Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Pseudoscience debunked? (Score 1) 374

The problem is covering the mistakes of people that made bad choices for the country years ago instead of admitting that millions has been wasted and that Hoover, that guy that just couldn't find any sign of the Mafia anywhere, may have taken a kickback for some toy devised by a comic book writer as part of a scam.

Comment Here's why you know that example (Score 1) 374

Actually phlogiston is a really good theory to bring up to describe how science works, especially in terms of chemistry and metallurgy. The oxidation of iron is where phlogiston falls over and such experiments were one of the indicators that oxygen exists and that there is more than one kind of gas.
So it's a theory, which was then tested at length and found to be empirically correct most of the time, but then a condition where it failed inspired an improved theory.
So think about that the next time you want to make fun of phlogiston - you and I have probably only heard of it because it's a damn good example of scientific progress at work so it keeps getting repeated to show how far we've gone. Put up an idea, test it to destruction, and when it fails, adopt a new one almost immediately when that provides a better explanation. That's not pseudoscience - it's the real thing at work - and we only make fun of it today because it seems so damn obvious to us that oxygen exists.

Comment What is it with blaming the observer? (Score 1) 190

So, this might be flamebait, but what it really comes down to is that your issues with greylisting were likely because you didn't do your homework

No - I did my homework to find out exactly how somebody managed to fuck up communication and greatly delay messages from one end, and found that the answer was greylisting implemented very poorly at the remote end. My comment above is because I "did my homework" and observed the downsides. Those downsides are now listed in the wikipedia article.
For the record of yourself and the other idiot making noise about MS Exchange, I had not configured either of the two servers and instead came in after the problem came to light. So it's not just "flamebait" it's also a stupid jump to a conclusion just because I'm critical of yet another flawed anti-spam stopgap that can backfire if care is not taken. Spammers are channelling stuff via real mail servers now or getting their bots to resend so greylisting is losing what effectiveness it had anyway.

Comment Re:Grey Listing and (Score 1) 190

Now that's an interesting reading comprehension failure and blaming victims instead of perpetrators. The problems with greylisting impact the sender more than those that have implemented greylisting. An effective setup requires someone who at least knows as much that could be picked up from a quick read of the wikipedia article instead of the misleading rubbish a few posts above. Quick retries don't save you from idiots that tune their settings to reduce spam but forget the entire point of email, it just means you have a lot more retries before they let you in.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 190

OK then - maybe dumped them into the recipient's spam folder, all I know is the recipients never became aware of the emails until the GIF files were changed to PNG. Maybe gmail policy has changed since or maybe they only said they looked in their spam folders but never actually did. Either way the emails were not getting read if they had a GIF on them.

How do you think those IPs ended up on the list in the first place

All your insulting bets are wrong, all that happened is some IP addresses got reassigned quite a few years ago. What used to be dynamic with one ISP became static with the company that bought them out.

Comment Re:Grey Listing and (Score 1) 190

Please stop roleplaying someone stupid with your current game of presenting the incorrect suggestion that the greylisting time set on the recieving server doesn't matter. You're misleading the newbies that haven't worked out from your handle and posting history that you like to pretend to be dumb as shit and offer utterly stupid suggestions as if they are viable. People playing games like yours make it difficult to have an honest and factual discussion in this place.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 341

That entertainer has found himself a niche - people like to hear that there is a middle ground no matter what the truth may be. There's a book with a title along the lines of "the lomborg deception" which going into detail about where the talking points of that entertainer diverge a great deal from reality. It's depressing when a guy with zero published papers in any field (not even his own field of economics) and zero experience or training in the field he is speaking about is considered an "expert".

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 341

I'm not so sure about that. There's an oil pipeline in Alaska that withstood a ten metre shift of a fault due to a huge S bend over the location of the fault. This barrier isn't on the fault itself so has to withstand shaking (from a variety of directions including ground roll) but not actual fault movement. It's not as if the relative positions of the two ends of the barrier are actually going to change.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 341

However China has been importing more windmills per year than the USA even has, is installing photovoltaics in huge numbers and has nuclear power stations actually under construction. Look at that real data of them doing something about it and you'll see why they are not being bashed over the issue as much as the USA.

Slashdot Top Deals