It isn't just filtering, it is also blocking off RBLs, which often block more innocent people than spammers.
Emails aren't important? I actually disagree with that, and I think you'll find plenty of other folks who will agree with me. Maybe YOU don't get any important emails, but some of us rely on email for everyday business use.
In most spam-related studies I've seen, business users have consistently stated that losing 1 important email is far more costly than having 1,000 spam emails get through.
I get a lot of spam (usually around 2,000 per day), but I still think some of the measures taken to stop spam are actually worse than the spam itself. I'd rather wade through a few hundred emails that are spam than miss one important one from a client.
Why is the shotgun approach so attractive in fighting spam?
This occurs in any sort of public project, and comes down to home values (ie, how much can I cash out this month to pay for my boat or whatever) in most cases.
There are some light rail & commuter rail projects being planned here, and they would greatly benefit the whole region in many ways. Unfortunately, they fight angry homeowners every step of the way, because they don't want current tracks utilized more, or old ones being used again, because it makes their property values go up less.
I guess I can see their point, but it also sucks to have public projects derailed because people want to make tons of money off their houses.
To me, Mugabe seems like a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a thug and certainly killed plenty of innocent people, but I don't think he touches Mugabe in terms of sheer audacity.
In fact, I'm certain you could easily come up with a dozen or so leaders throughout the world currently, who do more harm to their country than Saddam Hussein. So why do we ignore the likes of Mugabe and others, while hunting down guys like Saddam Hussein? I'd like to know that as well.
I agree with you for the most part. I find it troublesome, however, when you say that genocide is nobody's business. Do you really think that?
I do not like Bush and completely disapprove of his administration's handling of Iraq, but there is a big difference between 'may have weapons of mass destruction related program activities' and 'wow, that guy is killing thousands of people and burying them in mass graves.' I'd hope that in the latter case, we'd say 'That is wrong, and we can't stand by and let you do that.'
Umm.. Why does it matter how much John makes vs how much Bob makes? Plenty of 'dumb' people get quite wealthy, and some of the smartest people in human history have been very poor.
As much as I dislike Mensa and all those so-called 'intelligence' tests, I'd far rather use them than someone's income to determine intelligence.
"If NASA cannot do its job under budget pressure, then it cannot do its job as well as private industry would."
Umm... Yeah.. Just like the airline industry, for example. How many billions of dollars have we given them to keep running?
When private companies face budgetary pressure, they know what to do: lie! "What's that Mr. Ebbers, you say our numbers aren't good enough? Let me 'innovate' some numbers."
And how would NASA be privatized anyway? The sorts of things it undertakes are not commercial in nature, and since there is no profit, there is no private sector for it.
"If it cannot do its job under political pressure, then it is a failure as a public agency, and is unaccountable to the public."
Ever think that maybe our congress is failing them, and not vice-versa?
I generally agree with the idea, but I think it has gone too far. It's not that I disagree with layoffs, per se. But, when you have people work excessive hours then lay them off as soon as possible to save a few bucks, I see something wrong with that.
It has little to do with capitalism vs socialism. You can still have a healthy capitalist economy without treating workers like shit. You can still have healthy turnover without burning your employees out and firing them when you are done with them.
My point was not to say that all companies should keep employees around indefinitely. I merely think that this habit of burning people out and then letting them go so frequently is bad in the long run - for employees and employers, and even the economy itself - especially when the company is making lots of money for the owners.
Should businesses be allowed to act like this?
You think it is acceptable to work people until they break, then let them go, all while a few guys rake in a bunch of cash?
Why should this be acceptable business behavior?
this is a sign of a sick, sick society that values its corporations and leaders of said corporations far more than any of its people. In the end, all the corporation and its owners care about are maximizing profits, so where does that leave us in the long run?
---Salaries are only increasing 0.5%, which means they aren't even keeping up with inflation.
Wow, government speak!
No, that isn't government-speak, it's called economics. If a.5% raise makes it so you can't afford as much as you could the previous year, you have lost purchasing power and your real wage has decreased.
---In other words, IT salaries are actually dropping in that they're not keeping up with the ever-increasing cost of living.
In other words, when the governmnet doesnt spend as much as it thought they should, it's a Tax cut. Yeah, I see this similar funny logic.
You are comparing apples and oranges, the original poster's observations were 100% correct from an economic standpoint. It is you who is displaying a stunning lack of logic.
Uhh, even the old date was too far back. IIRC, Mormon scriptures claim the Nephites came here around 2500 years ago, or so.
Of course, this same book claims that the Nephites (Semitic people) were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. This can clearly be seen by the abundance of Semitic DNA in Native Americans and the fact that they celebrate Chanukah. Oh wait. Nevermind.
Why is this unique to porn? A large amount of the physical goods sold on the internet are manufactured by people making below a living wage, because 'it is their only option'. What makes it acceptable on say, Amazon.com, but not on a porn site?
Whether or not this is a good thing, security and reliability will not be the #1 deciding factor for most average people. Even if reliability were extremely important to the home user, XP is quite reliable for the average home user.
I'm sitting here, imagining my mother - who probably doesn't know the difference between Internet Explorer and Google - figure out how to 'compile' the program she wants to install. I'm trying to figure out what my dad would do if he couldn't use any of his geneology programs, or what my sisters would do if they couldn't play 'The Sims'.
Putting Linux on a home desktop PC sets things back 10 years or more to the average user - the PC is just a geeky, complicated device that nobody except nerds would know how to use. I use Linux on a daily basis and like it, but people like my parents would find a PC equipped with it to be rather useless.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't just filtering, it is also blocking off RBLs, which often block more innocent people than spammers.
Emails aren't important? I actually disagree with that, and I think you'll find plenty of other folks who will agree with me. Maybe YOU don't get any important emails, but some of us rely on email for everyday business use.
And hit the 12 people around them? Because anyone who would be near a spammer must be a spammer also.
In most spam-related studies I've seen, business users have consistently stated that losing 1 important email is far more costly than having 1,000 spam emails get through.
I get a lot of spam (usually around 2,000 per day), but I still think some of the measures taken to stop spam are actually worse than the spam itself. I'd rather wade through a few hundred emails that are spam than miss one important one from a client.
Why is the shotgun approach so attractive in fighting spam?
Are we better off without Saddam? Probably. Is it worth all of the terrorists and insurgents we've spawned over there? I personally don't think so.
This occurs in any sort of public project, and comes down to home values (ie, how much can I cash out this month to pay for my boat or whatever) in most cases.
There are some light rail & commuter rail projects being planned here, and they would greatly benefit the whole region in many ways. Unfortunately, they fight angry homeowners every step of the way, because they don't want current tracks utilized more, or old ones being used again, because it makes their property values go up less.
I guess I can see their point, but it also sucks to have public projects derailed because people want to make tons of money off their houses.
Does Zimbabwe have oil? Er,uhh, I mean...
To me, Mugabe seems like a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a thug and certainly killed plenty of innocent people, but I don't think he touches Mugabe in terms of sheer audacity.
In fact, I'm certain you could easily come up with a dozen or so leaders throughout the world currently, who do more harm to their country than Saddam Hussein. So why do we ignore the likes of Mugabe and others, while hunting down guys like Saddam Hussein? I'd like to know that as well.
I agree with you for the most part. I find it troublesome, however, when you say that genocide is nobody's business. Do you really think that?
I do not like Bush and completely disapprove of his administration's handling of Iraq, but there is a big difference between 'may have weapons of mass destruction related program activities' and 'wow, that guy is killing thousands of people and burying them in mass graves.' I'd hope that in the latter case, we'd say 'That is wrong, and we can't stand by and let you do that.'
Umm.. Why does it matter how much John makes vs how much Bob makes? Plenty of 'dumb' people get quite wealthy, and some of the smartest people in human history have been very poor.
As much as I dislike Mensa and all those so-called 'intelligence' tests, I'd far rather use them than someone's income to determine intelligence.
"If NASA cannot do its job under budget pressure, then it cannot do its job as well as private industry would."
Umm... Yeah.. Just like the airline industry, for example. How many billions of dollars have we given them to keep running?
When private companies face budgetary pressure, they know what to do: lie! "What's that Mr. Ebbers, you say our numbers aren't good enough? Let me 'innovate' some numbers."
And how would NASA be privatized anyway? The sorts of things it undertakes are not commercial in nature, and since there is no profit, there is no private sector for it.
"If it cannot do its job under political pressure, then it is a failure as a public agency, and is unaccountable to the public."
Ever think that maybe our congress is failing them, and not vice-versa?
I generally agree with the idea, but I think it has gone too far. It's not that I disagree with layoffs, per se. But, when you have people work excessive hours then lay them off as soon as possible to save a few bucks, I see something wrong with that. It has little to do with capitalism vs socialism. You can still have a healthy capitalist economy without treating workers like shit. You can still have healthy turnover without burning your employees out and firing them when you are done with them. My point was not to say that all companies should keep employees around indefinitely. I merely think that this habit of burning people out and then letting them go so frequently is bad in the long run - for employees and employers, and even the economy itself - especially when the company is making lots of money for the owners.
These people just need to quit whining and go back to community college to get some skills.
Oh wait...
Should businesses be allowed to act like this? You think it is acceptable to work people until they break, then let them go, all while a few guys rake in a bunch of cash? Why should this be acceptable business behavior? this is a sign of a sick, sick society that values its corporations and leaders of said corporations far more than any of its people. In the end, all the corporation and its owners care about are maximizing profits, so where does that leave us in the long run?
---Salaries are only increasing 0.5%, which means they aren't even keeping up with inflation.
.5% raise makes it so you can't afford as much as you could the previous year, you have lost purchasing power and your real wage has decreased.
Wow, government speak!
No, that isn't government-speak, it's called economics. If a
---In other words, IT salaries are actually dropping in that they're not keeping up with the ever-increasing cost of living.
In other words, when the governmnet doesnt spend as much as it thought they should, it's a Tax cut. Yeah, I see this similar funny logic.
You are comparing apples and oranges, the original poster's observations were 100% correct from an economic standpoint. It is you who is displaying a stunning lack of logic.
Uhh, even the old date was too far back. IIRC, Mormon scriptures claim the Nephites came here around 2500 years ago, or so. Of course, this same book claims that the Nephites (Semitic people) were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. This can clearly be seen by the abundance of Semitic DNA in Native Americans and the fact that they celebrate Chanukah. Oh wait. Nevermind.
Why is this unique to porn? A large amount of the physical goods sold on the internet are manufactured by people making below a living wage, because 'it is their only option'. What makes it acceptable on say, Amazon.com, but not on a porn site?
Whether or not this is a good thing, security and reliability will not be the #1 deciding factor for most average people. Even if reliability were extremely important to the home user, XP is quite reliable for the average home user. I'm sitting here, imagining my mother - who probably doesn't know the difference between Internet Explorer and Google - figure out how to 'compile' the program she wants to install. I'm trying to figure out what my dad would do if he couldn't use any of his geneology programs, or what my sisters would do if they couldn't play 'The Sims'. Putting Linux on a home desktop PC sets things back 10 years or more to the average user - the PC is just a geeky, complicated device that nobody except nerds would know how to use. I use Linux on a daily basis and like it, but people like my parents would find a PC equipped with it to be rather useless.