This is not necessarily so. The US has worked in the past toward a goal of making the respect of US IP law part of any trade agreement, and the WTO and Europe have mostly been agreeable to that. I am not sure how far we have gone in this area, but essentially the idea is that the government of another country faces the demand they must allow the US to police their country in this area in return for the ability to trade with the US.
There are always cheap sun systems on ebay and such, for the real experience of Solaris. A decently configured Ultra Sparc can be had for a few hundred dollars, and even though they are old, they are still capable enough, especially for learning, and are indeed able to run the latest Solaris versions. Heck my Sparc 5 is running Solaris 8 and it seems good enough for me.
That's because they ARE the same. AOL/Time/Warner/BMI/Disney/McDonald's or whatever they are now, AT$T, etc, are all either directly content providers, have merged with them, or are in business with them. Which gives them a vested interest in slowing down this broadband craze until they can figure out a way to restrict stuff like Morpheus, Gnutella, etc which help people steal their wares (in their eyes).
The median IQ of Canadian university students (who test among the best in the world) is 112. That's the AVERAGE (meaning, for those of you falling under 112, that 50% of students are below 112).
Perhaps you never took a statistics class, or forgot your mathematics, but there is a difference between median and average. Which is it? Can you point us to this study? I believe it is likely the average IQ of college students is not significantly greater than the population as a whole, and therefore see your point, but your citation merits some clarification...
It sounds like you need an education. What he is pointing out is well-documented in the HR field. When someone puts time and effort into completing a degree, they show dedication to the field and discipline. You or I might point out that the experience is more an indicator of this, and you or I might point out that knowlege is the most important. However, I don't know about you but I am not hiring anyone right now.
The point is the old thinking was that college was important, that it showed dedication,character, etc, and was necessary for someone to do ANY professional job. In the tech industry, companies were hiring whoever they could get because they could not fill their demand. But now, that is not the case, and the old school is getting its revenge.
We are talking about HR people here, not technical people. The whole art and science of HR has been in the dark ages and even what is known about it is not widely known, so essenbtially, yes, the people judging you are clueless and will go on the old theories as far as determining worth since they cannot tell how good you are at your job.
The poster was not flamebaiting, he was simply expressing EXACTLY what any HR person, even competent, is going to tell you, since that has been conventional wisdom in the filed for years.
Learn to use paragraphs. You usually have to go to some schizophrenic's homepage to find an illegible, rambling rant like this.
He probably had paragraphs, but did not use paragraph marks or the preview button. Since the carriage return does not make it into your submission, it is entirely possible to type a properly formatted submission and have slashdot turn it into gibberish for you unless you are already used to typing in the marks. Mind you most other sites that allow for comments so not have this "feature," but then they also don't support the other html tags.
This is indeed true, it is common, and is a good idea. But the problem here is you can't generally tell what the database is hosted on (and if you can tell, you probably don't want to trust that site, either).
I think the point is that the outside host, which is the only host you can check for platform generally, is going to be the first point of attack (excluding trojans), and if it is vulnerable, it gives a toehold to the potential cracker. The poster seems to believe any company which would put Windows systems out as their first line of defense is not serious about security, and a lot of people would agree, especially after hearing the ignorant rantings of Microsoft's "chief security officer," Scott Culp.
The guy routinely reflexivly claims any proven exploit is impossible without having read about the exploit itself (or the details for recreation, source code, etc) and generally demonstrates a lack of knowlege of the issues affecting MS customers who actually think they might like to be reasonably secure. Contrast this with the output of people in charge of security/development for your more secure platforms/products.
It is clear MS has a don't-care attitude toward security, is not really interested in being up to speed on the research being done in the field, and essentially will only release a patch for a problem which has been around for a long time, has a published exploit, and also is on the radar of big consulting firms/Time Magazine/ Wall Street Journal. In other words, they only care about security when they are forced to by their big customers. Therefore it is reasonable to assume someone who really puts MS on the front line is not up to speed or does not care enough about the security of your data.
Link to what article? The poster was asking a question about pages in general. To my knowlege there is not an article on this subject, which might indeed be why he is posting an Ask Slashdot.
This is one of the major problems with Slashdot; it consists primarily of links to articles rather than any more than a pretense to original content.
That is because you allow JavaScript from random web pages to be executed on your computer. I hope you don't use windows... and are instead logged into a unix-style os as an unprivileged user...
Microsoft claimed they got rid of DOS, but look at the C:\ on any Windows 2000 machine and you see io.sys and msdos.sys. Removing these files means not booting. Some famous DOS attacks (like the file:/// thing) which are based on problems in these files affect Windows 2000.
Worse, try deleting these files and see what it gets you. Then try to do a repair install... oh my. They aren't put back... muahahahaha!
io.sys + msdos.sys + command.com = msdos. So it is clear two thirds of the msdos base are not only still there, but also are very important to Windows 2000. When you consider that cmd.exe is related to command.com, well... Yes the kernel of win2k is based on NT rather than dos, but there are still some vestiges of dos there, including old code and old bugs.
Regarding the warrantee issue. You and many other respondants are correct that proprietary software often has as little warrantee as legally possible. I regard this as a huge failure of our judicial system. Such "no liability" warrantees are disgusting and should not be allowed to stand. BUT, I thought there was an "implied warrantee of merchantability" on all things sold in the US, which might have a dim hope of ever being applied to software. Whereas, with Open Source, it's not a product, it's like "here's some code I wrote that I'll share with you," so there's not even room for that conceptually. I guess it is of little practical consequence. Like I said, I use linux, and don't lose sleep over the warrantee.
But that's the point, isn't it? Conceptually there is a possibility of one day warranties being forced, bug-fixes being free, and customers being able to add only the features they want. But that is not reality. At least with Open Source, you get two out of the three. With closed source, you get none, and you claimed otherwise.
The discontinuance issue: you can bet that if a proprietary product is profitable, SOMEONE will maintain it and keep making it available. Of course, if you're one of the few stuck using an unprofitable product, and it's discontinued, you are indeed royally screwed. But my point was, it's not much better if you're using an open source solution that goes out of vogue: yes, you can hire a bunch of developers to continue it for you, but the cost of that, both financially and in terms of time and energy, can be way WAY prohibitive.
That would be my central argument against
using open source in a business context, were I a businessman persuaded to argue that way: yes, you CAN continue a discontinued product for yourself, but do you really WANT to? Use open source, and it's a very real possibility.
Clearly you have never been on the wrong end of this, but I can promise you there are situations in which companies do discontinue products customers depend on, profitable or not. There are many reasons for this. In some cases, they happen for technical reasons (company decides the product is too difficult for them to maintain), political reasons (product is VP X's idea, VP Y becomes CEO, does not like VP X and gets rid of it; or the product is the result of a strategic alliance and the two companies end up arguing too much, then break their alliance), or Just Because. It is the company's prerogative to keep a product going, and good products die all the time. These are just a few real-world examples. When they do in the closed source world, the product just dies, and the customer is left with an unsupported frozen product and often no upgrade path (I suppose you can "upgrade" Amigas to Macs, Newtons to Palms, OS/2 to NT or Linux, but...) if they do have an upgrade path (Informix to DB2, anyone?) it is really a complete change in the architecture of the product, and other products that depend on that product will break. This is to say nothing of situations in which you have, say NT 3.5.1 and apps which only run on that, then the apps lose support, so there is no maintainer, you can't get a version that runs on 4.0 or 2000, so you are just screwed.
In the Open Source world, yes you have teh power to maintain something yourself if you want it that badly, but the beauty of these things is that others usually will do it for you or join in the effort, since ANYONE can. Look at Mozilla. It was a failed open source effort, but now it is quite viable, because people cared. And AOL is using the code for Netscape.
Eazel is another example. The company failed, but the product survives! However this is impossible in closed-source environments. So either you have closed-source, where the customer is at the mercy of the company who makes the product and depends on that company's viability, or open source, where if the company fails, or doe snot do what the customer wants, they actually have some choice in the matter.
A lot of viruses overwrite data files, because that is what they do. It is called causing destruction and inconvenience for the user. Perhaps you should study some of the virii in the SARC encyclopaedia.
I don't see what you are talking about by "distinguishing executables." Any unix file is potentially executable, and the default is for everything to be executable by everyone. Granted, you can/should change this, but will Joe Sixpack when he finally switches to Red Hat X so he does not have to pay $500/day to use the latest Windows that came with his computer? I think not.
The point the poster was trying to make is that files in $HOME are not easily replacable as those are the files which contain unique data. The only recourse is restoration from the last backup. At least you suggested a good plan for that, but the hole in your plan is allowing karl write access to teh archive. For that period, you are vulnerable to viruses run by karl.
The only reason there are no worms/viruses on Linux is there aren't enough targets. The claim that this is due to the inherent prudence of all Linux users is disproved on/. every day.
Actually, there is. In a business environment in which people must constantly read/check their email because it is being used as instantaneous communication, yet also are constantly being pulled in for meetings and such, it is good to have that stuff all in one place so you don't get any more distracted than you already are.
When you consider even in this environment you would already be working in several applications at once, yet must instantaneously respond, well, you get the picture. Besides the ability of the management to send you an email that says "you are going to a meeting at this time" with or without an opt-in, and having the mere reading of the email be enough to send it to your calendar and notify the boss that employee X has indeed been notified, and have the mail client notify you "hey that meeting is in 5 minutes!" is very useful indeed.
The difference, as I see it, is that at least the aol client runs on other operating systems beside Windows, and in fact recently the protocol was opened. Nevertheless, AOL has almost always run on Macintoshes as well, whereas the switch to MSN in this case requires one use Microsoft Windows and no other operating system
From the article:
Eligible Customers:
Currently, the plan is to transition those customers who:
Have Qwest.net Internet Access using an analog dial-up line, Qwest DSL 256, Qwest DSL Select, or Qwest DSL Deluxe connection and,
Use the Windows operating system.
MAC Customers: MSN is working on a MAC solution for your Internet access needs. Until that time, there will not be any changes to your Qwest.net Internet Access service.
Note: After the transition period, eligible Qwest.net Internet Access Customers who have not transitioned their account will automatically be transitioned to MSN Internet Access.
...
Q: When will MSN® Internet Access be available to me as a Macintosh® customer?
A: Qwest® and MSN are working hard to deliver great narrowband and Qwest DSLTM services to all customers. A Macintosh optimized upgrade solution will be available in the coming months. In the meantime, your current Qwest.net service will remain the same.
Of course, the most amusing bit, in light of their "anti-spam initiatives" is the following:
Q: Why should I transition my service to MSN®?
A: There are many reasons why you should transition your service:
With more than 230 million visitors per month, MSN is available in 33 markets and in 17 languages.
(Source: Jupiter MediaMetrixTM Digital Media Report, April 01 for US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Switzerland. Data are an aggregation of above listed countries.)
When you upgrade your service, special promotions are available to you.
Quality, reliability and speed.
Technical support, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at no charge!
Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)
Instant messaging from MSN Messenger Service, the fast growing instant messaging service.
You get more space for your personal Web site from 5 MB to 30 MB.
Easy access to great resources from MSN that help make your life better.
Catch up on the latest news from MSNBC
Listen to your favorite music
Play games
Send instant messages
Create an online photo album for your family
Personalize your home page with weather, sports, news or local events
Shop from the convenience of your home
Invest your money wisely
Search for information
Send online greeting cards
Plan your vacation
Take care of your family's health
And, so much more
So for all their anti-spam initiatives, one of the best things about going to msn is you get more spam??? And what about the rest? All the feature reasons to go to msn are things which are available to you on the general internet. In fact, all of msn's services are available to ANYONE on the internet, regardless of provider.
This is in fact anotehr example of Microsoft trying to force people to buy more copies of their software. Even Linux users will end up keeping a copy around to do the stuff you still can't do with other os's.
If it were good, people would want to listen to it, and it would therefore get airplay, all without laws which erode my freedom. If only! The problem is that in real life, what is played on the air is not dictated by the quality of the music or any kind of mass mandate.
Media companies pay radio stations to air the content they feel will do best in the marketplace, and through repetitive play the content is marketed to the masses. Sales ensue, rinse, repeat.
This is how Britney was born.
It would be nice if we could hear what we wanted on teh radio, and honestly I think this is why internet radio, mp3 sharing and the like are so popular. The end-user gets the power to hear what they want, at last, without some fool in a suit dictating everything from a corner office.
I disagree, popups are just wrong and do not contain positive content. IMNSHO, the entire function of opening new windows should be removed from javascript.
Popups represent an misappropriation of your browser, a wwresting of control from the user. What I have found is turning all scripting off eliminates the possibiloity of web-viruses and popups, but some sites use java to do important things. (Oddly, after I turned scripting off in response to ILOVEYOU, I found initially I could not read security reports on the virus without javascript, because the login to view these reports used javascript to determine the browser type and size the field for the login accordingly. I am sure someone thought that was a nice piece of code, the bastards.)
What I do now when I am surfing at work on windows is have my browser set to prompt me before running any script. This goes for Outlook as well since you can only set security settings in one place. It means I am answering a lot of prompts but now I know whether someone is running code on my machine. It is about the level of prompting that prompting for cookies used to cause circa 1996. (I can't prompt for cookies anymore and really surf the net, because the average site throws about 20 cookies per frame at you and redoes this every refresh or new frame, even when they are not keeping persistent user data. Honestly this and the proliferation of logins for no apparent reason have cookies at an all-time high, but no one is counting anymore because they are busy dodging script virii...)
I agree that blocking *.doubleclick.net, etc is a worthy cause.
Mandrake indeed originated as a distro which took the current RedHat distribution, tweaked and upgraded a few things, and slapped on an even easier installer. However, as of version 7, I believe, it is no longer.
However, it is still compatable with RedHat, as seen here.
The United States does not have jurisdiction in this case. There have been, I believe, sufficient arguments already posted to justify immediate release of this unjustly jailed person.
In addition, an apology shoudl be made to the Russian government for usurping their sovereignty and damages paid to the illegally detained hacker.
Slashdot Mirror
A followup on that question: can Sun break the normal reluctance of major companies to use something without all three of
- a distribution kit (a CD at least)
Here is your CD
- a service contract (even if they don't actually buy it) and
Here is your support contract, both free and pay versions.
- a popular book.
Here are enough books to fill a shelf.
This is not necessarily so. The US has worked in the past toward a goal of making the respect of US IP law part of any trade agreement, and the WTO and Europe have mostly been agreeable to that. I am not sure how far we have gone in this area, but essentially the idea is that the government of another country faces the demand they must allow the US to police their country in this area in return for the ability to trade with the US.
QNX is not Unix either. It is a GUI-only RTOS. Unix is not an RTOS.
There are always cheap sun systems on ebay and such, for the real experience of Solaris. A decently configured Ultra Sparc can be had for a few hundred dollars, and even though they are old, they are still capable enough, especially for learning, and are indeed able to run the latest Solaris versions. Heck my Sparc 5 is running Solaris 8 and it seems good enough for me.
That's because they ARE the same. AOL/Time/Warner/BMI/Disney/McDonald's or whatever they are now, AT$T, etc, are all either directly content providers, have merged with them, or are in business with them. Which gives them a vested interest in slowing down this broadband craze until they can figure out a way to restrict stuff like Morpheus, Gnutella, etc which help people steal their wares (in their eyes).
Darwin runs on Intel.
The median IQ of Canadian university students (who test among the best in the world) is 112. That's the AVERAGE (meaning, for those of you falling under 112, that 50% of students are below 112).
Perhaps you never took a statistics class, or forgot your mathematics, but there is a difference between median and average. Which is it? Can you point us to this study? I believe it is likely the average IQ of college students is not significantly greater than the population as a whole, and therefore see your point, but your citation merits some clarification...
It sounds like you need an education. What he is pointing out is well-documented in the HR field. When someone puts time and effort into completing a degree, they show dedication to the field and discipline. You or I might point out that the experience is more an indicator of this, and you or I might point out that knowlege is the most important. However, I don't know about you but I am not hiring anyone right now.
The point is the old thinking was that college was important, that it showed dedication,character, etc, and was necessary for someone to do ANY professional job. In the tech industry, companies were hiring whoever they could get because they could not fill their demand. But now, that is not the case, and the old school is getting its revenge.
We are talking about HR people here, not technical people. The whole art and science of HR has been in the dark ages and even what is known about it is not widely known, so essenbtially, yes, the people judging you are clueless and will go on the old theories as far as determining worth since they cannot tell how good you are at your job.
The poster was not flamebaiting, he was simply expressing EXACTLY what any HR person, even competent, is going to tell you, since that has been conventional wisdom in the filed for years.
Learn to use paragraphs. You usually have to go to some schizophrenic's homepage to find an illegible, rambling rant like this.
He probably had paragraphs, but did not use paragraph marks or the preview button. Since the carriage return does not make it into your submission, it is entirely possible to type a properly formatted submission and have slashdot turn it into gibberish for you unless you are already used to typing in the marks. Mind you most other sites that allow for comments so not have this "feature," but then they also don't support the other html tags.
This is indeed true, it is common, and is a good idea. But the problem here is you can't generally tell what the database is hosted on (and if you can tell, you probably don't want to trust that site, either).
I think the point is that the outside host, which is the only host you can check for platform generally, is going to be the first point of attack (excluding trojans), and if it is vulnerable, it gives a toehold to the potential cracker. The poster seems to believe any company which would put Windows systems out as their first line of defense is not serious about security, and a lot of people would agree, especially after hearing the ignorant rantings of Microsoft's "chief security officer," Scott Culp.
The guy routinely reflexivly claims any proven exploit is impossible without having read about the exploit itself (or the details for recreation, source code, etc) and generally demonstrates a lack of knowlege of the issues affecting MS customers who actually think they might like to be reasonably secure. Contrast this with the output of people in charge of security/development for your more secure platforms/products.
It is clear MS has a don't-care attitude toward security, is not really interested in being up to speed on the research being done in the field, and essentially will only release a patch for a problem which has been around for a long time, has a published exploit, and also is on the radar of big consulting firms/Time Magazine/ Wall Street Journal. In other words, they only care about security when they are forced to by their big customers. Therefore it is reasonable to assume someone who really puts MS on the front line is not up to speed or does not care enough about the security of your data.
Link to what article? The poster was asking a question about pages in general. To my knowlege there is not an article on this subject, which might indeed be why he is posting an Ask Slashdot.
This is one of the major problems with Slashdot; it consists primarily of links to articles rather than any more than a pretense to original content.
Slashdot had an article about this webserver setup using an atari 800. It is apparently no longer up, but google cache is a wondeful thing.
They did not use a network card, but instead used a terminal server connected to a serial port and a very clever basic program.
That is because you allow JavaScript from random web pages to be executed on your computer. I hope you don't use windows... and are instead logged into a unix-style os as an unprivileged user...
Microsoft claimed they got rid of DOS, but look at the C:\ on any Windows 2000 machine and you see io.sys and msdos.sys. Removing these files means not booting. Some famous DOS attacks (like the file:/// thing) which are based on problems in these files affect Windows 2000.
Worse, try deleting these files and see what it gets you. Then try to do a repair install... oh my. They aren't put back... muahahahaha!
io.sys + msdos.sys + command.com = msdos. So it is clear two thirds of the msdos base are not only still there, but also are very important to Windows 2000. When you consider that cmd.exe is related to command.com, well... Yes the kernel of win2k is based on NT rather than dos, but there are still some vestiges of dos there, including old code and old bugs.
According to Microsoft it is, and unzipping with WinZip falls under violations of the DMCA.
Your right, or better yet NOT buy anything from a company thats making its software design desistions based on political interests
I suppose you won't be using any GNU software, then :).
Regarding the warrantee issue. You and many other respondants are correct that proprietary software often has as little warrantee as legally possible. I regard this as a huge failure of our judicial system. Such "no liability" warrantees are disgusting and should not be allowed to stand. BUT, I thought there was an "implied warrantee of merchantability" on all things sold in the US, which might have a dim hope of ever being applied to software. Whereas, with Open Source, it's not a product, it's like "here's some code I wrote that I'll share with you," so there's not even room for that conceptually. I guess it is of little practical consequence. Like I said, I use linux, and don't lose sleep over the warrantee.
But that's the point, isn't it? Conceptually there is a possibility of one day warranties being forced, bug-fixes being free, and customers being able to add only the features they want. But that is not reality. At least with Open Source, you get two out of the three. With closed source, you get none, and you claimed otherwise.
The discontinuance issue: you can bet that if a proprietary product is profitable, SOMEONE will maintain it and keep making it available. Of course, if you're one of the few stuck using an unprofitable product, and it's discontinued, you are indeed royally screwed. But my point was, it's not much better if you're using an open source solution that goes out of vogue: yes, you can hire a bunch of developers to continue it for you, but the cost of that, both financially and in terms of time and energy, can be way WAY prohibitive.
That would be my central argument against using open source in a business context, were I a businessman persuaded to argue that way: yes, you CAN continue a discontinued product for yourself, but do you really WANT to? Use open source, and it's a very real possibility.
Clearly you have never been on the wrong end of this, but I can promise you there are situations in which companies do discontinue products customers depend on, profitable or not. There are many reasons for this. In some cases, they happen for technical reasons (company decides the product is too difficult for them to maintain), political reasons (product is VP X's idea, VP Y becomes CEO, does not like VP X and gets rid of it; or the product is the result of a strategic alliance and the two companies end up arguing too much, then break their alliance), or Just Because. It is the company's prerogative to keep a product going, and good products die all the time. These are just a few real-world examples. When they do in the closed source world, the product just dies, and the customer is left with an unsupported frozen product and often no upgrade path (I suppose you can "upgrade" Amigas to Macs, Newtons to Palms, OS/2 to NT or Linux, but...) if they do have an upgrade path (Informix to DB2, anyone?) it is really a complete change in the architecture of the product, and other products that depend on that product will break. This is to say nothing of situations in which you have, say NT 3.5.1 and apps which only run on that, then the apps lose support, so there is no maintainer, you can't get a version that runs on 4.0 or 2000, so you are just screwed.
In the Open Source world, yes you have teh power to maintain something yourself if you want it that badly, but the beauty of these things is that others usually will do it for you or join in the effort, since ANYONE can. Look at Mozilla. It was a failed open source effort, but now it is quite viable, because people cared. And AOL is using the code for Netscape.
Eazel is another example. The company failed, but the product survives! However this is impossible in closed-source environments. So either you have closed-source, where the customer is at the mercy of the company who makes the product and depends on that company's viability, or open source, where if the company fails, or doe snot do what the customer wants, they actually have some choice in the matter.
A lot of viruses overwrite data files, because that is what they do. It is called causing destruction and inconvenience for the user. Perhaps you should study some of the virii in the SARC encyclopaedia.
I don't see what you are talking about by "distinguishing executables." Any unix file is potentially executable, and the default is for everything to be executable by everyone. Granted, you can/should change this, but will Joe Sixpack when he finally switches to Red Hat X so he does not have to pay $500/day to use the latest Windows that came with his computer? I think not.
The point the poster was trying to make is that files in $HOME are not easily replacable as those are the files which contain unique data. The only recourse is restoration from the last backup. At least you suggested a good plan for that, but the hole in your plan is allowing karl write access to teh archive. For that period, you are vulnerable to viruses run by karl.
The only reason there are no worms/viruses on Linux is there aren't enough targets. The claim that this is due to the inherent prudence of all Linux users is disproved on /. every day.
Actually, there is. In a business environment in which people must constantly read/check their email because it is being used as instantaneous communication, yet also are constantly being pulled in for meetings and such, it is good to have that stuff all in one place so you don't get any more distracted than you already are.
When you consider even in this environment you would already be working in several applications at once, yet must instantaneously respond, well, you get the picture. Besides the ability of the management to send you an email that says "you are going to a meeting at this time" with or without an opt-in, and having the mere reading of the email be enough to send it to your calendar and notify the boss that employee X has indeed been notified, and have the mail client notify you "hey that meeting is in 5 minutes!" is very useful indeed.
The difference, as I see it, is that at least the aol client runs on other operating systems beside Windows, and in fact recently the protocol was opened. Nevertheless, AOL has almost always run on Macintoshes as well, whereas the switch to MSN in this case requires one use Microsoft Windows and no other operating system
From the article:
Eligible Customers:
Currently, the plan is to transition those customers who:
Have Qwest.net Internet Access using an analog dial-up line, Qwest DSL 256, Qwest DSL Select, or Qwest DSL Deluxe connection and,
Use the Windows operating system.
MAC Customers: MSN is working on a MAC solution for your Internet access needs. Until that time, there will not be any changes to your Qwest.net Internet Access service.
Note: After the transition period, eligible Qwest.net Internet Access Customers who have not transitioned their account will automatically be transitioned to MSN Internet Access.
...
Q: When will MSN® Internet Access be available to me as a Macintosh® customer?
A: Qwest® and MSN are working hard to deliver great narrowband and Qwest DSLTM services to all customers. A Macintosh optimized upgrade solution will be available in the coming months. In the meantime, your current Qwest.net service will remain the same.
Of course, the most amusing bit, in light of their "anti-spam initiatives" is the following:
Q: Why should I transition my service to MSN®?
A: There are many reasons why you should transition your service:
With more than 230 million visitors per month, MSN is available in 33 markets and in 17 languages.
(Source: Jupiter MediaMetrixTM Digital Media Report, April 01 for US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Switzerland. Data are an aggregation of above listed countries.)
When you upgrade your service, special promotions are available to you.
Quality, reliability and speed.
Technical support, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at no charge!
Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)
Instant messaging from MSN Messenger Service, the fast growing instant messaging service.
You get more space for your personal Web site from 5 MB to 30 MB.
Easy access to great resources from MSN that help make your life better.
Catch up on the latest news from MSNBC
Listen to your favorite music
Play games
Send instant messages
Create an online photo album for your family
Personalize your home page with weather, sports, news or local events
Shop from the convenience of your home
Invest your money wisely
Search for information
Send online greeting cards
Plan your vacation
Take care of your family's health
And, so much more
So for all their anti-spam initiatives, one of the best things about going to msn is you get more spam??? And what about the rest? All the feature reasons to go to msn are things which are available to you on the general internet. In fact, all of msn's services are available to ANYONE on the internet, regardless of provider.
This is in fact anotehr example of Microsoft trying to force people to buy more copies of their software. Even Linux users will end up keeping a copy around to do the stuff you still can't do with other os's.
If it were good, people would want to listen to it, and it would therefore get airplay, all without laws which erode my freedom.
If only! The problem is that in real life, what is played on the air is not dictated by the quality of the music or any kind of mass mandate.
Media companies pay radio stations to air the content they feel will do best in the marketplace, and through repetitive play the content is marketed to the masses. Sales ensue, rinse, repeat.
This is how Britney was born.
It would be nice if we could hear what we wanted on teh radio, and honestly I think this is why internet radio, mp3 sharing and the like are so popular. The end-user gets the power to hear what they want, at last, without some fool in a suit dictating everything from a corner office.
I disagree, popups are just wrong and do not contain positive content. IMNSHO, the entire function of opening new windows should be removed from javascript.
Popups represent an misappropriation of your browser, a wwresting of control from the user. What I have found is turning all scripting off eliminates the possibiloity of web-viruses and popups, but some sites use java to do important things. (Oddly, after I turned scripting off in response to ILOVEYOU, I found initially I could not read security reports on the virus without javascript, because the login to view these reports used javascript to determine the browser type and size the field for the login accordingly. I am sure someone thought that was a nice piece of code, the bastards.)
What I do now when I am surfing at work on windows is have my browser set to prompt me before running any script. This goes for Outlook as well since you can only set security settings in one place. It means I am answering a lot of prompts but now I know whether someone is running code on my machine. It is about the level of prompting that prompting for cookies used to cause circa 1996. (I can't prompt for cookies anymore and really surf the net, because the average site throws about 20 cookies per frame at you and redoes this every refresh or new frame, even when they are not keeping persistent user data. Honestly this and the proliferation of logins for no apparent reason have cookies at an all-time high, but no one is counting anymore because they are busy dodging script virii...)
I agree that blocking *.doubleclick.net, etc is a worthy cause.
Actually on NT hosts is in etc. However, etc is %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc
Mandrake indeed originated as a distro which took the current RedHat distribution, tweaked and upgraded a few things, and slapped on an even easier installer. However, as of version 7, I believe, it is no longer. However, it is still compatable with RedHat, as seen here.
The United States does not have jurisdiction in this case. There have been, I believe, sufficient arguments already posted to justify immediate release of this unjustly jailed person. In addition, an apology shoudl be made to the Russian government for usurping their sovereignty and damages paid to the illegally detained hacker.