
Seems to me that if we are really interesting in fighting the MPAA/RIAA, we should just boycott their crap and not give them any attention at all.
Technically, billboards (and to a lesser extent, other said forms of advertising, too) are not opt-in. I don't remember ever paying to read spam. Your logic must be twisted as hell if you meant to imply "well, if you don't want to look at giant advertisements placed every 20 feet along the road, then you should move way out in the middle of nowhere and not ever come into the city."
As far as I'm concerned, billboards are far less opt-in advertising than spam, because you pretty much have to look at billboards, but you don't necessarily need to use email to communicate (there are still people out there that don't check their email 50 times a day, you know). Email, television, and magazines alike all are similar in that they offer information and communication but at the price of abundant uselessy information by way of capitalism from legitimate and not-so-legitimate sources.
I don't know if this is actually being done, but it's a rather novel concept. I did a search for ".com", and unfortunately, I got an error saying too many results had been found. However, it would be relatively easy to write a script to pick 3 random letters/digits out of the english language, and keep submitting them. That way, you'd probably not exceed the limit for returned addys and you'd get lots of data.
;)
So is it hypothetically possible? Yes.
Is there anything we can do about it that wouldn't defeat the concept of using a public-key conservatory? No, probably not.
And finally, are most spammers intelligent enough to harvest email addys this way rather than use scripts they got hungry college students to write for them 4 years ago? Definitely not.
That's nothing. I worked for a company this summer which asked me to set up an entire server just for filtering out spam. Yep, an entire box had to sit on the email gateway just to filter out all the spam going to this domain (about 250,000 messages per day). It took a quad-processor sun e-420 with 4Gb of ram running qmail to get the job done. The amount of processing power it takes to fight off this much spam is unbelievable...it's seriously equivilent to a DDoS on the corporate email servers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I personally never really saw any reason to try to go after spammers legally, as I'd always just considered spam a common annoyance. But when spam gets in big enough volumes, its really an inadvertent attack.
That's not true at all. Everyone knows that the *real* reason geeks do stuff is to impress the ladies!
Even though your post is an obvious troll, I will reply anyways because it is a Sunday morning and I've got nothing better to do. ;)
At any rate, pornography is the -middleman- here. It, like any inanimate object, is not inherently responsible for how people decide to use/misuse it. This is essentially the same as saying that the Internet is bad because P2P has wrecked the music business.
Like the music business, you need to learn how to adapt to these changes, rather than coming online to gripe about them in hopes that you'll find symathizers for your poor, wretched life. Ever watched porn with your spouse? I bet not. I bet you'd find the idea embarassing and repulsive. And I bet that's the exact sentiment and emotional circumstance that would drive your wife to look at porn.