If there were no windows boxes, spam would continue. SMTP does not identify the sender. The inability to identify the sender is the single biggest vector for spam. That is a protocol problem. Not an OS problem.
If Windows were 100% secure, there would still be huge amounts of spam. If Windows disappeared tomorrow, spam would continue and the drop in volume would be temporary. So, Windows is not the problem. SMTP is the problem.
It would also destroy the software industy and stagnate it with the few companies that could afford the insurance or were "too large to fail" and making sure that the three companies still producing software didn't do anything new for fear of creating a hole.
You use sarcasm, but MS really didn't create the problem. If the SMTP protocol had security from the start, spam wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm sure MS could have been more helpful sooner, but the spam problem certainly doesn't fall on their feet.
NIMBY is being against it. NIMBYs often don't realize that they are arguing against it, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Going around saying "It's too dangerous for my back yard." is arguing against it being used anywhere, as it is inevitably going to convince other that it should be in their backyards either.
The place that you said to use something more dangerous was where you argued against nuclear. It has been shown that non-nuclear power generation frequently causes more deaths than nuclear, your argument against nuclear by taking a public NIMBY stance is arguing for less safe power generation.
As for "peak oil".... Pick a definition and stick with it. Claiming that it isn't a media term because the same words were used by someone outside the media, and then saying your not using the definition that you just presented is disingenuous.
That would depend on which of the many definitions of "peak oil" you want to use. I suppose if you use the "I heard the term on TV and they said that is why we are running out of gas" definition, it might be.
You apparently ignored what I said when you said that I am wrong historically. Saying "max detail at "1920x1200" is an irrelevent metric in comparing PC games to consoles. Why? Because there isn't a single console game ever made that run at 1920x1200. 10 years ago, you game that you say "without the game looking and running like shit", but they ran at full speed and look just as good as any of the consoles. Remember, 10 years ago consoles maxed out at 720×576, and for North America, it was 720×480. The games you say looked and played like shit, worked fine at those resolutions.
That is why it is a myth. People believed that the lack of ability to run at higher resolutions somehow made the console look better. It didn't, and it still doesn't.
Again, comparing the look, or the playability of any PC game to a console at a resolution higher than what a standard TV can display is perpetuating a myth.
I will admit that I half agree. Even on a single home, storing the power can be problematic, and only really makes sense when the power company is going to charge you insane amounts of money to hook to the grid. That being said, the problem to be solved still is not that the sun doesn't shine at night, nor is it necessarily the need to have an alternative at night. Storing power isn't an impossible nut to crack. It just happens to be one that doesn't receive a lot of focus, which is surprising, as it would give the current power grid a lot more flexibility as well. There are a lot of methods that power companies could use for storing energy if they would put a focus in that direction.
This has been my big disappointment with fuel cells not taking off. a system that would fill a hydrogen tank during the day and use the hydrogen at night to power a home would be awesome.
Funny, I have seen the opposite. A culture of people who feel they must stop other people from having 24-7 access. I would say that a courtroom, like a movie theater is an inappropriate place to have phones ringing, but look at all the other places that we see things like signs say "Turn off cell phone." Personally, I find it highly offensive when I am in a doctors waiting room, with their phones ringing off the hook, and the doctor 20 minutes late to their appointment, and there is a sign on the wall telling you to turn off your phone.
But I also agree that this is a troll flamebait that demonstrates just how little thought can go into an article that appears on/.
I have always kind of felt that trolling was a big intentional part of Slashdot article submission. Since the discussions following it are the real value of Slashdot, the most important thing is to get the discussions going. That is what a good troll will accomplish. Get the discussion ball rolling and let the moderation mold the troll submission into a good discussion on the topic.
Do they offer training on that? They just might get people to pay them for the opportunity. Of course, one the training is over, they will never leave their home, so the you'll need to train a whole new batch.
That is a sad myth that has seriously hurt PC gaming. If you are hooking up to a TV you are maxing out at 1920x1080. So, any comparison of screen resolutions above that are only gravy for the PC. It doesn't take that powerful of a video card to do 1920 by 1080. You can practically do it on an integrated graphics chip. So, you don't have to upgrade the PC ever. You can keep what you have and just buy a whole new one, just like with a console. The fact that you CAN upgrade is a benifit, not a drawback. Besides, The consoles are moving into the upgrade direction anyway. After all, MS isn't just shipping the Kinect to every 360 owner for free. It is an upgrade to the system. The PS3 and Wii have also had their own upgrades.
Where exactly did I say to use a system (non-nuclear) that is less safe? Where did I say we should not use nuclear?
That would be here:
The big sticking point with nuclear is always safety. And every disaster reminds us of just how unsafe nuclear can be. A 40 mile diameter section where people can't live in Japan is a major chunk of real estate. If this happened near any of our major cities it would cause significant problems.
Renewables could be brought up to date in the matter of a decade with a concerted effort. The right tax incentives could retrofit most every building in America with solar.
As to the ignorance of the public including myself, I want NO reactor anywhere near where I live simply because I like to live here and want my kids and grandkids to be able to live here safely.
This fear of nuclear contamination is not because of TV and shit websites since my understanding of nuclear issues comes mostly from magazine pieces from the last several decades and predates the internet.
And repeated here:
But I don't want it near my beautiful part of the country.
The term may not have been media coined, but as it is commenly used, it is a media term. Your reference to Hubbert is ONE of the definitions used for "peak oil". It also useless outside of investment. First it references US production. Guess what? If you have tons of oil from other countries being dumped on the market, it is obviously going to reduce your dometic output unless trade barriers are enacted. His prediction is a prediction on the investment potential of US based oil extraction. Referencing it to point out that we are running out of oil is silly.
As for your comment about talking to oil insiders. First you have to determine whether they have any merrit. If you talked to any real estate insiders before the housing crash, you would know that it is not that uncommon for people to work in an industry and just go along with what everyone else is saying, even if they have evidence to the contrary.
So, while you and I simply will not have accurate access to the data necessary to judge directly, we will have to look at some reasonable indicators. We can't use the price at the pump, as that will be whatever the companies can goudge us for. So, lets look at what a rational person would do if they saw the Mad Max style apocolyptic world coming about in 30 years.
First, we would expect them to avoid having children that would be guarenteed to have to live in the hell that is being predicted. Did the oil insiders that you talked to have kids?
We could rationalize that they figure, a Mad Max style life is better than never being born. If that is the case, they would certainly spend their childs educational resources on teaching their kids servival techniques. They would bother with wasting those precious resources on things like a college education. They wouldn't be spending money on TVs, or suberban/urban houses that will end up burned to the ground anyway. They would be buying land that is easily defendable from the roving hordes. They would be buying equipment to manufacture their own weapons. Learning not only how to kill invaders with the remaining bullets, but how to craft your long bows and catapults for when the enevitability of "peak bullet".
Was this the behavior of your "insiders"? If it wasn't, then either they were stupid, evil, or full of shit. My bet is on the last one.
How exactly would you define the fact that we will never be able to achieve the worlds maximum oil pumping capacity as it existed in 2005?
Remember, your "peak oil" definition only applies to the US. That is what your link says Hubbert predicted with "peak oil". 2005 US oil production was beat in 2009. As for world supplies, 2005 was 73.72 Million barrels/day. 2008 was 73.69 Million barrels/day. That is less than a 1/10 of a percent in a heavily monip
Yours is the third definition of "peak oil" that gets used and still is meaningless outside of investment purposes. Commodity products will naturally trend upward in cost. Improvements in the efficiency can cause a temporary reduction in price, but the downward trend is just temporary until you have refined your process. If we discovered that dwarfs digging deep in the ground were magically making oil, so that our existing wells never dried up, we would still see upward pressure on the price of oil.
Lets be fair now. I am all for pointing out Apples many shortcomings, but saying that the stuff they make is useless is a bit unfair. I may prefer my Android phone over the iPhone that work provided, but if Android didn't exist, I would heavily use the iPhone. Just because there are better options that are less expensive doesn't mean that Apple products are useless.
Your example is perfect for describing just how dumb the idea of "peak oil" is. A new generator that runs off of wishes would make all forms of oil extraction too slow, messy and expensive to extract and convert into a useful form. All that your version of "peak oil" means is that there are other forms of energy generation that keep oil from monopolizing the industry. (The other version people use is the idea that you can count the amount that exists by how much is chosen to be pulled out a year) And yet, people keep trotting it out like it is some indicator on oil supply. It is a marketing con job.
You do realize that power can be stored right? Someone always pipes in that PV doesn't produce electricity at night. That is why you produce extra during the day and store it until night. If you want to claim that there isn't a good battery solution for in home use, that might be reasonable, but the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night is silly.
(or at least they don't think they do, as they eat a banana split on their granite counter-top after getting home on a transatlantic flight from Europe)
You take transatlantic flights fro Europe every day? I don't know whether to be envious of you for your massive wealth, or sorry for you for spending your life on an airplane.
So it costs similar to what we pay in California. To be fair, we do get a little bit of reasonably priced electricity, but once you break 500kwh a month, it skyrockets to pretty much the same as Germany or more.
I hate that term. Why? Because generally whatever being talked about is NOT an "eye sore". In this case, wind turbines. There is nothing inherently ugly or an eyesore. The problem is that people complain when they see something different. We see the same thing when people call PV panels on roofs "eye sores". They look better than the standard composit roofing that looks just like what it is. Tar paper with gravel sprinkled on it. Put up a ton of wind turbines and within a decade or two you will have no more people calling them "eye sores" than the number that you have calling side walks "eye sores".
You are making a false dichotomy between Safe and Unsafe. Nothing is safe. Sitting quitely in hour home doing "nothing" is not "safe". It is always a question of whether the risk out weighs the reward. If you have newer safer than the old design power plants running, you have changed the risk/reward equation for the old plant.
So, you suggest that we continue to use a system that is less safe because nuclear is not 100% safe. That doesn't make a ton of sense.
Also, the use of the term "peak oil" is a sign of being conned by media. "Peak oil" is a ridiculous concept. The amount of oil that exists simply cannot be determined based on the amount that we pump.
It wouldn't be so obvious that there was an agenda if the acting in the ad wasn't sooo bad. It looks like one of those really bad retail/fast food training videos.
Those are the words of a fanboy. No, nobody would be criticizing Apple for doing the same thing. Apple DOES do the same thing. You don't think that guy in the Apple ads really is an Mac do you? Do you really think the other guy really is a PC? Do you think Apple even asked them what kind of computers they use on a regular basis? No. Ads use actors. Apple does it. Samsung does it. And so does pretty much every single company that does advertising. Using actors is the norm. THAT is why people are saying this is OK. Because it is what is expected of ads, not because they have some beef against Apple.
If you honestly think it has ANYTHING to do with Apple, you really should seek professional help. No hyperbole in that statement. You have a real honest to goodness disorder going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple answer: Yes.
If there were no windows boxes, spam would continue. SMTP does not identify the sender. The inability to identify the sender is the single biggest vector for spam. That is a protocol problem. Not an OS problem.
If Windows were 100% secure, there would still be huge amounts of spam. If Windows disappeared tomorrow, spam would continue and the drop in volume would be temporary. So, Windows is not the problem. SMTP is the problem.
It would also destroy the software industy and stagnate it with the few companies that could afford the insurance or were "too large to fail" and making sure that the three companies still producing software didn't do anything new for fear of creating a hole.
You use sarcasm, but MS really didn't create the problem. If the SMTP protocol had security from the start, spam wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm sure MS could have been more helpful sooner, but the spam problem certainly doesn't fall on their feet.
NIMBY is being against it. NIMBYs often don't realize that they are arguing against it, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Going around saying "It's too dangerous for my back yard." is arguing against it being used anywhere, as it is inevitably going to convince other that it should be in their backyards either.
The place that you said to use something more dangerous was where you argued against nuclear. It has been shown that non-nuclear power generation frequently causes more deaths than nuclear, your argument against nuclear by taking a public NIMBY stance is arguing for less safe power generation.
As for "peak oil".... Pick a definition and stick with it. Claiming that it isn't a media term because the same words were used by someone outside the media, and then saying your not using the definition that you just presented is disingenuous.
That would depend on which of the many definitions of "peak oil" you want to use. I suppose if you use the "I heard the term on TV and they said that is why we are running out of gas" definition, it might be.
You apparently ignored what I said when you said that I am wrong historically. Saying "max detail at "1920x1200" is an irrelevent metric in comparing PC games to consoles. Why? Because there isn't a single console game ever made that run at 1920x1200. 10 years ago, you game that you say "without the game looking and running like shit", but they ran at full speed and look just as good as any of the consoles. Remember, 10 years ago consoles maxed out at 720×576, and for North America, it was 720×480. The games you say looked and played like shit, worked fine at those resolutions.
That is why it is a myth. People believed that the lack of ability to run at higher resolutions somehow made the console look better. It didn't, and it still doesn't.
Again, comparing the look, or the playability of any PC game to a console at a resolution higher than what a standard TV can display is perpetuating a myth.
I will admit that I half agree. Even on a single home, storing the power can be problematic, and only really makes sense when the power company is going to charge you insane amounts of money to hook to the grid. That being said, the problem to be solved still is not that the sun doesn't shine at night, nor is it necessarily the need to have an alternative at night. Storing power isn't an impossible nut to crack. It just happens to be one that doesn't receive a lot of focus, which is surprising, as it would give the current power grid a lot more flexibility as well. There are a lot of methods that power companies could use for storing energy if they would put a focus in that direction.
This has been my big disappointment with fuel cells not taking off. a system that would fill a hydrogen tank during the day and use the hydrogen at night to power a home would be awesome.
So, you are saying that I am correct, but you ignore them. I ignore them too, but they are still there, and they are still incredibly rude.
Funny, I have seen the opposite. A culture of people who feel they must stop other people from having 24-7 access. I would say that a courtroom, like a movie theater is an inappropriate place to have phones ringing, but look at all the other places that we see things like signs say "Turn off cell phone." Personally, I find it highly offensive when I am in a doctors waiting room, with their phones ringing off the hook, and the doctor 20 minutes late to their appointment, and there is a sign on the wall telling you to turn off your phone.
But I also agree that this is a troll flamebait that demonstrates just how little thought can go into an article that appears on /.
I have always kind of felt that trolling was a big intentional part of Slashdot article submission. Since the discussions following it are the real value of Slashdot, the most important thing is to get the discussions going. That is what a good troll will accomplish. Get the discussion ball rolling and let the moderation mold the troll submission into a good discussion on the topic.
Do they offer training on that? They just might get people to pay them for the opportunity. Of course, one the training is over, they will never leave their home, so the you'll need to train a whole new batch.
That is a sad myth that has seriously hurt PC gaming. If you are hooking up to a TV you are maxing out at 1920x1080. So, any comparison of screen resolutions above that are only gravy for the PC. It doesn't take that powerful of a video card to do 1920 by 1080. You can practically do it on an integrated graphics chip. So, you don't have to upgrade the PC ever. You can keep what you have and just buy a whole new one, just like with a console. The fact that you CAN upgrade is a benifit, not a drawback. Besides, The consoles are moving into the upgrade direction anyway. After all, MS isn't just shipping the Kinect to every 360 owner for free. It is an upgrade to the system. The PS3 and Wii have also had their own upgrades.
Where exactly did I say to use a system (non-nuclear) that is less safe? Where did I say we should not use nuclear?
That would be here:
The big sticking point with nuclear is always safety. And every disaster reminds us of just how unsafe nuclear can be. A 40 mile diameter section where people can't live in Japan is a major chunk of real estate. If this happened near any of our major cities it would cause significant problems. Renewables could be brought up to date in the matter of a decade with a concerted effort. The right tax incentives could retrofit most every building in America with solar. As to the ignorance of the public including myself, I want NO reactor anywhere near where I live simply because I like to live here and want my kids and grandkids to be able to live here safely. This fear of nuclear contamination is not because of TV and shit websites since my understanding of nuclear issues comes mostly from magazine pieces from the last several decades and predates the internet.
And repeated here:
But I don't want it near my beautiful part of the country.
The term may not have been media coined, but as it is commenly used, it is a media term. Your reference to Hubbert is ONE of the definitions used for "peak oil". It also useless outside of investment. First it references US production. Guess what? If you have tons of oil from other countries being dumped on the market, it is obviously going to reduce your dometic output unless trade barriers are enacted. His prediction is a prediction on the investment potential of US based oil extraction. Referencing it to point out that we are running out of oil is silly.
As for your comment about talking to oil insiders. First you have to determine whether they have any merrit. If you talked to any real estate insiders before the housing crash, you would know that it is not that uncommon for people to work in an industry and just go along with what everyone else is saying, even if they have evidence to the contrary.
So, while you and I simply will not have accurate access to the data necessary to judge directly, we will have to look at some reasonable indicators. We can't use the price at the pump, as that will be whatever the companies can goudge us for. So, lets look at what a rational person would do if they saw the Mad Max style apocolyptic world coming about in 30 years.
First, we would expect them to avoid having children that would be guarenteed to have to live in the hell that is being predicted. Did the oil insiders that you talked to have kids?
We could rationalize that they figure, a Mad Max style life is better than never being born. If that is the case, they would certainly spend their childs educational resources on teaching their kids servival techniques. They would bother with wasting those precious resources on things like a college education. They wouldn't be spending money on TVs, or suberban/urban houses that will end up burned to the ground anyway. They would be buying land that is easily defendable from the roving hordes. They would be buying equipment to manufacture their own weapons. Learning not only how to kill invaders with the remaining bullets, but how to craft your long bows and catapults for when the enevitability of "peak bullet".
Was this the behavior of your "insiders"? If it wasn't, then either they were stupid, evil, or full of shit. My bet is on the last one.
How exactly would you define the fact that we will never be able to achieve the worlds maximum oil pumping capacity as it existed in 2005?
Remember, your "peak oil" definition only applies to the US. That is what your link says Hubbert predicted with "peak oil". 2005 US oil production was beat in 2009. As for world supplies, 2005 was 73.72 Million barrels/day. 2008 was 73.69 Million barrels/day. That is less than a 1/10 of a percent in a heavily monip
Yours is the third definition of "peak oil" that gets used and still is meaningless outside of investment purposes. Commodity products will naturally trend upward in cost. Improvements in the efficiency can cause a temporary reduction in price, but the downward trend is just temporary until you have refined your process. If we discovered that dwarfs digging deep in the ground were magically making oil, so that our existing wells never dried up, we would still see upward pressure on the price of oil.
Lets be fair now. I am all for pointing out Apples many shortcomings, but saying that the stuff they make is useless is a bit unfair. I may prefer my Android phone over the iPhone that work provided, but if Android didn't exist, I would heavily use the iPhone. Just because there are better options that are less expensive doesn't mean that Apple products are useless.
(Was that some awesome trolling or what?)
Your example is perfect for describing just how dumb the idea of "peak oil" is. A new generator that runs off of wishes would make all forms of oil extraction too slow, messy and expensive to extract and convert into a useful form. All that your version of "peak oil" means is that there are other forms of energy generation that keep oil from monopolizing the industry. (The other version people use is the idea that you can count the amount that exists by how much is chosen to be pulled out a year) And yet, people keep trotting it out like it is some indicator on oil supply. It is a marketing con job.
You do realize that power can be stored right? Someone always pipes in that PV doesn't produce electricity at night. That is why you produce extra during the day and store it until night. If you want to claim that there isn't a good battery solution for in home use, that might be reasonable, but the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night is silly.
(or at least they don't think they do, as they eat a banana split on their granite counter-top after getting home on a transatlantic flight from Europe)
You take transatlantic flights fro Europe every day? I don't know whether to be envious of you for your massive wealth, or sorry for you for spending your life on an airplane.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
So it costs similar to what we pay in California. To be fair, we do get a little bit of reasonably priced electricity, but once you break 500kwh a month, it skyrockets to pretty much the same as Germany or more.
They are are also eye sores.
I hate that term. Why? Because generally whatever being talked about is NOT an "eye sore". In this case, wind turbines. There is nothing inherently ugly or an eyesore. The problem is that people complain when they see something different. We see the same thing when people call PV panels on roofs "eye sores". They look better than the standard composit roofing that looks just like what it is. Tar paper with gravel sprinkled on it. Put up a ton of wind turbines and within a decade or two you will have no more people calling them "eye sores" than the number that you have calling side walks "eye sores".
You are making a false dichotomy between Safe and Unsafe. Nothing is safe. Sitting quitely in hour home doing "nothing" is not "safe". It is always a question of whether the risk out weighs the reward. If you have newer safer than the old design power plants running, you have changed the risk/reward equation for the old plant.
So, you suggest that we continue to use a system that is less safe because nuclear is not 100% safe. That doesn't make a ton of sense.
Also, the use of the term "peak oil" is a sign of being conned by media. "Peak oil" is a ridiculous concept. The amount of oil that exists simply cannot be determined based on the amount that we pump.
It wouldn't be so obvious that there was an agenda if the acting in the ad wasn't sooo bad. It looks like one of those really bad retail/fast food training videos.
Those are the words of a fanboy. No, nobody would be criticizing Apple for doing the same thing. Apple DOES do the same thing. You don't think that guy in the Apple ads really is an Mac do you? Do you really think the other guy really is a PC? Do you think Apple even asked them what kind of computers they use on a regular basis? No. Ads use actors. Apple does it. Samsung does it. And so does pretty much every single company that does advertising. Using actors is the norm. THAT is why people are saying this is OK. Because it is what is expected of ads, not because they have some beef against Apple.
If you honestly think it has ANYTHING to do with Apple, you really should seek professional help. No hyperbole in that statement. You have a real honest to goodness disorder going on.