1) If spammers still spam, then they're still wasting resources that the rest of us have paid for. 2) Technology never solved anything other that a purely technological problem. 2a) There are no purely technological problems.
Legislation is the answer, but we don't need new laws--we just need to prosecute spammers for the fraud, theft, and vandalism they're committing on a daily basis.
You, mr. AC, are missing the original poster's point.
Spam is a means of committing a crime. We currently have the laws in place to prosecute those crimes, and that's what we should do. By writing new laws to prosecute the means of committing those crimes, we're implicitly affecting everything else that uses those same means for lawful purposes.
As soon as spam is treated as a crime of its own (as opposed to being a crime by means of fraud, theft, vandalism), then it is forced into the realm of free speech law, overshadowing the orignal crime.
Let me say that again: Legislating spam makes it free speech. Ignoring spam per se, but punishing spammers for fraud and theft is more correct, more effective, and eventually the only way that spam might be stopped.
"So, when a spammer forges my domain, as happened recently, everyone they spam is supposed to bitch and whine to me?"
To some extent, yes. But hear me out first.
First of all, you are a victim--possibly the most hard-hit victim. However unlike the rest of us, you are the victim with authority to prosecute. We're being spammed. You're being defrauded, and should nail someone's ass to a tree for that.
Now the second point that I didn't make clear, is the reasoning behind this, which incidentally takes you mostly out of the picture.
Individual spam victims--even hundreds of thousands of them--won't get these guys routinely and consistently nailed. The only way court cases will become the way to deal with spammers is if the Big Players--AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo!, etc.--start to go after them; and the only way that these companies will go after spammers, is if they are being materially hurt by spam. Beind defrauded isn't a big deal unless people believe the fraud, or modify their behaviour because of it.
Individual private domain owners, small 'public service'-like sites, they don't need the extra harassment, especially if (as in your case), they're getting forge-attacked. It's the big players, and the big money that has to ATTACK the spammers, and we need to promote that.
Have you talked to a lawyer yet? I see that you've got an open call for one, but you should consult with one just to see where you stand.
Spam is already illegal. All we need to do is prosecute it as such. More than that, we need to get the big players (hotmail, aol, etc.) to force prosecution against spammers who use their domains to spoof email addresses.
It's so simple--I don't know why people like the article's author are trying to make it more difficult.
Anti-spam legislation is a bad and wrong-headed solution to the problem of spam. Filtering is a stop-gap measure that doesn't solve anything.
The key is this: Spam is already illegal! Even entirely ignoring vandalism and theft-of-service, when was the last time you got spam that:
1) Had a legitimate and correct return mail path 2) Actually honoured an 'opt-out' request 3) Advertised a legitimate product
In other words, nearly all spam is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such.
We have laws on the books against fraud, theft, false advertising, and vandalism. The only thing that makes spam even remotely different is the question of jurisdiction, and even that's pretty easy--if the spammer is in your country, you should be prosecuting him.
Now how do we get the government to act? Simple--just believe all of the return email addresses on the spam. If I get 30 messages a day that claim to be from hotmail.com addresses, then I'm going to send them all to hotmail. Either they really are hotmail users (no chance of course, but they'd be kicked off if they were), or someone is illegally misrepresenting themselves, and defrauding hotmail to do it. Hotmail should be getting tens of thousands of reports a day from dutiful citizens, until they start to go after spammers stealing their domain name.
Sorry, can't help you. The whole concept of runlevels was one of the first real 'sysadmin' things I came across back when, and it made such delightful, elegant sense to me that I became a professional admin.
Runlevels aren't confusing--they're SMART! They're really remarkably brilliant, and conceptually as simple as possible.
inetd got buggered until it became xinetd. cron was forced to run side-by-side with the abortion known as anacron. In its defense, vim at least can be made to behave like vi, entirely UNLIKE bash, the sh-incompatabile sh replacement.
To the Linux developers: QUIT BREAKING THINGS from a "unix-like" perspective. If Linux is going to be an entirely unrelated OS, then fine. If it's going to strive to behave similarly, then quit adding features that break expected behaviour, especially for the reason of being 'really cool.'
I got one of the very first copies of StarOffice 5.0b when Sun bought and released it for free. It very quickly got renamed 5.1, and I tentatively recommended it to a client as a means to solving their office-suite-on-xterm problem. Ended up having to support the evil bastard package as a result. Horrible, horrible thing it was. 5.2 was identical, except with slightly fewer bugs.
OpenOffice.org was born, and I ran screaming. Occasionally I'd drop in and check out the current release (around the 0.300 to 0.500 mark), and find that they had gone light years beyond SO5.2, but still had at least that far to go.
When Sun announced that SO6.0 was coming out, I started to check out the OO releases again, and found a passable package. Slow slow slow (still), but actually usable and convenient.
SO-6.0/OO-1.0.1 was a decent product. I used it regularly, learned to deal with its quirks (no anti-aliased fonts on Solaris--ugh!), and was relatively happy.
Then came the StarOffice 6.1 beta program, which I was a part of. That's when I fell in love, or at least like. StarOffice 7.0 (formerly 6.1) or OpenOffice 1.1.0 are GREAT packages, at long last! Slow to start up, but fast to use once they're running, and really well designed. It's professional quality software, available for multiple platforms, for free. My sole Windows machine is now no more than a games console.
This is a happy day folks! We finally have a complete non-MS desktop!
Maybe I'm being thick here. It seems to me that what we need for VOIP is a peer-to-peer protocol, and network cards/stacks that have a guarantee of service, where in this case, the service is time-based. Now if I'm not mistaken, the Linux 2.4 kernel has 'quality of service' flags for network traffic (including IPv4), and IPv6 has it built into the actual model! Now if this is the case, there should be no need for VOIP "providers," other than ISPs that don't explicitly deny a particular traffic type. Now this is all theoretical for real-time conversations, but in practice it's much easier--people use things like teamspeak all the time!
Can someone please tell me why we are looking to a centralised (and billable, taxable) VOIP strategy, instead of a direct peered (or even client/server) model? I honestly don't get it!
I'm sick of this whining. If someone (Linksys or anyone else) violates the GPL and you don't think they're making good faith efforts to remedy the problem (which I'd say Linksys is doing!), then she them! Either sue them, air the whole thing in court and get a legally binding ruling on the GPL, or shut the hell up.
If nothing else, there should be one bit of good that comes of the SCO fiasco: Maybe we'll finally get an authoritative statement on the validity of the GPL. Make no mistake--until the GPL is proven in court, any company's "effort to comply" is based on intimidation, and not licensing.
I noticed that there are three 'definitive' replies to your hypothetical query, and they all disagree with each other to some extent. If a careful reading of the license doesn't clear matters up (and doesn't even give a consistent answer from three self proclaimed knowledgable sorts), then avoid it.
Furthermore, there's no telling if the GPL has any validity whatsoever in court. A few partisan lawyers have decided that it does, but that's far from a legal ruling.
I notice that you're replying to the idiots, or very selectively missing the point in the relevant replies.
What he said about Europe holds true in the US, Canada, and the rest of the world. Let me quote it for you again:
"I'm not trying to prevent these spammers from telling everyone about their penis enlargement pills. I'm trying to prevent them from using *my* computer equipment and *my* bandwidth to do it, at *my* expense."
See? A spammer is free to do whatever he wants with his own resources, not mine! Freedom of speech doesn't say ANYTHING about guarantee of venue. If I publish a paper, I don't have to publish YOUR views. If I'm an ISP, I don't have to let YOU spam me.
Spam is vandalism, fraud, and theft. Trying to protect it as free speech is just a red herring.
Well my "distro," is actually Solaris on Sparc:-).
I think the real reason behind my rant is that I happen to be on a platform that isn't widely supported by binary packages, and so I have to deal with building from source--which is a screaming pain in the ass! However, the problem is bound to come up for anyone--there is bound to be some cool bit of software that the developer has decided to release as source ONLY. As soon as that happens, you're back to the compiler hell.
You could easily remove Solaris from the equation and have the same problem: Linux/Sparc has the same problem, as does Linux/Alpha, etc., etc.
But even so, I have some x86 boxes at home, and some of them are running Linux. Red Hat has made it very difficult to say the least, to upgrade packages on a truly old OS (where "truly old" isn't nearly as old as anyone else seems to think).
Oh, and there are at least two good mail clients in the world: elm, and Pegasus Mail (windows only). Everything else is crap.:-)
"OSS has a deep suspicion of precompiled binaries, and as a result they only exist for a few platforms"
I can't GET the binaries for many of the programs I want to use. OK, I can get a desktop with mozilla, openoffice, and acrobat reader. Nothing else. No media player (Can't get binaries of mplayer for my hardware), no decent mail client, no gnutella/whatever P2P client, just those three apps. Wonderful.
Besides which, that sidesteps my point, and another one as well. First of all, Linux versionitis is making things worse than they used to be, not better! There was a time that if you had a compiler and a standard set of libraries, you could download and compile any Unix source on any Unix platform with minimal tweaking. autoconf pushed this ahead by miles, and then these stupid version dependencies (usually introduced by poor programming) broke it all.
Secondly, apt-get is wonderful, although deeply complex compared to Windows upgrades (not to mention Solaris--dead simple, albeit cryptic.) rpm less so--MUCH less so, in fact! RPM is still poor at automatically figuring out (and installing) dependencies, and the problem remains--there shouldn't BE so many obnoxious and often incompatable dependencies on specific versions of packages. A well set-up system should have everything it needs to install any random bit of software. If it doesn't, then there's something broken with the software, or the model.
You left out one crucial point that ties all of this together.
Versionitis.
I'm trying to build a full-blown desktop environment, so that I can get away from Windows entirely, except for games. The OS install took an evening. The apps are taking roughly a week EACH on average.
OSS has a deep suspicion of precompiled binaries, and as a result they only exist for a few platforms (Mozilla being a relatively glorious exception). As a result I need to download the source, unpack, configure, compile, fix, fix, fix, fix, install, and pray. One app requires gcc 3.3.2, and fails with anything earlier than that. Another one won't compile at all with anything beyond 2.95.x. A third compiles fine with anything EXEPT 3.3. Oh yeah, and of course nothing compiles with 2.96. Everything needs a different version of their libraries in a different place, and half of the time you can't have two versions coexisting on your system happily.
The fact that apt-get even tries to solve this problem is a great step forward. Unfortunately, it's one step forward when Linux is currently thirteen miles behind the commercial marketplace for ease-of-maintenance (which is what this boils down to).
It's crap. Worst of all, it's crap that's infecting other systems.
Sadly, you're right. Even worse, man pages are not even considered a central part of Linux. (or rather, man pages aren't considered the first point of contact for documentation. Documentation in any form isn't considered central to Linux)
Linux seems to be going through the same sophmoric elitism that Unix suffered in about 1980, and suffering much worse than Unix ever did.
It's not a CD. It's not a CD. It's not a CD. It's not a CD. It's not a CD.
If we call it a CD or we let others get away with calling it a CD, then the battle is already lost. The confusion created will make it possible for marketers to destroy the (REAL) difference between them, and win the sales war. "It's a CD that doesn't play in your CD player, so you need both the CD _AND_ a new CD player."
In many ways, I agree with you. On the other hand, I don't see this sort of behaviour here, particularly with the monkey.com closure. "I'm tired, I give up, the service will remain up and unmaintained for some time. Stop using it before it comes down." Much more professional (and less petty) than the Osirusoft shutdown of a month ago. Mind you, that guy has been a whiny brat since day one. His final comment of, "...going to blacklist the world (aka, ban *.*.*.*) to get his point across" was about as juvenile and pathetic as possible--the only point he got across is that he's an asshole.
At any rate, I think that those of us who have been around from the BBS days understand this problem intuitively--volunteer services aren't guaranteed, BBSes and websites (and everything else) comes and goes. Don't rely on any one thing too heavily, or you'll end up collapsing. The thing is--do we blame the volunteer service providers for deciding to close up shop, or do we blame ourselves? (or some other factor, in some cases)
Heh. I think they could get nailed by the SEC for something that questionably misleading.
At any rate, what about lobster sharpening or elbow training? I've trained my elbows to almost never smack against doorframes painfully. Ocasionally though, they regress.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but that's no solution.
1) If spammers still spam, then they're still wasting resources that the rest of us have paid for.
2) Technology never solved anything other that a purely technological problem.
2a) There are no purely technological problems.
Legislation is the answer, but we don't need new laws--we just need to prosecute spammers for the fraud, theft, and vandalism they're committing on a daily basis.
You, mr. AC, are missing the original poster's point.
Spam is a means of committing a crime. We currently have the laws in place to prosecute those crimes, and that's what we should do. By writing new laws to prosecute the means of committing those crimes, we're implicitly affecting everything else that uses those same means for lawful purposes.
As soon as spam is treated as a crime of its own (as opposed to being a crime by means of fraud, theft, vandalism), then it is forced into the realm of free speech law, overshadowing the orignal crime.
Let me say that again: Legislating spam makes it free speech. Ignoring spam per se, but punishing spammers for fraud and theft is more correct, more effective, and eventually the only way that spam might be stopped.
"So, when a spammer forges my domain, as happened recently, everyone they spam is supposed to bitch and whine to me?"
To some extent, yes. But hear me out first.
First of all, you are a victim--possibly the most hard-hit victim. However unlike the rest of us, you are the victim with authority to prosecute. We're being spammed. You're being defrauded, and should nail someone's ass to a tree for that.
Now the second point that I didn't make clear, is the reasoning behind this, which incidentally takes you mostly out of the picture.
Individual spam victims--even hundreds of thousands of them--won't get these guys routinely and consistently nailed. The only way court cases will become the way to deal with spammers is if the Big Players--AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo!, etc.--start to go after them; and the only way that these companies will go after spammers, is if they are being materially hurt by spam. Beind defrauded isn't a big deal unless people believe the fraud, or modify their behaviour because of it.
Individual private domain owners, small 'public service'-like sites, they don't need the extra harassment, especially if (as in your case), they're getting forge-attacked. It's the big players, and the big money that has to ATTACK the spammers, and we need to promote that.
Have you talked to a lawyer yet? I see that you've got an open call for one, but you should consult with one just to see where you stand.
On the one hand, there's nothing legal about spam. Fraud is illegal. Theft of service is illegal. Spam is illegal.
But the real reason I had to post was this:
"we have to go over and beat the absolute crap out of them until they cant even use a mac! "
That's damned funny!
Absolutely!
Spam is already illegal. All we need to do is prosecute it as such. More than that, we need to get the big players (hotmail, aol, etc.) to force prosecution against spammers who use their domains to spoof email addresses.
It's so simple--I don't know why people like the article's author are trying to make it more difficult.
Anti-spam legislation is a bad and wrong-headed solution to the problem of spam. Filtering is a stop-gap measure that doesn't solve anything.
The key is this: Spam is already illegal! Even entirely ignoring vandalism and theft-of-service, when was the last time you got spam that:
1) Had a legitimate and correct return mail path
2) Actually honoured an 'opt-out' request
3) Advertised a legitimate product
In other words, nearly all spam is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such.
We have laws on the books against fraud, theft, false advertising, and vandalism. The only thing that makes spam even remotely different is the question of jurisdiction, and even that's pretty easy--if the spammer is in your country, you should be prosecuting him.
Now how do we get the government to act? Simple--just believe all of the return email addresses on the spam. If I get 30 messages a day that claim to be from hotmail.com addresses, then I'm going to send them all to hotmail. Either they really are hotmail users (no chance of course, but they'd be kicked off if they were), or someone is illegally misrepresenting themselves, and defrauding hotmail to do it. Hotmail should be getting tens of thousands of reports a day from dutiful citizens, until they start to go after spammers stealing their domain name.
Sorry, can't help you. The whole concept of runlevels was one of the first real 'sysadmin' things I came across back when, and it made such delightful, elegant sense to me that I became a professional admin.
Runlevels aren't confusing--they're SMART! They're really remarkably brilliant, and conceptually as simple as possible.
inetd got buggered until it became xinetd. cron was forced to run side-by-side with the abortion known as anacron. In its defense, vim at least can be made to behave like vi, entirely UNLIKE bash, the sh-incompatabile sh replacement.
To the Linux developers: QUIT BREAKING THINGS from a "unix-like" perspective. If Linux is going to be an entirely unrelated OS, then fine. If it's going to strive to behave similarly, then quit adding features that break expected behaviour, especially for the reason of being 'really cool.'
Ah, how far we've come.
I got one of the very first copies of StarOffice 5.0b when Sun bought and released it for free. It very quickly got renamed 5.1, and I tentatively recommended it to a client as a means to solving their office-suite-on-xterm problem. Ended up having to support the evil bastard package as a result. Horrible, horrible thing it was. 5.2 was identical, except with slightly fewer bugs.
OpenOffice.org was born, and I ran screaming. Occasionally I'd drop in and check out the current release (around the 0.300 to 0.500 mark), and find that they had gone light years beyond SO5.2, but still had at least that far to go.
When Sun announced that SO6.0 was coming out, I started to check out the OO releases again, and found a passable package. Slow slow slow (still), but actually usable and convenient.
SO-6.0/OO-1.0.1 was a decent product. I used it regularly, learned to deal with its quirks (no anti-aliased fonts on Solaris--ugh!), and was relatively happy.
Then came the StarOffice 6.1 beta program, which I was a part of. That's when I fell in love, or at least like. StarOffice 7.0 (formerly 6.1) or OpenOffice 1.1.0 are GREAT packages, at long last! Slow to start up, but fast to use once they're running, and really well designed. It's professional quality software, available for multiple platforms, for free. My sole Windows machine is now no more than a games console.
This is a happy day folks! We finally have a complete non-MS desktop!
Maybe I'm being thick here. It seems to me that what we need for VOIP is a peer-to-peer protocol, and network cards/stacks that have a guarantee of service, where in this case, the service is time-based. Now if I'm not mistaken, the Linux 2.4 kernel has 'quality of service' flags for network traffic (including IPv4), and IPv6 has it built into the actual model! Now if this is the case, there should be no need for VOIP "providers," other than ISPs that don't explicitly deny a particular traffic type. Now this is all theoretical for real-time conversations, but in practice it's much easier--people use things like teamspeak all the time!
Can someone please tell me why we are looking to a centralised (and billable, taxable) VOIP strategy, instead of a direct peered (or even client/server) model? I honestly don't get it!
...that the real reason Microsoft used Ctrl-Alt-Del for the NT login was that everyone was already familiar with it.
(Yeah, it's a hardcoded interrupt, but in protected mode that's pretty much irrelevant)
I'm sick of this whining. If someone (Linksys or anyone else) violates the GPL and you don't think they're making good faith efforts to remedy the problem (which I'd say Linksys is doing!), then she them! Either sue them, air the whole thing in court and get a legally binding ruling on the GPL, or shut the hell up.
If nothing else, there should be one bit of good that comes of the SCO fiasco: Maybe we'll finally get an authoritative statement on the validity of the GPL. Make no mistake--until the GPL is proven in court, any company's "effort to comply" is based on intimidation, and not licensing.
I'm with you.
I noticed that there are three 'definitive' replies to your hypothetical query, and they all disagree with each other to some extent. If a careful reading of the license doesn't clear matters up (and doesn't even give a consistent answer from three self proclaimed knowledgable sorts), then avoid it.
Furthermore, there's no telling if the GPL has any validity whatsoever in court. A few partisan lawyers have decided that it does, but that's far from a legal ruling.
Just to add a point to your message...
"The majority of people I've seen complaining about X11 are Johnny-come-lately types."
Amen to that, and I'd add that they're invariably complaining about XFree86, which has been a truly piss-poor implementation of X11.
X11 on Solaris has been a lovely and well-designed base for ages.
I notice that you're replying to the idiots, or very selectively missing the point in the relevant replies.
What he said about Europe holds true in the US, Canada, and the rest of the world. Let me quote it for you again:
"I'm not trying to prevent these spammers from telling everyone about their penis enlargement pills. I'm trying to prevent them from using *my* computer equipment and *my* bandwidth to do it, at *my* expense."
See? A spammer is free to do whatever he wants with his own resources, not mine! Freedom of speech doesn't say ANYTHING about guarantee of venue. If I publish a paper, I don't have to publish YOUR views. If I'm an ISP, I don't have to let YOU spam me.
Spam is vandalism, fraud, and theft. Trying to protect it as free speech is just a red herring.
Funny, I don't EVER remember Amazon selling books well. Agressively yes, but they pissed off more customers than they won in the first two years.
Well my "distro," is actually Solaris on Sparc :-).
:-)
I think the real reason behind my rant is that I happen to be on a platform that isn't widely supported by binary packages, and so I have to deal with building from source--which is a screaming pain in the ass! However, the problem is bound to come up for anyone--there is bound to be some cool bit of software that the developer has decided to release as source ONLY. As soon as that happens, you're back to the compiler hell.
You could easily remove Solaris from the equation and have the same problem: Linux/Sparc has the same problem, as does Linux/Alpha, etc., etc.
But even so, I have some x86 boxes at home, and some of them are running Linux. Red Hat has made it very difficult to say the least, to upgrade packages on a truly old OS (where "truly old" isn't nearly as old as anyone else seems to think).
Oh, and there are at least two good mail clients in the world: elm, and Pegasus Mail (windows only). Everything else is crap.
Let me repeat myself:
"OSS has a deep suspicion of precompiled binaries, and as a result they only exist for a few platforms"
I can't GET the binaries for many of the programs I want to use. OK, I can get a desktop with mozilla, openoffice, and acrobat reader. Nothing else. No media player (Can't get binaries of mplayer for my hardware), no decent mail client, no gnutella/whatever P2P client, just those three apps. Wonderful.
Besides which, that sidesteps my point, and another one as well. First of all, Linux versionitis is making things worse than they used to be, not better! There was a time that if you had a compiler and a standard set of libraries, you could download and compile any Unix source on any Unix platform with minimal tweaking. autoconf pushed this ahead by miles, and then these stupid version dependencies (usually introduced by poor programming) broke it all.
Secondly, apt-get is wonderful, although deeply complex compared to Windows upgrades (not to mention Solaris--dead simple, albeit cryptic.) rpm less so--MUCH less so, in fact! RPM is still poor at automatically figuring out (and installing) dependencies, and the problem remains--there shouldn't BE so many obnoxious and often incompatable dependencies on specific versions of packages. A well set-up system should have everything it needs to install any random bit of software. If it doesn't, then there's something broken with the software, or the model.
You left out one crucial point that ties all of this together.
Versionitis.
I'm trying to build a full-blown desktop environment, so that I can get away from Windows entirely, except for games. The OS install took an evening. The apps are taking roughly a week EACH on average.
OSS has a deep suspicion of precompiled binaries, and as a result they only exist for a few platforms (Mozilla being a relatively glorious exception). As a result I need to download the source, unpack, configure, compile, fix, fix, fix, fix, install, and pray. One app requires gcc 3.3.2, and fails with anything earlier than that. Another one won't compile at all with anything beyond 2.95.x. A third compiles fine with anything EXEPT 3.3. Oh yeah, and of course nothing compiles with 2.96. Everything needs a different version of their libraries in a different place, and half of the time you can't have two versions coexisting on your system happily.
The fact that apt-get even tries to solve this problem is a great step forward. Unfortunately, it's one step forward when Linux is currently thirteen miles behind the commercial marketplace for ease-of-maintenance (which is what this boils down to).
It's crap. Worst of all, it's crap that's infecting other systems.
Sadly, you're right. Even worse, man pages are not even considered a central part of Linux. (or rather, man pages aren't considered the first point of contact for documentation. Documentation in any form isn't considered central to Linux)
Linux seems to be going through the same sophmoric elitism that Unix suffered in about 1980, and suffering much worse than Unix ever did.
OK seriously, everyone repeat after me.
If it doesn't follow RedBook standards,
It's not a CD.
It's not a CD.
It's not a CD.
It's not a CD.
It's not a CD.
If we call it a CD or we let others get away with calling it a CD, then the battle is already lost. The confusion created will make it possible for marketers to destroy the (REAL) difference between them, and win the sales war. "It's a CD that doesn't play in your CD player, so you need both the CD _AND_ a new CD player."
In many ways, I agree with you. On the other hand, I don't see this sort of behaviour here, particularly with the monkey.com closure. "I'm tired, I give up, the service will remain up and unmaintained for some time. Stop using it before it comes down." Much more professional (and less petty) than the Osirusoft shutdown of a month ago. Mind you, that guy has been a whiny brat since day one. His final comment of, "...going to blacklist the world (aka, ban *.*.*.*) to get his point across" was about as juvenile and pathetic as possible--the only point he got across is that he's an asshole.
At any rate, I think that those of us who have been around from the BBS days understand this problem intuitively--volunteer services aren't guaranteed, BBSes and websites (and everything else) comes and goes. Don't rely on any one thing too heavily, or you'll end up collapsing. The thing is--do we blame the volunteer service providers for deciding to close up shop, or do we blame ourselves? (or some other factor, in some cases)
RC4. Release Candidate Four. Not a final release, hence, not yet out of beta.
And for the history, OO was a massive rewrite based on the SO-5 code, but SO-6 and 7 are based in turn on the OO-1 code.
MiB? GiB? What the hell are you talking about? Last time I checked, a mib was an SNMP object, and a gib was what happened to my victims in UT2003.
Outside of the computer industry,
mega=million.
giga=billion.
Inside the binary-based computer industry,
mega=2^20
giga=2^30
So, 1000MB !+ 1GB.
Heh. I think they could get nailed by the SEC for something that questionably misleading.
At any rate, what about lobster sharpening or elbow training? I've trained my elbows to almost never smack against doorframes painfully. Ocasionally though, they regress.