Maybe it depends on where you are. I'm in Winnipeg, and don't get cable TV (just what I snag on the antenna), so I'm pretty limited on my channels. But I still get Fox and NBC, and while I have seen IBM commercials, I've never seen one that mentions Linux.
Actually, I don't think any spam actually comes from Hotmail's servers. If you're referring to the messages from Hotmail staff, I don't consider them spam; they're more like the price of using a free system.
However, alot of spam looks like it's coming from Hotmail. The From: line says Hotmail, but the Received: line doesn't. It's just not practical to keep entering the message in the web form, and I'm pretty sure MSN won't let you run a script to automatically send emails through its form.
'mom' didn't even immediately assume there was a 'start' button if you notice. which should tell you that she doesn't immediately assume that's how desktops should work. she wanted/needed to write a document, and when she discovered lindows 'L' was apparently set up to mimic the windows 'start' she -then- figured that Office must have been there somewhere. because it was trying to be just like her trusty old windows box.
They indicated only one Mom-Test failure: Mom (in her role as an average user) looked for MS Office. To me, this is an example of Linux's biggest problem on the desktop: mindshare. Until we can convince people that there's more out there than Microsoft, it won't matter how friendly we can make Linux.
Linux needs advertising in the popular media. Sure, I can see Linux ads in computer magazines; however, when I turn my TV on, I see ads about how much money you can save by switching to.NET. We need advertising to gain the mindshare we need to become popular. A friendly desktop is a good start; now we have something that we can advertise. Now we need to get the word out there.
I'm just thinking, what will be the difference in the cost of buying a pass, versus going into the carpool lane anyway and taking the chance of getting a traffic ticket? I see single-occupancy vehicles in the carpool lane all the time, so I don't see that this will change anything.
Oh and spare me the arguments about all the kids wanting to do breast cancer research and getting blocked by the software...:-)
Who said anything about kids complaining? Adults are also being blocked. And it is quite possible that they are doing research that may be blocked.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of using filters. I do find a problem with using modern filters. My point was that there will be legitimate sites being blocked. And keeping a log of those sites will show the bias. Until there is an open list of blocked sites, along with the ability to disable filters based on reason, filters should not be mandated by the government.
If so, keep logs of those sites that are blocked. Log the reasons
for blocking (pornographic, political, etc). When it is seen what
non-pornographic content is being blocked, let everybody know. Publish a list
of the top-ten blocked informational sites.
Make sure everybody knows what is being blocked. Talk to the media. Once
there is a enough support, try to get the law repealed.
Note that I am Canadian, and I have no idea what goes into repealing laws in
the USA. It may be that, because it has already been to the supreme court,
it's too late to repeal. But challenge it anyway. Knowing the way laws work,
someone can probably write a counter-law that will override it, and attach it
as a rider to another bill.
Simplify it without lying. Say that one of the ISP's servers has been cracked, and that this is allowing user passwords and information to be leaked. Give technical details at the end of the story, but keep the front part clear and simple.
If you SSH back out and they're watching your session, then they'll catch the password that you use then.
Not necessarily. I run ssh-agent, which stores my RSA key. If I have "forward-agent yes" in my.ssh/config file, then when I ssh to another machine, my local machine is consulted for RSA authentication.
Of course, that only affects those who use passwords for SSH. I generally prefer RSA user authentication. One of the reasons is laziness - I only have to enter my key's password once, and it authenticates to SSH servers for me. And, of course, there's security. Because I don't enter my password over the wire, there's no way for it to be intercepted.
If you can't get the tech support to help, try escalating and turboing the problem. Eventually, you'll talk to someone at the ISP who can or will do something. If not, it's time to get a new provider.
It sucks that the law-enforcement agencies won't help private individuals; however, since it's a company that's being hacked, they should be able to put their resources on it.
Will Acclaim be responsible enough to use a "bird-friendly" paint? Make sure those fumes don't damage them. Be sure that the paint is non-toxic, so the birds don't absorb something they shouldn't. And be sure to collect and clean every bird.
In short, I don't think they should be doing this. Maybe the SPCA or PETA should be supervising this.
Where did you pull that number from? Suppose someone is driving like an asshole, and causes an accident. I don't think one minute would be enough to show he was driving badly for a long period - what if he swerved to avoid a larger potential accident? How about five or ten minutes, so that a longer record of your driving style is shown on the box?
Regular driving exams, say every three to five years: great idea.
This is one of my pet peeves with the current system (at least in BC, probably in alot of other places too). Once you have a license, you basically have it forever. My wife's grandmother had her license medically. The doctor tried to have it revoked permanently, but was unable to convince a judge that she was a danger - not even enough to warrant a re-test. The reasoning? She wasn't yet 80, the minimum age for mandatory re-testing.
I don't know how often I feel re-tests should be required. But I do know it should be less often than 60 years.
Why does "free" software need a different set of UI guidelines from "open-source" software? Technically, the two are exactly the same. It is only philisophically (and sometimes legally) that they differ.
One thing (in my experience) that turns people off open source software is that the interface is almost the same as their previous OS (Windows or Mac). However, one or two things different are minor annoyances that turn them off.
OTOH, having a completely different UI may be an improvement. The user doesn't have any expectations because it's completely different. Thus, they don't panic when a menu item is under a different menu, or a key has a different function.
This is just a thought. I haven't done any experimentation on giving newbies a completely different experience.
Note that I don't recommend abolishing windows, menus, etc. Just don't make it look the same as another system.
OK, I'll give you that;). Allow editing of tags only? Although that could also be abused, by putting your "troll" text in one illegal tag, and your "bait" text in a legal tag. When you're high enough, switch. Or to change a link to something we don't want to see....
Somehow, your packets have to get from point A to point B. There have to be some machines that know the points C, D, E, and F that fit in between. You can't just expect idle nodes to know the best path from one to another, or even a possible path.
Since there have to be machines that know the routes, there has to be somebody to administer them. In order for someone to administer enough machines, there have to either be enough volunteers or companies to pay them. If you have companies, you can be sure that they aren't volunteering. So somebody has to pay the companies. Who pays the companies? The user.
But if no users are paying companies (after all, you're trying to get rid of telcos and ISPs), there will be nobody to administer the routers. Now, you can talk to machines that are nearby (same subnet/broadcast area/whatever), or you hope that your packets can be randomly routed to the correct destination, and that the responses make it back to you.
In other words, no I don't see an internet without ISPs or telcos.
3.) Why can't we edit comments after posting (and have it posted in the subject (chg'd) or something like that)?
Post something that's complete crap, have people argue against it, then change it to make those people look like idiots - Fixable by keeping old posts in a cache, and allowing readers to see what an article really followed-up on, which nobody will probably do. Personally, I think a spell-check function would be much better, and would cover the only valid use I see for this.
Or post something pseudo-insightful, wait for high mods, then change to troll/flamebait/goatse/whatever. Fixable by resetting mods when a post changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it depends on where you are. I'm in Winnipeg, and don't get cable TV (just what I snag on the antenna), so I'm pretty limited on my channels. But I still get Fox and NBC, and while I have seen IBM commercials, I've never seen one that mentions Linux.
However, alot of spam looks like it's coming from Hotmail. The From: line says Hotmail, but the Received: line doesn't. It's just not practical to keep entering the message in the web form, and I'm pretty sure MSN won't let you run a script to automatically send emails through its form.
Linux needs advertising in the popular media. Sure, I can see Linux ads in computer magazines; however, when I turn my TV on, I see ads about how much money you can save by switching to .NET. We need advertising to gain the mindshare we need to become popular. A friendly desktop is a good start; now we have something that we can advertise. Now we need to get the word out there.
I don't have ICQ. Let us know with a journal entry when your SF project is up. I'm interested.
I'm just thinking, what will be the difference in the cost of buying a pass, versus going into the carpool lane anyway and taking the chance of getting a traffic ticket? I see single-occupancy vehicles in the carpool lane all the time, so I don't see that this will change anything.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of using filters. I do find a problem with using modern filters. My point was that there will be legitimate sites being blocked. And keeping a log of those sites will show the bias. Until there is an open list of blocked sites, along with the ability to disable filters based on reason, filters should not be mandated by the government.
Make sure everybody knows what is being blocked. Talk to the media. Once there is a enough support, try to get the law repealed.
Note that I am Canadian, and I have no idea what goes into repealing laws in the USA. It may be that, because it has already been to the supreme court, it's too late to repeal. But challenge it anyway. Knowing the way laws work, someone can probably write a counter-law that will override it, and attach it as a rider to another bill.
Simplify it without lying. Say that one of the ISP's servers has been cracked, and that this is allowing user passwords and information to be leaked. Give technical details at the end of the story, but keep the front part clear and simple.
Of course, that only affects those who use passwords for SSH. I generally prefer RSA user authentication. One of the reasons is laziness - I only have to enter my key's password once, and it authenticates to SSH servers for me. And, of course, there's security. Because I don't enter my password over the wire, there's no way for it to be intercepted.
How did he go through the chaff so quickly?
It sucks that the law-enforcement agencies won't help private individuals; however, since it's a company that's being hacked, they should be able to put their resources on it.
You couldn't possibly be talking about GNU/Richard GNU/Stallman, could you?
In short, I don't think they should be doing this. Maybe the SPCA or PETA should be supervising this.
I don't know how often I feel re-tests should be required. But I do know it should be less often than 60 years.
They may differ philosophically, but there is no reason that they cannot use the same UI guidelines.
Why does "free" software need a different set of UI guidelines from "open-source" software? Technically, the two are exactly the same. It is only philisophically (and sometimes legally) that they differ.
One thing (in my experience) that turns people off open source software is that the interface is almost the same as their previous OS (Windows or Mac). However, one or two things different are minor annoyances that turn them off.
OTOH, having a completely different UI may be an improvement. The user doesn't have any expectations because it's completely different. Thus, they don't panic when a menu item is under a different menu, or a key has a different function.
This is just a thought. I haven't done any experimentation on giving newbies a completely different experience.
Note that I don't recommend abolishing windows, menus, etc. Just don't make it look the same as another system.
OK, I'll give you that ;). Allow editing of tags only? Although that could also be abused, by putting your "troll" text in one illegal tag, and your "bait" text in a legal tag. When you're high enough, switch. Or to change a link to something we don't want to see....
Since there have to be machines that know the routes, there has to be somebody to administer them. In order for someone to administer enough machines, there have to either be enough volunteers or companies to pay them. If you have companies, you can be sure that they aren't volunteering. So somebody has to pay the companies. Who pays the companies? The user.
But if no users are paying companies (after all, you're trying to get rid of telcos and ISPs), there will be nobody to administer the routers. Now, you can talk to machines that are nearby (same subnet/broadcast area/whatever), or you hope that your packets can be randomly routed to the correct destination, and that the responses make it back to you.
In other words, no I don't see an internet without ISPs or telcos.
Post something that's complete crap, have people argue against it, then change it to make those people look like idiots - Fixable by keeping old posts in a cache, and allowing readers to see what an article really followed-up on, which nobody will probably do. Personally, I think a spell-check function would be much better, and would cover the only valid use I see for this.
Or post something pseudo-insightful, wait for high mods, then change to troll/flamebait/goatse/whatever. Fixable by resetting mods when a post changes.
For those who have lost both hands, I think we need to look at new technology...