First, unless there's some capabilities that I'm not aware of, rsync has no encryption capabilities. Given an unencrypted file tree and an encrypted version of the file tree, rsync has no way to compare the two for changes. The only solution to that which I see is to maintain a local encrypted mirror of your file tree.
You could use the encrypting file system available on Linux and rsync the encrypted file tree instead of the going through the "decrypting mount".
If the message states it comes from "fred@example.com", it is assumed that it actually does come from this email address and that domain. Replies and bounces will then go to the MX for example.com and an attempt will be made to deliver them to the mailbox for fred. But really, "fred@example.com" is just a string anyone could have put there. It doesn't mean anything at all.
The assumption you list is definitely a flaw, but since no good MTA will make that assumption, there shouldn't be a problem. But, Exchange, qmail and others incorrectly make that assumption, and thus fail miserably at being a good MTA.
The correct assumption to make by an MTA is "the client connected to me is a valid relay server for the envelope-from address, and thus all status information should go right back to it down the SMTP connection". It's perfectly OK to do some checking (SPF, etc.) to figure out if the connecting client isn't a valid relay, and then reject the e-mail with an error message that lets the other end know why. That way, if it turns out to really be a valid relay, the user would be able to know that their e-mail didn't get through.
I'm not saying the Qmail way is better - but your way has a significant flaw. It gives immediate notification of valid and invalid accounts, without any server ownership verification whatsoever (the qmail way at least verifies a valid return-mail-path)
I don't see how letting spammers know that I'm not going to accept e-mail for "name.removethis@example.com" is a problem. If that means they stop beating on my mail server, great! But, believe me, no spammer is looking at the SMTP result messages they get.
As for letting them know it's a valid e-mail address, you're assuming I accept the e-mail. If I reject it ('cause maybe it's spam?), then because of the fact that no spammer is looking at the SMTP result messages they get, they don't know whether the address is valid or not.
Last, there is no way to "verify a valid return-mail-path". It's not possible. Sending an e-mail to the envelope-from address accomplishes no kind of verification...it merely pisses off somebody who might not have been involved in the sending of the e-mail. Think about it...if spam claims to be from "valid-address@example.com", then any check you make says "yes, that's a real address that accepts delivery". The problem is that it isn't the right address.
By responding only in the SMTP error code, you really do solve pretty much all the problems. If the server talking to you really is trying to send legitimate e-mail from an e-mail address that it is supposed to be a relay for, then the error will eventually get back to the true sender. If the server is an open relay and the message is spam, then the error ends up going nowhere, which is good.
Then, by shutting down all open relays, spam levels would drop to nothing. The problem is that most of the "open relays" are actually infected PCs. This problem is solved by turning off the ability of the average customer to connect outside the ISP on port 25. I know that people are going to scream about that, but as long as ISPs offer a simple "opt-in" (via telephone, preferably, for obvious reasons) for the ability to send, there really won't be anybody blocked if they don't want to be.
That's a patch, I think you're talking about. And applying a patch is quite easy.
Today, with the qmail source in the public domain, yes, it's much easier. But, when you couldn't distribute pre-patched versons of qmail, it was a relative bear, since as you meniton, multiple patches became a nightmare. This was the first of many decisions by DJB "in the name of security" that are just unimaginably stupid. Plus, his refusal to incorporate such patches because they weren't his code...we'll, I'll just say it isn't the first time in history that ego has limited product quality.
I mean, is there a point to bashing qmail so?
The "sendmail security holes" were generally issues that, yes, could cause problems, but were highly unlikely. They were discovered and shut down. And, for about a decade, sendmail has been a solid platform that can be extended quite nicely to handle the current requirements of anti-spam, anti-virus, etc., all while still remaining interoperable with pretty much everything else on the net.
qmail got it's bad reputation because it was an open relay out of the box. Any MTA that sends a e-mail to the sender's choice of recipient when that recipient isn't local (or a known alias/forward) is an open relay. And yet, people thought it was "more secure than sendmail".
Not only that, but it became impossible for spammers to verify that any address was real unless they wanted to use a valid and potentially traceable return path.
There is no such thing as "valid and potentially traceable return path" when you use the data supplied by the potential spammer as your source for what is "valid". The only thing truly "valid and tracable" in SMTP is the IP address that connected to your server. That's where the result message (error or not) has to go, and, again, out of the box qmail chose not to do this because DJB couldn't figure out a way to make this "secure". Yet, out of the box, sendmail manages to accomplish this without backscatter spam.
Most of the design decisions made by DJB on qmail were based on a misunderstanding of the real world way that SMTP works across the Internet. As a local-only mail system, it's secure and not too broken. When connected to the Internet, it's only slightly better than Exchange at being a good SMTP server.
I guess German broadband speeds aren't as good as those in Japan or Finland.
At 60Mbps, you could keep 200 torrents running at better than 30KB/sec. That's only 7 hours to download a 2-hour movie at the normal size that most people use with MPEG-4 compression.
Yeah, exactly...it's like Web2.0 of the graphics world....sure, the buttons are shiny, but that doesn't make them look any better.
Basically, ray-tracing might be to games what Vista is to operating systems.
It's prettier than the previous version, but the gameplay/OS functions aren't any better (and are sometimes far worse). There are so many games now that can quite comfortably be called "just another first-person shooter" that when something truly original comes out (e.g., Portal), it's huge.
I can't recall anybody saying "well, Portal would have been good if
the graphics had been more realistic."
Don't you hate it that you have to deal with this sort of thing because some other mail server isn't configured correctly?
If all mail servers instituted the policy of "reject...don't accept then bounce", then there wouldn't be any blowback spam. Unfortunately, there is some MTA software that can't do the right thing without non-standard add-ons (qmail, I'm looking at you).
in town you actually get where you're going faster if you follow the speed limit.
That's if the lights are set up correctly.
The main road with traffic lights I would drive on to work requires you to drive 51mph to make the next light after you start out from a just-turned green light. At this speed, you barely make the light (i.e., it is turning yellow).
The speed limit on this road varies between 35mph and 45mph depending on the section. If you stop at a light and then drive those speeds, you stop at every light.
You don't have the right to pick your own speed limit.
Yes, as a matter of fact, you do...it's part of what the founding fathers of the US were thinking about when the term "unjust laws" is used.
Artificially lowering the speed limit to increase revenue is no different from any unjust tax. Using your logic, when the speed limit on a limited-access highway is set at 25mph, then our only choice is to turn on "sheep mode" and obey.
That ever-popular term "slippery slope" fits perfectly here. I really don't want it to come to the point that the goverenment can impound my car and sell it without me having a day in court just because some inaccurate radar says I was doing 5mph over the speed limit.
Your post didn't answer the first point, and ignored the second. Finland has 5.3 million people in 130,000 square miles. Wisconsin has 5.7 million people in 65,000 square miles. So, obviously Finland is gong to have a lot more open areas than Wisconsin.
That's the point...there is nothing "obvious" about it.
As an example, let's take an area of 1000 square miles with a population of 40000 people, for a density of 40/sq mi (almost the same density as Finland). If 20000 of those people were packed into 100 square miles with the other 20000 evenly distibuted, then you'd have the exact same overall density, but two groups of 200/sq mi and 22/sq mi. That's quite a bit like how Wisconsin is, but I don't know about Finland.
Even that doesn't tell the story, though, because you could have the something like 40 very tight clumps of 1000 people each, or 4000 clumps of 10 people each. The first is easy to get very economical high speed broadband to everyone, while the second isn't so good.
The US tends to be a strange mix where you have 20 clumps of 1500 people and 200 clumps of 50 people. The last group gets completely dis-enfranchised, while the first isn't too bad if that particular clump is served by a good provider...if not, they're just as SOL.
Everyone in town has access to 5Mbit/768kbps cable speeds for about 35$CAD/month (30 GB combined up/down cap, but still).
That's a huge "but still" hanging there.
You get less than 3.9 days of upload before you'd hit the combined cap. Another way of putting it is that you effectively have 98Kbps combined upload and download, because if you use more that than over the long haul, you hit the limit. So, that's like 49Kbps/49Kbps in reality.
Although many telcos and cable companies would like you to think that 49Kbps is broadband, it's really modem speed. You might actually do better on a no-cap 56Kbps dialup.
Like one of the above posters, I have FIOS, too, and my combined upload/download is about 12GB/day over the long haul, although lately it's closer to 35GB/day. That's broadband.
When I was in the 4th grade, all they had were smoke signals and pony express.
Seriously, though, there wasn't any e-mail, personal computers, or wide area networking. Ethernet had just barely been invented.
Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better or worse if I had access to computers when I was 10 years old like kids do today. I know that once I did get my hands on a machine (a time-sharing system my sister used for some college programming classes), other than a few games, the only real thing you could do was write your own programs. That's what got me going into the business. I was writing keyboard drivers for my first in-house computers because you had to.
Today, I'd think the distraction of PC games, console games, the Internet in general and social networking sites specifically would lead to a lot less programming and hardware skill, although much more familiarity with general computer skills.
Blue-ray has plenty of honest, actual merit; it is capable of about six times the visual detail, higher frame rates (so considerably better motion depiction) and a larger color space as compared to a DVD
Although Blu-Ray can support 60p, there is little (no?) source material that takes advantage of it, so higher frame rates aren't really important.
Although Blu-Ray players can output even movies at 60p, the movie disks have only 24p encoded on them, so it's just another flavor of up-conversion.
I don't think we'll see anything of significance with a full 60 frames per second from source camera to Blu-Ray disk in the next 5 years...maybe even longer. About the only thing might be some sporting events, if they use the original 720p as the source.
I have no problem with "against the law" as a synonym for "illegal", seeing as how they are exactly the same thing.
I also say that the majority of people would describe the actions that are listed in various legal codes as possibly resulting in civil penalties as "wrong" at most, while anything that has the government fining or jailing you as "illegal".
By that definition, what the critics of Uri Geller did was "illegal", as that it "[could] result in... liability or injunctions".
It turned out not to, and the point is that anything "could result in civil sanctions, such as liability or injunctions", depending on whether the other party has enough lawyers to convince a jury that you have wronged them in some way.
But, even though you have to pay some money for "hot coffee" (either because somebody dumped it in their lap or because you put the mod into your video game), I don't think many people will think you did something "illegal". "Wrong" would be the most likely word from the few people who actually agreed with the rulings in those cases.
For most people, "illegal" means that the government (in some form) will take you to task for your actions if some "officer of the court" knows about those actions. The government will also get involved at times even if the victim does not wish to do anything about the "illegal" act. An example would be an assault with multiple witnesses. Even if the victim doesn't want to press charges, the government might do so anyway.
The best description for most copyright infringement would be "statutorily prohibited", since you can technically infringe copyright on a continuous basis in front of an "officer of the court" and nothing will happen to you. Even criminal copyright infringement requires the wronged party to speak up about it before the government gets involved.
It is impossible to place your mirrors in such a way that a motorcycle is never in a blind spot.
This is because they can accelerate so quickly that if you have your mirrors placed to eliminate the blind spot immediately to the left of your vehicle, your mirror shows you too much of the lane immediately to your left, and not enough of the lane to the left of that one.
This moves the blind spot to slightly farther back in the lane immediately to your left, along with a largish one in the next lane over. For cars, this isn't a big deal, as either part of them will be outside the blind spot, or they won't be able to accelerate quickly enough to cause a problem if you move left a lane.
Energy companies are in business to do what...anyone...to make money.
If their "optimistic studies" say that we don't have a lot of oil left in the ground that can be cheaply drilled, then they can get tax breaks for exploration and new methods of extracting oil, they can justify higher prices, and they can generally continue doing what they have for the past 50 years.
Back in the 70s, there were many "studies" from these same energy companies that the oil in the Middle East would all be extracted before the year 2000. And yet, there is now more oil coming out of the ground each day, and now the latest "studies" show that those wells will be dry in about another 20-30 years. See a pattern?
By keeping the run dry date far enough in the future, it allows people to forget about the predictions. But, they keep it close enough that it sounds scary enough so that they can get the tax breaks, higher prices, etc.
<obligatory>I'm sure somewhere in Redmond, there's a lot of chair-throwing going on because Microsoft can't come up as lucrative a business model as the oil companies have.</obligatory>
Even if I could craft such a file, it will have.GIF extension which will make it serve-up as image/gif MIME type so it won't be loaded by the JVM. Now we know that older versions of Internet Explorer will look at the file content not the MIME type - do they still do that? If so, I guess IE might see the file as a JAR not a GIF, but nothing else would.
IE up to version 7 still does this, but unless the IE programmers are a lot smarter than we think, IE should see this combined file as a ZIP file, which is all a JAR file is.
Using a very recent version of "file" (Fedora 9), I get the following: $file foo.jar
foo.jar: Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract
If "file" can't figure it out, I'd be surprised if the IE programmers can.
The REAL cause of the high prices is NOT the traders, it is the problems with supply. Supply cannot keep up with the DEMAND. So, prices go up.
Can you define "supply" as you use it here?
Do you mean:
the amount of oil on the planet
the amount of oil that could be pumped out of the ground economically
the amount of oil that could be pumped out of the ground right now with no extra drilling
the amount of oil that is actually being pumped out of the ground right now
the amount of oil being pumped out of the ground right now that is being made available for sale (and isn't just being stored in tanks in order to drive up the price)
I'll grant you that for some of the various definitions of "supply", then, yes, it isn't keeping up with demand. The truth is that the real supply of oil on the planet is still far in excess of our demands for the next 40-50 years. But, if there isn't much oil available for sale on the commodities market, then the price will go up, even if there really is plenty of oil out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently this is not true everywhere (e.g. Great Britain).
And now, for true pedantry, you missed a comma. The correct usage is:
First, unless there's some capabilities that I'm not aware of, rsync has no encryption capabilities. Given an unencrypted file tree and an encrypted version of the file tree, rsync has no way to compare the two for changes. The only solution to that which I see is to maintain a local encrypted mirror of your file tree.
You could use the encrypting file system available on Linux and rsync the encrypted file tree instead of the going through the "decrypting mount".
If the message states it comes from "fred@example.com", it is assumed that it actually does come from this email address and that domain. Replies and bounces will then go to the MX for example.com and an attempt will be made to deliver them to the mailbox for fred. But really, "fred@example.com" is just a string anyone could have put there. It doesn't mean anything at all.
The assumption you list is definitely a flaw, but since no good MTA will make that assumption, there shouldn't be a problem. But, Exchange, qmail and others incorrectly make that assumption, and thus fail miserably at being a good MTA.
The correct assumption to make by an MTA is "the client connected to me is a valid relay server for the envelope-from address, and thus all status information should go right back to it down the SMTP connection". It's perfectly OK to do some checking (SPF, etc.) to figure out if the connecting client isn't a valid relay, and then reject the e-mail with an error message that lets the other end know why. That way, if it turns out to really be a valid relay, the user would be able to know that their e-mail didn't get through.
I'm not saying the Qmail way is better - but your way has a significant flaw. It gives immediate notification of valid and invalid accounts, without any server ownership verification whatsoever (the qmail way at least verifies a valid return-mail-path)
I don't see how letting spammers know that I'm not going to accept e-mail for "name.removethis@example.com" is a problem. If that means they stop beating on my mail server, great! But, believe me, no spammer is looking at the SMTP result messages they get.
As for letting them know it's a valid e-mail address, you're assuming I accept the e-mail. If I reject it ('cause maybe it's spam?), then because of the fact that no spammer is looking at the SMTP result messages they get, they don't know whether the address is valid or not.
Last, there is no way to "verify a valid return-mail-path". It's not possible. Sending an e-mail to the envelope-from address accomplishes no kind of verification...it merely pisses off somebody who might not have been involved in the sending of the e-mail. Think about it...if spam claims to be from "valid-address@example.com", then any check you make says "yes, that's a real address that accepts delivery". The problem is that it isn't the right address.
By responding only in the SMTP error code, you really do solve pretty much all the problems. If the server talking to you really is trying to send legitimate e-mail from an e-mail address that it is supposed to be a relay for, then the error will eventually get back to the true sender. If the server is an open relay and the message is spam, then the error ends up going nowhere, which is good.
Then, by shutting down all open relays, spam levels would drop to nothing. The problem is that most of the "open relays" are actually infected PCs. This problem is solved by turning off the ability of the average customer to connect outside the ISP on port 25. I know that people are going to scream about that, but as long as ISPs offer a simple "opt-in" (via telephone, preferably, for obvious reasons) for the ability to send, there really won't be anybody blocked if they don't want to be.
I believe my math is right.
60Mbps = 7.5MB/sec = 7,324KB/sec
7,324 / 200 = 36.62
I said "better than 30KB/sec", and 36.62 is larger than 30.
Second, it doesn't matter how many peers I serve, because I'd still be adding 30KB/sec to the total swarm.
That's a patch, I think you're talking about. And applying a patch is quite easy.
Today, with the qmail source in the public domain, yes, it's much easier. But, when you couldn't distribute pre-patched versons of qmail, it was a relative bear, since as you meniton, multiple patches became a nightmare. This was the first of many decisions by DJB "in the name of security" that are just unimaginably stupid. Plus, his refusal to incorporate such patches because they weren't his code...we'll, I'll just say it isn't the first time in history that ego has limited product quality.
I mean, is there a point to bashing qmail so?
The "sendmail security holes" were generally issues that, yes, could cause problems, but were highly unlikely. They were discovered and shut down. And, for about a decade, sendmail has been a solid platform that can be extended quite nicely to handle the current requirements of anti-spam, anti-virus, etc., all while still remaining interoperable with pretty much everything else on the net.
qmail got it's bad reputation because it was an open relay out of the box. Any MTA that sends a e-mail to the sender's choice of recipient when that recipient isn't local (or a known alias/forward) is an open relay. And yet, people thought it was "more secure than sendmail".
Not only that, but it became impossible for spammers to verify that any address was real unless they wanted to use a valid and potentially traceable return path.
There is no such thing as "valid and potentially traceable return path" when you use the data supplied by the potential spammer as your source for what is "valid". The only thing truly "valid and tracable" in SMTP is the IP address that connected to your server. That's where the result message (error or not) has to go, and, again, out of the box qmail chose not to do this because DJB couldn't figure out a way to make this "secure". Yet, out of the box, sendmail manages to accomplish this without backscatter spam.
Most of the design decisions made by DJB on qmail were based on a misunderstanding of the real world way that SMTP works across the Internet. As a local-only mail system, it's secure and not too broken. When connected to the Internet, it's only slightly better than Exchange at being a good SMTP server.
I guess German broadband speeds aren't as good as those in Japan or Finland.
At 60Mbps, you could keep 200 torrents running at better than 30KB/sec. That's only 7 hours to download a 2-hour movie at the normal size that most people use with MPEG-4 compression.
Yeah, exactly...it's like Web2.0 of the graphics world....sure, the buttons are shiny, but that doesn't make them look any better.
Basically, ray-tracing might be to games what Vista is to operating systems.
It's prettier than the previous version, but the gameplay/OS functions aren't any better (and are sometimes far worse). There are so many games now that can quite comfortably be called "just another first-person shooter" that when something truly original comes out (e.g., Portal), it's huge.
I can't recall anybody saying "well, Portal would have been good if the graphics had been more realistic."
Don't you hate it that you have to deal with this sort of thing because some other mail server isn't configured correctly?
If all mail servers instituted the policy of "reject...don't accept then bounce", then there wouldn't be any blowback spam. Unfortunately, there is some MTA software that can't do the right thing without non-standard add-ons (qmail, I'm looking at you).
in town you actually get where you're going faster if you follow the speed limit.
That's if the lights are set up correctly.
The main road with traffic lights I would drive on to work requires you to drive 51mph to make the next light after you start out from a just-turned green light. At this speed, you barely make the light (i.e., it is turning yellow).
The speed limit on this road varies between 35mph and 45mph depending on the section. If you stop at a light and then drive those speeds, you stop at every light.
You don't have the right to pick your own speed limit.
Yes, as a matter of fact, you do...it's part of what the founding fathers of the US were thinking about when the term "unjust laws" is used.
Artificially lowering the speed limit to increase revenue is no different from any unjust tax. Using your logic, when the speed limit on a limited-access highway is set at 25mph, then our only choice is to turn on "sheep mode" and obey.
That ever-popular term "slippery slope" fits perfectly here. I really don't want it to come to the point that the goverenment can impound my car and sell it without me having a day in court just because some inaccurate radar says I was doing 5mph over the speed limit.
Your post didn't answer the first point, and ignored the second. Finland has 5.3 million people in 130,000 square miles. Wisconsin has 5.7 million people in 65,000 square miles. So, obviously Finland is gong to have a lot more open areas than Wisconsin.
That's the point...there is nothing "obvious" about it.
As an example, let's take an area of 1000 square miles with a population of 40000 people, for a density of 40/sq mi (almost the same density as Finland). If 20000 of those people were packed into 100 square miles with the other 20000 evenly distibuted, then you'd have the exact same overall density, but two groups of 200/sq mi and 22/sq mi. That's quite a bit like how Wisconsin is, but I don't know about Finland.
Even that doesn't tell the story, though, because you could have the something like 40 very tight clumps of 1000 people each, or 4000 clumps of 10 people each. The first is easy to get very economical high speed broadband to everyone, while the second isn't so good.
The US tends to be a strange mix where you have 20 clumps of 1500 people and 200 clumps of 50 people. The last group gets completely dis-enfranchised, while the first isn't too bad if that particular clump is served by a good provider...if not, they're just as SOL.
Everyone in town has access to 5Mbit/768kbps cable speeds for about 35$CAD/month (30 GB combined up/down cap, but still).
That's a huge "but still" hanging there.
You get less than 3.9 days of upload before you'd hit the combined cap. Another way of putting it is that you effectively have 98Kbps combined upload and download, because if you use more that than over the long haul, you hit the limit. So, that's like 49Kbps/49Kbps in reality.
Although many telcos and cable companies would like you to think that 49Kbps is broadband, it's really modem speed. You might actually do better on a no-cap 56Kbps dialup.
Like one of the above posters, I have FIOS, too, and my combined upload/download is about 12GB/day over the long haul, although lately it's closer to 35GB/day. That's broadband.
C'mon, moderators...this is funny. Definitely the best of the Jason Bourne-related jokes.
When I was in the 4th grade, all they had were smoke signals and pony express.
Seriously, though, there wasn't any e-mail, personal computers, or wide area networking. Ethernet had just barely been invented.
Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better or worse if I had access to computers when I was 10 years old like kids do today. I know that once I did get my hands on a machine (a time-sharing system my sister used for some college programming classes), other than a few games, the only real thing you could do was write your own programs. That's what got me going into the business. I was writing keyboard drivers for my first in-house computers because you had to.
Today, I'd think the distraction of PC games, console games, the Internet in general and social networking sites specifically would lead to a lot less programming and hardware skill, although much more familiarity with general computer skills.
Now, get off of my lawn.
Blue-ray has plenty of honest, actual merit; it is capable of about six times the visual detail, higher frame rates (so considerably better motion depiction) and a larger color space as compared to a DVD
Although Blu-Ray can support 60p, there is little (no?) source material that takes advantage of it, so higher frame rates aren't really important.
Although Blu-Ray players can output even movies at 60p, the movie disks have only 24p encoded on them, so it's just another flavor of up-conversion.
I don't think we'll see anything of significance with a full 60 frames per second from source camera to Blu-Ray disk in the next 5 years...maybe even longer. About the only thing might be some sporting events, if they use the original 720p as the source.
I have no problem with "against the law" as a synonym for "illegal", seeing as how they are exactly the same thing.
I also say that the majority of people would describe the actions that are listed in various legal codes as possibly resulting in civil penalties as "wrong" at most, while anything that has the government fining or jailing you as "illegal".
By that definition, what the critics of Uri Geller did was "illegal", as that it "[could] result in ... liability or injunctions".
It turned out not to, and the point is that anything "could result in civil sanctions, such as liability or injunctions", depending on whether the other party has enough lawyers to convince a jury that you have wronged them in some way.
But, even though you have to pay some money for "hot coffee" (either because somebody dumped it in their lap or because you put the mod into your video game), I don't think many people will think you did something "illegal". "Wrong" would be the most likely word from the few people who actually agreed with the rulings in those cases.
For most people, "illegal" means that the government (in some form) will take you to task for your actions if some "officer of the court" knows about those actions. The government will also get involved at times even if the victim does not wish to do anything about the "illegal" act. An example would be an assault with multiple witnesses. Even if the victim doesn't want to press charges, the government might do so anyway.
The best description for most copyright infringement would be "statutorily prohibited", since you can technically infringe copyright on a continuous basis in front of an "officer of the court" and nothing will happen to you. Even criminal copyright infringement requires the wronged party to speak up about it before the government gets involved.
It is impossible to place your mirrors in such a way that a motorcycle is never in a blind spot.
This is because they can accelerate so quickly that if you have your mirrors placed to eliminate the blind spot immediately to the left of your vehicle, your mirror shows you too much of the lane immediately to your left, and not enough of the lane to the left of that one.
This moves the blind spot to slightly farther back in the lane immediately to your left, along with a largish one in the next lane over. For cars, this isn't a big deal, as either part of them will be outside the blind spot, or they won't be able to accelerate quickly enough to cause a problem if you move left a lane.
...optimistic studies by the Energy Companies
Energy companies are in business to do what...anyone...to make money.
If their "optimistic studies" say that we don't have a lot of oil left in the ground that can be cheaply drilled, then they can get tax breaks for exploration and new methods of extracting oil, they can justify higher prices, and they can generally continue doing what they have for the past 50 years.
Back in the 70s, there were many "studies" from these same energy companies that the oil in the Middle East would all be extracted before the year 2000. And yet, there is now more oil coming out of the ground each day, and now the latest "studies" show that those wells will be dry in about another 20-30 years. See a pattern?
By keeping the run dry date far enough in the future, it allows people to forget about the predictions. But, they keep it close enough that it sounds scary enough so that they can get the tax breaks, higher prices, etc.
<obligatory>I'm sure somewhere in Redmond, there's a lot of chair-throwing going on because Microsoft can't come up as lucrative a business model as the oil companies have.</obligatory>
Even if I could craft such a file, it will have .GIF extension which will make it serve-up as image/gif MIME type so it won't be loaded by the JVM. Now we know that older versions of Internet Explorer will look at the file content not the MIME type - do they still do that? If so, I guess IE might see the file as a JAR not a GIF, but nothing else would.
IE up to version 7 still does this, but unless the IE programmers are a lot smarter than we think, IE should see this combined file as a ZIP file, which is all a JAR file is.
Using a very recent version of "file" (Fedora 9), I get the following:
$file foo.jar
foo.jar: Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract
If "file" can't figure it out, I'd be surprised if the IE programmers can.
I use a cc for paypal because I don't trust paypal, and wouldn't EVER give them my bank account details.
I had heard that you couldn't get a "Verified" account without a bank account. Since that limits some of what you can do, I verified with them.
I suppose the best thing would be to get a throwaway bank account that keeps no real money in it, and use that as the "verified" account.
The REAL cause of the high prices is NOT the traders, it is the problems with supply. Supply cannot keep up with the DEMAND. So, prices go up.
Can you define "supply" as you use it here?
Do you mean:
I'll grant you that for some of the various definitions of "supply", then, yes, it isn't keeping up with demand. The truth is that the real supply of oil on the planet is still far in excess of our demands for the next 40-50 years. But, if there isn't much oil available for sale on the commodities market, then the price will go up, even if there really is plenty of oil out there.
I know the feeling. The first thing that came to mind when I read the GGGP post was the FDIV bug.
<obligatory>Get off of my lawn!</obligatory>