Golf courses already drench their grass in weedkillers. No other way to get that perfectly flat weedless result. If anything, this might reduce pollution, allowing one application of the strong stuff to substitute for several of weaker chemicals. (Yes this would still be an economic gain to Monsanto - because the customer is guaranteed to use their strong stuff.)
It's small-minded envy pure and simple. "No fair! he has more than me! I want it! Or I'll break it! But he mayn't have it!"
MS got to be market dominant (which is NOT a true monopoly) by making genuinely good programs. For a business-person's definition of good, that is. They work well enough, their cost is reasonable compared to their utility, their faults are known and can be planned around, and the qualified user pool is huge. This is why MS is rich and successful.
MS is not a monopoly. The cops are a monopoly; the government will beat you up for setting up in competition. MS isn't. They hold market dominance solely because it would be uneconomic -- wastefully expensive -- for anyone to replace them.
Wasted money can't be invested. Investment benefits everybody, by increasing opportunity. Investment in infrastructure is the reason you have a roof over your head instead of a cave. The theories of the anti-corp types would see all success dragged low, deliberate waste foisted upon the productive in the name of "fairness", and the result would be economic ruin. As it always has been in any country or group that embraced envy as a moral.
Basically bayesian filters have some mechanism to "train" them with example spams and example good mails. The more information you give them, the more skilled they get, up to a point. After that point, adding in more examples actually weakens the filter, and it lets more spam through.
I'm not sure of the mathematical reasons for this, perhaps someone else can explain them?
...except it would require an extra drop-and-reestablish, and it would be DOS-able by asking for and not redeeming tokens. Plus it could have problems with getting through to different machines load-balanced SMTP farms.
It has the same problems as SPF, too. Basically, a lot of client=>MTA message sending relies on the ability to "forge" the origin so as to allow eg: your laptop to send "from" your company email account.
Consider the Iraqis at the moment. They have weak weapons and they're constantly getting caught, but they're successfully making a geunine nuisance of themselves.
Unwanted military rule can continue while those who oppose it have guns, but it can't ever settle down into smug "business as usual".
MP3 or Vorbis or any other acoustic-model lossy compression would probably trash the subliminals, since the're deliberately designed to throw out stuff you can't hear.
The idea being that if you know your audience, and they all know one-another, then rather than anticipating every contingency, you can create someting precision-tailored to the specific task.
Heck, if I had a rocket I'd shoot a bunch of cold-extremophile cyanobacteria over there just to forclose the debate. To heck with the damn-hippies. Mars doesn't have an environment.
These guys can debate themselves until they've counted how many microfossils can dance on the head of a pin, but the moment Ordinary Joe can get up out of the gravity well in a privately owned craft, Mars is going to seem a lot less like an academic excercise, and a lot more like real estate.
There is a specific type of "customer requirement" which is daft, trivial, probably useless to them from any "business use-case" perspective, and damaging to the overall project. These are often the result of whimsy inserted into requirements docs drawn up by the nontechnical, and followed with unreasoning precision when drawing together the spec.
Silently dropping these in the trash is often the best way to test if the customer really wants them.
What, you think nature doesn't fell trees? Imagine how much termites must itch, and never being able to scratch...
When you whine about "cutting down trees", consider the fate of useful and useless species. Corn versus wildflowers, for example. Wood is probably the sole reason there's any trees left standing anywhere.
What about Joe-jobs? What about innocent advertisers? What about them? They're collateral damage. So sorry, flowers to the family, but the war takes priority.
Okay, disclaimer, I barely know any functional programming, and that's in ocaml. But despite that, I think I've made a conceptual leap here that might help clarify what's going on in regard of all this "IO as a return value" stuff.
In C you write programs. C values are values. C functions return a value.
In Haskell, you write program generators. Haskell values are "the capability to, later, if necessary, generate a value" - in other words, a piece of code that can be called. A Haskell function application wraps its operands (which are code) in itself, and returns "the capability to, later, if necessary, compute the application of this function" - more code.
When your "main" in Haskell returns an "IO value", what it's actually returning is a generated program which will finally be called to actually do the IO.
Have I got this right? Functional gurus, please comment.
Azureus can prewrite the whole file with zeros, then fill blocks into that file. As compared to the more usual approach of continuously appending, then sorting them into order on completion. This should help prevent fragmentation.
I've seen something like that, as a form of garbage-collection, when C is used in a stateless, quick-cycling system like HTTP. Malloc a big chunk of memory, perform operations wastefully within it (allocate with no attempt to free or reuse), then free the whole chunk at the end of the cycle (eg: after the HTTP response).
This program uses that pattern: http://www.annexia.org/freeware/rws/
Micropayments fail because humans think in integer math. Humans can't casually maintain a rolling tally of floats, so they can't do economic calculation with micropayments. A few are meaningless, enough will add up, how many is enough? How big are my bills growing? Will I get a nasty surprise? Had I better cut back on sending mails? Do I need to browse banners to pay for my mails? How many banners pays for an email?
Bah. Who wants that grief? Charge in bulk and in sensible denominations, or not at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Go color over it with permanent marker or something. Or stick tape over it. C'mon, this isn't rocket science!
Golf courses already drench their grass in weedkillers. No other way to get that perfectly flat weedless result. If anything, this might reduce pollution, allowing one application of the strong stuff to substitute for several of weaker chemicals. (Yes this would still be an economic gain to Monsanto - because the customer is guaranteed to use their strong stuff.)
It's small-minded envy pure and simple. "No fair! he has more than me! I want it! Or I'll break it! But he mayn't have it!"
MS got to be market dominant (which is NOT a true monopoly) by making genuinely good programs. For a business-person's definition of good, that is. They work well enough, their cost is reasonable compared to their utility, their faults are known and can be planned around, and the qualified user pool is huge. This is why MS is rich and successful.
MS is not a monopoly. The cops are a monopoly; the government will beat you up for setting up in competition. MS isn't. They hold market dominance solely because it would be uneconomic -- wastefully expensive -- for anyone to replace them.
Wasted money can't be invested. Investment benefits everybody, by increasing opportunity. Investment in infrastructure is the reason you have a roof over your head instead of a cave. The theories of the anti-corp types would see all success dragged low, deliberate waste foisted upon the productive in the name of "fairness", and the result would be economic ruin. As it always has been in any country or group that embraced envy as a moral.
So far as I'm concerned, the IRS ought to be forced to use abacuses. With their left hands. Whilst wearing padded gloves.
Basically bayesian filters have some mechanism to "train" them with example spams and example good mails. The more information you give them, the more skilled they get, up to a point. After that point, adding in more examples actually weakens the filter, and it lets more spam through.
I'm not sure of the mathematical reasons for this, perhaps someone else can explain them?
...except it would require an extra drop-and-reestablish, and it would be DOS-able by asking for and not redeeming tokens. Plus it could have problems with getting through to different machines load-balanced SMTP farms.
It has the same problems as SPF, too. Basically, a lot of client=>MTA message sending relies on the ability to "forge" the origin so as to allow eg: your laptop to send "from" your company email account.
Have you overtrained your filter? That tends to weaken its usefulness after awhile. If so, remove the training DB and retrain it from scratch.
Pray it doesn't blow up on the launch pad...
Consider the Iraqis at the moment. They have weak weapons and they're constantly getting caught, but they're successfully making a geunine nuisance of themselves.
Unwanted military rule can continue while those who oppose it have guns, but it can't ever settle down into smug "business as usual".
"Expedient Homemade Firearms : The 9mm Submachine Gun"
3 4/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/08736498
MP3 or Vorbis or any other acoustic-model lossy compression would probably trash the subliminals, since the're deliberately designed to throw out stuff you can't hear.
The idea being that if you know your audience, and they all know one-another, then rather than anticipating every contingency, you can create someting precision-tailored to the specific task.
"the average IQ of a dollar tends to rise"
Kind of an economic version of evolution-in-action.
Heck, if I had a rocket I'd shoot a bunch of cold-extremophile cyanobacteria over there just to forclose the debate. To heck with the damn-hippies. Mars doesn't have an environment.
These guys can debate themselves until they've counted how many microfossils can dance on the head of a pin, but the moment Ordinary Joe can get up out of the gravity well in a privately owned craft, Mars is going to seem a lot less like an academic excercise, and a lot more like real estate.
Algae and bacteria would get out, by slipping through cracks, burrowing under walls, blowing out through airlocks, adhering to colonists' boots, etc.
Not that I think this is harm.
Okay so it's a mapping overtop SQL, but it's really really nice.
There is a specific type of "customer requirement" which is daft, trivial, probably useless to them from any "business use-case" perspective, and damaging to the overall project. These are often the result of whimsy inserted into requirements docs drawn up by the nontechnical, and followed with unreasoning precision when drawing together the spec.
Silently dropping these in the trash is often the best way to test if the customer really wants them.
What, you think nature doesn't fell trees? Imagine how much termites must itch, and never being able to scratch...
When you whine about "cutting down trees", consider the fate of useful and useless species. Corn versus wildflowers, for example. Wood is probably the sole reason there's any trees left standing anywhere.
"They have deep pockets and nobody much likes them, lets shake them down for a few million."
What about Joe-jobs? What about innocent advertisers? What about them? They're collateral damage. So sorry, flowers to the family, but the war takes priority.
Okay, disclaimer, I barely know any functional programming, and that's in ocaml. But despite that, I think I've made a conceptual leap here that might help clarify what's going on in regard of all this "IO as a return value" stuff.
In C you write programs. C values are values. C functions return a value.
In Haskell, you write program generators. Haskell values are "the capability to, later, if necessary, generate a value" - in other words, a piece of code that can be called. A Haskell function application wraps its operands (which are code) in itself, and returns "the capability to, later, if necessary, compute the application of this function" - more code.
When your "main" in Haskell returns an "IO value", what it's actually returning is a generated program which will finally be called to actually do the IO.
Have I got this right? Functional gurus, please comment.
Azureus can prewrite the whole file with zeros, then fill blocks into that file. As compared to the more usual approach of continuously appending, then sorting them into order on completion. This should help prevent fragmentation.
I've seen something like that, as a form of garbage-collection, when C is used in a stateless, quick-cycling system like HTTP. Malloc a big chunk of memory, perform operations wastefully within it (allocate with no attempt to free or reuse), then free the whole chunk at the end of the cycle (eg: after the HTTP response).
This program uses that pattern: http://www.annexia.org/freeware/rws/
http://cat.nyu.edu/~meyer/jasmin/
Micropayments fail because humans think in integer math. Humans can't casually maintain a rolling tally of floats, so they can't do economic calculation with micropayments. A few are meaningless, enough will add up, how many is enough? How big are my bills growing? Will I get a nasty surprise? Had I better cut back on sending mails? Do I need to browse banners to pay for my mails? How many banners pays for an email?
Bah. Who wants that grief? Charge in bulk and in sensible denominations, or not at all.