You missed something in your logic. When the missile makers built the noise makers, they built them SOMEWHERE from SOMETHING.
Miners, Refiners, Scientists, Technicians, Janitors, Electricians, Truckers, Warehouse workers, Army Grunts, Security Guards, SysAdmins, Programmers, Printer Repairmen, and thousands of more jobs all were employed as a result of needing to design the bomb, gather raw materials, ship them, store them, build them, and ship and store the actual bombs. The airline industry often reaps side benefits from the improvements in radar systems used to deliver those bombs.
Money doesn't just disappear into a black hole, unless we ship those jobs overseas. Conversely, when Isreal, England, and France buy those bombs from us (because now our bombs are better than theirs), money flows inwards.
Unless you are ignorant enough to believe rich people put their money in big sacks marked $$$ then you should consider all the money that is moved about for each yacht purchase, each computer purchased, the jewelers, the stock broker's janitors, and everything else that goes into a rich person's lifestyle.
It's fine to dislike the system because you aren't at the top of it, but killing off the rich people kills the luxury goods market, and we wouldn't HAVE home computers, VCRs, DVDs if there wasn't some idiot willing to pay thousands of dollars to have it first.
Or to program the robot to use air propelled rounds for close shots, then use metal detectors or X-ray's to retrieve the rounds from the kill. Save the explosive rounds for the far shots. Super-BB guns with autopsy retrieval for the close ups.
Re:PDFs?
on
PHP Cookbook
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Also, someone could bring this up, but I'd still like an answer. Isn't PDF owned by Adobe?
wholly illogical as the common American date format of MM/DD/YY.
It's not illogical at all. Like most rules in the United States, form follows spoken function. The usage: June 7th, 2003 is far more common than 7th of June, 2003 and thus is written 6/7/2003.
Flawed statistics: It doesn't say anyone intentionally WENT there. It just means the pop ups, well, popped up. Every pop up is a hit, whether or not a pissed user is frantically closing them on the other side.
Put a pop up on the number one site and you'll get (Total users - Mozilla/Netscape/Blockers) number of hits that day.
Except the claim is retarded. While I'm generally very hesitant to claim that something "can't" be done with PERL, the number of variations on a form would end up proving prohibitive to actually automate in the way described.
Example:
Searching on google: One form, results in predictable pattern. Easily. Doable.
Sign up forms: Multiple NAMING conventions. Different required information. Different submit buttons. Very Hard.
Look at these top hits for "catalogue sign up" Child's Gallery Jersy City JigBoxx Puzzles
Ok, the third one isn't even a catalogue sign up, so disregard. The Child's Gallery sign up requires picking an art catagory. While not impossible, it's considerably more complicated for a PERL script than it is for your eyes.
The second form not only requires your information, it requires you to actually check the "please send me a catalogue" box.
My point is that, while not impossible, it takes a higher degree of complication than it may casually seem. Just because PEOPLE can glance and see what's required, MAKING UP answers where they don't have one, doesn't mean it's easy to automate for a computer. You've got to determine what's required, provide reasonable enough information to defeat server side checking, and perhaps even use their form instead of just using a POST string if they use any sort of key mechanism. It's not a ten minute project, unless you are using a spammers approach that you'll probably find millions of forms and you only need to fill out the form on.02% to be really annoying. I doubt that you'd either find that many forms OR be able to successfully fill them out on 10 minutes work.
Also, you wife called. She wants to know who the FUCK is "Alice" and why you were both at Hank's Motor Lodge for six hours yesterday night.
Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure on Spamassassin, I don't use it. I'd be a little scared of any bayesian filter that doesn't allow 'training'.
Re:Spamassassin and recent false-negatives
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Bayesian WOULD help you.
The Bayes filter would decide that since it had a short subject line, it wasn't coming from someone you know (names on whitelist are always non-spam), and it contains IMG SRC but no other POSITIVE hits, it's would score VERY likely spam on a properly trained filter.
The only problem you may have is if your mother regularly sends you pictures of her dog with a subject line like Here.
HTML email by itself scores very high on probability for spam, because very few people besides spammers use it. Those people are generally vetted by their other content.
Proving *what* you believe in can be easier or harder (I believe that gravity exists, and I have a pretty convincing proof of it, come up to the roof with me;-)
Just be careful of people using the same standards with you. It's important to note EVERYONE believes in something impossible to prove, and I think that was the parent's point. It's no longer science when you are trying to prove causation or intent. Science answers "How?" not "Why?".
I believe in giant invisible rabbits that jump on people's heads to force them to the ground, and I have a pretty convincing proof of it, come up to the roof with me...
Stereotypes, at some point, are accurate. That's how they get to be stereotypes. This doesn't become a problem until you imply cause and effect to your stereotype in order to perpetuate it long after it is no longer accurate.
What I mean is, "Knives are sharp" is a good stereotype, and one you'd better heed if you want to learn to juggle. All you are doing is assuming because something is a knife, it is most likely sharp. Knives are a fairly static entity design wise, and most likely will remain largely sharp objects.
People, however, are not largely static, and stereotypes ought to change more. "Black people are uneducated" is an example of this. This is a bad stereotype, because, while it was true at least in the United States for some time, the CAUSE and effect wasn't accurate. A better stereotype is that "Poor people attend less qualified schools". (A rich black man doesn't have any more trouble getting his kids into Harvard than a rich white one.) Hopefully, this is also a stereotype that will outlive its usefulness.
My point of that ramble is that stereotypes are good; they are what protect you from needing every peice of information about all situations in order to make a reasonable decision. You'd never be able to get through a stoplight without stereotypes ( Most people will obey the law and stop when their light is red, so it is probably safe for me to go when my light is green). Stereotypes are bad and innaccurate only when they are making improper assumptions. Like pure logic, the equation can be valid, but if the assumptions are wrong it is still useless.
The problem, I think, is that they are not allowed to tell you they are using your records in this way.
This means there is little to no control even if the FBI walked into the library and asked for EVERYONE who checked out "Catcher In the Rye".
Very few people have problems with them specifically requesting information in connections to actual crimes, with oversight and proper paper trails indicating they are doing this. It's harassment for potential crimes that they collect data on without letting you know that makes people concerned.
A handful of people, regardless of how "important" they are made up a word to describe something. A much larger handful or people now use that term to describe something else.
Google starts with the more common definition and presents the definition only a few "important" people use farther down the list.
I think that despite his desires to keep the term "pure" according to the minority of the people, Google is an index of majority preference, even if the majority is spouting nonsense.
Barely differentiated? They're very clearly labeled "Sponsored Link", and even have a purple/green/blue background to distinguish them.
I think you are missing what he's saying. He doesn't mean they are not clearly marked; he means they are not significantly different than links you would get anyway.
In other words, when Google gives you an ad, you can be relatively confident it will be sufficiently related to something you want to see anyway.
Put simply, Google ads are things you may want to see based on what you searched for. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Often enough. I'd be furious if I sent an email to my vet, doctor, financial advisor, father overseas, or any other of the people I periodically email from whatever account I happen to have handy (mine, my wives, work address) on my way to work and came home to find a verification message.
Once email takes as much time as calling someone, and requires me to check back periodically to make sure it's actually been sent, ALONG with assumptions about how I'm viewing my email (pictures enabled, html enable, or perhaps javascript enabled) it just gets as bad as spam and I'd rather use the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
We need a -1 dumbass and -1 stupid too.
You missed something in your logic. When the missile makers built the noise makers, they built them SOMEWHERE from SOMETHING.
Miners, Refiners, Scientists, Technicians, Janitors, Electricians, Truckers, Warehouse workers, Army Grunts, Security Guards, SysAdmins, Programmers, Printer Repairmen, and thousands of more jobs all were employed as a result of needing to design the bomb, gather raw materials, ship them, store them, build them, and ship and store the actual bombs. The airline industry often reaps side benefits from the improvements in radar systems used to deliver those bombs.
Money doesn't just disappear into a black hole, unless we ship those jobs overseas. Conversely, when Isreal, England, and France buy those bombs from us (because now our bombs are better than theirs), money flows inwards.
Unless you are ignorant enough to believe rich people put their money in big sacks marked $$$ then you should consider all the money that is moved about for each yacht purchase, each computer purchased, the jewelers, the stock broker's janitors, and everything else that goes into a rich person's lifestyle.
It's fine to dislike the system because you aren't at the top of it, but killing off the rich people kills the luxury goods market, and we wouldn't HAVE home computers, VCRs, DVDs if there wasn't some idiot willing to pay thousands of dollars to have it first.
The word you want is "scalper".
They don't want you buying 120 tickets and selling them for face price^2.
Says the AC.
Or to program the robot to use air propelled rounds for close shots, then use metal detectors or X-ray's to retrieve the rounds from the kill. Save the explosive rounds for the far shots. Super-BB guns with autopsy retrieval for the close ups.
Also, someone could bring this up, but I'd still like an answer. Isn't PDF owned by Adobe?
it does not cover topics like generating PDFs
Isn't PDF a closed format? Can you generate a PDF with PHP without also generating an Adobe lawsuit?
wholly illogical as the common American date format of MM/DD/YY.
It's not illogical at all. Like most rules in the United States, form follows spoken function. The usage: June 7th, 2003 is far more common than 7th of June, 2003 and thus is written 6/7/2003.
Everyone knows the Jedi religion was from long, long ago and far, far away. If that isn't prior art, what is?
Flawed statistics: It doesn't say anyone intentionally WENT there. It just means the pop ups, well, popped up. Every pop up is a hit, whether or not a pissed user is frantically closing them on the other side.
Put a pop up on the number one site and you'll get (Total users - Mozilla/Netscape/Blockers) number of hits that day.
Except the claim is retarded. While I'm generally very hesitant to claim that something "can't" be done with PERL, the number of variations on a form would end up proving prohibitive to actually automate in the way described.
.02% to be really annoying. I doubt that you'd either find that many forms OR be able to successfully fill them out on 10 minutes work.
Example:
Searching on google: One form, results in predictable pattern. Easily. Doable.
Sign up forms: Multiple NAMING conventions. Different required information. Different submit buttons. Very Hard.
Look at these top hits for "catalogue sign up"
Child's Gallery
Jersy City
JigBoxx Puzzles
Ok, the third one isn't even a catalogue sign up, so disregard. The Child's Gallery sign up requires picking an art catagory. While not impossible, it's considerably more complicated for a PERL script than it is for your eyes.
The second form not only requires your information, it requires you to actually check the "please send me a catalogue" box.
My point is that, while not impossible, it takes a higher degree of complication than it may casually seem. Just because PEOPLE can glance and see what's required, MAKING UP answers where they don't have one, doesn't mean it's easy to automate for a computer.
You've got to determine what's required, provide reasonable enough information to defeat server side checking, and perhaps even use their form instead of just using a POST string if they use any sort of key mechanism. It's not a ten minute project, unless you are using a spammers approach that you'll probably find millions of forms and you only need to fill out the form on
What? That's mostly where the economic benefit from conflict comes from. Blow up the old shit, buy new, more high tech, more expensive new shit.
Except that it's wrong.
The shape doesn't keep the manhole cover from falling in, the LIP does.
They are round because they've always been round, at least in this country.
Check out Imponderables and Feldman's printed books for more.
Also, you wife called. She wants to know who the FUCK is "Alice" and why you were both at Hank's Motor Lodge for six hours yesterday night.
I'm not sure on Spamassassin, I don't use it. I'd be a little scared of any bayesian filter that doesn't allow 'training'.
Bayesian WOULD help you.
The Bayes filter would decide that since it had a short subject line, it wasn't coming from someone you know (names on whitelist are always non-spam), and it contains IMG SRC but no other POSITIVE hits, it's would score VERY likely spam on a properly trained filter.
The only problem you may have is if your mother regularly sends you pictures of her dog with a subject line like Here.
HTML email by itself scores very high on probability for spam, because very few people besides spammers use it. Those people are generally vetted by their other content.
After reading the article, I'm inclined to agree. I haven't had any problems with Doubleclick lately.
Where's my +1 Crackpot when I need it.
Bacteria I give you; what's the example of the happy love Virus?
Proving *what* you believe in can be easier or harder (I believe that gravity exists, and I have a pretty convincing proof of it, come up to the roof with me ;-)
Just be careful of people using the same standards with you. It's important to note EVERYONE believes in something impossible to prove, and I think that was the parent's point. It's no longer science when you are trying to prove causation or intent. Science answers "How?" not "Why?".
I believe in giant invisible rabbits that jump on people's heads to force them to the ground, and I have a pretty convincing proof of it, come up to the roof with me...
Stereotypes, at some point, are accurate. That's how they get to be stereotypes. This doesn't become a problem until you imply cause and effect to your stereotype in order to perpetuate it long after it is no longer accurate.
What I mean is, "Knives are sharp" is a good stereotype, and one you'd better heed if you want to learn to juggle. All you are doing is assuming because something is a knife, it is most likely sharp. Knives are a fairly static entity design wise, and most likely will remain largely sharp objects.
People, however, are not largely static, and stereotypes ought to change more. "Black people are uneducated" is an example of this. This is a bad stereotype, because, while it was true at least in the United States for some time, the CAUSE and effect wasn't accurate. A better stereotype is that "Poor people attend less qualified schools". (A rich black man doesn't have any more trouble getting his kids into Harvard than a rich white one.) Hopefully, this is also a stereotype that will outlive its usefulness.
My point of that ramble is that stereotypes are good; they are what protect you from needing every peice of information about all situations in order to make a reasonable decision. You'd never be able to get through a stoplight without stereotypes ( Most people will obey the law and stop when their light is red, so it is probably safe for me to go when my light is green). Stereotypes are bad and innaccurate only when they are making improper assumptions. Like pure logic, the equation can be valid, but if the assumptions are wrong it is still useless.
The problem, I think, is that they are not allowed to tell you they are using your records in this way.
This means there is little to no control even if the FBI walked into the library and asked for EVERYONE who checked out "Catcher In the Rye".
Very few people have problems with them specifically requesting information in connections to actual crimes, with oversight and proper paper trails indicating they are doing this. It's harassment for potential crimes that they collect data on without letting you know that makes people concerned.
Democracy at it's finest.
A handful of people, regardless of how "important" they are made up a word to describe something. A much larger handful or people now use that term to describe something else.
Google starts with the more common definition and presents the definition only a few "important" people use farther down the list.
I think that despite his desires to keep the term "pure" according to the minority of the people, Google is an index of majority preference, even if the majority is spouting nonsense.
Barely differentiated? They're very clearly labeled "Sponsored Link", and even have a purple/green/blue background to distinguish them.
I think you are missing what he's saying. He doesn't mean they are not clearly marked; he means they are not significantly different than links you would get anyway.
In other words, when Google gives you an ad, you can be relatively confident it will be sufficiently related to something you want to see anyway.
Put simply, Google ads are things you may want to see based on what you searched for.
This is a Good Thing(tm).
Often enough. I'd be furious if I sent an email to my vet, doctor, financial advisor, father overseas, or any other of the people I periodically email from whatever account I happen to have handy (mine, my wives, work address) on my way to work and came home to find a verification message. Once email takes as much time as calling someone, and requires me to check back periodically to make sure it's actually been sent, ALONG with assumptions about how I'm viewing my email (pictures enabled, html enable, or perhaps javascript enabled) it just gets as bad as spam and I'd rather use the phone.