Using the wrong terminology shows your ignorance. It shows you're as ignorant as the news media. You need to open a dictionary. They aren't Borg, or bees. Your insistence on calling them drones just brings up the fact that you're ignorant of the field completely.
So your mini camera now holds as much video as a fixed device?
I don't USE a mini camera. Thats the point. My smallest outdoor UAV carries a Sony RX100 Compact camera. Its a 20 mega pixel camera with a 1" sensor. It stores roughly roughly 16 hours of 1080p video on a SD card with the right compression, and I can stuff in larger ones if I had any need. It is considered one of the highest quality 'compact' cameras you can buy. My larger drones carry DSLRs where the body alone costs roughly $2500, and that doesn't include the optics. They sit on gyro stabilized gimbals that are more stable than implanting one in the wall of a California building! A human can't physically hold a camera a still and stable as my UAVs do. Your body is incapable of doing so. That said, the RX100 is a shitty video camera, but its only $500 so I don't worry about it being over water following me around on full-auto when I'm in my boat fishing so that I can get video of myself.
You don't know anything about UAVs, they don't use the shitty little mini cameras you think they have to carry and thats the point, you have have any idea what you're talking about or what they are capable of. Hell, you can't even read or you would have known from my first post that I don't use shitty little 'mini' cameras since that was the point I was making. You think UAVs carry crappy low level equipment because you saw some black and white footage on some TV show or something stupid. My UAVs carry the same equipment as professional photographers, partly because I get paid for it on occasion.
I do almost exclusively still photos so I don't carry any high end video cameras, but theres nothing different about them that prevents me from doing so. Its not like they are bigger or heavier than a full sized DSLR with full sized optics.
Your personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with Police work (except for perhaps in your imagination).
Except that my 'hobby' experience is more than capable of doing everything you claim they aren't, and more. My 'hobby' experience shows your utter ignorance of the subject. And for reference, its not a hobby when you do it as a job, so please, go ahead and tell me all about what I do for a living. The point is that my hobby gear is light years beyond what you think the high end commercial gear can do.
I have personal and professional experience. You have none what so ever.
In Police work, humans do it better.
No, they don't, not for certain things. A UAV can't arrest a suspect, but for certain types of surveillance they are better than 10 well trained men, and they don't require people to risk their lives. This is a simple fact. The military knows it. The FBI knows it. The CIA knows it. The Immigration and Customs service know it, and many police departments know it. You seem to be incapable of accepting that you don't know what you're talking about.
I get it! Ignore the logistics problems I stated and demand that I use a different terminology so people don't recognize them as drones
I'm sorry, you're right. Please continue to use incorrect terms so that its easy for everyone else to recognize that you're not qualified to be part of the discussion.
technology will all magically work just like in the movies!
You're the only one that thinks UAVs have to work like they do in movies to be useful and cost effective. You seem to think that if they aren't exactly like they behave in the latest Iron Man, they aren't useful at all.
Instead of using ad hominem why not actually have a rebuttal for my points?
... Did you even read my reply? It sure doesn't seem like it, I used facts to dispute your silly perspective on reality, but don't let that stand in the way of your ignorance by all means, continue.
In practice the shitty versions are what they put in various drone technologies for weight limitations
Uhm, no, it isn't. My UAS carries a Sony RX100, hardly a cheap shitty camera. It sits on a gyro stabilized gimble that is vibration isolated from the frame itself to ensure the pictures are better than any human can take for less than $500, which is the cost of the camera itself Thats my SMALL UAV. Carrying a full fledged DSLR is pretty common... and we're talking about normal every day citizens, not $150k UAVs that the FBI uses. Google is your friend, look up what is actually in use on these UAVs, the camera modules on these UAVs in use by the FBI are ridiculously high quality devices.
but using radio frequencies that can be detected easier (can be jammed from longer range as well) to send the audio and video streams. Drones can't magically make cameras, microphones, and communications better, sorry.
So apparently, only people can use cameras that store photos locally? Thats weird because the only transmission of video off of my UAV is for fun, my still camera is 20mega pixel, sending that via RF for the price I'm willing to pay isn't possible. HD video is possible, but again more than I'm willing to pay. However, for some reason you seem to think they have to feed all data real time? It can be done in bursts or at another time... like normal field agents would do?
You also seem to think that its trivial to tell when a device several miles away from you with a directional antenna pointing away from you is transmitting, and you can magically tell it apart from all the other RF in the air and that its related to you, and exactly where its at.
You seem to think that the FBI is using its drones to monitor high end NSA and CIA agents with massive resources in use. You fail to acknowledge that these devices can be used for things like... border patrol, where a bunch of illegal immigrants running across the desert with nothing more than the shirt off their back have absolutely no chance of knowing there is a UAV in the air unless it flies into them.
If it takes a fleet of drones to replace what a human can do how is this cheaper or better?
You have that backwards, 1 UAV can, as I said, easily stay on station for 24 hours, which means one UAV can replace about 6 people per day, assuming you use the standard 8 hour shift with 2 men per shift, which is the only way you can keep a human (FBI quality anyway) focused in a useful manner.
Just ignore the fact that it takes people to operate the drones, maintain the drones, humans would still be required for the majority of the work, and you will have to continue spending more and more because that is how the game works.
Software has made the entire process more or less idiot proof. I regularly show people that flying a UAV is trivial by putting it in GPS assisted, semi-auto mode in whi
A human can plant a device in the right place at the right time to get audio/video when needed.
In many circumstances, so can a UAS. Just like a human can't do it in every case, a UAS can't do it in every case either, but for a great many, they work great.
They can crawl through air ducts and sewers if needed
And a UAS can fly over where people are looking and either survey from there or land and survey from its landing position.
do all kinds of things on a whim that don't relate to blowing things up or firing bullets into bad guys
Why do you keep thinking that UAS can only shoot things? Are you retarded?
A drone can only get to locations where enough air space exists, unless you are talking about drones that currently only exist in movies.
Stop using the word drone.
I have a UAS the size of a cracker with a video camera on it. I can't find a link to it, but here is one of similar size: http://www.revell.com/radio-co... That one doesn't have a camera, but the size is about the same.
Its not in a movie.
A drone makes noise, if you are close enough to listen in to a conversation the bad guy can most likely hear the drone.
All my UAVs are electric and unless at high power, they are very quiet. With a directional mic, I can listen on you from far enough away that you can neither hear no see me unless someone points out the EXACT location in the sky and I haven't bothered to color it to make it hard to see. Its hard enough to see when its painted day glo orange, let alone sky blue or grey. Quads are noisy, but a standard fixed wing aircraft is very quiet since it can fly on relatively low power. It doesn't have to be very far away before you can't hear or see it.
A drone has a higher chance of failure which risks missions, a gust of wind is all it takes to blow cover.
All of my UAVs except the indoor ones can hold position in 45 mph gusts, thats covers 99% of the weather that matters.
They are much larger than a micro camera or microphone therefor easier for bad guys to spot.
Thats true, they don't generally replace a perfectly planted device INSIDE some building, of course thats only one of many different types of surveillance that needs to be done. Of course that 'micro camera or microphone' have shitty optics and shitty sound qualities so unless you're in the same room, they are more or less worthless as well, and you certainly aren't using them to survey drug dealers or gun runners in the middle of an open field any more than you're using a UAS in someone living room.
Just because you're too primitive to realize there are multiple situations doesn't make it true.
I own a UAS, does that make me a military organization?
So do you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to own them either? Or is it that citizens should be allowed by not the cops? Whats the logic in your position? Is it okay for me because I don't have a hellfire missile? The FBI doesn't either, just cameras and mics... just like mine.
On the tax payers dollar, there is absolutely nothing for a drone to do that manpower can't do better.
Except stay on station for 24 hours straight without blinking, without eating, without a bathroom break, without getting tired, without having their mind wonder.
Can they covertly listen in to conversations with a drone?
Yes, directional long range mics are not exactly new. Its easy to filter out the sound of the drone itself considering the difference between motor and prop frequency and that of the human voice. They can do it without risking an agent.
Can they covertly film better with drones?
Yes, again at altitude you won't notice the drone or hear it, it can sit there for hours on auto pilot and automatically keep the camera pointed at a specific location or use software to track a person or object automatically. They can do it without risking an agent.
Can they make arrests with drones? No to all of those things.
No, but it can certainly help, by doing the things above as well as doing things like providing a over view of the operation to field directors. When the drone gets shot... its probably less than the cost of treating a flesh wound on an agent, let alone anything serious or death.
I'm not against some of the drone technology in the Military.
Thats good because you don't seem to know shit about them apparently.
A $1500 UAS such as my smallest one can do everything you say the $150k UAS then FBI uses can't except stay on station for 24 hours. They aren't flying some shitty DJI Phantom like you see in YouTube videos flying into buildings by some jackass who shouldn't be allowed to own one.
My UAS films and follows my boat while I fish, automatically, without being close enough for me to hear it, and it host 1% of what the FBI UAS's do.
And please stop calling it a drone, only the ignorant call them drones. What does that even mean in this context?
You already had the OSx running Apple device then?
It's OS X, not OSx, you might want to at least learn the name.
Apple takes a pretty big bite from the proceeds to process the credit cards and such and sending the rest on to you.
... 30% is standard in pretty much every retail industry, and the fact that you think its a lot shows you've not actually done anything like this yourself or you'd know that for a $1 app, 0.30 is cheap considering you'll probably be paying at least $0.25 in credit card fees alone.
So you've illustrated that all your concerns are that of someone who is ignorant of the way the process works.
I'm guessing you've got developers with no leadership or plan and certainly no forethought.
You should invest in some project management and developers who are playing for the team rather than just writing what gives them a buzz that day.
No one is going to use your software if every release is so different that you have to rewrite the docs. People use software to get something done, not because they want to spend their time learning how you decided to rewrite it and do things differently.
Yes, he had a screenshot from software that doesn't run on the hardware he owned and held such screenshot.
I have screenshots of Siri on my Windows virtual machines, does that mean I have siri running on Windows?
No.
So tell me, in all your wisdom, why the fuck are you so self righteous when you yourself know pretty much NONE of the facts of a story that was debunked long ago?
Except Brown got Plutonium FROM the terrorists and gave them a box of pinball parts. He used the plutonium to power the flux capacitor for time travel.
I'm sorry, there is no one matching your criteria of both 'intelligent' and 'willing to go on a day with you'. Please specify 'intelligent' or 'willing to go on a date'
By them mailing these addresses, they make it clear they are spammers. That is what these leasts are designed to do, if you mail them, you're not only a spammer, you're too stupid to even have done any due diligence into your spam lists/page scraping.
These lists are public for this EXACT purpose, so morons who scrape pages get hold of them and email them, which then gives the spam stoppers a whole bunch of information about currently active spam. No need to wait for users to submit it, weight it, get enough user info to assume its not just a user who forgot he subscribed to a mailing list and doesn't want the message... getting a message to these addresses flat out says 'he, heres some spam for you to learn how to block!'
When means things like hosts sending these messages can be blacklisted instantly will little concern since large ISPs use these lists for the same reason and never let the messages leave their networks, so its only going to be small organizations.
This is great news for stopping this particular batch of spam.
What happened here is that the spammers have turned over the fingerprint of their spam directly to the spam stoppers. By emailing these particular addresses they are directly supplying information that can be used to block spam. They don't need to 'confirm' these messages are spam, THEY ARE SPAM, by definition. They don't need to wait for several people to report them as spam, they don't need to manually inspect them or weight them as 'potentially spam'.
Spam one of these addresses then: Your host is instantly on a blacklist in most cases. URLs in the message are ranked as high probability of spam The message is fingerprinted and added to anti-spam software
All of that without any user actually having to report it as spam, and thats just the simple stuff that happens.
This is EXACTLY WHY this list is online, to catch stupid spammers who aren't careful enough to avoid these addresses.
Its working EXACTLY AS DESIGNED. Hitting just one of these fake addresses can save it from hitting MILLIONS of real addresses.
So before calling someone else stupid, look in the mirror, you're at peak ignorant.
but that's irrelevant compared to the route count reduction that comes from a lower HD ratio.
Only if you assume you can reduce routes because there are so many people with diverse blocks in their network, which isn't the case so much.
The route count is much more a result of multihoming and portable address space, which means larger prefixes aren't going to help at all. At no point in my career would my provider having a larger prefix helped reduce the routing table as I have always had either portable address space, which is a direct allocation from a NIC rather than an ISP, or been multi homed which means at best I get the addresses from ONE of the peers and announce it out to another peer, but in that case traffic gets all screwed up if the upstream provider which allocated me the non-portable space aggregates it since aggregated addresses aren't preferred over non-aggregated address space.
I.E. larger upstream prefixes don't really help at all.
Why, because they basically have another reason to say 'look, they're still trying to copy the iPhone look and feel'?
I mean come on, it looks like a overweight/wideload iPhone with a line home button instead of a disc. Its essentially just a retarded looking iPhone copy.
No, I'm not joking, with minor differences, they are seriously trying to look the same as the fruit. This is a bit ridiculous. Yes, its different, but there is no doubt its trying to look the same.
If we had continued to keep the automobile speed limit at 10 mph year-after-year because a few lazy old farts refused to give up their goddamned horses and buggies, we'd still be driving around today at 10 mph.
19 mph, because no one pulls you over for doing 9 over, but 10? You're in the pen!
Slashdot Mirror
Using the wrong terminology shows your ignorance. It shows you're as ignorant as the news media. You need to open a dictionary. They aren't Borg, or bees. Your insistence on calling them drones just brings up the fact that you're ignorant of the field completely.
So your mini camera now holds as much video as a fixed device?
I don't USE a mini camera. Thats the point. My smallest outdoor UAV carries a Sony RX100 Compact camera. Its a 20 mega pixel camera with a 1" sensor. It stores roughly roughly 16 hours of 1080p video on a SD card with the right compression, and I can stuff in larger ones if I had any need. It is considered one of the highest quality 'compact' cameras you can buy. My larger drones carry DSLRs where the body alone costs roughly $2500, and that doesn't include the optics. They sit on gyro stabilized gimbals that are more stable than implanting one in the wall of a California building! A human can't physically hold a camera a still and stable as my UAVs do. Your body is incapable of doing so. That said, the RX100 is a shitty video camera, but its only $500 so I don't worry about it being over water following me around on full-auto when I'm in my boat fishing so that I can get video of myself.
http://www.imaging-resource.co... is a quick example of the CHEAPEST and SMALLEST camera I carry.
You don't know anything about UAVs, they don't use the shitty little mini cameras you think they have to carry and thats the point, you have have any idea what you're talking about or what they are capable of. Hell, you can't even read or you would have known from my first post that I don't use shitty little 'mini' cameras since that was the point I was making. You think UAVs carry crappy low level equipment because you saw some black and white footage on some TV show or something stupid. My UAVs carry the same equipment as professional photographers, partly because I get paid for it on occasion.
I do almost exclusively still photos so I don't carry any high end video cameras, but theres nothing different about them that prevents me from doing so. Its not like they are bigger or heavier than a full sized DSLR with full sized optics.
Your personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with Police work (except for perhaps in your imagination).
Except that my 'hobby' experience is more than capable of doing everything you claim they aren't, and more. My 'hobby' experience shows your utter ignorance of the subject. And for reference, its not a hobby when you do it as a job, so please, go ahead and tell me all about what I do for a living. The point is that my hobby gear is light years beyond what you think the high end commercial gear can do.
I have personal and professional experience. You have none what so ever.
In Police work, humans do it better.
No, they don't, not for certain things. A UAV can't arrest a suspect, but for certain types of surveillance they are better than 10 well trained men, and they don't require people to risk their lives. This is a simple fact. The military knows it. The FBI knows it. The CIA knows it. The Immigration and Customs service know it, and many police departments know it. You seem to be incapable of accepting that you don't know what you're talking about.
Grow up. You're wrong. Deal with it and move on.
I get it! Ignore the logistics problems I stated and demand that I use a different terminology so people don't recognize them as drones
I'm sorry, you're right. Please continue to use incorrect terms so that its easy for everyone else to recognize that you're not qualified to be part of the discussion.
technology will all magically work just like in the movies!
You're the only one that thinks UAVs have to work like they do in movies to be useful and cost effective. You seem to think that if they aren't exactly like they behave in the latest Iron Man, they aren't useful at all.
Instead of using ad hominem why not actually have a rebuttal for my points?
... Did you even read my reply? It sure doesn't seem like it, I used facts to dispute your silly perspective on reality, but don't let that stand in the way of your ignorance by all means, continue.
In practice the shitty versions are what they put in various drone technologies for weight limitations
Uhm, no, it isn't. My UAS carries a Sony RX100, hardly a cheap shitty camera. It sits on a gyro stabilized gimble that is vibration isolated from the frame itself to ensure the pictures are better than any human can take for less than $500, which is the cost of the camera itself Thats my SMALL UAV. Carrying a full fledged DSLR is pretty common ... and we're talking about normal every day citizens, not $150k UAVs that the FBI uses. Google is your friend, look up what is actually in use on these UAVs, the camera modules on these UAVs in use by the FBI are ridiculously high quality devices.
but using radio frequencies that can be detected easier (can be jammed from longer range as well) to send the audio and video streams. Drones can't magically make cameras, microphones, and communications better, sorry.
So apparently, only people can use cameras that store photos locally? Thats weird because the only transmission of video off of my UAV is for fun, my still camera is 20mega pixel, sending that via RF for the price I'm willing to pay isn't possible. HD video is possible, but again more than I'm willing to pay. However, for some reason you seem to think they have to feed all data real time? It can be done in bursts or at another time ... like normal field agents would do?
You also seem to think that its trivial to tell when a device several miles away from you with a directional antenna pointing away from you is transmitting, and you can magically tell it apart from all the other RF in the air and that its related to you, and exactly where its at.
You seem to think that the FBI is using its drones to monitor high end NSA and CIA agents with massive resources in use. You fail to acknowledge that these devices can be used for things like ... border patrol, where a bunch of illegal immigrants running across the desert with nothing more than the shirt off their back have absolutely no chance of knowing there is a UAV in the air unless it flies into them.
If it takes a fleet of drones to replace what a human can do how is this cheaper or better?
You have that backwards, 1 UAV can, as I said, easily stay on station for 24 hours, which means one UAV can replace about 6 people per day, assuming you use the standard 8 hour shift with 2 men per shift, which is the only way you can keep a human (FBI quality anyway) focused in a useful manner.
Just ignore the fact that it takes people to operate the drones, maintain the drones, humans would still be required for the majority of the work, and you will have to continue spending more and more because that is how the game works.
Software has made the entire process more or less idiot proof. I regularly show people that flying a UAV is trivial by putting it in GPS assisted, semi-auto mode in whi
A human can plant a device in the right place at the right time to get audio/video when needed.
In many circumstances, so can a UAS. Just like a human can't do it in every case, a UAS can't do it in every case either, but for a great many, they work great.
They can crawl through air ducts and sewers if needed
And a UAS can fly over where people are looking and either survey from there or land and survey from its landing position.
do all kinds of things on a whim that don't relate to blowing things up or firing bullets into bad guys
Why do you keep thinking that UAS can only shoot things? Are you retarded?
A drone can only get to locations where enough air space exists, unless you are talking about drones that currently only exist in movies.
Stop using the word drone.
I have a UAS the size of a cracker with a video camera on it. I can't find a link to it, but here is one of similar size: http://www.revell.com/radio-co... That one doesn't have a camera, but the size is about the same.
Its not in a movie.
A drone makes noise, if you are close enough to listen in to a conversation the bad guy can most likely hear the drone.
All my UAVs are electric and unless at high power, they are very quiet. With a directional mic, I can listen on you from far enough away that you can neither hear no see me unless someone points out the EXACT location in the sky and I haven't bothered to color it to make it hard to see. Its hard enough to see when its painted day glo orange, let alone sky blue or grey. Quads are noisy, but a standard fixed wing aircraft is very quiet since it can fly on relatively low power. It doesn't have to be very far away before you can't hear or see it.
A drone has a higher chance of failure which risks missions, a gust of wind is all it takes to blow cover.
All of my UAVs except the indoor ones can hold position in 45 mph gusts, thats covers 99% of the weather that matters.
They are much larger than a micro camera or microphone therefor easier for bad guys to spot.
Thats true, they don't generally replace a perfectly planted device INSIDE some building, of course thats only one of many different types of surveillance that needs to be done. Of course that 'micro camera or microphone' have shitty optics and shitty sound qualities so unless you're in the same room, they are more or less worthless as well, and you certainly aren't using them to survey drug dealers or gun runners in the middle of an open field any more than you're using a UAS in someone living room.
Just because you're too primitive to realize there are multiple situations doesn't make it true.
I own a UAS, does that make me a military organization?
So do you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to own them either? Or is it that citizens should be allowed by not the cops? Whats the logic in your position? Is it okay for me because I don't have a hellfire missile? The FBI doesn't either, just cameras and mics ... just like mine.
On the tax payers dollar, there is absolutely nothing for a drone to do that manpower can't do better.
Except stay on station for 24 hours straight without blinking, without eating, without a bathroom break, without getting tired, without having their mind wonder.
Can they covertly listen in to conversations with a drone?
Yes, directional long range mics are not exactly new. Its easy to filter out the sound of the drone itself considering the difference between motor and prop frequency and that of the human voice. They can do it without risking an agent.
Can they covertly film better with drones?
Yes, again at altitude you won't notice the drone or hear it, it can sit there for hours on auto pilot and automatically keep the camera pointed at a specific location or use software to track a person or object automatically. They can do it without risking an agent.
Can they make arrests with drones? No to all of those things.
No, but it can certainly help, by doing the things above as well as doing things like providing a over view of the operation to field directors. When the drone gets shot ... its probably less than the cost of treating a flesh wound on an agent, let alone anything serious or death.
I'm not against some of the drone technology in the Military.
Thats good because you don't seem to know shit about them apparently.
A $1500 UAS such as my smallest one can do everything you say the $150k UAS then FBI uses can't except stay on station for 24 hours. They aren't flying some shitty DJI Phantom like you see in YouTube videos flying into buildings by some jackass who shouldn't be allowed to own one.
My UAS films and follows my boat while I fish, automatically, without being close enough for me to hear it, and it host 1% of what the FBI UAS's do.
And please stop calling it a drone, only the ignorant call them drones. What does that even mean in this context?
... They're talking about hemp, not Cannabis Sativa. Theres a difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
There are many strains of Cannabis, some have THC, some don't.
You already had the OSx running Apple device then?
It's OS X, not OSx, you might want to at least learn the name.
Apple takes a pretty big bite from the proceeds to process the credit cards and such and sending the rest on to you.
... 30% is standard in pretty much every retail industry, and the fact that you think its a lot shows you've not actually done anything like this yourself or you'd know that for a $1 app, 0.30 is cheap considering you'll probably be paying at least $0.25 in credit card fees alone.
So you've illustrated that all your concerns are that of someone who is ignorant of the way the process works.
No, but it can be used to jump start your vaporizer
Then you're doing the whole project wrong.
I'm guessing you've got developers with no leadership or plan and certainly no forethought.
You should invest in some project management and developers who are playing for the team rather than just writing what gives them a buzz that day.
No one is going to use your software if every release is so different that you have to rewrite the docs. People use software to get something done, not because they want to spend their time learning how you decided to rewrite it and do things differently.
Yes, he had a screenshot from software that doesn't run on the hardware he owned and held such screenshot.
I have screenshots of Siri on my Windows virtual machines, does that mean I have siri running on Windows?
No.
So tell me, in all your wisdom, why the fuck are you so self righteous when you yourself know pretty much NONE of the facts of a story that was debunked long ago?
and they are seriously using tables for layout
Other than the fact that you heard someone say 'use CSS' you have no actual reason to knock tables so just shut up.
why aren't we putting GPS nav and other information projected onto the front window by now.
Because most drivers don't spend much time looking out the windows? They have smart phones FFS.
Except Brown got Plutonium FROM the terrorists and gave them a box of pinball parts. He used the plutonium to power the flux capacitor for time travel.
Thats why they tried to kill him.
I'm sorry, there is no one matching your criteria of both 'intelligent' and 'willing to go on a day with you'. Please specify 'intelligent' or 'willing to go on a date'
The two are inclusive, not mutually exclusive.
No.
By them mailing these addresses, they make it clear they are spammers. That is what these leasts are designed to do, if you mail them, you're not only a spammer, you're too stupid to even have done any due diligence into your spam lists/page scraping.
These lists are public for this EXACT purpose, so morons who scrape pages get hold of them and email them, which then gives the spam stoppers a whole bunch of information about currently active spam. No need to wait for users to submit it, weight it, get enough user info to assume its not just a user who forgot he subscribed to a mailing list and doesn't want the message ... getting a message to these addresses flat out says 'he, heres some spam for you to learn how to block!'
When means things like hosts sending these messages can be blacklisted instantly will little concern since large ISPs use these lists for the same reason and never let the messages leave their networks, so its only going to be small organizations.
This is great news for stopping this particular batch of spam.
As if you understand how spam prevention works.
What happened here is that the spammers have turned over the fingerprint of their spam directly to the spam stoppers. By emailing these particular addresses they are directly supplying information that can be used to block spam. They don't need to 'confirm' these messages are spam, THEY ARE SPAM, by definition. They don't need to wait for several people to report them as spam, they don't need to manually inspect them or weight them as 'potentially spam'.
Spam one of these addresses then:
Your host is instantly on a blacklist in most cases.
URLs in the message are ranked as high probability of spam
The message is fingerprinted and added to anti-spam software
All of that without any user actually having to report it as spam, and thats just the simple stuff that happens.
This is EXACTLY WHY this list is online, to catch stupid spammers who aren't careful enough to avoid these addresses.
Its working EXACTLY AS DESIGNED. Hitting just one of these fake addresses can save it from hitting MILLIONS of real addresses.
So before calling someone else stupid, look in the mirror, you're at peak ignorant.
NaCl is the core of Pepper. Pepper is just a NaCl plugin. They are the same thing for anything less than the most technical of discussions.
Salt and Pepper, git it?
but that's irrelevant compared to the route count reduction that comes from a lower HD ratio.
Only if you assume you can reduce routes because there are so many people with diverse blocks in their network, which isn't the case so much.
The route count is much more a result of multihoming and portable address space, which means larger prefixes aren't going to help at all. At no point in my career would my provider having a larger prefix helped reduce the routing table as I have always had either portable address space, which is a direct allocation from a NIC rather than an ISP, or been multi homed which means at best I get the addresses from ONE of the peers and announce it out to another peer, but in that case traffic gets all screwed up if the upstream provider which allocated me the non-portable space aggregates it since aggregated addresses aren't preferred over non-aggregated address space.
I.E. larger upstream prefixes don't really help at all.
That doesn't solve the problem, it mitigates ONE aspect of the problem.
It will effect large ISPs with large numbers of IPs, which are few and far between.
It does nothing to resolve the actual problem of router table growth which is caused by the number of networks, multihoming and address portability.
Multihoming and address portability make what you've said irrelevant, and thats where the growth comes from.
Why, because they basically have another reason to say 'look, they're still trying to copy the iPhone look and feel'?
I mean come on, it looks like a overweight/wideload iPhone with a line home button instead of a disc. Its essentially just a retarded looking iPhone copy.
No, I'm not joking, with minor differences, they are seriously trying to look the same as the fruit. This is a bit ridiculous. Yes, its different, but there is no doubt its trying to look the same.
The SEC cares about shareholders, not advertisers.
Advertisers, or specifically, customers, are the real of the FTC.
Some of us need a lot of self reflection :/
If we had continued to keep the automobile speed limit at 10 mph year-after-year because a few lazy old farts refused to give up their goddamned horses and buggies, we'd still be driving around today at 10 mph.
19 mph, because no one pulls you over for doing 9 over, but 10? You're in the pen!