I'm not saying what you are saying is false, but if I did the math right, you are saying that you are only seeing about 13.5% as much email (total) as last year?

I got this by assuming that non-spam mail was constant, and calculating the difference between a body of mail that was 98.8% spam and 91.2% spam.

For example, using a fixed value of 1 email for non-spam, you should be getting 83.33 spam messages at 98.8%, and only 11.36 spam messages at 91.2%. (83.33/(1+83) = .988)

To me, a reduction down to 13.6% (11.36/83.33) of your previous amount of spam in one year seems more amazing than anything else.

Ewww - that's makes them sound like an STD. At the very least, you should probably wash your hands before returning to work.

I can explain it easily: I hadn't clicked "Get More Comments" at the bottom before replying. I apologize for being "redundant" - but when I replied, the original message didn't show any responses. I certainly wouldn't have written in otherwise!

Don't get too upset! :-)

It's kinda funny, really. Gotta love the New Slashdot(TM)

Have to correct you here: In JavaScript, ALL variables that are not explicitly declared with var are declared global. It's without question the worst "feature" of JavaScript. In your example, both x and y are global. The correct example code is:

x = 2; function test() { var y = x + 3; }

However, like almost all problems with JavaScript, running your scripts through Douglas Crockford's JSLint (and strictly adhering to it) pretty much eliminates that issue. It can be run on the command line as part of a build script, and has really helped me write much better JS code.

I would totally play that game!

If you've seen the movie Traitor, there's an interesting line in it, paraphrased as:

The character's underlying meaning is that an act of terrorism on a democratic country is acceptable because the people of the country are responsible for that government's choices.

I disagree that a true "act of terrorism" is ever acceptable, but I sadly agree that we, at least partially, are individually and personally responsible for the actions of our government.

If nothing else, it at least is an interesting way to look at it.

Funny, when I visit that link I hear a long stream of vulgarity, followed by some legible sentences. The legible stuff sounds like:

"Who the **** designs a ******* window so ******* small that you can only see FOUR ******* websites at a time?? ******* Adobe!"

The stupid box takes up less than 1/16 of my browser window. That's a great design.

On top of that, the idiot designers made the scrollbar grip without a minimum vertical height, so that it shrinks to a single pixel high. That's great.

That's completely beside the fact that, by default, websites can store huge amounts of data via Flash, even if I have cookies disabled. Thankfully, there's FlashBlock.

From WikiPedia:

I don't think this would be a problem. If you already own the website, then you already can change the URL at will to anything you want.

The only reason this would be a bigger issue is XSS attacks - but those are already have way more important concerns than just spoofing the URL.

Personally, I would love it. It would make it much easier to merge the mobile/AJAX/static structures of the website, allow end-users to access the same bookmarks from multiple devices, and provide a much cleaner look than we already have.

Currently, the real issue with AJAX-webapp links is that the server never gets the hash (fragment) portion of the URL. This makes it hard to serve the correct page to a mobile device, and completely impossible if the device does not support JavaScript.

Someone mentioned below that they are planning to support OpenCL (assuming they didn't mean simply OpenGL). If that is the case, I wonder if they will only support Snow Leopard. This provides several benefits:

• Only one OS to worry about (for now).
• Significantly limits the OS features that need to be supported, since Snow Leopard only runs on a subset of Macs. (i.e.: 64-bit support is required for Snow Leopard.)
• Guarantees newer hardware (no issues with old computers running slowly).
• And most importantly, guarantees Intel / i586 processors, seriously reducing the complexity of targeting PowerPC computers as well.

If that is true, they will probably disappoint quite a few Mac users, who haven't upgraded for one reason or another.

Of course, Apple will be happy about it... ;-)

BSD will never work on the desktop! It's far too Unixy.

Now, excuse me as I get back to work on my user-friendly Mac.

Now that would at least have made sense in Dean Koontz's Frankenstein books!

(Of course, I'm probably the only person on Earth who read all three books of that series...)