I recall that I'd read somewhere the optimal line length was 95 characters.
Regardless, those limits are doubtlessly for text, not code. Code stays legible up to wide widths for a number of reasons. Not having to manage wrapped lines saves a lot of time and effort.
There are lots of words folks misspell for which the response is that everyone just takes it in stride. The plural of virus is not one of them because it's been so widely discussed. The debate has made clear that "viruses" is the only acceptable spelling.
And you can't even misspell it ironically because despite the decline of misspelling there are still many people who spell it wrong unwittingly. It's not obvious enough to be smooth sarcasm. If you're misspelling for fun and not trolling, you might consider adding a sarcasm/irony punctuation or other indicator.
Well, then my comment about captchas not yet using performance throttling may not be accurate. I suppose it's not hard to believe that there's some throttling going on. And, to concede your earlier point somewhat, these are all attacks and defenses in a similar vein, if they're not the same thing.
"Said filtering" was not captchas. Band-pass filtering for captchas isn't yet done. You can submit the article on optimum captcha performance throttling when that era comes about.
soon computers will pass the tests better than humans
That's an interesting idea.
At that point you have to apply a band-pass filter. If a computer can solve a problem more easily than a human, then superhuman performance is a sign of non-humanness.
I figured that was your point. I might have been more accommodating of the ambiguity, sorry.
I think requiring conformity is okay if everyone has already opted in to that. The problem from there seems to be clearly communicating the ideas of agreement.
Requiring others to conform to one's ideas when others have not agreed is obviously problematic. There's a spectrum of "encouragement" from near-invisible hinting or polite asking to passive-aggressive coercion and attacks. It's a subtle philosophical matter at heart, but, coarsely considered, it's not cool to force others to do what you want them to.
Wastes screen real-estate. I like that Mutt works in the terminal. But it wastes space. Graphic-mode mail clients can fit more information in the same space than Mutt does.
Have you set your index_format? And have you tried pager_index_lines to split the screen into index + message view?
Filters have to be adjusted and trained, and they consume CPU time as well.
In short, filtering will never, ever, solve the spam problem.
No normal modern attempt to address spam will "solve" the spam problem in the sense of stop it completely. Recreating the concept of email from scratch and disallowing non-identified MTAs, that might do it.
Filtering is how you handle spam today. Also, note that not every "filter" needs training — you have a limited view of filters. A full 30% of the spam that my system blocks is blocked based on the remote MTA not using a (RFC-required) FQDN in the SMTP HELO. That's a computationally trivial check.
I have a friend who has trouble with my sending them copies of email chains as attachments. That is, they want to see some emails I've got so I MIME attach them to an email saying "Here you go."
Is it really all that tough in Thunderbird to view attachments?
Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.
So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.
It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.[4]
But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.
But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.
Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:
also from Web MD ("Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.")
Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."
And what happens if you vaporize, rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.
Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.
You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.
Certainly you realize that you're just trying to justify the pro-jamming argument
No It was in fact not my intention to bolster the pro-jamming argument. I can understand someone having an expectation of this, but if you think it through, casting aspersions on one party does not improve the argument of the other. At best my statement could only be anti anti-jammer, not pro pro-jammer.
And, also, it is not my intention, per se, to undermine the argument of anti-jammers, though I admit that my current leanings are in opposition to anti-jammers and that if my earlier comment were indeed to undermine the arguments of anti-jammers, I would not be put out. But note that neither do I hold contempt for anti-jammers.
I was responding in part to the viciousness of the anti-jamming contingent, rising above the typical timber of online head-butting, and was wondering what was involved in that. What I've said seems to me the truth. Regardless of how it bears on the broader issue of whether jamming is good. Delving into the motivation was my main point and so that's what I covered in my post. I find emotions in argument to be a very interesting thing.
Take for example this comment: "If you have a problem with someone's conversation, how about being an adult and asking them to please quiet down?" I rather like the idea of civility and mutual consideration abounding in society such that this tack could be effective. But note at the same time you say "how about being an adult" which is an implied maliciously disparaging remark about the maturity of your opposition. So you at once make an suggestion that works only when there's civility and simultaneously act uncivil in delivering it, ironically making in effect your own ad hominem proof against your own argument.
What's more, I see that I'm gratifying the personal emotional urge to fight you, to contradict you. It doesn't matter that I'm right about several ways in which you're being unreasonable or mistaken. What am I really trying to accomplish? Certainly not your persuasion. It's evident to me that you're stuck in your thinking and not amenable to reason. Am I just trying to champion a more reasonable perspective? Maybe in part, but if I thought about it long enough I'd realize that putting in the effort to point out logic and reason in this matter will likely do next to nothing for its cause. And so here we are. Nevermind.
Idiocy is when you don't realize 6 GHz is beyond some kind of physical limit for microprocessor clock speeds?
And yet stating that as if it were common knowledge, not explaining it for the public benefit, and just being abusive are, I assume, somehow supposed to be a smart practice?
I get the impression that most of the anti-jamming sentiment here is founded on anger at the idea of personally being forcibly denied cell service. Or, more plainly, just being coerced. And I can certainly understand that. The idea of being denied something what was normally in my power because someone else just decided I shouldn't have it brings out my bully-hating reflex.
But one couldn't really argue the issue on just "don't jam me" because that would sound weak and whiny and selfish. And I think as people respond to this topic they either know this intellectually or they have the realization on a subconscious level, and so they employ less personal and more persuasive arguments, like claiming that 911 and other emergency calls are endangered, and they attack the pro-jammers' character.
I know that modems are serial devices, but what is "serialization" in this context? Isn't the (even analog) information coming across already in serial (subsequent order)?
Slashdot Mirror
I recall that I'd read somewhere the optimal line length was 95 characters.
Regardless, those limits are doubtlessly for text, not code. Code stays legible up to wide widths for a number of reasons. Not having to manage wrapped lines saves a lot of time and effort.
Ah, here we are: Reading Onscreen: The Effects of Line Length on Performance
It's not a pastime. It's business.
Friendly reminder:
legality != morality
It's harmful to confuse the two.
There are lots of words folks misspell for which the response is that everyone just takes it in stride. The plural of virus is not one of them because it's been so widely discussed. The debate has made clear that "viruses" is the only acceptable spelling.
And you can't even misspell it ironically because despite the decline of misspelling there are still many people who spell it wrong unwittingly. It's not obvious enough to be smooth sarcasm. If you're misspelling for fun and not trolling, you might consider adding a sarcasm/irony punctuation or other indicator.
Well, then my comment about captchas not yet using performance throttling may not be accurate. I suppose it's not hard to believe that there's some throttling going on. And, to concede your earlier point somewhat, these are all attacks and defenses in a similar vein, if they're not the same thing.
An arms race. Like spam.
So I guess you mean "100% security" only if someone isn't targeting you directly and scanning your ports.
"Said filtering" was not captchas. Band-pass filtering for captchas isn't yet done. You can submit the article on optimum captcha performance throttling when that era comes about.
Yeah, just wait until the sshd zero day and associated worm.
Or don't wait and try combing through your log with all the automated attacks on wide-open port 22s.
I put my sshd on port [redacted] instead of 22 and, looking through logs now, I see no attempts at all for the last year.
Only two attempts in the past 2 years total.
They're not brute forcing SSH logins by finding SSH servers through fingerprinting yet. They're still only using conventional ports.
That's an interesting idea.
At that point you have to apply a band-pass filter. If a computer can solve a problem more easily than a human, then superhuman performance is a sign of non-humanness.
I figured that was your point. I might have been more accommodating of the ambiguity, sorry.
I think requiring conformity is okay if everyone has already opted in to that. The problem from there seems to be clearly communicating the ideas of agreement.
Requiring others to conform to one's ideas when others have not agreed is obviously problematic. There's a spectrum of "encouragement" from near-invisible hinting or polite asking to passive-aggressive coercion and attacks. It's a subtle philosophical matter at heart, but, coarsely considered, it's not cool to force others to do what you want them to.
Have you set your index_format? And have you tried pager_index_lines to split the screen into index + message view?
Hear, hear.
Its being a real console app is great.
No normal modern attempt to address spam will "solve" the spam problem in the sense of stop it completely. Recreating the concept of email from scratch and disallowing non-identified MTAs, that might do it.
Filtering is how you handle spam today. Also, note that not every "filter" needs training — you have a limited view of filters. A full 30% of the spam that my system blocks is blocked based on the remote MTA not using a (RFC-required) FQDN in the SMTP HELO. That's a computationally trivial check.
Mine? Don't wrestle with the messenger.
One's sense of visual tidiness appraises all within one's vision, right?
Those are important facts on the matter, thanks for letting us know.
For laundry, some people prefer visual tidiness to reducing petroleum consumption. It's a matter of priorities.
Does that seem contentious or inaccurate to you?
Windows 3.1 (1992) certainly didn't have the net in mind.
I have a friend who has trouble with my sending them copies of email chains as attachments. That is, they want to see some emails I've got so I MIME attach them to an email saying "Here you go."
Is it really all that tough in Thunderbird to view attachments?
Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.
So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.
But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.
But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.
Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:
Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."
And what happens if you vaporize , rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.
Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.
You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.
It's an easy assumption to make. But wrong.
Look it up. Studies show either no increased cancer risk from cannabis use, or even a slightly protective (anti-cancer) effect.
Emphysema on the other hand...
No It was in fact not my intention to bolster the pro-jamming argument. I can understand someone having an expectation of this, but if you think it through, casting aspersions on one party does not improve the argument of the other. At best my statement could only be anti anti-jammer, not pro pro-jammer.
And, also, it is not my intention, per se, to undermine the argument of anti-jammers, though I admit that my current leanings are in opposition to anti-jammers and that if my earlier comment were indeed to undermine the arguments of anti-jammers, I would not be put out. But note that neither do I hold contempt for anti-jammers.
I was responding in part to the viciousness of the anti-jamming contingent, rising above the typical timber of online head-butting, and was wondering what was involved in that. What I've said seems to me the truth. Regardless of how it bears on the broader issue of whether jamming is good. Delving into the motivation was my main point and so that's what I covered in my post. I find emotions in argument to be a very interesting thing.
Take for example this comment: "If you have a problem with someone's conversation, how about being an adult and asking them to please quiet down?" I rather like the idea of civility and mutual consideration abounding in society such that this tack could be effective. But note at the same time you say "how about being an adult" which is an implied maliciously disparaging remark about the maturity of your opposition. So you at once make an suggestion that works only when there's civility and simultaneously act uncivil in delivering it, ironically making in effect your own ad hominem proof against your own argument.
What's more, I see that I'm gratifying the personal emotional urge to fight you, to contradict you. It doesn't matter that I'm right about several ways in which you're being unreasonable or mistaken. What am I really trying to accomplish? Certainly not your persuasion. It's evident to me that you're stuck in your thinking and not amenable to reason. Am I just trying to champion a more reasonable perspective? Maybe in part, but if I thought about it long enough I'd realize that putting in the effort to point out logic and reason in this matter will likely do next to nothing for its cause. And so here we are. Nevermind.
Idiocy is when you don't realize 6 GHz is beyond some kind of physical limit for microprocessor clock speeds?
And yet stating that as if it were common knowledge, not explaining it for the public benefit, and just being abusive are, I assume, somehow supposed to be a smart practice?
I get the impression that most of the anti-jamming sentiment here is founded on anger at the idea of personally being forcibly denied cell service. Or, more plainly, just being coerced. And I can certainly understand that. The idea of being denied something what was normally in my power because someone else just decided I shouldn't have it brings out my bully-hating reflex.
But one couldn't really argue the issue on just "don't jam me" because that would sound weak and whiny and selfish. And I think as people respond to this topic they either know this intellectually or they have the realization on a subconscious level, and so they employ less personal and more persuasive arguments, like claiming that 911 and other emergency calls are endangered, and they attack the pro-jammers' character.
I know that modems are serial devices, but what is "serialization" in this context? Isn't the (even analog) information coming across already in serial (subsequent order)?