"Better, it seems to me, would be for third parties to concentrate entirely on below-the-radar races (city council, etc.) and then move up one step at a time."
Yep. It might take 16 to 32 years, but if they can show how their policies have been BENEFICIAL to the cities / counties / states then they'd move up to the next level of government.
But they have to SHOW that their policies can be enacted at the lower levels WITHOUT destroying civilization as we know it. And if they can't do that, then its obvious that they should NOT be president.
I see big talk about big changes, but are there any smaller changes that they can implement at the city/county levels?
VIRUSES - A big problem on Windows, currently not a big problem on Linux. I view viruses as a failure of the security model of the operating system.
Windows is still VERY open to viruses but for pure infection rates they can't match...
TROJANS - particularly the email types. Dumb user clicks on an attachment and gets infected. The trojan then emails itself to everyone in his address book (on the assumption that dumb people have dumb friends). Trojans will be with us as long as we have dumb users.
-and-
WORMS - The spread without any human intervention. But these should have a very short life span. Patch the flaw and they die.
Which shows why Linux has been so resistant to "viruses" so far.
#1. Worms - Not everyone runs the same services, active, with the same flaws, unprotected by a firewall. And there is no reason to believe that this will ever change. Worms are a minor threat on Linux.
#2. Viruses - the security model for Linux is better at preventing infections than Microsoft's model. Unless this changes (again, why would it), viruses will remain a minor threat on Linux.
#3. Rootkits - a problem, but they rely upon flaws the same a worms do.
#4. Trojans - We'll see. Unfortunately, as I stated above, this is also the largest current "virus" threat today. If you can get a dumb user to go through all the steps necessary to install it... So the "solution" is to block or slow the most common method of such "infections". Which is Microsoft Outlook and its ability to run executable attachments. Just NOT enabling this functionality on Linux email clients would prevent most trojan attacks from "infecting" the computer.
So, while Linux is not perfect, it is far more resistant to viruses, worms and even dumb user trojans than Windows is.
"I guess we have a different definition of infected. If I'm understanding you correctly, the file in question only affects MS Win32 clients and is really just another file to the *nix server. Maybe the term carrier would be more appropriate here as the UNIX system itself isn't compromised."
I like that. Short, sweet and to the point.
"The main point I try to make though concerning the AntiVirus on the UNIX CIFS servers is that if your getting a virus saved to a file, your really defending too late in the infection process."
and...
"The file server is really a secondary point of infection if you look at the path of infection."
I am in complete agreement with you.
But the number of workstations is usually a lot higher than the number of servers. Which means that, statistically, the likelyhood is a lot higher that SOMETHING will go wrong with the virus software on a workstation than on a server.
Note: that's just statistics. That's not because it is Windows or the users are idiots or anything else.
So, the first line of defense is the workstations.
But a workstation can get their updates/software messed up and get infected. In which case, the workstation will probably try to save the virus to the server. So the server is our warning system.
Busted workstation becomes infected workstation and attempts to infect server and server yells for help and admin rushes and fixes the problem.
begin rant mode: But anti-virus software is the DUMBEST solution to the problem in the first place. It is purely REACTIVE. That means that the virus has to be out and infecting machines BEFORE the anti-virus people get (DELAY #1) and then they have to write and release an update for it (DELAY #2) which THEN has to be downloaded by the workstations (DELAY #3). TWICE so far, McAfee has NOT had an update available before I've blocked email files with those viruses (yep, I block all executable files coming in).
Virus infections are a failure of the security model of the operating system.
"True that the *nix server could be affected, but it's really due to a compromise on the MS Win32 system."
Yup. But infected is infected.
The *nix box won't be affected by any of those viruses, but the machines it shares them with can be infected. And that infection can put a load on the network (particularly the viruses that do scanning).
It's easy to put anti-virus on the file server and just kill the infections there.
Strange, it seems that you DID say it was about the technology: "When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over...."
But now: "However, we're talking about product sales, not a race...."
"The guy with the most money at the end of the day wins."
If that was your criteria, then why did you even say anything about Win95 and sound cards? Oh, I see. You're attempting to change your criteria now.
"What you have trouble understanding is that MS didn't just publish fliers, they actually had to make something...."
Oh, flip-flopped on technology now? Or did you mean "make" as in "make money" (your latest attempt at switching your criteria)?
"Like it or not, MS did a lot of technical work."
So, you've flip-flopped from money back to technology now? Again, the race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line.
Not bad. Three flip-flops in a post that only had three paragraphs from you.
"Whoopee, in my original post I didn't clarifiy that I was talking about the PC architecture."
The race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line. Not when the most popular guy crosses.
"Never mind that it was far more prolific than Apple's architecture was, meaning most machines didn't have all that stuff."
The race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line. Not when most of them cross.
"Never mind that I never once said MS invented any of it or was first to market with it."
Now don't be hating Microsoft for your error. Microsoft didn't win the technology race, but they won the marketing one. You just have a bit of trouble telling the two apart.
"I don't think so. I do think the Hospital will be forced to set the max hourly pay rather high."
I can see that as a possibility. But I can also see the hospital exploiting local economic conditions to get nurses to work lots of cheap overtime.
Unfortunately, the article didn't provide enough information to determine what the situation actually is.
"One concern I have is that if large parts of the work market use this kind of system, it may possibly amplify boom/bust cycles, because in boom times everyone can ask whatever the market would bear and spend the money, and in bust cycles salaries are decreasing significantly, spending also, deepening the bust cycle."
Yup. Not to mention that the business can push the cycles faster by not hiring enough workers and bidding out the extra hours.
So we COULD see higher peaks and lower valley and a lot more of them in any given period.
Or it could be a wonderful solution.
I want to see how LOW the lowest bids are and how many hours are being worked.
I would feel much better about this program IF the lowest bid is higher than the time-and-a-half standard for overtime and that there are a few nurses working the most hours (exploiting someone's economic situation).
Now, before anyone gets on me about "allowing" someone to work as many hours as they "want" as cheaply as they "want", I'll point out now that businesses (and hospitas are businesses) will tend towards the cheapest labour they can get. If this method allows them to exploit people's economic situations, they will. And then they'll look for more of that same type of worker to exploit.
"The opposite of "lying" is not "saying a true statement". You can truthfully tell a falsehood, and you can lie but tell the truth (accidentally)."
Which is the root of the problem. It is possible to not tell the truth (even when you know you are not telling the truth) but not to "lie" under too many definitions for "truth" and "lie".
"Your definition fails to account for pathological liars who think what they are saying isn't true but they aren't misleading for any particular "goal"."
I don't know if they don't have goals. They're pathological. I believe that I just don't understand their goals nor can I understand them.
"Of the things you list, the only correct criticism is "belief"; yes, if someone honestly believes a falsehood and says it they are not "lying"."
I can agree with that. As long as they fit the rest of my definition of not misleading someone.
"We get that all the time around here; they aren't "lying", they are simply wrong, which, while still bad, is nowhere near as morally offensive."
Yep. But, again, that gets back to my definition including "misleading". Maybe I should have put "intentionally misleading" or "Attempting to mislead" there instead of "misleading".
Will the person you are talking to choose a different course of action if s/he knew all the facts related to the situation that you know? (Regardless of whether those "facts" are indeed facts as long as you believe they are.)
If so, and you have not present all of those facts and/or you have presented other items then you have lied.
It's a very broad definition, but I feel that such is needed.
Because, unless you have a peering agreement, you are connecting to an ISP.
"You call the phone company (any phone company) and say you want a data T1 connection."
Okay. That's a chunk of money and it has a physical connection point that is recorded. It is completely different than a dial-up account.
"They give it to you and give you some IP addresses."
From their block. That means that they are your upstream provider. If someone complains about your behaviour, they will complain to your upstream provider who will then cut you off (or not).
"They do not process email for you, they do not give you web space and they do not respond to complaints about what you are doing with your T1."
They do respond to complaints about what you are doing.
"I expect this holds true for any sort of data connection from a telecommunications provider that is not providing any additional services, which means if you call SBC to get an OC48 they aren't going to ask you what you plan to do with it."
That is correct. They will not. But you ARE plugged into THEIR network.
One end of the line terminates at your location, the other end terminates at the phone company's location.
So, traffic coming from your line goes through the phone company's network. And people can see who licensed that IP range to you. They will complain to your upstream provider.
"No, that's bullshit--on your part. Why is it that when people clamor to download a new linux app or distro the Slashdot-hive-mind attributes it to features/performance/usability/security but when people do the same for a "M$" product, it's somehow due to ignorance or deceptive marketing."
Because people looking for a new download for Linux are NOT standing in the rain at midnight hoping to buy it.
That is "marketing". Whether you like it or not.
"I'm no Microsoft fan, but let's be honest, Windows 95 was a real improvement for the PC market."
Yes, and a loaf of bread with a half a pound of shit is an improvement over a loaf of bread with a pound of shit.
Whether it was an improvement for the PC market (owned by Microsoft DOS and Win3.1 at that time) does not matter since it is comparing one Microsoft platform to a newer Microsoft platform.
The issue is whether Microsoft did anything new. They did not. Apple had already done most of that.
"Something the Open Source Software community does all the time."
Hardly. No one hypes the GIMP as revolutionary or anything. Just free (as in beer, as in speech). The same with OpenOffice and all the others.
"Somebody has done all of these things before, and oftentimes better."
Yep. And still, no one is saying or implying in any way that they have not been done before, many times before.
You seem to have a problem with not remembering the initial Win95 ad campaign. My memory isn't that flawed.
Now, look back at the post i was replying to. Pay particular attention to THIS LINE: "When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over."
Now, do you see anyone posting anything like "When OpenOffice.org was released, the days of non-WYSIWYG word processors were over".
"When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over. You didn't have to memorize a bunch of stupid dos commands. Installation of apps was as simple as putting in the CD and hitting 'ok' a couple of times. All this, and you could build your own machine to boot."
Now, to break it down.
#1. "When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over."
Those days were ALREADY over. Apple had solved it.
#2. "You didn't have to memorize a bunch of stupid dos commands."
Again, Apple.
#3. "Installation of apps was as simple as putting in the CD and hitting 'ok' a couple of times."
Again, Apple.
#4. "All this, and you could build your own machine to boot."
That just doesn't fit with the other items. That's hardware. You say you put that in to rule out Apple, but, back to your first statement in that selection "When Windows 95...".
In which case, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that Microsoft (and Microsoft users) was way behind the current technology.
So it wasn't "When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware..."
It is actually "When Windows 95 came out, Windows users finally had some of the same technological advances of other systems and they had them on the PC architecture."
Well, I can see why you didn't say it that way. I doesn't sound so worshipful of Microsoft and it puts Win95 into the correct perspective from a technological standpoint.
Accuracy. It's a good thing. You should try for it a bit more often.
The major spammers have agreements with the ISP's so they can use major amounts of bandwidth.
I'm guessing the article was about dial-up accounts because I don't see anyone opening 4 or 5 dsl accounts a day.
So, the easy solution is to block port 25 from your dial up accounts. Or, at the very least, limit the out-bound connections on port 25 from those accounts. Either by number of connections (limit the number of spam messages sent) or by a fixed number of destinations (a lot of spam can be sent to a few addresses).
Earthlink should also be blocking port 25 access from dial-ups to known open relays.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again into bondage."
Alexander Frasier Tytler "The decline and fall of the Athenian republic"
It looks like we're at "apathy" now. Time to break the cycle.
"(Of course, this is using the latest re-definition of "lie" to mean "anything opposed to the truth" (and we'll just leave "truth" up in the air), as opposed to the rather more reasonable definition of "knowingly telling a falsehood"."
I prefer "misleading someone to suit your goals".
Under your definition, half-truths, evasions, rumours, beliefs and such are all "true" in that they aren't "lies".
Anyway, cellphones are more popular amongst younger voters and less popular amongst older voters.
And younger voters do tend to vote Democrat more than older voters.
So the polling could be missing a segment of the population that will be voting more heavily Democrat. Personally, I know two people who only have cell phones and I intend on annoying them into voting.
"What good does it do if it is still completely and tragically uneffective?"
Gotta agree with you there. Particularly at an ISP.
If you KNOW your actions are ineffective, wouldn't you re-evaluate your approach and look for more effective actions?
Say...... like limiting outbound email traffic on all new accounts. New accounts that hit your ceiling will be flagged for you to investigate, yet you will still be limiting the spam they can send and being a nice ISP.
From the article: "Yet canceling a spammer's account doesn't always solve the the problem. Serial spammers who have been kicked off the EarthLink network once will often jump back on, creating as many as four or five fraudulent accounts per day using stolen credit cards."
So if you limit new accounts to 1 email every 10 seconds (that's some fast typing), and put a ceiling of 200 emails a day, you'd quickly be able to spot the spammers. Yet those "four or five fraudulent accounts per day" would only be sending 1,000 spam messages a day.
Okay, shouldn't Earthlink have the phone number in their records?
So, Earthlink finds a spammer using a stolen credit card. Wouldn't they send the phone number and the credit card info to the FBI? Wouldn't the FBI trace that phone number to a physical location and arrest the spammer for fraud?
"It wasn't a new technology, but it was new for the home user."
Actually, I think the Amiga has pre-emptive multi-tasking.
And Win95's version would not work on 16-bit apps (of which most were at the time of release). All the 16-bit apps were cooperatively multi-tasked together and that chunk was pre-emptive with relation to 32-bit apps.
"When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over."
Maybe for you. But Apple had already solved that problem.
"You can't tell me that the surge of computer purchases starting around the mid-90's wasn't because of the launch of Windows 95."
You seem to be confusing the marketing push that Microsoft did with some form of technical excellence. The people bought the new PC's because they thought they needed them. That's marketing.
People lined up in the rain at midnight to buy Win95. That's marketing.
Win95 was not any technical advance over the existing (see Apple) technology.
"And since when did filtering out automatic-MS-hate make my ideas 'fucked up'?"
It doesn't. But that's not what you're doing. You seem to be claiming all the computer advances to be a result of Microsoft's efforts. They aren't. Microsoft merely took what was already available, put it into their own product and then hyped that product enough that every idiot out there thought Microsoft had invented something new and wonderful and that they had to have it.
I asked what motivation you would provide to people to get them to use the LSB TODAY.
You went on about how you work today so you can get paid later.
I pointed out that Linux works today and the Linux will work next month and so on.
Now you're off about the desktop. This is about the LSB.
"Here's another way of looking at it, why do you have a pci bus in your computer instead of a gatway or dell or hp or whatever bus?"
So, it's like an analogy or something?
Fuck your analogies. Just tell me what incentive there is for someone to use the LSB TODAY.
"The difference is the home desktop is a very different environment vs the corporate it shop."
I don't give a fuck. Again, just tell me what incentive there is for someone to use the LSB TODAY.
"If I were a creating for profit home software I would not be justify a linux version because my effective market is too small."
I am remaining in the state of not-giving-a-fuck'edness. Just tell me what incentive there is for someone to use the LSB TODAY.
"Having a standard (as long as it's a useable one it doesn't have to be perfect) allows distro's to effectively group thier market shares in the eye's of software creators."
Distributions market their distribution to end-users.
Not to ISV's.
Distributions can take their marketshare numbers to ISV's and show a market for the ISV's software if the ISV's will port to that distribution. To add incentive to that, the distribution will usually help with support or porting or a marketing campaign. This is what Red Hat has done.
So, in conclusion, there is NO incentive for ANYONE who is not currently emotionally invested in the LSB to adopt it.
They will gain the same benefit in the future if other people adopt it.
But, because there isn't any incentive, no one will and the promised commercial ISV software will never materialize because no one is using the LSB and the LSB will spend another 6 years trying to get to version 3.0.
Slashdot Mirror
"The guy is not the brightest president we have but I very much doubt he is actually below average, let alone stupid."
That all comes down to you grouping.
If you are looking at past US leaders, Bush most certainly is below average.
If you are looking at the population of the US as a whole, then he seems to be about average.
"Better, it seems to me, would be for third parties to concentrate entirely on below-the-radar races (city council, etc.) and then move up one step at a time."
Yep. It might take 16 to 32 years, but if they can show how their policies have been BENEFICIAL to the cities / counties / states then they'd move up to the next level of government.
But they have to SHOW that their policies can be enacted at the lower levels WITHOUT destroying civilization as we know it. And if they can't do that, then its obvious that they should NOT be president.
I see big talk about big changes, but are there any smaller changes that they can implement at the city/county levels?
VIRUSES - A big problem on Windows, currently not a big problem on Linux. I view viruses as a failure of the security model of the operating system.
...
... So the "solution" is to block or slow the most common method of such "infections". Which is Microsoft Outlook and its ability to run executable attachments. Just NOT enabling this functionality on Linux email clients would prevent most trojan attacks from "infecting" the computer.
Windows is still VERY open to viruses but for pure infection rates they can't match
TROJANS - particularly the email types. Dumb user clicks on an attachment and gets infected. The trojan then emails itself to everyone in his address book (on the assumption that dumb people have dumb friends). Trojans will be with us as long as we have dumb users.
-and-
WORMS - The spread without any human intervention. But these should have a very short life span. Patch the flaw and they die.
Which shows why Linux has been so resistant to "viruses" so far.
#1. Worms - Not everyone runs the same services, active, with the same flaws, unprotected by a firewall. And there is no reason to believe that this will ever change. Worms are a minor threat on Linux.
#2. Viruses - the security model for Linux is better at preventing infections than Microsoft's model. Unless this changes (again, why would it), viruses will remain a minor threat on Linux.
#3. Rootkits - a problem, but they rely upon flaws the same a worms do.
#4. Trojans - We'll see. Unfortunately, as I stated above, this is also the largest current "virus" threat today. If you can get a dumb user to go through all the steps necessary to install it
So, while Linux is not perfect, it is far more resistant to viruses, worms and even dumb user trojans than Windows is.
"Carrier".
...
"I guess we have a different definition of infected. If I'm understanding you correctly, the file in question only affects MS Win32 clients and is really just another file to the *nix server. Maybe the term carrier would be more appropriate here as the UNIX system itself isn't compromised."
I like that. Short, sweet and to the point.
"The main point I try to make though concerning the AntiVirus on the UNIX CIFS servers is that if your getting a virus saved to a file, your really defending too late in the infection process."
and
"The file server is really a secondary point of infection if you look at the path of infection."
I am in complete agreement with you.
But the number of workstations is usually a lot higher than the number of servers. Which means that, statistically, the likelyhood is a lot higher that SOMETHING will go wrong with the virus software on a workstation than on a server.
Note: that's just statistics. That's not because it is Windows or the users are idiots or anything else.
So, the first line of defense is the workstations.
But a workstation can get their updates/software messed up and get infected. In which case, the workstation will probably try to save the virus to the server. So the server is our warning system.
Busted workstation
becomes
infected workstation
and
attempts to infect server
and
server yells for help
and
admin rushes and fixes the problem.
begin rant mode:
But anti-virus software is the DUMBEST solution to the problem in the first place. It is purely REACTIVE. That means that the virus has to be out and infecting machines BEFORE the anti-virus people get (DELAY #1) and then they have to write and release an update for it (DELAY #2) which THEN has to be downloaded by the workstations (DELAY #3). TWICE so far, McAfee has NOT had an update available before I've blocked email files with those viruses (yep, I block all executable files coming in).
Virus infections are a failure of the security model of the operating system.
"True that the *nix server could be affected, but it's really due to a compromise on the MS Win32 system."
Yup. But infected is infected.
The *nix box won't be affected by any of those viruses, but the machines it shares them with can be infected. And that infection can put a load on the network (particularly the viruses that do scanning).
It's easy to put anti-virus on the file server and just kill the infections there.
Yep, I've seen it attributed to various sources. I thought that was the original. :)
Strange, it seems that you DID say it was about the technology: ..."
..."
..."
"When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over.
But now:
"However, we're talking about product sales, not a race.
"The guy with the most money at the end of the day wins."
If that was your criteria, then why did you even say anything about Win95 and sound cards? Oh, I see. You're attempting to change your criteria now.
"What you have trouble understanding is that MS didn't just publish fliers, they actually had to make something.
Oh, flip-flopped on technology now? Or did you mean "make" as in "make money" (your latest attempt at switching your criteria)?
"Like it or not, MS did a lot of technical work."
So, you've flip-flopped from money back to technology now? Again, the race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line.
Not bad. Three flip-flops in a post that only had three paragraphs from you.
"Whoopee, in my original post I didn't clarifiy that I was talking about the PC architecture."
The race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line. Not when the most popular guy crosses.
"Never mind that it was far more prolific than Apple's architecture was, meaning most machines didn't have all that stuff."
The race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line. Not when most of them cross.
"Never mind that I never once said MS invented any of it or was first to market with it."
Now don't be hating Microsoft for your error. Microsoft didn't win the technology race, but they won the marketing one. You just have a bit of trouble telling the two apart.
"I don't think so. I do think the Hospital will be forced to set the max hourly pay rather high."
I can see that as a possibility. But I can also see the hospital exploiting local economic conditions to get nurses to work lots of cheap overtime.
Unfortunately, the article didn't provide enough information to determine what the situation actually is.
"One concern I have is that if large parts of the work market use this kind of system, it may possibly amplify boom/bust cycles, because in boom times everyone can ask whatever the market would bear and spend the money, and in bust cycles salaries are decreasing significantly, spending also, deepening the bust cycle."
Yup. Not to mention that the business can push the cycles faster by not hiring enough workers and bidding out the extra hours.
So we COULD see higher peaks and lower valley and a lot more of them in any given period.
Or it could be a wonderful solution.
I want to see how LOW the lowest bids are and how many hours are being worked.
I would feel much better about this program IF the lowest bid is higher than the time-and-a-half standard for overtime and that there are a few nurses working the most hours (exploiting someone's economic situation).
Now, before anyone gets on me about "allowing" someone to work as many hours as they "want" as cheaply as they "want", I'll point out now that businesses (and hospitas are businesses) will tend towards the cheapest labour they can get. If this method allows them to exploit people's economic situations, they will. And then they'll look for more of that same type of worker to exploit.
Which is "misleading someone to suit your goals".
"The opposite of "lying" is not "saying a true statement". You can truthfully tell a falsehood, and you can lie but tell the truth (accidentally)."
Which is the root of the problem. It is possible to not tell the truth (even when you know you are not telling the truth) but not to "lie" under too many definitions for "truth" and "lie".
"Your definition fails to account for pathological liars who think what they are saying isn't true but they aren't misleading for any particular "goal"."
I don't know if they don't have goals. They're pathological. I believe that I just don't understand their goals nor can I understand them.
"Of the things you list, the only correct criticism is "belief"; yes, if someone honestly believes a falsehood and says it they are not "lying"."
I can agree with that. As long as they fit the rest of my definition of not misleading someone.
"We get that all the time around here; they aren't "lying", they are simply wrong, which, while still bad, is nowhere near as morally offensive."
Yep. But, again, that gets back to my definition including "misleading". Maybe I should have put "intentionally misleading" or "Attempting to mislead" there instead of "misleading".
Will the person you are talking to choose a different course of action if s/he knew all the facts related to the situation that you know? (Regardless of whether those "facts" are indeed facts as long as you believe they are.)
If so, and you have not present all of those facts and/or you have presented other items then you have lied.
It's a very broad definition, but I feel that such is needed.
"I don't understand why all the focus on ISPs."
Because, unless you have a peering agreement, you are connecting to an ISP.
"You call the phone company (any phone company) and say you want a data T1 connection."
Okay. That's a chunk of money and it has a physical connection point that is recorded. It is completely different than a dial-up account.
"They give it to you and give you some IP addresses."
From their block. That means that they are your upstream provider. If someone complains about your behaviour, they will complain to your upstream provider who will then cut you off (or not).
"They do not process email for you, they do not give you web space and they do not respond to complaints about what you are doing with your T1."
They do respond to complaints about what you are doing.
"I expect this holds true for any sort of data connection from a telecommunications provider that is not providing any additional services, which means if you call SBC to get an OC48 they aren't going to ask you what you plan to do with it."
That is correct. They will not. But you ARE plugged into THEIR network.
One end of the line terminates at your location, the other end terminates at the phone company's location.
So, traffic coming from your line goes through the phone company's network. And people can see who licensed that IP range to you. They will complain to your upstream provider.
"No, that's bullshit--on your part. Why is it that when people clamor to download a new linux app or distro the Slashdot-hive-mind attributes it to features/performance/usability/security but when people do the same for a "M$" product, it's somehow due to ignorance or deceptive marketing."
Because people looking for a new download for Linux are NOT standing in the rain at midnight hoping to buy it.
That is "marketing". Whether you like it or not.
"I'm no Microsoft fan, but let's be honest, Windows 95 was a real improvement for the PC market."
Yes, and a loaf of bread with a half a pound of shit is an improvement over a loaf of bread with a pound of shit.
Whether it was an improvement for the PC market (owned by Microsoft DOS and Win3.1 at that time) does not matter since it is comparing one Microsoft platform to a newer Microsoft platform.
The issue is whether Microsoft did anything new. They did not. Apple had already done most of that.
"Something the Open Source Software community does all the time."
Hardly. No one hypes the GIMP as revolutionary or anything. Just free (as in beer, as in speech). The same with OpenOffice and all the others.
"Somebody has done all of these things before, and oftentimes better."
Yep. And still, no one is saying or implying in any way that they have not been done before, many times before.
You seem to have a problem with not remembering the initial Win95 ad campaign. My memory isn't that flawed.
Now, look back at the post i was replying to. Pay particular attention to THIS LINE:
"When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over."
Now, do you see anyone posting anything like "When OpenOffice.org was released, the days of non-WYSIWYG word processors were over".
No, you don't. So your "point" is invalid.
"When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over. You didn't have to memorize a bunch of stupid dos commands. Installation of apps was as simple as putting in the CD and hitting 'ok' a couple of times. All this, and you could build your own machine to boot."
Now, to break it down.
#1. "When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over."
Those days were ALREADY over. Apple had solved it.
#2. "You didn't have to memorize a bunch of stupid dos commands."
Again, Apple.
#3. "Installation of apps was as simple as putting in the CD and hitting 'ok' a couple of times."
Again, Apple.
#4. "All this, and you could build your own machine to boot."
That just doesn't fit with the other items. That's hardware. You say you put that in to rule out Apple, but, back to your first statement in that selection "When Windows 95...".
In which case, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that Microsoft (and Microsoft users) was way behind the current technology.
So it wasn't "When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware..."
It is actually "When Windows 95 came out, Windows users finally had some of the same technological advances of other systems and they had them on the PC architecture."
Well, I can see why you didn't say it that way. I doesn't sound so worshipful of Microsoft and it puts Win95 into the correct perspective from a technological standpoint.
Accuracy. It's a good thing. You should try for it a bit more often.
The major spammers have agreements with the ISP's so they can use major amounts of bandwidth.
I'm guessing the article was about dial-up accounts because I don't see anyone opening 4 or 5 dsl accounts a day.
So, the easy solution is to block port 25 from your dial up accounts. Or, at the very least, limit the out-bound connections on port 25 from those accounts. Either by number of connections (limit the number of spam messages sent) or by a fixed number of destinations (a lot of spam can be sent to a few addresses).
Earthlink should also be blocking port 25 access from dial-ups to known open relays.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again into bondage."
Alexander Frasier Tytler
"The decline and fall of the Athenian republic"
It looks like we're at "apathy" now. Time to break the cycle.
"(Of course, this is using the latest re-definition of "lie" to mean "anything opposed to the truth" (and we'll just leave "truth" up in the air), as opposed to the rather more reasonable definition of "knowingly telling a falsehood"."
I prefer "misleading someone to suit your goals".
Under your definition, half-truths, evasions, rumours, beliefs and such are all "true" in that they aren't "lies".
Those damn kids with their text messaging.
8 24 3
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/19/191
Anyway, cellphones are more popular amongst younger voters and less popular amongst older voters.
And younger voters do tend to vote Democrat more than older voters.
So the polling could be missing a segment of the population that will be voting more heavily Democrat. Personally, I know two people who only have cell phones and I intend on annoying them into voting.
Running GroupWise at work. I had to dedicate a machine to running Guinevere and SpamAssassin and McAfee anti-virus.
And I have to make sure it is patched.
And I had to adjust the email server's threads (default set to either 2 or 4) for handling incoming email (increased to 50).
And tuning of SpamAssassin.
"What good does it do if it is still completely and tragically uneffective?"
...... like limiting outbound email traffic on all new accounts. New accounts that hit your ceiling will be flagged for you to investigate, yet you will still be limiting the spam they can send and being a nice ISP.
Gotta agree with you there. Particularly at an ISP.
If you KNOW your actions are ineffective, wouldn't you re-evaluate your approach and look for more effective actions?
Say
From the article: "Yet canceling a spammer's account doesn't always solve the the problem. Serial spammers who have been kicked off the EarthLink network once will often jump back on, creating as many as four or five fraudulent accounts per day using stolen credit cards."
So if you limit new accounts to 1 email every 10 seconds (that's some fast typing), and put a ceiling of 200 emails a day, you'd quickly be able to spot the spammers. Yet those "four or five fraudulent accounts per day" would only be sending 1,000 spam messages a day.
Okay, shouldn't Earthlink have the phone number in their records?
So, Earthlink finds a spammer using a stolen credit card. Wouldn't they send the phone number and the credit card info to the FBI? Wouldn't the FBI trace that phone number to a physical location and arrest the spammer for fraud?
"It wasn't a new technology, but it was new for the home user."
Actually, I think the Amiga has pre-emptive multi-tasking.
And Win95's version would not work on 16-bit apps (of which most were at the time of release). All the 16-bit apps were cooperatively multi-tasked together and that chunk was pre-emptive with relation to 32-bit apps.
"When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over."
Maybe for you. But Apple had already solved that problem.
"You can't tell me that the surge of computer purchases starting around the mid-90's wasn't because of the launch of Windows 95."
You seem to be confusing the marketing push that Microsoft did with some form of technical excellence. The people bought the new PC's because they thought they needed them. That's marketing.
People lined up in the rain at midnight to buy Win95. That's marketing.
Win95 was not any technical advance over the existing (see Apple) technology.
"And since when did filtering out automatic-MS-hate make my ideas 'fucked up'?"
It doesn't. But that's not what you're doing. You seem to be claiming all the computer advances to be a result of Microsoft's efforts. They aren't. Microsoft merely took what was already available, put it into their own product and then hyped that product enough that every idiot out there thought Microsoft had invented something new and wonderful and that they had to have it.
Microsoft will make obviously stupid decisions from a security/stability standpoint in order to increase performance.
Then Microsoft will slap bandaids on the security/stability problems that the created.
And then some people will start bragging about how proficient they are at juggling bandaids on their systems.
I asked what motivation you would provide to people to get them to use the LSB TODAY.
You went on about how you work today so you can get paid later.
I pointed out that Linux works today and the Linux will work next month and so on.
Now you're off about the desktop. This is about the LSB.
"Here's another way of looking at it, why do you have a pci bus in your computer instead of a gatway or dell or hp or whatever bus?"
So, it's like an analogy or something?
Fuck your analogies. Just tell me what incentive there is for someone to use the LSB TODAY.
"The difference is the home desktop is a very different environment vs the corporate it shop."
I don't give a fuck. Again, just tell me what incentive there is for someone to use the LSB TODAY.
"If I were a creating for profit home software I would not be justify a linux version because my effective market is too small."
I am remaining in the state of not-giving-a-fuck'edness. Just tell me what incentive there is for someone to use the LSB TODAY.
"Having a standard (as long as it's a useable one it doesn't have to be perfect) allows distro's to effectively group thier market shares in the eye's of software creators."
Distributions market their distribution to end-users.
Not to ISV's.
Distributions can take their marketshare numbers to ISV's and show a market for the ISV's software if the ISV's will port to that distribution. To add incentive to that, the distribution will usually help with support or porting or a marketing campaign. This is what Red Hat has done.
So, in conclusion, there is NO incentive for ANYONE who is not currently emotionally invested in the LSB to adopt it.
They will gain the same benefit in the future if other people adopt it.
But, because there isn't any incentive, no one will and the promised commercial ISV software will never materialize because no one is using the LSB and the LSB will spend another 6 years trying to get to version 3.0.
His "artistic vision" will feature a surfboard battle on molten lava in the next movie.
His "artistic vision" recycled R2D2 and C3PO from the original trilogy.
His "artistic vision" results in a massive space ship being destroyed to save the day with one shot in 3 out of the 5 episodes so far.
His "artistic vision" is empty. It wasn't always, but now it is.