Unfortunatly IE is no longer of a practical application to use. It has serious flaws that cause it to leak information and act as a unautherized intstaller which is contrary to expected behavior. It hasn't been keeping up with web standards and even the ones it does support are incomplete at best.
The reason the grandfather is insightful is because there are alternatives that work _better_ than IE, address security concerns faster and actually care about interoperability with the rest of the world. If your stubborness, or some vendors ignorance which you wont control causes you this insecurity then you have no one to blaim but yourself.
There is always the vesa driver which works pretty well sans acceleration. If your twitching for the speed, I know they have great w2k drivers. Since I dual boot, that's ok. If quake 3 on linux is an issue then look elsewhere.
The point is that they have _no_ right to confiscate _anything_. Regardless of whether these are illigal or not they have no right to do anything other than call their lawyers or the cops. If they do anything else it is criminal.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Yes, women are no longer barred from most educational institutions, but in spite of massive evidence showing that test like the SAT and ACT are biased against women (as well as minorities and the poor), they are still used by most colleges to determine admittance.
The stuff covered on these are _basic_ standardized tests. They simply work out what you have learned and what you a capable of deducing from that. The problem is not the tests because the are the 3 R's (reading, writing, arithmetic). The real problem is with the school system that leads up to these tests. From me experience through the system showed me that it discouraged women to compete with men. This has to do, by and large, with _differences_ in how the sexes percieve the world. Women learn to avoid competition with men as to be more attractive. (I personally find this unattractive but I guess I am not the one they are trying to attract.) Also, men can be intimidating in science and math classes due to the _differences_ in the sexes. Fix that and the SAT and ACT will not be unequal. The subject matter doesn't care who are what you are.
As far as minorities, their is nothing unequal about the ACT and SAT either but there are so many other disadvantages they have that I will not get into that.
Don't try to fix tests by dumbing them down, fix the system that necessitates it.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree with a lot of these points. Encouraging a weak family unit is in any context wrong. I can't say that women don't deserve equal oppertunity, but they don't deserve extended rights either. As such domestic abuse in the eyes of the law is one way, though I don't know about child 'endangerment'. Additionally any kind of quota system is also anti-capitalist which is why we experience an economy that allows for this double standard in the first place.
Children are also something that shows our reactive nature fail us.
Drug treatment on children to the levels we experience is scary. What are the long term effects of these things? Are the effects really positive? Who are they positive to?
I have seen that integration of all kids (not racially, just academically) removes oppertunities for the children that can take advantage of them. Who wins when we teach to the lowest common denominator? What advantages are there? Do they out weigh the disadvantages? If not, isn't that bad for children and society?
The article reads like the cobalt was the only true "server appliance" left. As I see it this forgets all about blade servers, network attached storage and a nifty box I saw from IBM that allowed you to stack multiple servers to form a larger one footprint box. They have even moved into the consumer space with media servers and firewalls. The author obviously knows nothing about what is or isn't a buzzword.
Apple is probably farther along than Microsoft is - and there's no story that you can point to to back that claim up, sez me.
And your point is? Neither are further along than linux.
Besides, who the hell cares what Sun and SGI has ever done *on the desktop?*
Who the hell cares what apple does *on the desktop*? The world is still fanatically windows (spew). And honestly if I can't run OS X on commidity wares then I don't care. I'll just continue on with my linux chugging away successfully at 64 bits on my cheap AMD 64.
A quarter? You lucky bastard, I'm at 2500% spam and rising, after filters!
That is 25 houndred parts in a hundred which means he gets 250,000:1 email ratio. I don't argue that it isn't possible but his filters must actually not filter anything and even then must have replied to as many spammers as possible.
Yeah, actually after looking and thinking about it the entire scheme is based on memory latency, therefore it takes nothing as far as resources are concerned. I originally was under the impression that this was cpu intesive, but that is not the case. Therefore my last comment is _wrong_.
I have tried to use it to connect to groupwise. !.2 worked liked a dream. 1.4-1.4.5 are broken though. It chokes on large downloads as seen on about 5 different distros so I would easily say it's a bug. If it wasn't so annoying I would find amusement in the fact that they were bought by Novell. Nor does it support groupwises calendering yet. Although LDAP works like a charm for addresses.
As a side note Thunderbird works just fine, albeit slow. My guess is it is a timeout problem 1/2 server 1/2 evolution.
Wow, 2500:1 spam ratio? Change your filters or use a service. My company provides a service from Postini that seems to get rid of _all_ of that crap. And no, I don't work for them.
If you look at the implementation, verification of the key is negligble. You don't need keys because it is not encryption, it is simply a hash function. It depends on the memory bus speeds to make it slow so it isn't even computationally heavy. It relies on memory latency so it really doesn't take up resources from your system. It appears the only disadvantage is distributed mailing and progress of technology.
Well if this scheme is a challange/responce scheme for establishing identity, then it could be ok if spoofing my address becomes impossible. I could see that it could create a way to automate the process of labeling spam that refuses to prove itself. Though wouldn't pgp signing do the same thing without necessitating the the computation required?
OTOH if anyone can spoof my address trivially then all emails are first contact that are going out through my firewall. As other people have posted, there are alternatives that are almost as trivial to setup that does not require the degree of computation time to implement and would not be outdated in the next five years. I fail to see the win/win on this one. My memory bandwidth is more precious to me then killing a single system spammer, who could be trivially tracked and blacklisted/prosecuted.
After reading a link you provided earlier I see that.
My problem with this is still that while I have gotten rid of the 50 emails of crap I receive a day that takes me roughly a second a piece to delete, I have replaced it with 10 seconds per email for the fifty I send. I still fail to see how this does anything but worsen my situation. I'm I missing some voodoo magic that I should be seeing?
Maybe we should make a boinc application to help them. Look for aliens? check. Fold Protiens? check. Search for marseine primes? check. Send gajillions of spam? check.
It would be bad because it would take 10 seconds of my cpu time per email _I_ receive to verify it's authenticity... And I can't opt out if I want my emails to be received. This is not a solution, it is an ugly hack that further wastes cpu time at the alter of bad ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunatly IE is no longer of a practical application to use. It has serious flaws that cause it to leak information and act as a unautherized intstaller which is contrary to expected behavior. It hasn't been keeping up with web standards and even the ones it does support are incomplete at best.
The reason the grandfather is insightful is because there are alternatives that work _better_ than IE, address security concerns faster and actually care about interoperability with the rest of the world. If your stubborness, or some vendors ignorance which you wont control causes you this insecurity then you have no one to blaim but yourself.
There is always the vesa driver which works pretty well sans acceleration. If your twitching for the speed, I know they have great w2k drivers. Since I dual boot, that's ok. If quake 3 on linux is an issue then look elsewhere.
I was having a similar problem on my debian sarge system until I upgrade to the latest version (.4). Maybe a simple update will fix this.
The point is that they have _no_ right to confiscate _anything_. Regardless of whether these are illigal or not they have no right to do anything other than call their lawyers or the cops. If they do anything else it is criminal.
Yes, women are no longer barred from most educational institutions, but in spite of massive evidence showing that test like the SAT and ACT are biased against women (as well as minorities and the poor), they are still used by most colleges to determine admittance.
The stuff covered on these are _basic_ standardized tests. They simply work out what you have learned and what you a capable of deducing from that. The problem is not the tests because the are the 3 R's (reading, writing, arithmetic). The real problem is with the school system that leads up to these tests. From me experience through the system showed me that it discouraged women to compete with men. This has to do, by and large, with _differences_ in how the sexes percieve the world. Women learn to avoid competition with men as to be more attractive. (I personally find this unattractive but I guess I am not the one they are trying to attract.) Also, men can be intimidating in science and math classes due to the _differences_ in the sexes. Fix that and the SAT and ACT will not be unequal. The subject matter doesn't care who are what you are.
As far as minorities, their is nothing unequal about the ACT and SAT either but there are so many other disadvantages they have that I will not get into that.
Don't try to fix tests by dumbing them down, fix the system that necessitates it.
I agree with a lot of these points. Encouraging a weak family unit is in any context wrong. I can't say that women don't deserve equal oppertunity, but they don't deserve extended rights either. As such domestic abuse in the eyes of the law is one way, though I don't know about child 'endangerment'. Additionally any kind of quota system is also anti-capitalist which is why we experience an economy that allows for this double standard in the first place.
Children are also something that shows our reactive nature fail us.
Drug treatment on children to the levels we experience is scary. What are the long term effects of these things? Are the effects really positive? Who are they positive to?
I have seen that integration of all kids (not racially, just academically) removes oppertunities for the children that can take advantage of them. Who wins when we teach to the lowest common denominator? What advantages are there? Do they out weigh the disadvantages? If not, isn't that bad for children and society?
Also works for fedora core and redhat btw.
The article reads like the cobalt was the only true "server appliance" left. As I see it this forgets all about blade servers, network attached storage and a nifty box I saw from IBM that allowed you to stack multiple servers to form a larger one footprint box. They have even moved into the consumer space with media servers and firewalls. The author obviously knows nothing about what is or isn't a buzzword.
Apple is probably farther along than Microsoft is - and there's no story that you can point to to back that claim up, sez me.
And your point is? Neither are further along than linux.
Besides, who the hell cares what Sun and SGI has ever done *on the desktop?*
Who the hell cares what apple does *on the desktop*? The world is still fanatically windows (spew). And honestly if I can't run OS X on commidity wares then I don't care. I'll just continue on with my linux chugging away successfully at 64 bits on my cheap AMD 64.
Actually were both wrong.
A quarter? You lucky bastard, I'm at 2500% spam and rising, after filters!
That is 25 houndred parts in a hundred which means he gets 250,000:1 email ratio. I don't argue that it isn't possible but his filters must actually not filter anything and even then must have replied to as many spammers as possible.
It is simply a gnome only affair. Since windows doesn't support gnome it doesn't work on it, but it does run on solaris.
Yeah, actually after looking and thinking about it the entire scheme is based on memory latency, therefore it takes nothing as far as resources are concerned. I originally was under the impression that this was cpu intesive, but that is not the case. Therefore my last comment is _wrong_.
I haven't used it to connect to exchange.
I have tried to use it to connect to groupwise. !.2 worked liked a dream. 1.4-1.4.5 are broken though. It chokes on large downloads as seen on about 5 different distros so I would easily say it's a bug. If it wasn't so annoying I would find amusement in the fact that they were bought by Novell. Nor does it support groupwises calendering yet. Although LDAP works like a charm for addresses.
As a side note Thunderbird works just fine, albeit slow. My guess is it is a timeout problem 1/2 server 1/2 evolution.
Wow, 2500:1 spam ratio? Change your filters or use a service. My company provides a service from Postini that seems to get rid of _all_ of that crap. And no, I don't work for them.
The only problem with your analogy is the fact that you don't have to drive a viper. This scheme would mean that you do.
The scheme requires you to send a hash of user@complace.xyz,timestamp,recipient,subject,etc. ..
Depending how you create the key it would be memory latency dependent so there would be no fast way of generating it.
If you look at the implementation, verification of the key is negligble. You don't need keys because it is not encryption, it is simply a hash function. It depends on the memory bus speeds to make it slow so it isn't even computationally heavy. It relies on memory latency so it really doesn't take up resources from your system. It appears the only disadvantage is distributed mailing and progress of technology.
Well if this scheme is a challange/responce scheme for establishing identity, then it could be ok if spoofing my address becomes impossible. I could see that it could create a way to automate the process of labeling spam that refuses to prove itself. Though wouldn't pgp signing do the same thing without necessitating the the computation required?
OTOH if anyone can spoof my address trivially then all emails are first contact that are going out through my firewall. As other people have posted, there are alternatives that are almost as trivial to setup that does not require the degree of computation time to implement and would not be outdated in the next five years. I fail to see the win/win on this one. My memory bandwidth is more precious to me then killing a single system spammer, who could be trivially tracked and blacklisted/prosecuted.
After reading a link you provided earlier I see that.
My problem with this is still that while I have gotten rid of the 50 emails of crap I receive a day that takes me roughly a second a piece to delete, I have replaced it with 10 seconds per email for the fifty I send. I still fail to see how this does anything but worsen my situation. I'm I missing some voodoo magic that I should be seeing?
To verify you would have to do the same calculation. So not only is it eating up my cpu time, it is _still_ eating up the ISP's cpu time.
Maybe we should make a boinc application to help them. Look for aliens? check. Fold Protiens? check. Search for marseine primes? check. Send gajillions of spam? check.
I should expect the ISP to have one server per 8000 emails? Why should they spend 100 times as much when the can just put in spam filters?
It would be bad because it would take 10 seconds of my cpu time per email _I_ receive to verify it's authenticity... And I can't opt out if I want my emails to be received. This is not a solution, it is an ugly hack that further wastes cpu time at the alter of bad ideas.
So I would have to give up on linux to send email?
Man at least check out the definition before you blast someone for being whatever...
niggardly
\Nig"gard*ly\, a. Meanly covetous or avarcious in dealing with others; stingy; niggard.
Where the owner of the house will be bountiful, it is not for the steward to be niggardly. --Bp. Hall.
Syn: Avarcious; covetous; parsimonious; sparing; miserly; penurios; sordid; stingy. See Avaricious.
It looks like _you_ win the ignorant idiot award.