... a lot of times I don't find what I'm looking for.
I can't speak for everyone else who uses Google News, but a lot of the time that I go there it's because I'm looking for a particular story. A lot of the time I can't find it or it's probably too recent for the story to make its way through the cycle to end up referenced at Google. If that's the case, I don't click on anything, and I'll come back later or find the article through some other means.
Just because someone doesn't click through it doesn't mean Google is stealing page views from the original news source.
"Is there a way to work around this that doesn't involve root access?"
Yes, but it isn't a good way. Check your scores file for the scores associated with the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX. This indicates the number of points added to the spam score of every message that fails this test. Basically, increase your spam threshold by this amount until you can apply this patch.
These sorts of junkets fell out of favor in about the '80s or so. However, the casinos were well aware that this sort of thing could be done, and typically the junket conditions allowed the casinos to recind their offer if you tried to do something like this. Short answer: Rarely it was this easy.
In actuality, using the second set of regular chips is unnecessary for two reasons:
1) You could just bet the irredeamable chips on both bets yourself.
2) You could always just bet one side of the bet. Sure, your variance goes up, but your long run expectation doesn't change.
Note also that you could have done this with lower out-of-pocket expenses by playing craps betting the pass/don't pass rather than an American roulette wheel.
This isn't quite true. If I were to go to Chipco or B&G (two big casino-quality chip manufacturers) and order, say, 500 chips with a given design, yes, it would cost me more than $1 per chip.
Las Vegas casinos, though, don't buy them in 500 chip lots, they buy them in batches of tens of thousands. This allows the chip company to do a good job ammortizing the mold set-up. This means the price to a casino goes way down.
As I recall, a typical (non-RFID) $5 chip would cost a typical Las Vegas casino on the order of $0.45 each. Chips get slightly more expensive as their denomination goes up ('cuz they tend to add more counterfit protection to more valuable chips), but at $1 and above, I guarantee you the casino makes money with each chip that walks out the door.
Some casinos use very small denomination chips (although I can't think of any that have chips with a face value of less than $0.25 in play). Some of these cost casinos close to their face value, even if these "walk" the casinos don't lose money.
They don't care. In fact, they're happy when you do this. In fact, many, probably most, US casinos issue special "commemorative" chips that are designed to be interesting as keepsakes. It costs less than a dollar to make a casino quality chip in bulk. At $5 each, they'll be happy to sell you as many as you'd like.
You might want to check out some of Mims' previous reports on this topic. I can't recall the first few articles he wrote on the topic, but over at least the last year I would say that his reporting has been well-researched, fair, and not at all flattering to SCO. He deserves a little slack.
As a point of pedantry, the character Jason Lee played in Mallrats was Brody Bruce. And, of course, he played both characters in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
[de Grey] dreams of being on the cover of Time magazine I'm sure, ego is almost certainly a factor for him as well, and no doubt a huge payday would follow and major advancement on any of his 7 problems.
I believe one could fairly criticize de Grey along many lines, but anyone who has read TFA will likely agree that appearing on a magazine cover and especially "a huge payday" are not motivators in this case.
Wow. The article itself is... stunning. On a per-word basis, I don't know where I've seen a higher concentration of misconceptions about DNS.
Most modern MTAs have the ability to reject email purportedly coming from domains that aren't registered. Just as one example, sendmail does this by default. Not registering domain names makes it *much* *easier* for me to avoid spam. I encourage spammers to adopt the practice described in this article.
Moreover, the costs of looking up nonexistant domains is roughly comparable to the costs associated with lookup up existing domains.
Of course, despite the article being worthless, it's still more than enough cause for the/. regulars to get whipped up into a frenzy.
When a DNS query goes to an ISPs DNS server, and the entry does not exist, does it go to the root servers?
When we make a DNS query, it goes to our name server. If the name server does not have a result for that query cached, it queries a higher-level server for information on which name server is authoritative for that domain. It is possible that any DNS query where no component of the domain name is cached to require a query of the root name servers. This is true for any existant or nonexistant domain name.
Secondly, do invalid domain names get cached (I'm thinking not)?
I don't know about all implementations, but contemporary versions of BIND all perform "negative caching" for some amount of time. The invalidity of DNS records can be cached.
Really? How useful to today's average system adminintrator is learning FTP, sendmail, and NFS?
I would say that every Linix SA should know FTP, and in my experience there are few *nix shops that *don't* run NFS. I certainly wouldn't hire a Linux SA who didn't know NFS.
As for sendmail, Enterprise 3 and Fedora Core, the topics of the book, ship with sendmail. It would seem that the authors are being prudent by providing information on its use.
Written any sendmail.cf's lately?
Most of us write sendmail.mc's and use "make" to turn them into.cf files, but to answer your intended question: Yes, I've modified and deployed three in the last week.
Based soley on this posting, if I had to choose whether to have the authors of the book or the author of the post create an SA curriculum, my decision would be quite easy.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for everyone else who uses Google News, but a lot of the time that I go there it's because I'm looking for a particular story. A lot of the time I can't find it or it's probably too recent for the story to make its way through the cycle to end up referenced at Google. If that's the case, I don't click on anything, and I'll come back later or find the article through some other means.
Just because someone doesn't click through it doesn't mean Google is stealing page views from the original news source.
Yes, but it isn't a good way. Check your scores file for the scores associated with the FH_DATE_PAST_20XX. This indicates the number of points added to the spam score of every message that fails this test. Basically, increase your spam threshold by this amount until you can apply this patch.
Good for a quick-n-dirty fix.
In actuality, using the second set of regular chips is unnecessary for two reasons: 1) You could just bet the irredeamable chips on both bets yourself. 2) You could always just bet one side of the bet. Sure, your variance goes up, but your long run expectation doesn't change.
Note also that you could have done this with lower out-of-pocket expenses by playing craps betting the pass/don't pass rather than an American roulette wheel.
Las Vegas casinos, though, don't buy them in 500 chip lots, they buy them in batches of tens of thousands. This allows the chip company to do a good job ammortizing the mold set-up. This means the price to a casino goes way down.
As I recall, a typical (non-RFID) $5 chip would cost a typical Las Vegas casino on the order of $0.45 each. Chips get slightly more expensive as their denomination goes up ('cuz they tend to add more counterfit protection to more valuable chips), but at $1 and above, I guarantee you the casino makes money with each chip that walks out the door.
Some casinos use very small denomination chips (although I can't think of any that have chips with a face value of less than $0.25 in play). Some of these cost casinos close to their face value, even if these "walk" the casinos don't lose money.
They don't care. In fact, they're happy when you do this. In fact, many, probably most, US casinos issue special "commemorative" chips that are designed to be interesting as keepsakes. It costs less than a dollar to make a casino quality chip in bulk. At $5 each, they'll be happy to sell you as many as you'd like.
You might want to check out some of Mims' previous reports on this topic. I can't recall the first few articles he wrote on the topic, but over at least the last year I would say that his reporting has been well-researched, fair, and not at all flattering to SCO. He deserves a little slack.
As a point of pedantry, the character Jason Lee played in Mallrats was Brody Bruce. And, of course, he played both characters in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
[de Grey] dreams of being on the cover of Time magazine I'm sure, ego is almost certainly a factor for him as well, and no doubt a huge payday would follow and major advancement on any of his 7 problems.
I believe one could fairly criticize de Grey along many lines, but anyone who has read TFA will likely agree that appearing on a magazine cover and especially "a huge payday" are not motivators in this case.
Wow. The article itself is ... stunning. On a per-word basis, I don't know where I've seen a higher concentration of misconceptions about DNS.
Most modern MTAs have the ability to reject email purportedly coming from domains that aren't registered. Just as one example, sendmail does this by default. Not registering domain names makes it *much* *easier* for me to avoid spam. I encourage spammers to adopt the practice described in this article.
Moreover, the costs of looking up nonexistant domains is roughly comparable to the costs associated with lookup up existing domains.
Of course, despite the article being worthless, it's still more than enough cause for the /. regulars to get whipped up into a frenzy.
When a DNS query goes to an ISPs DNS server, and the entry does not exist, does it go to the root servers?
When we make a DNS query, it goes to our name server. If the name server does not have a result for that query cached, it queries a higher-level server for information on which name server is authoritative for that domain. It is possible that any DNS query where no component of the domain name is cached to require a query of the root name servers. This is true for any existant or nonexistant domain name.
Secondly, do invalid domain names get cached (I'm thinking not)?
I don't know about all implementations, but contemporary versions of BIND all perform "negative caching" for some amount of time. The invalidity of DNS records can be cached.
I would say that every Linix SA should know FTP, and in my experience there are few *nix shops that *don't* run NFS. I certainly wouldn't hire a Linux SA who didn't know NFS.
As for sendmail, Enterprise 3 and Fedora Core, the topics of the book, ship with sendmail. It would seem that the authors are being prudent by providing information on its use.
Written any sendmail.cf's lately?
Most of us write sendmail.mc's and use "make" to turn them into .cf files, but to answer your intended question: Yes, I've modified and deployed three in the last week.
Based soley on this posting, if I had to choose whether to have the authors of the book or the author of the post create an SA curriculum, my decision would be quite easy.