Or a better solution which tempts me: Get your own domain, and create a new address for every company that requests one (e.g. amazon@mydomain.net). Then use mail aliases to decide if the company gets to send mail to your account or to/dev/null.
I've had great results with my method for handling spam - I use a great little Windows utility called Bounce Spam which sends an email to the spammer looking very much like a message from the server indicating that the message couldn't be delivered. I don't know if a similar utility exists for Linux but I wouldn't be surprised to find one.
Dead email addresses are less than useless to spammers - making them think yours is dead is the fastest way to get off their mailing lists.
I believe the moral of the book (which I gather from Bruce's comments in Crypto-gram) is that security breaches are inevitable, and therefore it's imperative to have a recovery plan.
He doesn't claim that since perfect security is impossible we should stop trying to attain it. He says that we need to stop assuming our efforts will always protect us and make sure we're prepared for the alternative.
Precisely. I was going to post this myself. If a Word document I opened caused Word ot try to access a website, ZoneAlarm would tell me so, and I'd respond with a quick click on the "HELL NO" button.
Dictionary definitions vary, but to me a robot is an autonomous unit. These are close - I gather (though I wish I could find official rules somewhere) that these are controlled by an off-field computer but at least their behavior doesn't seem to be modified by humans at runtime.
Nothing like "Battlebots", which has gone by other names in the past and is really just a bunch of destructive radio controlled cars and IMO shouldn't be allowed to use the term "robot" at all. Mildly entertaining to watch, but it has nothing to do with the field of Robotics, which to me is the interesting bit.
Well, the only experience I have with the company making Myst 3 is with the Journeyman Project 3 demo from the Riven CDs. But I played that demo and I thought it was terrible. I'm disappointed that the Cyan guys aren't working on Myst 3 instead of this bizarre Myst rehash.
The Myst 3 web page seems to imply that they're using the same horrible interface from JP3 (360 degree view?)
I could be wrong - Presto might do a good job with this. But many people have tried to imitate Myst and failed. It's a lot harder to get right than it seems. Sure, anybody can string pretty pictures together and throw some puzzles in, but Myst and especially Riven were so much more than that...
Though full stereoscopy is not widely supported by many recent games, DTI's 3D mode is still useable in games such as Quake 3, and produces results very similar to games that fully support stereoscopy.
Okay, how can this possibly work? How can the driver or anything else possibly guess the distances at which we're supposed to perceive different objects?
I could see how they could produce some uniform 3D effect, such as making the top of the screen appear farther away than the bottom, but how can they do anything which relates to the contents of the image?
However, when comparing Doom, a game which has stereoscopy, with Quake 3, a game which doesn't, the differences were negligible.
Right. This really makes me think any benefits are largely imagined.
Given this fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this spec describes some small detail which is NOT present in the behavior of Win2K.
If your implementation exhibits this behavior it'll be fairly obvious that you used the spec rather than properly reverse engineering the protocol. This should be enough to destroy you in court.
Yeah, Supermount is built into the STANDARD kernel, but I installed the high security form of 7.0 and it seems Supermount support isn't built into that kernel. Sigh. (Is there a good reason for this? And the fact that/etc/fstab isn't globally readable, which screws up the gnome file manager for regular users?)
Mandrake doesn't seem as thoroughly tested as other distros, but I still use it on my workstation machine 'cause it's got so much cool new stuff... Of course, my server's another story.
That's the idea but it might not be quite that easy. At least with the version I ran (v1) it wasn't able to translate between two different HAL's - I tried to run a single processor VM on a dual processor machine and it choked. I had to change the way NT was installed on the real machine.
Maybe all of this is fixed in v2. In which case, it's good news all around.
As long as VMWare is still selling a version with no operating system (and it appears they intend to continue doing so) I see no reason to complain about a "tax" on the Windows-bundled versions.
To me this just seems like an even better tool for those IT admins who want to start deploying other operating systems in their organizations.
While this is both a great move for VMWare and potentially a great new product for consumers, I have my doubts about how well a "one size fits all" preinstall can work on all machines.
This should be fine for MS-DOS 98, but IIRC on an NT system some of the low level system stuff has to match between the real machine and the virtual machine (e.g. the HAL). I wonder if VMWare intends to have different images for different configurations... This could be a real pain for the user.
Of course, I've met some of the guys who work on this and I have faith in their ability to work it out.
RSA officials also expect companies to release competitors to RSA's BSafe encryption tool kits, which include the RSA algorithm, promising newer, more affordable RSA implementations. Crypto-savvy ISVs won't even have to do that; they'll be able to build their own from the RSA source code.
'RSA source code'? Any source code developed by RSA Security is still their property regardless of the status of the algorithm patent. We will not suddenly be able to copy BSAFE just because the patent on the mathematical process has expired.
If you're reimplementing BSAFE you'd better be careful NOT to look at the 'RSA source code' or you could find yourself in court.
The cache divider is not controllable through the Athlon's edge connector. In some cases, higher overclocked speeds may be possible by changing the cache divider from its default setting of 1/2 to 1/3.
I'm no overclocking master, but are they suggesting you cut the L2 cache speed from 1/2 core to 1/3 core? Why on earth would you do that? Let's say your core frequency is 800 MHz, and your L2 runs at 400. If you overclock it to 900 but your L2 cache is only running at 300, surely you're getting worse performance overall than you were before...
Is this just another example of the blind worship of the almighty MHz? I think this is the first time I've seen anyone sacrifice performance for higher core processor frequencies...
Or have I just forgotten everything from my architecture class?:-)
This article is just a rehash of available information. I read it hoping that the candidates had actually all been asked the same questions. Alas, no. A very good portion of the issues have responses from only a few of the candidates. It looks like the result of about 20 minutes of keyword searching through press materials.
It would have been so much more helpful if the author had actually gathered and presented the opinions of all candidates on each issue. As it is is just seems incomplete.
Almost every geek I know is a libertarian, though many don't realize it.
Is this statement based on that inane Libertarianism test wallet card?
If so, I suggest take that card to any Statistics professor and ask him/her if the questions are objective. Personally, I can't believe anyone falls for that - the questions are practically a parody of unbiased sampling.
(If not, ignore me. I'm not trying to insult you, I just despise that card. My own experience is that geeks are paradoxically a pretty even mix of right-wing libertarian types and left-wing liberals, with perhaps a leaning toward the latter, though that's probably just my personal preference clouding my judgement:-)
Every time the issue of making the submission queue visible comes up, Rob says that we don't want to see it because there's an awful lot of crap. This is a really good argument for story moderation (not comments on the stories - just moderating them). Then the crap settles to the bottom. Rob and company don't have to filter the queue based on scores; if they just SORT by score it should make their lives easier.
Maybe the queue should only be visible to users with moderation points? I don't really understand the comment
I don't want the submissions bin to be littered with noise like "First Post" and "Meept".
Why would it be? If visibility of the queue induces people to seek attention by submitting garbage stories, then decreasing the visibility should take care of it. Who would post a "Hot Grits" story if they and most of their friends couldn't see it? Especially if there was no possiblility for comments on it?
Rob can do whatever the hell he wants - I'm just arguing that his reasons given don't make sense. I don't see how story moderation could possibly make his job any harder.
I got the impression from the script excerpt posted that Card was doing his best to keep most of the brutality intact (I don't really like the fact that the fight with Stilson has been dropped, but there are other chances to keep the themes alive). I think Card has the integrity to make a true-to-theme movie or none at all. You're absolutely right - a Disnified movie would be a disaster, but I don't think he would allow that to happen.
Hollywood can get away with making this movie as long as they're very careful to market it to adults and not children... It'll be difficult to keep a movie starring mostly kids from looking like a kids' movie in a trailer, but it can certainly be done. And I don't think anyone who goes for this script will be dumb enough to try to bring in young audiences with it.
No one's protesting due process of law. You're missing the point in a big way.
The only benefit having a patent gives you is the ability to sue people for using your idea. I would be perfectly happy if Amazon would forget about the patent - if they don't enforce it it ceases to exist.
Because they've chosen to exercise the patent by suing Barnes and Noble I've chosen to boycott them.
Oh, and insulting people who don't agree with you will get you nowhere. I suggest you look up the term "ad hominem fallacy" - you might learn something.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea where it comes from or even where I first saw it. A quick google search reveals that it appears in lots of places on the web.
That's great. I wonder if Mike Elkins could be convinced to build this functionality into Mutt...
The only problem I can see is user confusion - expecially since "bounce" as used in many mailers just means remail...
Or a better solution which tempts me: Get your own domain, and create a new address for every company that requests one (e.g. amazon@mydomain.net). Then use mail aliases to decide if the company gets to send mail to your account or to
I've had great results with my method for handling spam - I use a great little Windows utility called Bounce Spam which sends an email to the spammer looking very much like a message from the server indicating that the message couldn't be delivered. I don't know if a similar utility exists for Linux but I wouldn't be surprised to find one.
Dead email addresses are less than useless to spammers - making them think yours is dead is the fastest way to get off their mailing lists.
That's a review of Innogear's MiniJam, which is not yet released (though close). This article is about Good Technologies' SoundsGood player.
There are actually several companies working on MP3 players for the Springboard slot.
I believe the moral of the book (which I gather from Bruce's comments in Crypto-gram) is that security breaches are inevitable, and therefore it's imperative to have a recovery plan.
He doesn't claim that since perfect security is impossible we should stop trying to attain it. He says that we need to stop assuming our efforts will always protect us and make sure we're prepared for the alternative.
Precisely. I was going to post this myself. If a Word document I opened caused Word ot try to access a website, ZoneAlarm would tell me so, and I'd respond with a quick click on the "HELL NO" button.
http://www.zdnet.com/ downloads/partners/zonealarm/download.html
Dictionary definitions vary, but to me a robot is an autonomous unit. These are close - I gather (though I wish I could find official rules somewhere) that these are controlled by an off-field computer but at least their behavior doesn't seem to be modified by humans at runtime.
Nothing like "Battlebots", which has gone by other names in the past and is really just a bunch of destructive radio controlled cars and IMO shouldn't be allowed to use the term "robot" at all. Mildly entertaining to watch, but it has nothing to do with the field of Robotics, which to me is the interesting bit.
"Around the world, PC users associate the Pentium brand with the highest PC performance, compatibility and quality available."
Oh yeah, my Pentium 120 just screams.
Well, the only experience I have with the company making Myst 3 is with the Journeyman Project 3 demo from the Riven CDs. But I played that demo and I thought it was terrible. I'm disappointed that the Cyan guys aren't working on Myst 3 instead of this bizarre Myst rehash.
The Myst 3 web page seems to imply that they're using the same horrible interface from JP3 (360 degree view?)
I could be wrong - Presto might do a good job with this. But many people have tried to imitate Myst and failed. It's a lot harder to get right than it seems. Sure, anybody can string pretty pictures together and throw some puzzles in, but Myst and especially Riven were so much more than that...
Though full stereoscopy is not widely supported by many recent games, DTI's 3D mode is still useable in games such as Quake 3, and produces results very similar to games that fully support stereoscopy.
Okay, how can this possibly work? How can the driver or anything else possibly guess the distances at which we're supposed to perceive different objects?
I could see how they could produce some uniform 3D effect, such as making the top of the screen appear farther away than the bottom, but how can they do anything which relates to the contents of the image?
However, when comparing Doom, a game which has stereoscopy, with Quake 3, a game which doesn't, the differences were negligible.
Right. This really makes me think any benefits are largely imagined.
Given this fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this spec describes some small detail which is NOT present in the behavior of Win2K.
If your implementation exhibits this behavior it'll be fairly obvious that you used the spec rather than properly reverse engineering the protocol. This should be enough to destroy you in court.
Yeah, Supermount is built into the STANDARD kernel, but I installed the high security form of 7.0 and it seems Supermount support isn't built into that kernel. Sigh. (Is there a good reason for this? And the fact that
Mandrake doesn't seem as thoroughly tested as other distros, but I still use it on my workstation machine 'cause it's got so much cool new stuff... Of course, my server's another story.
Absolutely. And don't forget to further fortify it by XOR'ing it a few times with a long string of zeroes.
That's the idea but it might not be quite that easy. At least with the version I ran (v1) it wasn't able to translate between two different HAL's - I tried to run a single processor VM on a dual processor machine and it choked. I had to change the way NT was installed on the real machine.
Maybe all of this is fixed in v2. In which case, it's good news all around.
As long as VMWare is still selling a version with no operating system (and it appears they intend to continue doing so) I see no reason to complain about a "tax" on the Windows-bundled versions.
To me this just seems like an even better tool for those IT admins who want to start deploying other operating systems in their organizations.
While this is both a great move for VMWare and potentially a great new product for consumers, I have my doubts about how well a "one size fits all" preinstall can work on all machines.
This should be fine for MS-DOS 98, but IIRC on an NT system some of the low level system stuff has to match between the real machine and the virtual machine (e.g. the HAL). I wonder if VMWare intends to have different images for different configurations... This could be a real pain for the user.
Of course, I've met some of the guys who work on this and I have faith in their ability to work it out.
RSA officials also expect companies to release competitors to RSA's BSafe encryption tool kits, which include the RSA algorithm, promising newer, more affordable RSA implementations. Crypto-savvy ISVs won't even have to do that; they'll be able to build their own from the RSA source code.
'RSA source code'? Any source code developed by RSA Security is still their property regardless of the status of the algorithm patent. We will not suddenly be able to copy BSAFE just because the patent on the mathematical process has expired.
If you're reimplementing BSAFE you'd better be careful NOT to look at the 'RSA source code' or you could find yourself in court.
(I don't work for or even LIKE RSA Security)
The cache divider is not controllable through the Athlon's edge connector. In some cases, higher overclocked speeds may be possible by changing the cache divider from its default setting of 1/2 to 1/3.
:-)
I'm no overclocking master, but are they suggesting you cut the L2 cache speed from 1/2 core to 1/3 core? Why on earth would you do that? Let's say your core frequency is 800 MHz, and your L2 runs at 400. If you overclock it to 900 but your L2 cache is only running at 300, surely you're getting worse performance overall than you were before...
Is this just another example of the blind worship of the almighty MHz? I think this is the first time I've seen anyone sacrifice performance for higher core processor frequencies...
Or have I just forgotten everything from my architecture class?
Are you commenting on the Oxygen beta or on the actual 7.0 release (dated yesterday, Jan 13 2000)?
This article is just a rehash of available information. I read it hoping that the candidates had actually all been asked the same questions. Alas, no. A very good portion of the issues have responses from only a few of the candidates. It looks like the result of about 20 minutes of keyword searching through press materials.
It would have been so much more helpful if the author had actually gathered and presented the opinions of all candidates on each issue. As it is is just seems incomplete.
Almost every geek I know is a libertarian, though many don't realize it.
:-)
Is this statement based on that inane Libertarianism test wallet card?
If so, I suggest take that card to any Statistics professor and ask him/her if the questions are objective. Personally, I can't believe anyone falls for that - the questions are practically a parody of unbiased sampling.
(If not, ignore me. I'm not trying to insult you, I just despise that card. My own experience is that geeks are paradoxically a pretty even mix of right-wing libertarian types and left-wing liberals, with perhaps a leaning toward the latter, though that's probably just my personal preference clouding my judgement
I'm with konstant on this one.
Every time the issue of making the submission queue visible comes up, Rob says that we don't want to see it because there's an awful lot of crap. This is a really good argument for story moderation (not comments on the stories - just moderating them). Then the crap settles to the bottom. Rob and company don't have to filter the queue based on scores; if they just SORT by score it should make their lives easier.
Maybe the queue should only be visible to users with moderation points? I don't really understand the comment
I don't want the submissions bin to be littered with noise like "First Post" and "Meept".
Why would it be? If visibility of the queue induces people to seek attention by submitting garbage stories, then decreasing the visibility should take care of it. Who would post a "Hot Grits" story if they and most of their friends couldn't see it? Especially if there was no possiblility for comments on it?
Rob can do whatever the hell he wants - I'm just arguing that his reasons given don't make sense. I don't see how story moderation could possibly make his job any harder.
I got the impression from the script excerpt posted that Card was doing his best to keep most of the brutality intact (I don't really like the fact that the fight with Stilson has been dropped, but there are other chances to keep the themes alive). I think Card has the integrity to make a true-to-theme movie or none at all. You're absolutely right - a Disnified movie would be a disaster, but I don't think he would allow that to happen.
Hollywood can get away with making this movie as long as they're very careful to market it to adults and not children... It'll be difficult to keep a movie starring mostly kids from looking like a kids' movie in a trailer, but it can certainly be done. And I don't think anyone who goes for this script will be dumb enough to try to bring in young audiences with it.
No one's protesting due process of law. You're missing the point in a big way.
The only benefit having a patent gives you is the ability to sue people for using your idea. I would be perfectly happy if Amazon would forget about the patent - if they don't enforce it it ceases to exist.
Because they've chosen to exercise the patent by suing Barnes and Noble I've chosen to boycott them.
Oh, and insulting people who don't agree with you will get you nowhere. I suggest you look up the term "ad hominem fallacy" - you might learn something.