That was a new spam tactic
There's nothing wrong there, though (other than the "millions" figure cited). Coding errors do happen during cell reproduction. Some errors result in the cell dying, some don't do anything, some cause the cell to be recognized as foreign by the immune system, and some will eventually lead to cancer.
Besides replication, mutations can also happen when foreign substances enter the cellular nucleus and react with the DNA molecules, or when high-energy particles hit the molecules and break the covalent bonds. In both cases the information stored in the molecular structure becomes corrupted or destroyed.
Besides replication, mutations can also happen when foreign substances enter the cellular nucleus and react with the DNA molecules, or when high-energy particles hit the molecules and break the covalent bonds. In both cases the information stored in the molecular structure becomes corrupted or destroyed.
| though (other than the "millions" figure cited) |
With so many cells, its reasonable to assume millions at least are completing division at a given time.
Assuming the typical "whole body renewed every seven years", it comes to roughly 150k copies per second.
I have no problem with stuff like this. All good topics mutate into something interesting.*
It is when one poster jumps in with something completely unrelated and soapboxes it that a thread is derailed. I don’t care if it is for the please-hug-a-bear-today cause or everyone-ought-to-be-forced-to-be-awesome cause — propound your views of Truth, Justice, and the American Way** in your own thread instead of infringing on someone else’s speech.
Notably, Rascake has a strong opinion on something and he was intelligent enough to start his own thread on it. That shows adult behavior.
I am not interested in debating things I know with armchair philosophers, and for everything else I am uninterested in wasting time to boast my uninformed opinion because Someone Is Wrong On The Internet™.
*Pun very much intended.
**The way of Truth, Light, and I Know Everything Better Than You Way?
***https://xkcd.com/386/
It is when one poster jumps in with something completely unrelated and soapboxes it that a thread is derailed. I don’t care if it is for the please-hug-a-bear-today cause or everyone-ought-to-be-forced-to-be-awesome cause — propound your views of Truth, Justice, and the American Way** in your own thread instead of infringing on someone else’s speech.
Notably, Rascake has a strong opinion on something and he was intelligent enough to start his own thread on it. That shows adult behavior.
I am not interested in debating things I know with armchair philosophers, and for everything else I am uninterested in wasting time to boast my uninformed opinion because Someone Is Wrong On The Internet™.
*Pun very much intended.
**The way of Truth, Light, and I Know Everything Better Than You Way?
***https://xkcd.com/386/
closed account (367kGNh0)
| LOL. Poor guy can't catch a break. |
He was saying that trouble follows wherever I go, much to my chagrin.
We’ve got a pretty dedicated spammer hitting us up. Does anyone know whether the forum software will auto-ban him at any point? He doesn’t tend to reuse usernames enough that I think it likely... unless there is an IP ban or something...
We’ve got a pretty dedicated spammer hitting us up. Does anyone know whether the forum software will auto-ban him at any point? He doesn’t tend to reuse usernames enough that I think it likely... unless there is an IP ban or something...
I've gotten rid of tons of spam and then new spam shows up not long after. I don't think this site has any IP related banning, and even if it did, an intelligent spammer would use a VPN.
closed account (367kGNh0)
| an intelligent spammer |
ps, this was posted exactly an hour after
Last edited on
Most spam follows a pretty predictable pattern. It would be pretty simple to put a filter on it and immediately ban someone whose first N posts are 80% or more spam. Didn't Return 0 or someone have access to the site code at some point?
The most annoying are the ones that bump an old topic to just say "thanks!" or something that clearly isn't on topic, and it turns out their profile links to [stereotypical product advertised on internet]. Like okay, so now I have to worry about something as seemingly harmless as a random person saying "thanks" to be spam.
[This isn't new, but does slightly tick me off.]
[This isn't new, but does slightly tick me off.]
Last edited on
It's rare enough to get a "Thanks" even from the person whose question you've answered. So it's a pretty obvious red flag when someone with a post count of 1 - or even just someone who isn't the thread's OP - posts just to say "thanks".
I do wonder how many people ever even click through to posters' profiles, to see any potential spam links. I mean, I could see doing it for someone who's a prolific poster, or who posts something particularly interesting. But how can anyone expect that a reader will be motivated to click through to the poster's profile, by a bland, content-free single post?
Eh, I guess maybe it's a thing that's more likely to work on social media sites, and these people don't understand the difference between those and a forum.
I do wonder how many people ever even click through to posters' profiles, to see any potential spam links. I mean, I could see doing it for someone who's a prolific poster, or who posts something particularly interesting. But how can anyone expect that a reader will be motivated to click through to the poster's profile, by a bland, content-free single post?
Eh, I guess maybe it's a thing that's more likely to work on social media sites, and these people don't understand the difference between those and a forum.
Crawlers, which are the intended audience, will click through during their recursive traversal.
Wouldn't it be something if you could report a person's profile and make it disappear?
Heh... of course, as a responsible forum member, you can be sure I'd only exercise such power justly and fairly... ;)
Actually, there's an easy, and much less radical, solution - make profiles only visible if you're logged in. That would make them invisible to crawlers.
Actually, there's an easy, and much less radical, solution - make profiles only visible if you're logged in. That would make them invisible to crawlers.
The issue is that it wouldn't deter spammers. Spammers don't care if their work has no effect, otherwise they wouldn't spam this forum anymore.