Not a bad idea, but here's the problem I see--one reason 1,000,000 spam messages is not economical for a cost of $10,000 is because only a tenth of them make it to anyone's inbox. If spammers paid the $10,000 this would get them to the person's inbox--all 1,000,000 spam messages in the inbox. This could make the $10,000 cost economical depending on how well done the spam message is. Also--to make it more economical the spammers would just evolve the same as they always do--if I were them I would use targetted emailing instead of blanket emailing. Right now blanket emailing is fine because it's free, but the cost of targeting it would become worth it when there are micropayments involved.
However, the micropayment plan you describe in conjunction with a spam filter could work. Maybe not enough better than just a pure whitelist system, though, for it to catch on.
I can't download it unless I give a real email address. I tried a fake hotmail address and it said "enter a business email." Which means my real hotmail junkmail box won't cut it. And I tried a different fake domain but then it said to go check my email (but it was fake, so I can't). So I can't download it without giving this company--that I don't really trust--my real email address.
No idea. However, I just googled: mammoth elephan cloning and found some interesting things to read on the topic. From the first result:
October 17, 1999: A team of French, American, Dutch and Russian paleontologists successfully airlifted a male, 23 tonne (25 ton) woolly mammoth from its grave in Siberia where it had been frozen for 20,000 years. It was almost complete except for its head which had been exposed to air in the past. Since the species has been extinct for over 10,000 years, some scientists have proposed that attempts be made to breed a living mammoth from DNA, sperm or cell nucleus retrieved from the carcass. A modern elephant ovum would be used, because it is the closest living relative to the mammoth. This, sounds like the story I read about in which the scientists later decided the DNA was too degraded to use. As of the time I read the story the scientists were supposedly just hoping for a better specimen to come along. Perhaps they have one now.
I've heard that scientists hope to extract DNA from a mammoth and then use that to make one (by means of a female elephant). I wonder if there are still scientists hoping to clone a mammoth, and if so, I wonder if this baby mammoth has some good DNA (to date, all known mammoths' DNA had degraded too much for use).
Re:Could be workable, if...
on
Hotmail vs Goodmail
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't see how a "tax" like this could ever actually work as a way around spam.
Charging advertizers to get email through doesn't block any spam. Spam blockers use algorythms, etc to attempt to find and block spam, but when they fail the mail gets to the inbox without having to pay money. I do get this kind of spam in my Hotmail account. The advertizers who pay are merely guaranteed to get to the inbox. The payment does nothing to keep spammers out of inboxes.
If all email was taxed, then all people who don't pay could either be blocked altogether or relegated to the questionable mail box. If blocked, there would still be troubles--first, it would immediately fail because email should be free and everyone agrees with this. Second, some spammers would just pay. If non-paid mail was sent to the questionable mail box, everyone would be checking that box all the time because of the emails they get from real people who don't pay (and opening more spam than ever this way).
In conclusion--no email "tax" to advertizers or to all emailers would work to cut down spam.
I'm not sure this wouldn't work on Opera if written specificaly for it (which does still reveal a benefit of Opera--people don't usually think to write code exploiting Opera. It just isn't economical to do so). The reason I say this is because, when I click on the link above, Opera asks if it can open FF. This does not end up being detrimental because then I just end up with FF asking me if it can open FF (instead of asking to open cmd.exe). However, if the exploit were written for Opera, then I imagine Opera would have asked me if it could open cmd.exe instead of FF. With all the people out there who just click "ok" to everything that pops up on their computer (i.e., my wife, despite my attempts to teach her otherwise), this could be a workable exploit.
As for Opera on Feisty--it looks ok to me. The font is different from that in Windows but nothing "whacked up."
I could imagine web developers in the position you describe--especially old ones who are used to using IE. They still keep FF on hand to check compatability.
As for myself (I am not a web developer) I have FF installed but don't usually use it--I primarily use Opera.
If you use the extension Multizilla, one of the options is to have a tab relaod every x minutes. This suffers the same problem as the reload tab option built into Opera (as far as I've discovered)--I want it to always automatically reload Slashdot whenever I open it in a tab. I want the browser to see that I opened Slashdot and automatically know "Ok, I'm supposed to reload this tab every n minutes." Just the same as when I open the Gmail login that it is supposed to put certain figures in certain boxes, and just like it knows that (though I have the browser set to bock cookies) it doesn't block the cookies from my bank's website. In Opera this would be called a site preference--or perhaps a page preference if the feature acted on a particular URL rather than a particular domain (page preference would be preferable to me for this over site preference).
I guess I want a reload Slashdot option, not just a reload the tab I choose option. If I navigate away from Slashdot in that tab, it will still be reloading for a reload tab option even though I don't want it to anymore. But a reload URL option would know that if I leave a URL that I don't want the reloading to continue.
As an update to my last post--I just saved a new session with Slashtod in one of the tabs set to reload every 5 minutes. I closed Opera and opened that session--and it did save the setting to reload every five minutes.
So this is half of what I want. Now if only I can figure out a way to have it always automatically reload Slashdot even if I close the saved session's Slashdot tab and open a new Slashdot tab.
I suppose this is somewhat offtopic from the story, but as you mention it, I do sometimes use that page reload feature in Opera--I have a question about it, though, that reading the story led me to do a little research on, but I couldn't find the answer:
As far as I can tell, there is no way to set a page, for example Slashdot, to always reload every n minutes. If I have sufficiently searched every corner, it seems that I would have to check the "enable" setting every time I open Slashdot for it to automatically reload. The closest I can come to automatically autoreloading Slashdot is, perhaps, saving a session with that option ticked (if that would even work, I haven't tried it, but I will after I submit this post). But that doesn't quite solve the problem because I'd have to be careful to not close the particular Slashdot page that opened with the session. I'd like to find a way to have the autoreload be part of the site preferences--maybe a user javascript? Those are a little advanced for me though.
Assuming you don't have some kind of page refresh every n seconds Two notes on that:
1) iGoogle, Gmail, and other AJAX websites do a sort of self-update every so often. I wonder how those would factor into the ratings for people who always keep those open in a tab (I, for example, pretty much always have iGoogle open in a tab).
2) I'm a regular user of Opera, which, in its latest iteration, includes a feature called "Speed Dial." This feature consists of a tab that has previews of nine user-selected web pages. The user can define how often the page preview updates--I have mine set to every 30 minutes. The page previews update even when the Speed Dial tab is not open (that way the previews are there instantaniously when you open the Speed Dial tab, so you don't have to wait for each preview to load to see the page preview). So that means that the whole time I have Opera open it's reloading pages that I might not view at all. Note, however--this feature throws a wrench in ratings measured by the number of page views as well.
I suppose my response to myself on my second note is that probably any page that the user causes to be refreshed so often deserves to get a high count from that user, no matter the metric used. On the other hand--what if I set the page in my Speed Dial but then end up never actually using the page because my thoughts on how useful it would be turned out to be wrong? (I'll call this Fiddler on the Roof-style commenting)
I guess I can just say I'm glad I'm not in the business of calculating ratings for web pages. It seems like a difficult thing to measure, particularly in this day of tabs and self-refreshing web pages, etc.
It seems to me that this is really a nonproblem--OOo is compatible with lots of "dead" formats (or, can read them at least), as well as many other open source office programs. I can't imagine they're going to begin throwing away this compatability--it isn't like it takes extra coding (as far as I know). Also, I have found Microsoft Word's "Extract text from any file" to work pretty well (I had a roommate with a corrupted Mac-formatted disk that had his deceased grandmother's journal on it in some old Mac Word file (a format still readable in Word, but the disk was corrupted so I couldn't just open the file). I popped it in my parents' now deceased iMac and the only program I found that opened it was Word, using the "Extract text from any file" function. I emailed him the journal and he thanked me profusely).
Also--as noted, the OOXML format is a nonsolution for this nonproblem. It seems like it would be a waste of effort--why convert a bunch of files to a format that may die just as quickly as any other format, when you can just leave the file as is and open it in OOo (assuming I'm correct that they won't stop read support for dead formats)?
Also, it seems to me that no current format or any future format will ever solve this nonproblem because formats will always change as new functionality is continually added. The better solution is to keep this a nonproblem by having open source software that can read old file formats.
That's interesting. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US Navteq provides the data for both Google Maps and Mapquest (and Yahoo! Maps as well, I believe). So you would think the directions would be no less accurate. On the other hand, I have definitely noticed the different services do often recommend different routes from the others, despite all being run by Navteq.
I could be wrong, but I thought there was some conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel--like Windows acted differently when it saw that a "genuine Intel" processor was in use. The few bits I can find on this blame Intel, but it seems like Microsoft would have to be in there somehow for this to work (perhaps I just don't know enough about compilers).
It isn't that people are ok with photos of rape going up on this site; I think the deal is that for every one picture of a rape uploaded, there will be 500 child porn photos uploaded.
That's interesting, because the way I read it it sounds to me like more than a mention--He's using it as support for doctrine he's teaching. Why would Paul use something that they're doing that is doctrinally deviant as support for something that he is teaching as truth? It seems to me that he would at least mention--in his letter that is already intended as correction--that they shouldn't be baptizing for the dead.
I think more than likely, if legislation "slips in" it will be to keep the net neutral. The internet providers don't need legislation to allow them to discriminate.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a bad idea, but here's the problem I see--one reason 1,000,000 spam messages is not economical for a cost of $10,000 is because only a tenth of them make it to anyone's inbox. If spammers paid the $10,000 this would get them to the person's inbox--all 1,000,000 spam messages in the inbox. This could make the $10,000 cost economical depending on how well done the spam message is. Also--to make it more economical the spammers would just evolve the same as they always do--if I were them I would use targetted emailing instead of blanket emailing. Right now blanket emailing is fine because it's free, but the cost of targeting it would become worth it when there are micropayments involved.
However, the micropayment plan you describe in conjunction with a spam filter could work. Maybe not enough better than just a pure whitelist system, though, for it to catch on.
I can't download it unless I give a real email address. I tried a fake hotmail address and it said "enter a business email." Which means my real hotmail junkmail box won't cut it. And I tried a different fake domain but then it said to go check my email (but it was fake, so I can't). So I can't download it without giving this company--that I don't really trust--my real email address.
Not gonna happen.
A team of French, American, Dutch and Russian paleontologists successfully airlifted a male, 23 tonne (25 ton) woolly mammoth from its grave in Siberia where it had been frozen for 20,000 years. It was almost complete except for its head which had been exposed to air in the past. Since the species has been extinct for over 10,000 years, some scientists have proposed that attempts be made to breed a living mammoth from DNA, sperm or cell nucleus retrieved from the carcass. A modern elephant ovum would be used, because it is the closest living relative to the mammoth. This, sounds like the story I read about in which the scientists later decided the DNA was too degraded to use. As of the time I read the story the scientists were supposedly just hoping for a better specimen to come along. Perhaps they have one now.
I've heard that scientists hope to extract DNA from a mammoth and then use that to make one (by means of a female elephant). I wonder if there are still scientists hoping to clone a mammoth, and if so, I wonder if this baby mammoth has some good DNA (to date, all known mammoths' DNA had degraded too much for use).
I don't see how a "tax" like this could ever actually work as a way around spam.
Charging advertizers to get email through doesn't block any spam. Spam blockers use algorythms, etc to attempt to find and block spam, but when they fail the mail gets to the inbox without having to pay money. I do get this kind of spam in my Hotmail account. The advertizers who pay are merely guaranteed to get to the inbox. The payment does nothing to keep spammers out of inboxes.
If all email was taxed, then all people who don't pay could either be blocked altogether or relegated to the questionable mail box. If blocked, there would still be troubles--first, it would immediately fail because email should be free and everyone agrees with this. Second, some spammers would just pay. If non-paid mail was sent to the questionable mail box, everyone would be checking that box all the time because of the emails they get from real people who don't pay (and opening more spam than ever this way).
In conclusion--no email "tax" to advertizers or to all emailers would work to cut down spam.
I'm not sure this wouldn't work on Opera if written specificaly for it (which does still reveal a benefit of Opera--people don't usually think to write code exploiting Opera. It just isn't economical to do so). The reason I say this is because, when I click on the link above, Opera asks if it can open FF. This does not end up being detrimental because then I just end up with FF asking me if it can open FF (instead of asking to open cmd.exe). However, if the exploit were written for Opera, then I imagine Opera would have asked me if it could open cmd.exe instead of FF. With all the people out there who just click "ok" to everything that pops up on their computer (i.e., my wife, despite my attempts to teach her otherwise), this could be a workable exploit.
As for Opera on Feisty--it looks ok to me. The font is different from that in Windows but nothing "whacked up."
I could imagine web developers in the position you describe--especially old ones who are used to using IE. They still keep FF on hand to check compatability.
As for myself (I am not a web developer) I have FF installed but don't usually use it--I primarily use Opera.
I guess I want a reload Slashdot option, not just a reload the tab I choose option. If I navigate away from Slashdot in that tab, it will still be reloading for a reload tab option even though I don't want it to anymore. But a reload URL option would know that if I leave a URL that I don't want the reloading to continue.
I'd love to know how you made it so the option sticks to a URL after closing the tab. I think I'll go search for this in the Opera forums.
As an update to my last post--I just saved a new session with Slashtod in one of the tabs set to reload every 5 minutes. I closed Opera and opened that session--and it did save the setting to reload every five minutes.
So this is half of what I want. Now if only I can figure out a way to have it always automatically reload Slashdot even if I close the saved session's Slashdot tab and open a new Slashdot tab.
I suppose this is somewhat offtopic from the story, but as you mention it, I do sometimes use that page reload feature in Opera--I have a question about it, though, that reading the story led me to do a little research on, but I couldn't find the answer:
As far as I can tell, there is no way to set a page, for example Slashdot, to always reload every n minutes. If I have sufficiently searched every corner, it seems that I would have to check the "enable" setting every time I open Slashdot for it to automatically reload. The closest I can come to automatically autoreloading Slashdot is, perhaps, saving a session with that option ticked (if that would even work, I haven't tried it, but I will after I submit this post). But that doesn't quite solve the problem because I'd have to be careful to not close the particular Slashdot page that opened with the session. I'd like to find a way to have the autoreload be part of the site preferences--maybe a user javascript? Those are a little advanced for me though.
1) iGoogle, Gmail, and other AJAX websites do a sort of self-update every so often. I wonder how those would factor into the ratings for people who always keep those open in a tab (I, for example, pretty much always have iGoogle open in a tab).
2) I'm a regular user of Opera, which, in its latest iteration, includes a feature called "Speed Dial." This feature consists of a tab that has previews of nine user-selected web pages. The user can define how often the page preview updates--I have mine set to every 30 minutes. The page previews update even when the Speed Dial tab is not open (that way the previews are there instantaniously when you open the Speed Dial tab, so you don't have to wait for each preview to load to see the page preview). So that means that the whole time I have Opera open it's reloading pages that I might not view at all. Note, however--this feature throws a wrench in ratings measured by the number of page views as well.
I suppose my response to myself on my second note is that probably any page that the user causes to be refreshed so often deserves to get a high count from that user, no matter the metric used. On the other hand--what if I set the page in my Speed Dial but then end up never actually using the page because my thoughts on how useful it would be turned out to be wrong? (I'll call this Fiddler on the Roof-style commenting)
I guess I can just say I'm glad I'm not in the business of calculating ratings for web pages. It seems like a difficult thing to measure, particularly in this day of tabs and self-refreshing web pages, etc.
Yeah--I had the darnest time properly trying to write uTorrent using the letter mu once (even using the HTML form of the letters doesn't work).
Could you please give us a video of the original, please, for comparative purposes?
http://www.superwarehouse.com/p.cfm?p=46328&CMP=KA C-Froogle
It seems to me that this is really a nonproblem--OOo is compatible with lots of "dead" formats (or, can read them at least), as well as many other open source office programs. I can't imagine they're going to begin throwing away this compatability--it isn't like it takes extra coding (as far as I know). Also, I have found Microsoft Word's "Extract text from any file" to work pretty well (I had a roommate with a corrupted Mac-formatted disk that had his deceased grandmother's journal on it in some old Mac Word file (a format still readable in Word, but the disk was corrupted so I couldn't just open the file). I popped it in my parents' now deceased iMac and the only program I found that opened it was Word, using the "Extract text from any file" function. I emailed him the journal and he thanked me profusely).
Also--as noted, the OOXML format is a nonsolution for this nonproblem. It seems like it would be a waste of effort--why convert a bunch of files to a format that may die just as quickly as any other format, when you can just leave the file as is and open it in OOo (assuming I'm correct that they won't stop read support for dead formats)?
Also, it seems to me that no current format or any future format will ever solve this nonproblem because formats will always change as new functionality is continually added. The better solution is to keep this a nonproblem by having open source software that can read old file formats.
That's interesting. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US Navteq provides the data for both Google Maps and Mapquest (and Yahoo! Maps as well, I believe). So you would think the directions would be no less accurate. On the other hand, I have definitely noticed the different services do often recommend different routes from the others, despite all being run by Navteq.
Anyone else know more about this?
Or he should just put torrents on The Pirate Bay.
I could be wrong, but I thought there was some conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel--like Windows acted differently when it saw that a "genuine Intel" processor was in use. The few bits I can find on this blame Intel, but it seems like Microsoft would have to be in there somehow for this to work (perhaps I just don't know enough about compilers).
Honestly, I don't see any difference. I thought he said there would be something to click on to make it collapse. Maybe it's because I'm using Opera.
It isn't that people are ok with photos of rape going up on this site; I think the deal is that for every one picture of a rape uploaded, there will be 500 child porn photos uploaded.
It appears to me that they plan to censor to some degree (I'm not sure what they consider "illegal").
It's hard to call it a "secret." Here is a page I got to from lds.org > About the Church > Glossary > B > Baptism for the Dead
That's interesting, because the way I read it it sounds to me like more than a mention--He's using it as support for doctrine he's teaching. Why would Paul use something that they're doing that is doctrinally deviant as support for something that he is teaching as truth? It seems to me that he would at least mention--in his letter that is already intended as correction--that they shouldn't be baptizing for the dead.
I think more than likely, if legislation "slips in" it will be to keep the net neutral. The internet providers don't need legislation to allow them to discriminate.