I don't see why the article on the small restaurant must be deleted. In fact, even if the owners of the restaurant put in the entry, I don't see why it needs to be deleted. If I type in the restaurant's name I'd rather see relevant spam than nothing at all. Ideally it would offend me enough to improve the article for the next person to search for it.
Articles on WP should only be deleted if they are offensive, illegal, untrue or unused.
'Notability' is such a subjective concept it is hard to see how any enforceable definition is possible.
There's an example of a great website turn into utter crap through a policy of speedy deletion. Rather than letting entries stay visible and get moderated through their ratings system, there is now a group of editors that basically watch the new entries list and delete anything that doesn't meet their high standards. This turns off new (and existing non-editor) users that don't want to spend an hour crafting a page of text only to see it deleted thirty seconds after posting it. I have no doubt that is why Everything2 is the abject failure it is compared to Wikipedia.
It also exposes the editor's group to the criticism that they only accept articles written by each other - even if this isn't intentional, it is natural that the editor's group will tend to converge in style, and their articles will not be deleted at the same rate as other users (since they not only know 'the rules', they also write and enforce them).
Buy the source code from your employer, then release it yourself. Burn three copies of the code to CD, and seal two in envelopes and write "This is the code I'm buying" on the outside, one for you, one for your employer. You work off the third copy.
Won't help you if you get to court, of course, but what is important is for you and your employer to be clear on what it is you are buying.
I wouldn't blame your employer for refusing to sell you the code, though. One assumes it is relevant to the business they are in, and selling it to you risks you developing a competing product.
When someone is Rh(D) Negative, it means the body does NOT have the D antigen, meaning that if it sees blood cells with D antigen the body will develop Anti-D antibodies to attack those cells. If someone is Rh(D) positive, their body will accept both Rh(D) Positive or Negative blood. i.e. Rh(D) negative cells have no antigen to attack.
If she started off as Rh(D) Negative, her body would attack Rh(D) positive (the donor) cells. Now that she is Rh(D) Positive, her bodies does not produce Anti-D antibodies at all. i.e. her body now produces cells with the D antigen and sees them as normal.
I was at a shop with my mum. I don't know how old I was, but I wasn't much taller than the coin return on the cabinet, which, to my delight, had a 20c piece left in it. I think the game was called Destroyer or something, you had to drop depth charges on submarines. It was a black and white game (this was the mid-1970s). I wasn't old enough to know how to work the controls. It's weird, but looking up at the screen is still a strong memory.
Some time after that I had an afternoon of playing table-top space invaders with my father.
First home computer game was ADVENTUR on a CP/M machine in the 1980s. Dad paid a small fortune for that box.
1. Will they not suck under 4th Ed? 2. Will Bards continue to be allowed to choose the Evil alignment? 3. Will an all-Bard party be feasible under 4th Ed? 4. If YES to (2) and (3), can I choose 'The dark-haired moody one in the boy band' for my Perform skill?
In Australia, there is a company working on RFID for surgical instruments, so you can just dump the instruments into a sensor bucket. Also means you don't have to worry about blood etc interfering with the barcodes. Sorry, can't remember the name of the company.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! (x) Good original thinking for a change
What a crock. Anyone that knows enough about computers to know that GB, MB, and KB are usually base-2 should also know enough to check whether the HDD measurement is in base-2 or base-10. Non-computer people would probably assume that they are base-10... or, more likely, merely that the bigger the number, the better. In my experience non-computer people have difficulty distinguishing between hard-drive space and RAM. Saying that they are somehow miraculously able to distinguish between base-2 and base-10 measurements is ridiculous.
The Kilo-, Mega- and Giga- prefixes are always base-10 in SI. The IT industry should come up with different terms. Misusing them was a mistake in the '60s and it is a mistake now.
International pricing is a tricky question, because either: 1) You have the same price everywhere and poorer countries get priced out of the market, or 2) You have different prices in different countries and people in richer countries feel that they are getting ripped off
For software, there isn't much of a moral component. But if you start thinking about the same issue for pharmaceuticals, it becomes a thorny issue indeed. Should richer countries subsidize poorer countries' medicines?
Apart from the fact I think the whole idea is stupid (how does it make sense for my City of Heroes avatar appear in World of Warcraft?), the real issue is "hand off" between virtual worlds. i.e. if I walk from one metaverse to another, the receiving metaverse needs to have some trust system in place that accepts my login based on trusting the sending metaverse - even though the receiving metaverse has never seen me before.
If I am already a user on the second metaverse, there isn't a problem since my avatar has already been defined. I suppose changes to my avatar need be propagated, but the real issue imho is hand-off, not coming up with some version of "JPG for avatars" which every system will implement differently anyway - and also, open the copyright can of worms.
Actually, written English hasn't changed much since the Middle Ages. It's the pronunciation the one that's changed a lot, and that's why us non-native English speakers are sometimes baffled by the incoherence of the English spelling.
[quote]But it does show that if you truly believe in every fiber of your being that there is a dog in the room but every other peice of evidence shows that it isnt there (no one else sees it, you cannot pet it, etc.), you are probably just fooling yourself.[/quote]
So if I go to my local church and am the only person in the room that CANNOT sense God, am I probably just fooling myself?
[quote]Showing that it is possible that your brain can just be confused about there being a dog in the room would just help you realize that you are very likely wrong.[/quote]
No more than a mirror in the corner facing a dog outside the door does.
If we dissect the eyeball and see how wavelengths of light are converted into electrical pulses into the brain, this tells us how we perceive light. If we then put electric impulses into the brain and see lights, this second experiment tells us nothing of the existence of light.
Similarly putting electrical impulses into the brain and feeling God tells us nothing of the existence of God.
Generally, Science assumes the non-existence of God. God is also usually defined as the force behind things that Science cannot explain. I am yet to hear of a well thought out experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God, let alone give me his phone number.
Science tells us that Pi is 3.14159... Religion tells us WHY Pi is 3.14159...
This proves nothing. If I can make a drug that causes you to think that a dog is in the room when there isn't one, it does not prove the non-existence of dogs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why the article on the small restaurant must be deleted. In fact, even if the owners of the restaurant put in the entry, I don't see why it needs to be deleted. If I type in the restaurant's name I'd rather see relevant spam than nothing at all. Ideally it would offend me enough to improve the article for the next person to search for it.
Articles on WP should only be deleted if they are offensive, illegal, untrue or unused.
'Notability' is such a subjective concept it is hard to see how any enforceable definition is possible.
Anyone remember 'Everything' (now Everything2)?
There's an example of a great website turn into utter crap through a policy of speedy deletion. Rather than letting entries stay visible and get moderated through their ratings system, there is now a group of editors that basically watch the new entries list and delete anything that doesn't meet their high standards. This turns off new (and existing non-editor) users that don't want to spend an hour crafting a page of text only to see it deleted thirty seconds after posting it. I have no doubt that is why Everything2 is the abject failure it is compared to Wikipedia.
It also exposes the editor's group to the criticism that they only accept articles written by each other - even if this isn't intentional, it is natural that the editor's group will tend to converge in style, and their articles will not be deleted at the same rate as other users (since they not only know 'the rules', they also write and enforce them).
I've tried several times to add an 'h' to his last name but it keeps getting reverted.
>Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!
I see the eyes have it.
Or maybe the other way around.
Buy the source code from your employer, then release it yourself. Burn three copies of the code to CD, and seal two in envelopes and write "This is the code I'm buying" on the outside, one for you, one for your employer. You work off the third copy.
Won't help you if you get to court, of course, but what is important is for you and your employer to be clear on what it is you are buying.
I wouldn't blame your employer for refusing to sell you the code, though. One assumes it is relevant to the business they are in, and selling it to you risks you developing a competing product.
My simplistic understanding is this:
When someone is Rh(D) Negative, it means the body does NOT have the D antigen, meaning that if it sees blood cells with D antigen the body will develop Anti-D antibodies to attack those cells. If someone is Rh(D) positive, their body will accept both Rh(D) Positive or Negative blood. i.e. Rh(D) negative cells have no antigen to attack.
If she started off as Rh(D) Negative, her body would attack Rh(D) positive (the donor) cells. Now that she is Rh(D) Positive, her bodies does not produce Anti-D antibodies at all. i.e. her body now produces cells with the D antigen and sees them as normal.
Hehe Fidonet in the late 80's - living in Australia, I got excited when I got a reply from the US within three days
I was at a shop with my mum. I don't know how old I was, but I wasn't much taller than the coin return on the cabinet, which, to my delight, had a 20c piece left in it. I think the game was called Destroyer or something, you had to drop depth charges on submarines. It was a black and white game (this was the mid-1970s). I wasn't old enough to know how to work the controls. It's weird, but looking up at the screen is still a strong memory.
Some time after that I had an afternoon of playing table-top space invaders with my father.
First home computer game was ADVENTUR on a CP/M machine in the 1980s. Dad paid a small fortune for that box.
1. Will they not suck under 4th Ed?
2. Will Bards continue to be allowed to choose the Evil alignment?
3. Will an all-Bard party be feasible under 4th Ed?
4. If YES to (2) and (3), can I choose 'The dark-haired moody one in the boy band' for my Perform skill?
I'd give a link to 'Dungeon Majesty', but that would contravene UN Human Rights laws.
...shudder
"Natural 20!"
But can they be attached to sharks?
True! I rigorously comment and document my code not for the benefit of other programmers, but for the benefit of myself in six months time .
In Australia, there is a company working on RFID for surgical instruments, so you can just dump the instruments into a sensor bucket. Also means you don't have to worry about blood etc interfering with the barcodes. Sorry, can't remember the name of the company.
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
(x) Good original thinking for a change
Yes.
Could someone write a Weighted Companion Cube replacement for Clippy in MS Office?
CAKE.
What a crock. Anyone that knows enough about computers to know that GB, MB, and KB are usually base-2 should also know enough to check whether the HDD measurement is in base-2 or base-10. Non-computer people would probably assume that they are base-10... or, more likely, merely that the bigger the number, the better. In my experience non-computer people have difficulty distinguishing between hard-drive space and RAM. Saying that they are somehow miraculously able to distinguish between base-2 and base-10 measurements is ridiculous.
The Kilo-, Mega- and Giga- prefixes are always base-10 in SI. The IT industry should come up with different terms. Misusing them was a mistake in the '60s and it is a mistake now.
I don't know what the hell kind of drugs you are on, but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
International pricing is a tricky question, because either:
1) You have the same price everywhere and poorer countries get priced out of the market, or
2) You have different prices in different countries and people in richer countries feel that they are getting ripped off
For software, there isn't much of a moral component. But if you start thinking about the same issue for pharmaceuticals, it becomes a thorny issue indeed. Should richer countries subsidize poorer countries' medicines?
Apart from the fact I think the whole idea is stupid (how does it make sense for my City of Heroes avatar appear in World of Warcraft?), the real issue is "hand off" between virtual worlds. i.e. if I walk from one metaverse to another, the receiving metaverse needs to have some trust system in place that accepts my login based on trusting the sending metaverse - even though the receiving metaverse has never seen me before.
If I am already a user on the second metaverse, there isn't a problem since my avatar has already been defined. I suppose changes to my avatar need be propagated, but the real issue imho is hand-off, not coming up with some version of "JPG for avatars" which every system will implement differently anyway - and also, open the copyright can of worms.
Eh? Pray thee scribe thy missive again perchance.
I remade Hamurabi... ^_^
http://games.slashdot.org/~SurturZ/journal/182403
[quote]But it does show that if you truly believe in every fiber of your being that there is a dog in the room but every other peice of evidence shows that it isnt there (no one else sees it, you cannot pet it, etc.), you are probably just fooling yourself.[/quote]
So if I go to my local church and am the only person in the room that CANNOT sense God, am I probably just fooling myself?
[quote]Showing that it is possible that your brain can just be confused about there being a dog in the room would just help you realize that you are very likely wrong.[/quote]
No more than a mirror in the corner facing a dog outside the door does.
If we dissect the eyeball and see how wavelengths of light are converted into electrical pulses into the brain, this tells us how we perceive light. If we then put electric impulses into the brain and see lights, this second experiment tells us nothing of the existence of light.
Similarly putting electrical impulses into the brain and feeling God tells us nothing of the existence of God.
Generally, Science assumes the non-existence of God. God is also usually defined as the force behind things that Science cannot explain. I am yet to hear of a well thought out experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God, let alone give me his phone number.
Science tells us that Pi is 3.14159... Religion tells us WHY Pi is 3.14159...
This proves nothing. If I can make a drug that causes you to think that a dog is in the room when there isn't one, it does not prove the non-existence of dogs.