Astro-dude sez: "The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100 years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in 455."
OK. So if we run the experiment 445 times we'd expect at least one success. That's:
455x100years == 45,500
Hmmmmm.... so in twice that, or about 91,000 years, we'd be certain to be wiped out.
Since the fossil record sez its taken about 2.5 Million years for us to evolve from apes, I guess this is a very good argument for creationism...
When first invented, radio was free and open and anybody could put up a station at cost.
Sort of like the Internet is now.
Then the bad guys were stepping on each others signals and beginning to make a mess of things.
Sort of like the Internet is now.
So the benevolent and protective gov stepped in to fix things, shut everything down, and now you have to get a big fat licen$e to broadcast(blog) in a way that can make a difference.
"Companies have one obligation, make money for the shareholders."
That seems to be the line from management to justify their most questionable actions.
The actual laws of business success are these two:
1. A company should provide superior goods and services to its customers.
2. A company should provide for the wellfare of its employees execept were this will interfer with the first law of business.
There is no law for self-presevation since a compnay is not a living organism.
No law for providing return to shareholders is necessary, since these two laws will automatically produce profit for the company. (Also, since modern shareholders are more like gamblers than investors, only pre-IPO investors who have taken a genuine risk to support a new company really deserve a return to reward that risk).
Your agrement is that if we went after the local advertisers we'd only get off-shore spam.
That's a good thing
Then we remind everybody to buy domestic and the off-shore spam dries up pretty fast too.
You're missing that this an economically-motivated social problem, not a technical one.
Technical solutions can always be circumvented, no matter how complex (you don't belive airports are secure, do you?).
Coercing social behavior is easier... or have you missed the arguments about copyrights and patents around here?
ps: It's getting easier and easier to legally go after entities in other countries..... But technical solutions that address advertisers such as DoS & DNS revocation are totally cross-border....
It seems hardly fair to make such a comment such as "I am glad I don't live in...." without mentioning what country you do live in. It would add some meaningful context to an otherwise vacuous statement.
BTW, I do live in the states, and don't feel that democracy is equivalent to capitalism any more than communism is equivalent to totalitarianism or Islam to terrorism.
Let's unmuddle our thoughts a bit, no matter where we happen to live.
Sorry, you're not talking about me (though your description does Covey better than mine does.)
I have exactly two children, separated in age by almost a decade. They both have IQ >160, and the world needs more people who can think clearly. Shouldn't I create more of them?
Also, I greatly would enjoy raising another child -- they are such joys!
But two children is the most a couple can have without contributing to the overpopulation problem. Sadly, we are choosing to have no more, however much we might want to.
So Mr. AC instead of flaming, try providing an argument that a steady population over the past few decades would have equally released as much CO2, tripled the Palestine population, and caused the growing terrorist problem.
When I got to the point in his book were he discusses having 7 children I got just a bit nauseous.
Overpopulation pressure is the underlying cause of most of our current problems, from global warming to terrorism. If population had been stable for the last few decades these problems wouldn't even exist.
He "effectively" raised them on a sort of mass production basis, giving each new one progressively less attention as it popped out, until one really messed up. He then, heroically, saves the little f*ck up.
The Good News from the Catholics -- Rome & Italy have a declining population when they can't use birth control. Uh, right.
It works this way:
>20 && =30 && =40 = employable as CTO iff previous supervisor
>=45 = retired on all the $$$ you've made in this high-paying industry.
Spam Assassin, while a very clever program, is as misdirected as the "Canned Spam" legislation. It has no effect on the real economics of spam: who pays for it.
Somebody is paying for the spamming, and we know exactly who it is. The URL of that organization is prominently displayed in every item of spamail. It is the advertiser.
The advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. And easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
Dinging the advertisers, and dinging them hard, will instantly put the spammers out of business.
Spamming can be eliminated without blocking, white lists, or anti-spoofing RFC's. Just go to where it's pointing.
To draw an [ugly, graphic] picture: a dog comes and poops on sidewalk in front of my house, and I step in it. Yelling at the dog is going to be only moderately successful, building a poop filter is difficult, messy, and leaky (as Spam Assassin demonstrates) . Following the dog's leash and fining the owner is what works.
The owner doesn't bring the dog back since s/he doesn't want to pay another fine.
What's seriously wrong with all this anti-spam is that is doesn't go after the real economics of spam: who pays.
Somebody is paying for the spamming,and we know exactly who. It is prominently displayed in every item of spamail. It is the advertiser.
And the advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. But easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
Dinging the advertisers, and dinging them hard, will instantly put the spammers out of business.
To draw an [ugly, graphic] picture: a dog comes and poops on my sidewalk. Yelling at the dog is going to be only moderately successfull, building a poop filter is difficult, messy, and leaky. Following the dog's leash and fining the owner is what works.
The owner doesn't bring the dog back since s/he doesn't want to pay the fine.
No owner, no dog, no spam.
Get the owner.
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but IMHO you're not thinking this through.
The goal is to "rebuild" the country we bombed the shit out of, and the win the "hearts and minds" of the surviving populace.
Employing indigenous companies, who employ indigenous workers, who spend money in the indigenous economy, is the best way to accomplish these goals.
US companies, employing US workers, who take their money back to the US accomplishes none of those goals. There is no creation of lasting social/economic structure, or transfer of skills for maintenance of any resulting physical infrastructure.
You know what out-sourceing has done here; why do you want to do the same thing to such an abused populace?
US companies, employing US workers, who take their money back to the US accomplishes none of those goals. There is no creation of lasting socail/economic structure, or transfer of skills for maintenance of any resulting physical infastructure.
You know what out-sourcing has done here; why do you want to do the same thing to such an abused populace?
"No one should be allowed to patent anything that involves my body, my personal property."
Patenting something just means that you have to pay someone to use an embodiment of it: paying for a hamburger is a perfect example of embodiment of a patent.
But in general, I agree. Self-abuse should be cost-free.
=Mr. HairyHands
Slashdot Mirror
...at least C.3 which doesn't make any sense.
What a silly question.
Anyway, this is much harder for a small manufacturer to acomplish.
Placing drivers in the Internet Archive and etching the URL on the hardware is the minimium they should do.
So the *nix crowd has always been followers.
If the harware guys want to play OS here's the game plan:
1. exactly follow existing spes (where posable)
2. clearly and loudly publish interface details
3. release *Linux drivers with the hardware
[#3 is cheaper than you think!]
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 3/19/1411219&tid=117&tid=190&tid=156
from which one can locate this very relevant title:
"Unmodified Device Driver Reuse and Improved System Dependability via Virtual Machines" at
http://l4ka.org/publications/paper.php?docid=1208
?
sort of looks like a good solution....
OK. So if we run the experiment 445 times we'd expect at least one success. That's:
455x100years == 45,500
Hmmmmm.... so in twice that, or about 91,000 years, we'd be certain to be wiped out.
Since the fossil record sez its taken about 2.5 Million years for us to evolve from apes, I guess this is a very good argument for creationism...
1. stand in front of the talker
2. get and maintain eye contact
3. repeat 1 & 2 until they respond and stop.
It is very polite.
You don't have to say anything.
And it works every time
Sort of like the Internet is now.
Then the bad guys were stepping on each others signals and beginning to make a mess of things.
Sort of like the Internet is now.
So the benevolent and protective gov stepped in to fix things, shut everything down, and now you have to get a big fat licen$e to broadcast(blog) in a way that can make a difference.
Sort of like the Internet will be tomorrow.
This isn't about security.
It's deja vu all over again.
'nuff said
"Companies have one obligation, make money for the shareholders."
That seems to be the line from management to justify their most questionable actions.
The actual laws of business success are these two:
1. A company should provide superior goods and services to its customers.
2. A company should provide for the wellfare of its employees execept were this will interfer with the first law of business.
There is no law for self-presevation since a compnay is not a living organism.
No law for providing return to shareholders is necessary, since these two laws will automatically produce profit for the company. (Also, since modern shareholders are more like gamblers than investors, only pre-IPO investors who have taken a genuine risk to support a new company really deserve a return to reward that risk).
It is simple.
Your agrement is that if we went after the local advertisers we'd only get off-shore spam.
That's a good thing
Then we remind everybody to buy domestic and the off-shore spam dries up pretty fast too.
You're missing that this an economically-motivated social problem, not a technical one.
Technical solutions can always be circumvented, no matter how complex (you don't belive airports are secure, do you?).
Coercing social behavior is easier... or have you missed the arguments about copyrights and patents around here?
ps: It's getting easier and easier to legally go after entities in other countries..... But technical solutions that address advertisers such as DoS & DNS revocation are totally cross-border....
This is a complex technical solution for a simple social problem.
These are the simple facts:
A. Spam is advertisement.
B. The Advertiser paid for it.
C. The Adversiser's contact info is in the spam.
Since:
D. It doesn't matter who sent the spam.
E. It does matter who the Advertiser is.
So:
G. Go after the advertiser, not the spammer
Then:
H. Advertisers will stop paying for Spam
I. Spam will stop.
And Finally:
G. Added complications like ABM will be unncessry.
What's the problem?
If a dog poops on your lawn:
Get the Master, not the Dog.
It seems hardly fair to make such a comment such as "I am glad I don't live in...." without mentioning what country you do live in.
It would add some meaningful context to an otherwise vacuous statement.
BTW, I do live in the states, and don't feel that democracy is equivalent to capitalism any more than communism is equivalent to totalitarianism or Islam to terrorism. Let's unmuddle our thoughts a bit, no matter where we happen to live.
Sorry, you're not talking about me (though your description does Covey better than mine does.)
I have exactly two children, separated in age by almost a decade. They both have IQ >160, and the world needs more people who can think clearly. Shouldn't I create more of them?
Also, I greatly would enjoy raising another child -- they are such joys!
But two children is the most a couple can have without contributing to the overpopulation problem. Sadly, we are choosing to have no more, however much we might want to.
So Mr. AC instead of flaming, try providing an argument that a steady population over the past few decades would have equally released as much CO2, tripled the Palestine population, and caused the growing terrorist problem.
When I got to the point in his book were he discusses having 7 children I got just a bit nauseous.
Overpopulation pressure is the underlying cause of most of our current problems, from global warming to terrorism. If population had been stable for the last few decades these problems wouldn't even exist.
He "effectively" raised them on a sort of mass production basis, giving each new one progressively less attention as it popped out, until one really messed up. He then, heroically, saves the little f*ck up.
The Good News from the Catholics -- Rome & Italy have a declining population when they can't use birth control. Uh, right.
check out the pics on the SFU site. I'm sure it's just an accident :)
It works this way: >20 && =30 && =40 = employable as CTO iff previous supervisor >=45 = retired on all the $$$ you've made in this high-paying industry.
Spam Assassin, while a very clever program, is as misdirected as the "Canned Spam" legislation. It has no effect on the real economics of spam: who pays for it.
Somebody is paying for the spamming, and we know exactly who it is. The URL of that organization is prominently displayed in every item of spamail. It is the advertiser.
The advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. And easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
Dinging the advertisers, and dinging them hard, will instantly put the spammers out of business.
Spamming can be eliminated without blocking, white lists, or anti-spoofing RFC's. Just go to where it's pointing.
To draw an [ugly, graphic] picture: a dog comes and poops on sidewalk in front of my house, and I step in it. Yelling at the dog is going to be only moderately successful, building a poop filter is difficult, messy, and leaky (as Spam Assassin demonstrates) . Following the dog's leash and fining the owner is what works.
The owner doesn't bring the dog back since s/he doesn't want to pay another fine.
No owner, no dog, no spam.
Get the owner.
Kill the spam.
What's seriously wrong with all this anti-spam is that is doesn't go after the real economics of spam: who pays. Somebody is paying for the spamming,and we know exactly who. It is prominently displayed in every item of spamail. It is the advertiser. And the advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. But easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever. Dinging the advertisers, and dinging them hard, will instantly put the spammers out of business. To draw an [ugly, graphic] picture: a dog comes and poops on my sidewalk. Yelling at the dog is going to be only moderately successfull, building a poop filter is difficult, messy, and leaky. Following the dog's leash and fining the owner is what works. The owner doesn't bring the dog back since s/he doesn't want to pay the fine. No owner, no dog, no spam. Get the owner.
Sorry, but IMHO you're not thinking this through. The goal is to "rebuild" the country we bombed the shit out of, and the win the "hearts and minds" of the surviving populace. Employing indigenous companies, who employ indigenous workers, who spend money in the indigenous economy, is the best way to accomplish these goals. US companies, employing US workers, who take their money back to the US accomplishes none of those goals. There is no creation of lasting social/economic structure, or transfer of skills for maintenance of any resulting physical infrastructure. You know what out-sourceing has done here; why do you want to do the same thing to such an abused populace? US companies, employing US workers, who take their money back to the US accomplishes none of those goals. There is no creation of lasting socail/economic structure, or transfer of skills for maintenance of any resulting physical infastructure. You know what out-sourcing has done here; why do you want to do the same thing to such an abused populace?
...a circuit to limit the current inrush when you turn it on. If you do that, then you can turn it on/off frequently and cause little damage to it.
"No one should be allowed to patent anything that involves my body, my personal property." Patenting something just means that you have to pay someone to use an embodiment of it: paying for a hamburger is a perfect example of embodiment of a patent. But in general, I agree. Self-abuse should be cost-free. =Mr. HairyHands
...another 1st for /.?
Sorry, what's "Terry-stop"?
...the cops get a in line asking people to give their names, or get arrested. Sounds like a good way to shut down demonstrations, no?