The SCO Group ANZ seem to be pretty reasonable compared to D'ohl, but I really do hope they get shut down in Oz, or at least fined into submission. It might lead the producers of some of the vertical market apps that I occasionally bandage up to port their product to a UNIX platform in which gormlessness features less strikingly.
...will be to train suckers that replying to spam can be instantly wishing-for-a-hole-in-the-floor embarrassing - it will drive up the social risk in responding to spam, which again reduces the payback for the spammer, making his life that little bit harder. The idea is to discourage more and more casual spammers until the diehards are left standing - alone and obvious. Vulnerable. <WHAM!>
do something like "MAIL FROM:id.3141592653@spamtest.mydomain.dom" when it came time to ID the sender. This will allow you to give positive responses to the other end if they in turn perform a similar check on you.
Leading you through by the hand:
their server connects to your MX, says HELO, MAIL FROM:someone@over.here, RCPT TO:mark@spamproof.dom
your server connects to their MX, says HELO, MAIL FROM:id.3141592653@spamtest.spamproof.dom, RCPT TO:someone@over.here
their MX server connects to yours, says HELO, MAIL FROM:id.161803399@spambucket.over.here, RCPT TO:id.3141592763@spamtest.spamproof.dom
your server sees the @spamtest.spamproof.dom, maybe correlates the id.3141592653 with the outbound check, and says 220 fine you are responding to a spam check.
their MX drops the connection to you and responds 220 go ahead you passed the first test on the connection you made to it
you drop your connection to their MX and respond to the inbound query with 220 cleared for takeoff
their server responds with DATA and the message
if the message is HTML, you might want to also validate any mailto: links within it and bail out (maybe cut the connection, maybe send 550 mail body appears to contain forged addresses) if they're duds
An alternate scenario, where someone@over.here is forged:
your server can't connect to any of their MXes, responds 550 I cannot find a way to return your message; or
your server connects to over.here's MX, which doesn't know someone, so you respond 550 your domain is disowning you; and
this will also drop spam directed to a secondary MX; in fact, it might drop more of them if a spammer is only up for long enough to send a burst, and is depending on a dynamic DNS to send checks like this to his machine (and if he does, we find out exactly where he is even if he sends through a relay.
This isn't a panacea, it will just force the spammers to use entirely real addresses (although maybe not their own) in their email, but not interfere much with genuine email. Genuine addresses also improve the traceability of the spammer. The more techniques we can find which don't trip over everyday users, but do require extra work from a spammer, the less attractive spam will be.
Translation: warn me if it takes more than 15 minutes to hit his server, and give up if it remains undeliverable an hour after I sent it. Warn me if the recipient takes more than 4 hours to read (IMAP) or fetch (POP3) to fetch the message after it arrives in his mailbox, and destroy it if it remains unread/unfetched for two days.
the lack of it just means you save the chart in the format you want, then import it to the document
I'd like to see copy and paste, if offered at all beyond basic text and bitmap, offer a range of MIME types and have the pastee choose which one they want. If the cuttee is closed with stuff on the clipboard, it might have the choice of writing out all of the offered MIME types, reducing the offering to a few of the most common types and writing those out, leaving a stub active to handle any paste, exiting but being reinvoked (cuttee specifies how as part of the cut op) to handle any paste.
If it had to be reduced to basic types I would like four: raw text, rich text, bitmap and vector-graphic. Probably the easiest way to do rich text right now would be an HTML subset, but a well-defined XML schema seems to be the path forward.
Right now copy and paste is treated as completely different to import/export, and I believe this is a mistake. App writers have to create two completely separate sets of code, and rarely do both well. Compare what OOo and KOffice know how to import and export with what happens when you copy/paste around them.
It should be possible to treat copy/paste as a special case of import/export, and an offer/accept MIME cycle would allow a "meeting of minds" between the apps to decide what format is best. "Paste special..." would be fabulous because you could select not just "Plain Text" etc but from a list of mutually acceptible MIME types, meaning that you could paste a graph as a graph if both apps understood it, or as a scalable vector, or as a bitmap, or as rich (possibly including the values graphed) text or plain text. Most importantly, the app (or library) author would only need one (albeit marginally more complex) set of code to do it, improving the odds of doing both well.
...it would be worth experimenting to see if the attacking software is bright enough to notice the similar IPs, or if you need a second IP. If you need a second IP, you could pick a non-mail machine and port-forward 25 from it to your primary.
I'm guessing some spammers would focus on the second IP, some on the last, and some would choose at random, so it might be effective to set up four MXes, the second and fourth being echoes of the primary, and the third being the "real" MX.
If your primary's spam filters know what the connecting address was, they could block all traffic from it for an hour, and tell others (the ISP, for starters) about it so they could do the same. That way a spammer hitting the primary MX, getting rebuffed, then falling back to the secondary would be SOL.
No. NGC 4319 has been disrupted by gravitational forces from something massive, as evidenced by the wide flung arms and the dust lanes.
Yes, and what does it look like from the side? You've got to admit than an exactly-planar strike is extremely unlikely - unless Arp's theories on the issue are in essence correct (obviously not a palatable outcome for you).
Any proof that the Seyfert is not in the plane is proof against this theory.
Why? A few thousand or tens of thousands of light-years may not make much difference either way. Yet you seem to be assuming that any difference at all is going to be vast. Having Markarian half-buried in the galaxy would be fine from Arp's PoV.
Your ad hoc theory has no plausible mechanism
Big surprise there. Consider carefully the term "ad hoc".
less near-UV is noted from the side closer to NGC 4319 than the side opposite.
You've still only raised one possible explanation for why that should be so, but what if (to materialise another ad hoc proposal) Markarian's hyperindigo is being spread more by NGC 4319, the closer it passes by? That would be observed as lower intensity too. And who knows what material flows near large gravity-linked objects would be like? I'm sure there's other possibilities.
To claim that you provided links to the concentric shell discussion is completely dishonest, as these groups are in opposing camps.
I didn't claim that you provided links to either side. I provided a link to a site discussing the state of affairs in a reasonably even-handed manner, and said so.
But no, that wasn't good enough for barakn! Having decided that I'm a member of set "wacky little group", you've got it fixed in your mind that I must, by definition, have done something wrong, haven't you? Or are you going to be "completely dishonest" about that? Nothing like a good dose of ad hom to screw up a debate you feel insecure about, is there? (-:
I fear for the tech support person who would ever have to deal with your call.
Tech support people, except for terminally thick and insecure ones, really like my calls. I should record some, they don't often get to laugh, except when a customer does something really funny like formatting their hard drive or (this really happened) propping a third-storey sliding window open with their monitor, then then bumping it as they opened the window to remove it again, with very grave - or at least gravitic - results.
I'll see your two gronks and raise you a drongo! Er... too late? (-:
OpenOffice doesn't do stuff like that because it can't open half of the Office documents out there anyway
Which half? I've had 100% success so far this year, even when one hardware supplier broke his Excel-XP spreadsheet and couldn't reload either it or the generated price-list, but my oocalc could and did (he ended up reverting two weeks and was annoyed when he found out that he could have just installed OOo - but he's not very quick on the uptake because he still hasn't installed it).
nobody wants to start it up because they end up waiting twenty seconds.
Five seconds. And it's not as if it needs regular closing like MS-Office does - is it?
An alternative way of looking it it is that even granted twenty seconds (-: hah! you're history!:-), that's less time than it takes to reboot MS-Windows after MS-Office guts the entire system - isn't it?
There are plenty of spectra elsewhere - and perhaps more usefully, plenty of tabulations and analyses of said spectra.
Also, there is nothing to stop Markarian 205's quasar from being behind the "host" galaxy relative to us, since we are working in 3D here. The unsolved question is how far behind it is. It doesn't make much weight in the argument either way, but if you could show that every case was such an overlay and that there were few cases of near-UV absorption for visually isolated quasars you'd have a case.
Another potential explanation for low near-UV, one pulled out of the ether as I type rather than dreamed up by a competent astrophysicist might be that quasars throw off UV in bands shaped roughly like Jupiter's clouds, and Markarian 205 happens to not have a band aimed at us.
I've already dealt with loops, and this does not require any new server technology, it works with most servers right now today. In using this, you will not be exposing anything new, spammers could do what you're suggesting already, but it's probably simpler for them to just vomit stuff across the 'net than to waste time checking it.
So we're looking at a chip that may be a reality in 2008-2009, but since New Scientist doesn't provide any hard info on the chip except for the funky code name, this is all very up in the air.
This is all squirrel food anyway. Stone soup. You're still going to need software to manage stuff like swapping across the display and input devices, and what are you going to do about things like live PPP connections? Share state across OSes? This I gotta buy me a ticket to!
A virtual resource-slicer-thingy (I think IBM call it a "partition manager") would be wedged between the OS and the hardware, Win4Lin style, in which case we've already got several of those. VMWare, UML, and that fabulous new one announced here on Slash, what, three days ago now?
In summary, I'm still looking for the actual news here...?
...where you load a wonky Excel sheet, and as well as somehow cruelling Excel completely, you find that Word has gone stupid as well?
Ths is something that I've never seen happen with the OpenOffice.org suite. The worst that loading a dud document will do is freeze OOo, once, and it seems to be able to survive that a lot better than MS-Office (ie, it will gronk on a corrupted doc less often).
PostFix doesn't check the email domain that you claim the mail is from, it just checks that the HELO is accurate, by resolving it; there are lesser checks like "the HELO name is not an illegal host name" and "the HELO name also has a dot in it". PostFix can also check that the calling IP (distinct from the HELO) reverse-resolves - at the lowest level, into anything at all; at the next level into something that can be forward-resolved to include the same IP address.
Unfortunately, this is not a check on spammers, it is a check on incompetent administrators, which are much more prolific than spammers. Even in suprisingly large, well-heeled and technically-literate firms from "first world" countries like.au,.uk,.de (and other EU) and the US.
I'm tempted to implement it for that very reason for myself, but there are two factors speaking against that. One of those is that I often rescue poorly-adminstered IT setups, and if I switched the filtering on, their email wouldn't get to me. The other is that I object on principle to inconveniencing many people more or less at random just to take a swipe at a few spammers.
What I'd like to do is reverse EMAIL lookup checks
on
Spoofed From: Prevention
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That is, at the "MAIL FROM:" stage, my email server goes through most of the steps involved in sending a reply email back, to wit, finding a willing MX server, connecting to port 25 on it, falling back etc as you would normally do to send a reply, but do something like "MAIL FROM:id.3141592763@spamtest.mydomain.dom" when it came time to ID the sender. This will allow you to give positive responses to the other end if they in turn perform a similar check on you. If the SMTP process can't get up to "DATA" without a rejection of some kind, then the inbound mail is spam by definition. Either way, it then drops the connection so the return "mail" isn't delivered.
Perhaps it could say DATA/If you receive this, your email server has been misconfigured./Please ask your system administrator or ISP to configure the server to discard incomplete email messages.// -pause- disconnect.
That won't get them all, and there will be the odd false positive (550 unable to validate sender address), but it should get most, no worries. It'll certainly get the zillion or so messages spoofed as being from "@hotmail.com" "@yahoo.com" and so on. If you wanted to be a pedand, you'd check the embedded "From:" address as well as the enveloped one.
I'd also appreciate some name-finding AI, so that when a message which programs like SpamAssassin become absolutely dead-set convinced is spam (ie, the filter doesn't say "maybe spam", the filter says "if this isn't spam, upload me to a microwave") arrives - but passes the above test - any email addresses mentioned in it get a score or so of vary different but realistic-looking "replies" based on the original message ("Re: P*E+N~I:S E|N-L=A/R'G\E!R/Dear Sexy Sal//Please send me four boxes of penis perpetration patches. My credit card number is 3141-5926-5358-9793 and expires on 04-04. My address is Australian Federal Police/Hay Street/East Perth 6001.//Please use plain brown wrapper on the parcel.//Fred Q Nurk esq") but from a variety of bit-bucket addresses and spread out over the next few hours. A bit sad if the spammer is spoofing from your address, but you can easily filter everything related to such spoofing - and otherwise forces the scumbags to work for their addresses. Even better if he wants to talk to a bot about invalid credit card numbers or mismatched expiry dates. Better still if you can arrange to get them done for credit card fraud, maybe by using numbers from your local supermarket's stolen-cards list. Working for their addresses is exactly what spammers don't want to do.
You see, I've become convinced that a war of attrition - making it harder for spam to get through - isn't enough.
The thing that makes spam work is that it's cheap to get addresses and cheap to send out mail. Since there will always be bad-apple ISPs (and dumbo-sucker ISPs) who let the canned-ham merchants send the stuff, the obvious step is to make collecting the addresses harder.
Collecting addresses is a two-phase process. Phase one harvests addresses wholesale using spambots and/or people stupid enough to fill in random on-line forms accurately, phase two qualifies those addresses by sending stuff to them. Unfortunately, the same people stupid enough to fill in forms willy-nilly are the same people stupid enough to respond to spam. I guess it's just not a good survival characteristic.
If it were possible to establish a contract by sending someone email, we could make the initial harvest very expensive, very quickly by simply embedding the email address in an offer of contract. Unfortunately, the courts have so far decreed that such an event doesn't necessarily entail a "meeting of minds" necessary to establish a contract - even if the email address says "email-to-this-address-costs-USD-1000-in-advance@m ydomain.dom". To me, this makes no sense, kind of analogous to releasing an automated tank and being able to claim that any damage done by it was not deliberate.
...from RGB photos instead of spectral lines on a plate.
Like I said, many scientists object to it from their armchairs (and others too, QED) more because they're uncomfortable with where it might take them than by experimenting themselves or because they've found positive contradictions. Vague handwaving appeals to authority like the HubbleSite wording are almost a hallmark of this approach.
A chap named Halton Arp started making a collection a peculiar galaxies which seemed to be (and still are) doing bizarre things to our notions about redshift, eventually building his collection to 338 entities (if you follow the links on that page you can see images of every one of them).
One of the things he noticed was that galaxies happen in statistically significant concentric shells, at least according to the redshifts. One of the less heated discussions I've seen of the consequences is at the University of Alabama's Astronomy department. Bill Keel, the astronomer here commenting, finishes "The evidence in favor of the standard picture is hardly compelling [...]. It survives mostly because nothing better has shown up;". Bill is the bloke who (which Ray White) brought us the silhouetted galaxy shot from Hubble, and has a huge collection of astronomically interesting stuff on his site.
...then yes we do. Unless there is an explicit escape which allows flashing the things across to LinBIOS, and then good luck with anything even vaguely bleeding-edge by way of hardware.
The balloon universe is expanding, but where is the center? There is no center.
Not far from us, it turns out. The galaxies in our universe are arranged, loosely, in concentric shells. The center about which these shells are con happens to be not far outside our own galaxy.
Lots of scientists pooh-pooh the idea, not because they've examined the data but because they're allergic to the philosophical implications of this. A few others have made genuine attempts to examine and refute the data, so far without success. We need more scientists to find new approaches to falsification, because unless this can be falsified it revolutionises our entire approach to cosmology (and clears out dozens of now-failed cosmological theories at a stroke).
...space was supposedly full before it started expanding. It has been cooling, in theory, because of the expansion of space itself rather than the expansion of matter within space.
Slashdot Mirror
SEC: Pay them the money!
IBM: Why?
SEC: They have sources...?
IBM: That's not source!
SCOX: Uh...?
IBM: This is source.
SCOX: Aiiiieeee! <runs away>
The SCO Group ANZ seem to be pretty reasonable compared to D'ohl, but I really do hope they get shut down in Oz, or at least fined into submission. It might lead the producers of some of the vertical market apps that I occasionally bandage up to port their product to a UNIX platform in which gormlessness features less strikingly.
Scary, isn't it? (-:
...will be to train suckers that replying to spam can be instantly wishing-for-a-hole-in-the-floor embarrassing - it will drive up the social risk in responding to spam, which again reduces the payback for the spammer, making his life that little bit harder. The idea is to discourage more and more casual spammers until the diehards are left standing - alone and obvious. Vulnerable. <WHAM!>
From the original post:
Leading you through by the hand:
An alternate scenario, where someone@over.here is forged:
This isn't a panacea, it will just force the spammers to use entirely real addresses (although maybe not their own) in their email, but not interfere much with genuine email. Genuine addresses also improve the traceability of the spammer. The more techniques we can find which don't trip over everyday users, but do require extra work from a spammer, the less attractive spam will be.
X-Undelivered-Abandon: 3600
X-Unread-Warning: 14400
X-Unread-Abandon: 176800
Translation: warn me if it takes more than 15 minutes to hit his server, and give up if it remains undeliverable an hour after I sent it. Warn me if the recipient takes more than 4 hours to read (IMAP) or fetch (POP3) to fetch the message after it arrives in his mailbox, and destroy it if it remains unread/unfetched for two days.
I'd like to see copy and paste, if offered at all beyond basic text and bitmap, offer a range of MIME types and have the pastee choose which one they want. If the cuttee is closed with stuff on the clipboard, it might have the choice of writing out all of the offered MIME types, reducing the offering to a few of the most common types and writing those out, leaving a stub active to handle any paste, exiting but being reinvoked (cuttee specifies how as part of the cut op) to handle any paste.
If it had to be reduced to basic types I would like four: raw text, rich text, bitmap and vector-graphic. Probably the easiest way to do rich text right now would be an HTML subset, but a well-defined XML schema seems to be the path forward.
Right now copy and paste is treated as completely different to import/export, and I believe this is a mistake. App writers have to create two completely separate sets of code, and rarely do both well. Compare what OOo and KOffice know how to import and export with what happens when you copy/paste around them.
It should be possible to treat copy/paste as a special case of import/export, and an offer/accept MIME cycle would allow a "meeting of minds" between the apps to decide what format is best. "Paste special..." would be fabulous because you could select not just "Plain Text" etc but from a list of mutually acceptible MIME types, meaning that you could paste a graph as a graph if both apps understood it, or as a scalable vector, or as a bitmap, or as rich (possibly including the values graphed) text or plain text. Most importantly, the app (or library) author would only need one (albeit marginally more complex) set of code to do it, improving the odds of doing both well.
...it would be worth experimenting to see if the attacking software is bright enough to notice the similar IPs, or if you need a second IP. If you need a second IP, you could pick a non-mail machine and port-forward 25 from it to your primary.
I'm guessing some spammers would focus on the second IP, some on the last, and some would choose at random, so it might be effective to set up four MXes, the second and fourth being echoes of the primary, and the third being the "real" MX.
If your primary's spam filters know what the connecting address was, they could block all traffic from it for an hour, and tell others (the ISP, for starters) about it so they could do the same. That way a spammer hitting the primary MX, getting rebuffed, then falling back to the secondary would be SOL.
Yes, and what does it look like from the side? You've got to admit than an exactly-planar strike is extremely unlikely - unless Arp's theories on the issue are in essence correct (obviously not a palatable outcome for you).
Why? A few thousand or tens of thousands of light-years may not make much difference either way. Yet you seem to be assuming that any difference at all is going to be vast. Having Markarian half-buried in the galaxy would be fine from Arp's PoV.
Big surprise there. Consider carefully the term "ad hoc".
You've still only raised one possible explanation for why that should be so, but what if (to materialise another ad hoc proposal) Markarian's hyperindigo is being spread more by NGC 4319, the closer it passes by? That would be observed as lower intensity too. And who knows what material flows near large gravity-linked objects would be like? I'm sure there's other possibilities.
I didn't claim that you provided links to either side. I provided a link to a site discussing the state of affairs in a reasonably even-handed manner, and said so.
But no, that wasn't good enough for barakn! Having decided that I'm a member of set "wacky little group", you've got it fixed in your mind that I must, by definition, have done something wrong, haven't you? Or are you going to be "completely dishonest" about that? Nothing like a good dose of ad hom to screw up a debate you feel insecure about, is there? (-:
Tech support people, except for terminally thick and insecure ones, really like my calls. I should record some, they don't often get to laugh, except when a customer does something really funny like formatting their hard drive or (this really happened) propping a third-storey sliding window open with their monitor, then then bumping it as they opened the window to remove it again, with very grave - or at least gravitic - results.
I'll see your two gronks and raise you a drongo! Er... too late? (-:
Which half? I've had 100% success so far this year, even when one hardware supplier broke his Excel-XP spreadsheet and couldn't reload either it or the generated price-list, but my oocalc could and did (he ended up reverting two weeks and was annoyed when he found out that he could have just installed OOo - but he's not very quick on the uptake because he still hasn't installed it).
Five seconds. And it's not as if it needs regular closing like MS-Office does - is it?
An alternative way of looking it it is that even granted twenty seconds (-: hah! you're history! :-), that's less time than it takes to reboot MS-Windows after MS-Office guts the entire system - isn't it?
Now, shall I misquote The Offspring? (-:
There are plenty of spectra elsewhere - and perhaps more usefully, plenty of tabulations and analyses of said spectra.
Also, there is nothing to stop Markarian 205's quasar from being behind the "host" galaxy relative to us, since we are working in 3D here. The unsolved question is how far behind it is. It doesn't make much weight in the argument either way, but if you could show that every case was such an overlay and that there were few cases of near-UV absorption for visually isolated quasars you'd have a case.
Another potential explanation for low near-UV, one pulled out of the ether as I type rather than dreamed up by a competent astrophysicist might be that quasars throw off UV in bands shaped roughly like Jupiter's clouds, and Markarian 205 happens to not have a band aimed at us.
I've already dealt with loops, and this does not require any new server technology, it works with most servers right now today. In using this, you will not be exposing anything new, spammers could do what you're suggesting already, but it's probably simpler for them to just vomit stuff across the 'net than to waste time checking it.
This is all squirrel food anyway. Stone soup. You're still going to need software to manage stuff like swapping across the display and input devices, and what are you going to do about things like live PPP connections? Share state across OSes? This I gotta buy me a ticket to!
A virtual resource-slicer-thingy (I think IBM call it a "partition manager") would be wedged between the OS and the hardware, Win4Lin style, in which case we've already got several of those. VMWare, UML, and that fabulous new one announced here on Slash, what, three days ago now?
In summary, I'm still looking for the actual news here...?
...where you load a wonky Excel sheet, and as well as somehow cruelling Excel completely, you find that Word has gone stupid as well?
Ths is something that I've never seen happen with the OpenOffice.org suite. The worst that loading a dud document will do is freeze OOo, once, and it seems to be able to survive that a lot better than MS-Office (ie, it will gronk on a corrupted doc less often).
...from their SMTP server, which is more than they would get if it just bounced.
Lots of blacklists include any dynamic IP blocks thy find, including my ISP's DSL range.
PostFix doesn't check the email domain that you claim the mail is from, it just checks that the HELO is accurate, by resolving it; there are lesser checks like "the HELO name is not an illegal host name" and "the HELO name also has a dot in it". PostFix can also check that the calling IP (distinct from the HELO) reverse-resolves - at the lowest level, into anything at all; at the next level into something that can be forward-resolved to include the same IP address.
.au, .uk, .de (and other EU) and the US.
Unfortunately, this is not a check on spammers, it is a check on incompetent administrators, which are much more prolific than spammers. Even in suprisingly large, well-heeled and technically-literate firms from "first world" countries like
I'm tempted to implement it for that very reason for myself, but there are two factors speaking against that. One of those is that I often rescue poorly-adminstered IT setups, and if I switched the filtering on, their email wouldn't get to me. The other is that I object on principle to inconveniencing many people more or less at random just to take a swipe at a few spammers.
Perhaps it could say DATA/If you receive this, your email server has been misconfigured./Please ask your system administrator or ISP to configure the server to discard incomplete email messages.// -pause- disconnect.
That won't get them all, and there will be the odd false positive (550 unable to validate sender address), but it should get most, no worries. It'll certainly get the zillion or so messages spoofed as being from "@hotmail.com" "@yahoo.com" and so on. If you wanted to be a pedand, you'd check the embedded "From:" address as well as the enveloped one.
I'd also appreciate some name-finding AI, so that when a message which programs like SpamAssassin become absolutely dead-set convinced is spam (ie, the filter doesn't say "maybe spam", the filter says "if this isn't spam, upload me to a microwave") arrives - but passes the above test - any email addresses mentioned in it get a score or so of vary different but realistic-looking "replies" based on the original message ("Re: P*E+N~I:S E|N-L=A/R'G\E!R/Dear Sexy Sal//Please send me four boxes of penis perpetration patches. My credit card number is 3141-5926-5358-9793 and expires on 04-04. My address is Australian Federal Police/Hay Street/East Perth 6001.//Please use plain brown wrapper on the parcel.//Fred Q Nurk esq") but from a variety of bit-bucket addresses and spread out over the next few hours. A bit sad if the spammer is spoofing from your address, but you can easily filter everything related to such spoofing - and otherwise forces the scumbags to work for their addresses. Even better if he wants to talk to a bot about invalid credit card numbers or mismatched expiry dates. Better still if you can arrange to get them done for credit card fraud, maybe by using numbers from your local supermarket's stolen-cards list. Working for their addresses is exactly what spammers don't want to do.
You see, I've become convinced that a war of attrition - making it harder for spam to get through - isn't enough.
The thing that makes spam work is that it's cheap to get addresses and cheap to send out mail. Since there will always be bad-apple ISPs (and dumbo-sucker ISPs) who let the canned-ham merchants send the stuff, the obvious step is to make collecting the addresses harder.
Collecting addresses is a two-phase process. Phase one harvests addresses wholesale using spambots and/or people stupid enough to fill in random on-line forms accurately, phase two qualifies those addresses by sending stuff to them. Unfortunately, the same people stupid enough to fill in forms willy-nilly are the same people stupid enough to respond to spam. I guess it's just not a good survival characteristic.
If it were possible to establish a contract by sending someone email, we could make the initial harvest very expensive, very quickly by simply embedding the email address in an offer of contract. Unfortunately, the courts have so far decreed that such an event doesn't necessarily entail a "meeting of minds" necessary to establish a contract - even if the email address says "email-to-this-address-costs-USD-1000-in-advance@m ydomain.dom". To me, this makes no sense, kind of analogous to releasing an automated tank and being able to claim that any damage done by it was not deliberate.
Nevertheless, if we can make
...from RGB photos instead of spectral lines on a plate.
Like I said, many scientists object to it from their armchairs (and others too, QED) more because they're uncomfortable with where it might take them than by experimenting themselves or because they've found positive contradictions. Vague handwaving appeals to authority like the HubbleSite wording are almost a hallmark of this approach.
One of the things he noticed was that galaxies happen in statistically significant concentric shells, at least according to the redshifts. One of the less heated discussions I've seen of the consequences is at the University of Alabama's Astronomy department. Bill Keel, the astronomer here commenting, finishes "The evidence in favor of the standard picture is hardly compelling [...]. It survives mostly because nothing better has shown up;". Bill is the bloke who (which Ray White) brought us the silhouetted galaxy shot from Hubble, and has a huge collection of astronomically interesting stuff on his site.
...and he owes you one fish.
Teach a man to fish and you have a competitor for life.
At least, that's how Microsoft work it out.
Speaking of money-grubbing scum, I haven't seen any SCOX propaganda since Thursday. What's going on?
...then yes we do. Unless there is an explicit escape which allows flashing the things across to LinBIOS, and then good luck with anything even vaguely bleeding-edge by way of hardware.
Not far from us, it turns out. The galaxies in our universe are arranged, loosely, in concentric shells. The center about which these shells are con happens to be not far outside our own galaxy.
Lots of scientists pooh-pooh the idea, not because they've examined the data but because they're allergic to the philosophical implications of this. A few others have made genuine attempts to examine and refute the data, so far without success. We need more scientists to find new approaches to falsification, because unless this can be falsified it revolutionises our entire approach to cosmology (and clears out dozens of now-failed cosmological theories at a stroke).
...space was supposedly full before it started expanding. It has been cooling, in theory, because of the expansion of space itself rather than the expansion of matter within space.