I like firefox on Linux (and XP), but I hate the mac version. Mostly because I can't middle-click links to open them in a new tab! Safari lets me do this.
Chief Hackberry Jonathan Payne is the same Jonathan that wrote jove ("Jonathan's Own Version of Emacs"). He and I used to live on the Computer Interest Floor at the U of Rochester. We both played drums and had this verbal language of speaking drums to each other. Will never forget the hallway argument we had about the two-bar drum trade in Rush's "YYZ"--- I think it went like this:
me: it's BRApata BRApata brapada-BRAP BRAP BRAP PSSHHH! biddi-BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi PSH PSSHH!
Jon: you're totally wrong, it's BRApata BRApata brapada-BRAP BRAP BRAP PSSHHH! biddi-BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi Bi-PSSHH PSSHH!
you can imagine our friends' reactions.... now that I think of it I should probably post this to rec.music.makers.percussion
... it makes mroe sense to use a system where part of the password is static, set by the user and changed by the user, and the other part of the password changes every 60 seconds. You carry a token around and that token is sync'd to your auth server. only you know the static part of the password and only the token and the auth server know what the shifting password is from one minute to the next.
An analysis of filtering methods against spam is kind of like a comparison of bullet-proof vests in that there's no incentive to stop someone from pointing a gun at you and firing it. In the past, spammers have been grossly affected by more sweeping changes, and I'm afraid filtering methods are only creating the mindset of, "Give up, use this software, it will do the deleting for you." It takes the attitude of, "just delete the stuff" and makes it automatic; sure it's convenient for a time, but in a year you're still going to get spam and your ISP will likely have fewer resources to deal with the complaints.
I'm saying, why not focus instead on technology which puts a bigger dent in spammers' ability to operate, like how to secure against proxy hijacking.
do you know how many people surfing/. from work are now going to have their browsing activity flagged because they loaded the front page of yr freakin' site. Hel-LO??? Note to self -- don't visit/. for another 36 hours.
The parent post is no better than spam with a benign subject with pornography in the body of the message. Not intended for kids... especially the line about abstinance:
"The sexing is to have for only adults. Also, with trampoline for frolicking in the poo."
OK, I giggled a bit, but when I remembered I was a parent myself, I stopped laughing.
However, he should bear in mind that whatever MS creates:
(1) Will have to have a noticeable lack of any sort of banner ads or popups.
Not really... they could just use the same unobtrusive "sponsored links" idea as Google.
(2) Will have to have a clean, simple, easy-to-use interface that's compatible with ANY BROWSER, from the text-based Lynx on up to the latest version of Opera, Netscape, or IE.
Actually, it would only have to be "best viewed with Internet Explorer," wouldn't it? We're talking market grab here. Do you look at the Google Zeitgeist? There's a chart on the left near the bottom that shows the web browsers used to access Google. Take a look and tell me you don't think MS could get away with only servicing I.E. with their search engine based on Google's info.
(3) Will have to be fully compatible with text-based screen readers, such as those used by vision-impaired folks.
Again, MS is probably more interesting in gaining market share than usability or Section 508 or whatever. I'm not saying you're wrong to make those feature mandatory; I just think it's naive to think it would fail based on this factor alone.
(4) Will actually have to work as well as, or better than, Google if MS wants it to have a ghost of a chance.
Which means what? Just as fast? Similar page ranking algorithm? No payola to have your hit at the top? News, Groups, Images, Directory and Bork Bork Bork? Logo changes on special holidays and events? Zeitgeist?
Maybe MS thinks they can get away with the really-good-search-engine part, and to hell with the rest.
Right now, Google completely fulfills requirements 1-3. I will be watching with great amusement as Uncle Steve and his Cronies try to add "value" to the search engine "experience," and most likely fall flat on their collective arses doing it.
It's been said elsewhere in here: Watch MS very carefully on this one. All they have to do is add one feature to IE to make this happen: type your search terms into the address line and click "search" to have your search performed on "MSN WebSearch" or whatever they will call it --- and oh, by the way, unlike other browsers you can't specify what engine to use for Internet Search.
What I think is hilarious --- though dryly so, at this point --- is that, once again, MS seems to be playing catch-up. They had every opportunity in the world to compete with Google. The thing is, I think it would be very easy for them to get in the game without being just like Google.
I bought a Google ball cap in 1998... time to start wearing it to work again, eh?
Start a Wireless ISP company for your neighborhood. Get a T1, mount a parabolic antenna on the roof, find enough customers in your neighborhood to break even, and set your own rules.
Though I can't put into words why, at least, not right off the bat... something about how the constant playing of war games could eventually become a replacement behavior for learning how to have real conflict with people. Or, as one therapist friend of mine put it, it could prevent people from owning their violence.
Like with pornography: someone who looks at that stuff too much and from too young an age may never learn what real love and intimacy feel like. It's a real problem.
Perhaps that isn't the German gov't's perspective, but it feels like a good decision to me, for the above reasons. Games like that just insulate the players from the realities of war. Sure, it's just a game, I know, but can anyone give me a reason why I need yet another false portrayal of war these days (in addition to those of most American media outlets)?
Of course, they could just be placing controls on software made by an American company, but I don't know if the publisher is American. As someone else said, I think it will just draw attention to it and raise sales. Too bad.
I wonder why they chose the "hour-at-a-time" model when it seems so much easier to use a permanent, roaming account? If I have problems getting it to work in one McD's, I probably wouldn't try it again.
I think Denny's is a much better fit for this type of thing. 24/7, wait service, more coffee please. Also IHOP, Perkin's, Bob Evans, and every diner in the planet. Any place where I don't have to get up and interrupt my train of thought. Eventually, like the juke boxes in the old diners, you can just keep plugging quarters into a box on the booth.
Next will be the food courts at the malls, though you wouldn't go through any of the food vendors to get service... just a kiosk that spits out a card.
If McDonald's has any success with this, many other chains will quickly follow suit and you could get net access anywhere with a kitchen: Outback Steakhouse, Shoney's, Waffle House, Bennigan's, Ruby Tuesday, Red Robin, the local inn. Whether it works or not is another story. Though we all hate the cell-phone gabber while eating, I wonder what social folkways would kick in when some slashdotter overreacts to an article.
I was wondering why they wouldn't offer you a membership, but perhaps it's just too risky at this stage of the game, plus the margins on pay-per-hour are probably better.
But why couldn't Yum Brands offer you a membership which worked at any of their restaurants (KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) anywhere? Brings brand loyalty to a new dimension.
There must be some people out there who would choose McD's over Wendy's or BK solely because of the Net access...maybe? If they're going to offer this service, why not attempt to grow loyalty with it?
Different McDs have better fries than others... who's to say I wouldn't pick one over another because they handled wifi better?
I was happy to subscribe the first time this idea came around. Got my 1000 page views no sweat and enjoyed it.
Then, after the initial 1000 ran out, I looked at ads again for a while. About three months ago I got sick of it and tried subscribing again. No soap.
Paypal showed my payment as unclaimed for days, and I was still looking at ads. No replies received from the relevant OSDN address after sending two emails... not even a vacation message. I eventually cancelled the payment and am back to looking at ads.
Attn: Taco and team: I want to support you, I really do. But blowing off paying subscribers is BAD. How do you expect to retain your paying customers when someone is asleep at the switch? Why should I subscribe now?
Slashdot Mirror
Love may be blind, but lust is absolutely deaf.
Command-click does the trick.
"Janus cracked - AOL, Disney jump ship"
Wait for it.
Chief Hackberry Jonathan Payne is the same Jonathan that wrote jove ("Jonathan's Own Version of Emacs"). He and I used to live on the Computer Interest Floor at the U of Rochester. We both played drums and had this verbal language of speaking drums to each other. Will never forget the hallway argument we had about the two-bar drum trade in Rush's "YYZ"--- I think it went like this:
me: it's BRApata BRApata brapada-BRAP BRAP BRAP PSSHHH! biddi-BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi PSH PSSHH!
Jon: you're totally wrong, it's BRApata BRApata brapada-BRAP BRAP BRAP PSSHHH! biddi-BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi BiTi Bi-PSSHH PSSHH!
you can imagine our friends' reactions.... now that I think of it I should probably post this to rec.music.makers.percussion
pete!
it's not like they'd call it "Time Warner Netscape"
right?
20 mb ram
one floppy drive
no hd
two isa nics
and floppyfw
not terribly old but it's in production. it was a great (and cheap) way to learn iptables.
4. Also you could post to lots of usenet groups using the email capture addy as your email address.
1. news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
2. spamarchive.org
3. Build a Spam Honeypot
hth
pete
... it makes mroe sense to use a system where part of the password is static, set by the user and changed by the user, and the other part of the password changes every 60 seconds. You carry a token around and that token is sync'd to your auth server. only you know the static part of the password and only the token and the auth server know what the shifting password is from one minute to the next.
Like, say, SecurID!
Seriously, why not?
1-877-ID-THEFT
An analysis of filtering methods against spam is kind of like a comparison of bullet-proof vests in that there's no incentive to stop someone from pointing a gun at you and firing it. In the past, spammers have been grossly affected by more sweeping changes, and I'm afraid filtering methods are only creating the mindset of, "Give up, use this software, it will do the deleting for you." It takes the attitude of, "just delete the stuff" and makes it automatic; sure it's convenient for a time, but in a year you're still going to get spam and your ISP will likely have fewer resources to deal with the complaints.
I'm saying, why not focus instead on technology which puts a bigger dent in spammers' ability to operate, like how to secure against proxy hijacking.
do you know how many people surfing /. from work are now going to have their browsing activity flagged because they loaded the front page of yr freakin' site. Hel-LO??? Note to self -- don't visit /. for another 36 hours.
Keeping Your Pants On Curbs Population Growth!
Wearing Wedding Rings Makes Fingers Fall Off!
Squeezing Stress Balls May Aggrevate Repetitive Stress Disorders!
Cleaning Your Keyboard Can Extend Your Lifespan!
Wearing Dress Shoes Sucks!
Reading Slashdot Constantly Can Lead To Blindness!
BUT!!!!!
It ain't gonna save them software jobs from being thrown over to India.
(right wing) Liberal Party : (low cost) Microsoft Software
figures
P2P
... a word from our pop-up. OK, a thousand words.
The parent post is no better than spam with a benign subject with pornography in the body of the message. Not intended for kids... especially the line about abstinance:
"The sexing is to have for only adults. Also, with trampoline for frolicking in the poo."
OK, I giggled a bit, but when I remembered I was a parent myself, I stopped laughing.
btw s/org/gov/ gets you a 404.
However, he should bear in mind that whatever MS creates:
(1) Will have to have a noticeable lack of any sort of banner ads or popups.
Not really... they could just use the same unobtrusive "sponsored links" idea as Google.
(2) Will have to have a clean, simple, easy-to-use interface that's compatible with ANY BROWSER, from the text-based Lynx on up to the latest version of Opera, Netscape, or IE.
Actually, it would only have to be "best viewed with Internet Explorer," wouldn't it? We're talking market grab here. Do you look at the Google Zeitgeist? There's a chart on the left near the bottom that shows the web browsers used to access Google. Take a look and tell me you don't think MS could get away with only servicing I.E. with their search engine based on Google's info.
(3) Will have to be fully compatible with text-based screen readers, such as those used by vision-impaired folks.
Again, MS is probably more interesting in gaining market share than usability or Section 508 or whatever. I'm not saying you're wrong to make those feature mandatory; I just think it's naive to think it would fail based on this factor alone.
(4) Will actually have to work as well as, or better than, Google if MS wants it to have a ghost of a chance.
Which means what? Just as fast? Similar page ranking algorithm? No payola to have your hit at the top? News, Groups, Images, Directory and Bork Bork Bork? Logo changes on special holidays and events? Zeitgeist?
Maybe MS thinks they can get away with the really-good-search-engine part, and to hell with the rest.
Right now, Google completely fulfills requirements 1-3. I will be watching with great amusement as Uncle Steve and his Cronies try to add "value" to the search engine "experience," and most likely fall flat on their collective arses doing it.
It's been said elsewhere in here: Watch MS very carefully on this one. All they have to do is add one feature to IE to make this happen: type your search terms into the address line and click "search" to have your search performed on "MSN WebSearch" or whatever they will call it --- and oh, by the way, unlike other browsers you can't specify what engine to use for Internet Search.
What I think is hilarious --- though dryly so, at this point --- is that, once again, MS seems to be playing catch-up. They had every opportunity in the world to compete with Google. The thing is, I think it would be very easy for them to get in the game without being just like Google.
I bought a Google ball cap in 1998... time to start wearing it to work again, eh?
Start a Wireless ISP company for your neighborhood. Get a T1, mount a parabolic antenna on the roof, find enough customers in your neighborhood to break even, and set your own rules.
http://www.wispa.org/
Though I can't put into words why, at least, not right off the bat... something about how the constant playing of war games could eventually become a replacement behavior for learning how to have real conflict with people. Or, as one therapist friend of mine put it, it could prevent people from owning their violence.
Like with pornography: someone who looks at that stuff too much and from too young an age may never learn what real love and intimacy feel like. It's a real problem.
Perhaps that isn't the German gov't's perspective, but it feels like a good decision to me, for the above reasons. Games like that just insulate the players from the realities of war. Sure, it's just a game, I know, but can anyone give me a reason why I need yet another false portrayal of war these days (in addition to those of most American media outlets)?
Of course, they could just be placing controls on software made by an American company, but I don't know if the publisher is American. As someone else said, I think it will just draw attention to it and raise sales. Too bad.
We're already thinking about rolling it back. Lots of complaints about slow machines.
I wonder why they chose the "hour-at-a-time" model when it seems so much easier to use a permanent, roaming account? If I have problems getting it to work in one McD's, I probably wouldn't try it again.
I think Denny's is a much better fit for this type of thing. 24/7, wait service, more coffee please. Also IHOP, Perkin's, Bob Evans, and every diner in the planet. Any place where I don't have to get up and interrupt my train of thought. Eventually, like the juke boxes in the old diners, you can just keep plugging quarters into a box on the booth.
Next will be the food courts at the malls, though you wouldn't go through any of the food vendors to get service... just a kiosk that spits out a card.
If McDonald's has any success with this, many other chains will quickly follow suit and you could get net access anywhere with a kitchen: Outback Steakhouse, Shoney's, Waffle House, Bennigan's, Ruby Tuesday, Red Robin, the local inn. Whether it works or not is another story. Though we all hate the cell-phone gabber while eating, I wonder what social folkways would kick in when some slashdotter overreacts to an article.
I was wondering why they wouldn't offer you a membership, but perhaps it's just too risky at this stage of the game, plus the margins on pay-per-hour are probably better.
But why couldn't Yum Brands offer you a membership which worked at any of their restaurants (KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) anywhere? Brings brand loyalty to a new dimension.
There must be some people out there who would choose McD's over Wendy's or BK solely because of the Net access...maybe? If they're going to offer this service, why not attempt to grow loyalty with it?
Different McDs have better fries than others... who's to say I wouldn't pick one over another because they handled wifi better?
ok I'm done blabbing
I was happy to subscribe the first time this idea came around. Got my 1000 page views no sweat and enjoyed it.
Then, after the initial 1000 ran out, I looked at ads again for a while. About three months ago I got sick of it and tried subscribing again. No soap.
Paypal showed my payment as unclaimed for days, and I was still looking at ads. No replies received from the relevant OSDN address after sending two emails... not even a vacation message. I eventually cancelled the payment and am back to looking at ads.
Attn: Taco and team: I want to support you, I really do. But blowing off paying subscribers is BAD. How do you expect to retain your paying customers when someone is asleep at the switch? Why should I subscribe now?
aren't they required to keep logs of the books their customers take out? they can't just delete that information, can they??