Sure it's a solution. Any address without a valid DNS entry will return 64.94.110.11, which will return as unreachable - seems like exactly the behaviour I want.
Well, if that's the behavior you want, that's fine. I want to get a "Host not found" DNS error, just like I did last week before all this nonsense started.
My point is that with your "solution," applications still do something different than what they did before Verisign started all of this. I thought I made that clear with my "ping" example.
While it does show a "bell" with a peak on Wednesday and a dip on Sunday and Monday, it's certainly not significant. 20% less email on the lowest vs. the highest day isn't significant in my mind.
But it is significant. With about 1,651 emails per day of the week (11,560/7=1,651), the 1-sigma variation due to random chance is sqrt(1651)/1651 = 2.5%, assuming that the spams are independent of each other (Poisson statistics).
Your detection of a ~20% variation allows you to quite strongly rule out the null hypothesis that spam rates are the same throughout the week.
That is not a solution; at best it's a workaround. There's a fundamental difference between a DNS query returning NXDOMAIN (as it should), and blocking traffic to site returned in the fraudulent A record returned by Verisign.
wopr:~$ sudo ipfw add 1 deny ip from any to 64.94.110.11 Password: 00001 deny ip from any to 64.94.110.11
Which is as it should be. The FCC is an agent of the President. It is the executive branch in this particular domain.
You miss the point. Despite being a part of the Executive Branch, the FCC is essentially serving a legislative function (deciding what the media companies may or may not do, rather than simply enforcing laws passed by Congress). Thus, you're weakening separation of powers, by transfering certain legislative authority to the executive.
Your points are well-taken, especially regarding those with learning disabilities, or non-native speakers. It is, of course, in poor taste to be unreasonably critical of such people. However...
- Most people just don't care. The important part is "can you understand me?" If I say u instead of you, so what?
These people deserve all the criticism that they get. Yes, I can understand you, but it takes longer and interferes with my natural approach to reading. I grew up reading a lot (almost constantly). This was before the WWW, so practically everything I read was professionally published and properly proofread. I can read such material very quickly.
I do not read by vocalizing internally (that is, by imagining a voice). Substitutions like "u" for "you" only make sense if you vocalize. I have to slow down and think about it for it to make sense.
Likewise, if I come across a subject-verb disagreement, a sort of "interrupt" occurs and I automatically conclude that I've misunderstood the sentence. I go back and re-check.
Basically, the "lazy" people you describe are saying that their time as a writer is more valuable than my time as a reader, and the time of all the other readers reading the work. This is not an attitude which we should cherish and accept.
I also do not want to lose my semi-automatic detection of spelling and grammar errors by "learning" to tolerate them. That would result in it being harder to detect such errors in my own writing.
Further trouble is, SoBig.F spoofs the FROM: field, so these messages invariably go to everybody except the schmuck with the infected box.
Yeah, I got tons of those Virus Warnings. I haven't run Windows, or any MS software, since 1995.
The worst part of it is that the antivirus software sending these messages knows that it's SoBig.F. Thus, it should also know that the virus forges the From: header, and that it's pointless to send out the warning message to that address.
So thanks, antivirus programmers. Thanks for wasting my time instead of doing your job correctly. How long would have taken to add an extra if(){} to your code, and another boolean field to your virus database?
I actually saw Adm. Hopper (ret.) on the Dave Letterman show quite a few years ago. Even in her old age, she was very animated and lucid. She brought with her a bundle of wires cut to about 30 cm in length. Dave asked her what they were, and she said that they were "nanoseconds" (i.e. light-nanoseconds).
She said that when her colleagues would complain about the latency of satellite communication, she would pull out her "nanoseconds" and explain, "You see, sir, there's an awful lot of these between here and there."
Yes I dead the article 72 hours for a lost building is pretty bad. It's not that hard to implement plans that have the equipment back up in minutes to hours.
What equipment? Ever been to a tornado site? It's not a question of bringing servers "back up." It's more like finding the servers embedded in a cow that's stuck in a tree.
I helped the Red Cross with disaster recovery after a tornado once. It was a pretty small tornado, I guess, but the town was just a mess. There was a substantial Mennonite community there, and the men worked tirelessly to fix up structures (whether owned by Mennonites or not) while the women fed the whole town. I'm not sure whether they would have been much help in an "old-fashioned ISP-raising," though.
The answer from a matematician, the sky is blue and the grass is green. Simply because by definition we say something is a of color X when it appears as such colors when you look at them.
And my stance is that "color" is a property of light, not of objects.
Until its stretched so far that the law doesn't work any more...
That disclaimer, however, was not included in the original statement of Hooke's Law:
Robert Hooke (1635-1703). The equivalent of this force law was originally announced by Hooke in 1676 in the form of a Latin cryptogram: CEIIINOSSSTTUV. Hooke later provided a translation: ut tensio sic vis [the stretch is proportional to the force].
-- Marion & Thornton, "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems"
I really feel like I've come on the scene too late. Results published as Latin cryptograms rarely make it through peer review these days, and it's a shame.
I've never seen a product containing 256 Megagytes of memory!
It was perfectly clear to me that this product produces a magnetic field of 256,000,000 gauss. I'd get one, but I wouldn't be able to keep my credit cards anywhere near it.
Yep. The last time it was near the earth and sun was 1986. 1986 + 76 == 2062. The event mentioned in 1991 was several years after it was in our neighborhood (and, by implication, it was the nature of that event that made it relatively easy to see at that distance).
Well, it's a lot less "jokey" than Nethack. None of those phase-of-moon or time-of-day tricks, no jokes based on wordplay. It also goes back to 1985, the same year as Hack and two years earlier than Nethack.
When I was in college, I spent more time than I should admit playing Angband, a rogue-like game in which you maneuvered your character, an "@" symbol, through dungeons represented by various punctuation marks, battling powerful foes represented by letters of the alphabet. It was incredibly addictive and deep, and quite devoid of visual appeal.
What's amazing, though, is that when an epic battle would arise, my friends would gather around the monitor to watch my trusty "@" take on a powerful "W" or "D"! (Yeah, they were all geeks, too.)
Now why is it that American media is hardly ever (if ever? I'd love to hear some examples if this has actually ever occurred) thought out as a story spread across a finite number of episodes?
Babylon 5 was designed from the start as a five-year story, and it shows.
Straight up image stacking or averaging does not remove the effects of atmospheric turbulence. HTH.
It can, if the individual exposures are short enough (something like 0.1 seconds each). On those timescales, seeing (turbulence) causes an image to jump around. You can shift them all back into alignment before stacking them.
As you expose longer, you add up light from your star as it's "jumped around" to lots of positions. The result is a smeared-out image; adding multiple exposures will not help at this point, as you said.
A technique called "speckle interferometry" was used at Keck to take advantage of short exposures to get around seeing. Also, the first order adaptive optics correction, "tip-tilt," simply compensates for the image jumping around on these timescales.
Another way that multiple short exposures helps is that seeing is variable; some instants it will be good, then a second later it's poor. So you can take a couple of hundred 0.1 second images, take the 20 with the best seeing, and then just use those in your final, combined image (after shifting them to be properly aligned). With longer exposures, you'll average over both good and bad seeing, and they'll all look nearly the same, so this technique won't work.
Generally, they name these observatories after famous deceased astronomers.
Except, of course, when they toot their own horn by naming them after NASA bureaucrats, a break in tradition that was not particularly well-received among astronomers.
Somehow the PhD program elevates the undergrad program?
I don't find this at all surprising, although I'm in the physical sciences, not engineering.
In general, the best and brightest faculty in a given field are going to be primarily interested in their research. Graduate students are vital, and substantial, part of most research programs. Thus, the leaders in a field are more likely to go to an institution where they can supervise a cadre of grad students.
(Yes, there are exceptions; some brilliant professors are happy to concentrate on teaching rather than research. You'll find good examples at the institutions at the top of the list. I am speaking in general.)
Re:Let's hear from all of the excited /. readers!
on
FreeBSD 4.9 Code Freeze
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Some of us don't really want our OS to be exciting. Wasn't that an ancient Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times, and your operating system provide much excitement."
But the modern enthusiast is at best a spectator, while the car buffs of the pas actually got their hands dirty.
This is not true. Perhaps it is in general, but not "at best."
Go to your local autocross, for example, and see what the drivers in Prepared and Modified classes have done to their cars. Or go to your newsstand and pick up a copy of Grassroots Motorsports. In the magazine's $2003 challenge, competitors operating on a $2003 budget dropped a V8 into a Miata, with beautiful attention to detail. Another team put a Taurus SHO engine in an econobox... behind the driver.
Rest assured, there are still folks getting their hands dirty.
Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Upset About Asteroid. Panic!
My point is that with your "solution," applications still do something different than what they did before Verisign started all of this. I thought I made that clear with my "ping" example.
Your detection of a ~20% variation allows you to quite strongly rule out the null hypothesis that spam rates are the same throughout the week.
I do not read by vocalizing internally (that is, by imagining a voice). Substitutions like "u" for "you" only make sense if you vocalize. I have to slow down and think about it for it to make sense. Likewise, if I come across a subject-verb disagreement, a sort of "interrupt" occurs and I automatically conclude that I've misunderstood the sentence. I go back and re-check.
Basically, the "lazy" people you describe are saying that their time as a writer is more valuable than my time as a reader, and the time of all the other readers reading the work. This is not an attitude which we should cherish and accept.
I also do not want to lose my semi-automatic detection of spelling and grammar errors by "learning" to tolerate them. That would result in it being harder to detect such errors in my own writing.
The worst part of it is that the antivirus software sending these messages knows that it's SoBig.F. Thus, it should also know that the virus forges the From: header, and that it's pointless to send out the warning message to that address.
So thanks, antivirus programmers. Thanks for wasting my time instead of doing your job correctly. How long would have taken to add an extra if(){} to your code, and another boolean field to your virus database?
She said that when her colleagues would complain about the latency of satellite communication, she would pull out her "nanoseconds" and explain, "You see, sir, there's an awful lot of these between here and there."
I helped the Red Cross with disaster recovery after a tornado once. It was a pretty small tornado, I guess, but the town was just a mess. There was a substantial Mennonite community there, and the men worked tirelessly to fix up structures (whether owned by Mennonites or not) while the women fed the whole town. I'm not sure whether they would have been much help in an "old-fashioned ISP-raising," though.
What's amazing, though, is that when an epic battle would arise, my friends would gather around the monitor to watch my trusty "@" take on a powerful "W" or "D"! (Yeah, they were all geeks, too.)
As you expose longer, you add up light from your star as it's "jumped around" to lots of positions. The result is a smeared-out image; adding multiple exposures will not help at this point, as you said.
A technique called "speckle interferometry" was used at Keck to take advantage of short exposures to get around seeing. Also, the first order adaptive optics correction, "tip-tilt," simply compensates for the image jumping around on these timescales.
Another way that multiple short exposures helps is that seeing is variable; some instants it will be good, then a second later it's poor. So you can take a couple of hundred 0.1 second images, take the 20 with the best seeing, and then just use those in your final, combined image (after shifting them to be properly aligned). With longer exposures, you'll average over both good and bad seeing, and they'll all look nearly the same, so this technique won't work.
In general, the best and brightest faculty in a given field are going to be primarily interested in their research. Graduate students are vital, and substantial, part of most research programs. Thus, the leaders in a field are more likely to go to an institution where they can supervise a cadre of grad students.
(Yes, there are exceptions; some brilliant professors are happy to concentrate on teaching rather than research. You'll find good examples at the institutions at the top of the list. I am speaking in general.)
Some of us don't really want our OS to be exciting. Wasn't that an ancient Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times, and your operating system provide much excitement."
Go to your local autocross, for example, and see what the drivers in Prepared and Modified classes have done to their cars. Or go to your newsstand and pick up a copy of Grassroots Motorsports. In the magazine's $2003 challenge, competitors operating on a $2003 budget dropped a V8 into a Miata, with beautiful attention to detail. Another team put a Taurus SHO engine in an econobox... behind the driver.
Rest assured, there are still folks getting their hands dirty.