I want to make sure these odor output devices are interoperable. What is Microsoft ends up locking up the market with some sort of proprietary system? What if they deliberately rework Windows to make competing devices smell like shit?
Re:This Comment May Be Slightly Off Topic
on
Fix a Troubled Mac
·
· Score: 1
As a capitalist pig, I probably shouldn't be helping out a Marxist Hacker, put you can put quotes around the phrase, and that will force Google to search for the words *only* in your specified order.
Perheaps you would care to explain it in more detail to the 90% of the planet's population, livng in places where dog-eat-dog capitalizm is the religion de jeur but it is curiously coupled with unspeakable misery and poverty of the "common man", freedom is unheard of and outright slavery common.
What would slashdotters recommend I install on a computer for Grandma? I have to reinstall her computer from scratch every MONTH or so because it becomes completely unusable due to viruses, spyware, and other random windows deitrius.
Why don't you just try telling Granny to lay off the porn sites?
I'd certainly expect to see that Mac users would be more likely to buy music from the store, which I'd attribute mainly to the lack of P2P clients available on the Mac, which has certainly helped Apple establish themselves in the market with the Mac version of iTunes.
I take it you don't have a Mac. Well, I don't need 10,000 different programs, 99% of which have shitty interfaces sitting atop half-assed implementations. (Then again, this is the place where 'vi' qualifies as a nice interface...so what should I expect?)
My personal favorite client is Acquisition. Nice interface, works well, very Mac-like.
You're missing a very important aspect of Bayesian filtering: words which are not previously known are automatically assigned a certian probability of spamminess. The more unknown words a message has, the more likely it is to be classified as spam.
Yes, but what a Bayesian filter considers a word is important. Do "ASCII art" signatures get an e-mail from your friend marked as spam? What about tabular text data, such as the columns in a financial statement?
Bayesian filters have to be careful not to consider every text token a word, or many things that aren't spam will be marked as such. On the other hand, being too loose in the definition of what a word is will let spam through. It's that balancing act that guarantee Bayesian filtering won't be a panacea.
Nope, because my Bayesian filter works just as well for 0bfu5c4t3d words as it does for properly spelled ones. They are all just sequences of letters, and anything that is deliberately misspelled is going to become identified as spammy very quickly.
The problem with obfuscated words is that there is a pretty sizable set of permutations for any given word. If one obfuscated variant ends up in your spam word list, that doesn't take care of the thousands of other obfuscated versions of the exact same word.
Nope, because I have images turned off by default in my mail viewer. If a stranger wants me to read his email, he'll need to send it as plain text, because (as you point out) HTML email with images is used as a spam vector and little else.
Ahh..yes! I have them turned off, too! But isn't the whole point of Bayesian filtering to stop the spam before it reaches your inbox? Sure, you've got images turned off so you don't see the spam, but if Bayesian is so great, why is the spam in your inbox to begin with?
Funny, my Bayesian filter is working fine at this very moment. Who should I believe, your article or my own eyes?
You can believe your own eyes if you wish, but your misconception is assuming that if Bayesian is working for you it is also working for everyone else. Don't get me wrong...Bayesian filtering is a pretty nifty technology. But let's not pretend it's a universal solution that works for everyone.
For whatever reason, the mix of spam I get isn't caught all that effectively by my Bayesian filter. So, believe your eyes if you wish, but don't claim that my eyes must see exactly what yours do.
It's much easier than that to defeat Bayesian filtering. Ever \/\/0|\|D3R why you're getting so much spam with obfuscated words? Or why you're getting so much spam where the text content is contained primarily in images rather than plaintext? Those things bypass Bayesian filters, that's why!
Bayesian filters rely on words. That means it is dependent upon word breaks and certain spellings. Well, spammers have been avoiding word breaks (either by removing spaces or introducing unnecessary ones) and obvious "spam words" by mangling the word or introducing "1337"-type spelling.
And Bayesian filters can't parse graphics, so a lot of spammers are careful to put words likely to trigger spam filters into graphics.
BTW, this article explains why there will never be a filtering-based solution to solving spam until SMTP itself is made more secure.
I know I should RTFA, but I am a lazy OS X user (this is a true statement--not flamebait--comprised of two separate but not mutually exlusive facts: I am a Mac OS X user and I am lazy), so my question is:
Can I get KOffice to run on OS X? What do I need to use? Apple's X11 plus KDE?
Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to do my own work and research for me.
If you force the Dock metaphor into a "process menu" versus "application menu" dichotomy, then you will be disappointed. The Dock looks at the world differently.
If a user wants to use a given app, he usually doesn't care whether the app is running or not. The user just wants the app. That's the metaphor of the Dock: "I want to use this app, so I click on the icon". Period.
Think of it this way: why should the user have to figure out: "I want to use this already-running app, therefore I look in the process menu" versus "I want to use this not-yet-running app, therefore I have to look in the application menu".
Most users don't think this way! They just want to use Application X, so they click the icon in the dock. That's it.
An equally powerful case can be made that splitting between running and non-running applications is an artificial separation.
I want a way to see every application running, and each window of the applications. Windows does this by shoving every window title into the taskbar. Mac OS X likes to have a little black arrow under the icons of running apps. However, sometimes the apps are still running even though they have no active windows, and that black arrow can be overlooked real easy. I'd like a menu of running apps and their corresponding windows, this could be integrated well into the chooser thing from point 1.
Hit Apple-Tab, and you get a list of all running apps (in icon form). hover the mouse over the app you want and release....it comes to the front
It's your fault you don't know how to configure an internet facing system and were used as an open relay. NotYahoo's fault, not any other blacklist you were listed on.
It's not always the fault of the person blocked by the blacklist, either...
You forget that many of us are not in control of our SMTP servers. I use a hosting company that had someone sending spam through the same SMTP server I use. Now I'm marked as a spammer and can't e-mail AOL, EarthLink and others.
I had a brand new MSN email account which I never used and which I never gave out to anyone, but I still managed to rack up 264 spam messages in one year.
Your problem is that you're trusting Microsoft to keep your e-mail address away from marketers...they can't even keep their OS away from marketers!
A solution that works 50% of the time is pretty good.
That depends on the problem domain. If you're a batter in baseball, a 50% "solution" (getting a hit every other time at bat) is phenomenal performance...
But if the 50% solution means that only 50% of my e-mail gets through, that is unacceptable. If 50% means that half of all mail blocked by a spam blocker are false positives, that is unacceptable.
Any communication medium that doesn't allow close to 100% of all valid, wanted messages through is one that won't last long. The problem with e-mail is every day that goes by, it becomes less usable due to spam. The current "solutions" to spam aren't much better...even Bayesian...I've seen many messages recently constructed to get through Bayesian filters...
Blacklists are evil! I have a site hosted at a company where someone else was sending spam from our shared SMTP server. Now *I'm* marked as a spammer, just because I use the same SMTP.
The blacklists folks all have an attitude of guilty until proven innocent. Yet, how can I prove I'm *not* a spammer?
Everyone who's griping about anonymity should realize: your demands for anonymity are resulting in blacklists, which fuck everything up for THE REST OF US who just want USABLE, WORKING E-MAIL rather than anonymity.
Thanks to the privacy extremists, the rest of us have to suffer with tons of spam and/or huge portions of the Internet where our e-mail can't go thanks to "solutions" like blacklists.
If you take "metric system" to mean a system of measurement that's derived from base-10, then a system is either metric or not. It can't be "like metric". It either is or it isn't...
...and, HEY! I'm an Amercian of the U-S-A veriety too! Wow! Amazing!
First, so what? There are plenty of Americans who engage in America-bashing. And second, you said with respect to metrics "in the US people can't seem to grasp the concept", in effect saying, "those dumb Americans don't understand metrics"
That's like saying, "I'm Jewish, so I can say that all Jews are money-grubbers."
Anyway your point makes no sense: Isn't one of the arguments in favor of metrics is that it is easier to understand? So you're also saying "those dumb Americans don't understand metrics, they understand a system that's more complicated...those stupid Yankees!"
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, there's an RFC for a truly open protocol: the Olfactory Transport Protocol (OTP). Hopefully, people will use it.
As a capitalist pig, I probably shouldn't be helping out a Marxist Hacker, put you can put quotes around the phrase, and that will force Google to search for the words *only* in your specified order.
Could you name one such place, please???
Isn't it ironic (dontcha think?) that 'explicate' appears in a sentence about straightforward writing? How about explain???
Why don't you just try telling Granny to lay off the porn sites?
I guess you don't want Windows users e-mailing you (unless they have Cygwin installed, that is).
Sounds like a good plan if you ask me...
Maybe the problem isn't their selection...maybe it was your spelling.
Linkin Park seems to work...
Dude, what are you talking about?
I take it you don't have a Mac. Well, I don't need 10,000 different programs, 99% of which have shitty interfaces sitting atop half-assed implementations. (Then again, this is the place where 'vi' qualifies as a nice interface...so what should I expect?)
My personal favorite client is Acquisition. Nice interface, works well, very Mac-like.
Sounds like a memory leak to me...
SYD! How are you? I was worried that you were not doing well, but from you post I can see that you are in firm control of your faculties.
Thanks for all the great the music, mate.
Shine on,
The Effervescing Elephant
Dude, if those are your friends, you should take a break from recompiling the Linux kernel and get out a little ;-)
Anyway, Microsoft Office X for the Mac uses the Carbon API, which is a remnant of the OS X precursors like OS 9...
Yes, but what a Bayesian filter considers a word is important. Do "ASCII art" signatures get an e-mail from your friend marked as spam? What about tabular text data, such as the columns in a financial statement?
Bayesian filters have to be careful not to consider every text token a word, or many things that aren't spam will be marked as such. On the other hand, being too loose in the definition of what a word is will let spam through. It's that balancing act that guarantee Bayesian filtering won't be a panacea.
*cough* O.J. *cough*
The problem with obfuscated words is that there is a pretty sizable set of permutations for any given word. If one obfuscated variant ends up in your spam word list, that doesn't take care of the thousands of other obfuscated versions of the exact same word.
Nope, because I have images turned off by default in my mail viewer. If a stranger wants me to read his email, he'll need to send it as plain text, because (as you point out) HTML email with images is used as a spam vector and little else.
Ahh..yes! I have them turned off, too! But isn't the whole point of Bayesian filtering to stop the spam before it reaches your inbox? Sure, you've got images turned off so you don't see the spam, but if Bayesian is so great, why is the spam in your inbox to begin with?
Funny, my Bayesian filter is working fine at this very moment. Who should I believe, your article or my own eyes?
You can believe your own eyes if you wish, but your misconception is assuming that if Bayesian is working for you it is also working for everyone else. Don't get me wrong...Bayesian filtering is a pretty nifty technology. But let's not pretend it's a universal solution that works for everyone.
For whatever reason, the mix of spam I get isn't caught all that effectively by my Bayesian filter. So, believe your eyes if you wish, but don't claim that my eyes must see exactly what yours do.
Bayesian filters rely on words. That means it is dependent upon word breaks and certain spellings. Well, spammers have been avoiding word breaks (either by removing spaces or introducing unnecessary ones) and obvious "spam words" by mangling the word or introducing "1337"-type spelling.
And Bayesian filters can't parse graphics, so a lot of spammers are careful to put words likely to trigger spam filters into graphics.
BTW, this article explains why there will never be a filtering-based solution to solving spam until SMTP itself is made more secure.
Can I get KOffice to run on OS X? What do I need to use? Apple's X11 plus KDE?
Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to do my own work and research for me.
I think he really meant Netscape 1.1N.
If you force the Dock metaphor into a "process menu" versus "application menu" dichotomy, then you will be disappointed. The Dock looks at the world differently.
If a user wants to use a given app, he usually doesn't care whether the app is running or not. The user just wants the app. That's the metaphor of the Dock: "I want to use this app, so I click on the icon". Period.
Think of it this way: why should the user have to figure out: "I want to use this already-running app, therefore I look in the process menu" versus "I want to use this not-yet-running app, therefore I have to look in the application menu".
Most users don't think this way! They just want to use Application X, so they click the icon in the dock. That's it.
An equally powerful case can be made that splitting between running and non-running applications is an artificial separation.
Hit Apple-Tab, and you get a list of all running apps (in icon form). hover the mouse over the app you want and release....it comes to the front
It's not always the fault of the person blocked by the blacklist, either...
You forget that many of us are not in control of our SMTP servers. I use a hosting company that had someone sending spam through the same SMTP server I use. Now I'm marked as a spammer and can't e-mail AOL, EarthLink and others.
Is that my fault?
Your problem is that you're trusting Microsoft to keep your e-mail address away from marketers...they can't even keep their OS away from marketers!
That depends on the problem domain. If you're a batter in baseball, a 50% "solution" (getting a hit every other time at bat) is phenomenal performance...
But if the 50% solution means that only 50% of my e-mail gets through, that is unacceptable. If 50% means that half of all mail blocked by a spam blocker are false positives, that is unacceptable.
Any communication medium that doesn't allow close to 100% of all valid, wanted messages through is one that won't last long. The problem with e-mail is every day that goes by, it becomes less usable due to spam. The current "solutions" to spam aren't much better...even Bayesian...I've seen many messages recently constructed to get through Bayesian filters...
Blacklists are evil! I have a site hosted at a company where someone else was sending spam from our shared SMTP server. Now *I'm* marked as a spammer, just because I use the same SMTP.
The blacklists folks all have an attitude of guilty until proven innocent. Yet, how can I prove I'm *not* a spammer?
Everyone who's griping about anonymity should realize: your demands for anonymity are resulting in blacklists, which fuck everything up for THE REST OF US who just want USABLE, WORKING E-MAIL rather than anonymity.
Thanks to the privacy extremists, the rest of us have to suffer with tons of spam and/or huge portions of the Internet where our e-mail can't go thanks to "solutions" like blacklists.
If you take "metric system" to mean a system of measurement that's derived from base-10, then a system is either metric or not. It can't be "like metric". It either is or it isn't...
First, so what? There are plenty of Americans who engage in America-bashing. And second, you said with respect to metrics "in the US people can't seem to grasp the concept", in effect saying, "those dumb Americans don't understand metrics"
That's like saying, "I'm Jewish, so I can say that all Jews are money-grubbers."
Anyway your point makes no sense: Isn't one of the arguments in favor of metrics is that it is easier to understand? So you're also saying "those dumb Americans don't understand metrics, they understand a system that's more complicated...those stupid Yankees!"