I would say no, as they aren't selliong you a licence to use linux, they are selling you a licence for sco that can just apply to linux. if their case for linux gets struck off then you've still got a valid licence for sco (ooh, useful, you can use it to train up for that mcdonalds it manager job;)
dave
Re:What's the power curve on that?
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
well, yeah, but I find it alot easier to scan along a huge list of spam's looking for a legit email, than wasting time reading every spam that comes in there and then. you can clear a spambox in under a minute which isn't that bad. the problem I really find annoying is when you get your hundred spam's a day all into you inbox, so you get interrupted 100 times a day to check to whats come in. I'd rather choose a time to interupt myself once a day (or few days) than it happening a hundred times a day.
dave
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
I did read your mails, and I would say that losing mailling lists would be too high a cost for the new email system. saying that being charged is a "no confirmation" would the death of legitimate mailling lists and I think that would be a very sad thing.
dave
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
ARIN and ICANN aren't in chanre of these "web services" you speak of. ARIN (and RIPE and APNIC) are in charge of allocating IP addresses out in their relative areas and ICANN rules int gTLD's. there is no-one in charge of "web services" and neither do I think there should be one, nor of email.
while I see spam as a problem, I'm not sure I see a technical solution in the near future. most technical solutions are either too unweildy for most (ie, TDMA), too problematic to instill (pay per email) or too against the original ethos of the internet (every sender has to be traceable to a unique digital ID).
dave
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
If, when you go to send them the confirmation, they try to charge you 10 cents, that's a clear indication of no confirmation.
well, yes, thats obvious, but what about the poor mailling list operator who's stung for 10 cents... per person signed up by j random loser? if they signed 1000 ppl up then our mailling list owner is $100 out of pocket.
dave
Re:not the answer - you got that right!
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But the connection & server is still handling all the bounces.
well, no. if the scanning it set up correctly on your server then you can receive the email and scan it before giving the okay. if you don't want the email then the server simply gives a reject message and refuses to accept responsibility. ie, the scanning is underway while the sending server is waiting for it's ACK that the email has been recieved correctly. if you reject it at this stage then the sending server is still responsible and it has to deal with the bounces.
dave
Re:What's the power curve on that?
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
But it also blocked some tiny fraction of legitimate messages.
so do what I do, if the filters think it's spam then mark it as such and deliver it to a special mailbox. then once a day/week/whatever, someone can have a quick visual scan through the mailbox to see if there are are real emails in there, forward them on if there are and delete the lot if not. it makes most ppl's email relatively spam free and every now and then it costs someone 5 mins to quickly scan through a mailbox.
some people might think that confidentiality might be an issue. while I definately don't advocate reading other people's private email deliberately, if it's that secret then it really shouldn't go in a plain text email anyway. or have each person's spam go to their own spam folder, then they can check their own spam once a week. it doesn't remove the problem, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
dave
Re:not the answer - you got that right!
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
I think that the sender should basically send a signed copy of the headers of the message
the problem here is that the headers change for each mail relay the email passes through as each mailserver adds it's own details to the list so that you can trace the email back to it's originator (theoretically).
an operation whose results can be checked easily but that requires a certain number of GFLOPS to complete
this isn't realistic imho. that means spammers will fork out for a bloody fast machine which can calculate those 15 second op's in 3 seconds and people using old sun sparcstations as mail servers (perfectly capable if glacially slow machines) take 5 minutes to send one email. and if that server is both an incoming as well as outgoing mail server then you're taking cpu power away from all that local bayesian spam scanning it's doing on it's inbound mail.
and don't think that old machines don't get used for these purposes either, or only by real cheapskates etc. it was only a few years ago that ace's hardware upgraded from running evetrything on 1 quad cpu sparcstation 20.
dave
Re:not the answer - you got that right!
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
To filter a message on content means I have to accept the damned thing first
well, yes and no, in your case the answer is effectively yes if technically no. yes, the email has to come in to be checked for it's spamlike properties, but the message can be scanned inbetween the sending machine ending the email, and the receiving machine giving it the OK. so if the email looks too much like spam and the settings say reject, the server can reject the email at this point as it has not "officially" accepted it, ie it's still the responsibility of the sending server at this point so you deleting it out of hand is not out of spec and the sending server ends up being the one who tries to bounce it.
well, as much as I hate to tempt fate by saying this, but I think it depends on your area, I've been using adsl for a couple of years now and I rarely get dumped offline. I leave my computer on 247 and I don't often have problems.
I don't know someone who could use that rig but your act of generosity brought a smile to my face, if someone takes you up on this offer, please tell us.
I've always thought that if an item is given to me, then when I'm done with it, it seems appropriate to give it to someone else and it's good to see someone else who thinks the same way. I hope someone does accept your offer and some young lad or girl gets into a whole new world they only barely knew existed.
People who care about getting things done efficiently, rarely use the close buttons (at least the people I know). They use keyboard short cuts
actually, I'd say this is not true. the expert user uses keyboard shortcuts for preference if what he is doing is primarily keyboard based. it means he doesn' have to reach for the mouse.
if, however, what he is doing is primarily mouse based then he would use the mouse for shortcuts rather than reach for the keyboard. this is why opera's (and later, moz if you have the plugins) support mouse gestures. it's the mouse equivalent of keyboard shortcuts for a mostly mouse dominated application.
dave
Re:He is reimplementing the Remembrance Agent !
on
Nat Demos Dashboard
·
· Score: 0
well, it's a great operating system, but frankly, it needs an editor.
well, people who have experimented with that kind of thing (buying smartcard writers to play with security stuff) have been sent letters demanding $3500 and the kit by directtv haven't they? might be considered a bit off putting to some.
one of my friends went to a camera shop to buy a pir of binoculars. him and his dad took 2 pairs outside the shop and put them to their eyes to look at a nearby building to test how good they were. when they put the bins down to go back into the shop, there was half a dozen strangers around them, all looking in the same direction trying to see whatever interesting things my friend and his dad had been looking at....
I think that there are alot of non-trivial problems to solve before this is all the case. human eyesight for example. it's easy for us, thats a chair, thats a dog. thats 4 people in an orgy etc. but getting a computer to make that distinction is extremely difficult. we can teach it certani rules about how to treat input (ie, keep the crosshair pointing towards where the laser is reflecting) and even get it to do analysis on inbound video streams, edge detection etc. but it requires intelligence to analyse and make sense of these inputs, and more to the point, understand the not quite obvious cases.
same with AI. we can make robots solve mazes and walk and a variety of thibngs, but how much real progress has been made towards a) making a machine actually think, rather than just run through scenario's and try to determine the best one and b) how we think ourselves.
it's like reverse engineering... we know the inputs and oputputs, but what happens inbetween? perhaps we ourselves are merely long lists of rules? who knows at this stage.
when we look at current technology compared with that 10, 20, 50 years ago, we've made astounding strides in some directions, but virtually none in others. we can talk on the phone with someone across the world (while sitting on the beach) in seconds, we can drive cars at 200mph, we can cure previously fatal diseases. yet in many ways, we've hardly moved at all. I don't see shceduled flights to europa yet, telepathy is still pretty rare. robot's don't dust my flat and I'm still searching the chemists for those orgasm pills.
the places where we have done well, seem to be those bound by things like moores law. ie we have much more processing power, and memory etc than we had with which to do things (apply this to cars, planes etc) yet what are we doing with them? we still lack the understanding of ourselves with which to make our robots do what we really want them to do, as opposed to just following a list of instructions. when can we have robots that "do what I mean" and not "do what I say"?
Yeah, well, that's what I was taught when I was very young, but here in the UK everyone's used the US (billion=1,000,000,000) system for ages.
I still do use that system actually. but you know something, this disparity in what "billion" means etc, is, unusually, not the fault of the americans (easy guys, I'm noly having fun with you). this one is actually the fault of the french.
a french guy invented the words in the first place, AIUI to mean the british system (except at the time it wasn't the british system;), ie a billion = 1,000,000,000,000 and that the words would go up in 6 digit groups. this got accepted in the uk and everyone was happy, then the french gov decided to change it to going up in 3 digit groups, making a billion 1,000,000,000. this happened a little before the american revolution, and guess who helped the americans to escape the tyranny of england? yup, the french. and so america took on the new style billion terms while england stayed with the old style.
england eventually ended up taking on the new style to make discussions and comparisons with america easier and I beleiev that france have since chanegd back to the old style *sigh*.
incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, the sequence goes, in 3 digit groups, thousand, million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion etc.
which is what UPNP is all about isn't it? msn messenger telling it's local linksys router what ports it wants open and thereby bypassing all those firewall rules you put in?
it's not as simple as you're indicating, not by a long way.
No, but all it takes is one "genius" to figure out he can acces the whole Internet without the restrictions his company's IT department places on him by just setting up a modem and dialing his ISP.
thats irrelevant to the discussion. the loon can do that whether the co uses public or private ip's. the network isn't suddenly more vulnerable because it's on public addresses.
I change the address ranges in my DHCP servers
definately not as easy as that. dhcp is great for workstations but you'll also have servers on static's that need to be accessed by all and sundry, routed networks that may clash, vpn's from site to site that need reconfiguring, internal DNS/WINS all needs to be redone. it's a major hassle for a medium size company and up and if you're not careful it'll become a routing nightmare. oh yeah, don't forget the fun that ensues when you have internal firewall's that need reconfiguring too
re double NAT: Hardly an issue
nowadays it's not a huge issue... usually. some older nat implementations do things slightly differently and you can get issues with double nat.
lots of protocol's work fine over NAT, web browsing, dns, irc (but not dcc) etc, but there are other protocols that are more complex, and not due to design flaws, but because they have to be. audio/video conferencing is a case in point. it's not silly at all, at my last company we had one organisation with multiple high bandwidth (ie, 4meg, 30meg, even 155's and 622 meg lines) lines connecting two dozen sites for both data and, of massive important to them, video conferencing. internet telephony is a complex protocol due to needing to coordinate mulitple callers etc, and it needs lots of seperate data streams. and it's something that is seriously growing in useage around the world.
nat makes it bloody difficult and requires you to start forking out for expensive firewall's with application level packet inspection to eke out the data it needs to nat it all properly, it's also expensive in processing time on the fw. if it were all ip6 publically address packets then alot (thought, not all) of that work would go away.
NAT is a dreadful hack and while it's working now, the direction we're moving things in is making it more and more annoying. ip6 has some good ideas in it and the massive store of addresses is very useful.
I can see a time fairly close to now when every mobile phone will have it's own ip6 address, and no, I don't think it's excessive at all. ppl will have icq (or somesuch) running on their mobiles, they'll be sync'ing their address books over bluetooth 8 (UWB edition) and their phoens will be working out who in the room is an ideal love match, and why shouldn;t they?
I seriously expect that mobile providers will start assigning ip's to phones and I reckon it'll start with ipv6 addresses (as I also expect it'll start in europe, and ripe will never allocate that many ip4 addresses).
If employees are poking around in files which are designed to trap them
this is vaguely reminiscent of the trivial pursuit case. basically a guy wrote lots of trivia books and was worried about ppl "stealing" his trivia facts for their own competing trivia books. so he planted a false bit of trivia (that columbo's first name was philip) and waited for someone to copy it. and trivial pursuit were the ones who did and they promptly got sued. of course the case got thrown out of court (you copy one person it's plagarism, you copy hundreds, it's research) but it's still an interesting point I think...
and of course, proof of my own vast store of trivia;)
A slot-loading CD drive won't work so well with those, will they?
well, you can get adaptors for both 8cm (the small ones) and business card cd's to fit into the normal 12cm cd tray, dunno if they work with slot loads, I would imagine that the 8cm cd's would work without an adaptor anyways.
but tbh, look at the specialisation of products out there. I mean look at all the cd drives that won't work when mounted vertically. it's just something you bear in mind when you buy. I'd happily have a slotload cdrw/dvdrw even if it meant I couldn't use 8cm cd's. I mean how often do you see them? I only have one and that has the drivers for my siemens s55 mobile phone on it. and I think all the stuff on it is downloadable.
but why, oh why does (almost) no-one make slot load cdrw's or dvdrw's?
slot load drives look great but you can't seem to get them in a writeable format, and I know they aren't impossible, apple's top of the range lappie has a slotload cdrw/dvd and I've seen 1 model of toshiba (I think) laptop cdrw/dvd... but why none in desktop sizes? or dvdrw's?
The best part of Formula One is the girls who shake the champagne.
what formula one are you watching, it's the winning drivers that shake the champagne and there hasn't been a female driver in formula one since Giovanna Amati in 1993 and afaik, there's never been a female f1 driver on the podium, the closest was Lella Lombardi in 1974 who scored 1 point.
to be fair, the girls never really got a fair chance, they were all in kinda crap cars and never really got good chances.
Slashdot Mirror
What then? Do those people get their money back?
;)
I would say no, as they aren't selliong you a licence to use linux, they are selling you a licence for sco that can just apply to linux. if their case for linux gets struck off then you've still got a valid licence for sco (ooh, useful, you can use it to train up for that mcdonalds it manager job
dave
well, yeah, but I find it alot easier to scan along a huge list of spam's looking for a legit email, than wasting time reading every spam that comes in there and then. you can clear a spambox in under a minute which isn't that bad. the problem I really find annoying is when you get your hundred spam's a day all into you inbox, so you get interrupted 100 times a day to check to whats come in. I'd rather choose a time to interupt myself once a day (or few days) than it happening a hundred times a day.
dave
I did read your mails, and I would say that losing mailling lists would be too high a cost for the new email system. saying that being charged is a "no confirmation" would the death of legitimate mailling lists and I think that would be a very sad thing.
dave
ARIN and ICANN aren't in chanre of these "web services" you speak of. ARIN (and RIPE and APNIC) are in charge of allocating IP addresses out in their relative areas and ICANN rules int gTLD's. there is no-one in charge of "web services" and neither do I think there should be one, nor of email.
while I see spam as a problem, I'm not sure I see a technical solution in the near future. most technical solutions are either too unweildy for most (ie, TDMA), too problematic to instill (pay per email) or too against the original ethos of the internet (every sender has to be traceable to a unique digital ID).
dave
If, when you go to send them the confirmation, they try to charge you 10 cents, that's a clear indication of no confirmation.
well, yes, thats obvious, but what about the poor mailling list operator who's stung for 10 cents... per person signed up by j random loser? if they signed 1000 ppl up then our mailling list owner is $100 out of pocket.
dave
But the connection & server is still handling all the bounces.
well, no. if the scanning it set up correctly on your server then you can receive the email and scan it before giving the okay. if you don't want the email then the server simply gives a reject message and refuses to accept responsibility. ie, the scanning is underway while the sending server is waiting for it's ACK that the email has been recieved correctly. if you reject it at this stage then the sending server is still responsible and it has to deal with the bounces.
dave
But it also blocked some tiny fraction of legitimate messages.
so do what I do, if the filters think it's spam then mark it as such and deliver it to a special mailbox. then once a day/week/whatever, someone can have a quick visual scan through the mailbox to see if there are are real emails in there, forward them on if there are and delete the lot if not. it makes most ppl's email relatively spam free and every now and then it costs someone 5 mins to quickly scan through a mailbox.
some people might think that confidentiality might be an issue. while I definately don't advocate reading other people's private email deliberately, if it's that secret then it really shouldn't go in a plain text email anyway. or have each person's spam go to their own spam folder, then they can check their own spam once a week. it doesn't remove the problem, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to deal with.
dave
I think that the sender should basically send a signed copy of the headers of the message
the problem here is that the headers change for each mail relay the email passes through as each mailserver adds it's own details to the list so that you can trace the email back to it's originator (theoretically).
an operation whose results can be checked easily but that requires a certain number of GFLOPS to complete
this isn't realistic imho. that means spammers will fork out for a bloody fast machine which can calculate those 15 second op's in 3 seconds and people using old sun sparcstations as mail servers (perfectly capable if glacially slow machines) take 5 minutes to send one email. and if that server is both an incoming as well as outgoing mail server then you're taking cpu power away from all that local bayesian spam scanning it's doing on it's inbound mail.
and don't think that old machines don't get used for these purposes either, or only by real cheapskates etc. it was only a few years ago that ace's hardware upgraded from running evetrything on 1 quad cpu sparcstation 20.
dave
To filter a message on content means I have to accept the damned thing first
well, yes and no, in your case the answer is effectively yes if technically no. yes, the email has to come in to be checked for it's spamlike properties, but the message can be scanned inbetween the sending machine ending the email, and the receiving machine giving it the OK. so if the email looks too much like spam and the settings say reject, the server can reject the email at this point as it has not "officially" accepted it, ie it's still the responsibility of the sending server at this point so you deleting it out of hand is not out of spec and the sending server ends up being the one who tries to bounce it.
however, that doesn't help you I admit.
dave
yes, but doesn't the OED also define the word "racialist" when we all know the real word is "racist" and the other word should be stamped out?
dave
ADSL/Copper lines suck ass
well, as much as I hate to tempt fate by saying this, but I think it depends on your area, I've been using adsl for a couple of years now and I rarely get dumped offline. I leave my computer on 247 and I don't often have problems.
dave
I don't know someone who could use that rig but your act of generosity brought a smile to my face, if someone takes you up on this offer, please tell us.
I've always thought that if an item is given to me, then when I'm done with it, it seems appropriate to give it to someone else and it's good to see someone else who thinks the same way. I hope someone does accept your offer and some young lad or girl gets into a whole new world they only barely knew existed.
dave
People who care about getting things done efficiently, rarely use the close buttons (at least the people I know). They use keyboard short cuts
actually, I'd say this is not true. the expert user uses keyboard shortcuts for preference if what he is doing is primarily keyboard based. it means he doesn' have to reach for the mouse.
if, however, what he is doing is primarily mouse based then he would use the mouse for shortcuts rather than reach for the keyboard. this is why opera's (and later, moz if you have the plugins) support mouse gestures. it's the mouse equivalent of keyboard shortcuts for a mostly mouse dominated application.
dave
well, it's a great operating system, but frankly, it needs an editor.
dave
well, people who have experimented with that kind of thing (buying smartcard writers to play with security stuff) have been sent letters demanding $3500 and the kit by directtv haven't they? might be considered a bit off putting to some.
dave
one of my friends went to a camera shop to buy a pir of binoculars. him and his dad took 2 pairs outside the shop and put them to their eyes to look at a nearby building to test how good they were. when they put the bins down to go back into the shop, there was half a dozen strangers around them, all looking in the same direction trying to see whatever interesting things my friend and his dad had been looking at....
ppl eh?
dave
I think that there are alot of non-trivial problems to solve before this is all the case. human eyesight for example. it's easy for us, thats a chair, thats a dog. thats 4 people in an orgy etc. but getting a computer to make that distinction is extremely difficult. we can teach it certani rules about how to treat input (ie, keep the crosshair pointing towards where the laser is reflecting) and even get it to do analysis on inbound video streams, edge detection etc. but it requires intelligence to analyse and make sense of these inputs, and more to the point, understand the not quite obvious cases.
:)
same with AI. we can make robots solve mazes and walk and a variety of thibngs, but how much real progress has been made towards a) making a machine actually think, rather than just run through scenario's and try to determine the best one and b) how we think ourselves.
it's like reverse engineering... we know the inputs and oputputs, but what happens inbetween? perhaps we ourselves are merely long lists of rules? who knows at this stage.
when we look at current technology compared with that 10, 20, 50 years ago, we've made astounding strides in some directions, but virtually none in others. we can talk on the phone with someone across the world (while sitting on the beach) in seconds, we can drive cars at 200mph, we can cure previously fatal diseases. yet in many ways, we've hardly moved at all. I don't see shceduled flights to europa yet, telepathy is still pretty rare. robot's don't dust my flat and I'm still searching the chemists for those orgasm pills.
the places where we have done well, seem to be those bound by things like moores law. ie we have much more processing power, and memory etc than we had with which to do things (apply this to cars, planes etc) yet what are we doing with them? we still lack the understanding of ourselves with which to make our robots do what we really want them to do, as opposed to just following a list of instructions. when can we have robots that "do what I mean" and not "do what I say"?
dave
PS. yes, I do know about DWIM
using your 3G video cellphoen, you could check out the "bowlcam" remotely!
reminds me of a simpsons episode...
dave
Yeah, well, that's what I was taught when I was very young, but here in the UK everyone's used the US (billion=1,000,000,000) system for ages.
;), ie a billion = 1,000,000,000,000 and that the words would go up in 6 digit groups. this got accepted in the uk and everyone was happy, then the french gov decided to change it to going up in 3 digit groups, making a billion 1,000,000,000. this happened a little before the american revolution, and guess who helped the americans to escape the tyranny of england? yup, the french. and so america took on the new style billion terms while england stayed with the old style.
:)
I still do use that system actually. but you know something, this disparity in what "billion" means etc, is, unusually, not the fault of the americans (easy guys, I'm noly having fun with you). this one is actually the fault of the french.
a french guy invented the words in the first place, AIUI to mean the british system (except at the time it wasn't the british system
england eventually ended up taking on the new style to make discussions and comparisons with america easier and I beleiev that france have since chanegd back to the old style *sigh*.
incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, the sequence goes, in 3 digit groups, thousand, million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion etc.
but then, thats just me
dave
which is what UPNP is all about isn't it? msn messenger telling it's local linksys router what ports it wants open and thereby bypassing all those firewall rules you put in?
dave
it's not as simple as you're indicating, not by a long way.
No, but all it takes is one "genius" to figure out he can acces the whole Internet without the restrictions his company's IT department places on him by just setting up a modem and dialing his ISP.
thats irrelevant to the discussion. the loon can do that whether the co uses public or private ip's. the network isn't suddenly more vulnerable because it's on public addresses.
I change the address ranges in my DHCP servers
definately not as easy as that. dhcp is great for workstations but you'll also have servers on static's that need to be accessed by all and sundry, routed networks that may clash, vpn's from site to site that need reconfiguring, internal DNS/WINS all needs to be redone. it's a major hassle for a medium size company and up and if you're not careful it'll become a routing nightmare. oh yeah, don't forget the fun that ensues when you have internal firewall's that need reconfiguring too
re double NAT: Hardly an issue
nowadays it's not a huge issue... usually. some older nat implementations do things slightly differently and you can get issues with double nat.
lots of protocol's work fine over NAT, web browsing, dns, irc (but not dcc) etc, but there are other protocols that are more complex, and not due to design flaws, but because they have to be. audio/video conferencing is a case in point. it's not silly at all, at my last company we had one organisation with multiple high bandwidth (ie, 4meg, 30meg, even 155's and 622 meg lines) lines connecting two dozen sites for both data and, of massive important to them, video conferencing. internet telephony is a complex protocol due to needing to coordinate mulitple callers etc, and it needs lots of seperate data streams. and it's something that is seriously growing in useage around the world.
nat makes it bloody difficult and requires you to start forking out for expensive firewall's with application level packet inspection to eke out the data it needs to nat it all properly, it's also expensive in processing time on the fw. if it were all ip6 publically address packets then alot (thought, not all) of that work would go away.
NAT is a dreadful hack and while it's working now, the direction we're moving things in is making it more and more annoying. ip6 has some good ideas in it and the massive store of addresses is very useful.
I can see a time fairly close to now when every mobile phone will have it's own ip6 address, and no, I don't think it's excessive at all. ppl will have icq (or somesuch) running on their mobiles, they'll be sync'ing their address books over bluetooth 8 (UWB edition) and their phoens will be working out who in the room is an ideal love match, and why shouldn;t they?
I seriously expect that mobile providers will start assigning ip's to phones and I reckon it'll start with ipv6 addresses (as I also expect it'll start in europe, and ripe will never allocate that many ip4 addresses).
thoughts?
dave
If employees are poking around in files which are designed to trap them
;)
this is vaguely reminiscent of the trivial pursuit case. basically a guy wrote lots of trivia books and was worried about ppl "stealing" his trivia facts for their own competing trivia books. so he planted a false bit of trivia (that columbo's first name was philip) and waited for someone to copy it. and trivial pursuit were the ones who did and they promptly got sued. of course the case got thrown out of court (you copy one person it's plagarism, you copy hundreds, it's research) but it's still an interesting point I think...
and of course, proof of my own vast store of trivia
dave
A slot-loading CD drive won't work so well with those, will they?
well, you can get adaptors for both 8cm (the small ones) and business card cd's to fit into the normal 12cm cd tray, dunno if they work with slot loads, I would imagine that the 8cm cd's would work without an adaptor anyways.
but tbh, look at the specialisation of products out there. I mean look at all the cd drives that won't work when mounted vertically. it's just something you bear in mind when you buy. I'd happily have a slotload cdrw/dvdrw even if it meant I couldn't use 8cm cd's. I mean how often do you see them? I only have one and that has the drivers for my siemens s55 mobile phone on it. and I think all the stuff on it is downloadable.
dave
but why, oh why does (almost) no-one make slot load cdrw's or dvdrw's?
slot load drives look great but you can't seem to get them in a writeable format, and I know they aren't impossible, apple's top of the range lappie has a slotload cdrw/dvd and I've seen 1 model of toshiba (I think) laptop cdrw/dvd... but why none in desktop sizes? or dvdrw's?
dave
The best part of Formula One is the girls who shake the champagne.
what formula one are you watching, it's the winning drivers that shake the champagne and there hasn't been a female driver in formula one since Giovanna Amati in 1993 and afaik, there's never been a female f1 driver on the podium, the closest was Lella Lombardi in 1974 who scored 1 point.
to be fair, the girls never really got a fair chance, they were all in kinda crap cars and never really got good chances.
dave