It's not dodgy. The telemetry units are very definitely affected by cell phone transmissions. Every unit on the ward is affected when one of these nitwits ignores the VERY conspicuously posted notices.
These are probably the same folks saying that cell phones don't interfere with flight systems. Except that they often do.
It really doesn't matter if you think it's poor design or not. You're on private property, subject to the property owner's restrictions. If you ignore it, you should be held accountable for your stupidity. In either of these cases, a charge of Reckless Endangerment would cover the situation nicely.
Yeah, but the Beeb has never seen a cardiac monitor go completely haywire because some nitwit visitor's phone call is more important than the cardiac patient he's trying to kill.
Yes, I've seen it. My wife (a critical care nurse) has seen it often enough to recognise it instantly, which usually results in a cellphonectomy in the near vicinity within the next 30 seconds. If she's feeling nice, she doesn't permanently damage it before calling security to have the nitwit removed from the property.
"Firing Customers" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard today.
No, in certain unusual situations, it's the best thing you can do. (And it's a term I've heard for many, many years.) I worked in a graphics/print shop for a while, and some customers would drive us nuts, and lose us money over the stuff they did. ie. bring in questionable originals for copying, choose the cheapest photocopy option available, then return a 10,000-sheet job because there was a speck in the copies. Or, in a low-end design job, argue over nickle and dime issues for hours, eating up the designer's time that should have been spent on better-paying work.
A few times, we gave them the phone number for a competitor, and told them not to come back.
In the service industry, the customer who is paying the least, will invariably demand the greatest amount of service and attention. Big dollar-customers know what they want, know the value of what they are purchasing, and trust you to do it properly. I imagine there are similarities in the retail industry.
So all we have to do is buy a new BMW to avoid this government inflicted inconvienience?
Yup, the government forced the garage door companies and the auto companies to use a frequency band that was already assigned to the military as the primary user. Yup, it's a conspiracy all right.
Wanker.
Re:Scalability and Maintainability go hand in hand
on
On PHP and Scaling
·
· Score: 1
PHP's problem is that it quickly becomes unmaintainable in larger projects. That's why it doesn't scale, not because the platform isn't fast enough or Apache can/can't scale.
PHP will continue to have this problem until someone comes and tells the developers about a nifty invention called 'namespaces'
Hmm, maybe you've heard about classes?
All of my recent PHP projects have had 90% of their code in various classes, with the rest just gluing them together and calling the class functions. Very simple to maintain, and it solves the whole namespace issue very nicely.
It's just a language, it's how you use it that matters.
...having many persistent connections to your db can be an issue. Mysql tends to get extremely unhappy at the 1000+ connections range.
Mysql is not the only one. Each DB connection takes up system resources and database resources. A few years ago, I saw an Oracle database brought to its knees when our website got hit hard, causing well over 2,000 simultaneous database connections. It wasn't the main Oracle process that was the problem, it was the resources that all the listeners were consuming. Re-allocating more resources to the listeners solved the issue, but that takes resources away from the main DB engine. The Oracle server in question was a dual-processor E450 with 2GB RAM.
I love PHP, I use it almost exclusively for web apps. But I have serious misgivings about its scalability due to a lack of managed database connection pooling.
You, obviously have no clue about network routing. It's a whole lot more than "some doing". Routing tables would explode by a factor of thousands, choking any of the current routers to a complete standstill.
And, even past that, the addresses were assigned to the ISP, and leased to the customer. This is the equivalent of you renting a car from Hertz for your business, then declaring it actually belongs to you.
Both the customer and the judge in this case are morons.
First, it is not possible to move significant amounts of men and materials around the world by anything other than water. If the Air Force mobilized every one of their cargo aircraft, it would have taken a few *years* to deploy the troops needed for Gulf War 1.
Second, the Navy has provided a large portion of air combat assets in every conflict, and has been able to do so immediately, since they're already in the areas they're needed. Deploying a single Air Force fighter squadron into a combat zone takes *weeks*. Additionally, the Navy carriers are out of reach of most enemy forces, whereas the air force squadron will need ground units to provide security.
Third, the vast majority of cruise missiles expended in recent conflicts have been from naval vessels.
Fourth, the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, and like the carrier groups, we have several Marine Expeditionary Units deployed on ships in strategic regions at all times. Those MEUs can usually reach the combat zone and be on the ground in a matter of a couple of days. Contrast this with the weeks to months that it takes to deploy an Army unit of equivalent size.
Fifth, the electronics suites on Naval vessels provide both a high-quality sensor network, as well as electronic countermeasures. This is even more advanced when combined with carrier-based AWACS and ECM aircraft.
Yeah, sounds pretty pointless to me....
OTOH, if we contracted out the cargo operations of the Air Force, we could probably easily live without them. Those whining crybabies don't go anywhere without their air-conditioned tents. Talk about a waste of money...
You have to presume that it's far more common than anyone would suspect
Actually, pink contracts aren't even necessary for spammers anymore. With major providers like MCI/UUNet, who will only kick off spammers if they spam from their space, and the wide availability of compromised systems to use as relays, spammers can have completely bulletproof hosting from the largest backbone provider without negotiating special contracts.
It used to be nearly impossible for this to happen. The original rules for DNS were that you had to have at least 2 nameservers for your domain, preferrably 3 or more
Really? Provide a citation please.
It was always a suggestion, but it was no more enforced then than it is now. And, I suspect it was no more prevalent than it is now.
Besides, having Akamai serve the DNS *does* meet that rule. They have dozens of servers, scattered over the world.
I was thinking of a range finder on top of the vehicle aimed down towards the ground so that on flat terain it is taking the hypotenuse of a right triangle with a point just about 300-400 feet in front of the vehicle at full speed.
Hehe, never done any night-time off-roading, have you?
To be useful at moderate speed, you'd have to mount that range finder on a mast about 20-30 feet tall (or more).
Seriously, off-roaders mount their lights on top of the vehicle in order to illuminate over variations in terrain. Now, if you want to find out what that range finder would see, find someone with an ORV to take you out at night. The lights will illuminate out to several hundred meters easily, but you will have many "black holes" within your field of view, caused by shadows of small rises.
Take everything I said about speed in the previous post, and divide by a factor of four when running at night. (And that's essentially what you'd be doing when driving with your range-finders.) That four-foot wide "black hole" in front of you could just be a slope slightly steeper than the angle of the lights, or it could be a 10-foot deep trench. There's no way to tell until you're within several feet of it. Given the possibility of it being a trench, you'd better not be going fast. Typical washes in the desert often have vertical or undercut banks, dropping anywhere from six inches to six feet. Six inches will give a pretty good jolt, six feet will destroy the front end of the vehicle.
Me? I'd want one of those "birds" Speed Racer used for recon. Something flying up to kilometer ahead, mapping the terrain with above ground radar.:)
As for building it to "ridiculous strength", yes you can. But remember that the stiffer/heavier it is, the more shock it will take on every bump. Welds can break under those kind of conditions. Personally, I'd build it to be light, small and flexible. Think sand-rail rather than HMMWV. This also makes it less likely to get stuck/high-centered, etc. Also more likely to survive a high drop than a heavier vehicle would.
Another way to deal with it is with a range finder angled towards the ground- if it's suddenly WAY steeper in front of the robot than the robot was expecting, turn around and find another way.
Speaking as a former off-road enthusiast, unless that range-finder is suspended a couple hundred feet in front of your vehicle, it's not going to do you any good if you're moving at 60mph. Stopping on natural surfaces can often take a lot more distance than you're used to, especially if there's a downgrade involved.
Add to that the fact that hitting an 18" deep cut in the surface at high speed can tear the wheels right off the vehicle...
Seriously, running at 60mph on established, familiar trails in the open desert will keep your brain running at full speed trying to keep you safe. Running at anything over 40mph in unfamiliar, non-graded landscape is seriously risking your life. Most of the time I never got much above 30mph, and even that was hard on the vehicle. (Two center hanger bearings, six CV joint boots, a differential, a steering stabilizer, four shocks and an A-arm in one year. Plus numerous dents, scratches and bruises.)
or I end up having to add additional validation after submit.
You should have been doing this anyway. Validation done on the client cannot be trusted, regardless of their browser settings. Only validation done on the server can be trusted.
Validation on the client-side is a courtesy to the end-user, since it is much faster and generally better from a UI design perspective. If they turn of javascript, etc, then that's their loss, but you never should have been dependent on it.
Nice for you, but over here, I'm having to resort to more aggressive filtering all the time, just to keep the spam in my inbox to the same level. Even so, it's not working. Between spam that is designed to get past content filters, and spam originating from compromised broadband systems, it's getting more and more difficult to keep ahead of it.
Personally, I think spam would have significantly dropped if CAN-SPAM had *not* been passed. Several states were just starting to put a real hurt on spammers until the fed shut them down.
I didn't mean that the fact that PA local cops weren't allowed to use radar was an issue of the accused facing their accuser; I meant that banning completely automated enforcement in some states was that kind of issue.
Ah, here in AZ, speed cameras are used, but I've only seen them in vans, where I believe there is a human operator. Though, grant you, the odds of that operator being in any way aware of things is practically nil. Which, BTW, is my real beef. When I trained to use speed timing devices, my instructor made it very clear that the device was only to confirm what I already knew from my own observation. At that time, I could tell you the speed of a vehicle to the nearest 5mph with better than 95% accuracy. (I doubt I could do it to 50% accuracy now, it takes constant practice.) Without the trained eye to back it up, it's impossible to prove one way or the other whether the device was functioning properly at that moment in time.
(in PA local cops aren't even allowed to use RADAR or laser).
True
Something about the right to face your accuser...
Not true. It's an old issue that involved poorly trained municipal officers, corrupt small departments and a desire to keep the really nifty things in the hands of the State police. The first two are not much of an issue anymore, since the state now controls training of *all* police officers, and oversight of municipal governments is now pretty tight. The last one still holds though. The State troopers like their exclusive use of radar.
It doesn't really hinder the municipal cops much though. As long as it doesn't emit a doppler signal or use rangefinding, it's OK for use (VASCAR, speed tapes, stopwatch, etc.)
Dunno whether it's officially allowed or not, but it's the general practice to allow riders to fuel their own bikes.
First, go ahead and tell that guy with the $5000 paint job on his Harley that you're going to hold a fuel pump nozzle over it. (And probably spill some, see #3)
Second, the riders figured out that attendants really aren't all that anxious to stick the nozzle into the tank when the rider is still on the bike. Pay at the pump is cool. I can pull in and fuel my bike without dismounting.
Third, it takes experience to get the tank properly full. Without the long fill tube, you have to put the nozzle end in just the right amount, and have a very light touch on the trigger to keep it from splashing back. Even so, there's some risk of splashback depending on the idiosyncracies of the pump. The &$%*#$!! pump nozzles with the foreskin on them are the worst.
While newer airbags are less likely to misfire under normal operating conditions, they are still extremely dangerous in the case of a damaged vehicle. They are even more dangerous to rescuers who are cutting, prying or otherwise working near them.
From the point of view of the passenger/driver, they are an added bit of insurance against potential harm. For the rescuer, they are an additional hazard in a situation that is already very dangerous.
I managed a graphic design shop for a couple of years, and my formally-trained graphic artists using Illustrator couldn't even begin to keep up with this self-taught geek using Corel Draw. Just about every feature that Illustrator crows about when they first add it has already been in Draw for at least two years. Draw's print setups and dialogs *completely* blow Illustrator out of the water. Complex layouts can be done in seconds.
As for Photoshop, yeah, it's OK, but Corel's PhotoPaint is its equal. Not better, but not worse.
Given that it would take at least a half-hour just to give a brief overview of the issues surrounding fair-use vs the DMCA, I'd say that presenting any rhetoric is completely out of the question.
In ten minutes, you're going to be lucky to ask four questions and get any kind of intelligent response. Given that, I'd say the interviewer did an "un-fucking-believable" job of choosing questions that were highly focused (for his peer group/readers) and likely to set Mr Valenti back on his ass. If you look at it from that point, he was wildly successful. His questions left a man that even *we* consider to be formidable and a highly accomplished debater at a complete loss for words, and even shocked him enough to use vulgarities.
Mr Valenti won't be forgetting that interview for a long time.
Blacklists like this are the nazi way to fighting spam. Admins (and I'am an admin, too) use their godly powers to crash those spammers -- and just a few nearby unlucky innocent people. I have nothing against personal blacklists, but huge public lists are definitely not the way to go and this is exactly the example why.
Godwin already?
Anyway, stop thinking of these large lists as blocklists, and think of them as they really are, boycott lists. I don't refuse mail from Korea because I think all Koreans are spammers, I refuse their mail because I'm boycotting Korean providers for being lax on spammers and scammers. I, and many others hope that eventually, they will take notice, and clean things up.
Oh, and using those large public lists is actually a far better solution than using private lists. That way, when a provider finally does clean up their act, they don't have to try to track down the thousands of private block lists they're in. Believe it or not, some of the most egregious violators really are cleaning up their act lately, cough, Verio.
As for no false positives, well, unfortunately, that's just not an option anymore. By only blocking the specific IPs of spammers, it leaves the door open for ISPs to continually shift their spammers into "clean" IP spaces, leaving a trail of blacklisted space behind them, and forcing admins to play a game of spammer "whack-a-mole". It's far simpler to just block the ISP's IP space in it's entirety if they choose not to disconnect a spammer, and believe it or not, much better for the ISP's non-spamming customers, who would have ended up in polluted space anyway. This way, there's only one entry to be removed when the ISP gets a clue, instead of dozens/scores of individual entries that must be tracked down and cleared.
Besides, if your ISP allows spammers, why should I allow you, who are paying them to support spammers, to use my systems?
In the end, it all comes down to "My Server, My Rules". If you want to send mail through my servers, you and your provider must be good net citizens. You have no right to send mail through my servers, they are my personal property.
You know, you'd better hope that you never get one with any of my email addresses forged in it. Because if you forward *me* 100 copies of your spam, I'll be on the phone to your provider to have *your* account closed for being a spammer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not dodgy. The telemetry units are very definitely affected by cell phone transmissions. Every unit on the ward is affected when one of these nitwits ignores the VERY conspicuously posted notices.
These are probably the same folks saying that cell phones don't interfere with flight systems. Except that they often do.
It really doesn't matter if you think it's poor design or not. You're on private property, subject to the property owner's restrictions. If you ignore it, you should be held accountable for your stupidity. In either of these cases, a charge of Reckless Endangerment would cover the situation nicely.
Yeah, but the Beeb has never seen a cardiac monitor go completely haywire because some nitwit visitor's phone call is more important than the cardiac patient he's trying to kill.
Yes, I've seen it. My wife (a critical care nurse) has seen it often enough to recognise it instantly, which usually results in a cellphonectomy in the near vicinity within the next 30 seconds. If she's feeling nice, she doesn't permanently damage it before calling security to have the nitwit removed from the property.
"Firing Customers" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard today.
No, in certain unusual situations, it's the best thing you can do. (And it's a term I've heard for many, many years.) I worked in a graphics/print shop for a while, and some customers would drive us nuts, and lose us money over the stuff they did. ie. bring in questionable originals for copying, choose the cheapest photocopy option available, then return a 10,000-sheet job because there was a speck in the copies. Or, in a low-end design job, argue over nickle and dime issues for hours, eating up the designer's time that should have been spent on better-paying work.
A few times, we gave them the phone number for a competitor, and told them not to come back.
In the service industry, the customer who is paying the least, will invariably demand the greatest amount of service and attention. Big dollar-customers know what they want, know the value of what they are purchasing, and trust you to do it properly. I imagine there are similarities in the retail industry.
So all we have to do is buy a new BMW to avoid this government inflicted inconvienience?
Yup, the government forced the garage door companies and the auto companies to use a frequency band that was already assigned to the military as the primary user. Yup, it's a conspiracy all right.
Wanker.
PHP's problem is that it quickly becomes unmaintainable in larger projects. That's why it doesn't scale, not because the platform isn't fast enough or Apache can/can't scale.
PHP will continue to have this problem until someone comes and tells the developers about a nifty invention called 'namespaces'
Hmm, maybe you've heard about classes?
All of my recent PHP projects have had 90% of their code in various classes, with the rest just gluing them together and calling the class functions. Very simple to maintain, and it solves the whole namespace issue very nicely.
It's just a language, it's how you use it that matters.
...having many persistent connections to your db can be an issue. Mysql tends to get extremely unhappy at the 1000+ connections range.
Mysql is not the only one. Each DB connection takes up system resources and database resources. A few years ago, I saw an Oracle database brought to its knees when our website got hit hard, causing well over 2,000 simultaneous database connections. It wasn't the main Oracle process that was the problem, it was the resources that all the listeners were consuming. Re-allocating more resources to the listeners solved the issue, but that takes resources away from the main DB engine. The Oracle server in question was a dual-processor E450 with 2GB RAM.
I love PHP, I use it almost exclusively for web apps. But I have serious misgivings about its scalability due to a lack of managed database connection pooling.
You, obviously have no clue about network routing. It's a whole lot more than "some doing". Routing tables would explode by a factor of thousands, choking any of the current routers to a complete standstill.
And, even past that, the addresses were assigned to the ISP, and leased to the customer. This is the equivalent of you renting a car from Hertz for your business, then declaring it actually belongs to you.
Both the customer and the judge in this case are morons.
And as an aside, neither Trillian nor GAIM support any of the advanced features of AIM, MSN or Y!IM (webcam, voice chat etc)
Actually, Trillian does support webcam on Yahoo and MSN. AIM doesn't have that feature anyway.
Wow, where to start...
First, it is not possible to move significant amounts of men and materials around the world by anything other than water. If the Air Force mobilized every one of their cargo aircraft, it would have taken a few *years* to deploy the troops needed for Gulf War 1.
Second, the Navy has provided a large portion of air combat assets in every conflict, and has been able to do so immediately, since they're already in the areas they're needed. Deploying a single Air Force fighter squadron into a combat zone takes *weeks*. Additionally, the Navy carriers are out of reach of most enemy forces, whereas the air force squadron will need ground units to provide security.
Third, the vast majority of cruise missiles expended in recent conflicts have been from naval vessels.
Fourth, the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, and like the carrier groups, we have several Marine Expeditionary Units deployed on ships in strategic regions at all times. Those MEUs can usually reach the combat zone and be on the ground in a matter of a couple of days. Contrast this with the weeks to months that it takes to deploy an Army unit of equivalent size.
Fifth, the electronics suites on Naval vessels provide both a high-quality sensor network, as well as electronic countermeasures. This is even more advanced when combined with carrier-based AWACS and ECM aircraft.
Yeah, sounds pretty pointless to me....
OTOH, if we contracted out the cargo operations of the Air Force, we could probably easily live without them. Those whining crybabies don't go anywhere without their air-conditioned tents. Talk about a waste of money...
You have to presume that it's far more common than anyone would suspect
Actually, pink contracts aren't even necessary for spammers anymore. With major providers like MCI/UUNet, who will only kick off spammers if they spam from their space, and the wide availability of compromised systems to use as relays, spammers can have completely bulletproof hosting from the largest backbone provider without negotiating special contracts.
It used to be nearly impossible for this to happen. The original rules for DNS were that you had to have at least 2 nameservers for your domain, preferrably 3 or more
Really? Provide a citation please.
It was always a suggestion, but it was no more enforced then than it is now. And, I suspect it was no more prevalent than it is now.
Besides, having Akamai serve the DNS *does* meet that rule. They have dozens of servers, scattered over the world.
Maby you are misremember histroy because you shouldn't be remember the ever obscure 'those days' at all.
You're the one who wrote the translating algorithms for babelfish, aren't you?
I was thinking of a range finder on top of the vehicle aimed down towards the ground so that on flat terain it is taking the hypotenuse of a right triangle with a point just about 300-400 feet in front of the vehicle at full speed.
:)
Hehe, never done any night-time off-roading, have you?
To be useful at moderate speed, you'd have to mount that range finder on a mast about 20-30 feet tall (or more).
Seriously, off-roaders mount their lights on top of the vehicle in order to illuminate over variations in terrain. Now, if you want to find out what that range finder would see, find someone with an ORV to take you out at night. The lights will illuminate out to several hundred meters easily, but you will have many "black holes" within your field of view, caused by shadows of small rises.
Take everything I said about speed in the previous post, and divide by a factor of four when running at night. (And that's essentially what you'd be doing when driving with your range-finders.) That four-foot wide "black hole" in front of you could just be a slope slightly steeper than the angle of the lights, or it could be a 10-foot deep trench. There's no way to tell until you're within several feet of it. Given the possibility of it being a trench, you'd better not be going fast. Typical washes in the desert often have vertical or undercut banks, dropping anywhere from six inches to six feet. Six inches will give a pretty good jolt, six feet will destroy the front end of the vehicle.
Me? I'd want one of those "birds" Speed Racer used for recon. Something flying up to kilometer ahead, mapping the terrain with above ground radar.
As for building it to "ridiculous strength", yes you can. But remember that the stiffer/heavier it is, the more shock it will take on every bump. Welds can break under those kind of conditions. Personally, I'd build it to be light, small and flexible. Think sand-rail rather than HMMWV. This also makes it less likely to get stuck/high-centered, etc. Also more likely to survive a high drop than a heavier vehicle would.
Another way to deal with it is with a range finder angled towards the ground- if it's suddenly WAY steeper in front of the robot than the robot was expecting, turn around and find another way.
Speaking as a former off-road enthusiast, unless that range-finder is suspended a couple hundred feet in front of your vehicle, it's not going to do you any good if you're moving at 60mph. Stopping on natural surfaces can often take a lot more distance than you're used to, especially if there's a downgrade involved.
Add to that the fact that hitting an 18" deep cut in the surface at high speed can tear the wheels right off the vehicle...
Seriously, running at 60mph on established, familiar trails in the open desert will keep your brain running at full speed trying to keep you safe. Running at anything over 40mph in unfamiliar, non-graded landscape is seriously risking your life. Most of the time I never got much above 30mph, and even that was hard on the vehicle. (Two center hanger bearings, six CV joint boots, a differential, a steering stabilizer, four shocks and an A-arm in one year. Plus numerous dents, scratches and bruises.)
or I end up having to add additional validation after submit.
You should have been doing this anyway. Validation done on the client cannot be trusted, regardless of their browser settings. Only validation done on the server can be trusted.
Validation on the client-side is a courtesy to the end-user, since it is much faster and generally better from a UI design perspective. If they turn of javascript, etc, then that's their loss, but you never should have been dependent on it.
Equal parts ham and spam
I don't know about you, but the ratio of spam to ham that I get exceeded 1:1 quite a few years ago. Currently, it's more like 250:1.
Nice for you, but over here, I'm having to resort to more aggressive filtering all the time, just to keep the spam in my inbox to the same level. Even so, it's not working. Between spam that is designed to get past content filters, and spam originating from compromised broadband systems, it's getting more and more difficult to keep ahead of it.
Personally, I think spam would have significantly dropped if CAN-SPAM had *not* been passed. Several states were just starting to put a real hurt on spammers until the fed shut them down.
I didn't mean that the fact that PA local cops weren't allowed to use radar was an issue of the accused facing their accuser; I meant that banning completely automated enforcement in some states was that kind of issue.
Ah, here in AZ, speed cameras are used, but I've only seen them in vans, where I believe there is a human operator. Though, grant you, the odds of that operator being in any way aware of things is practically nil. Which, BTW, is my real beef. When I trained to use speed timing devices, my instructor made it very clear that the device was only to confirm what I already knew from my own observation. At that time, I could tell you the speed of a vehicle to the nearest 5mph with better than 95% accuracy. (I doubt I could do it to 50% accuracy now, it takes constant practice.) Without the trained eye to back it up, it's impossible to prove one way or the other whether the device was functioning properly at that moment in time.
(in PA local cops aren't even allowed to use RADAR or laser).
True
Something about the right to face your accuser...
Not true. It's an old issue that involved poorly trained municipal officers, corrupt small departments and a desire to keep the really nifty things in the hands of the State police. The first two are not much of an issue anymore, since the state now controls training of *all* police officers, and oversight of municipal governments is now pretty tight. The last one still holds though. The State troopers like their exclusive use of radar.
It doesn't really hinder the municipal cops much though. As long as it doesn't emit a doppler signal or use rangefinding, it's OK for use (VASCAR, speed tapes, stopwatch, etc.)
Dunno whether it's officially allowed or not, but it's the general practice to allow riders to fuel their own bikes.
First, go ahead and tell that guy with the $5000 paint job on his Harley that you're going to hold a fuel pump nozzle over it. (And probably spill some, see #3)
Second, the riders figured out that attendants really aren't all that anxious to stick the nozzle into the tank when the rider is still on the bike. Pay at the pump is cool. I can pull in and fuel my bike without dismounting.
Third, it takes experience to get the tank properly full. Without the long fill tube, you have to put the nozzle end in just the right amount, and have a very light touch on the trigger to keep it from splashing back. Even so, there's some risk of splashback depending on the idiosyncracies of the pump. The &$%*#$!! pump nozzles with the foreskin on them are the worst.
Sorry, your sarcasm is definitely misplaced.
While newer airbags are less likely to misfire under normal operating conditions, they are still extremely dangerous in the case of a damaged vehicle. They are even more dangerous to rescuers who are cutting, prying or otherwise working near them.
From the point of view of the passenger/driver, they are an added bit of insurance against potential harm. For the rescuer, they are an additional hazard in a situation that is already very dangerous.
Eh, I've never been impressed with Illustrator.
I managed a graphic design shop for a couple of years, and my formally-trained graphic artists using Illustrator couldn't even begin to keep up with this self-taught geek using Corel Draw. Just about every feature that Illustrator crows about when they first add it has already been in Draw for at least two years. Draw's print setups and dialogs *completely* blow Illustrator out of the water. Complex layouts can be done in seconds.
As for Photoshop, yeah, it's OK, but Corel's PhotoPaint is its equal. Not better, but not worse.
How much do you expect him to do in ten minutes?
Given that it would take at least a half-hour just to give a brief overview of the issues surrounding fair-use vs the DMCA, I'd say that presenting any rhetoric is completely out of the question.
In ten minutes, you're going to be lucky to ask four questions and get any kind of intelligent response. Given that, I'd say the interviewer did an "un-fucking-believable" job of choosing questions that were highly focused (for his peer group/readers) and likely to set Mr Valenti back on his ass. If you look at it from that point, he was wildly successful. His questions left a man that even *we* consider to be formidable and a highly accomplished debater at a complete loss for words, and even shocked him enough to use vulgarities.
Mr Valenti won't be forgetting that interview for a long time.
Blacklists like this are the nazi way to fighting spam. Admins (and I'am an admin, too) use their godly powers to crash those spammers -- and just a few nearby unlucky innocent people. I have nothing against personal blacklists, but huge public lists are definitely not the way to go and this is exactly the example why.
Godwin already?
Anyway, stop thinking of these large lists as blocklists, and think of them as they really are, boycott lists. I don't refuse mail from Korea because I think all Koreans are spammers, I refuse their mail because I'm boycotting Korean providers for being lax on spammers and scammers. I, and many others hope that eventually, they will take notice, and clean things up.
Oh, and using those large public lists is actually a far better solution than using private lists. That way, when a provider finally does clean up their act, they don't have to try to track down the thousands of private block lists they're in. Believe it or not, some of the most egregious violators really are cleaning up their act lately, cough, Verio.
As for no false positives, well, unfortunately, that's just not an option anymore. By only blocking the specific IPs of spammers, it leaves the door open for ISPs to continually shift their spammers into "clean" IP spaces, leaving a trail of blacklisted space behind them, and forcing admins to play a game of spammer "whack-a-mole". It's far simpler to just block the ISP's IP space in it's entirety if they choose not to disconnect a spammer, and believe it or not, much better for the ISP's non-spamming customers, who would have ended up in polluted space anyway. This way, there's only one entry to be removed when the ISP gets a clue, instead of dozens/scores of individual entries that must be tracked down and cleared.
Besides, if your ISP allows spammers, why should I allow you, who are paying them to support spammers, to use my systems?
In the end, it all comes down to "My Server, My Rules". If you want to send mail through my servers, you and your provider must be good net citizens. You have no right to send mail through my servers, they are my personal property.
You know, you'd better hope that you never get one with any of my email addresses forged in it. Because if you forward *me* 100 copies of your spam, I'll be on the phone to your provider to have *your* account closed for being a spammer.