swish-E is fast, but the quality of its search results is just awful. We use socialtext at work, which uses swish-e for search, and the search results may as well just be random.
It's not that Google can't delist the crap when they run across it. It's just much harder to keep it from getting re-indexed immediately after, unless they fix the fundamental weakness that the spammers are exploiting. And the effects of jiggering the ranking algorithm are *very* widespread, and not taken lightly. Google can and has delisted high-profile offenders before (BMW and Ricoh come to mind) but they don't want to have to fight their own processes in playing whack-a-mole with every chickenbone spammer whose time is far cheaper than Google's
> I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
It is when it comes to covering the SCO case. They not only post blow-by-blow detail with the source legal documents themselves, they've scored a few scoops, like being the first to dig up the purchase agreement between Novell and SCO (which for those not following along, is what ultimately hung SCO). Even with those stories though, you have to ignore much of the taunting tone of the analysis.
And it's not that groklaw's ever been dispassionate, but it's still declined nonetheless. I no longer see any insightful analysis in most of the comment by the likes of Quatermass or actual lawyers chipping in; instead, it's glued the word "sychophantic" firmly into my vocabulary, and the comments provide nothing but filler in a boring day.
The idea is called hashcash, which should help your googling. It's a very old idea, predating the current situation where spammers now have more computational power than anyone else can imagine and would laugh such a scheme away while everyone ELSE got penalized.
Indeed, it's trying things that has led to the current set of antispam tools we have now. The mail admin space is a world of viciously skeptical and outright cynical people though, who have seen more than a fair number of pitch-men with their silver bullets, and kooks with their Wondrous Golden Hammers. Something called "3D CAPTCHA" seems to be the particular favorite of Mr Kaplan. I don't even have to tell you what's wrong with captcha authentication for email, do I?
So no, it's not that trying something isn't better than doing nothing, but there has to actually be something to try, and something that isn't actually outright harmful to the email infrastructure. And yes, it can hurt to try.
You want a silver bullet for spam? Replace the abuse admins and management thereof of companies like Comcast, Roadrunner, Verizon, Orange, AT&T, and so on with people like Carl Hutzler, who made outbound spam from AOL a thing of the past. It's the people who don't care about the spam SENT from their networks who are the reason spam has gone from an annoyance to a serious destroyer of network resources.
I didn't read the entire paper, but after looking over the pretty pictures it looks like the sending party has to resend the message? That will only happen 50% of the time.
It could be greylisting, where the resend will be automatic. From the sender's point of view, there was just a delay. It's hard to say -- the article is not terribly well-written. The author's name is familiar, so googling on it turns up some other papers:
Its hard to tell from his summaries, but assuming the approaches are the same thing, it looks like he reinvented tagged addresses among other things. ALl in all, it looks grotesquely complex.
[ ] "My approach is immune from all criticisms" [X] "Doing SOMETHING is better than nothing!" [ ] Willfull ignorance of founded criticism.
Yes, it's a worn out joke (and yes, the form is a JOKE, it applies to ALL current antispam approaches). Yes, moderators are stupid. You must be new here.
I submit that part 4 of that scenario is a weakness in current TCP/IP stack implementations: that a sufficient privileged process cannot forcibly steal a port. It's not like they couldn't do it the long roundabout way anyway. The overall problem being that resources like ports are way too tightly coupled with processes.
You can say it a million times, doesn't make it true. The only reason I can't hax0r your box is because your ssh key is really really really really obscure.
You're right about the lack of wear leveling across the entire device in current flash devices, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the large drives, or at least some driver support for querying the current wear levels. When you pay as much as a SAN costs for a single drive, you probably expect more than just a big chunk of storage. The current solution is either to use either a smart filesystem (like JFFS) made for flash, or strangely enough, a really dumb one like FAT that has such big blocks that it's forced to write out large chunks anyway.
It seems to me though that the best proof is anecdotal: I see people carrying around thumb drives that they've had for several years, that they write to all the time, and they're still working fine. One usually loses the device or destroys the hardware before it wears out. There's no magic bullet in wear leveling, but it certainly seems to be good enough to outlast spinning platters o' rust.
The wear leveling that pretty much all flash chips do now puts them on par with mechanical HDD's in terms of lifetime. Furthermore, dead cells are blocked off, and the storage space simply shrinks a little bit after a few years -- it doesn't fail catastrophically.
The limited write cycles of flash drives is pretty much a non-issue. You probably shouldn't put a swap partition on one though.
Hey mods, I can just keep reposting even more. Fuck all of you some more.
God, it wasn't even an interesting post. But fuck you mods anyway.
The wear leveling that pretty much all flash chips do now puts them on par with mechanical HDD's in terms of lifetime. Furthermore, dead cells are blocked off, and the storage space simply shrinks a little bit after a few years -- it doesn't fail catastrophically.
The limited write cycles of flash drives is pretty much a non-issue. You probably shouldn't put a swap partition on one though.
Hey mods, I can just keep reposting. Fuck all of you.
> Of course, I don't personally know if PCIe is hot swappable
It is. But so is PCI -- it's just a matter of whether the physical and electrical connections on your hardware allow it, and whether your OS is set up to handle it. I wouldn't recommend yanking out your video card while the PC is on.
The wear leveling that pretty much all flash chips do now puts them on par with mechanical HDD's in terms of lifetime. Furthermore, dead cells are blocked off, and the storage space simply shrinks a little bit after a few years -- it doesn't fail catastrophically.
The limited write cycles of flash drives is pretty much a non-issue. You probably shouldn't put a swap partition on one though.
I in fact maintain a couple reports that do exactly this. It's not exactly real-time (the query takes 10 minutes to run), but generating a new set of charts is just a matter of hitting the "refresh query" button.
You want real-time reports on streamed data, something like MOODSS is probably the ticket.
There is no requirement that you must love your own country in exclusion to all others. Anyone who decries the erosion of foundational rights, for example, is expressing patriotism.
In the end it's all about labels; Patriotism is whatever people want it to be, I guess.
Argh. I meant to say I don't agree that inconsistency is perfectly equivalent to hypocrisy. I really need to stick to one-liners, much easier to edit:p
> It was never claimed that 20781847 was wrong, only that his logic was flawed.
It goes with the territory. "Your logic is flawed and therefore your argument is worthless". It's argumentum ad logicam when you take the extreme of actually saying someone is wrong because of a fallacy; I can present an invalid proof of slashdot's existence, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
I suppose you're partly right about the fallacy being applicable -- while I don't agree that Tu quoque (literally, "you too") is quite equivalent to outright hypocrisy, the rationale behind the accusation is still the same. But hypocrisy is also a seriously lame and overused argument to cover for the lack of an actual counter. It's the same reason I don't bother going after ultra-conservatives with examples of their moral terpitude when I'd rather attack the basis of their arguments, such as outright wrong facts.
So while the GGP wasn't making a claim about correctness, he was still doing the ever-so annoying "haha, logical fallacy, gotcha, aren't I so smart, nyeah nyeah nyeah" routine. I suppose I shouldn't let myself be baited by wikipedia-slinging self-styled logic-ninjas.
Slashdot Mirror
> where does the Wii come into this again
If you need us to draw a diagram, I'm sure there's plenty of pictures on the internet that will suffice.
swish-E is fast, but the quality of its search results is just awful. We use socialtext at work, which uses swish-e for search, and the search results may as well just be random.
I don't think it even handles unicode, either.
It's not that Google can't delist the crap when they run across it. It's just much harder to keep it from getting re-indexed immediately after, unless they fix the fundamental weakness that the spammers are exploiting. And the effects of jiggering the ranking algorithm are *very* widespread, and not taken lightly. Google can and has delisted high-profile offenders before (BMW and Ricoh come to mind) but they don't want to have to fight their own processes in playing whack-a-mole with every chickenbone spammer whose time is far cheaper than Google's
Gary Theurk's spam was email. Usenet didn't even exist then.
> My theory is that Bill Gates, George Bush Sr. and Hitler (Now undead) teamed up to thwart Google.
Clearly the Hitler they're in league with is none other than the vile Space Hitler. Someone call in Good Hitler!
> I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
It is when it comes to covering the SCO case. They not only post blow-by-blow detail with the source legal documents themselves, they've scored a few scoops, like being the first to dig up the purchase agreement between Novell and SCO (which for those not following along, is what ultimately hung SCO). Even with those stories though, you have to ignore much of the taunting tone of the analysis.
And it's not that groklaw's ever been dispassionate, but it's still declined nonetheless. I no longer see any insightful analysis in most of the comment by the likes of Quatermass or actual lawyers chipping in; instead, it's glued the word "sychophantic" firmly into my vocabulary, and the comments provide nothing but filler in a boring day.
> you have two choices: jump in and help out or choose to use something different.
Many people are doing the latter. As for the former, have you ever seen the process it takes to be a DD?
The idea is called hashcash, which should help your googling. It's a very old idea, predating the current situation where spammers now have more computational power than anyone else can imagine and would laugh such a scheme away while everyone ELSE got penalized.
Indeed, it's trying things that has led to the current set of antispam tools we have now. The mail admin space is a world of viciously skeptical and outright cynical people though, who have seen more than a fair number of pitch-men with their silver bullets, and kooks with their Wondrous Golden Hammers. Something called "3D CAPTCHA" seems to be the particular favorite of Mr Kaplan. I don't even have to tell you what's wrong with captcha authentication for email, do I?
So no, it's not that trying something isn't better than doing nothing, but there has to actually be something to try, and something that isn't actually outright harmful to the email infrastructure. And yes, it can hurt to try.
You want a silver bullet for spam? Replace the abuse admins and management thereof of companies like Comcast, Roadrunner, Verizon, Orange, AT&T, and so on with people like Carl Hutzler, who made outbound spam from AOL a thing of the past. It's the people who don't care about the spam SENT from their networks who are the reason spam has gone from an annoyance to a serious destroyer of network resources.
I didn't read the entire paper, but after looking over the pretty pictures it looks like the sending party has to resend the message? That will only happen 50% of the time.
It could be greylisting, where the resend will be automatic. From the sender's point of view, there was just a delay. It's hard to say -- the article is not terribly well-written. The author's name is familiar, so googling on it turns up some other papers:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/spamsolution/UniversalAuthentication.htm
some discussion can be found here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg12403.html
Its hard to tell from his summaries, but assuming the approaches are the same thing, it looks like he reinvented tagged addresses among other things. ALl in all, it looks grotesquely complex.
Your reply indicates an attitude of:
[ ] "My approach is immune from all criticisms"
[X] "Doing SOMETHING is better than nothing!"
[ ] Willfull ignorance of founded criticism.
Yes, it's a worn out joke (and yes, the form is a JOKE, it applies to ALL current antispam approaches). Yes, moderators are stupid. You must be new here.
> 4. Restarted system web server can't bind
I submit that part 4 of that scenario is a weakness in current TCP/IP stack implementations: that a sufficient privileged process cannot forcibly steal a port. It's not like they couldn't do it the long roundabout way anyway. The overall problem being that resources like ports are way too tightly coupled with processes.
> Obscurity is not security.
You can say it a million times, doesn't make it true. The only reason I can't hax0r your box is because your ssh key is really really really really obscure.
You're right about the lack of wear leveling across the entire device in current flash devices, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the large drives, or at least some driver support for querying the current wear levels. When you pay as much as a SAN costs for a single drive, you probably expect more than just a big chunk of storage. The current solution is either to use either a smart filesystem (like JFFS) made for flash, or strangely enough, a really dumb one like FAT that has such big blocks that it's forced to write out large chunks anyway.
It seems to me though that the best proof is anecdotal: I see people carrying around thumb drives that they've had for several years, that they write to all the time, and they're still working fine. One usually loses the device or destroys the hardware before it wears out. There's no magic bullet in wear leveling, but it certainly seems to be good enough to outlast spinning platters o' rust.
The wear leveling that pretty much all flash chips do now puts them on par with mechanical HDD's in terms of lifetime. Furthermore, dead cells are blocked off, and the storage space simply shrinks a little bit after a few years -- it doesn't fail catastrophically.
The limited write cycles of flash drives is pretty much a non-issue. You probably shouldn't put a swap partition on one though.
Hey mods, I can just keep reposting even more. Fuck all of you some more.
God, it wasn't even an interesting post. But fuck you mods anyway.
The wear leveling that pretty much all flash chips do now puts them on par with mechanical HDD's in terms of lifetime. Furthermore, dead cells are blocked off, and the storage space simply shrinks a little bit after a few years -- it doesn't fail catastrophically.
The limited write cycles of flash drives is pretty much a non-issue. You probably shouldn't put a swap partition on one though.
Hey mods, I can just keep reposting. Fuck all of you.
> it would be nice to have storage systems that can automatically migrate data between disk and flash to maximize performance.
Vista does this now.
> Of course, I don't personally know if PCIe is hot swappable
It is. But so is PCI -- it's just a matter of whether the physical and electrical connections on your hardware allow it, and whether your OS is set up to handle it. I wouldn't recommend yanking out your video card while the PC is on.
The wear leveling that pretty much all flash chips do now puts them on par with mechanical HDD's in terms of lifetime. Furthermore, dead cells are blocked off, and the storage space simply shrinks a little bit after a few years -- it doesn't fail catastrophically.
The limited write cycles of flash drives is pretty much a non-issue. You probably shouldn't put a swap partition on one though.
I think a mass of slashdot readers want to accellerate your way out the window for that.
I in fact maintain a couple reports that do exactly this. It's not exactly real-time (the query takes 10 minutes to run), but generating a new set of charts is just a matter of hitting the "refresh query" button.
You want real-time reports on streamed data, something like MOODSS is probably the ticket.
There is no requirement that you must love your own country in exclusion to all others. Anyone who decries the erosion of foundational rights, for example, is expressing patriotism.
In the end it's all about labels; Patriotism is whatever people want it to be, I guess.
Argh. I meant to say I don't agree that inconsistency is perfectly equivalent to hypocrisy. I really need to stick to one-liners, much easier to edit :p
> It was never claimed that 20781847 was wrong, only that his logic was flawed.
It goes with the territory. "Your logic is flawed and therefore your argument is worthless". It's argumentum ad logicam when you take the extreme of actually saying someone is wrong because of a fallacy; I can present an invalid proof of slashdot's existence, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
I suppose you're partly right about the fallacy being applicable -- while I don't agree that Tu quoque (literally, "you too") is quite equivalent to outright hypocrisy, the rationale behind the accusation is still the same. But hypocrisy is also a seriously lame and overused argument to cover for the lack of an actual counter. It's the same reason I don't bother going after ultra-conservatives with examples of their moral terpitude when I'd rather attack the basis of their arguments, such as outright wrong facts.
So while the GGP wasn't making a claim about correctness, he was still doing the ever-so annoying "haha, logical fallacy, gotcha, aren't I so smart, nyeah nyeah nyeah" routine. I suppose I shouldn't let myself be baited by wikipedia-slinging self-styled logic-ninjas.
PTO: Well, I reject your rejected rejection rejection and no tagbacks!
Pwned! Should have seen that one coming, obviously.