Most forage grasses (such as Tifton 85) produce prussic acid (HCN) in the young plants and new shoots.
The level of prussic acid reduces as the plants mature, but the reducion of prussic acid levels is much less during drought conditions.
When establishing a forage plot, it is comon practice to apply the selective broadleaf killing herbicide 2,4-D. A side effect of 2,4-D application is an increase in prussic acid levels 3 hours and 6 hours after application.
The combination of drought conditions and 2,4-D application, as well as early grazing on this plot are likely to be the culprit here.
In terms that the slashdot crowd can understand: Operator Error and Not Reading the Documentation are likely to be the cause.
And yes, I am an Agricultural Worker.
(Also, I know how to google for facts before I post.)
A properly configured dhcpd can specify the location of the local network's timeservers to requesting clients. The client must be configured to request (and make use of) the information as well.
The entire class should petition Dan for an "incomplete". It is possible that he would listen to a reasoned argument that includes the fact that this is the first time the course was offered, and that it is difficult to gauge the difficulty of such projects without having a history of past performance by students. If the request is made politely and logically, and does not ask for too long a period to finish the work (an additional semester would be reasonable, IMHO), he may just grant your request, allowing those students who are serious enough about the subject to continue the project time to earn thier grades.
I don't know Dan, so I can't know what his response would be. And asking can't make the situation any worse.
This is stupid, and doomed to make things worse.
on
FTC Defines Spam
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The FTC defining spam is the first step to a "protected speech" claim by at least a segment of the direct email marketing industry. Laws are going to be inneffective due to the interrnational nature of the problem, and due to the sub-sub-sub-contractor practices that dominate.
The only possibly effective remedy I have come accross is the widespread addoption of SPF (as long as domains are publishing sufficiently restrictive policies), beysian filters, and blacklisting (either by users, by admins, or some combination of both).
Before anyone gets thier panties in a knot over blacklisting, SPF changes the nature of blacklisting by making it possible to identify which persons, hosts, or domains are responsible for the offending emails. The problem of false positives goes away if sending and recieving domains are using SPF (and the persons maintaining the blacklist are behaving in a reasonable manner).
The FTC cannot define spam, as what is spam to one might be truffles and cheese to another. Only I can decide what is spam (in my account). Quit bugging the legislators and start bugging the admins (or, better yet, the executives) to implement some simple, common sense measures (such as, if it originates at a "martian IP addy", it's probably not wanted), checking the legitimacy of the sender (SPF), allowing your users to help identify spam by submitting examples for your beyesian filters, and taking part in creating/maintaining a blacklist of the very worst offenders.
I'm sick of hearing of how that prick Von Neuman should be taking credit for the inventions of John Mauchly and Presper eckert!
So many of this/. crowd deify this faker who was only good at attaching himself to projects where the difficult work had already been done and then taking the credit for the work of the actual creators.
The memory structure was the invention of Mauchly, the processor was created by Mauchly and Eckert. Von Neuman was a man from a "good family" who lent his name and familial credibility to the project after the questions had already been answered.
If you are going to demonstrate your ignorance by crediting Von Neuman because he was the first to make the machine publicly known, you may as well credit Gates with bringing us the internet.
Please give proper credit where credit is due, Mauchly and Eckert did invent the first general purpose computer. Von Neuman came along after and took much of the credit due these two pioneers.
He was using Berkeley's computer system, so I doubt that Eolas' allegation of "not being connected to the internet" can be considered valid.
In addition to the system he used to create Viola, there's the copyright date on this article (1994), and this review of ViolaWWW by Tim Berners Lee (1992). Although there is no indication of whether Pei's embedded object archetecture predate's Eolas' the publication of his article and the availability of the libraries and samples at the same time that Eolas is patenting their new technology does cast doubt on Eolas' claim.
Eolas' argument is crap, they were likely aware of Tim Berners Lee's article and of Viola when they developed their techjnology (if you are an early developer of a new technology, it is likely that you read the works of the man who invented it), and the judge either doesn't understand the issue or the history, or he has an axe to grind (either against Microsoft, or against things being "Free").
If it is true that Microsoft was barred from introducing Mr Wei's object oriented ViolaWWW browser, then it does seem that Microsoft has a good case. Prior art such as this is essential to prevent the enforcing of unreasonable patents on ubiquitous technologies.
Mr Wei's page about the Viola engine (and it's use as the base for the ViolaWWW browser) has what appears to be a clear example of using a plugin architecture to support filetypes that are not supported by the browser natively:
The ViolaWWW browser application has provisions for treating viola application files just as any WWW document-- transport via HTTP, and render mini viola applications as if they're any web data.
It does seem to me (although IANAPL) that this very clearly describes an implementation of what was later called a "plugin". I certainly hope that the courts do rule in favor of Microsoft's appeal, as the enforcing of this patent could seriously hurt the Mozilla based (and possibly other) Open Source browsers (and the platforms we use them on.
A lot of people seemed to be rooting for Eolas on this one, but that is short sighted and misguided crap in light of the fact that Microsoft can afford to pay nearly any award granted that might be.
I'm just surprised that they didn't swallow the "poison pill" in order to push whatever new, license encumbered, replacement for plugins that they might have waiting in the wings (or alternatively, not introduce any replacement, but agree to pay the royalties on the technology in order to de-comoditize the browser market in thier favor). So now I say to Balmer and Co, "Keep fighting the good fight. For once you're fighting to keep the web Free".
What it really means is that the CIA sees your porn collection as a threat to the American way of life...
It won't stop at your porn collection if you are one of those troublemakers who has a tendancy to speak his mind.
#1) Ever critcise the president? No problem, it's a free country (but you are now known to be a possible dissident/anti-government radical).
2) Do you support or promote privacy and/or anonymity rights? Not an issue (but you are now suspected of possible conspiracy due to your desire to hide your actions and communications).
3) Use email to ask your mom to pick up some stuff from the store? By itself, this is no issue (but the fact that you are an anti-establishment radical who wishes to hide your actions from the government makes the email asking mom to pick up some rubbing alcohol and chlorine bleach indicates otherwise).
The actual innocence of you actions has no influence on whether you will be investigated, suspected, or harrased by the intelligence community. It is all up to thier interpretation. If you are lucky, you will never be on thier radar. If you are not, your life will change, and not for the better. You may never know that (or if) you are being monitored and investigated and it is unlikely that you could prove that you were (even if you do know) unless actual charges are brought.
Welcome to the new America. Of course, you have no real reason to complain about this. These measures are necessary to make us safer and to "protect our Freedom(tm)". You should be happy that such efforts are being made. You can rest assured that no govenment official, employee, or contractor would ever abuse these regulations and capabilities for personal gain.
I'd like to know how many of those domaines actually are applying effective policies.
SPF is great for communicating a domain's policy and for allowing the reciever to check for compliance, but this does little if the originating domaine's policy is lax (or worse, "no policy). This brings us back to what I have seen as the heart of the SPAM problem since the beginning, ISPs are all for protecting their users from SPAM, but as soon as you ask them to do something about spam originating from within their domain, they act as if nothing can be done. Only if the ISP is willing to set an effective policy, and is willing to take measures to enforce it, does SPF help to reduce spam.
That said, SPF does appear to be the most effective and implementable tool that has been proposed for ISPs to use in the fight against SPAM so far. I just hope all of those participating ISPs have admins that are capable of using it effectively.
"I've had over 1000 spam messages with valid SPF records."
That's likely due to the sending ISP having lax policies.
SPF only provides methods of communicating the sender policy and of checking wheter or not an email is compliant.
OTOH, this does allow us to determine if an ISP is lax about allowing their users to spam, or if it is doing nothing to let their users know that their machines have been compromised.
Your hasty accusation of the author making a hasty generalization shows me that you didn't read the "online pages".
The entire book is available at the site.
Not to worry though I haven't read it either. I'm only up to the fourth chapter, but I can say that, thus far, the author appears to be making his arguments rather well.
Get a forwarder for your domain hosted by a services company. It will not only give you a stationary ip for you mx record, but it will also continue to receive and store mail when your system is down. There are numerous small providers that can do this for you for reasonable amounts of money.
The spf record is simply a plain text record (TXT record) that enables the dns for your domain to comunicate your mail sending policy.
If your forwarder is configured to use smtp-auth for sending, you will be able to send policy correct mails no matter where you are located (as long as your mail client is capable of connecting using smtp-auth)
SPF is simple and flexible enough to encompass most every situation (including the "no policy" scenario). There is little reason to not adopt it if you are running a mail server or domain.
SPF does not eliminate spam, it simply makes it possible to identify those who are misrepresenting who they are. You set the policy for your domain, your DNS service communicates it to the server that is receiving mail from your domain, and the recieving server decides whether or not to accept that mail depending on it's own policy and the policy which you yourself set for your own domain.
As long as Microsoft is incorporating SPF into their solution, then it doesn't really matter if few providers use SenderID (as long SPF is widely adopted).
SPF provides the means to eliminate the most egregious spammers by eliminating all emails with forged headers and providing a means to ensure that the sender is complying with the rules set by their ISP. It is simple to implement because it uses already existing features of SMTP and DNS to operate, and it does not need to be adopted "all at once" by every ISP, as it does not interupt mail being sent to/from non-participating ISPs until the provider using it makes that decision themselves. It is also possible for a user (of a participating ISP) to incorporate SPF response into their filters in such a way that it would not eliminate any legitimate mails, and it would still be effective at helping the user to identify spam.
It will help ISPs verify that their users are violating policy by sending spam. It will help make blacklists more accurate by identifying ISPs that permit or encourage spammers to use their services.
As long there is progress toward wide adoption of SPF, there is little reason to argue over Microsoft's SenderID licensing scheme. If their protocol cannot be used with qmail, sendmail, and other high reliability/security servers, it will not be adopted. As long as Microsoft has followed its stated intention to adopt SPF as part of SenderID, then SPF will work for everyone, including those using SenderID.
The web is good at a lot of things. Some things, like word processors, (IMHO) it is not suited for.
But the web is great for collecting all sorts of data from all sorts of places. If you want to collect data on what people are writing, then what better way than to put the word processor on a server?
They may be so subtle that they are not even violent or even illegal.
Or they may be so clever that they know how to get the asshats you mentioned to do it for them. Look for the closest "actor" and you've got proximal cause, look for the greatest benefit, and somewhere nearby you'll find your primary cause.
As for an outright, violent violent rebellion, in the US that will only strengthen those who wish to take away the rights of the citizens and those who will receive the contracts to "keep the peace". I'm sure that anyone seriously thinking about revolt already has someone whispering such ideas in thier ear.
Slashdot Mirror
They've invented the acoustic coupler!
Go is still the best game online. I play at KGS and IGS. (KGS has better tools, IGS is easier to find an (apropriate) opponent on short notice.)
Most forage grasses (such as Tifton 85) produce prussic acid (HCN) in the young plants and new shoots.
The level of prussic acid reduces as the plants mature, but the reducion of prussic acid levels is much less during drought conditions.
When establishing a forage plot, it is comon practice to apply the selective broadleaf killing herbicide 2,4-D. A side effect of 2,4-D application is an increase in prussic acid levels 3 hours and 6 hours after application.
The combination of drought conditions and 2,4-D application, as well as early grazing on this plot are likely to be the culprit here.
In terms that the slashdot crowd can understand: Operator Error and Not Reading the Documentation are likely to be the cause.
And yes, I am an Agricultural Worker.
(Also, I know how to google for facts before I post.)
That would be more communistic.
Democracy is a method for selecting members of a government while Communism is a method for managing an economy. One does not preclude the other.
While I think that this list is a worthwhile effort, there should be some evidentiary requirement for an entity to be listed.
Public commentary, news releases, statements in interviews, response to inquiry, etc. are verifiable and not difficult to find or obtain.
It is possible that some have been listed erroneously, by either good or ill intentioned persons.
Without some method of including evidence the usefulness and value of this list is questionable.
Learn to look things up.
This Wikipedia entry is rather helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivars_Peterson>Ivars Peterson is a mathematics writer who writes entertaining books that explain concepts clearly.
His homepage is here and an archive of his "Math Trek" articles can be found here.
A properly configured dhcpd can specify the location of the local network's timeservers to requesting clients. The client must be configured to request (and make use of) the information as well.
The entire class should petition Dan for an "incomplete". It is possible that he would listen to a reasoned argument that includes the fact that this is the first time the course was offered, and that it is difficult to gauge the difficulty of such projects without having a history of past performance by students. If the request is made politely and logically, and does not ask for too long a period to finish the work (an additional semester would be reasonable, IMHO), he may just grant your request, allowing those students who are serious enough about the subject to continue the project time to earn thier grades.
I don't know Dan, so I can't know what his response would be. And asking can't make the situation any worse.
The FTC defining spam is the first step to a "protected speech" claim by at least a segment of the direct email marketing industry. Laws are going to be inneffective due to the interrnational nature of the problem, and due to the sub-sub-sub-contractor practices that dominate.
The only possibly effective remedy I have come accross is the widespread addoption of SPF (as long as domains are publishing sufficiently restrictive policies), beysian filters, and blacklisting (either by users, by admins, or some combination of both).
Before anyone gets thier panties in a knot over blacklisting, SPF changes the nature of blacklisting by making it possible to identify which persons, hosts, or domains are responsible for the offending emails. The problem of false positives goes away if sending and recieving domains are using SPF (and the persons maintaining the blacklist are behaving in a reasonable manner).
The FTC cannot define spam, as what is spam to one might be truffles and cheese to another. Only I can decide what is spam (in my account). Quit bugging the legislators and start bugging the admins (or, better yet, the executives) to implement some simple, common sense measures (such as, if it originates at a "martian IP addy", it's probably not wanted), checking the legitimacy of the sender (SPF), allowing your users to help identify spam by submitting examples for your beyesian filters, and taking part in creating/maintaining a blacklist of the very worst offenders.
I'm sick of hearing of how that prick Von Neuman should be taking credit for the inventions of John Mauchly and Presper eckert!
/. crowd deify this faker who was only good at attaching himself to projects where the difficult work had already been done and then taking the credit for the work of the actual creators.
So many of this
The memory structure was the invention of Mauchly, the processor was created by Mauchly and Eckert. Von Neuman was a man from a "good family" who lent his name and familial credibility to the project after the questions had already been answered.
If you are going to demonstrate your ignorance by crediting Von Neuman because he was the first to make the machine publicly known, you may as well credit Gates with bringing us the internet.
Please give proper credit where credit is due, Mauchly and Eckert did invent the first general purpose computer. Von Neuman came along after and took much of the credit due these two pioneers.
He was using Berkeley's computer system, so I doubt that Eolas' allegation of "not being connected to the internet" can be considered valid.
In addition to the system he used to create Viola, there's the copyright date on this article (1994), and this review of ViolaWWW by Tim Berners Lee (1992). Although there is no indication of whether Pei's embedded object archetecture predate's Eolas' the publication of his article and the availability of the libraries and samples at the same time that Eolas is patenting their new technology does cast doubt on Eolas' claim.
Eolas' argument is crap, they were likely aware of Tim Berners Lee's article and of Viola when they developed their techjnology (if you are an early developer of a new technology, it is likely that you read the works of the man who invented it), and the judge either doesn't understand the issue or the history, or he has an axe to grind (either against Microsoft, or against things being "Free").
jg21, you must be from Iowa.
Mr Wei's page about the Viola engine (and it's use as the base for the ViolaWWW browser) has what appears to be a clear example of using a plugin architecture to support filetypes that are not supported by the browser natively:
It does seem to me (although IANAPL) that this very clearly describes an implementation of what was later called a "plugin". I certainly hope that the courts do rule in favor of Microsoft's appeal, as the enforcing of this patent could seriously hurt the Mozilla based (and possibly other) Open Source browsers (and the platforms we use them on.
A lot of people seemed to be rooting for Eolas on this one, but that is short sighted and misguided crap in light of the fact that Microsoft can afford to pay nearly any award granted that might be.
I'm just surprised that they didn't swallow the "poison pill" in order to push whatever new, license encumbered, replacement for plugins that they might have waiting in the wings (or alternatively, not introduce any replacement, but agree to pay the royalties on the technology in order to de-comoditize the browser market in thier favor). So now I say to Balmer and Co, "Keep fighting the good fight. For once you're fighting to keep the web Free".
What it really means is that the CIA sees your porn collection as a threat to the American way of life ...
It won't stop at your porn collection if you are one of those troublemakers who has a tendancy to speak his mind.
#1) Ever critcise the president? No problem, it's a free country (but you are now known to be a possible dissident/anti-government radical).
2) Do you support or promote privacy and/or anonymity rights? Not an issue (but you are now suspected of
possible conspiracy due to your desire to hide your actions and communications).
3) Use email to ask your mom to pick up some stuff from the store? By itself, this is no issue (but the fact that you are an anti-establishment radical who wishes to hide your actions from the government makes the email asking mom to pick up some rubbing alcohol and chlorine bleach indicates otherwise).
The actual innocence of you actions has no influence on whether you will be investigated, suspected, or harrased by the intelligence community. It is all up to thier interpretation. If you are lucky, you will never be on thier radar. If you are not, your life will change, and not for the better. You may never know that (or if) you are being monitored and investigated and it is unlikely that you could prove that you were (even if you do know) unless actual charges are brought.
Welcome to the new America. Of course, you have no real reason to complain about this. These measures are necessary to make us safer and to "protect our Freedom(tm)". You should be happy that such efforts are being made. You can rest assured that no govenment official, employee, or contractor would ever abuse these regulations and capabilities for personal gain.
Just be happy that you have nothing to hide.
And be sure to keep it that way.
Always.
I'd like to know how many of those domaines actually are applying effective policies.
SPF is great for communicating a domain's policy and for allowing the reciever to check for compliance, but this does little if the originating domaine's policy is lax (or worse, "no policy). This brings us back to what I have seen as the heart of the SPAM problem since the beginning, ISPs are all for protecting their users from SPAM, but as soon as you ask them to do something about spam originating from within their domain, they act as if nothing can be done. Only if the ISP is willing to set an effective policy, and is willing to take measures to enforce it, does SPF help to reduce spam.
That said, SPF does appear to be the most effective and implementable tool that has been proposed for ISPs to use in the fight against SPAM so far. I just hope all of those participating ISPs have admins that are capable of using it effectively.
"I've had over 1000 spam messages with valid SPF records."
That's likely due to the sending ISP having lax policies.
SPF only provides methods of communicating the sender policy and of checking wheter or not an email is compliant.
OTOH, this does allow us to determine if an ISP is lax about allowing their users to spam, or if it is doing nothing to let their users know that their machines have been compromised.
according to the datasheet:
"io serialdata rate: software selectable 1,200 bps to 230,400 bps"
Your hasty accusation of the author making a hasty generalization shows me that you didn't read the "online pages".
The entire book is available at the site.
Not to worry though I haven't read it either. I'm only up to the fourth chapter, but I can say that, thus far, the author appears to be making his arguments rather well.
Writing complete sentences will improve your essay.
The example you chose is a complete sentance.
Get a forwarder for your domain hosted by a services company. It will not only give you a stationary ip for you mx record, but it will also continue to receive and store mail when your system is down. There are numerous small providers that can do this for you for reasonable amounts of money.
The spf record is simply a plain text record (TXT record) that enables the dns for your domain to comunicate your mail sending policy.
If your forwarder is configured to use smtp-auth for sending, you will be able to send policy correct mails no matter where you are located (as long as your mail client is capable of connecting using smtp-auth)
SPF is simple and flexible enough to encompass most every situation (including the "no policy" scenario). There is little reason to not adopt it if you are running a mail server or domain.
SPF does not eliminate spam, it simply makes it possible to identify those who are misrepresenting who they are. You set the policy for your domain, your DNS service communicates it to the server that is receiving mail from your domain, and the recieving server decides whether or not to accept that mail depending on it's own policy and the policy which you yourself set for your own domain.
As long as Microsoft is incorporating SPF into their solution, then it doesn't really matter if few providers use SenderID (as long SPF is widely adopted).
SPF provides the means to eliminate the most egregious spammers by eliminating all emails with forged headers and providing a means to ensure that the sender is complying with the rules set by their ISP. It is simple to implement because it uses already existing features of SMTP and DNS to operate, and it does not need to be adopted "all at once" by every ISP, as it does not interupt mail being sent to/from non-participating ISPs until the provider using it makes that decision themselves. It is also possible for a user (of a participating ISP) to incorporate SPF response into their filters in such a way that it would not eliminate any legitimate mails, and it would still be effective at helping the user to identify spam.
It will help ISPs verify that their users are violating policy by sending spam. It will help make blacklists more accurate by identifying ISPs that permit or encourage spammers to use their services.
Read the FAQ.
As long there is progress toward wide adoption of SPF, there is little reason to argue over Microsoft's SenderID licensing scheme. If their protocol cannot be used with qmail, sendmail, and other high reliability/security servers, it will not be adopted. As long as Microsoft has followed its stated intention to adopt SPF as part of SenderID, then SPF will work for everyone, including those using SenderID.
The web is good at a lot of things. Some things, like word processors, (IMHO) it is not suited for.
But the web is great for collecting all sorts of data from all sorts of places. If you want to collect data on what people are writing, then what better way than to put the word processor on a server?
Those who do not copy Unix are destined to reinvent it
badly.
They may be so subtle that they are not even violent or even illegal.
Or they may be so clever that they know how to get the asshats you mentioned to do it for them. Look for the closest "actor" and you've got proximal cause, look for the greatest benefit, and somewhere nearby you'll find your primary cause.
As for an outright, violent violent rebellion, in the US that will only strengthen those who wish to take away the rights of the citizens and those who will receive the contracts to "keep the peace". I'm sure that anyone seriously thinking about revolt already has someone whispering such ideas in thier ear.