What you fail to mention is the problem that occurs for "Intellectual Property" production is not the same as that for oranges or retail business.
Patents/copyrights encourage the inventor/creator to make the knowledge widely available instead of closely guarding their work. It's a tradeoff, the knowledge is shared publically, advancing the arts and sciences, but the creator/inventory is granted a temporary monopoly on their works. The point is to allow us to build on the works of others instead of keeping technical and artistic production closed to all but a small group in order to protect their "property"
There is a cost that the "discovering" firm/individual incurs that none of it's competitors face. Even if they are highly efficient in terms of marginal production, they still have to defray the cost of R&D and FDA approval. The process is difficult and risky, and by the time drugs get to market the patent is frequently half gone. Lots of drugs never see the light of day. Remember, a drug's success isn't just Approval, it's revenue - explicit costs - opportunity costs (which are large for drug research that may take a decade or even two) from start to approval and use.
I was reading today about the job situation in the US, and outsourcing really isn't the problem so much as demand catching up with the tremendous bubble we experienced during the late 90s. The reality of the situation is that outsourcing has been going on for years and it isn't even close to the major source of layoffs.
"On average, the economists estimated that the total number of U.S. jobs lost by movement of operations overseas since 2001 has been 188,000 in the services sector and 502,000 in manufacturing, for a total of 690,000. That's a small fraction of the 58.6 million in overall layoffs that companies undertook between 2001 and 2003. The vast majority of those layoffs were offset by new hiring elsewhere in the economy, but on a net basis, payroll levels declined by 2.3 million during this period."
It's just that before the demand for tech jobs was so high that no one really noticed. Fundamentally we were working with historically low unemployment rates during the bubble, thus things seem even worse than "usual" because of our frame of reference. (no, im not saying the 5.6% umemployment with a large drop in labor force participation is good, just comparing to history)
NATed networks need to be liberated. Perhaps the invaders might sling their mighty IPv6 stacks upon the evil NATed networks and give them all a voice, a public address. Eureka! It's democracy!!
Re:Solves the wrong problem.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
I was refering to the idea of a computational cost for emails. Charging actuall money per message is something very different,
Actually they really aren't that different. Either way you are imposing something that has a cost on the sending server. In order to make it work (without driving out traffic you consider desirable, like listservs) you have to make the same sort of system for exemptions as you would for an actual payment system. You wouldn't have to worry about periodic billing, but you would probably need a more powerful/expensive email server. Either way, you increase the cost of email thus rendering it less useful.
Re:Solves the wrong problem.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
What I mean is who is running the payment system. If you are going to make exceptions in the pay-for-email system someone has to approve them. And that depends on who is collecting the money from whom.
This wasn't about a simple whitelist, this was about paying a set amount for every email. My question is who is paying whom, and how would you make the exemption system work, technically.
I was talking more about the end user types. I realize that programmers need a machine they can completely destroy, a testing environment if you will, but production machines (where all the communication etc is done ought to be controlled by the sysadmin.
Don't most of the "unsupported" cards work with the generic vesa driver?? I wouldnt write accelerated drivers for cards that old either.
Re:Solves the wrong problem.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
So use your ISP's server at home and the school's server at work?
Your problem is that your school decided to use a crappy webmail program rather than giving you the option of SMTP-AUTH.
As an ISP there are only two options to prevent spam.
1. Relay based on location. The ISP relays all mail sent from computers on its network. Many block all outbound messages on port 25 that don't go through their server. This prevents anyone else from running an SMTP server on their network. (The logic being that they shouldn't need to since the ISP will relay all their mail for them. Roaming users either have to use webmail or relay through the owner of whatever network they happen to be on. This can be a major PITA.
2. Relay based on authentication. SMTP servers relay only for users of their domain. This means that every email address has to have it's own outgoing mail server, but that you should be able to send mail from anywhere without being forced to use webmail. (Though you can still use it when using a public machine.)
These are your only two options unless you propose running open relays. Frankly the second option is much more desirable.
And I really, really don't like being called every time the clock drifts on one of the PCs and someone wants me to fix it.
Or you could use the set time command on a login script, or run an ntp service. End user control is fine on a home PC, but you can't let end users globally install software willy nilly in an institutional setting. You have to strike a balance. Sure let people personalize THEIR environment, but that stops at the desktop and programs only available to them.
Re:Solves the wrong problem.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Problem, if you are going to make exceptions, then how do you decide which are "legtimate" and which aren't, the overhead of this whole "pay for email" scheme would cost even more than what we are supposed to be paying to send.
Well that'll work out great then. You get rid of your price-regulated Verizon phone line and get an unregulated Verizon cell phone and Verizon DSL. Verizon gets to fire all it's local phone people and you go bankrupt! Everybody wins!
Yeah except Verizon actually has competition for phone and internet service from competing wireless carriers and cable companies.
" In any case, a house has value and is not just an expense,so it's probably not the best analogy anyway."
Well it's not a good analogy for operational spending, but what about spending on infrastructure like transportation. The Federal Government does spend a not insignificant portion of money on transit and military capital expenditures. This could constitute an investment rather than an expense, as opposed to the operational budget, where you really would be burdening future generations to pay for the consumption of their parents.
Every month or two you need to condition the battery by running it all the way down, until it forces itself into sleep mode, then plug it back in a charge it all the way up. If you've had your PB/IB for a couple months try it. You might be surprised.
"Unfortunately way too many companies are blocking port 25, so SMTP Auth isn't an option for them."
So yeah, then you are stuck using webmail. If RMX/SPF ever becomes a standard you can bet that I'm going to raise hell to the cable company for blocking port 25.
I was under the impression that even the Super Hornets didn't have the legs or carrying capacity that that F-14 had (yeah yeah, mid air refeuling). Wouldn't it be cheeper just to moderinze the current F-14 design?
I assume you mean it will replace all the Fixed wing fighters:), not the C-130s or A-10s. Anyway, my understanding was that it was replacing the F/A-18, the F-16 and the Harrier. It looks like the F-22 isn't going to happen, from what I was reading today.
I don't think its going to replace the F-14 or F-15. Well, it will be replacing the F-15 but displacing the F-16. (meaning the F-15s will get passed down to those using the old F-16s and the active duty types will get the new F-35s. The F/A-18 frankly is easy pickings to replace (from what i've heard), but the F-14 us still very useful and I'm not use that they will really be replacing the F-14 with the F-35.
Thats just my not so educated opinion. If anyone has anything more insightful please jump in.
The problem with closed source drivers are
1. Time lag and
2. Platform support
How about putting proprietary interfaces in firmware instead. That way it can be updated, and open source drivers don't tell you anything valuable about the hardware IP. I don't mind proprietary firmware but frankly, its the reason I bought a radeon 9000 instead of an nvidia card for my linux box.
As I've stated before, a simple addition to DNS records (RMX) and the refusal to rely mail would make the actual source of spam IDable. Thus making spam easier to filter and making the ISP's more accountable, since your server would only accept mail from hotmail.com if it really was from hotmail.com.
Personally, I can't think of many groups of people as learned and diverse as a full twenty Nobel laureates--these people don't grow on trees, and while there are a few exceptions, the majority of them are frighteningly intelligent people. I trust them to know what they're talking about when it comes to conducting and analyzing scientific research...
It's not that it is a group of 20 respected scientists that throws up a flag, it's the fact that the UCS really a body consisting of politically likeminded scientists. If it was 20 randomly drawn scientists, commenting on strictly the science of the work, that would be different. Also, people at that level have an insane focus on their specialty. Thus they understand their profession well, but they tend to think everyone should have the same priorities as they do. (Like climatology, or atomic research, or etc etc.) This makes them lousy decision makers in terms of making policy.
This actually reminded me of a kook on the radio last night talking about how the moon landing never happened. I didn't believe him, but I thought it was possible to hold that view, even if I find such a suggestion highly unlikely. What made him an absolute nutjob was his statement that his libel suit AGAINST an astronaut who called him crazy was thrown out because "the judge was paid off". That proved to me, beyond doubt, that he was simply a pathological conspiracy theorist. Not someone who just happens to have a different convictions about one or two things. He really was in need of a serious medical evaluation.
Most of that is besides the point. In the UK there are normally less then 100 fatalities due to guns per year. Please compare that to the 30,000 fatalities per year in the US.
So what you are saying is that banning guns didn't make the UK any more safe than before. If you are going to impose government power, even if you don't believe that gun ownership is an irrevocable right, then shouldn't you at least be able to demonstrate some sort of benefit to imposing said restrictions? (In legalese, where is the "compelling state interest")
It's stupid from an efficiency point of view, not just a constitutional one. Face it, it's not the guns that make the US violent, the problem is social and cultural. There is very little correlation between gun ownership and crime. Other factors are much more convincing.
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect,
Which is why they ruled that "campaign finance reform" was constitutional? Or why we have the DMCA, or the PATROIT act.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents/copyrights encourage the inventor/creator to make the knowledge widely available instead of closely guarding their work. It's a tradeoff, the knowledge is shared publically, advancing the arts and sciences, but the creator/inventory is granted a temporary monopoly on their works. The point is to allow us to build on the works of others instead of keeping technical and artistic production closed to all but a small group in order to protect their "property"
There is a cost that the "discovering" firm/individual incurs that none of it's competitors face. Even if they are highly efficient in terms of marginal production, they still have to defray the cost of R&D and FDA approval. The process is difficult and risky, and by the time drugs get to market the patent is frequently half gone. Lots of drugs never see the light of day. Remember, a drug's success isn't just Approval, it's revenue - explicit costs - opportunity costs (which are large for drug research that may take a decade or even two) from start to approval and use.
I think parent is talking about Outlook Express 6.
"On average, the economists estimated that the total number of U.S. jobs lost by movement of operations overseas since 2001 has been 188,000 in the services sector and 502,000 in manufacturing, for a total of 690,000. That's a small fraction of the 58.6 million in overall layoffs that companies undertook between 2001 and 2003. The vast majority of those layoffs were offset by new hiring elsewhere in the economy, but on a net basis, payroll levels declined by 2.3 million during this period."
It's just that before the demand for tech jobs was so high that no one really noticed. Fundamentally we were working with historically low unemployment rates during the bubble, thus things seem even worse than "usual" because of our frame of reference. (no, im not saying the 5.6% umemployment with a large drop in labor force participation is good, just comparing to history)
NATed networks need to be liberated. Perhaps the invaders might sling their mighty IPv6 stacks upon the evil NATed networks and give them all a voice, a public address. Eureka! It's democracy!!
Actually they really aren't that different. Either way you are imposing something that has a cost on the sending server. In order to make it work (without driving out traffic you consider desirable, like listservs) you have to make the same sort of system for exemptions as you would for an actual payment system. You wouldn't have to worry about periodic billing, but you would probably need a more powerful/expensive email server. Either way, you increase the cost of email thus rendering it less useful.
This wasn't about a simple whitelist, this was about paying a set amount for every email. My question is who is paying whom, and how would you make the exemption system work, technically.
I was talking more about the end user types. I realize that programmers need a machine they can completely destroy, a testing environment if you will, but production machines (where all the communication etc is done ought to be controlled by the sysadmin.
Don't most of the "unsupported" cards work with the generic vesa driver?? I wouldnt write accelerated drivers for cards that old either.
As an ISP there are only two options to prevent spam.
1. Relay based on location. The ISP relays all mail sent from computers on its network. Many block all outbound messages on port 25 that don't go through their server. This prevents anyone else from running an SMTP server on their network. (The logic being that they shouldn't need to since the ISP will relay all their mail for them. Roaming users either have to use webmail or relay through the owner of whatever network they happen to be on. This can be a major PITA.
2. Relay based on authentication. SMTP servers relay only for users of their domain. This means that every email address has to have it's own outgoing mail server, but that you should be able to send mail from anywhere without being forced to use webmail. (Though you can still use it when using a public machine.)
These are your only two options unless you propose running open relays. Frankly the second option is much more desirable.
Or you could use the set time command on a login script, or run an ntp service. End user control is fine on a home PC, but you can't let end users globally install software willy nilly in an institutional setting. You have to strike a balance. Sure let people personalize THEIR environment, but that stops at the desktop and programs only available to them.
Problem, if you are going to make exceptions, then how do you decide which are "legtimate" and which aren't, the overhead of this whole "pay for email" scheme would cost even more than what we are supposed to be paying to send.
Sigh, that's not true in the US. LOCAL phone companies cannot own cable companies. AT&T is not a local phone company.
Yeah except Verizon actually has competition for phone and internet service from competing wireless carriers and cable companies.
Well it's not a good analogy for operational spending, but what about spending on infrastructure like transportation. The Federal Government does spend a not insignificant portion of money on transit and military capital expenditures. This could constitute an investment rather than an expense, as opposed to the operational budget, where you really would be burdening future generations to pay for the consumption of their parents.
Every month or two you need to condition the battery by running it all the way down, until it forces itself into sleep mode, then plug it back in a charge it all the way up. If you've had your PB/IB for a couple months try it. You might be surprised.
"Unfortunately way too many companies are blocking port 25, so SMTP Auth isn't an option for them." So yeah, then you are stuck using webmail. If RMX/SPF ever becomes a standard you can bet that I'm going to raise hell to the cable company for blocking port 25.
I was under the impression that even the Super Hornets didn't have the legs or carrying capacity that that F-14 had (yeah yeah, mid air refeuling). Wouldn't it be cheeper just to moderinze the current F-14 design?
I don't think its going to replace the F-14 or F-15. Well, it will be replacing the F-15 but displacing the F-16. (meaning the F-15s will get passed down to those using the old F-16s and the active duty types will get the new F-35s. The F/A-18 frankly is easy pickings to replace (from what i've heard), but the F-14 us still very useful and I'm not use that they will really be replacing the F-14 with the F-35.
Thats just my not so educated opinion. If anyone has anything more insightful please jump in.
1. Time lag and
2. Platform support
How about putting proprietary interfaces in firmware instead. That way it can be updated, and open source drivers don't tell you anything valuable about the hardware IP. I don't mind proprietary firmware but frankly, its the reason I bought a radeon 9000 instead of an nvidia card for my linux box.
As I've stated before, a simple addition to DNS records (RMX) and the refusal to rely mail would make the actual source of spam IDable. Thus making spam easier to filter and making the ISP's more accountable, since your server would only accept mail from hotmail.com if it really was from hotmail.com.
It's not that it is a group of 20 respected scientists that throws up a flag, it's the fact that the UCS really a body consisting of politically likeminded scientists. If it was 20 randomly drawn scientists, commenting on strictly the science of the work, that would be different. Also, people at that level have an insane focus on their specialty. Thus they understand their profession well, but they tend to think everyone should have the same priorities as they do. (Like climatology, or atomic research, or etc etc.) This makes them lousy decision makers in terms of making policy.
This actually reminded me of a kook on the radio last night talking about how the moon landing never happened. I didn't believe him, but I thought it was possible to hold that view, even if I find such a suggestion highly unlikely. What made him an absolute nutjob was his statement that his libel suit AGAINST an astronaut who called him crazy was thrown out because "the judge was paid off". That proved to me, beyond doubt, that he was simply a pathological conspiracy theorist. Not someone who just happens to have a different convictions about one or two things. He really was in need of a serious medical evaluation.
So what you are saying is that banning guns didn't make the UK any more safe than before. If you are going to impose government power, even if you don't believe that gun ownership is an irrevocable right, then shouldn't you at least be able to demonstrate some sort of benefit to imposing said restrictions? (In legalese, where is the "compelling state interest")
It's stupid from an efficiency point of view, not just a constitutional one. Face it, it's not the guns that make the US violent, the problem is social and cultural. There is very little correlation between gun ownership and crime. Other factors are much more convincing.
If they all get our jobs though, they will have OUR cost of living
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, Which is why they ruled that "campaign finance reform" was constitutional? Or why we have the DMCA, or the PATROIT act.
And Slackware's .tgz packages too.