Skip to main content.
February 17th, 2004

Odds’n'Ends

After a small delay due somewhat to my work habits and somewhat to the lack of material to work with, the papers blog is up today. Adam Morton features two short papers on conditionals.

There’s an interesting discussion going on around the web about whether there is a bias against conservatives in academia. The best piece so far is by Timothy Burke, and the pieces by John Holbo and Belle Waring are well worth reading too. I have a fair bit of sympathy for the line David Velleman was taking in the comments thread on John’s piece, but I don’t know how widespread the issue he discusses is. (This isn’t a snarky “I don’t know” meaning “not”, as I might sometimes use. It really is an “I don’t know” meaning “I don’t know”. The area of specialisation breakdown of US English and History departments is outside even my range of knowledge.)

I don’t know whether this spam fighter that Chris Potts links to could possible work, but maybe it’s worth trying. Since it’s apparently against the law to kill spammers, or even wittily threaten to do so, alternative measures are in order.

Supacrush has some good suggestions for avoiding procrastination. If you want to avoid actually doing work, putting yourself in a position of having to choose between incommensurable values is, I find, very effective. Admittedly this isn’t the only work-avoiding technique that works, but it really is very good.

Posted by Brian Weatherson in Uncategorized

3 Comments »

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 17th, 2004 at 2:06 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Odds’n'Ends”

  1. Mark says:

    The anti-spam thing is silly. Of course address-reaping programs recognize loops—-how could they function at all if not, given the interlinkedness of the internet? So, that page will add 100 addresses to their database of millions. And it doesn’t cost them anything of significance to spam a bad address anyway.

    Clearly, the only way to fight spam is by reasoned argument from uncontroversial premises.

  2. Chris Potts says:

    Mark: Did you try clicking on the link at the bottom of the anti-spam page? It doesn’t simply reload the page. It links to a page with a different address —- the same blurb at the top, but a new batch of phony addresses. Etc. Perhaps it eventually loops, but not without offering up thousands of bogus addresses to the spambots.

    It might be that even thousands of bad addresses don’t bother the spammers. But oh well.

    The best way I know to fight rogue @ harvesters is to take advantage of Tim William’s e-mail obfuscation scripts:

    http://www.u.arizona.edu/~trw/spam/

  3. Mark says:

    Ah, cleverer than I gave it credit for.