|
Just got a link above 'X items need approval' to confirm that a spam message IS spam?
Why I got that? It's now for everyone?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm seeing it now too - the links aren't working properly yet ...
|
|
|
|
|
It means the spam filter is working at long last! Yay!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Look, this board is for software developers, who know that everything takes ten to fifteen times longer than originally planned.
It's obviously part of the preparations for next Xmas.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And I thought to myself,
"These are pseudo science: nobody with any form of rational thought believes in it."
"So...why not have a 'Developer Capcha' on QA posts?"
We could make everyone who wants to post a question solve a small (two lines, maybe) C# (or even - gawd forbid - VB) coding problem, or fix a syntax error before they can post!
That'd keep 'em out!
Then I realised why it wouldn't work: most of the QA question posters would fail...and quite a few of the answerers as well... 
Ho, hum. Back to the drawing board...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: solve a small (two lines, maybe) C# (or even - gawd forbid - VB) coding problem
And they will report you for 'black magic'!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: We could make everyone who wants to post a question solve a small (two lines, maybe) C# (or even - gawd forbid - VB) coding problem, or fix a syntax error before they can post!
When reading this I visualised mentally a poor guy that has to solve a problem similar to the question he wants to ask 
|
|
|
|
|
That's just cruel... 
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea though!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It will drop QA traffic near zero...There will be time to handle all the 'black magic'...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
You think the spammers are brighter and more technically literate than most QA posters? 
Could be, when I come to think about it...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I am afraid they would be able to Google themselves to an answer. Besides, they deal in magic, so... 
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot solve capcha; plz send codz, urgent.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - but they'll have to post that on SO...:EvilLaughSmiley:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I cannot solve capcha; plz send codz, urgent.
In that case, then they will fill the CP emails with help requests, using the same message as quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Then I realised why it wouldn't work: most of the QA question posters would fail...and quite a few of the answerers as well
How about a check-box with the question: "Can you levitate ?" We could have a weekly vote on which value of the CheckState would ban the logger-head in order to confuse hackers who write spam-bots.
«A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards ... as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push» Wittgenstein
|
|
|
|
|
Or one of those "1+1+1+1*0" things that 99% of the people on social media gets wrong.
If a programmer gets it wrong, they are beyond help.
modified 4-Jan-15 10:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think we should tell them there are bots that can get that right? 
Sometimes I think you should have to pass a captcha in order to breed...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've just solved the overpopulation problem.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: "These are pseudo science: nobody with any form of rational thought believes in it."
I consider myself a rational person and have no problems believing in black magic (or white) or astrology. You may think that's really weird, but it doesn't cause any conflict for me. Now, mind you, I try to be discerning -- there's a lot of new age noise out there that sadly has risen to the level of a shriek in the last 20 years.
Anyways, I just thought I'd speak up here, as a person of "rational thought." 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
You believe in astrology? Really?
Do you mind if I ask why? Isn't it all predicting a person's future from lumps of rock and gas following Newtonian laws a seriously long way away?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Isn't it all predicting a person's future from lumps of rock and gas following Newtonian laws a seriously long way away?
Personally, the "predicting the future" part is where I feel the layman's understanding of astrology has taken a wrong turn because of all the charlatans out there. I like wikipedia's definition:
To ancient astrologers, the planets represented the will of the gods and their direct influence upon human affairs. To modern astrologers the planets represent basic drives or urges in the unconscious,[
(planets, of course, including the sun and moon in addition to the 5 visible planets in ancient times -- yet another interesting discussion.)
A good astrologer can be very insightful (and cost a lot less than a shrink) into "forces" that potentially are behind your personality. And yes, I do believe there are things we don't understand, know about, or can measure (yet) that can affect personality and therefore, "destiny" (in broad brush strokes) as well. It's sometimes useful to get insights in these things, and if you accept those insights, you can work on improving them, becoming more "conscious", so those forces aren't just "unconscious drives/urges" as the wikipedia quote states.
OriginalGriff wrote: ollowing Newtonian laws a seriously long way away?
Heck, even the planets and gasses don't follow Newtonian laws -- you need a sprinkling of relativity to actually get everything right -- Newtonian laws are just a decent approximation when velocity and mass are in some sort of a "normal" range 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Newtonian laws are more than a decent approximation, if you use telescopes on earth to do your astrology, you cannot see or account for the small discrepancies introduced by relativity. Besides, when astrologers begun their "art" there was no real understanding of the motions of the planets or the laws governing such motions. Astrology, puff!  
programmer, astronomer, reader, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Luis M Cabrera wrote: if you use telescopes on earth to do your astrology, you cannot see or account for the small discrepancies introduced by relativity.
Sure you can. Gravitational lensing, red/blue shifting, both are examples of relativity in action. Einstein's theory that gravity bends light was proven with terrestrial telescopes.
Luis M Cabrera wrote: Besides, when astrologers begun their "art" there was no real understanding of the motions of the planets or the laws governing such motions.
True indeed! But I don't need to understand my mother-in-law to know that I want to move as far away from her as possible!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Sure you can. Gravitational lensing, red/blue shifting, both are examples of relativity in action. Einstein's theory that gravity bends light was proven with terrestrial telescopes.
Exactly, but astrologers have failed to update their craft to include those observations, besides, they don't use the motions of the stars, only the "planets", relative to the background stars, so gravitational lensing induced changes on apparent position will not change the odds of a baby born in January to be a great ruler, or astrologer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
