Besides, wouldn't a company harvesting emails through their server forge their headers to pretend they belong to QWest or AT&T? Would you care to elaborate? What are they forging? Mail headers? IP source addresses?
Why would AT&T necessarily come into play? Well, let's see where an email that I send to a hotmail user goes. Bear in mind that these routers merely pass IP packets - they should have no clue that those packets represent an SMTP session:
3 ip68-2-1-29.ph.ph.cox.net (68.2.1.29) 6.071 ms 5.690 ms 7.786 ms
4 68.2.13.70 (68.2.13.70) 10.411 ms 7.991 ms 7.425 ms
5 68.2.13.253 (68.2.13.253) 5.994 ms 8.735 ms 14.041 ms
6 chnddsrj01-ae1.0.rd.ph.cox.net (68.2.14.1) 17.639 ms 15.179 ms chnddsrj02-ae1.0.rd.ph.cox.net (68.2.14.13) 6.328 ms
7 paltbbrj01-so200.0.r2.pt.cox.net (68.1.0.237) 31.908 ms 29.483 ms 29.518 ms
8 68.105.31.2 (68.105.31.2) 219.267 ms 35.391 ms 212.190 ms
9 ge-1-3-0-56.pao-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.113) 31.325 ms ge-6-3-0-59.pao-64cb-1b.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.125) 32.687 ms ge-1-3-0-56.pao-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.113) 33.589 ms 10 ge-0-0-0-0.pao-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.97) 41.753 ms 29.767 ms ge-0-1-0-0.bay-64c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (64.4.63.70) 31.380 ms 11 ge-7-1-0-0.bay-64c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.34.97) 32.532 ms ten3-2.bay-76c-1c.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.40.102) 32.625 ms 36.158 ms 12 ten7-4.bay-76c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.40.94) 37.557 ms ten9-4.bay-76c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (64.4.25.45) 34.156 ms ten7-4.bay-76c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.40.94) 32.609 ms 13 gig1-1.bay0-sup-a.ntwk.msn.net (65.54.254.53) 36.239 ms 35.805 ms 35.739 ms
Oh, it turns out that AT&T is not involved. Tell me again about these "intermediaries" that my email somehow passes through. As I was saying, I can send emails all day long from other providers to other providers, but the moment they touch hotmail, things start getting spammy. Why is that?
What intermediaries? Are you referring to the various routers that the SMTP connection established between my mailserver and hotmail's must pass through?
I don't really think that AT&T and Qwest are going to leak my packets to spammers. Ooo, MSN might though...
And Murdoch is buying the Wall Street Journal. Soon, there will be very few information sources that actually go out and dig out news. So the op eds will change from "Bush is right and the Democrats are wrong," to "Bush rocks and the Democrats are stupid."
Someone's getting sued by the RIAA. He said to the RIAA, "look, buddy, I'll give you $300 to go away, and if you wont take it and you can take me to court instead. However, bear in mind that there are two ways things could go from there: the court could say I owe you more than $300, or they could say I don't. If for any reason they say I don't, you have to pay for my lawyer."
The RIAA crunched the numbers and decided to take the $300.
Even more interesting is that Word 2003 didn't store equations in MathML either. They are stored as a WMF for rendering and as a COM BLOB for metadata and editing. So the comment about MathML doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The new equation editor in Word 2007 does support MathML, it's just not the underlying storage mechanism. In the Equations Tool tab (which appears when working with an equation) you can select to copy the equation to the clipboard as MathML instead of as an inline representation of the equation, and you can always copy MathML directly into Word 2007 and it will translate it just fine. You're right - they should go back to LaTeX. Why in the world did they ever start accepting the slipshod WYSIWYG editor format-du-jour in the first place? The very same people who write their textbooks in LaTeX revert to playschool fileformats and editors for kindergarteners when it comes time to submit a journal article. That's the only baffling part of the situation - unless the journals themselves are run by PR execs, which is entirely possible.
It's akin to trusting a Sony fanboy to give you a scientific and dispassionate estimate as to which console is the best. From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant -- but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
You state that the author's analysis breaks down because he is biased in his selection of decay rate data. However, as the author states,
The prime source is CIPIL (2006), which reports estimates made by PwC based on data provided by the British music industry which indicate decay rates in the region of 3-10%. As these come from the music industry itself, albeit indirectly, these have substantial authority.
Could it be that decay rate depends on the copyrighted material? Perhaps a one-size-fits-all solution would be uncomfortable for all, since it would rarely be optimal. However, you have said nothing to indicate that it isn't a good compromise. Instead, YOU START FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT THE AUTHOR IS BIASED AND SEEK TO PROVE IT.
Just add one line to the bottom of your resume... "I do not recognise the validity of sofware patents" As a person highly prolific at life, I suggest that you not do this. See, we all know about software patents, and we all pretend not to know. But, if you admit that you do know and don't care, well, you stab yourself in the face with a very pointy flat-head screwdriver. Painfully.
If you don't mind having all of your nested loops s\
tart to read s\
omethi\
ng li\
ke th\
this. Trust
me, it's real\ ly really freaking AN\ NNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, did the bill to decriminalize it back in 2003 not pass?
Possession and/or use of Marijuana is still a criminal offense here and will probably continue to be so forever. Errr. So the bill failed - a bill that had strong support and drew international attention. Thank you Nostradamus for your prediction that such a bill will never pass - ever.
Jesus fucking christ, where the hell do these fantasies of everlasting drug prohibition come from?
God damn it man, you're missing the point completely.
The impetus for the new lab's placement is that weed is decriminalized there. You've used vista, right? Well then anyone in your position should agree that vista is uninspired.
Vancouver, it so happens, provides abundant... inspiration. We are entering a new era, my friends. Direct X? Get ready for direct sex. SQL 2000? You couldn't possibly be ready for SexQL 4000. The slammer worm? Well, hopefully there won't be any holes left. Microsoft Bob? Microsoft knob. The Melissa virus? Long story.
Freed from the constraint of costing money, this game obviously floats to the top.
I'm not talking about Hindenburg-esque floating, either. I'm talking panzerfausts flying straight up until they explode at the edge of the universe. I'm talking cosmic panzerfaustage tearing space & time a new asshole. I'm talking about the best fucking shit you've ever turded out your bunghole after eating spicy food and then some. A veritable big bang of gaming ferocity and artillery raining down upon gibbing newbies.
Speaking of people being wrong, where is all this Uranium?
And the other WMDs - did they even exist? Why can't we find them & why was the evidence forged?
From your post, which you claim supports your position, we find that:
The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this. I guess they are referring to the actual evidence & not the forged documents Plame was outed for her husband exposing as spurious.
So, we went to war on a combination of inconclusive speculation and fraudulent evidence. Furthermore, the government illegally attacked their own employees for whistleblowing. Furthermore, the president used his plenary power to shield his associate from prosecution for obstructing the investigation into the matter.
You're welcome to continue throwing minutia at people, but the basic events here are easy to understand.
By day, I code in WTL, Win32API and (regrettably) MFC. Like a great many, I wonder whether.net is pushing developers away from Windows.
This mess is drawing Microsoft's attention away from the C/C++ layer, where it's sorely needed, and into what, as far as I'm concerned, is comparable to Visual Basic. Put simply, neither my employer nor I are interested in writing in a proprietary, bytecode-interpreted language. If we have to abandon our C/C++ investment, it certainly wont be for a proprietary java knockoff. It will be for the real thing, allowing us to slowly drift away from Windows.
how does the presence of forged documents DISPROVE what Iraq tried to do in Niger anyway No. You have to PROVE this sort of thing. It's not enough that Saddam was bad - you still have to PROVE your allegations against him.
From wikipedia:
Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, in a column by Robert Novak, the identity of Wilson's wife, undercover CIA analyst Valerie Plame, was revealed. From the IAEA:
The I.A.E.A. was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis, the I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. The heart of an anonymous coward's argument:
the person Saddam sent was the Iraqi ambassador the the Vatican... do your really think someone like that gets sent to Niger for any reason other to buy yellowcake? Res ipsa loquitur.
$399 for a product with near zero per-unit production costs would be obscene. Imagine: the product's design & engineering costs could be covered by a small number of sales. Every sale thereafter = pure profit.
Wouldn't it be nice to be Microsoft? Nobody who'd actually pay would complain, being so accustomed to taking it up the rear. And those who did would be moderated down by sore-ass moderators.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would AT&T necessarily come into play? Well, let's see where an email that I send to a hotmail user goes. Bear in mind that these routers merely pass IP packets - they should have no clue that those packets represent an SMTP session:
3 ip68-2-1-29.ph.ph.cox.net (68.2.1.29) 6.071 ms 5.690 ms 7.786 ms
4 68.2.13.70 (68.2.13.70) 10.411 ms 7.991 ms 7.425 ms
5 68.2.13.253 (68.2.13.253) 5.994 ms 8.735 ms 14.041 ms
6 chnddsrj01-ae1.0.rd.ph.cox.net (68.2.14.1) 17.639 ms 15.179 ms chnddsrj02-ae1.0.rd.ph.cox.net (68.2.14.13) 6.328 ms
7 paltbbrj01-so200.0.r2.pt.cox.net (68.1.0.237) 31.908 ms 29.483 ms 29.518 ms
8 68.105.31.2 (68.105.31.2) 219.267 ms 35.391 ms 212.190 ms
9 ge-1-3-0-56.pao-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.113) 31.325 ms ge-6-3-0-59.pao-64cb-1b.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.125) 32.687 ms ge-1-3-0-56.pao-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.113) 33.589 ms
10 ge-0-0-0-0.pao-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.46.97) 41.753 ms 29.767 ms ge-0-1-0-0.bay-64c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (64.4.63.70) 31.380 ms
11 ge-7-1-0-0.bay-64c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.34.97) 32.532 ms ten3-2.bay-76c-1c.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.40.102) 32.625 ms 36.158 ms
12 ten7-4.bay-76c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.40.94) 37.557 ms ten9-4.bay-76c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (64.4.25.45) 34.156 ms ten7-4.bay-76c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.40.94) 32.609 ms
13 gig1-1.bay0-sup-a.ntwk.msn.net (65.54.254.53) 36.239 ms 35.805 ms 35.739 ms
Oh, it turns out that AT&T is not involved. Tell me again about these "intermediaries" that my email somehow passes through. As I was saying, I can send emails all day long from other providers to other providers, but the moment they touch hotmail, things start getting spammy. Why is that?
Yes, the "you're the only one having this problem" defense.
Tell me, do you work for Oracle's support dept? Seriously, I think we've spoken...
What intermediaries? Are you referring to the various routers that the SMTP connection established between my mailserver and hotmail's must pass through?
I don't really think that AT&T and Qwest are going to leak my packets to spammers. Ooo, MSN might though...
What? Does the damn thing use a 1.8" drive?
That would be what's killing blogs and other websites... unless RSS somehow helps you skip to the correct page of the print edition of wired.
Someone's getting sued by the RIAA. He said to the RIAA, "look, buddy, I'll give you $300 to go away, and if you wont take it and you can take me to court instead. However, bear in mind that there are two ways things could go from there: the court could say I owe you more than $300, or they could say I don't. If for any reason they say I don't, you have to pay for my lawyer."
The RIAA crunched the numbers and decided to take the $300.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant -- but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
You state that the author's analysis breaks down because he is biased in his selection of decay rate data. However, as the author states,
The prime source is CIPIL (2006), which reports estimates made by PwC based on data provided by the British music industry which indicate decay rates in the region of 3-10%. As these come from the music industry itself, albeit indirectly, these have substantial authority.
Could it be that decay rate depends on the copyrighted material? Perhaps a one-size-fits-all solution would be uncomfortable for all, since it would rarely be optimal. However, you have said nothing to indicate that it isn't a good compromise. Instead, YOU START FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT THE AUTHOR IS BIASED AND SEEK TO PROVE IT.
I think I got it from this guy.
Don't do it, man.
--
impossible is nothing
"Customers also want our Software Assurance products!"
Like fucking hell they do.
If you don't mind
having all of your
nested loops s\
tart to read s\
omethi\
ng li\
ke th\
this. Trust
me, it's real\
ly really freaking AN\
NNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus fucking christ, where the hell do these fantasies of everlasting drug prohibition come from?
God damn it man, you're missing the point completely.
The impetus for the new lab's placement is that weed is decriminalized there. You've used vista, right? Well then anyone in your position should agree that vista is uninspired.
Vancouver, it so happens, provides abundant... inspiration. We are entering a new era, my friends. Direct X? Get ready for direct sex. SQL 2000? You couldn't possibly be ready for SexQL 4000. The slammer worm? Well, hopefully there won't be any holes left. Microsoft Bob? Microsoft knob. The Melissa virus? Long story.
Yeah, it's too expensive because it would cost the oil companies a lot of money.
What they did there is pretty clever, eh?
Freed from the constraint of costing money, this game obviously floats to the top.
I'm not talking about Hindenburg-esque floating, either. I'm talking panzerfausts flying straight up until they explode at the edge of the universe. I'm talking cosmic panzerfaustage tearing space & time a new asshole. I'm talking about the best fucking shit you've ever turded out your bunghole after eating spicy food and then some. A veritable big bang of gaming ferocity and artillery raining down upon gibbing newbies.
And the other WMDs - did they even exist? Why can't we find them & why was the evidence forged?
From your post, which you claim supports your position, we find that: The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
did not claim this. I guess they are referring to the actual evidence & not the forged documents Plame was outed for her husband exposing as spurious.
So, we went to war on a combination of inconclusive speculation and fraudulent evidence. Furthermore, the government illegally attacked their own employees for whistleblowing. Furthermore, the president used his plenary power to shield his associate from prosecution for obstructing the investigation into the matter.
You're welcome to continue throwing minutia at people, but the basic events here are easy to understand.
By day, I code in WTL, Win32API and (regrettably) MFC. Like a great many, I wonder whether .net is pushing developers away from Windows.
This mess is drawing Microsoft's attention away from the C/C++ layer, where it's sorely needed, and into what, as far as I'm concerned, is comparable to Visual Basic. Put simply, neither my employer nor I are interested in writing in a proprietary, bytecode-interpreted language. If we have to abandon our C/C++ investment, it certainly wont be for a proprietary java knockoff. It will be for the real thing, allowing us to slowly drift away from Windows.
Right, I'm glad you set that cliff thing straight.
Now, about the rush to judgement on the iPhone: until you've used one, why would anyone care to hear what you think of it?
$399 for a product with near zero per-unit production costs would be obscene. Imagine: the product's design & engineering costs could be covered by a small number of sales. Every sale thereafter = pure profit.
Wouldn't it be nice to be Microsoft? Nobody who'd actually pay would complain, being so accustomed to taking it up the rear. And those who did would be moderated down by sore-ass moderators.
So have at it, mods. We know who your daddy is.
While everything you say is true, I wonder whether you've used an iPhone.