Ditch the filter you're using and install something that refuses to accept the spam in the first place. If it bounces off the server, and it's a false positive, the sender will know it and re-send or contact you directly. Do you have examples of this? I'd love to be able to just bounce spam, but SpamAssassin needs to look at the entire message, meaning that I've already accepted the mail before processing it. If you have an example of a SpamAssassin linkup that keeps the mail connection open (and issues a bounce with error code when analysis is done), please share!
The spam that slips past my filters is easy to identify, mark, report, and add to my bayesian corpus. It's the spam that DOESN'T make it past my filters that I have to pull up, display, and review, about 200 messages PER DAY (or 400-500 messages per sitting, since I review the trapped messages every other day.) This is the stuff that costs me time, since now I'm hunting for any good mail that might have been filtered in a sea of spam.
I can't just purge all the trapped mail without reviewing it, because I do all my business online. I've whitelisted everyone I do business with on a normal basis, but new customers, customer support, and eBay notices go to the same address that gets heavily filtered (because they're public.) Public, in this case, means that the addresses have gotten spam (although they're not posted to the web, for obvious reasons.) This includes addresses that I don't use, but have been dictionary attacked.
The solution is obvious - I need to add more rules to be more selective about which messages to trap, and which messages to pass. However, that takes time...:(
So has anyone put together one of those FBI-style crime-family trees that details all of the various bits and pieces of the Canopy operation? I'd like to know how many pieces we have to find and kill before SCO dies...
Depending on which state you live in, you may also have a state constitution and bill of rights that give you unique rights that may not exist in other states (ie, unequivocal right to bear arms.) Same as the EU may eventually end up (ie, many local charters, subservient to a federal charter), if they decide to go the federal republic route.
On paper, the US system works fine. That the government infested with lobbyists and monied special interests is not a problem that is limited to the US, although we might have cornered the market on an apathetic, under-educated electorate.
Regarding other people's comments that the US is to blame, Europe has it's own share of media megacorps that are gunning for any advantage they can get away with (ie, Vivendi, Bertelsmann.) Germany also seems to have a problem with lawyers that can sue on behalf of clients that haven't hired them (remember KIllustrator?)
Wow, they've outsourced corporate welfare. Now, instead of having bureaucrats dinging you with excessive taxes, you can now experience the joy of having spammer/telemarketer/collection agency scum knocking at your door to collect "usage fees", payable direct to your local megacorporation.
What do we have to do, band together and form a corporation to sue them before they sue us? And we have elected governments for what then?:P
Wow, a democrat that's reviled by the Brady Campaign. That's almost enough to convince me to vote for him. However, where does it say that he got an "A" from the NRA? I see it cited in a lot of places, but I did a search of the NRA and got nothing.
Also, has this guy released position papers on spam and copyright?
That should have read, "I spent countless hours". Good lord, how embarassing. Let that be a lesson to all. Just because you've learned proper grammar from a game, doesn't mean you've learned to proofread posts!
I played countless hours in elementary school playing Grammar Examiner on my old Apple IIc. That, coupled with a lot of reading, paid off in spades when I started writing for classes later in Junior High, not to mention all that standardized testing for English in conjunction with the SAT.
However, I think trying to create a game is just as valuable as playing a well-written and educational one. Thinking up and writing down consistent rules, fine-tuning game play, imagining scenarios, researching details to make the game more realistic/interesting, and learning the programming (and debugging) skills necessary to implement your creation. That's what drove me to learn programming in the first place... though to this day, I have yet to code a full game. Well, one of these days.
You're a tool. How many business' cater to the immediatly local population? I bet you don't have a clue.
Um, make sure you've saved up enough operating capital, and make sure you have a low overhead? Make sure you keep refreshing your product lines, and adding new products? And who the hell sells just to the local population anymore? Word of mouth spreads by e-mail, telephone, and can translate into exposure through reviews and news articles. All of these things help drive business your way, assuming you're ready to handle it.
Business isn't magic. Make sure your reciepts exceed your expenses and taxes, with a bit left over, and ensure that you have enough cash flow to stay liquid. How you run your business depends on how you want to live, and what your exit strategy is.
Seriously. How the hell do you think certain eBay sellers can make eBay their primary occupation?
I think China is actually attempting to do what we did to the soviet union and trying to get us to escalate in spending in order to quicken an economic collapse.
Wasn't there an Arthur C. Clarke short story about just that? It was only a few pages long, but essentially it ends with the Chinese having economically exhausted both the Russians and the Americans, and getting ready to send ships out of the solar system... Or maybe it was a James P. Hogan story?
Stay in business long enough to get known. That's how most businesses build a customer base. Look at the dot-bombs - they flushed all their money down the toilet on expensive ads and dropped out of sight too quickly to get any return on their advertising.
This is not a new concept either - old marketing manuals typically indicate that an ad campaign needs about a year or so to sink in and start generating profits. All this push to sell you stuff faster, using every more intrusive and captive methods is just a side effect of greed. They want their golden goose now, never mind how many people they piss off. Well, now they get to reap what they've sown...
Hmmm. Could someone cook up an interface so that if someone wanted to send you an e-mail, they'd have to micropay your account? Major ISPs could credit your account with a limited amount of money so you could send e-mail to other ISPs. They'd do this in order to try and cut support costs related to supressing spam.
Aren't people already buying stuff through peppercoin?.
No, not according to their website. They're still in the "sign up for announcements"/"early 2003 launch" stage. Too bad for them - if BitPass takes off, that's less of a market vacuum for Peppercoin to exploit. Looks like Peppercoin spent too much of their money on a flashy website, and not enough on trying to launch on time...
Part of the problem of prior micropayment efforts was that they were topheavy, and cash-burning. I mean, if you're giving away $5 every time someone signs up for an account, that's $5 you have to earn in fees before you break even on that particular customer. Add that to the burn level required for website bandwidth, the venture capitalists, the lawyers (who are required by the VCs), etc. and that's a lot of cash that is being eaten up.
Interestingly enough, BitPass is taking PayPal, which should help to reduce certain costs that had to be borne entirely by prior efforts. Also, in this post dot-crash environment, they should be more focused on earning profits, rather than trying to get "eyeballs" and "mindshare", which should keep them from making some of the more stupid mistakes of their predecessors.
Biggest problem I see? Trying to get widespread adoption, and trying to support their business solely on micropayments (that was FV's mistake in my opinion.) Now, maybe they're going to branch out, but they're going to need a very LARGE volume of $.25 payments to generate any meaningful amount of revenues for the VCs.
The problem with a debit-card solution is that this is a form of currency, backed by BitPass. The US Dollar is backed by the US Treasury, so if the US Govt. goes under, the Dollar theoretically becomes valueless. This probably isn't going to happen overnight. However, for BitPass...
Think of it this way. Remember those old video game tokens you used to get, one for a quarter, 5 to a dollar? What did it say on the reverse side? NO CASH VALUE.
If BitPass goes under, your $3 card becomes worth zilch... Sure, $3 is a cheap enough solution to try, but if $3 is of that little value to you, why not just hand the $3 directly to Scott? Given that there are currently no other merchants accepting BitPass, your $3 is locked up either way.
Anybody who cannot see a garbled word graphic also cannot see a banner ad. For one of the sites I'm working on, that's enough to make them persona non grata on that site...
That's kind of silly. Consider a vision-impaired user with a screen reader to render text (blind doesn't necessarily mean completely inable to see - they might use one of those screen utilities to blow a 64x64 chunk of the screen to fill a 20" monitor). Normal users might glance at a banner ad, and mostly ignore it. A person relying on a reader would have to sit through a text version of the ad being read. Which version of the ad is going to make a bigger impact? The one that's being ignored, or the one that is being read and listened to?
You could easily goto someone else's computer that has a GUI and a graphical web browser to sign up for that account.
And someone who is vision-impaired could go and get help from someone who has a graphical browser.
The point is that the Web is not exclusively graphical, and should not be treated as such by designers. The basic foundation of the Web is HTTP, which is the last time I checked, a TEXT protocol. To convey information exclusively via non-text means is to deliberately force users to use graphics (or javascript, or flash, etc.) That some users have a choice to switch, and some don't is incidental - the main issue is that this choice really shouldn't be forced upon users at all.
Clients render content however they wish. Users can mess with font sizes, override background colors, turn off images, turn off java/javascript, refuse to load flash, resize their windows, have different fonts installed, etc. Different operating systems and different browsers have different ways of treating tabs, different ways of handling things like form elements, etc. Designers need to accept this fact and move on. After all, being able to make a site look good, and work well in spite of all these potential pitfalls is why good designers are in demand, right?
Hmm, this brings up an interesting issue. Spam must really piss people off who use screen readers. Imagine having your screen reader trying to interpret "IfVSnh All To ols you need to ''b'uild your bi z we,bsite" or "Build your own casin0 and sportsb00k in just 10 minutes.". "Casin0" becomes "Cassin-Zero" and "sportsb00k" becomes "sportsba-zero-zero-kuh"
Hmmm, 100%? Well, you could set up a word problem (eewww... remember the SAT?), and have the user type in the answer at the end. I've seen systems using multiple choice, but that wouldn't block 100%.
For example, Bill is 50 miles away from Jane. If Jane starts driving at 10 miles an hour, how many hours will it take before Jane is 10 miles away from Bill?
You could specify that as an alternative to the graphic, and impose a 8 second penalty for the transfer. Yes, it's not fair to people who don't use graphics, but at least they can have a crack at passing the C/R system without having to get someone to help them.
And, for those who can't do math, you can always ask other questions:
If Bill and Bob are brothers, and Jane is Bob's daughter, what is Bill's relationship to Jane?
A duck is what kind of animal?
Mickey Mouse's girlfriend is named:
Not perfect (if you use typed respones vs. multiple choice, you run into issues where answers are correct, but not in an acceptable form, if you use multiple choice, you run the risk of random guessing making it past the c/r system.), but I'm sure someone can come up with a better method.
Anti-spam webforms not only leave out the blind, but anyone who uses a non-graphical browser (like Lynx.) Similar issues abound regarding alt tags and graphics.
There are other challenge response systems that can be used in place of graphics. I think the only reason that graphics are being used is because the designers haven't given any real thought to users who don't use graphics. This is the same kind of mental blind spot that has people using javascript and flash on major sites.
I guess the blind community finally had enough - a lot of major sites apparently are not following the recommended accessibility guidelines set down by the W3. This is their version of the stick, to convince companies (and lazy designers/programmers) that ignoring them is a bad idea.
Spamarrest - are these the punk-ass jerks who were spamming people to get them to sign up for their "anti-spam" service? Seems to me they're nothing but a bunch of corporate vermin who are trying to corner a new market - and trying to trademark a term graciously allowed by Hormel, and used by their potential competitors seems like another cheap dirty trick, in the same vein as SCO and Enron.
We should be applauding Hormel in defending SPAM as a trademark for their meat product, and thereby defending spam as a generic term for UCE. If we let Spamarrest co-opt the term, lord knows what they'll do with it.
I think the google links are to sites that jumped the gun. While they say "Consumer-Backed Anti-Spam Bill Passes" on the google links, when you click on them, they read "Consumer-Backed Anti-Spam Bill Fails". They probably had the title set up, but had to change it when the bill failed to pass.
Sort of a Dewey vs. Truman in internet time.
Funniest thing though, is that the very first google link is to THIS slashdot story!
I'd rather send Glenn into orbit for one last hurrah, than continually spend for that orbiting turkey we audaciously call Space Station "Alpha". Remember folks, the Russians had Mir up there for 15 years before the mold did it in...
Seriously, we pay for life support and supplies for 3 astro/cosmonauts that serve as nothing more than a maintenance crew for a science platform! No plans for making this a stepping stone to the moon, or for space manufacturing. Too little crew for any serious work. If you want to look at a budget poorly spent, look at the ISS - it ALMOST makes the Los Angeles Red Line debacle look good by comparison.
And? Walk into an area where sensors are embedded into the floor, or into all doorways, and you have almost continuous tracking. Where are there RFID scanners embedded into floors or into doorways? Logically that would be in warehouses where they need to keep constant track of items. How much longer before that kind of tech becomes cheap enough to use on the floor of Target or Walmart, in order to reduce shoplifting?
RFID tags stay live until you disable them. Unless the cashier is kind enough to nuke your purchases before you leave, it is conceivable that the RFID tags will continue to stay live - each with a unique ID code. If you're the kind of person who isn't bothered by remotely-interrogatble serial numbers embedded in your property, go ahead. Me? I'll invest in a portable HERF gun so I can delouse my clothing purchases...
Slashdot Mirror
Ditch the filter you're using and install something that refuses to accept the spam in the first place. If it bounces off the server, and it's a false positive, the sender will know it and re-send or contact you directly.
Do you have examples of this? I'd love to be able to just bounce spam, but SpamAssassin needs to look at the entire message, meaning that I've already accepted the mail before processing it. If you have an example of a SpamAssassin linkup that keeps the mail connection open (and issues a bounce with error code when analysis is done), please share!
The spam that slips past my filters is easy to identify, mark, report, and add to my bayesian corpus. It's the spam that DOESN'T make it past my filters that I have to pull up, display, and review, about 200 messages PER DAY (or 400-500 messages per sitting, since I review the trapped messages every other day.) This is the stuff that costs me time, since now I'm hunting for any good mail that might have been filtered in a sea of spam.
:(
I can't just purge all the trapped mail without reviewing it, because I do all my business online. I've whitelisted everyone I do business with on a normal basis, but new customers, customer support, and eBay notices go to the same address that gets heavily filtered (because they're public.) Public, in this case, means that the addresses have gotten spam (although they're not posted to the web, for obvious reasons.) This includes addresses that I don't use, but have been dictionary attacked.
The solution is obvious - I need to add more rules to be more selective about which messages to trap, and which messages to pass. However, that takes time...
So has anyone put together one of those FBI-style crime-family trees that details all of the various bits and pieces of the Canopy operation? I'd like to know how many pieces we have to find and kill before SCO dies...
Depending on which state you live in, you may also have a state constitution and bill of rights that give you unique rights that may not exist in other states (ie, unequivocal right to bear arms.) Same as the EU may eventually end up (ie, many local charters, subservient to a federal charter), if they decide to go the federal republic route.
On paper, the US system works fine. That the government infested with lobbyists and monied special interests is not a problem that is limited to the US, although we might have cornered the market on an apathetic, under-educated electorate.
Regarding other people's comments that the US is to blame, Europe has it's own share of media megacorps that are gunning for any advantage they can get away with (ie, Vivendi, Bertelsmann.) Germany also seems to have a problem with lawyers that can sue on behalf of clients that haven't hired them (remember KIllustrator?)
Wow, they've outsourced corporate welfare. Now, instead of having bureaucrats dinging you with excessive taxes, you can now experience the joy of having spammer/telemarketer/collection agency scum knocking at your door to collect "usage fees", payable direct to your local megacorporation.
:P
What do we have to do, band together and form a corporation to sue them before they sue us? And we have elected governments for what then?
Wow, a democrat that's reviled by the Brady Campaign. That's almost enough to convince me to vote for him. However, where does it say that he got an "A" from the NRA? I see it cited in a lot of places, but I did a search of the NRA and got nothing.
Also, has this guy released position papers on spam and copyright?
That should have read, "I spent countless hours". Good lord, how embarassing. Let that be a lesson to all. Just because you've learned proper grammar from a game, doesn't mean you've learned to proofread posts!
I played countless hours in elementary school playing Grammar Examiner on my old Apple IIc. That, coupled with a lot of reading, paid off in spades when I started writing for classes later in Junior High, not to mention all that standardized testing for English in conjunction with the SAT.
However, I think trying to create a game is just as valuable as playing a well-written and educational one. Thinking up and writing down consistent rules, fine-tuning game play, imagining scenarios, researching details to make the game more realistic/interesting, and learning the programming (and debugging) skills necessary to implement your creation. That's what drove me to learn programming in the first place... though to this day, I have yet to code a full game. Well, one of these days.
You're a tool. How many business' cater to the immediatly local population? I bet you don't have a clue.
Um, make sure you've saved up enough operating capital, and make sure you have a low overhead? Make sure you keep refreshing your product lines, and adding new products? And who the hell sells just to the local population anymore? Word of mouth spreads by e-mail, telephone, and can translate into exposure through reviews and news articles. All of these things help drive business your way, assuming you're ready to handle it.
Business isn't magic. Make sure your reciepts exceed your expenses and taxes, with a bit left over, and ensure that you have enough cash flow to stay liquid. How you run your business depends on how you want to live, and what your exit strategy is.
Seriously. How the hell do you think certain eBay sellers can make eBay their primary occupation?
I think China is actually attempting to do what we did to the soviet union and trying to get us to escalate in spending in order to quicken an economic collapse.
Wasn't there an Arthur C. Clarke short story about just that? It was only a few pages long, but essentially it ends with the Chinese having economically exhausted both the Russians and the Americans, and getting ready to send ships out of the solar system... Or maybe it was a James P. Hogan story?
Stay in business long enough to get known. That's how most businesses build a customer base. Look at the dot-bombs - they flushed all their money down the toilet on expensive ads and dropped out of sight too quickly to get any return on their advertising.
This is not a new concept either - old marketing manuals typically indicate that an ad campaign needs about a year or so to sink in and start generating profits. All this push to sell you stuff faster, using every more intrusive and captive methods is just a side effect of greed. They want their golden goose now, never mind how many people they piss off. Well, now they get to reap what they've sown...
Ahh, that's more like it! Thanks for the link!
Hmmm. Could someone cook up an interface so that if someone wanted to send you an e-mail, they'd have to micropay your account? Major ISPs could credit your account with a limited amount of money so you could send e-mail to other ISPs. They'd do this in order to try and cut support costs related to supressing spam.
Aren't people already buying stuff through peppercoin?.
No, not according to their website. They're still in the "sign up for announcements"/"early 2003 launch" stage. Too bad for them - if BitPass takes off, that's less of a market vacuum for Peppercoin to exploit. Looks like Peppercoin spent too much of their money on a flashy website, and not enough on trying to launch on time...
Part of the problem of prior micropayment efforts was that they were topheavy, and cash-burning. I mean, if you're giving away $5 every time someone signs up for an account, that's $5 you have to earn in fees before you break even on that particular customer. Add that to the burn level required for website bandwidth, the venture capitalists, the lawyers (who are required by the VCs), etc. and that's a lot of cash that is being eaten up.
Interestingly enough, BitPass is taking PayPal, which should help to reduce certain costs that had to be borne entirely by prior efforts. Also, in this post dot-crash environment, they should be more focused on earning profits, rather than trying to get "eyeballs" and "mindshare", which should keep them from making some of the more stupid mistakes of their predecessors.
Biggest problem I see? Trying to get widespread adoption, and trying to support their business solely on micropayments (that was FV's mistake in my opinion.) Now, maybe they're going to branch out, but they're going to need a very LARGE volume of $.25 payments to generate any meaningful amount of revenues for the VCs.
The problem with a debit-card solution is that this is a form of currency, backed by BitPass. The US Dollar is backed by the US Treasury, so if the US Govt. goes under, the Dollar theoretically becomes valueless. This probably isn't going to happen overnight. However, for BitPass...
Think of it this way. Remember those old video game tokens you used to get, one for a quarter, 5 to a dollar? What did it say on the reverse side? NO CASH VALUE.
If BitPass goes under, your $3 card becomes worth zilch... Sure, $3 is a cheap enough solution to try, but if $3 is of that little value to you, why not just hand the $3 directly to Scott? Given that there are currently no other merchants accepting BitPass, your $3 is locked up either way.
Anybody who cannot see a garbled word graphic also cannot see a banner ad. For one of the sites I'm working on, that's enough to make them persona non grata on that site...
That's kind of silly. Consider a vision-impaired user with a screen reader to render text (blind doesn't necessarily mean completely inable to see - they might use one of those screen utilities to blow a 64x64 chunk of the screen to fill a 20" monitor). Normal users might glance at a banner ad, and mostly ignore it. A person relying on a reader would have to sit through a text version of the ad being read. Which version of the ad is going to make a bigger impact? The one that's being ignored, or the one that is being read and listened to?
You could easily goto someone else's computer that has a GUI and a graphical web browser to sign up for that account.
And someone who is vision-impaired could go and get help from someone who has a graphical browser.
The point is that the Web is not exclusively graphical, and should not be treated as such by designers. The basic foundation of the Web is HTTP, which is the last time I checked, a TEXT protocol. To convey information exclusively via non-text means is to deliberately force users to use graphics (or javascript, or flash, etc.) That some users have a choice to switch, and some don't is incidental - the main issue is that this choice really shouldn't be forced upon users at all.
Clients render content however they wish. Users can mess with font sizes, override background colors, turn off images, turn off java/javascript, refuse to load flash, resize their windows, have different fonts installed, etc. Different operating systems and different browsers have different ways of treating tabs, different ways of handling things like form elements, etc. Designers need to accept this fact and move on. After all, being able to make a site look good, and work well in spite of all these potential pitfalls is why good designers are in demand, right?
Hmm, this brings up an interesting issue. Spam must really piss people off who use screen readers. Imagine having your screen reader trying to interpret "IfVSnh All To ols you need to ''b'uild your bi z we,bsite" or "Build your own casin0 and sportsb00k in just 10 minutes.". "Casin0" becomes "Cassin-Zero" and "sportsb00k" becomes "sportsba-zero-zero-kuh"
Hmmm, 100%? Well, you could set up a word problem (eewww... remember the SAT?), and have the user type in the answer at the end. I've seen systems using multiple choice, but that wouldn't block 100%.
For example, Bill is 50 miles away from Jane. If Jane starts driving at 10 miles an hour, how many hours will it take before Jane is 10 miles away from Bill?
You could specify that as an alternative to the graphic, and impose a 8 second penalty for the transfer. Yes, it's not fair to people who don't use graphics, but at least they can have a crack at passing the C/R system without having to get someone to help them.
And, for those who can't do math, you can always ask other questions:
If Bill and Bob are brothers, and Jane is Bob's daughter, what is Bill's relationship to Jane?
A duck is what kind of animal?
Mickey Mouse's girlfriend is named:
Not perfect (if you use typed respones vs. multiple choice, you run into issues where answers are correct, but not in an acceptable form, if you use multiple choice, you run the risk of random guessing making it past the c/r system.), but I'm sure someone can come up with a better method.
Anti-spam webforms not only leave out the blind, but anyone who uses a non-graphical browser (like Lynx.) Similar issues abound regarding alt tags and graphics.
There are other challenge response systems that can be used in place of graphics. I think the only reason that graphics are being used is because the designers haven't given any real thought to users who don't use graphics. This is the same kind of mental blind spot that has people using javascript and flash on major sites.
I guess the blind community finally had enough - a lot of major sites apparently are not following the recommended accessibility guidelines set down by the W3. This is their version of the stick, to convince companies (and lazy designers/programmers) that ignoring them is a bad idea.
Spamarrest - are these the punk-ass jerks who were spamming people to get them to sign up for their "anti-spam" service? Seems to me they're nothing but a bunch of corporate vermin who are trying to corner a new market - and trying to trademark a term graciously allowed by Hormel, and used by their potential competitors seems like another cheap dirty trick, in the same vein as SCO and Enron.
We should be applauding Hormel in defending SPAM as a trademark for their meat product, and thereby defending spam as a generic term for UCE. If we let Spamarrest co-opt the term, lord knows what they'll do with it.
I think the google links are to sites that jumped the gun. While they say "Consumer-Backed Anti-Spam Bill Passes" on the google links, when you click on them, they read "Consumer-Backed Anti-Spam Bill Fails". They probably had the title set up, but had to change it when the bill failed to pass.
Sort of a Dewey vs. Truman in internet time.
Funniest thing though, is that the very first google link is to THIS slashdot story!
I'd rather send Glenn into orbit for one last hurrah, than continually spend for that orbiting turkey we audaciously call Space Station "Alpha". Remember folks, the Russians had Mir up there for 15 years before the mold did it in...
Seriously, we pay for life support and supplies for 3 astro/cosmonauts that serve as nothing more than a maintenance crew for a science platform! No plans for making this a stepping stone to the moon, or for space manufacturing. Too little crew for any serious work. If you want to look at a budget poorly spent, look at the ISS - it ALMOST makes the Los Angeles Red Line debacle look good by comparison.
They have an effective range of a few feet.
And? Walk into an area where sensors are embedded into the floor, or into all doorways, and you have almost continuous tracking. Where are there RFID scanners embedded into floors or into doorways? Logically that would be in warehouses where they need to keep constant track of items. How much longer before that kind of tech becomes cheap enough to use on the floor of Target or Walmart, in order to reduce shoplifting?
RFID tags stay live until you disable them. Unless the cashier is kind enough to nuke your purchases before you leave, it is conceivable that the RFID tags will continue to stay live - each with a unique ID code. If you're the kind of person who isn't bothered by remotely-interrogatble serial numbers embedded in your property, go ahead. Me? I'll invest in a portable HERF gun so I can delouse my clothing purchases...