Perhaps I'm missing something, but Clint Eastwood directed his first film in 1971, and probably did his best with Letters from Iwo Jima in 2006. The Coen Brothers did Blood Simple and raising Arizona in the 80s, and then No Country for Old Men in 2007. Surely some of this is up for debate?
1: Why can't I simply move from composing an email to the many labels without being warned about losing my work? Yahoo figured this out and so should Gmail.
You can and it does. Not sure why this is not working for you. It brings up a pop-up that says: "Your message has not been sent, do you want to discard? OK/Cancel". You can also click "save" at any point to put it in your drafts folder.
2: The interface is still wanting big time. Heck this is 2010!
This is subjective. Much better than any other web interface in my opinion. As others have said, you can use IMAP if you like. Also, the education edition which Yale would get can use an Outlook MAPI plugin (very fast!)
3: Though Gmail's search is fast, filtering is still so basic. YahooMail's filter is good. Google can surely do better. When I search for an email from someone, I would like the opportunity to filter further "on the fly"...in real time...say by attachment type if any, subject and so on. Currently the filter functionality does not cut it!
Again, this is a subjective interface preference. I would prefer it wait until I click "search" again.
4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!
Try the "show search options" link. All the features you mention are included. No need to know complicated codes. I'll grant you that searching by exact hour or minute is more difficult (requires manually structuring your query), but that is a small issue easily solved by education.
FYI: If you can kill the malware process and then delete it, you can manually re-associate EXEs to run as applications in the File Types menu. Just did this for a machine on my network last week. Of course I also ran Malware Bytes...
I just dealt with a truly nasty version yesterday though that not only sets itself up as the handler for EXE files, but also closes the task manager immediately when you try to open it. In order to remove it I had to boot the machine using a Linux live CD, and then remove the offending files.
144,000 for "i hate t-mobile"
468,000 for "i hate verizon"
444,000 for "i hate at&t"
286,000 for "i hate sprint"
Searching 'I hate t-mobile' on google (no quotes) comes up with results that include "i", "hate", "t", and "mobile" separately. Your research method is highly flawed.
Actually, looks like its still better to pay the $530 up front. As far as I can tell, you can get t-mobile 500 plus unlimited text and web for $60 on the Even More Plus (no contract). To get the same on Even More (contract) is $40, plus $10 for unlimited text, plus $30 for unlimited web, equaling $80 total. That's a difference of $20 per month x 24 to $480 total.
I watch U.S. public television myself, and I like a lot of the programming, but I would still support eliminating it because I don't think it's a good use of public money.
Do you realize you are talking about.013% of the federal budget? This means that if you paid $10,000 in federal taxes last year, that $1.30 went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That's $400 million in total federal tax funding vs. 5.6 billion that the UK government gives to the BBC.
Actually, there is no "port" involved here, really. This is essentially just setting up your carrier to forward calls on no-answer/busy to your google voicemail.
Technically, it was unconstitutional to pass the immunity law. Article one section nine states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Wikipedia actually gives a good definition of ex post facto: "is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law".
IANAL, but it seems that changes to the consequences for either better or worse is unconstitutional. The president can pardon, but a law passed to give immunity? There is probably lot's of legal precedent here that I am not aware of.
Also, the EFF claims it was unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers.
Negative advertising can work if people share your ideals (everyone agrees about "the children" in some way). I think the point being made may be that the FSF should spend more energy helping people to understand all the benefits of a free software movement, and less energy doing this. I don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't think this campaign will "win" any new people to their "side".
I hadn't thought of the fact the computers they mentioned might be the banking websites themselves. After re-reading TFA, it seems that he got online login credentials that were in documents on the victims computers, then logged into those accounts. Definitely definable as accessing a "protected computer" by the definition you provided.
If you have a citation for the info you provided, please provide that also, thanks.
This law actually states it is a crime when "Knowingly accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data". So even if the computer is not protected, it is a crime if you access it knowingly without authorization to to retrieve national security information. That part's not so bad.
It does state though that "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value" is a crime. So using a computer to commit fraud is worse than stealing the information another way? I don't get it.
Agreed.
This is from the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that states it is a criminal offense when: "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value."
Poorly written law if you ask me. What if the computer is protected but some of the files are not? How do you define a "protected" computer anyway? What if it is locked in a safe, but connected to the internet with no safeguards? By definition of this law, if I retrieve national security information that someone posts on a/. comment, then I break this law, because the computer that hosts/. is "protected" in a co-lo.
Of course in this case, they had him on the Wire Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft also.
The good thing about this law is that it does not state it is a crime to "Knowingly access a protected computer with no intent to do harm".
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of this for sake of this argument, the problem with population control is that it would be least effective where it's most needed.
Any decent bible has a marking and a footnote which states that earlier known manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20
If you are saying that the Codex Sinaiticus along with older portions of other manuscripts have no mention of the resurrection, then I call foul. Are you a historian?
I say the key to success of Constantine's venture was acceptance of Christians coupled with the power and influence he already had.
and with the weak job market it seems I can only move sideways into another support role
This is not always a bad idea. Even if there was room for progression at your current employer, if you do not enjoy working the helpdesk there, then you would not enjoy any IT position at that company. Helpdesk can be OK, if there is someone else successfully working to improve the issues that you constantly get called for. If you have an IT job with no user contact at all, then you are truly useless.
One problem in IT is that users and managers think that an IT department's job is only to fix problems. The real problem begins when an IT department thinks the same thing! Another is that people always expect managers to define their job, and managers are always looking for people that define their job. After being in IT for almost 10 years, I now enjoy it (working for a small company helps). I didn't enjoy it for the first few years.
In my opinion, IT is satisfying when you do this (not a complete list):
1. Decide that helping users means developing relationships with them, and convincing them that you respect them (This is called "customer service")
2. Decide that you are solely responsible for the company's use/lack of technology/systems
3. Communicate to your manager what your job function is for
4. Learn how your managers view their own job function
5. Be proactive, find solutions/systems, and financially justify them on "paper"
6. Work somewhere where your manager understands 1 through 5
That said, if you can afford school and you enjoy it, then do that.
What I sometimes see in my own church circle is that dying people can have a lot of people begging them to stick around. Point being that churchgoers usually have a larger, more dependent social circle (I'm not saying it's necessarily better).
Doesn't always work though. I think most of the oldest people at my church have DNR's. But we're 'spiritual' people, not 'religious'.
Also, given that these are are terminal cancer patients, some christians could get really confused and think that just because God can heal them, he just hasn't yet and "must need more time" (obviously a logically fallacy).
While it's true that people with a greater fear of death are more likely to explore religion and that it may attract them to explore a belief, I seriously doubt that would get them to devote their life to it. Fears are only motivating when we are immediately faced with them. I've met very few people that actually live with a constant sense of foreboding (actually none).
I'd be really interested in any data on this when is comes to deaths that are less premature/illness related.
It should be obvious that exercising political influence is more important to Bill than owning another car.
-
This is a good point and entirely true. It's just that this makes it seem sinister from the start. It seems just as likely to me that the mismanagement of funds is at least somewhat caused by under-management rather than just political agenda (this is true for most large philanthropic organizations, including governments). Though I'm certain that at least some of the latter takes place and this may be the only point you were making. Also, the car was just an example (compulsory?). My point is that he can't simply do anything with the money. The spending has to at least appear altruistic; though it is clear that you well understood this.
My point was that his motivations are probably less altruistic than they appear, not that they are entirely selfish.
Understood and well stated. I was more clarifying than disagreeing.
When you say "maximise profit", let's be clear that the "profit" is for the Foundation to then eventually give away later at 5% per year. Being a "non-profit" foundation, means that no-one can take that money (including Bill) and get personally rich from it. It's the job of the Bill Gates Investment division to make money that the Bill Gates Foundation eventually gives away. That's it. Sounds more useful than just giving away a finite sum to me.
If you want to say that he "maintains control of his wealth", understand that means that he can control which cause gets the money, not go buy a Ferrari.
Yes, the Foundation probably even gives money to lame causes, and has conflict of interest with the evil investments of the investment division. But ethically handling that amount of money is really difficult, even in philanthropy. Just look at the job elected governments are doing.
And I seriously doubt Gates is worried about his tax liability. You only have to pay taxes on a single sum of earned money once.
I'm not saying Bill is a good man, or that it's even excusable, just that I don't think his motivations were entirely selfish.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm missing something, but Clint Eastwood directed his first film in 1971, and probably did his best with Letters from Iwo Jima in 2006. The Coen Brothers did Blood Simple and raising Arizona in the 80s, and then No Country for Old Men in 2007. Surely some of this is up for debate?
1: Why can't I simply move from composing an email to the many labels without being warned about losing my work? Yahoo figured this out and so should Gmail.
You can and it does. Not sure why this is not working for you. It brings up a pop-up that says: "Your message has not been sent, do you want to discard? OK/Cancel". You can also click "save" at any point to put it in your drafts folder.
2: The interface is still wanting big time. Heck this is 2010!
This is subjective. Much better than any other web interface in my opinion. As others have said, you can use IMAP if you like. Also, the education edition which Yale would get can use an Outlook MAPI plugin (very fast!)
3: Though Gmail's search is fast, filtering is still so basic. YahooMail's filter is good. Google can surely do better. When I search for an email from someone, I would like the opportunity to filter further "on the fly"...in real time...say by attachment type if any, subject and so on. Currently the filter functionality does not cut it!
Again, this is a subjective interface preference. I would prefer it wait until I click "search" again.
4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!
Try the "show search options" link. All the features you mention are included. No need to know complicated codes. I'll grant you that searching by exact hour or minute is more difficult (requires manually structuring your query), but that is a small issue easily solved by education.
FYI: If you can kill the malware process and then delete it, you can manually re-associate EXEs to run as applications in the File Types menu. Just did this for a machine on my network last week. Of course I also ran Malware Bytes...
I just dealt with a truly nasty version yesterday though that not only sets itself up as the handler for EXE files, but also closes the task manager immediately when you try to open it. In order to remove it I had to boot the machine using a Linux live CD, and then remove the offending files.
144,000 for "i hate t-mobile"
468,000 for "i hate verizon"
444,000 for "i hate at&t"
286,000 for "i hate sprint"
Searching 'I hate t-mobile' on google (no quotes) comes up with results that include "i", "hate", "t", and "mobile" separately. Your research method is highly flawed.
Actually, looks like its still better to pay the $530 up front. As far as I can tell, you can get t-mobile 500 plus unlimited text and web for $60 on the Even More Plus (no contract). To get the same on Even More (contract) is $40, plus $10 for unlimited text, plus $30 for unlimited web, equaling $80 total. That's a difference of $20 per month x 24 to $480 total.
I watch U.S. public television myself, and I like a lot of the programming, but I would still support eliminating it because I don't think it's a good use of public money.
Do you realize you are talking about .013% of the federal budget? This means that if you paid $10,000 in federal taxes last year, that $1.30 went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That's $400 million in total federal tax funding vs. 5.6 billion that the UK government gives to the BBC.
Actually, there is no "port" involved here, really. This is essentially just setting up your carrier to forward calls on no-answer/busy to your google voicemail.
Technically, it was unconstitutional to pass the immunity law. Article one section nine states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Wikipedia actually gives a good definition of ex post facto: "is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law".
IANAL, but it seems that changes to the consequences for either better or worse is unconstitutional. The president can pardon, but a law passed to give immunity? There is probably lot's of legal precedent here that I am not aware of.
Also, the EFF claims it was unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers.
Negative advertising can work if people share your ideals (everyone agrees about "the children" in some way). I think the point being made may be that the FSF should spend more energy helping people to understand all the benefits of a free software movement, and less energy doing this. I don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't think this campaign will "win" any new people to their "side".
Insightful and informative, thank you.
I hadn't thought of the fact the computers they mentioned might be the banking websites themselves.
After re-reading TFA, it seems that he got online login credentials that were in documents on the victims computers, then logged into those accounts.
Definitely definable as accessing a "protected computer" by the definition you provided.
If you have a citation for the info you provided, please provide that also, thanks.
Some corrections:
This law actually states it is a crime when "Knowingly accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data". So even if the computer is not protected, it is a crime if you access it knowingly without authorization to to retrieve national security information. That part's not so bad.
It does state though that "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value" is a crime. So using a computer to commit fraud is worse than stealing the information another way? I don't get it.
Sorry for the inaccuracies in the first post.
Agreed.
/. comment, then I break this law, because the computer that hosts /. is "protected" in a co-lo.
This is from the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that states it is a criminal offense when: "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value."
Poorly written law if you ask me. What if the computer is protected but some of the files are not? How do you define a "protected" computer anyway? What if it is locked in a safe, but connected to the internet with no safeguards? By definition of this law, if I retrieve national security information that someone posts on a
Of course in this case, they had him on the Wire Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft also.
The good thing about this law is that it does not state it is a crime to "Knowingly access a protected computer with no intent to do harm".
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of this for sake of this argument, the problem with population control is that it would be least effective where it's most needed.
Any decent bible has a marking and a footnote which states that earlier known manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20
If you are saying that the Codex Sinaiticus along with older portions of other manuscripts have no mention of the resurrection, then I call foul. Are you a historian?
I say the key to success of Constantine's venture was acceptance of Christians coupled with the power and influence he already had.
and with the weak job market it seems I can only move sideways into another support role
This is not always a bad idea. Even if there was room for progression at your current employer, if you do not enjoy working the helpdesk there, then you would not enjoy any IT position at that company. Helpdesk can be OK, if there is someone else successfully working to improve the issues that you constantly get called for. If you have an IT job with no user contact at all, then you are truly useless.
One problem in IT is that users and managers think that an IT department's job is only to fix problems. The real problem begins when an IT department thinks the same thing! Another is that people always expect managers to define their job, and managers are always looking for people that define their job. After being in IT for almost 10 years, I now enjoy it (working for a small company helps). I didn't enjoy it for the first few years.
In my opinion, IT is satisfying when you do this (not a complete list):
1. Decide that helping users means developing relationships with them, and convincing them that you respect them (This is called "customer service")
2. Decide that you are solely responsible for the company's use/lack of technology/systems
3. Communicate to your manager what your job function is for
4. Learn how your managers view their own job function
5. Be proactive, find solutions/systems, and financially justify them on "paper"
6. Work somewhere where your manager understands 1 through 5
That said, if you can afford school and you enjoy it, then do that.
Small companies that use open source software are giving back by employing those who administer this software.
Wish it was possible to mod this higher than 5.
Doesn't always work though. I think most of the oldest people at my church have DNR's. But we're 'spiritual' people, not 'religious'.
Also, given that these are are terminal cancer patients, some christians could get really confused and think that just because God can heal them, he just hasn't yet and "must need more time" (obviously a logically fallacy).
While it's true that people with a greater fear of death are more likely to explore religion and that it may attract them to explore a belief, I seriously doubt that would get them to devote their life to it. Fears are only motivating when we are immediately faced with them. I've met very few people that actually live with a constant sense of foreboding (actually none).
I'd be really interested in any data on this when is comes to deaths that are less premature/illness related.
Here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
-
This is a good point and entirely true. It's just that this makes it seem sinister from the start. It seems just as likely to me that the mismanagement of funds is at least somewhat caused by under-management rather than just political agenda (this is true for most large philanthropic organizations, including governments). Though I'm certain that at least some of the latter takes place and this may be the only point you were making. Also, the car was just an example (compulsory?). My point is that he can't simply do anything with the money. The spending has to at least appear altruistic; though it is clear that you well understood this.
My point was that his motivations are probably less altruistic than they appear, not that they are entirely selfish.
Understood and well stated. I was more clarifying than disagreeing.
If you want to say that he "maintains control of his wealth", understand that means that he can control which cause gets the money, not go buy a Ferrari.
Yes, the Foundation probably even gives money to lame causes, and has conflict of interest with the evil investments of the investment division. But ethically handling that amount of money is really difficult, even in philanthropy. Just look at the job elected governments are doing.
And I seriously doubt Gates is worried about his tax liability. You only have to pay taxes on a single sum of earned money once.
I'm not saying Bill is a good man, or that it's even excusable, just that I don't think his motivations were entirely selfish.