And there are a lot of people that don't understand spam filtering. Unlike most other email concepts, this one doesn't really have a snail-mail analogue.
How about this;
You know how some people have a sign on their letterbox saying 'no circulars'?
Well imagine if the people who delivered 'circulars' actually respected this.
Now imagine having two letterboxes, one labelled 'circulars only'.
So if you ask someone to send you a newsletter and you don't find it delivered in your regular mailbox, where would you look for it?
That's true, but it's controlled by remote. So therfore you don't have to pay a pilot
Theres also the factor of safety of the pilot and crew.
Helicopters have something called a 'dead mans curve'; its a range of altitudes and velocities below which, in event of a mechanical failure, it is impossible to perform a safe autorotational descent.
Much surveillance flying is routinely below this curve; the helicopter is flying too low and too slow.
I'd like to know if anyone has any ideas as to how to do the following:
I want to create planetary textures for Celestia (see http://www.shatters.net/celestia/) but creating a rectangular image for the texture and then having this projected onto a sphere makes the process tedious trial and error -- the poles are really hard to get right.
I'd like to use some sort of modelling software to 'draw' the texture on a spherical body and then unwrap this into a rectangular image file suitable for importing into Celestia as a planetary texture.
Greylisting is currently the most effective means I'm using right now for spam control
When I enabled greylisting, over 90% of incoming email was greylisted and expired from the greylist; they never came back.
Then I looked at the logical structure of the ACLs (this is exim) and made a simple change; the first thing I now check is the HELO/EHLO syntax. If this fails, they are dropped immediately. The next thing is DNSBL checking, if they are on these then they are dropped.
Now 90% of hits on the greylist come back again later and get onto the whitelist.
There are still some greylist hits that get expired (ie never come back) and there is still some (tiny fraction) of mail that actually makes it as far as spamassassin itself.
Spamassassin and greylist are now producing hardly used at all.
Greylisting is great but it shouldn't be the first line of defence.
Indeed, our current level of development with respect to computers might be comparable to the early bronze age; we have the beginnings of metallurgy and can start to understand materials which are suitable for more interesting engineering work.
Our level of development with robotics is more like the neolithic; we can make finely crafted flaked stone tools but the material isn't really suitable for engineering work.
We euphemistically call these things (VCR's, machine tools, tape changers etc) 'robots'. We anthropomorphise them and get ahead of ourselves but they are really not much more advanced than, say, a lathe.
We are approaching the point where we will be able to engineer autonomous machines which will be sophisticated enough to implement Asimovs laws of robotics but NOT YET!!! And certainly not for industrial machinery which, again, we euphemistically refer to as 'robots'!
Actually, I'm just short of a comp-sci masters and my flatmate at university was into robotics.
Look, the article and many of the posts have been trying to talk as if somehow Asimovs 'Laws of Robotics' can be applied to things that are little better than a video cassette recorder.
This is rubbish; clearly industrial style 'automated machine tool' robots cannot come under the laws of robotics as they are NOWHERE near sophisticated enough.
Thats the point I was trying to make; calling them robots in the context of Asimovs laws is just dumb.
I just think that the using the term 'robot' to describe these things is not appropriate.
At school back in the 70's we used lathes and milling machines in the machine shop. One of the really cool mills could be programmed. Was that a robot? I don't think so.
These things -- modern factory 'robots' are just an extension of this kind of 'automated machine tool' technology. They follow limited programs within very limited conditions of operation. Very *VERY* limited.
Hows this -- a robot is to an 'automated machine tool' as a computer is to an adding machine.
A computer is 'computationally general'. An adding machine is not.
How about "A robot is... 'operationally general'. An automated machine tool is not."
The time is swiftly approaching for patriots to initiate the Second American Revolution
Indeed. I've often said that the only reason I'd go to the USA would be to help in the next revolution. Not exactly the sort of thing I'd put on my visa application though...
But I definitely sympathize with your position.. Qmail is great, but SOMEONE ELSE'S qmail build sounds like a nightmareto support.
What looks to me to be the worst aspect of qmail is that in order for it to be a really useful MTA you have to apply several 3rd party patches, few (if any) of which are officially supported by DJB.
It seems that none, if any, of these 3rd party patches have been regression tested against one another so theres no telling if one patch will fsck another patch. Who knows what bugs will end up in the resulting binaries.
Moreover, they are patching against code that has been euphemistically described as being in an 'ideosyncratic style'.:)
This makes me very uncomfortable, especially as (in my situation) I don't actually know which patches were applied in the first place...
The 'licensing terms' (if you can call them that) in effect make qmail linux-distribution unfriendly; the only Linux distro that seems to be really well suited to qmails 'licensing' terms is gentoo. 'Nuf said:)
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that Perl doesn't have real objects, it just lets you pretend that it has objects, and everything basically works.
s/objects/anything/g
And there are a lot of people that don't understand spam filtering. Unlike most other email concepts, this one doesn't really have a snail-mail analogue.
How about this;
You know how some people have a sign on their letterbox saying 'no circulars'?
Well imagine if the people who delivered 'circulars' actually respected this.
Now imagine having two letterboxes, one labelled 'circulars only'.
So if you ask someone to send you a newsletter and you don't find it
delivered in your regular mailbox, where would you look for it?
Teachers and librarians are the real heroes. They change the world without ever kicking down a door.
What kind of pussy gym teacher did you have?? Let me guess, liberal arts education?
pfffft!
Oh come on now, if you arn't doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide from Google? ;)
thats what I mean, its safer to use autonomous vehicles.
What, did you think I meant that the crew might get traumatised experiencing their drone crashing???
Idiot...
That's true, but it's controlled by remote. So therfore you don't have to pay a pilot
Theres also the factor of safety of the pilot and crew.
Helicopters have something called a 'dead mans curve'; its a range of altitudes and velocities below which, in event of a mechanical failure, it is impossible to perform a safe autorotational descent.
Much surveillance flying is routinely below this curve; the helicopter is flying too low and too slow.
I'd like to know if anyone has any ideas as to how to do the following:
I want to create planetary textures for Celestia
(see http://www.shatters.net/celestia/)
but creating a rectangular image for the texture
and then having this projected onto a sphere
makes the process tedious trial and error --
the poles are really hard to get right.
I'd like to use some sort of modelling software
to 'draw' the texture on a spherical body
and then unwrap this into a rectangular image file
suitable for importing into Celestia as a planetary texture.
Any (useful) suggestions would be appreciated!
Thanks
Greylisting is currently the most effective means I'm using right now for spam control
When I enabled greylisting, over 90% of incoming email was greylisted and expired from the greylist; they never came back.
Then I looked at the logical structure of the ACLs (this is exim) and made a simple change; the first thing I now check is the HELO/EHLO syntax. If this fails, they are dropped immediately. The next thing is DNSBL checking, if they are on these then they are dropped.
Now 90% of hits on the greylist come back again later and get onto the whitelist.
There are still some greylist hits that get expired (ie never come back) and there is still some (tiny fraction) of mail that actually makes it as far as spamassassin itself.
Spamassassin and greylist are now producing hardly used at all.
Greylisting is great but it shouldn't be the first line of defence.
Indeed, our current level of development with respect to computers might be comparable to the early bronze age; we have the beginnings of metallurgy and can start to understand materials which are suitable for more interesting engineering work.
Our level of development with robotics is more like the neolithic; we can make finely crafted flaked stone tools but the material isn't really suitable for engineering work.
We euphemistically call these things (VCR's, machine tools, tape changers etc) 'robots'. We anthropomorphise them and get ahead of ourselves but they are really not much more advanced than, say, a lathe.
We are approaching the point where we will be able to engineer autonomous machines which will be sophisticated enough to implement Asimovs laws of robotics but NOT YET!!! And certainly not for industrial machinery which, again, we euphemistically refer to as 'robots'!
Actually, I'm just short of a comp-sci masters and my flatmate at university was into robotics.
Look, the article and many of the posts have been trying to talk as if somehow Asimovs 'Laws of Robotics' can be applied to things that are little better than a video cassette recorder.
This is rubbish; clearly industrial style 'automated machine tool' robots cannot come under the laws of robotics as they are NOWHERE near sophisticated enough.
Thats the point I was trying to make; calling them robots in the context of Asimovs laws is just dumb.
2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.
Oh I see... like a TV or a VCR?
I just think that the using the term 'robot' to describe these things is not appropriate.
At school back in the 70's we used lathes and milling machines in the machine shop. One of the really cool mills could be programmed. Was that a robot? I don't think so.
These things -- modern factory 'robots' are just an extension of this kind of 'automated machine tool' technology. They follow limited programs within very limited conditions of operation. Very *VERY* limited.
Hows this -- a robot is to an 'automated machine tool' as a computer is to an adding machine.
A computer is 'computationally general'. An adding machine is not.
How about "A robot is... 'operationally general'. An automated machine tool is not."
These are not robots; they are automated machine tools.
You're not supposed to protect yourself with legal fictions.
Like the notion of 'intellectual property' for example...
I thought it was all the video game companies (at least, the big ones) were flocking to Hollywood to grab the latest license?
Oh it works both ways;
1. most games are either based on movies or are sequels to earlier games
2. most movies are either based on games or are sequels to earlier movies
Original games and movies are inevitably low budget because investors don't want to take a risk on something that hasn't been tried before.
It is, indeed, teh suck.
Performance
I ran series of benchmarks for the following applications
How about publishing your benchmark results?
Unless thats prohibited by the VMWare license...
All you really need is a blowtorch, a fume cupboard and a stack of crap movies.
Now theres a movie burning booth people would queue up for!
Untill they start jailing parents who take their 7 year olds to an -R- rated movie
When they start jailing parents who take their 7 year olds to see a movie, maybe I'll start going back to the movies again.
Last I heard, the military can't even wait for students to get out of middle school before signing them up.
That would be because the USA has a massive shortfall in the proportion of its population who can be considered *fit* for military service.
See if you can get a copy of the CIA world fact book pre-2001, find the section on military manpower and population and do some math.
It would appear that the USA has *less* than 1% of its total gross population fit for service.
The worst that any other nation has is 5%.
Interestingly, not long after sometime mid September 2001, these figures appear to have been removed.
The USA *needs* vassal states, strategic weapons and autonomous fighting machines in order to be anything other than a paper tiger.
and it's not RMS without a shower
Hah!
That would be an oxymoron!
*ducks*
The time is swiftly approaching for patriots to initiate the Second American Revolution
Indeed. I've often said that the only reason I'd go to the USA would be to help in the next revolution. Not exactly the sort of thing I'd put on my visa application though...
I ** HATE ** children. Therefore I will never molest any!!!
You have to watch your language with this sort of thing...
I once said "I HATE fucking children!" but then realised that made me sound like a reluctant pedophile...
Since when has it become fashionable for Polish political extremists to wear corpses?
Polish political extremists are mostly Catholics.
Catholics often wear (depictions) of a corpse as what is euphemistically referred to as a 'holy symbol'.
SCOTUSBLOG is one good one.
Isn't that acronym wrong?
Shouldn't it be more like:
Supreme Court Of The United States of America?
But I definitely sympathize with your position.. Qmail is great, but SOMEONE ELSE'S qmail build sounds like a nightmareto support.
:)
:)
What looks to me to be the worst aspect of qmail is that in order for it to be a really useful MTA you have to apply several 3rd party patches, few (if any) of which are officially supported by DJB.
It seems that none, if any, of these 3rd party patches have been regression tested against one another so theres no telling if one patch will fsck another patch. Who knows what bugs will end up in the resulting binaries.
Moreover, they are patching against code that has been euphemistically described as being in an 'ideosyncratic style'.
This makes me very uncomfortable, especially as (in my situation) I don't actually know which patches were applied in the first place...
The 'licensing terms' (if you can call them that) in effect make qmail linux-distribution unfriendly; the only Linux distro that seems to be really well suited to qmails 'licensing' terms is gentoo. 'Nuf said