It's been done. Last year (or thereabouts) a company tried to patent a method of including poems in the headers of email, on the basis that to duplicate that a spammer would be in patent violation.
It didn't work, and at last count I got far more spam (50:1 ratio in fact) with the 'patented' poems than legitimate email.
One of my sites (which is still >97% Windows users even though I have software for most platforms these days) has MSIE at only 44%, Mozilla at 20% and Netscape at 25%.
I think the Netscape is too high, though... probably Analog fluffing one of the other browsers (which is another reason why browser stats aren't too reliable).
You're going to buy a top of the line video card and only run it 2D? Yeah, right. You could put in a crappy S3 and do the same job.
No, the OP was right. For proper driver support you need an NVidia.
I went the ATI route once and gave up... it was basically impossible to get 3D working with their drivers and the open drivers don't support the R300 or R350 (basically they only support the old cards which won't run modern games anyway). To cap it all the card fried itself after 3 weeks - crappy hardware too. I didn't bother replacing it, I just got an NVidia.
I found out the other day that safe mode doesn't stop all drivers from loading, just the ones that Windows 'thinks' are unsafe. I ended up using knoppix to recover the drive (the only other option being to reformat). This wasn't a video device though.
INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE is usually an IDE issue (although the only known workaround is a reinstall that I know of....).
They can, actually. Toughened plexiglass is transparent....
The external cameras I've seen are pretty resilient. Also very high up, so they're hard to get at.
TBH though these articles are just fluff. 99% of cameras are in-store cameras privately owned (and the US has these too). I know of 3 external ones in my nearest city, and 1 in the shopping centre down the road. It's not like they're all over the place.
London is a completely different ball game (although most of the cameras there are the congestion charge ones, and they're aimed at the road, not at people).
How many people have got 'media' PCs to play DVDs on? This kind of technology will do well at the AOL end of the market - insert DVD, switch on machine, watch DVD. No boot time - it's just there, just like every other gadget joe sixpack has in his house.
The fact that it's Linux probably won't change anything.. they could have used any embedded OS.
However, if they start building in hooks for games to use it could get interesting.... with a few million of these out there what game manufacturer wouldn't want to have an 'instant on' game with no installation/windows issues?
They're not trying to get published. They're trying to get paid.
Someone posted a non-slashdotted link. They've formed a company and are after funding - hence this press release. TBH Slashdot should stop giving these people airspace.
This is *not* science it's a corporate press release. If they had the integrity you ascribe to them (which really doesn't exist - everyone has an agenda, whether it's to get published or, in this case, to get money) then they'd never have allowed it to go out with claims like this is 'new' and 'revolutionary' which are quite obviously total bullshit.
And no, it's still not a firewall. I do exactly the same with postfix and spamassassin and that's not a firewall either. It's a mail filter.
It'd be kinda fun to write a chroot on Windows (the low level subsystem can do it, it's just Win32 that's damaged). I expect 99% of software would just refuse to install though...
No real researcher would ever perform a test in such a way.
Take of the rose-tinted spectacles.
Have a look at some of the recent MS or SCO research. *real* researchers give ther results they're paid to give, and don't give a damn about methods.
This a press release (presumably.. definately reads like one). Most of the 'facts' in it were probably dreamed up on the spur of the moment because they sounded good. Assuming they really ran the 25,000 email test then it's almost certain they reached the conclusion they were told to reach. If they can repeat those results after a server has been up for 6 months filting *real* email then I'll be interested.
Not necessarily. I don't know how much configuration this system requires, but if it requires nothing more than simply plugging two network cables into a box and away you go, then I think it is very appropriate to call it a "firewall."
No, it's still a spam filter.
If you put it into a sealed self-powered black box with the words 'Firewall' emblazoned in large letters on the side it would *still* be a spam filter.
The word 'Firewall' has a specific use in the IT world, and this aint it.
Not new. Nobody ever sends the replies. Mailing lists automatically ban users who run it (I know I do... if they didn't want email they shouldn't have frikkin registered, so I grant them their wish and ban them.).
people not considering their mail important enough
Well if you don't consider my email important enough to read it before assuming it's spam, I don't see why I should continue the conversation.... Sucks for you if I just sent you a job offer..
It's easy to produce these kind of results in trials - you just tune the spam filter to handle a certain set of emails, then you feed it those emails again and you get a near 100% success rate.
Heck, why not do it with a million emails? Makes better headlines that way.
I don't see how this is any different to SpamAssassin (the term 'Mail Firewall' is pure marketing bullshit. It's a spam filter. Get over it.) except I bet it costs a hell of a lot more...
What you mean for the exchange webmail client? Works great... it even degrades nicely if it can't do IE-specific things. MS do write some crap but whoever wrote the webmail stuff knew what they were doing.
Re:Other IT Myths
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hmm it's virtually the other way around here.. the MCSE is seen as so worthless that anyone who has to flash it around clearly hasn't go any real qualifications to fall back on, so they're not considered.
It didn't help the last place I worked the MCSE we hired didn't know squat about Windows, let alone general administration. I think he just kept re-taking the original the exam until he passed.
I've got into the habit of 'correcting' any contracts I get before signing. Typically the employer countersigns without even reading my corrections. Their loss.
My last one tried to stop me working: 1. For any suppliers (so mcdonalds is out!) 2. For any clients 3. For any company in related (ie. computing) work 4. For any company *at all* for 6 months after leaving the company.
It also said *any* innovation, work related or not, was property of the company even if I came up with it in at the weekend.
Even though it's highly likely it was unenforcable (restraint of trade and all that... despite what some posters have implied these kind of contracts get voided all the time) I crossed out the offending paragraphs before sending it back. Never heard a whimper out of them.
(Their latest trick was to get us to sign a contract giving the unlimited power of attourney. I crossed *that* out about 5 seconds after getting the agreement.)
I came in late this morning to find our admin installing it on our work machine. When it didn't bluescreen immediately he proceeded to run around the office installing it randomly on any machine he could get at.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been done. Last year (or thereabouts) a company tried to patent a method of including poems in the headers of email, on the basis that to duplicate that a spammer would be in patent violation.
It didn't work, and at last count I got far more spam (50:1 ratio in fact) with the 'patented' poems than legitimate email.
You could mirror the agnostic/atheist tree with another agnostis/theeist tree as well, and they'd be equally as valid.
All it proves is that labels oversimplify... human beings are more complex than that.
One of my sites (which is still >97% Windows users even though I have software for most platforms these days) has MSIE at only 44%, Mozilla at 20% and Netscape at 25%.
I think the Netscape is too high, though... probably Analog fluffing one of the other browsers (which is another reason why browser stats aren't too reliable).
Doh I feel like an idiot... of course it's just a joke (of course it doesn't work because you've just gone to another page! Doh!).
Fell for that one completely.
Now for the real question - is it possible to write something like this? Perhaps as a squid extension?
What version of firefox to you need for this? It doesn't work at all in 0.9.3.
Plug a wireless AP into their network and sit outside in the car sniffing packets... easy enough.
You'd probably get a few of their passwords that way too.
law enforcement at the highest levels possible, to rectumfy the problem
Looks like the cuplrit is going to really get it in the ass...
You're going to buy a top of the line video card and only run it 2D? Yeah, right. You could put in a crappy S3 and do the same job.
No, the OP was right. For proper driver support you need an NVidia.
I went the ATI route once and gave up... it was basically impossible to get 3D working with their drivers and the open drivers don't support the R300 or R350 (basically they only support the old cards which won't run modern games anyway). To cap it all the card fried itself after 3 weeks - crappy hardware too. I didn't bother replacing it, I just got an NVidia.
I found out the other day that safe mode doesn't stop all drivers from loading, just the ones that Windows 'thinks' are unsafe. I ended up using knoppix to recover the drive (the only other option being to reformat). This wasn't a video device though.
INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE is usually an IDE issue (although the only known workaround is a reinstall that I know of....).
They can, actually. Toughened plexiglass is transparent....
The external cameras I've seen are pretty resilient. Also very high up, so they're hard to get at.
TBH though these articles are just fluff. 99% of cameras are in-store cameras privately owned (and the US has these too). I know of 3 external ones in my nearest city, and 1 in the shopping centre down the road. It's not like they're all over the place.
London is a completely different ball game (although most of the cameras there are the congestion charge ones, and they're aimed at the road, not at people).
How many people have got 'media' PCs to play DVDs on? This kind of technology will do well at the AOL end of the market - insert DVD, switch on machine, watch DVD. No boot time - it's just there, just like every other gadget joe sixpack has in his house.
The fact that it's Linux probably won't change anything.. they could have used any embedded OS.
However, if they start building in hooks for games to use it could get interesting.... with a few million of these out there what game manufacturer wouldn't want to have an 'instant on' game with no installation/windows issues?
They're not trying to get published. They're trying to get paid.
Someone posted a non-slashdotted link. They've formed a company and are after funding - hence this press release. TBH Slashdot should stop giving these people airspace.
This is *not* science it's a corporate press release. If they had the integrity you ascribe to them (which really doesn't exist - everyone has an agenda, whether it's to get published or, in this case, to get money) then they'd never have allowed it to go out with claims like this is 'new' and 'revolutionary' which are quite obviously total bullshit.
And no, it's still not a firewall. I do exactly the same with postfix and spamassassin and that's not a firewall either. It's a mail filter.
It'd be kinda fun to write a chroot on Windows (the low level subsystem can do it, it's just Win32 that's damaged). I expect 99% of software would just refuse to install though...
No real researcher would ever perform a test in such a way.
Take of the rose-tinted spectacles.
Have a look at some of the recent MS or SCO research. *real* researchers give ther results they're paid to give, and don't give a damn about methods.
This a press release (presumably.. definately reads like one). Most of the 'facts' in it were probably dreamed up on the spur of the moment because they sounded good. Assuming they really ran the 25,000 email test then it's almost certain they reached the conclusion they were told to reach. If they can repeat those results after a server has been up for 6 months filting *real* email then I'll be interested.
Not necessarily. I don't know how much configuration this system requires, but if it requires nothing more than simply plugging two network cables into a box and away you go, then I think it is very appropriate to call it a "firewall."
No, it's still a spam filter.
If you put it into a sealed self-powered black box with the words 'Firewall' emblazoned in large letters on the side it would *still* be a spam filter.
The word 'Firewall' has a specific use in the IT world, and this aint it.
You mean TMDA.
Not new. Nobody ever sends the replies. Mailing lists automatically ban users who run it (I know I do... if they didn't want email they shouldn't have frikkin registered, so I grant them their wish and ban them.).
people not considering their mail important enough
Well if you don't consider my email important enough to read it before assuming it's spam, I don't see why I should continue the conversation.... Sucks for you if I just sent you a job offer..
the definition of a firewall is a device on a network that allows or denies access
Ahh, so *that's* what our system administrator is called..
I'll stick to 'Mordac' though.
It's easy to produce these kind of results in trials - you just tune the spam filter to handle a certain set of emails, then you feed it those emails again and you get a near 100% success rate.
Heck, why not do it with a million emails? Makes better headlines that way.
I don't see how this is any different to SpamAssassin (the term 'Mail Firewall' is pure marketing bullshit. It's a spam filter. Get over it.) except I bet it costs a hell of a lot more...
What if I confused her for "KolageLezBian"... man I would have been fucked.
Well, with any luck....
What you mean for the exchange webmail client? Works great... it even degrades nicely if it can't do IE-specific things. MS do write some crap but whoever wrote the webmail stuff knew what they were doing.
Hmm it's virtually the other way around here.. the MCSE is seen as so worthless that anyone who has to flash it around clearly hasn't go any real qualifications to fall back on, so they're not considered.
It didn't help the last place I worked the MCSE we hired didn't know squat about Windows, let alone general administration. I think he just kept re-taking the original the exam until he passed.
Wrong. The release candidates did this. The RTM opens the port to the world.
What the *hell* were they thinking?
$1000.00 last month.
Does that count?
Contracts say all sorts of bullshit.
I've got into the habit of 'correcting' any contracts I get before signing. Typically the employer countersigns without even reading my corrections. Their loss.
My last one tried to stop me working:
1. For any suppliers (so mcdonalds is out!)
2. For any clients
3. For any company in related (ie. computing) work
4. For any company *at all* for 6 months after leaving the company.
It also said *any* innovation, work related or not, was property of the company even if I came up with it in at the weekend.
Even though it's highly likely it was unenforcable (restraint of trade and all that... despite what some posters have implied these kind of contracts get voided all the time) I crossed out the offending paragraphs before sending it back. Never heard a whimper out of them.
(Their latest trick was to get us to sign a contract giving the unlimited power of attourney. I crossed *that* out about 5 seconds after getting the agreement.)
I came in late this morning to find our admin installing it on our work machine. When it didn't bluescreen immediately he proceeded to run around the office installing it randomly on any machine he could get at.
So no all corporations are the same....