I was in Grade 7 reading in the library when my best friend came up and told me that the Challenger had blown up. I thought he was lying, but when I got into class the teacher confirmed it.
When I got home from school I basically stayed pasted to the TV until I went to bed. It was one of the more surreal moments of my life, my generation's JFK, I suppose.
Their restocking policy still pisses me off, but yeah, they're a better bunch than the vile disgusting subhumans who try to extort money via a flawed IP system.
And its fields salted. Defeat of patent trolls shouldn't be the object. Utter and complete destruction and the disbarment of their lawyers should be the proper goal. Don't just defeat those evil sociopathic monsters, make sure they're living in a gutter after it's done.
I love these Heartland AC's using words like "opaque" in a very word salad kind of way, and deliberately using words like "pollutant" in such a way as to confuse the conversation.
CO2 traps energy in the lower atmosphere because it absorbs radiation at one rate, but releases it at another. It's a classic heat trap problem, known to physics for a couple of centuries now. If CO2 concentrations go up, more heat (energy) is trapped, and since it is emitted at a slower rate, it gets "stuck". We've known this for over a century. There is absolutely nothing new about this, or controversial.
As to "pollutant", please define your term plainly and clearly. A molecule that can in higher concentrations due to emissions, have monumental effects on climate, sounds pretty serious, whether you use the word "pollutant" or not.
Finally, what is happening is ocean temperature rises. For now the oceans are saving the lower atmosphere and surface temperatures, but only at significant cost to the oceans themselves, as they absorb carbon as well as heat, altering ocean temperatures and pH levels.
Food production grows because of improves techniques. Take away the water, ands it doesn't matter how advanced your agriculture isz you won't grow a damned thing.
A permanent and precipitous drop in rainfall in the Midwest will turn it into a semi arid region, perhaps a suitable for grazing, but worthless for high yield crops, or most crops of any kind.
Queue the "we'll just redirect all the rivers", which assumes those using the rivers won't fight back, and that many river systems won't be disrupted by the same climactic changes.
And what is your solution to changing rainbelts which are going to wipe out agriculture in areas like the US Midwest? Sea level rise is probably the least of the things we have to worry about.
To warm the atmosphere of an entire planet by even a fraction of a degree man's massive amounts of energy are being trapped. At the moment the oceans are acting as a massive heat sink, at some considerable effect to ocean ecosystems, but that capacity is going to decrease and sooner or later the lower atmosphere and surface temperatures will begin showing of qreater temperatures. We will have permafrost melting and releasing methanez exacerbating the situation.
The simple fact, known for over a century, is that CO2 traps solar radiation. It isn't the least bit controversial.
Indeed. The history of roleplaying games is fairly well know, and everyone who knows the history of the genre knows that tabletop war games provided the initial inspiration, not to mention a number of mechanics used by Gygax and other early formulators of RPG rules. As I recall, the whole hex map scheme common to many roleplaying games, particularly from the 70s, was lifted entirely for war gaming. Indeed, I've often felt the original D&D was sort of the C of roleplaying games, something of a halfway point between the war games and the later more fully formed FRPGs like AD&D.
At any rate, game rules in all gaming genres freely steal off of each other, whether the rules are copyrighted or not. It's how all games evolve.
In the end, that doesn't really solve the big problem. Yes, it allows schemes like SPF to function where email have to transit multiple MTAs, but no one is seriously going to deny an Email because there isn't an SPF or DMARC record. The best you do is give it a relatively small negative weight in your sad but necessary anti-spam system and still deliver external emails without such schemes in place to your local mailboxes if everything else seems kosher.
Believe me, I've been fighting the spam war in one form or another for fifteen years. I have seen proposed schemes come and go, some stick like SPF, but they provide only marginal improvements. My best success has been with greylisting, but with these more low key kinds of spam attacks, the sending servers are still obeying the forms and have SPF or DKIM records, even that is failing. I'm literally left, with this new spam, using filtering to scan the incoming emails after my MTAs have accepted delivery. In a way, email is right back where it was a decade ago.
Never the less, it is the open nature of SMTP, developed in a kinder, gentler age that makes dealing with spam so difficult. That being said, walled gardens like Facebook have their fair share, but seeing as all messages are in strict terms internal it's easier for such systems to be altered to deal with more egregious spam attacks. With SMTP, you're stuck a number of solutions that still, if the system is going to be of any use, necessarily leave the door open a crack.
Google does a pretty damned good job of getting rid of spam. I rarely see spam on my Gmail accounts these days, maybe once or twice a month. The problem is that Google has huge resources to manage filters, so it's success rate is going to be a lot higher than even most corporate mail systems. That's probably why a lot corporate servers are farmed out to Google and Microsoft. When our Exchange 2010 infrastructure finally reaches the end of the road in a few years, I imagine we will probably go to one of those services and bid a not-so-fond farewell to hosting our own email.
Yes, you have to do header rewriting. That's been around since the early SPF days over a decade ago. I was the admin for a small ISP back then, and it's part of the reason I discovered Postfix.
The only reason to use any of these schemes is to make sure mail originating or passing through your MTA is delivered. It's lunacy to use it as any more than a weighting for anti-spam purposes. And, as I've seen some spam now that does indeed seem to be coming from legitimate servers (in other words it's not using some sort of spoofing) you're left with using Bayesian systems like Spamassassin to still weed out spam. Even greylisting doesn't work against these kinds of spam simply because they are operating as a proper MTAs and resending the email. Yes, it's a lower volume, but I'm seeing some phishing emails of fairly good sophistication in their layouts coming through. Sure the blacklists shut them down quickly enough, but domains are cheap so the scammers are quite happy to burn through several a month.
In some ways, I miss the old days of joe jobs and dictionary attacks. Those were attacks I could deal with, either through tarpitting or greylisting, but I'm stuck now just try to build smart content filters to identify the nastier stuff, with more limited success.
Personally I love email, and have no desire to jump on the Facebook wagon or any of the other social media messaging systems, but I really am beginning to think there's just no way to have an open delivery system like SMTP, no matter how much you to glue on identification and authentication schemes. I think in the end it's going to die, poisoned like Usenet has been. Damn pity, I miss the old days, but it's just getting ridiculous to manage email systems now.
Okay, I'll be moderate. Only some of them would turn to van-based kidnapping and cannibalism. The rest would probably just stealing your wallet, swindling little old ladies or selling fake wart remedies on late night television. I apologize to all the sociopaths, not all of you enjoy eating human body parts.
This seems hopelessly confused. Climatologists are not arguing that we've already caused sufficient warming to alter climate significantly. They're arguing that we are reaching another limit that will have even more drastic effects, and that we should do all we can to not cross that red line.
You seem to be arguing that we should eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow we can just build dykes, redirect river systems (whether the people currently using them like it or not), build big walls to prevent refugees of climate change, and so forth.
And this isn't just about weather. Why do people keep confusing the two? We're talking about significant climactic changes that will alter entire rain belts, lead to significant changes in ocean ecosystems and will have a massive effect on the very core of civilization itself; agriculture. And no, I'm not arguing that Homo sapiens is going to die out. We will persist, but human-driven climate change is going to have significant geopolitical ramifications; migrations, shifts in food production that could destabilize some regions and even be positive for other regions. With the North American rainbelt likely heading northward, it could be bad for the US, but could make Canada into a food empire.
It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.
Slashdot Mirror
Domain registry lists an address in Raqqa.
I was in Grade 7 reading in the library when my best friend came up and told me that the Challenger had blown up. I thought he was lying, but when I got into class the teacher confirmed it.
When I got home from school I basically stayed pasted to the TV until I went to bed. It was one of the more surreal moments of my life, my generation's JFK, I suppose.
From what I can tell, most of the patent trolls are just legal firms.
Their restocking policy still pisses me off, but yeah, they're a better bunch than the vile disgusting subhumans who try to extort money via a flawed IP system.
And its fields salted. Defeat of patent trolls shouldn't be the object. Utter and complete destruction and the disbarment of their lawyers should be the proper goal. Don't just defeat those evil sociopathic monsters, make sure they're living in a gutter after it's done.
I love these Heartland AC's using words like "opaque" in a very word salad kind of way, and deliberately using words like "pollutant" in such a way as to confuse the conversation.
CO2 traps energy in the lower atmosphere because it absorbs radiation at one rate, but releases it at another. It's a classic heat trap problem, known to physics for a couple of centuries now. If CO2 concentrations go up, more heat (energy) is trapped, and since it is emitted at a slower rate, it gets "stuck". We've known this for over a century. There is absolutely nothing new about this, or controversial.
As to "pollutant", please define your term plainly and clearly. A molecule that can in higher concentrations due to emissions, have monumental effects on climate, sounds pretty serious, whether you use the word "pollutant" or not.
Finally, what is happening is ocean temperature rises. For now the oceans are saving the lower atmosphere and surface temperatures, but only at significant cost to the oceans themselves, as they absorb carbon as well as heat, altering ocean temperatures and pH levels.
Food production grows because of improves techniques. Take away the water, ands it doesn't matter how advanced your agriculture isz you won't grow a damned thing.
A permanent and precipitous drop in rainfall in the Midwest will turn it into a semi arid region, perhaps a suitable for grazing, but worthless for high yield crops, or most crops of any kind.
Queue the "we'll just redirect all the rivers", which assumes those using the rivers won't fight back, and that many river systems won't be disrupted by the same climactic changes.
For now that's what the oceans are doing, hence sea temperature rises and acidification.
And your qualifications to assess the data are?
Christ! It's not a difficult concept. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere beyond normal background natural processes.
And what is your solution to changing rainbelts which are going to wipe out agriculture in areas like the US Midwest? Sea level rise is probably the least of the things we have to worry about.
To warm the atmosphere of an entire planet by even a fraction of a degree man's massive amounts of energy are being trapped. At the moment the oceans are acting as a massive heat sink, at some considerable effect to ocean ecosystems, but that capacity is going to decrease and sooner or later the lower atmosphere and surface temperatures will begin showing of qreater temperatures. We will have permafrost melting and releasing methanez exacerbating the situation.
The simple fact, known for over a century, is that CO2 traps solar radiation. It isn't the least bit controversial.
I bet advocates of pseudo science will always claim they're the victims of persecution.
How much does Redmond pay you to go on the Internet and make wild-assed claims lacking even a shred of evidence?
Indeed. The history of roleplaying games is fairly well know, and everyone who knows the history of the genre knows that tabletop war games provided the initial inspiration, not to mention a number of mechanics used by Gygax and other early formulators of RPG rules. As I recall, the whole hex map scheme common to many roleplaying games, particularly from the 70s, was lifted entirely for war gaming. Indeed, I've often felt the original D&D was sort of the C of roleplaying games, something of a halfway point between the war games and the later more fully formed FRPGs like AD&D.
At any rate, game rules in all gaming genres freely steal off of each other, whether the rules are copyrighted or not. It's how all games evolve.
In the end, that doesn't really solve the big problem. Yes, it allows schemes like SPF to function where email have to transit multiple MTAs, but no one is seriously going to deny an Email because there isn't an SPF or DMARC record. The best you do is give it a relatively small negative weight in your sad but necessary anti-spam system and still deliver external emails without such schemes in place to your local mailboxes if everything else seems kosher.
Believe me, I've been fighting the spam war in one form or another for fifteen years. I have seen proposed schemes come and go, some stick like SPF, but they provide only marginal improvements. My best success has been with greylisting, but with these more low key kinds of spam attacks, the sending servers are still obeying the forms and have SPF or DKIM records, even that is failing. I'm literally left, with this new spam, using filtering to scan the incoming emails after my MTAs have accepted delivery. In a way, email is right back where it was a decade ago.
Never the less, it is the open nature of SMTP, developed in a kinder, gentler age that makes dealing with spam so difficult. That being said, walled gardens like Facebook have their fair share, but seeing as all messages are in strict terms internal it's easier for such systems to be altered to deal with more egregious spam attacks. With SMTP, you're stuck a number of solutions that still, if the system is going to be of any use, necessarily leave the door open a crack.
Google does a pretty damned good job of getting rid of spam. I rarely see spam on my Gmail accounts these days, maybe once or twice a month. The problem is that Google has huge resources to manage filters, so it's success rate is going to be a lot higher than even most corporate mail systems. That's probably why a lot corporate servers are farmed out to Google and Microsoft. When our Exchange 2010 infrastructure finally reaches the end of the road in a few years, I imagine we will probably go to one of those services and bid a not-so-fond farewell to hosting our own email.
Yes, you have to do header rewriting. That's been around since the early SPF days over a decade ago. I was the admin for a small ISP back then, and it's part of the reason I discovered Postfix.
You can do header rewriting. I certainly have done my share in Postfix, which I still regard as the best general MTA around.
The only reason to use any of these schemes is to make sure mail originating or passing through your MTA is delivered. It's lunacy to use it as any more than a weighting for anti-spam purposes. And, as I've seen some spam now that does indeed seem to be coming from legitimate servers (in other words it's not using some sort of spoofing) you're left with using Bayesian systems like Spamassassin to still weed out spam. Even greylisting doesn't work against these kinds of spam simply because they are operating as a proper MTAs and resending the email. Yes, it's a lower volume, but I'm seeing some phishing emails of fairly good sophistication in their layouts coming through. Sure the blacklists shut them down quickly enough, but domains are cheap so the scammers are quite happy to burn through several a month.
In some ways, I miss the old days of joe jobs and dictionary attacks. Those were attacks I could deal with, either through tarpitting or greylisting, but I'm stuck now just try to build smart content filters to identify the nastier stuff, with more limited success.
Personally I love email, and have no desire to jump on the Facebook wagon or any of the other social media messaging systems, but I really am beginning to think there's just no way to have an open delivery system like SMTP, no matter how much you to glue on identification and authentication schemes. I think in the end it's going to die, poisoned like Usenet has been. Damn pity, I miss the old days, but it's just getting ridiculous to manage email systems now.
Okay, I'll be moderate. Only some of them would turn to van-based kidnapping and cannibalism. The rest would probably just stealing your wallet, swindling little old ladies or selling fake wart remedies on late night television. I apologize to all the sociopaths, not all of you enjoy eating human body parts.
This seems hopelessly confused. Climatologists are not arguing that we've already caused sufficient warming to alter climate significantly. They're arguing that we are reaching another limit that will have even more drastic effects, and that we should do all we can to not cross that red line.
You seem to be arguing that we should eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow we can just build dykes, redirect river systems (whether the people currently using them like it or not), build big walls to prevent refugees of climate change, and so forth.
And this isn't just about weather. Why do people keep confusing the two? We're talking about significant climactic changes that will alter entire rain belts, lead to significant changes in ocean ecosystems and will have a massive effect on the very core of civilization itself; agriculture. And no, I'm not arguing that Homo sapiens is going to die out. We will persist, but human-driven climate change is going to have significant geopolitical ramifications; migrations, shifts in food production that could destabilize some regions and even be positive for other regions. With the North American rainbelt likely heading northward, it could be bad for the US, but could make Canada into a food empire.
It's a gathering of evil sociopaths. They don't care about why people don't like what they produce. We should be happy these monsters are in advertising, because otherwise they'd probably be driving around in vans kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, and then eating the remains in cannibalistic orgies. These are evil people.
Yes, I would expect that the Nazi Party would disinvite the Anti-Defamation League.