The money has to come from somewhere. Taxing all citizens so you can give back money to citizens who do as you wish is pretty perverse if you ask me. All it does in assure higher prices for energy saving alternatives. The price of any subsidized commodity will never sink below the subsidy. If you want the price to come down, the last thing you do is subsidize it.
Typically SMTP servers won't accept delivery if the recipient is unknown, although I suppose when you write your own SMTP server you can do pretty much as you want. I can't see any up-side for google to process mail for NO ONE.
If they don't accept the body of the message they wouldn't get the URLs.
Google caches content only for it's own Gmail client, so you have no choice of clients with regards to this caching.
That makes no sense. If they only cache for their Gmail client, that would mean I DO have a choice, by simply using another client.
As for the disable feature, that is the FIRST thing I did. This feature does nothing to protect the user. Its all about giving google an advantage. It MAY be illegal. Its not at all clear that Google has the right to cache image files that were intended to be sent directly from my Brokerage account to me via an embedded URL in an email.
My original reason for posting was to point out that no atom is "taking" anything.
When you've got "taking" of an electron, you've got ionisation.
Well, TFA states explicitly that it the argon36 is essentially sharing an electron with hydrogen. So it appears there might be some "sharing" even if there is no "taking". Very polite. Plays well with others.
Crush any law that provides for no judicial oversight.
I've learned we can't trust our own judges not to knuckle under to government pressure. Still, when you start out by denying judicial oversight, there is no chance or unringing that bell.
Knowing how hard it is to figure out a problem in other people's code I am dubious my own inspection would cough up anything placed there by someone determined to obfuscate it.
This is true, its very difficult and time consuming to read even a modest amount of code.
But add your eyes to mine, and several hundred others, (maybe thousands), and once verified, all you need do is look at changes. Look very carefully at changes.
Its harder to obfuscate code these days, because its harder to easily turn data blocks into code blocks without attracting attention to the fact that you did so. DEP has found its way into almost every operating system these days.
Still there are ways to use horribly insecure encryption while making it look secure. The hardest code to verify as being secure is precisely the code designed to provide security.
Marketeers already know the address exists the moment they get a 200 on the RCPT TO: header. Spammers, using botnets, generally don't care about the maildelivery itself, for these the autodownload of images is extra information.
Spammers do everything in their power not to get bounce messages. They do everything they can to not personally contact your (google's) mail server.
The fact that uniquely encoded image URLs are embedded in virtually ALL spam and UCE should be proof enough for you that you haven't thought your argument through. Go look at your email raw view someday.
What the cache will likely do is pre-emptively grab the images, triggering higher hit rates on the marketer's servers, leading them to believe more people are reading their emails, meaning more spam.
Supposedly Google only hits the image when you request the mail, and then only from a web browser. So the best thing to do is use an email client with image suppression on.
But If google decides to hit every image even before you read the mail, they initially play right into the hands of the spammers. However, other than verifying that the email address exists, it may make this uniquely coded url a useless indicator for the spammers. Why go to the trouble when every single one of them will verify?
De-duping of images that have unique names keyed to your email address? Really?
All the spammer has to do is watch his web server logs to know that the address was a REAL email address, because google will be hitting every one of those images.
Since spammers arrange to never receive bounced mail, the uniquely coded embedded image url has been the favorite tactic for email verification for over 10 years. Google is going to give these guys a gift.
Read your gmail from a email client (pop or imap) and hope Google is smart enough not to hit those links unless you are using a web browser.
While I applaud the move, it is about competitive advantage for Google.
If you applaud this you haven't thought it out very far.
Almost ever SPAM has small uniquely named images embedded. Often single pixel images. These are encoded to your email address. If you fetch this image, your email address is VERIFIED. You just did the spammer a favor.
If you were reading the email with a mail client, you would NEVER fetch these, because 1) spam is spam, and 2) most email clients don't download images by default and most email recipients are just fine with that.
With Google pre-fetching all of these, every GMAIL address id Verified for the Spammers.
Its not a well thought out scheme at all. No sensible person would read Gmail with a web browser from now on. The wise choice is to use a traditional Email Client, (something like Thunderbird, Kmail, k-9 mail, Evolution, etc), and set them not to load images at all.
Standard incandescent bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 1,300 hours, so we would need 23 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single incandescent of this type for $0.34, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $7.82.
As it uses 60 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an incandescent bulb would use 1,800,000 watt hours, or 1,800 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $180.00 to run an incandescent bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a 60 watt incandescent bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $187.82.
CFL bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 8,000 hours, so we would need 3.75 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single CFL for $1.24, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $4.65.
As it uses 13 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, a CFL bulb would use 390,000 watt hours, or 390 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $39.00 to run a CFL bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a CFL bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $43.65.
LED bulbs The LED bulb used here has a lifetime of 30,000 hours, so we would need only one bulb over the period of this study. Unfortunately, that single bulb has a cost of $119.99.
As it uses 7.5 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an LED bulb would use 245,000 watt hours, or 245 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $24.50 to run an LED bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of an LED bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $144.49.
For people who take the mercury danger seriously, CFCs are arguable worse than incandescent, and to-date, LEDs yield very little cost saving.
Banning needlessly inefficient technologies when there are reasonable alternatives available is one of them.
Reasonable alternatives would not be priced at $27 a pop or pose a serious mercury contamination risk for disposed of bulbs, or evacuation in the case of broken ones. . Contrary to the article and the summary, the payback period on some of the newer bulbs is way longer than the devices actually last in real-life environments. And again, inefficiency is not an issue if you are heating your house anyway.
LED is the only technology with any real promise, but the cost has to come down to 1/10th what it is today before they will be accepted by people on a budget.
For terrorists, Russian cooperation has actually been very good. They have every reason to cooperate, because they are being hit by the same terrorists.
But you missed the fact that the FBI sent someone out to interview these guys. They came back and reported seeing nothing, and that is where the followup Stopped. No monitoring, no phone taps, even after the older one subsequently traveled back to the home country and disappeared for a couple months.
All the while, remember that. in-spite of the FBI having been handed a dossier on the bombers by the Russians and the NSA continuous 24/7 indexing all cellular call metadata and monitoring all overseas calls, the intelligence apparatus of the entire US government was clueless about who these guys were.
There was no patent issued in the 1999 case. It wasn't successful.
The text of the patent lists other patents and applications dating back that far, but that doesn't mean you can bolt on new functionality to an old patent (let alone a failed application) and thereby extend your priority date into the past. It doesn't work that way.
They are simply stating that they relied on and are incorporating patents they already hold into this application ALONG WITH totally new functionality. That doesn't mean this new functionality always existed back to 1999. It doesn't mean that they can ignore more recent prior art.
The whole issue is contained in the US Constitution where it says,
Note to all retards who skimmed the summary and didn't read the article:
This happened in New Zealand, not in the United States. The U.S. Constitution has absolutely fucking nothing to do with this because it didn't happen in the United States.
Note to ACs who haven't been paying attention to the news for a few years:
Remember Kim Dotcom was arrested, his property seized, his servers sent to FBI/CIA labs, all on a pretense (and an illegal US warrant) driven by the FBI.
Seriously, if you think borders make any significant difference you are crazy. The constitution surely doesn't protect foreigners in a foreign country, it doesn't even even protect Americans at home. But US law will affect you no matter where you think you are safe.
Translation: 'We were told to get this person out, so we thought we'd search his computer. With any luck we'll find something on there violating one law or another. There are so may of them, after all.'
You missed the part about his Girlfriend being Imogen Grispe, a well known journalist in NZ. See her site http://imogencrispe.com/ where she says:
have reported on a wide range of topics including health, politics, science, technology, arts and travel. I specialised in ethics in my philosophy degree, and won a scholarship to study journalism at post-graduate level.... I am a global citizen.
Lots of scary buzzwords in there if you are a government intelligence officer (of any country).
Transporting Snowden material via friends of reporters is something the spook community seems really worried about.
That would be a work place risk, probably already covered by OSHA. If you want to get everyone pissed off, just file an OSHA complaint. They will descend on your workplace and find fault with everything from the floor tile to the overhead lights.
If the material is separated from the beverage by the cup's inner wall, its not an FDA issue. It may be a CPSC issue if the inner cup was would bee thin enough to puncture easily (such as if you stir your hot chocolate), but there would seem to be no reason for a dangerously thin wall.
Plus the joulies clunk around in any mug, making a fair bit of noise. Use them in an open topped mug and they smack you in the teeth as the mug gets emptier. And they displace beverage, meaning you need a refill sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
The money has to come from somewhere. Taxing all citizens so you can give back money to citizens who do as you wish is pretty perverse if you ask me. All it does in assure higher prices for energy saving alternatives. The price of any subsidized commodity will never sink below the subsidy. If you want the price to come down, the last thing you do is subsidize it.
Typically SMTP servers won't accept delivery if the recipient is unknown, although I suppose when you write your own SMTP server you can do pretty much as you want. I can't see any up-side for google to process mail for NO ONE.
If they don't accept the body of the message they wouldn't get the URLs.
Seriously, who has time to shop for lightbulbs on ebay?
Post back in 3 years letting us know how many are still burning.
Google caches content only for it's own Gmail client, so you have no choice of clients with regards to this caching.
That makes no sense.
If they only cache for their Gmail client, that would mean I DO have a choice, by simply using another client.
As for the disable feature, that is the FIRST thing I did. This feature does nothing to protect the user. Its all about giving google an advantage. It MAY be illegal. Its not at all clear that Google has the right to cache image files that were intended to be sent directly from my Brokerage account to me via an embedded URL in an email.
Funny little AC, still assumes spammers connect directly to google. How quaint.
My original reason for posting was to point out that no atom is "taking" anything.
When you've got "taking" of an electron, you've got ionisation.
Well, TFA states explicitly that it the argon36 is essentially sharing an electron with hydrogen.
So it appears there might be some "sharing" even if there is no "taking". Very polite. Plays well with others.
Crush any law that provides for no judicial oversight.
I've learned we can't trust our own judges not to knuckle under to government pressure. Still, when you start out by denying judicial oversight, there is no chance or unringing that bell.
Knowing how hard it is to figure out a problem in other people's code I am dubious my own inspection would cough up anything placed there by someone determined to obfuscate it.
This is true, its very difficult and time consuming to read even a modest amount of code.
But add your eyes to mine, and several hundred others, (maybe thousands), and once verified, all you need do is look at changes. Look very carefully at changes.
Its harder to obfuscate code these days, because its harder to easily turn data blocks into code blocks without attracting attention
to the fact that you did so. DEP has found its way into almost every operating system these days.
Still there are ways to use horribly insecure encryption while making it look secure. The hardest code to verify as being secure is precisely the code designed to provide security.
Marketeers already know the address exists the moment they get a 200 on the RCPT TO: header. Spammers, using botnets, generally don't care about the maildelivery itself, for these the autodownload of images is extra information.
Spammers do everything in their power not to get bounce messages. They do everything they can to not personally contact your (google's) mail server.
The fact that uniquely encoded image URLs are embedded in virtually ALL spam and UCE should be proof enough for you that you haven't thought your argument through. Go look at your email raw view someday.
What the cache will likely do is pre-emptively grab the images, triggering higher hit rates on the marketer's servers, leading them to believe more people are reading their emails, meaning more spam.
Supposedly Google only hits the image when you request the mail, and then only from a web browser. So the best thing to do is use an email client with image suppression on.
But If google decides to hit every image even before you read the mail, they initially play right into the hands of the spammers. However, other than verifying that the email address exists, it may make this uniquely coded url a useless indicator for the spammers. Why go to the trouble when every single one of them will verify?
De-duping of images that have unique names keyed to your email address? Really?
All the spammer has to do is watch his web server logs to know that the address was a REAL email address, because google will be hitting every one of those images.
Since spammers arrange to never receive bounced mail, the uniquely coded embedded image url has been the favorite tactic for email verification for over 10 years. Google is going to give these guys a gift.
Read your gmail from a email client (pop or imap) and hope Google is smart enough not to hit those links unless you are using a web browser.
While I applaud the move, it is about competitive advantage for Google.
If you applaud this you haven't thought it out very far.
Almost ever SPAM has small uniquely named images embedded. Often single pixel images.
These are encoded to your email address. If you fetch this image, your email address is VERIFIED. You just did the spammer a favor.
If you were reading the email with a mail client, you would NEVER fetch these, because 1) spam is spam, and 2) most
email clients don't download images by default and most email recipients are just fine with that.
With Google pre-fetching all of these, every GMAIL address id Verified for the Spammers.
Its not a well thought out scheme at all. No sensible person would read Gmail with a web browser from now on.
The wise choice is to use a traditional Email Client, (something like Thunderbird, Kmail, k-9 mail, Evolution, etc), and set them not to load images at all.
Contrary to the politically charged summary, and your pointless hate mongering, this is not a conservative vs liberal issue.
Its strictly dollars and cents. CFC is a toxic nightmare, and LED costs more to buy and operate than incandescent.
From here:
Standard incandescent bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 1,300 hours, so we would need 23 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single incandescent of this type for $0.34, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $7.82.
As it uses 60 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an incandescent bulb would use 1,800,000 watt hours, or 1,800 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $180.00 to run an incandescent bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a 60 watt incandescent bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $187.82.
CFL bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 8,000 hours, so we would need 3.75 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single CFL for $1.24, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $4.65.
As it uses 13 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, a CFL bulb would use 390,000 watt hours, or 390 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $39.00 to run a CFL bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a CFL bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $43.65.
LED bulbs The LED bulb used here has a lifetime of 30,000 hours, so we would need only one bulb over the period of this study. Unfortunately, that single bulb has a cost of $119.99.
As it uses 7.5 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an LED bulb would use 245,000 watt hours, or 245 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $24.50 to run an LED bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of an LED bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $144.49.
For people who take the mercury danger seriously, CFCs are arguable worse than incandescent, and to-date, LEDs yield very little cost saving.
Banning needlessly inefficient technologies when there are reasonable alternatives available is one of them.
Reasonable alternatives would not be priced at $27 a pop or pose a serious mercury contamination risk for disposed of bulbs, or evacuation in the case of broken ones.
.
Contrary to the article and the summary, the payback period on some of the newer bulbs is way longer than the devices actually last in real-life environments. And again, inefficiency is not an issue if you are heating your house anyway.
LED is the only technology with any real promise, but the cost has to come down to 1/10th what it is today before they
will be accepted by people on a budget.
For terrorists, Russian cooperation has actually been very good. They have every reason to cooperate, because they are being hit by the same terrorists.
But you missed the fact that the FBI sent someone out to interview these guys. They came back and reported seeing nothing, and that is where the followup Stopped. No monitoring, no phone taps, even after the older one subsequently traveled back to the home country and disappeared for a couple months.
All the while, remember that. in-spite of the FBI having been handed a dossier on the bombers by the Russians and the NSA continuous 24/7 indexing all cellular call metadata and monitoring all overseas calls, the intelligence apparatus of the entire US government was clueless about who these guys were.
It's pretty clear Europa probably has some form of life under the ice. The odds are definitely in it's favor.
I don't see how you can get from plumes to life so glibly.
Plumes can be strictly physical effects of tidal activity.
There was no patent issued in the 1999 case. It wasn't successful.
The text of the patent lists other patents and applications dating back that far, but that doesn't mean you can bolt on new functionality to an old patent (let alone a failed application) and thereby extend your priority date into the past. It doesn't work that way.
They are simply stating that they relied on and are incorporating patents they already hold into this application ALONG WITH totally new functionality. That doesn't mean this new functionality always existed back to 1999. It doesn't mean that they can ignore more recent prior art.
The whole issue is contained in the US Constitution where it says,
Note to all retards who skimmed the summary and didn't read the article:
This happened in New Zealand, not in the United States. The U.S. Constitution has absolutely fucking nothing to do with this because it didn't happen in the United States.
Note to ACs who haven't been paying attention to the news for a few years:
Remember Kim Dotcom was arrested, his property seized, his servers sent to FBI/CIA labs, all on a pretense (and an illegal US warrant) driven by the FBI.
Seriously, if you think borders make any significant difference you are crazy. The constitution surely doesn't protect foreigners in a foreign country, it doesn't even even protect Americans at home. But US law will affect you no matter where you think you are safe.
Translation: 'We were told to get this person out, so we thought we'd search his computer. With any luck we'll find something on there violating one law or another. There are so may of them, after all.'
You missed the part about his Girlfriend being Imogen Grispe, a well known journalist in NZ. See her site http://imogencrispe.com/ where she says:
have reported on a wide range of topics including health, politics, science, technology, arts and travel. I specialised in ethics in my philosophy degree, and won a scholarship to study journalism at post-graduate level. ... I am a global citizen.
Lots of scary buzzwords in there if you are a government intelligence officer (of any country).
Transporting Snowden material via friends of reporters is something the spook community seems really worried about.
That would be a work place risk, probably already covered by OSHA.
If you want to get everyone pissed off, just file an OSHA complaint. They will descend on your workplace and find fault with everything from the floor tile to the overhead lights.
If the material is separated from the beverage by the cup's inner wall, its not an FDA issue.
It may be a CPSC issue if the inner cup was would bee thin enough to puncture easily (such as if you stir your hot chocolate), but there would seem to be no reason for a dangerously thin wall.
Plus the joulies clunk around in any mug, making a fair bit of noise.
Use them in an open topped mug and they smack you in the teeth as the mug gets emptier.
And they displace beverage, meaning you need a refill sooner.
A nice yarn, unburdened by any believable evidence.
They forced them to license the name and put it on those products. Rambus never manufactured anything.