Unless it has improved greatly, my experience with First Saturday has led me to writing it off. It used to be quite cool, but the last few times I went, there was nothing there that I couldn't get locally for an equal price on a daily basis.
What made First Saturday great from my perspective was that they USED to have several users's group meetings. I could drive down, go to the meeting (the North Texas Linux Users Group had a great meeting, plus I liked going to the Atari UG meeting for nostalgia's sake) and do some shopping. But then the users' groups were kicked out of the building, and started having their meetings on other days.
Perhaps it is still a good thing to go to if you live in the Dallas area. But I live in the Wichita area, which is five hours drive down, and five hours drive back. It got to the point where it just wasn't worth it to me.
Perhaps things have changed for the better. I look forward to other posts on this - I'd like to hear it's worth it again.
It sounds to me like they just gave the judge a bunch of keycodes, and the judge doesn't understand how to go from keycodes to keys.
Once the FBI gives the judge a table of keycodes -> keys, I suspect the judge's "gobbledegook" comment will be answered. Now, the question is, will the judge accept the keystroke recorder as a part of a valid search warrent, or will the judge interpret the device to be a "listening device".
Remember, the whole danger of this device is not that it exists, it is that the FBI went in on a search warrent, and left a listening device behind which should require a wiretap order.
OK, given that you have 5 of hearts and 6 of spades showing, with 7 of diamonds, 8 of clubs, and 2 of spades in your hand. You are playing against a single opponent, who is showing 3 of clubs and 3 of diamonds. Your draw. What is your optimal move?
You don't have all the information. You can go by the probabilites that discarding the 2 and drawing to either end of the straight has the highest probability of giving you a strong hand, but little do you know that the next three cards are 2 of clubs, 3 of spades, 3 of hearts. By drawing one, your opponent draws 2 and gets 4 of a kind to your garbage. Had you discarded three cards, kept the 2, and drawn, you would have had two pair to one pair and won the hand.
In chess, you know EXACTLY what possible outcomes exist, and you can, in theory, precisely compute the path through the state space (assuming your opponent is equally skilled and has equal memory and computational resources.) to the best possible solution. In games of chance such as poker, you simply cannot, no matter what computational resources you and your opponent have. That is the difference between a "game" and a computation.
Personally, I don't play either chess or poker. However, the whole wonder of true games theory is in analyzing games in which the very rules of the game prevent you from having perfect data. In the big blue room, you very rarely have perfect data.
I thought predicting the possible outcomes of a poker game and a chess game is pretty much the same problem
No, it isn't the same problem. In chess, I could, in theory, predict every possible move you can make with absolute certainty. I know every piece you have, and every possible move it can make. There are no surprises.
In poker, I don't know every card you have. True, I can try to predict every possible outcome given every possible card you MIGHT have, but that causes the problem space to balloon mightily. Furthur, I might have to assume, because you have 2 jacks showing, that you might have the other two jacks plus a joker (five of a kind, almost unbeatable), and that if that is the case, there is no way I can complete my jack-high straight. But, you might NOT have the jack, and it might be the top card, and I might be able to complete my straight, and leave you with at best a three of a kind (four if you have a joker). You see, I have to play the probabilities while in chess it is a certainty that you cannot move your knight one square forward.
Seriously, though, this is why chess is not a "game" in the game theory sense of the word. Every move has known, predicatable consiquences, and all the data is available to both sides during play. As a result, as computers advance, they will become better than people, because chess is a computation, not a game
Now, consider poker. While somewhat simpler in terms of the number of moves available to a player at any given time, they player cannot predict with complete precision all possible outcomes of a given play, since he does not know what cards are coming up next, what cards the other players have, and therefor cannot winnow the solution space significantly. In poker, the machine cannot easily tell if I am bluffing or if I just completed my royal flush.
Now, for a REAL computational challenge, make a computer that can play Magic, the Gathering worth a darn. Talk about "limited information" - you don't know what cards the other player has, you may not know the powers of the cards, and you may not even know what's coming up in your deck next. Make a machine that plays that well and I'll be impressed.
Do you know if RH will add support for LVM during setup? It's a real drag to have to install the system to a temp volume, make the LVM volume, move root over to the LVM volume, reboot, and convert the temp dir to a PG. I'd like to do that at install.
How about providing us with a change list Rob? Tell us what features to poke at, so we know where to look. Even if it's just s "new features are listed at www.slashcode.com/foovar".
If they can bring to bear enough support to re-instate the law, they in all probability could have brought enough to bear to prevent the law from expiring.
Secondly, your example is easy to figure out. You stood trial for the crime, and were found guilty. Later, the law ceased to exist. This does not automatically grant you freedom from your imprisonment. Consider somebody caught moonshining before the repeal of Prohibition: once Prohibition was repealed the individual might still have to serve out his sentence.
However, if you did appeal and won, you're done. Youv'e stood trial once. Double jeopardy attaches - you cannot be tried again.
Just require every law, other than the Constitution, to have an expiry date of not more than 5 years from passage, with renewal of the law requiring exactly the same level of support passing a new law would (i.e. (%50+1 of the house && 50%+1 of the Senate && (Presidential approval || 2/3 of the house)). This way, bad laws will be on the books for 5 years, then will have to stand against a populous that has seen the harm of the law.
Right now, it is almost impossible to get a law repealed. This makes it a lot easier.
It also puts an effective cap on the number of laws that can exist - after a while, Congress spends all of its time renewing existing laws and cannot pass new ones.
In effect, it brings about evolution for laws: survival of the fittest via competition for scarce resources.
The reasons the media likes to hype Code Red and not Sicrcam are:
The Name: "Code Red" sounds menacing, while "Sircam" sounds like a new pop star.
The Target: Sircam has no target (other than the poor schmuck who's machine is infected). Code Red attacks a target that you can send a reporter out to (yes, the web servers for the White House aren't at the White house, but that doesn't matter).
Remember, the media wants stories to be as dirt stupid simple as possible: They don't want "Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again", they want "boy finds girl". "Code Red Worm ATTACKS WHITEHOUSE" is an attention getting headline. "Sircam forwards private documents" isn't.
So remember 5|<r!P7|<!dd!3Z, if you want your worm to be successful, attack a high-profile target, and make sure your worm gets a menacing name.
It has come to my attention that you might be using software that, shall we say, fell off the back of a truck. The very thought wounds me deeply, as I know you would never show such disrespect to a friend.
I am therefore going to give you a chance to make... amends. I do this out of respect for you, as you have been a loyal customer of ours. I am sure you will want our protection in future, and I am sure that you will do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Godfather Gates.
P.S. I am sure I do not need to remind you of the unfortunate accident that befell Mr. Mario, when he unfortunately allowed our insurance to lapse.
My question is, how much thrust does his jet produce? Could it be used to power, say, a hovercraft made from junk? I'd like to see something like this on [Junkyard|Scrapyard] Wars - ten hours to build a working jet powered (thing).
Also, could he attach a generator to the spindle of the turbo and make electric power?
Given the rate of consumption of propane he'd have to get to create the degree of cooling, I'd guestimate that he could produce better than 10kW of power from this thing. That's enough to run your house.
This is actually very common in Recreational Vehicle circles, as RVs often carry propane but don't have electricity.
The refrigeration unit uses ammonia as the working fluid, rather than dichloro-difluro-methane (R-12). This is done because of the properties of ammonia.
In a normal refrigerator, the working fluid is compressed from a gas into a liquid. In doing so, the liquid gives up its latent heat of vaporization (the energy it takes to convert a liquid to a gas), and becomes much hotter as a result. The hot liquid is then run through a set of coils to transfer the heat to the environment.
The liquid then is fed through a throttle ( a small orifice) to reduce the pressure below the boiling point of the liquid. The liquid then evaporates, drawing the latent heat of vaporization from the environment (the inside of the fridge). The gas then runs back to the compressor and the cycle repeats.
In an ammonia fridge, rather than using a compressor pump driven by electricity, a heat source is used, and a mix of ammonia, water and hydrogen gas is used to move the heat around. A good explaination is at howstuffworks: http://www.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm
Basically, they use the fact that ammonia will dissolve in water to drive the ammonia around the cycle. That's why they cannot use R-12: it doesn't dissolve in water very well.
Just think - now AOHell has all the user data Amazon accumulated. The now know what you buy, when, and how much you are willing to pay. They know what you listen to, and what you read.
I just wonder if Amazon actually deleted my information when I cancelled my account with them.
Oh well, I could use some AOL CDs now - shingle your house with them and you lower your air conditioning bill immensely!
Security through Explosives: get instructions on how to make explosives from the Internet. Fill computer with homemade C4 equivelent. Make sure porch is splatterproofed.
Security through Canis Familiarius: Attach chain to computer. Attach other end to Mastif.
Security through Voltage: Get power line transformer. Connect primary to case, secondary to power. Let theives try to steal machine now at 18KV.
I wouldn't say "Apple really did a great job of smoothly transitioning their users over to the PowerPC", quite the contrary.
The 68K --> PowerPC transition fragmented the Mac market. The first PowerMacs wouldn't run legacy software even as fast as the Quadras that had been out for some months, and Apple was bringing out faster Quadras. However, if you bought a Quadra, you knew you were buying a dead end. Result: many Mac users transitioned to Windows, where there was a clear upward path. That setback hurt the Mac by robbing it of critical mass.
IF Palm is smart, IF they make sure the StrongArm based Palms will run all older software as fast or faster than the current crop of Palms, IF they make sure users know they will not be buying a dead-end product, they can benefit from this. If they don't learn from Apple's mistakes, they will fragment their market at exactly the wrong time, and WinCE and Linux will claim their spots.
True, I wouldn't need a PDA to play movies, but having one that could play MP3 or Ogg files would eliminate once gadget I want to carry.
And as a side note: The DTMF generation trick isn't as useful as you might think: between having to dial access codes (or not), area codes (or not), extensions (or not), you have to have a fairly complex UI to select the options. Plus, since the PDA cannot listen for the call progress tones, it cannot know when to send the next burst - it has to just wait. I know, I have a watch that does DTMF.
The point is not the ranking of the pages. The point is, that if the words don't appear near each other, I don't want that page show. Period.
Also, Google lack the ability to do things like:
foo near (bar or baz) and (narf or poit)
True, many poeple cannot understand how to formulate a Boolean query correctly, and that may be why Google doesn't feel it's important. However, just like a CLI is better for some tasks than a GUI, a Boolean search it better for some tasks than what Google has now.
Let's see. I was downloading software over a network in 84, using a modem to access a server via a network called the PTSN (public telephone switched network).
Darpanet was transferring software even earlier that this.
Since e-data is micturiting in the breakfast cerials of several big players, I give this patent about the same probability of survival as a guy playing Q3A on a 486 with a CGA card over a modem.
I've thought of a very simple change to how MTA's work that I believe would correct much of the problem with spam, without requiring any change in how SMTP works.
Assume you are sending a message to me (me@example.com). Your ISP's MTA contacts example.com's MTA and begins to send the message. Once example.com's MTA knows where the message purports to be from, it looks up the MTAs for that domain, and verifies that the connection is actually coming from one of the MTAs listed. If not, bu-bye!
Now, this doesn't address open relays. I don't claim that it does. Open relays are best addressed with education of the alleged sysadmin (perferably with a Board of Education, +5 LART). What it does address is the growing number of spammers using broadband connections to directly spam users.
In effect, this is doing much the same thing as the MAPS DUL, with the following exceptions:
1) It's "opt in" rather than "opt out": a mail sender must take positive action to be able to send mail, rather than their ISP taking action to prevent them.
2) Even if you are on a dynamic IP connection, you can still set yourself up with a domain, and use a dynamic DNS provider to link back to your server. (Whoever, IMHO if you are on dynamic DNS, you really should be going through your ISP's MTA, but....)
3) It allows you to have some idea of who is sending you a message.
Now, I agree that many spammers will just register domains and spam away, but it costs more effort to register a domain than it does to simply get a connection, the domain registrar has some record of who owns the domain, and the "JethroBillyBobTrailerTrash" spammers won't be able to handle setting this up.
You could even extend this to having a public key stored in a text record of the domain, and require that all mail received by an MTA be coded against a valid key. Back to my example: your MTA would retrieve the key for example.com, and code the message against that key and your key. That way, example.com knows that you are the sender of the message. This also has the happy side effect of making it a lot harder to eavesdrop on the message.
You could then have a policy on your MTA of:
1) if sender is an authenticated user of this MTA, accept mail
2) if sending MTA is the MX for the FROM address, and if the sending MTA has a key in the domain, accept.
3) If the sending MTA is the MX, but has no key, accept but tag as possible spam.
4) If the sending MTA isn't the MX, reject with a redirect to a webmail bypass URL.
OK, pick it apart guys. Maybe we all can hash together an RFC?
.. Then let's at least bring back something halfway good. Bring back Space 1999, bring back (pauses for thought) (grind grind no other files found), uhhh, bring back Space 1999. (I'm speaking primarily of shows shown on US commercial networks, else I'd ask for the good Doctor back.)
Now, if we are willing to expand into the 80's, then (damn I wish I could do a <font> here) BRING BACK MAX!
(I could have been very sick and asked for Slavage 1 back, given how life imitates art, but I won't...)
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it has improved greatly, my experience with First Saturday has led me to writing it off. It used to be quite cool, but the last few times I went, there was nothing there that I couldn't get locally for an equal price on a daily basis.
What made First Saturday great from my perspective was that they USED to have several users's group meetings. I could drive down, go to the meeting (the North Texas Linux Users Group had a great meeting, plus I liked going to the Atari UG meeting for nostalgia's sake) and do some shopping. But then the users' groups were kicked out of the building, and started having their meetings on other days.
Perhaps it is still a good thing to go to if you live in the Dallas area. But I live in the Wichita area, which is five hours drive down, and five hours drive back. It got to the point where it just wasn't worth it to me.
Perhaps things have changed for the better. I look forward to other posts on this - I'd like to hear it's worth it again.
It sounds to me like they just gave the judge a bunch of keycodes, and the judge doesn't understand how to go from keycodes to keys.
Once the FBI gives the judge a table of keycodes -> keys, I suspect the judge's "gobbledegook" comment will be answered. Now, the question is, will the judge accept the keystroke recorder as a part of a valid search warrent, or will the judge interpret the device to be a "listening device".
Remember, the whole danger of this device is not that it exists, it is that the FBI went in on a search warrent, and left a listening device behind which should require a wiretap order.
OK, given that you have 5 of hearts and 6 of spades showing, with 7 of diamonds, 8 of clubs, and 2 of spades in your hand. You are playing against a single opponent, who is showing 3 of clubs and 3 of diamonds. Your draw. What is your optimal move?
You don't have all the information. You can go by the probabilites that discarding the 2 and drawing to either end of the straight has the highest probability of giving you a strong hand, but little do you know that the next three cards are 2 of clubs, 3 of spades, 3 of hearts. By drawing one, your opponent draws 2 and gets 4 of a kind to your garbage. Had you discarded three cards, kept the 2, and drawn, you would have had two pair to one pair and won the hand.
In chess, you know EXACTLY what possible outcomes exist, and you can, in theory, precisely compute the path through the state space (assuming your opponent is equally skilled and has equal memory and computational resources.) to the best possible solution. In games of chance such as poker, you simply cannot, no matter what computational resources you and your opponent have. That is the difference between a "game" and a computation.
Personally, I don't play either chess or poker. However, the whole wonder of true games theory is in analyzing games in which the very rules of the game prevent you from having perfect data. In the big blue room, you very rarely have perfect data.
No, it isn't the same problem. In chess, I could, in theory, predict every possible move you can make with absolute certainty. I know every piece you have, and every possible move it can make. There are no surprises.
In poker, I don't know every card you have. True, I can try to predict every possible outcome given every possible card you MIGHT have, but that causes the problem space to balloon mightily. Furthur, I might have to assume, because you have 2 jacks showing, that you might have the other two jacks plus a joker (five of a kind, almost unbeatable), and that if that is the case, there is no way I can complete my jack-high straight. But, you might NOT have the jack, and it might be the top card, and I might be able to complete my straight, and leave you with at best a three of a kind (four if you have a joker). You see, I have to play the probabilities while in chess it is a certainty that you cannot move your knight one square forward.
Fritz! They've killed Fritz! Those dirty rotten fairies!"
Seriously, though, this is why chess is not a "game" in the game theory sense of the word. Every move has known, predicatable consiquences, and all the data is available to both sides during play. As a result, as computers advance, they will become better than people, because chess is a computation, not a game
Now, consider poker. While somewhat simpler in terms of the number of moves available to a player at any given time, they player cannot predict with complete precision all possible outcomes of a given play, since he does not know what cards are coming up next, what cards the other players have, and therefor cannot winnow the solution space significantly. In poker, the machine cannot easily tell if I am bluffing or if I just completed my royal flush.
Now, for a REAL computational challenge, make a computer that can play Magic, the Gathering worth a darn. Talk about "limited information" - you don't know what cards the other player has, you may not know the powers of the cards, and you may not even know what's coming up in your deck next. Make a machine that plays that well and I'll be impressed.
Do you know if RH will add support for LVM during setup? It's a real drag to have to install the system to a temp volume, make the LVM volume, move root over to the LVM volume, reboot, and convert the temp dir to a PG. I'd like to do that at install.
Maybe in 8.0?
How about providing us with a change list Rob? Tell us what features to poke at, so we know where to look. Even if it's just s "new features are listed at www.slashcode.com/foovar".
If they can bring to bear enough support to re-instate the law, they in all probability could have brought enough to bear to prevent the law from expiring.
Secondly, your example is easy to figure out. You stood trial for the crime, and were found guilty. Later, the law ceased to exist. This does not automatically grant you freedom from your imprisonment. Consider somebody caught moonshining before the repeal of Prohibition: once Prohibition was repealed the individual might still have to serve out his sentence.
However, if you did appeal and won, you're done. Youv'e stood trial once. Double jeopardy attaches - you cannot be tried again.
Is Tux (the character) trademarked by Larry? If so, Tux Racer could have some problems....
Just require every law, other than the Constitution, to have an expiry date of not more than 5 years from passage, with renewal of the law requiring exactly the same level of support passing a new law would (i.e. (%50+1 of the house && 50%+1 of the Senate && (Presidential approval || 2/3 of the house)). This way, bad laws will be on the books for 5 years, then will have to stand against a populous that has seen the harm of the law.
Right now, it is almost impossible to get a law repealed. This makes it a lot easier.
It also puts an effective cap on the number of laws that can exist - after a while, Congress spends all of its time renewing existing laws and cannot pass new ones.
In effect, it brings about evolution for laws: survival of the fittest via competition for scarce resources.
Remember, the media wants stories to be as dirt stupid simple as possible: They don't want "Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again", they want "boy finds girl". "Code Red Worm ATTACKS WHITEHOUSE" is an attention getting headline. "Sircam forwards private documents" isn't.
So remember 5|<r!P7|<!dd!3Z, if you want your worm to be successful, attack a high-profile target, and make sure your worm gets a menacing name.
< voice accent="italian" style="rough>
Dear Mr. Luigi:
It has come to my attention that you might be using software that, shall we say, fell off the back of a truck. The very thought wounds me deeply, as I know you would never show such disrespect to a friend.
I am therefore going to give you a chance to make... amends. I do this out of respect for you, as you have been a loyal customer of ours. I am sure you will want our protection in future, and I am sure that you will do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Godfather Gates.
P.S. I am sure I do not need to remind you of the unfortunate accident that befell Mr. Mario, when he unfortunately allowed our insurance to lapse.
</voice>
My question is, how much thrust does his jet produce? Could it be used to power, say, a hovercraft made from junk? I'd like to see something like this on [Junkyard|Scrapyard] Wars - ten hours to build a working jet powered (thing).
Also, could he attach a generator to the spindle of the turbo and make electric power?
Given the rate of consumption of propane he'd have to get to create the degree of cooling, I'd guestimate that he could produce better than 10kW of power from this thing. That's enough to run your house.
This is actually very common in Recreational Vehicle circles, as RVs often carry propane but don't have electricity.
The refrigeration unit uses ammonia as the working fluid, rather than dichloro-difluro-methane (R-12). This is done because of the properties of ammonia.
In a normal refrigerator, the working fluid is compressed from a gas into a liquid. In doing so, the liquid gives up its latent heat of vaporization (the energy it takes to convert a liquid to a gas), and becomes much hotter as a result. The hot liquid is then run through a set of coils to transfer the heat to the environment.
The liquid then is fed through a throttle ( a small orifice) to reduce the pressure below the boiling point of the liquid. The liquid then evaporates, drawing the latent heat of vaporization from the environment (the inside of the fridge). The gas then runs back to the compressor and the cycle repeats.
In an ammonia fridge, rather than using a compressor pump driven by electricity, a heat source is used, and a mix of ammonia, water and hydrogen gas is used to move the heat around. A good explaination is at howstuffworks: http://www.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm
Basically, they use the fact that ammonia will dissolve in water to drive the ammonia around the cycle. That's why they cannot use R-12: it doesn't dissolve in water very well.
Just think - now AOHell has all the user data Amazon accumulated. The now know what you buy, when, and how much you are willing to pay. They know what you listen to, and what you read.
I just wonder if Amazon actually deleted my information when I cancelled my account with them.
Oh well, I could use some AOL CDs now - shingle your house with them and you lower your air conditioning bill immensely!
Security through Explosives: get instructions on how to make explosives from the Internet. Fill computer with homemade C4 equivelent. Make sure porch is splatterproofed.
Security through Canis Familiarius : Attach chain to computer. Attach other end to Mastif.
Security through Voltage: Get power line transformer. Connect primary to case, secondary to power. Let theives try to steal machine now at 18KV.
I wouldn't say "Apple really did a great job of smoothly transitioning their users over to the PowerPC", quite the contrary.
The 68K --> PowerPC transition fragmented the Mac market. The first PowerMacs wouldn't run legacy software even as fast as the Quadras that had been out for some months, and Apple was bringing out faster Quadras. However, if you bought a Quadra, you knew you were buying a dead end. Result: many Mac users transitioned to Windows, where there was a clear upward path. That setback hurt the Mac by robbing it of critical mass.
IF Palm is smart, IF they make sure the StrongArm based Palms will run all older software as fast or faster than the current crop of Palms, IF they make sure users know they will not be buying a dead-end product, they can benefit from this. If they don't learn from Apple's mistakes, they will fragment their market at exactly the wrong time, and WinCE and Linux will claim their spots.
True, I wouldn't need a PDA to play movies, but having one that could play MP3 or Ogg files would eliminate once gadget I want to carry.
And as a side note: The DTMF generation trick isn't as useful as you might think: between having to dial access codes (or not), area codes (or not), extensions (or not), you have to have a fairly complex UI to select the options. Plus, since the PDA cannot listen for the call progress tones, it cannot know when to send the next burst - it has to just wait. I know, I have a watch that does DTMF.
Also, Google lack the ability to do things like:
True, many poeple cannot understand how to formulate a Boolean query correctly, and that may be why Google doesn't feel it's important. However, just like a CLI is better for some tasks than a GUI, a Boolean search it better for some tasks than what Google has now.
and be able to filter out the crap.
If google would allow a post-processing phase to apply this sort of logic AV would disappear from my list of search engines.
Let's see. I was downloading software over a network in 84, using a modem to access a server via a network called the PTSN (public telephone switched network).
Darpanet was transferring software even earlier that this.
Since e-data is micturiting in the breakfast cerials of several big players, I give this patent about the same probability of survival as a guy playing Q3A on a 486 with a CGA card over a modem.
Well, you could add the the following rule:
If the sending server is one of the MX's for the domain to which it belongs, accept.
In other words, when you are using foo.com, the sending server is mail.foo.com, and since mail.foo.com is an MX for foo.com, it is accepted.
I've thought of a very simple change to how MTA's work that I believe would correct much of the problem with spam, without requiring any change in how SMTP works.
Assume you are sending a message to me (me@example.com). Your ISP's MTA contacts example.com's MTA and begins to send the message. Once example.com's MTA knows where the message purports to be from, it looks up the MTAs for that domain, and verifies that the connection is actually coming from one of the MTAs listed. If not, bu-bye!
Now, this doesn't address open relays. I don't claim that it does. Open relays are best addressed with education of the alleged sysadmin (perferably with a Board of Education, +5 LART). What it does address is the growing number of spammers using broadband connections to directly spam users.
In effect, this is doing much the same thing as the MAPS DUL, with the following exceptions:
1) It's "opt in" rather than "opt out": a mail sender must take positive action to be able to send mail, rather than their ISP taking action to prevent them.
2) Even if you are on a dynamic IP connection, you can still set yourself up with a domain, and use a dynamic DNS provider to link back to your server. (Whoever, IMHO if you are on dynamic DNS, you really should be going through your ISP's MTA, but....)
3) It allows you to have some idea of who is sending you a message.
Now, I agree that many spammers will just register domains and spam away, but it costs more effort to register a domain than it does to simply get a connection, the domain registrar has some record of who owns the domain, and the "JethroBillyBobTrailerTrash" spammers won't be able to handle setting this up.
You could even extend this to having a public key stored in a text record of the domain, and require that all mail received by an MTA be coded against a valid key. Back to my example: your MTA would retrieve the key for example.com, and code the message against that key and your key. That way, example.com knows that you are the sender of the message. This also has the happy side effect of making it a lot harder to eavesdrop on the message.
You could then have a policy on your MTA of:
1) if sender is an authenticated user of this MTA, accept mail
2) if sending MTA is the MX for the FROM address, and if the sending MTA has a key in the domain, accept.
3) If the sending MTA is the MX, but has no key, accept but tag as possible spam.
4) If the sending MTA isn't the MX, reject with a redirect to a webmail bypass URL.
OK, pick it apart guys. Maybe we all can hash together an RFC?
And you forgot the most obvious of Brits to come up with a great idea: Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin....
How dare you sully the good name of Battlestar Galactica by comparing it to Star Drek Voyager!
.. Then let's at least bring back something halfway good. Bring back Space 1999, bring back (pauses for thought) (grind grind no other files found), uhhh, bring back Space 1999. (I'm speaking primarily of shows shown on US commercial networks, else I'd ask for the good Doctor back.)
Now, if we are willing to expand into the 80's, then (damn I wish I could do a <font> here) BRING BACK MAX!
(I could have been very sick and asked for Slavage 1 back, given how life imitates art, but I won't...)