Yeah, argh, lol... for some reason my brain interchanges Redis and Node.js, and I have no idea why it does that, other than they are two things (among many others) I've decided I don't have time to learn how to manage.
I wanted to run my own social networking site just for me and my friends using a FOSS project, so I was excited about Diaspora, then I saw that it requires Node.js. I have no interest in setting my server up for that. I imagine this selection was made because developers think Ruby is cool and PHP is boring and lame. Unfortunately, whatever the justification was, to make Diaspora work you need to have, you know, Diasporas, but if the only people using the project are those that manage their own Node.js server, then the already puny market size of available Diasporas has just shrunk by several orders of magnitude. It really needed to be a project that could be installed on any generic LAMP server, but the developers are so rarely interested in this boring aspect (this is actually the case across many engineering fields, it's why companies hire marketers) that left to manage their own projects they fail to achieve their stated goals.
So I took a look at GNU Social, which is written in PHP. Unfortunately, they also fail the marketing test. The project seemed to revolve around making a 'federated' social networking system. However, the actual features of the social networking seemed to be trumped by trying to make the federated system work. From a marketing perspective, they put the cart before the horse. How many users want a circa 2009 facebook clone? I bet a fairly high number, but GNU Social doesn't even offer that level of functionality. The 'federation' of the system should be viewed more as a distribution element, so, you know, before going to distribution, you should have a product that people want to distribute, and GNU Social is not that.
As a follow-up, I just found a message refused by Gmail (sent via Mailgun through public list alias):
"message": "552 5.7.0 This message was blocked because its content presents a potential\n5.7.0 security issue. Please visit\n5.7.0 https://support.google.com/mai... to review our message\n5.7.0 content and attachment content guidelines. k3si2092734igx.18 - gsmtp",
If the sender's server does not conform to IETF standards, then there can pretty much never be a justification to force a server to accept email. Greylisting is a powerful tool that prevents enormous volumes of spam from ever being received by a server, and uses IETF standards to enforce this policy. Yahoo! strictly follows DMARC p=reject policies and also has sort-of greylist feature that verifies ports are open for inbound traffic on sending servers (I don't fully understand this, but they are one of the few ISPs I have come across that require mail ports be open on sending server - try setting a server's firewall to only allow outbound email traffic and you'll see most servers accept the mail without issue, though I'm sure it violates some standard, and Yahoo! will deposit a message in your mail logs on why they aren't accepting mail from your server).
I observed this same problem on the day that Google announced their new Postmaster service. The servers I manage are all small, but nothing has changed, not even an IP address, in years, yet suddenly everything started going to spam folders for all Gmail addresses. I changed nothing in my DNS records and the auth headers all stated pass for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. I signed up for the service, but the domains are too small for Google to bother reporting anything, so my conclusion is they tweaked their algorithm somewheres.
There is a significant number of people who either don't know how to do those things or cannot do those things. These rules are for everyone on the WWW, not just Americans.
The problem is well beyond that. The criminals will just provide useless whois info, because that is what criminals already do, and ICANN and all of the authorities will not have the time to investigate claims of false information, plus lots of people suffering from other issues, such as poor local postal service, registrar database errors, false claims of fraud by competitors, etc., will have their domains seized unjustly. The vast majority of people actually impacted by this will be legitimate, law-abiding persons and organizations. and it will be for the worse.
The proposed rules go beyond simply recognizing privacy services to deciding which legitimate domain owners are deserving of them, which is a task that ICANN should not be involved in.
Why are owning a domain and running a business from that domain considered the same? What if I own a domain and lease it out? Why should I have my personal details made public for a business which I do not own?
Who is to oversee this whole thing? Most likely, a bureaucracy that is incapable of handling the tsunami of complaints it will receive. The scammers, who presumably this proposal is intended to protect us from, will just fill in fake whois information as they always have and hide behind that, while all of the legitimate users will be hurt by all of the unintended consequences. And, without a doubt, all of the people at ICANN involved in making the proposal will profit, and none of them will be harmed.
Did this same change also include eliminating the option to post discussion items on submissions? For those of us that go there, sometimes there is useful stuff added in the discussion portion of a submission by other people who have read about the topic.
I was selling trade show exhibits in Silicon Valley during the.com bust and I can tell you that the first department to cut their budget in an organization is marketing. We knew we were in a recession/local depression long before anyone else.
Companies whose revenue comes primarily from venture capital may have certain requirements for promotion, as some investors want to see promotion for promotion's sake, vs. requiring an actual ROI on promotion efforts. Network out to some of your non-tech co-workers and vendors in the marketing arena. When they start to see a lot of companies holding back on hiring new positions, reducing trade show attendance and other marketing expenses, evaluate your current options. It may be that you have an opportunity to seek safety in a lower paying, but far more secure position in your current firm or a different firm. Management is often very insecure.
I can tell you that the nearly instantaneous elimination in the number of commuters in 2000/2001 here was mind-blowing. I knew if a prospect was worth pursuing by the evaluating the size of a building and how empty it's parking lot was. This all happens much faster than most people realize, so having a canary to tell you what is about to come is very important. It may be that you are in a very secure company, but they decided to purchase some large asset or make some other large investment that offsetting the cost due to reduced revenue requires those positions and even whole departments considered secure to be temporarily eliminated.
Companies whose primary revenue comes from advertising will see some of the largest reductions in revenue. Stay away from them unless they are incredibly well established and you have a seriously critical position.
Yes, it does, in that part where the House can set the procedural rules. IIRC, the current procedure only requires one Congresscritter to request the vote be recorded and they have to comply. With this knowledge it is particularly concerning that the DMCA and some other horrid bills were passed by voice vote.
I went several years without getting any mod points, then a few months ago started getting them again. Can't remember if I had any since the outage last week.
You just said it in your question. For the BlackBerry, messaging is not one of the many things it does, it's the focus of what it does. Here are some simple differences: I get a separate icon for each inbox on BlackBerry, whereas on Android I get one mail 'app' that has drop-down menus for each inbox. With BlackBerry I automatically get true push email, but Android only offers that if I'm using a Google hosted email account (yes, probably some way to fix this, but BlackBerry it is automatically set up on every account). BlackBerry is loaded with really great shortcuts available at all times because the physical keyboard, which allows me to accomplish routine tasks in a fraction of the time required on an Android. If you deal with high volumes of email (both receiving and sending -some people receive lots of email, but rarely respond, so that wouldn't matter), pick up a BlackBerry and try it out. If you don't deal with high volumes of email, then you probably will never understand why such a tool is better.
My experience with the 9900 is only with OS 7 and then OS 7.1, the only notable difference to me was increase in battery life, making the stock battery tolerable. Never had any notable issues with viewing websites or attachments, other than the screen is tiny, though PPI is great. Even YouTube embeds work fine. I don't like the keyboard on the new X device and I have a fondness for physical buttons and trackpads. On the very rare occasion that the OS browser isn't playing well with a website, usually due to screen size and text flow, I just switch to Opera Mini, which magically renders the pages perfectly, though has as really crappy interface. I used the 8700c and then the 9000 before the 9900. I actually miss the jog dial for scrolling websites.
Physical keyboard and OS focused on messaging. For those who don't deal with a high volume of messages, such as a salesperson does, the advantages are not really seen, which is why I find the other devices better for personal use.
Slashdot Mirror
We want it all, we want it now, and we don't want to give anything in return.
I have been purchasing Windows licenses through either OEM or upgrade discs since Windows 95.
Yeah, argh, lol... for some reason my brain interchanges Redis and Node.js, and I have no idea why it does that, other than they are two things (among many others) I've decided I don't have time to learn how to manage.
I wanted to run my own social networking site just for me and my friends using a FOSS project, so I was excited about Diaspora, then I saw that it requires Node.js. I have no interest in setting my server up for that. I imagine this selection was made because developers think Ruby is cool and PHP is boring and lame. Unfortunately, whatever the justification was, to make Diaspora work you need to have, you know, Diasporas, but if the only people using the project are those that manage their own Node.js server, then the already puny market size of available Diasporas has just shrunk by several orders of magnitude. It really needed to be a project that could be installed on any generic LAMP server, but the developers are so rarely interested in this boring aspect (this is actually the case across many engineering fields, it's why companies hire marketers) that left to manage their own projects they fail to achieve their stated goals.
So I took a look at GNU Social, which is written in PHP. Unfortunately, they also fail the marketing test. The project seemed to revolve around making a 'federated' social networking system. However, the actual features of the social networking seemed to be trumped by trying to make the federated system work. From a marketing perspective, they put the cart before the horse. How many users want a circa 2009 facebook clone? I bet a fairly high number, but GNU Social doesn't even offer that level of functionality. The 'federation' of the system should be viewed more as a distribution element, so, you know, before going to distribution, you should have a product that people want to distribute, and GNU Social is not that.
"message": "552 5.7.0 This message was blocked because its content presents a potential\n5.7.0 security issue. Please visit\n5.7.0 https://support.google.com/mai... to review our message\n5.7.0 content and attachment content guidelines. k3si2092734igx.18 - gsmtp",
If the sender's server does not conform to IETF standards, then there can pretty much never be a justification to force a server to accept email. Greylisting is a powerful tool that prevents enormous volumes of spam from ever being received by a server, and uses IETF standards to enforce this policy. Yahoo! strictly follows DMARC p=reject policies and also has sort-of greylist feature that verifies ports are open for inbound traffic on sending servers (I don't fully understand this, but they are one of the few ISPs I have come across that require mail ports be open on sending server - try setting a server's firewall to only allow outbound email traffic and you'll see most servers accept the mail without issue, though I'm sure it violates some standard, and Yahoo! will deposit a message in your mail logs on why they aren't accepting mail from your server).
I observed this same problem on the day that Google announced their new Postmaster service. The servers I manage are all small, but nothing has changed, not even an IP address, in years, yet suddenly everything started going to spam folders for all Gmail addresses. I changed nothing in my DNS records and the auth headers all stated pass for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. I signed up for the service, but the domains are too small for Google to bother reporting anything, so my conclusion is they tweaked their algorithm somewheres.
According to the emails I received from Namecheap, one of the strongest organizations pushing this new policy is MarkMonitor.
There is a significant number of people who either don't know how to do those things or cannot do those things. These rules are for everyone on the WWW, not just Americans.
The problem is well beyond that. The criminals will just provide useless whois info, because that is what criminals already do, and ICANN and all of the authorities will not have the time to investigate claims of false information, plus lots of people suffering from other issues, such as poor local postal service, registrar database errors, false claims of fraud by competitors, etc., will have their domains seized unjustly. The vast majority of people actually impacted by this will be legitimate, law-abiding persons and organizations. and it will be for the worse.
The proposed rules go beyond simply recognizing privacy services to deciding which legitimate domain owners are deserving of them, which is a task that ICANN should not be involved in.
It is very easy to see how the phrase "commercial activity" will grow to encompass practically everything.
Ever tried contacting Yahoo! regarding issues with how they handle mail?
Why are owning a domain and running a business from that domain considered the same? What if I own a domain and lease it out? Why should I have my personal details made public for a business which I do not own?
Who is to oversee this whole thing? Most likely, a bureaucracy that is incapable of handling the tsunami of complaints it will receive. The scammers, who presumably this proposal is intended to protect us from, will just fill in fake whois information as they always have and hide behind that, while all of the legitimate users will be hurt by all of the unintended consequences. And, without a doubt, all of the people at ICANN involved in making the proposal will profit, and none of them will be harmed.
How does it do with handling XSS attacks? NoScript has been out in front on this for a long time.
Did this same change also include eliminating the option to post discussion items on submissions? For those of us that go there, sometimes there is useful stuff added in the discussion portion of a submission by other people who have read about the topic.
Schneier has some interesting points in this blog post.
I was selling trade show exhibits in Silicon Valley during the .com bust and I can tell you that the first department to cut their budget in an organization is marketing. We knew we were in a recession/local depression long before anyone else.
Companies whose revenue comes primarily from venture capital may have certain requirements for promotion, as some investors want to see promotion for promotion's sake, vs. requiring an actual ROI on promotion efforts. Network out to some of your non-tech co-workers and vendors in the marketing arena. When they start to see a lot of companies holding back on hiring new positions, reducing trade show attendance and other marketing expenses, evaluate your current options. It may be that you have an opportunity to seek safety in a lower paying, but far more secure position in your current firm or a different firm. Management is often very insecure.
I can tell you that the nearly instantaneous elimination in the number of commuters in 2000/2001 here was mind-blowing. I knew if a prospect was worth pursuing by the evaluating the size of a building and how empty it's parking lot was. This all happens much faster than most people realize, so having a canary to tell you what is about to come is very important. It may be that you are in a very secure company, but they decided to purchase some large asset or make some other large investment that offsetting the cost due to reduced revenue requires those positions and even whole departments considered secure to be temporarily eliminated.
Companies whose primary revenue comes from advertising will see some of the largest reductions in revenue. Stay away from them unless they are incredibly well established and you have a seriously critical position.
Yes, it does, in that part where the House can set the procedural rules. IIRC, the current procedure only requires one Congresscritter to request the vote be recorded and they have to comply. With this knowledge it is particularly concerning that the DMCA and some other horrid bills were passed by voice vote.
I went several years without getting any mod points, then a few months ago started getting them again. Can't remember if I had any since the outage last week.
I don't see them mention that they use AWS. Seems like all the tin-foil hat types love DuckDuckGo. Sometimes I think those hats are actually antennas.
You just said it in your question. For the BlackBerry, messaging is not one of the many things it does, it's the focus of what it does. Here are some simple differences: I get a separate icon for each inbox on BlackBerry, whereas on Android I get one mail 'app' that has drop-down menus for each inbox. With BlackBerry I automatically get true push email, but Android only offers that if I'm using a Google hosted email account (yes, probably some way to fix this, but BlackBerry it is automatically set up on every account). BlackBerry is loaded with really great shortcuts available at all times because the physical keyboard, which allows me to accomplish routine tasks in a fraction of the time required on an Android. If you deal with high volumes of email (both receiving and sending -some people receive lots of email, but rarely respond, so that wouldn't matter), pick up a BlackBerry and try it out. If you don't deal with high volumes of email, then you probably will never understand why such a tool is better.
My experience with the 9900 is only with OS 7 and then OS 7.1, the only notable difference to me was increase in battery life, making the stock battery tolerable. Never had any notable issues with viewing websites or attachments, other than the screen is tiny, though PPI is great. Even YouTube embeds work fine. I don't like the keyboard on the new X device and I have a fondness for physical buttons and trackpads. On the very rare occasion that the OS browser isn't playing well with a website, usually due to screen size and text flow, I just switch to Opera Mini, which magically renders the pages perfectly, though has as really crappy interface. I used the 8700c and then the 9000 before the 9900. I actually miss the jog dial for scrolling websites.
Physical keyboard and OS focused on messaging. For those who don't deal with a high volume of messages, such as a salesperson does, the advantages are not really seen, which is why I find the other devices better for personal use.
It's fungible.
Who said anything about BES?