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 (x) Microsoft will not put up with it (x) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) 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
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (This time the spammers will be doing the filtering, and that will be quite easy [captcha.net] for them.) ( ) Extreme profitability of spam (x) 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) 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 ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free (x) 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 ( ) 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:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) 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!
Not a problem, I tested it and the results were the same with or without the contraction. It seems to deal well with contractions (at least some of them).
Worse, it contains a pronoun, so all at once it's subject to problems among languages with gendered pronouns versus those without -- that's why the gender gets thrown away in the German, Italian, Portuguese, and French versions
What? First of all, Portuguese and French (and Italian too, I think) have gendered pronouns. In Portuguese (my native language), what happened is that it eliminated the gender completely from the sentence, which wasn't necessary at all. It could have written "Ela está morta!" or just "Está morta", which are exactly equivalent since in Portuguese it's possible to omit the subject in many cases, since it's often implied in the verb form. If it were "He's dead", it would be "Ele está morto!" or "Está morto!".
Just to show you guys how good automatic translation is, here is the simplest sentence I've found so far which is translated very badly by google translation (systran, also used in altavista's babelfish):
"She's dead!" into Portuguese gives "Está inoperante!", into english again gives "It is inoperative!".
"She's dead!" into Italian gives "È guasto!", into english again gives "It is out of order!".
"She's dead!" into French gives "Elle est morte !", into english again gives "It died!".
"She's dead!" into Spanish gives "Ella es muerta!", into english again gives "She is dead!".
"She's dead!" into German gives "Sie ist tot!", into english again gives "It is dead!".
"She's dead!" into Arabic gives (something I can't paste here), into english again gives "Are dead!".
"She's dead!" into Japanese gives (something I can't paste here), into english again gives "She has died!".
"She's dead!" into Korean gives (something I can't paste here), into english again gives "Her it dies! where".
"She's dead!" into Chinese gives (something I can't paste here), into english again gives "She's dead!".
Now, being generous while categorizing those results gives:
Complete Success = 2 out of 9 = 22% (Spanish and Chinese) Almost successfull = 1 out of 9 = 11% (Japanese) Catastrophic failures = 3 out of 9 = 33% (Portuguese, Italian and Korean) Serious failures = 3 out of 9 = 33% (French, German and Arabic)
How they get to sell software which fails more than half the times at translating such a simple sentence is truly beyond me...
That's joke material there... Seems almost like a google prank! "Hope of the exploited" ? No wonder Bush "thinks" that he's doing good there, after all he can't be better at understanding them than google translator.
I wish that too (for her and his sake), but then what about the blood found in his house and car, and all the other evidence? Planted evidence? Would she go that far?
Arrgh, the usual answer... I have to say that I hate that solution, for two reasons:
1) It's inefficient (an unnecessary variable and some additional instructions, versus a simple jump) 2) It actually makes it harder to read and maintain the code
Those reasons were probably also why Java's creators extended the break statement to allow it to break out of nested loops...
Slashdot Mirror
No, giving you MORE space, by eliminating an unnecessary toolbar... (and yes, I know what you meant)
That's where you should click if you want to create a new tab without using the keyboard...
Seems cool to me, and it's also nice that the "Go" and "Refresh" button are one and the same...
The common functions are in the buttons, and the other ones are in the drop down menus... What's the big deal with that?
Besides, it's jigawatts, not gigawatts...
Yeah yeah, but they only did it because they predicted Google would do it! To look better than Google! See, Microsoft, is evil...
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative (x) 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
(x) Microsoft will not put up with it
(x) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) 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
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(This time the spammers will be doing the filtering, and that will be quite easy [captcha.net] for them.)
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) 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) 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
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) 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
( ) 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:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) 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!
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
You can't walk away from your legs. Not with the same legs, at least.
You can wrap this silver wire around your ipod and spray the jack using this can. That will be 500 dollars, thanks for coming :)
While those events predate the arrest, Hans' house was being searched as early as the 13th of September.
And the search for Nina's body, and searches on Hans' house began before that (story published on the 13th of September).
Someone needs to get laid...
Not a problem, I tested it and the results were the same with or without the contraction. It seems to deal well with contractions (at least some of them).
What? First of all, Portuguese and French (and Italian too, I think) have gendered pronouns. In Portuguese (my native language), what happened is that it eliminated the gender completely from the sentence, which wasn't necessary at all. It could have written "Ela está morta!" or just "Está morta", which are exactly equivalent since in Portuguese it's possible to omit the subject in many cases, since it's often implied in the verb form. If it were "He's dead", it would be "Ele está morto!" or "Está morto!".
My bad, when doing the statistics I was only looking at the final result (spanish back to english)...
So what would be a simple sentence?
With Portuguese it's the opposite, and with Italian too, I think...
I meant that the portuguese->english one is completely right, not the english->portuguese one of course...
BTW, it seems to me that it's exactly the same case as with Italian.
The translation to portuguese is completely wrong, but the english->portuguese one is completely right . Yes, I'm Portuguese.
This one is much funnier and wittier :P.
Now, being generous while categorizing those results gives:
Complete Success = 2 out of 9 = 22% (Spanish and Chinese)
Almost successfull = 1 out of 9 = 11% (Japanese)
Catastrophic failures = 3 out of 9 = 33% (Portuguese, Italian and Korean)
Serious failures = 3 out of 9 = 33% (French, German and Arabic)
How they get to sell software which fails more than half the times at translating such a simple sentence is truly beyond me...
That's joke material there... Seems almost like a google prank! "Hope of the exploited" ? No wonder Bush "thinks" that he's doing good there, after all he can't be better at understanding them than google translator.
I wish that too (for her and his sake), but then what about the blood found in his house and car, and all the other evidence? Planted evidence? Would she go that far?
You should put quotes around the names (in that case, the result is the opposite).
I read this sentence like 3 times, each of them failing to get any information from it. Can someone help me?
Arrgh, the usual answer... I have to say that I hate that solution, for two reasons:
1) It's inefficient (an unnecessary variable and some additional instructions, versus a simple jump)
2) It actually makes it harder to read and maintain the code
Those reasons were probably also why Java's creators extended the break statement to allow it to break out of nested loops...
If you want to help save some oil, stop being redundant in your sentences!