I agree that most of his tests are useless. Not to mention, they are easily passed by pasting a few passages from any legitimate source at the end of the message. That will throw off the percentage estimates.
Any tests that are run on the CONTENT of the message will eventually be bypassed as spam gets designed to pass those tests.
I believe that focusing on the SERVERS that send the spam is the only workable approach. Identify which servers send the spam and have your firewall drop those connections.
Kind of like a black/white list, but only with respect to connections.
If you send email to a site, it goes on the white list. Since most companies send email to fewer sites than they receive spam from, incoming connections can be checked against the white list and authorized if on it, before checking on the black list to be dropped.
It will take some processing power, but I don't see any way to handle it. Content analysis will, eventually, fail.
This also solves a large chunk of the "false positive/negative" issue. Since the email never hits your regular filters (SpamAssassin), then it will not get incorrectly flagged.
If it is a legitimate email coming from a blocked host, the SENDER's system will inform the SENDER that there is a problem with connecting. Then the SENDER gets on the phone. Which should also result in the SENDER fixing their zombie/open relay.
First off, identify the characteristics of the spammer's mail servers. In my experience, they are usually zombies or open relays that I don't have any legitimate contact with anyway. So.....
Seed the spammer's databases with a bogus address. That's easy to do. Just post what looks like a legitimate address in places that spammers are likely to scan.
Then, any email going to that bogus address is broken down and the originating address is put in a blacklist for your FIREWALL. Any connections from those sites are not even acknowledged.
Unless your mail server has previously sent email to that address. (this will take care of spammers sending from Hotmail or AOL or some such.
You'd also need a method of "learning" addresses that had not sent email to your bogus address. But that should be easy and similar to "SA-Learn" in SpamAssassin.
There. You only block sites that have sent you spam in the past but it should take care of over 80% of the spam (in my case).
Eventually, the spammers will congrugate on major sites that you have legitimate contact with. In which case, those sites can implement throttles to restrict the outbound email.
A nice side benefit is that if someone at one of the open relays DOES try to send you legitimate email (and follows up with a phone call on why you haven't responded), then you can explain that they have an open relay and are spamming the world and they can fix the problem. Everyone is happy!
"Last fall the president of the University of Maryland found himself doing something that none of his predecessors would have dreamed of trying. While on a trip to Taiwan, C. Dan Mote Jr. spent part of his time recruiting Taiwanese students to go to the United States for graduate school."
So, we're looking overseas for students to fill our tech programs....
"Current data suggest that the new predictions may fare no better than earlier ones. In fact, contrary to prevailing wisdom, which fixes blame on poor training in science and mathematics from kindergarten through the 12th grade, record numbers of Americans are earning bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. And unemployment rates in at least some sectors of science and engineering have topped the charts."
But we're turning out "record numbers" of AMERICAN graduates in those programs.
"University presidents, government officials, and heads of industry have joined together in a chorus of concern over the state of science and engineering in the United States. The danger signs are obvious, they say. Fewer U.S. citizens are getting doctorates in those fields."
And we seem to be producing fewer PhD's in those programs.
"In fact, even as science leaders opined about the alarming NSF report from May, the agency announced last week that graduate-student enrollment in science and engineering actually reached a new peak in 2002."
But we're enrolling more post-graduate people in those programs than ever before.
"As the number of those men entering science has declined, national leaders have sought to bring more women and minorities into the enterprise."
So fewer white men are going into tech and the difference is more women and minorities?
So is this about the decline of the white male in tech fields or is it about the rise of everyone else in tech fields or is it about how the US is declining in tech fields?
"And even if the visa difficulties fade, leaders both inside and outside academe say the education system in the United States must reform itself to maintain the country's technological edge."
So, we're in decline because we're graduating more techs than ever before, but they're mostly women and minorities and lots of them go on to post-graduate work, and that is the fault of the education system?
"The board noted in particular a rising reliance on foreign-born talent, a decline in homegrown brainpower, increasing difficulty in attracting overseas scholars, and a looming shortage of scientists and engineers."
So, we are depending more upon foreign engineers and it is becoming increasing difficult to get them to come here........which means that we'll have a shortage of techs soon unless we start growing our own.
"Compounding the situation, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted in 2001 that the number of jobs in science and engineering would grow at a rate three times that of all occupations, on average, producing a 47-percent increase in science-and-engineering jobs by 2010."
So we'll have lots of jobs available for people with tech degrees.
""Despite recurring concerns about potential shortages of STEM [scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics] personnel in the U.S. work force, particularly in engineering and information technology, we did not find evidence that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon," concluded the RAND Corporation in a report this year."
So there won't be lots of jobs available for people with tech degrees.
And the rest of the article continues in the same fashion.
Is there a current shortage of techs? Is there a current surplus of techs?
Are too many of the techs foreign? Are too few foreign students entering our schools?
The only thing to be found in this article is that US-born citizens are not all working towards their PhD's and even if they did, they might not make any more money than they do right now.
"Instead, the way I see it, Star Trek in its whole has provided a generalized SciFi framework, into which different authors, directors, writers, artists, etc. can provide a story."
Pretty much. The basics of the mythology are presented and anyone can write any story in that mythology. The problems come when a BAD writer violates the mythology. "Shared world" literary attempts only work when people respect the other writers.
"Aside from the "boldly go" kind of essense, there's a HUGE diversity there."
Not that much, actually. They each focus on a small group of individuals that encounter incredibly dangerous (destroy the planet) situations yet they always win and (with one notable exception) none of them every die.
"And frankly, as long as any one story is enjoyable, I don't really mind if there's some non-canonical bits therein."
But when those bits become so large that they change the history, then there is a problem.
"But for run-of-the-mill stories, I'm more interested in how they handle the character development, coupled with the staple of SciFi - which is, in my opinion, how humans handle advanced technology and its effects (including the effect of encountering other species)."
And THAT is the problem. Without the continuity, there isn't any development. New inventions are featured one week and forgotten the next. Even when they would have changed the entire mythology.
"So as far as I'm concerned, the "Star Trek" name provides a rather broad, rather permissive framework - with NAME RECOGNITION."
But what use is that name recognition?
Other than an easy way to guarantee that you'll pull in X viewers the first weekend because there are a certain number of geeks who will go see ANYTHING with "Star Trek" in the title.
If it isn't about the mythology (and you say continuity does not matter) then what is it about?
"And the best thing about it: that name recognition provides a budget for reasonably cool SciFi movies and television."
Watch FireFly. Far better than anything from the Star Trek franchise in the last 10 years. Yet they managed to do so without any existing mythology or name recognition.
"Maybe not the BEST, but at least reasonably entertaining, and definitely more quantity than we'd get otherwise."
Whereas people like me would be willing to take less of the quantity if we could get more of the quality.
I don't own ANY of the DVD's of ANY of the Star Trek movies, yet I own the FireFly boxed set.
"And it spurs all kinds of spinoffs and competitors (B5, Andromeda, etc.) which are even better."
I don't think B5 was a Star Trek spinoff. It had continuity. It had a story arc.
Andromeda just ended up being stupid.
Again, look at FireFly. See how good a single season of science fiction can be. Real character development. Not only did you learn more about each character as the season progressed (and not just randomly tacked on items like "best x in the Acadamy" or "master at the x" or "expert in x") and you saw how the events of previous episodes changed them.
#1. "I just don't see why people bash those who support Microsoft."
#1-reply: I don't see anyone bashing anyone who has to support Microsoft PRODUCTS. Was that what you meant?
#2. "As an IT pro, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to not be subjected to Microsoft's reign."
#2-reply: That seems to support #1-reply. You are complaining that people are "bashing" people who are forced to provide support for Microsoft products. But that is NOT the case.
#3. "All I'm saying is that Microsoft makes some decent programs and software."
#3-reply: Now you seem to have changed your position. Now you are an advocate of Microsoft the company.
#4. "People will always hate on them because they are the largest company in the industry and as a result, maintain control over lots of related aspects of that given industry."
#4-reply: And now you've gone COMPLETELY overboard. Now you're trying to cast this as "hate" instead of a discusssion of the security holes in IE. I can see why people here bash you with that attitude.
#5. "If Linux was used by 80% of users, then Linux would take all the flak and have the bulk of viruses and worms being developed targeting it."
#5-reply: So, in your professional opinion, there is no such thing as "security", only "marketshare". Apache is in use by more websites than IIS, yet your same "logic" does not apply to webserver software.
Here's some advice for the future.
A. Focus on the TECHNICAL discussion.
B. Do NOT claim to know that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so because of a specific EMOTION they are feeling.
C. Learn what the difference is between "security" and "marketshare".
This might be EXTREMELY useful for corporate LAN/WAN's. Althought just switching to something like the Linux Terminal Server Project might provide almost all of the same functionality...
To get the desired functionality at any machine (even Macs?) those machines would already have to be running the client software. So it would not be ANY computer.
Not to mention security. All it would take would be to add a keystroke logger to the machine and you've captured someone's username/password.
http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail. as p?T1=132+0390
Public terminals are about as trustworthy as public underwear.
#1. To get people into the store so they might purchase other FULL PRICE items.
#2. To clear stock so you can put in different stuff.
Stores tie up a LOT of money in their merchandise. If it ain't selling at the price you've marked, then you ain't gettin' money. So you mark it down until it DOES sell.
I don't see anything wrong with shopping around to find the discontinued and going-out-of-style bargins that you're selling for less than you paid.
"We must not frighten voters or inadvertently provide any type of disincentive to voting," Diebold spokesman David Bear wrote in an e-mail when asked to respond to Harris' claims that the company's software is riggable and insecure. "While security is an important issue... improvements can and will be made."
Again, "While security is an important issue... improvements can and will be made."
Security is NOT "an important issue".
Security is THE issue.
If it is not secure, then we should go back to paper ballots which are trackable.
Why not just stick with numbers for the entire statement?
Rewritten: "Windows XP Professional saw 46 advisories in 2003-2004, with 22 vulnerabilities allowing remote attacks and 21 enabling system access, Secunia said."
An even better way: "Windows XP Professional saw 46 advisories in 2003-2004, with 15 vulnerabilities allowing remote attacks and 14 enabling system access and 7 enabling system access via a remote attack, Secunia said."
With Open Source software, the vulnerability is usually discussed on the mailing list.
So, if a hole is discovered in Linux, and discussed on the mailing list and a patch is released 48 hours later.....
And then Red Hat releases a.rpm 24 hours later...
Forrester would count that as a 3 day delay.
You take the medium threat from www.eeye.com that is 49 days overdue (actually informed 109 days ago) and Microsoft releases a patch the same day Microsoft admits to the hole....
"Adds "View page in Internet Explorer" links to the content and link context menu. Handy for previewing pages in IE, loading up IE-only pages when you run across them in Mozilla, etc."
So you can still run everything in FireFox and then open IE from FireFox for those sites that require it.
Microsoft didn't care about browsers until Netscape and Java. Then they saw that the future might be a commodity OS running a browser as the interface to the apps (running on a server).
If Microsoft doesn't control the browser, it doesn't control that interface. Windows becomes very easy to replace.
"Seems to me the FBI wouldn't want me to tell you if I, in theory, did go to them."
Why would they care? You would have given the names of the people you knew who knew the people who did that. The FBI would be talking to the names you gave them.
"I also didn't say I knew these people -- I don't."
So, someone you don't know comes up to you and tells you that he knows someone in Greenpeace who cut a brakeline and is proud of it......
And from THAT you feel compelled to post on/.?
"I met them in Portland, where I do not reside, and spoke to them long enough to understand that they were proud of some very peculiar things, and that the core of their fervor was Greenpeace."
Whereas _I_ would disregard something a stranger told me because I wasn't born yesterday and have developed a degree of cynicism towards what strangers say.
As you may have noted in this exchange.
But you seem to be trying to imply that you DID go to the FBI with that "information".
Let me guess, you're 13 and you're trying to impress people on/.
"The issue here is that these people broke in to an energy plant, climbed the smoke stack, and put a giant banner on it."
Yes they did. That is "breaking and entering". That is NOT a Federal crime.
"Sounds pretty illegal to me."
It is, but it is NOT a Federal crime.
"If the state is too stupid to see these people as a threat, then the Feds should step in."
Why are they a "threat" now? Did their banner injure anyone? Kill anyone? No.
If a cop gives you a warning about speeding, should the Feds step in?
"In the end it all boils down to this: A Greenpeace ship was given WiFi equipment, and set up with access."
No, that is what the ARTICLE is about.
YOU posted about how YOU knew people who knew people who claimed to have cut brakelines.
You stepped off topic with that post and now this thread is about YOUR claims.
How about a bit more INFORMATION on that reference you gave? Hmmmm?
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?news id =12092422&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi= 6
Those "trumped up charges" are for (from the article) "damage or attempted damage of an energy facility".
The put a poster on a smokestack.
Pay PARTICULAR attention to the FACTS in that case.
#1. "On the state level, each was charged with felony counts of burglary, criminal trespass and riot and misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct and failure to disperse upon official orders. Each also faces a summary citation for criminal mischief. All were arraigned and released on minimal bond."
Got that? On the state level, they were charged and released on minimal bond. That means the STATE does NOT think they're a threat.
#2. The FEDERAL charges seem to be coming from The Homeland Security Act.
Anyway, why isn't a nice, law-abiding citizen such as yourself going to the police with the names of the people who told you they knew people who bragged about cutting brake lines?
Hmmmmmm?
After all, you know someone who has claimed to have information about a very illegal activity and you have done......... nothing?
"Some may agree, some may reach my conclusion -- that they are terrorists . . . But that's the beauty of the web . . . and a little thing called free speech."
And you are protecting those terrorists by not going to the FBI with the information you have...
Paragraph #1. Personal reminiscing. No facts to contradict f9/11.
#2. Still no facts.
#3. Still no facts.
#4. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate.
#5. Still no facts.
#6. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie.
#7. See #6
#8. See #7
#9. See #8
#10. I'm not sure what he's saying here.
#11. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.
#12. Sets up false dichotomies ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.") that do not seem to be stated in the film.
#13. Complains about Moore ("In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11.").
#14. This one is cute. "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
Yet he has not managed to identify the "big lie" yet.
#15. Another cute one. "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive." But it is factual and caught on tape.
#16. Another cute one. "In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed." But it seems to be actual footage of actual Iraqis before the war.
#17. "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American." I'm going to need to verify that Moore said that. This may be one actual discrepency.
#18. "Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."
Well I believe that he was not a problem. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.
#19. "From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."
And that is a factual error how?
#20. "Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"?"
Not even complete speculation. This does not count as a factual counter.
#21. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush.
#22. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality.
#23. No facts. "Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning." So? Attack the movie. If you can.
#24. "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."
He ADMITS that he doesn't have any facts to counter the movie with. Did you even READ this far into it? Fact-checking would be the FIRST thing to do to show how "flat-out phony" the movie was.
#25. Still, no facts to counter the movie.
#26. See #25.
#27. See #26.
#28. See #27.
#29. No facts. Just attacks on Moore.
Yet you claim..... "While I disagree with many of his points and his insulting style, he does raise factual issues."
Perhaps someone could point them out? I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it?
That's another problem I have with these programs.
"Since I enter my paycheck information (to get taxes and other deductions included), Money does recognize (it guesses and it is sometimes wrong) the duplicate entry as well as other duplicates from personal entry and then gives you the opportunity to 'accept' the bank's information (single value) or keep yours (detailed)."
It sounds like you enter all your payments and deposits by hand, the same as I do. And from your statement, it sounds like you enter more information than the bank supplies (again, just like I do).
So all you get from the "support" at the bank is the chance to fix the mistakes that makes when it downloads the data from the bank and guesses wrong.
This does not make me happy. That's why I usually just use a spreadsheet for my finances. Here's a quick example.
Washington Mutual checking account Quicken 2003
If I get cash from an ATM that charges a fee, I cannot associate that fee with that withdrawl in Quicken. And on my bank statement, all those fees are rolled together and listed at the end.
Now, in my spreadsheet, I can put a column for "ATM fee".
I don't have to tell you about the problem of downloading the monthly statement and then trying to manually break a single $50 fee into how-many-ever individual withdrawls.
But if I'm trying to reconcile my spreadsheet with the montly statement, a simple equation totals all the fee entries (including "ATM fee") for that month so I can match it against their figure.
It seems that I'm doing more work when I should be doing less work.
Instead of Quicken or Money handling my information, I end up using the spreadsheet for all my transactions and then just totaling various items and entering the totals into Quicken for tax purposes.
That is too much like what the accounting department at work does. And they have full time staff to do that.
I want something that takes less than 10 minutes a week, yet gives me all the information I already keep. Right now I spend about 15 minutes a week on this. All the receipts go in a box until the weekend.
Neither Quicken nor Money understands the information that they're downloading.
So, they go by the date of your last download. But you can override the date (in case you've deleted entries that you should not have).
So, they download everything for that date range, even if the information is ALREADY there.
I can understand doing it that way for the download, but they should also do some basic checks to see if duplicate entries exist. They don't.
In more technical terms, they are "brittle". As long as you don't make an error, they are fine. But people make mistakes.
If the banks TRULY supported those apps, they would be keyed on unique transaction numbers. The app could query the Bank's server for a list of transaction numbers associated with that account and then compare that list with the list it already had and just download any changes.
I'm not sure how long banks keep their transaction records, but if the apps were really supported, it would be possible to download all your data instead of picking a date and starting from there.
With the current level of "support", all you get is an automated method of receiving your monthly statement. You could get the same functionality by typing in your statement yourself.
From the article: "Past infringement cases have focused on software makers rather than end users. For example, Microsoft has encountered many infringement cases from companies like Eolas, Stac, Burst, Netscape, Sun, and InterTrust. None of the Microsoft cases have fallen over to consumers."
While there is nothing to stop anyone from filing a claim against anyone else, one company filing a claim against the end users of a different company has NEVER happened before.
The threats can be (and have been) made, but no one has ever filed such a claim in court.
Which brings up the issue of WHY no one has ever brought such a case in court.
And then, WHAT is DIFFERENT about Linux that would change that?
So far, I have not seen anything detailing why Linux (or Open Source in general) is different from Windows (or Closed Source in general) and thus would be subject to a situation that has never happened before.
Until I see some material addressing those points, I'm going to believe this is just some stupid marketing ploy (follow the money to Microsoft).
(Note: this is just about copyright, software patents are a completely different issue.)
There was a story on/. a while ago about mortgage spam. The large mortgage vendors (many of them legitimate banks) were the ones that responded when some mortgage spam was answered.
It seems that those institutions were paying for leads and they didn't really care where the leads came from.
So, do you fine the guy who sent the spam or the company that contacts you after you answer the spam?
If you only fine the guy, there will be another to take his place (and, as you noted, they will move outside of US jurisdiction).
Can a bank that never before sent you any email be fined for contacting you if you send someone an email saying you're interested in a mortgage? Until that starts happening, nothing is going to happen to the spam level.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that most of his tests are useless. Not to mention, they are easily passed by pasting a few passages from any legitimate source at the end of the message. That will throw off the percentage estimates.
Any tests that are run on the CONTENT of the message will eventually be bypassed as spam gets designed to pass those tests.
I believe that focusing on the SERVERS that send the spam is the only workable approach. Identify which servers send the spam and have your firewall drop those connections.
Kind of like a black/white list, but only with respect to connections.
If you send email to a site, it goes on the white list. Since most companies send email to fewer sites than they receive spam from, incoming connections can be checked against the white list and authorized if on it, before checking on the black list to be dropped.
It will take some processing power, but I don't see any way to handle it. Content analysis will, eventually, fail.
This also solves a large chunk of the "false positive/negative" issue. Since the email never hits your regular filters (SpamAssassin), then it will not get incorrectly flagged.
If it is a legitimate email coming from a blocked host, the SENDER's system will inform the SENDER that there is a problem with connecting. Then the SENDER gets on the phone. Which should also result in the SENDER fixing their zombie/open relay.
First off, identify the characteristics of the spammer's mail servers. In my experience, they are usually zombies or open relays that I don't have any legitimate contact with anyway. So.....
Seed the spammer's databases with a bogus address. That's easy to do. Just post what looks like a legitimate address in places that spammers are likely to scan.
Then, any email going to that bogus address is broken down and the originating address is put in a blacklist for your FIREWALL. Any connections from those sites are not even acknowledged.
Unless your mail server has previously sent email to that address. (this will take care of spammers sending from Hotmail or AOL or some such.
You'd also need a method of "learning" addresses that had not sent email to your bogus address. But that should be easy and similar to "SA-Learn" in SpamAssassin.
There. You only block sites that have sent you spam in the past but it should take care of over 80% of the spam (in my case).
Eventually, the spammers will congrugate on major sites that you have legitimate contact with. In which case, those sites can implement throttles to restrict the outbound email.
A nice side benefit is that if someone at one of the open relays DOES try to send you legitimate email (and follows up with a phone call on why you haven't responded), then you can explain that they have an open relay and are spamming the world and they can fix the problem. Everyone is happy!
"Last fall the president of the University of Maryland found himself doing something that none of his predecessors would have dreamed of trying. While on a trip to Taiwan, C. Dan Mote Jr. spent part of his time recruiting Taiwanese students to go to the United States for graduate school."
....which means that we'll have a shortage of techs soon unless we start growing our own.
So, we're looking overseas for students to fill our tech programs....
"Current data suggest that the new predictions may fare no better than earlier ones. In fact, contrary to prevailing wisdom, which fixes blame on poor training in science and mathematics from kindergarten through the 12th grade, record numbers of Americans are earning bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. And unemployment rates in at least some sectors of science and engineering have topped the charts."
But we're turning out "record numbers" of AMERICAN graduates in those programs.
"University presidents, government officials, and heads of industry have joined together in a chorus of concern over the state of science and engineering in the United States. The danger signs are obvious, they say. Fewer U.S. citizens are getting doctorates in those fields."
And we seem to be producing fewer PhD's in those programs.
"In fact, even as science leaders opined about the alarming NSF report from May, the agency announced last week that graduate-student enrollment in science and engineering actually reached a new peak in 2002."
But we're enrolling more post-graduate people in those programs than ever before.
"As the number of those men entering science has declined, national leaders have sought to bring more women and minorities into the enterprise."
So fewer white men are going into tech and the difference is more women and minorities?
So is this about the decline of the white male in tech fields or is it about the rise of everyone else in tech fields or is it about how the US is declining in tech fields?
"And even if the visa difficulties fade, leaders both inside and outside academe say the education system in the United States must reform itself to maintain the country's technological edge."
So, we're in decline because we're graduating more techs than ever before, but they're mostly women and minorities and lots of them go on to post-graduate work, and that is the fault of the education system?
"The board noted in particular a rising reliance on foreign-born talent, a decline in homegrown brainpower, increasing difficulty in attracting overseas scholars, and a looming shortage of scientists and engineers."
So, we are depending more upon foreign engineers and it is becoming increasing difficult to get them to come here....
"Compounding the situation, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted in 2001 that the number of jobs in science and engineering would grow at a rate three times that of all occupations, on average, producing a 47-percent increase in science-and-engineering jobs by 2010."
So we'll have lots of jobs available for people with tech degrees.
""Despite recurring concerns about potential shortages of STEM [scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics] personnel in the U.S. work force, particularly in engineering and information technology, we did not find evidence that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon," concluded the RAND Corporation in a report this year."
So there won't be lots of jobs available for people with tech degrees.
And the rest of the article continues in the same fashion.
Is there a current shortage of techs? Is there a current surplus of techs?
Are too many of the techs foreign? Are too few foreign students entering our schools?
The only thing to be found in this article is that US-born citizens are not all working towards their PhD's and even if they did, they might not make any more money than they do right now.
"Instead, the way I see it, Star Trek in its whole has provided a generalized SciFi framework, into which different authors, directors, writers, artists, etc. can provide a story."
Pretty much. The basics of the mythology are presented and anyone can write any story in that mythology. The problems come when a BAD writer violates the mythology. "Shared world" literary attempts only work when people respect the other writers.
"Aside from the "boldly go" kind of essense, there's a HUGE diversity there."
Not that much, actually. They each focus on a small group of individuals that encounter incredibly dangerous (destroy the planet) situations yet they always win and (with one notable exception) none of them every die.
"And frankly, as long as any one story is enjoyable, I don't really mind if there's some non-canonical bits therein."
But when those bits become so large that they change the history, then there is a problem.
"But for run-of-the-mill stories, I'm more interested in how they handle the character development, coupled with the staple of SciFi - which is, in my opinion, how humans handle advanced technology and its effects (including the effect of encountering other species)."
And THAT is the problem. Without the continuity, there isn't any development. New inventions are featured one week and forgotten the next. Even when they would have changed the entire mythology.
"So as far as I'm concerned, the "Star Trek" name provides a rather broad, rather permissive framework - with NAME RECOGNITION."
But what use is that name recognition?
Other than an easy way to guarantee that you'll pull in X viewers the first weekend because there are a certain number of geeks who will go see ANYTHING with "Star Trek" in the title.
If it isn't about the mythology (and you say continuity does not matter) then what is it about?
"And the best thing about it: that name recognition provides a budget for reasonably cool SciFi movies and television."
Watch FireFly. Far better than anything from the Star Trek franchise in the last 10 years. Yet they managed to do so without any existing mythology or name recognition.
"Maybe not the BEST, but at least reasonably entertaining, and definitely more quantity than we'd get otherwise."
Whereas people like me would be willing to take less of the quantity if we could get more of the quality.
I don't own ANY of the DVD's of ANY of the Star Trek movies, yet I own the FireFly boxed set.
"And it spurs all kinds of spinoffs and competitors (B5, Andromeda, etc.) which are even better."
I don't think B5 was a Star Trek spinoff. It had continuity. It had a story arc.
Andromeda just ended up being stupid.
Again, look at FireFly. See how good a single season of science fiction can be. Real character development. Not only did you learn more about each character as the season progressed (and not just randomly tacked on items like "best x in the Acadamy" or "master at the x" or "expert in x") and you saw how the events of previous episodes changed them.
#1. "I just don't see why people bash those who support Microsoft."
#1-reply: I don't see anyone bashing anyone who has to support Microsoft PRODUCTS. Was that what you meant?
#2. "As an IT pro, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to not be subjected to Microsoft's reign."
#2-reply: That seems to support #1-reply. You are complaining that people are "bashing" people who are forced to provide support for Microsoft products. But that is NOT the case.
#3. "All I'm saying is that Microsoft makes some decent programs and software."
#3-reply: Now you seem to have changed your position. Now you are an advocate of Microsoft the company.
#4. "People will always hate on them because they are the largest company in the industry and as a result, maintain control over lots of related aspects of that given industry."
#4-reply: And now you've gone COMPLETELY overboard. Now you're trying to cast this as "hate" instead of a discusssion of the security holes in IE. I can see why people here bash you with that attitude.
#5. "If Linux was used by 80% of users, then Linux would take all the flak and have the bulk of viruses and worms being developed targeting it."
#5-reply: So, in your professional opinion, there is no such thing as "security", only "marketshare". Apache is in use by more websites than IIS, yet your same "logic" does not apply to webserver software.
Here's some advice for the future.
A. Focus on the TECHNICAL discussion.
B. Do NOT claim to know that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so because of a specific EMOTION they are feeling.
C. Learn what the difference is between "security" and "marketshare".
Thank you and have a nice day.
Check back to the Netscape trial and read Microsoft's rational for "integrating" the browser with the OS.
Also, check the comments of people who said that doing so would INCREASE the security risks.
Now, read the comments TODAY about the security holes attributed to IE and how difficult it is for Microsoft to fix them.
This is NOT a problem of "the ignorance of their users".
This is a problem that stems from an IDIOTIC approach to security that was motivated by the desire to destroy Netscape as a company.
This might be EXTREMELY useful for corporate LAN/WAN's. Althought just switching to something like the Linux Terminal Server Project might provide almost all of the same functionality...
. as p?T1=132+0390
To get the desired functionality at any machine (even Macs?) those machines would already have to be running the client software. So it would not be ANY computer.
Not to mention security. All it would take would be to add a keystroke logger to the machine and you've captured someone's username/password.
http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail
Public terminals are about as trustworthy as public underwear.
#1. To get people into the store so they might purchase other FULL PRICE items.
#2. To clear stock so you can put in different stuff.
Stores tie up a LOT of money in their merchandise. If it ain't selling at the price you've marked, then you ain't gettin' money. So you mark it down until it DOES sell.
I don't see anything wrong with shopping around to find the discontinued and going-out-of-style bargins that you're selling for less than you paid.
Duran Duran
-Too Much Information
It's pumpin down the cable
Like never seen before
A cola manufacturer is sponsoring the war
"We must not frighten voters or inadvertently provide any type of disincentive to voting," Diebold spokesman David Bear wrote in an e-mail when asked to respond to Harris' claims that the company's software is riggable and insecure. "While security is an important issue ... improvements can and will be made."
... improvements can and will be made."
Again, "While security is an important issue
Security is NOT "an important issue".
Security is THE issue.
If it is not secure, then we should go back to paper ballots which are trackable.
Somehow, the rest of your post does not support, and seems to contradict, your initial statement.
A "respectable security source" that knowingly mis-counts vulnerabilities and then publishes an inflammatory "report" based upon such?
That sounds like the opposite of "respectable" to me.
Why not just stick with numbers for the entire statement?
Rewritten: "Windows XP Professional saw 46 advisories in 2003-2004, with 22 vulnerabilities allowing remote attacks and 21 enabling system access, Secunia said."
An even better way: "Windows XP Professional saw 46 advisories in 2003-2004, with 15 vulnerabilities allowing remote attacks and 14 enabling system access and 7 enabling system access via a remote attack, Secunia said."
(I just took 7 from each to make it clearer.)
I don't trust percentages given without support.
In the Forrester report referenced in that article, they only STARTED counting from the time Microsoft PUBLICLY admitted to a problem.
x .h tml
.rpm 24 hours later...
Which, in many cases, was when Microsoft had a patch ready.
But www.eeye.com had reported security holes to Microsoft for MONTHS before a patch was made available.
In other words, if Microsoft NEVER admitted PUBLICLY to a security hole, that security hole would NEVER be counted in the Forrester report.
http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/inde
For the current listing.
With Open Source software, the vulnerability is usually discussed on the mailing list.
So, if a hole is discovered in Linux, and discussed on the mailing list and a patch is released 48 hours later.....
And then Red Hat releases a
Forrester would count that as a 3 day delay.
You take the medium threat from www.eeye.com that is 49 days overdue (actually informed 109 days ago) and Microsoft releases a patch the same day Microsoft admits to the hole....
Forrester would count that a 1 day or less delay.
http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/?application= firefox
Look for "IE View" (yep, still in beta).
"Adds "View page in Internet Explorer" links to the content and link context menu. Handy for previewing pages in IE, loading up IE-only pages when you run across them in Mozilla, etc."
So you can still run everything in FireFox and then open IE from FireFox for those sites that require it.
Microsoft didn't care about browsers until Netscape and Java. Then they saw that the future might be a commodity OS running a browser as the interface to the apps (running on a server).
If Microsoft doesn't control the browser, it doesn't control that interface. Windows becomes very easy to replace.
And there goes Microsoft's monopoly.
"I didn't say I did nothing."
/.?
/.
Neither did you say you did go to the FBI.
"Seems to me the FBI wouldn't want me to tell you if I, in theory, did go to them."
Why would they care? You would have given the names of the people you knew who knew the people who did that. The FBI would be talking to the names you gave them.
"I also didn't say I knew these people -- I don't."
So, someone you don't know comes up to you and tells you that he knows someone in Greenpeace who cut a brakeline and is proud of it......
And from THAT you feel compelled to post on
"I met them in Portland, where I do not reside, and spoke to them long enough to understand that they were proud of some very peculiar things, and that the core of their fervor was Greenpeace."
Whereas _I_ would disregard something a stranger told me because I wasn't born yesterday and have developed a degree of cynicism towards what strangers say.
As you may have noted in this exchange.
But you seem to be trying to imply that you DID go to the FBI with that "information".
Let me guess, you're 13 and you're trying to impress people on
"The issue here is that these people broke in to an energy plant, climbed the smoke stack, and put a giant banner on it."
Yes they did. That is "breaking and entering". That is NOT a Federal crime.
"Sounds pretty illegal to me."
It is, but it is NOT a Federal crime.
"If the state is too stupid to see these people as a threat, then the Feds should step in."
Why are they a "threat" now? Did their banner injure anyone? Kill anyone? No.
If a cop gives you a warning about speeding, should the Feds step in?
"In the end it all boils down to this: A Greenpeace ship was given WiFi equipment, and set up with access."
No, that is what the ARTICLE is about.
YOU posted about how YOU knew people who knew people who claimed to have cut brakelines.
You stepped off topic with that post and now this thread is about YOUR claims.
Whatever.
s id =12092422&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi= 6
How about a bit more INFORMATION on that reference you gave? Hmmmm?
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?new
Those "trumped up charges" are for (from the article) "damage or attempted damage of an energy facility".
The put a poster on a smokestack.
Pay PARTICULAR attention to the FACTS in that case.
#1. "On the state level, each was charged with felony counts of burglary, criminal trespass and riot and misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct and failure to disperse upon official orders. Each also faces a summary citation for criminal mischief. All were arraigned and released on minimal bond."
Got that? On the state level, they were charged and released on minimal bond. That means the STATE does NOT think they're a threat.
#2. The FEDERAL charges seem to be coming from The Homeland Security Act.
Anyway, why isn't a nice, law-abiding citizen such as yourself going to the police with the names of the people who told you they knew people who bragged about cutting brake lines?
Hmmmmmm?
After all, you know someone who has claimed to have information about a very illegal activity and you have done......... nothing?
"Some may agree, some may reach my conclusion -- that they are terrorists . . . But that's the beauty of the web . . . and a little thing called free speech."
And you are protecting those terrorists by not going to the FBI with the information you have...
But you don't like terrorists?
Whatever.
"Why does everyone think it was ONLY Bush that thought he had them?"
Who is saying that?
I'm sure that they also both believed in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy at one time in their lives.
But Clinton did not invade. Bush did.
The website is:
..... "While I disagree with many of his points and his insulting style, he does raise factual issues."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
Paragraph #1. Personal reminiscing. No facts to contradict f9/11.
#2. Still no facts.
#3. Still no facts.
#4. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate.
#5. Still no facts.
#6. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie.
#7. See #6
#8. See #7
#9. See #8
#10. I'm not sure what he's saying here.
#11. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.
#12. Sets up false dichotomies ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.") that do not seem to be stated in the film.
#13. Complains about Moore ("In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11.").
#14. This one is cute. "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
Yet he has not managed to identify the "big lie" yet.
#15. Another cute one. "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive." But it is factual and caught on tape.
#16. Another cute one. "In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed." But it seems to be actual footage of actual Iraqis before the war.
#17. "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American." I'm going to need to verify that Moore said that. This may be one actual discrepency.
#18. "Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."
Well I believe that he was not a problem. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.
#19. "From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."
And that is a factual error how?
#20. "Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"?"
Not even complete speculation. This does not count as a factual counter.
#21. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush.
#22. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality.
#23. No facts. "Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning." So? Attack the movie. If you can.
#24. "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."
He ADMITS that he doesn't have any facts to counter the movie with. Did you even READ this far into it? Fact-checking would be the FIRST thing to do to show how "flat-out phony" the movie was.
#25. Still, no facts to counter the movie.
#26. See #25.
#27. See #26.
#28. See #27.
#29. No facts. Just attacks on Moore.
Yet you claim
Perhaps someone could point them out? I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it?
That's another problem I have with these programs.
"Since I enter my paycheck information (to get taxes and other deductions included), Money does recognize (it guesses and it is sometimes wrong) the duplicate entry as well as other duplicates from personal entry and then gives you the opportunity to 'accept' the bank's information (single value) or keep yours (detailed)."
It sounds like you enter all your payments and deposits by hand, the same as I do. And from your statement, it sounds like you enter more information than the bank supplies (again, just like I do).
So all you get from the "support" at the bank is the chance to fix the mistakes that makes when it downloads the data from the bank and guesses wrong.
This does not make me happy. That's why I usually just use a spreadsheet for my finances. Here's a quick example.
Washington Mutual checking account
Quicken 2003
If I get cash from an ATM that charges a fee, I cannot associate that fee with that withdrawl in Quicken. And on my bank statement, all those fees are rolled together and listed at the end.
Now, in my spreadsheet, I can put a column for "ATM fee".
I don't have to tell you about the problem of downloading the monthly statement and then trying to manually break a single $50 fee into how-many-ever individual withdrawls.
But if I'm trying to reconcile my spreadsheet with the montly statement, a simple equation totals all the fee entries (including "ATM fee") for that month so I can match it against their figure.
It seems that I'm doing more work when I should be doing less work.
Instead of Quicken or Money handling my information, I end up using the spreadsheet for all my transactions and then just totaling various items and entering the totals into Quicken for tax purposes.
That is too much like what the accounting department at work does. And they have full time staff to do that.
I want something that takes less than 10 minutes a week, yet gives me all the information I already keep. Right now I spend about 15 minutes a week on this. All the receipts go in a box until the weekend.
Neither Quicken nor Money understands the information that they're downloading.
So, they go by the date of your last download. But you can override the date (in case you've deleted entries that you should not have).
So, they download everything for that date range, even if the information is ALREADY there.
I can understand doing it that way for the download, but they should also do some basic checks to see if duplicate entries exist. They don't.
In more technical terms, they are "brittle". As long as you don't make an error, they are fine. But people make mistakes.
If the banks TRULY supported those apps, they would be keyed on unique transaction numbers. The app could query the Bank's server for a list of transaction numbers associated with that account and then compare that list with the list it already had and just download any changes.
I'm not sure how long banks keep their transaction records, but if the apps were really supported, it would be possible to download all your data instead of picking a date and starting from there.
With the current level of "support", all you get is an automated method of receiving your monthly statement. You could get the same functionality by typing in your statement yourself.
We have 3 websites that we use that REQUIRE Internet Explorer so they can load ActiveX components.
Other than that, I have 7 people out of a 10 person IT department running either FireFox or Mozilla (in addition to IE).
FireFox is just SOOOOO much FASTER and the tabbed browsing is an instant hit with everyone.
If it weren't for those stupid ActiveX components on those 3 websites, we'd be off of IE 100%. As it is, I'm in IE less than 10% of the time.
From the article:
"Past infringement cases have focused on software makers rather than end users. For example, Microsoft has encountered many infringement cases from companies like Eolas, Stac, Burst, Netscape, Sun, and InterTrust. None of the Microsoft cases have fallen over to consumers."
While there is nothing to stop anyone from filing a claim against anyone else, one company filing a claim against the end users of a different company has NEVER happened before.
The threats can be (and have been) made, but no one has ever filed such a claim in court.
Which brings up the issue of WHY no one has ever brought such a case in court.
And then, WHAT is DIFFERENT about Linux that would change that?
So far, I have not seen anything detailing why Linux (or Open Source in general) is different from Windows (or Closed Source in general) and thus would be subject to a situation that has never happened before.
Until I see some material addressing those points, I'm going to believe this is just some stupid marketing ploy (follow the money to Microsoft).
(Note: this is just about copyright, software patents are a completely different issue.)
"Any system which crashes regularly has something wrong with it which is your problem to fix."
k b; EN-US;258282
k b; [LN];Q300917
5 09 34.aspx
Are you familiar with these things known as "service packs" that Microsoft issues on occasion?
Do you know that sometimes Microsoft fixes things called "memory leaks" in these "service packs"?
So it is NOT possible to me to fix all the problems that cause a server to crash.
Unless by "fix" you mean "reboot on a regular schedule". Don't believe me? Here are some examples.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
http://www.dotnet247.com/247reference/msgs/50/2
Just do a google search on windows 2000 "memory leak" "service pack" and you'll see how very wrong you are.
Operating systems have bugs. Deal with it.
There was a story on /. a while ago about mortgage spam. The large mortgage vendors (many of them legitimate banks) were the ones that responded when some mortgage spam was answered.
It seems that those institutions were paying for leads and they didn't really care where the leads came from.
So, do you fine the guy who sent the spam or the company that contacts you after you answer the spam?
If you only fine the guy, there will be another to take his place (and, as you noted, they will move outside of US jurisdiction).
Can a bank that never before sent you any email be fined for contacting you if you send someone an email saying you're interested in a mortgage? Until that starts happening, nothing is going to happen to the spam level.
Follow the money.