Switch around what the percentage means: instead of 90% meaning there is 90% chance to successfully ascertain whatever you're screening for, make 90% stand for the analogy of LD50 (Lethal dose for 50%+ of the population). So the screening method would be SE50 (screening effective 50%) if the number of positive cases correctly detected are 50%+ of all positive cases detected.
Not to mention the fact that the ISS is not so much a station, but a learning experiment on how to construct and run a space station. Think of all the subtle things, like the problems they had with toilets and so on...
Excellent! If knowing the source code for _financial trading mechanisms_ allows for gaming the system, then it's a very good thing that the code was exposed. If anything, I'd expect banking code to resist outside intrusion.
It's a combination of persistence, random I/O and storage actually.
SSDs are good at the first two, but still have catching up to do on the latter (and price...), but as soon as a reasonably priced 1TB version comes out, that'll be a great boon...
If you always wait for the next design of that shipware, that car, or that style shoes you like you'll never end up with anything.
You need to draw a line somewhere. The Titanic is a good move because it's been available for some time and they've had enough time to test it out with whatever seas they might use. The Olympic is getting more difficult with new cruise tours, and if you want to stay on a White Star Line platform it's the way to go.
The Queen Victoria isn't so much different than The Titanic in terms of the hull design itself, and it's more similar to The Olympic in interface than The Queen Victoria.
I don't understand what the issue is here. I guess some people don't understand how oceanic shipping works in organizations with more than a few hundred users.
I was a bit off by saying less than two dozen, but I wasn't off by that much. Spamhaus says 200 heavyduty spammers are generating 80% of the spam in the world.
The numbers I had in my mind are an outdated estimate I've heard a couple of years back. It's good to remember to question information and it looks like I forgot about keeping my assumptions up to date...
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack (X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (X) Infrastructure costs that are involved in deep packet inspection on the core routers (X) Privacy concerns in letting ISPs perform deep packet inspection on the core routers ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome (X) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Seriously, it's less than two dozen guys pumping out 90% of the spam in the world. I would guess that the law enforcements and militaries of the world should just do their jobs and apprehend these criminals.
I'd certainly appreciate real action like getting rid of spam than for the CIA/US Military to spend time chasing down far fetched terrorist plots. I'm constantly stunned that given the damage spam creates, special branches aren't more active in tracking and _eliminating_ the sources of these things.
Just work on coreboot damnit!
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Why don't they just start to work on coreboot? The piece of code shipped currently as BIOS could be so much better. There is an excellent Google Talk about coreboot's improvements.
It's high time the old unflexible piece of crap BIOS died.
For one, I'm not going to pay for whatever copyright scam people are running. I'm however willing to compensate you for your effort.
If you make your book available for free on your site and I like it, I will donate.
If you strike a deal with a publisher (flat fee price, no royalties) and release your book in deadtree format, I might buy it. It shouldn't concern you if I do it or not. You've already gotten paid.
If you make your book available in a DRM free digital presentation, with convenient ways to pay and download, then I'll use that instead of going to a torrent site, especially if you provide further incentives like corrections and updates to your book. Most people aren't that selfish, if you say "download this for a fair price of $x, support the author", then a lot of people would choose that over free alternatives.
There are a lot of other ways to get paid for _the effort of writing_ your book, not for the effort of exploiting a government granted monopoly on the distribution of information, that people are happy with.
Let's face reality: copyright is already dieing, I and a lot of other people don't give a flying fuck about it, any behaviour that tries to uphold it just pisses us off. Don't assume though, that noone is willing to pay for your work unless it is enforced by copyright. I'd also wish if you'd stop using the word "piracy" to refer to the activity when someone doesn't wish to observe your government granted monopoly on information assembled by you.
There was a recent article in The Economist about how in democratic countries the politicians are mostly lawyers and doctors by profession, while in dictatorships it's mostly technically oriented people. Ah yes, here it is.
I guess you could argue this depending on the country. In most countries ratifying treaties and amending the constitution of the country requires a supermajority and from a legal POW (IANAL) treaties are on par with the constitution (this is the case for example in Hungary, the country I live in). It might be the case that in the USA, treaties are considered below the constitution a notch in importance, but I'm pretty sure that if a law and a treaty disagrees, the treaty is considered valid.
That concept is so pathetic I don't know where to begin. Consumer protection agencies to fine a restaurant for poor quality and bad treatment? Are Europeans that big of pussies? What is wrong with "tell your friends they suck, don't eat there" and watch their business evaporate? You can't be serious that the government steps in for things like this!?
There is a difference between matters of personal taste and false advertising, deceptive business practices and business scams. I was trying to make an analogy that distinctively falls into the latter, but as with all analogies, it is like a scotsman trying to make a car analogy: not that good.
The one who sells the given product. This is all about sale.
If my harddrive breaks within warranty period, I don't go to the company who manufactured the silicon or the ICs, I go to the retailer or Samsung, who sold me the drive.
you can sue a soup kitchen if it gives you food poisoning.
Sure, since that's a public health matter. If software controlling an aircraft crashes and causes the aircraft to crash too and that kills people, I'm pretty sure the software makers might end up liable too.
To continue your analogy, if a soup kitchen gives you soup that is too cold, comes in a plastic bowl and is too small of a portion, you've got nowhere to turn with that and you should have nowhere to turn with that, it is gratis after all. On the other hand, if this happens in a restaurant that calls itself high quality and advertises the famous chicken soup from a master chef and you get the same treatment, then there are numerous consumer protection agencies in Europe at least to fine the given restaurant.
I don't know. There is one thing I'll know, though, that if I'll be a politician, I'll have an expenses budget that includes blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the blackjack.
Slashdot Mirror
Switch around what the percentage means: instead of 90% meaning there is 90% chance to successfully ascertain whatever you're screening for, make 90% stand for the analogy of LD50 (Lethal dose for 50%+ of the population). So the screening method would be SE50 (screening effective 50%) if the number of positive cases correctly detected are 50%+ of all positive cases detected.
For the greater good! It always reminds me of this Hot Fuzz moment.
Not to mention the fact that the ISS is not so much a station, but a learning experiment on how to construct and run a space station. Think of all the subtle things, like the problems they had with toilets and so on...
Excellent! If knowing the source code for _financial trading mechanisms_ allows for gaming the system, then it's a very good thing that the code was exposed. If anything, I'd expect banking code to resist outside intrusion.
Nothing to see here, move along...
It's a combination of persistence, random I/O and storage actually.
SSDs are good at the first two, but still have catching up to do on the latter (and price...), but as soon as a reasonably priced 1TB version comes out, that'll be a great boon...
True enough, but my favourite is Larry Wall.
If you always wait for the next design of that shipware, that car, or that style shoes you like you'll never end up with anything.
You need to draw a line somewhere. The Titanic is a good move because it's been available for some time and they've had enough time to test it out with whatever seas they might use. The Olympic is getting more difficult with new cruise tours, and if you want to stay on a White Star Line platform it's the way to go.
The Queen Victoria isn't so much different than The Titanic in terms of the hull design itself, and it's more similar to The Olympic in interface than The Queen Victoria.
I don't understand what the issue is here. I guess some people don't understand how oceanic shipping works in organizations with more than a few hundred users.
You're just giving them ideas! You don't want them to know how a dystopian future tyranny might maintain control!
I was a bit off by saying less than two dozen, but I wasn't off by that much. Spamhaus says 200 heavyduty spammers are generating 80% of the spam in the world.
The numbers I had in my mind are an outdated estimate I've heard a couple of years back. It's good to remember to question information and it looks like I forgot about keeping my assumptions up to date...
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(X) Infrastructure costs that are involved in deep packet inspection on the core routers
(X) Privacy concerns in letting ISPs perform deep packet inspection on the core routers
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(X) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Seriously, it's less than two dozen guys pumping out 90% of the spam in the world. I would guess that the law enforcements and militaries of the world should just do their jobs and apprehend these criminals.
I'd certainly appreciate real action like getting rid of spam than for the CIA/US Military to spend time chasing down far fetched terrorist plots. I'm constantly stunned that given the damage spam creates, special branches aren't more active in tracking and _eliminating_ the sources of these things.
Why don't they just start to work on coreboot? The piece of code shipped currently as BIOS could be so much better. There is an excellent Google Talk about coreboot's improvements.
It's high time the old unflexible piece of crap BIOS died.
For one, I'm not going to pay for whatever copyright scam people are running. I'm however willing to compensate you for your effort.
If you make your book available for free on your site and I like it, I will donate.
If you strike a deal with a publisher (flat fee price, no royalties) and release your book in deadtree format, I might buy it. It shouldn't concern you if I do it or not. You've already gotten paid.
If you make your book available in a DRM free digital presentation, with convenient ways to pay and download, then I'll use that instead of going to a torrent site, especially if you provide further incentives like corrections and updates to your book. Most people aren't that selfish, if you say "download this for a fair price of $x, support the author", then a lot of people would choose that over free alternatives.
There are a lot of other ways to get paid for _the effort of writing_ your book, not for the effort of exploiting a government granted monopoly on the distribution of information, that people are happy with.
Let's face reality: copyright is already dieing, I and a lot of other people don't give a flying fuck about it, any behaviour that tries to uphold it just pisses us off. Don't assume though, that noone is willing to pay for your work unless it is enforced by copyright. I'd also wish if you'd stop using the word "piracy" to refer to the activity when someone doesn't wish to observe your government granted monopoly on information assembled by you.
Wow this story is getting shittier and shittier.
You'd be suprised (NSFW).
I wonder where is BadAnalogyGuy when you need him :)
There was a recent article in The Economist about how in democratic countries the politicians are mostly lawyers and doctors by profession, while in dictatorships it's mostly technically oriented people. Ah yes, here it is.
I guess you could argue this depending on the country. In most countries ratifying treaties and amending the constitution of the country requires a supermajority and from a legal POW (IANAL) treaties are on par with the constitution (this is the case for example in Hungary, the country I live in). It might be the case that in the USA, treaties are considered below the constitution a notch in importance, but I'm pretty sure that if a law and a treaty disagrees, the treaty is considered valid.
There is a difference between matters of personal taste and false advertising, deceptive business practices and business scams. I was trying to make an analogy that distinctively falls into the latter, but as with all analogies, it is like a scotsman trying to make a car analogy: not that good.
Constitution/International treaties > laws > government regulation > private contract > untested in court, onesided statements such as EULAs.
:)
Does this clear it up for you?
The one who sells the given product. This is all about sale.
If my harddrive breaks within warranty period, I don't go to the company who manufactured the silicon or the ICs, I go to the retailer or Samsung, who sold me the drive.
Sure, since that's a public health matter. If software controlling an aircraft crashes and causes the aircraft to crash too and that kills people, I'm pretty sure the software makers might end up liable too.
To continue your analogy, if a soup kitchen gives you soup that is too cold, comes in a plastic bowl and is too small of a portion, you've got nowhere to turn with that and you should have nowhere to turn with that, it is gratis after all. On the other hand, if this happens in a restaurant that calls itself high quality and advertises the famous chicken soup from a master chef and you get the same treatment, then there are numerous consumer protection agencies in Europe at least to fine the given restaurant.
if you get it for no price, you don't enjoy such priviledges.
If someone sells GPL based software, they are free to do so and pick up the tab on flaws in the product. Same goes for proprietary software.
This should have been done at least 10 years ago.
I don't know. There is one thing I'll know, though, that if I'll be a politician, I'll have an expenses budget that includes blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the blackjack.