Not one but two colluding assholes sneaked into this discussion five days after the fact, and marked THIS - the above legitimate question - as Flamebait. I should have a reciprocal means to mod the anonymous modders down as Troll. Why don't I?
Ad hominem modding, where the mod is directed at the person rather than the actual comment, should itself be strongly modded down.
Great, so it can "predict" IP or site origins of malicious attacks, but can it also predict its own inevitable false positives? If so, how is it better than a DNSBL or other blacklist, except that it can make money for its owners without requiring constant updating and the requisite human labor?
I'd hate to use an IP or own a site that it happened to incorrectly "predict" as the source of an impending-but-as-yet-not-real attack. They might as well compile a Minority Report against me. How would that be any better for me, as an innocent victim, than having my IP/site unfairly blacklisted by SORBS/Spamhaus/Spamcop?
I have no doubt that, if the submitter has observed a decline in the accuracy of his spelling, then that observation is correct. However, the conclusions he draws from it are... weird. I'm nearly as old as the submitter implies of himself, and I gave up cursive handwriting in eighth grade, long before I ever encountered a computer keyboard. I've been using keyboards daily since 1979. While it's true that I can't write CURSIVE worth a damn - I've forgotten the "flow" and how to form the letters - my actual ability to spell isn't affected one bit by either that or my use of keyboards. It is certainly true that some poorly designed keyboards (like the one I'm using now, sadly) actually encourage TYPING mistakes, those mistakes certainly don't carry over into another medium, and there's no reason to think they would.
What are we talking about here... linguistic laziness? Place the blame where it belongs, because it doesn't belong with a keyboard.
The clear implication of the summary is that POTS service is terribly expensive relative to cellphone services. Is that REALLY the case, where actual costs of operation and maintenance are concerned? If cellphones are indeed now almost more ubquitous than landlines and so much cheaper to operate, why is it that I can afford a landline but not a cellphone?
... is that he recognizes that Obama is a political ghost ("lacking substance") and that Dennis Kucinich should have been the Democratic (or at least SOME party's) nominee. The guy deserves some serious modding-up for that, regardless what people think of his Photoshopping skills or subject matter.
Though I can't cite an old/. post or other article, I was reading about a LAN adapter with embedded processor and RAM for download storage at least a year ago. I don't think it was early news of this same.
Paypal needs to be made more ethical first: fixed fees,, not a percentage. Security just might naturally follow if Paypal grew an ethical bone... starting by lopping off the diseased head and hoping it grows a better one.
Paypal wants to steal three percent of every transaction? Why is it a percentage? Does their automated system actually put in more effort the larger the amount of money involved? No. Paypal's middle-man "contribution" is fixed, regardless of the amount of a transaction, so why isn't its fee also fixed?
Answer: greed.
If Paypal were even vaguely ethical, it would be charging a fixed fee for what is a fixed amount of effort on its part. Paypal isn't ethical. Neither are many real estate brokers, stock brokers, and lawyers. The easiest way to stop this greed would have been for people to simply vote with their dollars and refuse to be disadvantaged in this fashion, but far too many people are incredibly lousy at math, didn't know any better, and now the practice is institutionalized such that no one even thinks about it. What Paypal is doing is the rule, typical capitalistic behavior, not the exception. The only thing that's different here is that Paypal is HUGE and got belatedly scrutinized because Paypal tried to obfuscate it.
The real (ethical) issue is that Paypal has been demanding those percentage fees from anyone, not the fact that Paypal got caught trying to hide an expansion of whom it charges that percentage. Paypal already knew the percentage fees were unethical, and that is precisely why it desired to hide the expansion from consumers: it fears the consequences of its unethical greedy behavior.
If we're going to collectively rebel against Paypal charging a percentage fee, I'd suggest we not stop the rebellion until we've put an end to all such greedy percentage fees.
The only true form of 'Net neutrality is the kind where the physical medium - the wires or "tubes" - is collectively owned by the public. Our network of roads is almost entirely publicly owned, and the companies that build and maintain them are contractors... we don't allow them to own the stretches of asphalt they lay down. Contractors are exactly what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and all the others in the telecom infrastructure ownership business should be, rather than owners.
We made an error in judgement when AT&T began laying the first telegraph wires, and we failed to recognize the future import and insist that they deed the wires to the public trust. We perhaps had a second chance to correct our error when AT&T was hauled into court for antitrust issues: we could have forced AT&T to sell back the wires to We The People at that time, as a part of the judgement, or perhaps transitioned it into a non-profit pseudo-governmental agency like the USPS, rather than breaking it into smaller entities which STILL owned the wires in their respective fiefdoms.
We're still paying - dearly - for that original error in judgement and our continuing failure to recognize the error and deal with it, even belatedly. It appears that it might now require a revolution with guns to get the wires back into public hands, because the only way any of these corporations' CEOs are going to relinquish this profit-making control is by forcibly prying the wires from the vise-like grasp of their cold dead fingers.
As a result, we now talk about kludges and band-aids for the problem, in the form of laws and regulations, and we call these band-aids "Net neutrality" even though they're really nothing of the sort.
Does the FCC have the spine and "guns" to finally create true telecom network neutrality? I doubt it, but I suggest that perhaps you should try. If not, please do not entertain any of these legislative band-aids: in this case covering the wound with a band-aid will not actually aid in healing, rather only hide the wound from view and defer the surgery necessary to finally heal it. LET IT FESTER IN THE OPEN - in other words let the telecom companies section and "tier" the network - until it becomes so noxious that we're collectively ready to agree to the surgery.
If this latest bit with Comcast is any further hint, I'm going to be muttering "See? I told you so...." soon enough.
"When you get to the top dog police, if there's suspicion there they get investigated by a group appointed by the elected governing body, whose investigation becomes public. So effectively the people are in charge, without the need for armed standoffs."
You mean like the impeachment proceedings that should be happening (in the United States) but aren't?
"Now, admittedly, if you let the entire system slowly rot out from under you, it might not work so well."
You mean like people in the United States have started to allow?
I realize that I'm risking a sermon to the choir here, but who polices the police? This is precisely the sort of circumstance that justifies a codified right of citizens to bear arms... and perhaps any damned "arms" they see fit, large or small, automatic or not. When the police stop acting in the interest of the Common Good and act in their own unenlightened self-interest instead, and use force to do it, then it's up to an organized posse of citizens with guns and ethics on their minds to police the police. No guy in a robe in an air-conditioned building with wood-paneled walls is gonna accomplish anything in the short term.
And exactly how does this "feature" help me avoid the spam being sent to ALL of the above addresses that winds up in MY inbox... because of this "feature"?
If it walks like a bug and bites like a bug, then it IS a bug. Feature, my ass. There's no benefit to be had from it. For spammers it amounts to an exploit, a way to deliver twice as much spam to some people.
I receive no work related mail at all at my GMail address, and I've received many orders of magnitude more than just two false positives in the last five years. Perhaps you're the exception, and not me.
Nope, that wasn't the case, since he's confirmed otherwise (and replied before you did).
Yahoo is at least polite enough, if POP3 delivery is used, to allow bypassing their spam system and delivery of ALL mail, so that a local filtering system can be used if so desired. GMail is utterly authoritarian about it, and doesn't allow anyone to opt out for any reason. If you try to use a local Bayesian filtering system with a GMail account, your corpus will be skewed by GMail's forced filtering and you'll never achieve the 99.9+% accuracy that you might otherwise.
I've used GMail since its inception. To this day I still despise its MANDATORY antispam system, which continues to vex me with false positives that I'm hard-pressed to find in the deluge of actual spam in the Spam "folder".
This is compounded by the well-known bug in GMail that causes the system to ignore periods in addresses when it is delivering mail... in other words, any mail addressed to blahblahblah@gmail.com winds up being delivered to blah.blah.blah@gmail.com instead (perhaps only if there's no actual unique blahblahblah account). Because of that bug, I get MORE THAN TWICE the amount of spam that I "should" be receiving, because GMail is delivering mail to my Inbox that wasn't actually addressed to me!
GMail is great, but it also sucks, and sucks hard, at EFFECTIVE spam control. I can do much better with PopFile and localized filtering, but GMail won't even let me do it since their filtering can't be bypassed or disabled (you can't "opt out").
That's precisely why I found the original comments not credible. He was either clueless or disingenuous.
Someone probably misapplied the Troll mod for "Shill". The guy sounded a bit like a shill for GMail, don't you think? Either that or a genuine noob: "...Gmail has been so good I really haven't used any other mail provider". Jeez, he's NEVER used ANY ISP e-mail account? I find that rather hard to swallow, unless he's really fresh off the boat. So yeah, if I were modding his post I'd be inclined to mod it something other than favorably myself. He's just not that believable.
Slashdot Mirror
Not one but two colluding assholes sneaked into this discussion five days after the fact, and marked THIS - the above legitimate question - as Flamebait. I should have a reciprocal means to mod the anonymous modders down as Troll. Why don't I?
Ad hominem modding, where the mod is directed at the person rather than the actual comment, should itself be strongly modded down.
Great, so it can "predict" IP or site origins of malicious attacks, but can it also predict its own inevitable false positives? If so, how is it better than a DNSBL or other blacklist, except that it can make money for its owners without requiring constant updating and the requisite human labor?
I'd hate to use an IP or own a site that it happened to incorrectly "predict" as the source of an impending-but-as-yet-not-real attack. They might as well compile a Minority Report against me. How would that be any better for me, as an innocent victim, than having my IP/site unfairly blacklisted by SORBS/Spamhaus/Spamcop?
David Ackley brags, "We have a CPU, RAM, data storage and serial ports for connectivity on every two square inches."
That sounds kinda expensive to me, even at only 72MHz/16K/128K per module.
I have no doubt that, if the submitter has observed a decline in the accuracy of his spelling, then that observation is correct. However, the conclusions he draws from it are... weird. I'm nearly as old as the submitter implies of himself, and I gave up cursive handwriting in eighth grade, long before I ever encountered a computer keyboard. I've been using keyboards daily since 1979. While it's true that I can't write CURSIVE worth a damn - I've forgotten the "flow" and how to form the letters - my actual ability to spell isn't affected one bit by either that or my use of keyboards. It is certainly true that some poorly designed keyboards (like the one I'm using now, sadly) actually encourage TYPING mistakes, those mistakes certainly don't carry over into another medium, and there's no reason to think they would.
What are we talking about here... linguistic laziness? Place the blame where it belongs, because it doesn't belong with a keyboard.
The clear implication of the summary is that POTS service is terribly expensive relative to cellphone services. Is that REALLY the case, where actual costs of operation and maintenance are concerned? If cellphones are indeed now almost more ubquitous than landlines and so much cheaper to operate, why is it that I can afford a landline but not a cellphone?
... is that he recognizes that Obama is a political ghost ("lacking substance") and that Dennis Kucinich should have been the Democratic (or at least SOME party's) nominee. The guy deserves some serious modding-up for that, regardless what people think of his Photoshopping skills or subject matter.
Though I can't cite an old /. post or other article, I was reading about a LAN adapter with embedded processor and RAM for download storage at least a year ago. I don't think it was early news of this same.
Paypal needs to be made more ethical first: fixed fees,, not a percentage. Security just might naturally follow if Paypal grew an ethical bone... starting by lopping off the diseased head and hoping it grows a better one.
Paypal wants to steal three percent of every transaction? Why is it a percentage? Does their automated system actually put in more effort the larger the amount of money involved? No. Paypal's middle-man "contribution" is fixed, regardless of the amount of a transaction, so why isn't its fee also fixed?
Answer: greed.
If Paypal were even vaguely ethical, it would be charging a fixed fee for what is a fixed amount of effort on its part. Paypal isn't ethical. Neither are many real estate brokers, stock brokers, and lawyers. The easiest way to stop this greed would have been for people to simply vote with their dollars and refuse to be disadvantaged in this fashion, but far too many people are incredibly lousy at math, didn't know any better, and now the practice is institutionalized such that no one even thinks about it. What Paypal is doing is the rule, typical capitalistic behavior, not the exception. The only thing that's different here is that Paypal is HUGE and got belatedly scrutinized because Paypal tried to obfuscate it.
The real (ethical) issue is that Paypal has been demanding those percentage fees from anyone, not the fact that Paypal got caught trying to hide an expansion of whom it charges that percentage. Paypal already knew the percentage fees were unethical, and that is precisely why it desired to hide the expansion from consumers: it fears the consequences of its unethical greedy behavior.
If we're going to collectively rebel against Paypal charging a percentage fee, I'd suggest we not stop the rebellion until we've put an end to all such greedy percentage fees.
Or maybe the Infested sound like Anthony Zerbe?
So does the player character look or sound at all like Charlton Heston or Vincent Price?
What I wrote to the FCC:
If this latest bit with Comcast is any further hint, I'm going to be muttering "See? I told you so...." soon enough.
I used a cast iron fireplace poker and shovel blade on two old drives in a pinch this weekend... wound up breaking the poker, too, though!
Yeah, seriously....
You mean like the impeachment proceedings that should be happening (in the United States) but aren't?
You mean like people in the United States have started to allow?
I realize that I'm risking a sermon to the choir here, but who polices the police? This is precisely the sort of circumstance that justifies a codified right of citizens to bear arms... and perhaps any damned "arms" they see fit, large or small, automatic or not. When the police stop acting in the interest of the Common Good and act in their own unenlightened self-interest instead, and use force to do it, then it's up to an organized posse of citizens with guns and ethics on their minds to police the police. No guy in a robe in an air-conditioned building with wood-paneled walls is gonna accomplish anything in the short term.
And exactly how does this "feature" help me avoid the spam being sent to ALL of the above addresses that winds up in MY inbox... because of this "feature"?
No, a filter CANNOT be created to bypass the spam system. I know the theory, but it doesn't work.
If it walks like a bug and bites like a bug, then it IS a bug. Feature, my ass. There's no benefit to be had from it. For spammers it amounts to an exploit, a way to deliver twice as much spam to some people.
I receive no work related mail at all at my GMail address, and I've received many orders of magnitude more than just two false positives in the last five years. Perhaps you're the exception, and not me.
Nope, that wasn't the case, since he's confirmed otherwise (and replied before you did).
Yahoo is at least polite enough, if POP3 delivery is used, to allow bypassing their spam system and delivery of ALL mail, so that a local filtering system can be used if so desired. GMail is utterly authoritarian about it, and doesn't allow anyone to opt out for any reason. If you try to use a local Bayesian filtering system with a GMail account, your corpus will be skewed by GMail's forced filtering and you'll never achieve the 99.9+% accuracy that you might otherwise.
I've used GMail since its inception. To this day I still despise its MANDATORY antispam system, which continues to vex me with false positives that I'm hard-pressed to find in the deluge of actual spam in the Spam "folder".
This is compounded by the well-known bug in GMail that causes the system to ignore periods in addresses when it is delivering mail... in other words, any mail addressed to blahblahblah@gmail.com winds up being delivered to blah.blah.blah@gmail.com instead (perhaps only if there's no actual unique blahblahblah account). Because of that bug, I get MORE THAN TWICE the amount of spam that I "should" be receiving, because GMail is delivering mail to my Inbox that wasn't actually addressed to me!
GMail is great, but it also sucks, and sucks hard, at EFFECTIVE spam control. I can do much better with PopFile and localized filtering, but GMail won't even let me do it since their filtering can't be bypassed or disabled (you can't "opt out").
That's precisely why I found the original comments not credible. He was either clueless or disingenuous.
Someone probably misapplied the Troll mod for "Shill". The guy sounded a bit like a shill for GMail, don't you think? Either that or a genuine noob: "...Gmail has been so good I really haven't used any other mail provider". Jeez, he's NEVER used ANY ISP e-mail account? I find that rather hard to swallow, unless he's really fresh off the boat. So yeah, if I were modding his post I'd be inclined to mod it something other than favorably myself. He's just not that believable.
... is its own Revolution, and soon before it's too late to stop Skyn... errr, Big Brother!
... of the million-dollar mansions of all the pre-Internet-Bubble-burst CEOs and entrepreneurs. Have they spec'ed out those for data centers yet?