I've setup customised autoreplies for messages meeting certain criteria, size limits on emails, size limits with a password to bypass them, domain-filters (taiwan, china, etc),
All of which, and more, are available to qmail users via Perl (or any other language) scripting. None of these would take more than two pages; one page if you just hardwire the parameters and don't bother with parsing a config file.
Actually, I for one expect most of the 150,000 others to go over the next couple of years. At the end of the day this is a stupid merger for stupid "I can piss further than you" corperate ego reasons. As such, no one will win except the execs that pushed it through who'll get nice big cheques to push off once it's clear how much damage they've done.
Project management is one of those "Linux still doesn't have..." items that MS'er come out with and its something our growing company is going to need soon, so has anyone used it "for real"?
If our own governments would stop shafting the poor of the world, and let them trade freely, their countries could develop a merchant middle class, and be better able to stand up to the lesser bullies who you cite.
First of all, they wouldn't as they simply haven't got the resources. The multinationals would walk all over them and not notice the bump.
Secondly, who do you think is behind the US/EU policies on these things? The lobbying done by multi-national "bullies" is the cause of the governments' shafting of the poor. Most MEP's, MP's, Senators, and MHR's don't get into politics with the specific aim of shitting on third-world nations. Someone has to suggest it to them, along with some motivation (votes and/or money).
Sounds like the problem here is the lame-ass governments of these countries that are letting themselves be bought by corporations instead of representing the people.
Absolutely, but it's asking a lot in a country where 2 dollars is a decent weekly wage to say that a government official should turn down 65K per year in "consulting fees". Would you? If you had a wife and a large family would you? If disease levels were as high as they often are in these countries and this would enable your whole family to get private (or any) health care, would you?
they do not refine their own tungsten for the anode,
Because their governments have sold their mineral rights off to multi-nationals like RTZ for a pittance and a few bribes the size of a western CEO's travel expenses.
nor wind their own high voltage transformers
Because multi-nationals like Enron make sure that they get contracts like that by a few bribes the size of a western CEO's travel expenses.
nor build their own vaccuum pump
Because large multi-nationals like Nike come in and talk the locals into leaving school at 10 to work in the sweatshops so the country never achieves any level of technology.
They grow their crops, weave their cloth, and trade.
Until Monsanto comes in and forces their products into the market by the use of a few bribes the size of a western CEO's travel expenses. Then suddenly they find they've only rented their crop and have to sell it at global, rock-bottom prices in order to buy the next year's seed.
The real villains are the Protectionists, who wage economic warfare against the poor of the world with trade barriers.
The real villains here are the Globalist who allow companies with resources ten or a hundred times the size of those of the countries to come in and totally distort the local economy in such a way that guarantees that the country stays in the dark ages (and guarantees that they'll also keep suppying cheap labour too).
Globalisation is like walking into Nazi Germany, letting all the starving unarmed prisoners out, telling them that they are now free to overthrow the Third Reich and walking away to the sound of machine guns, then saying you did everything you could to make it a "fair playing field" and you can't understand why the Nazis won.
So you shun the technology just because it's misued? Sounds like gun control.
Yes, exactly! Just as guns need to be removed from a free society so Flash needs to be removed from a Web which holds to standards. As with guns, the cost of the misuse so outweighs the value of the "correct" usage (cartoons in the case of Flash; I can't think of what the correct useage of a gun is) that society, on balance, is better off without either.
Can it be true? Can the web be scoured of Flash at last? I can only hope.
Why a system for generating/showing cartoons was ever allowed to spread into page layout is beyond me. Flash is the single biggest Web-standards breach in use today.
Kill it, bury it, and write HTML that people can bookmark, read on text only browsers, and hear on browsers for the disabled.
Isn't that what we all want: a Web that's available to all? It sure isn't what Macromedia want.
Always remember that any time you buy something which is advertised on TV you are paying part of that cost even if you didn't see the ad. So is Jamie going to suggest that in those cases we should get a discount? Is he buggery!
Little Jamie is head of a company that is still using a 1950's business model to try to compete in the 2000's and he's worried. Adapt or die, baby.
In other news: candlemakers protest at light bulb usage in ordinary homes. "These people are just light-thieves!"
but surely you can set this information in the program you use to make the fonts.
Ah, that's the problem. You see the main program used for TT fonts is Macromedia's Fontographer (sp?) which is a big, smelly, piece of shit which does not allow the user to set the bits and, even better, sets them in an incorrect (ie non-TT spec) way.
So most font designers need this or an equivilent program to get their work done.
I'm sure some screwy lawyer somewhere would be able to apply that to, say, a credit card purchase?
Well, saying you've found a lawyer that will argue a case is like saying you've found a prostitute that's agreed to sleep with you.
The issue is: what would a judge do? In some cases in the US they have ruled that EULA's are binding but the higher up the court system you go the less truck this gets and late last year a judge (in Florida?) ruled that no renewal term or requirements means this is not even a licence never mind a binding one.
In the UK several on-line pricing boobs have revolved around the question of whether the vendor (ie the website) was totally automated or not. The courts finding that an automated system is not able to form a contract and therefor a miss-priced item does not have to be honoured, while any human intervention in the acceptance system (in one case simply having someone manually checking that buyer's emails go out to legal email addresses) makes a contract which does have to be honoured.
EULA depend on fear of court action, but there are almost no cases of a successful prosecution that did not in fact resolve back to an ordinary copyright violation.
Generally the courts take the position that if I pay for goods and you give me them with no requirement that I ever give them back then it is a sale and I am free to do as I wish other than breach laws such as copyright. Anything else I agree with you has to fit inside contract law and have such items as consideration and evidence of agreement on both sides (eg signitures from seller and buyer), lack of coercion, limits on what can be in a contract etc. Everything else is just wank.
EULA are no more imporant or useful than the typical lawyer, but they can be just as scary too.
Don't talk shite. If it's a contract, where's your signiture? Or that of the vendor?
EULA's are just a pile of FUD, for a start it's not legally a licence since there is no term or renewal requirements in most cases.
It simply is not possible to enter into a contract with a machine, which is what these useless bits of crap ask you to do.
It's akin to paying someone for a car and driving it off the lot without all the paperwork signed.
No, its akin to someone fully paying for a car and refusing to sign a form agreeing to give the seller their firstborn child. It's not a legal requirement for purchase and it's not legally binding even if they did sign it.
The spikes are caused by diffraction around the secondary mirror support structure.
I was confused because I know people with eye problems that have told me they see spikes around small bright lights and I've seen them myself when going out into the cold night air makes my eyes water, so I assumed that it was a lens thing.
(e.g. the Keck telescopes have 6 spikes instead of four)
Why have 6 instead of 4, surely you want to minimise these spikes?
I assume, though, that the image has been unsifted with respect to the Tadpole itself, leaving the background galaxies in a more-or-less random red-shift.
I have not been able to read the site as it's down but looking at the images I'd guess that not much has been done other than to "unshift" where needed because of doppler. It's also fairly common for colour balance to be fiddled to bring out detail in images where there is low contrast and filtered to take out noise but I've never heard of a Hubble image being touched up by a live human artist. Publicity shots like these also tend to be chosen for their "real colouredness" as NASA feels people are turned off by being told that this is a view in the X-Ray spectrum.
So the answer to the question "how realistic is this?" is that if you had really good eyesight and were very close to these objects you would recognise them from these photos although they might sometimes seem less vibrant.
Also the sharply pointed glare/lensfx spikes around the bright stars look like they are faked-in as well to me... Were they artistically added, were they artifacts of the original camera, or does it "really" look that way?
The spikes are a common artifact of the cameras; a human eye would only see these if you had been crying or suffered from some form of eye trouble (poss astigmatism but I'm not sure). They are no more real than the lens-flare that's added to poorly designed computer games that attempt to make it seem like you're there by adding something you'd only see if you weren't there and were actually viewing the action via a camera. Irony, eh?
Actually, it's just difficult to get people to pay for any software that they can download but can't buy in a shop.
Anyone that wants to can download basically any package, program, or font they want via Usenet. But enough people don't to keep companies afloat. These people are going into PC Word, or the American equivilent, and actually picking software off a shelf and paying what most/.ers would regard as a rip-off price for it at a till.
If a program is not on those shelves, and the vast majority of Linux software isn't in a state a retailer would even consider, then the only audience is the people to whom downloading for free is the norm and that is the single worst market for making money. It's a good market, by and large, for getting free development help, but it's not going to pay the rent.
So the keys are distribution and packaging (including a decent manual), not end-user cost.
Why do you feel that just because a machine is running old software, it doesn't need to be licensed?
I'm saying that expecting people to hang on to thousands of stupid little documents, which are not needed for any other sort of purchase, for years and years in a field like computing is insane and plain wrong.
Think about it...if the car's, say, 4 or 5 years old, there's no point in making sure it's legally purchased, right? Wrong. That's just plain rediculous.
Cars are expensive and dangerous in the wrong hands. Word is cheap (in comparison) and poses little threat in the hands of a "joy-typist". Are you suggesting that it's okay for someone to come into your office and demand receipts for every sub-$500 item? Do you have proof of purchase for the photocopier? The desks? The lightbulbs?
More to the point: why the hell should you? What happened to burden of proof? Is the world under such dire threat from software piracy that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has to be suspended for this most evil of all crimes? Perhaps the BSA should apply to have hearings held before a miltiary tribunal.
You are right but it's just not that easy in an organisation with thousands of machines, some of them very old (Windows 3.11 for Workgroups is NOT dead yet!).
At the very least there should be a "statute of limitations" on this. In computing 4 years should be enough, so a machine which is physically newer OR running a version of a package which is newer than this should be open to audit; everything else is not.
Slashdot Mirror
All of which, and more, are available to qmail users via Perl (or any other language) scripting. None of these would take more than two pages; one page if you just hardwire the parameters and don't bother with parsing a config file.
TWW
TWW
TWW
But then, there's no trademark violations either so who's to know what they'll throw at him next. Facts and applicability have no bearing on this.
TWW
TWW
TWW
First of all, they wouldn't as they simply haven't got the resources. The multinationals would walk all over them and not notice the bump.
Secondly, who do you think is behind the US/EU policies on these things? The lobbying done by multi-national "bullies" is the cause of the governments' shafting of the poor. Most MEP's, MP's, Senators, and MHR's don't get into politics with the specific aim of shitting on third-world nations. Someone has to suggest it to them, along with some motivation (votes and/or money).
TWW
Absolutely, but it's asking a lot in a country where 2 dollars is a decent weekly wage to say that a government official should turn down 65K per year in "consulting fees". Would you? If you had a wife and a large family would you? If disease levels were as high as they often are in these countries and this would enable your whole family to get private (or any) health care, would you?
TWW
Because their governments have sold their mineral rights off to multi-nationals like RTZ for a pittance and a few bribes the size of a western CEO's travel expenses.
nor wind their own high voltage transformers
Because multi-nationals like Enron make sure that they get contracts like that by a few bribes the size of a western CEO's travel expenses.
nor build their own vaccuum pump
Because large multi-nationals like Nike come in and talk the locals into leaving school at 10 to work in the sweatshops so the country never achieves any level of technology.
They grow their crops, weave their cloth, and trade.
Until Monsanto comes in and forces their products into the market by the use of a few bribes the size of a western CEO's travel expenses. Then suddenly they find they've only rented their crop and have to sell it at global, rock-bottom prices in order to buy the next year's seed.
The real villains are the Protectionists, who wage economic warfare against the poor of the world with trade barriers.
The real villains here are the Globalist who allow companies with resources ten or a hundred times the size of those of the countries to come in and totally distort the local economy in such a way that guarantees that the country stays in the dark ages (and guarantees that they'll also keep suppying cheap labour too).
Globalisation is like walking into Nazi Germany, letting all the starving unarmed prisoners out, telling them that they are now free to overthrow the Third Reich and walking away to the sound of machine guns, then saying you did everything you could to make it a "fair playing field" and you can't understand why the Nazis won.
TWW
TWW
Yes, exactly! Just as guns need to be removed from a free society so Flash needs to be removed from a Web which holds to standards. As with guns, the cost of the misuse so outweighs the value of the "correct" usage (cartoons in the case of Flash; I can't think of what the correct useage of a gun is) that society, on balance, is better off without either.
When used right
I've seen that exactly twice in four years.
TWW
Why a system for generating/showing cartoons was ever allowed to spread into page layout is beyond me. Flash is the single biggest Web-standards breach in use today.
Kill it, bury it, and write HTML that people can bookmark, read on text only browsers, and hear on browsers for the disabled.
Isn't that what we all want: a Web that's available to all? It sure isn't what Macromedia want.
TWW
Always remember that any time you buy something which is advertised on TV you are paying part of that cost even if you didn't see the ad. So is Jamie going to suggest that in those cases we should get a discount? Is he buggery!
Little Jamie is head of a company that is still using a 1950's business model to try to compete in the 2000's and he's worried. Adapt or die, baby.
In other news: candlemakers protest at light bulb usage in ordinary homes. "These people are just light-thieves!"
TWW
Ah, that's the problem. You see the main program used for TT fonts is Macromedia's Fontographer (sp?) which is a big, smelly, piece of shit which does not allow the user to set the bits and, even better, sets them in an incorrect (ie non-TT spec) way.
So most font designers need this or an equivilent program to get their work done.
Guess they should have used METAFONT!
TWW
What! He's still using MP3. How totally 20th century, man!
Use OGG.
TWW
Well, saying you've found a lawyer that will argue a case is like saying you've found a prostitute that's agreed to sleep with you.
The issue is: what would a judge do? In some cases in the US they have ruled that EULA's are binding but the higher up the court system you go the less truck this gets and late last year a judge (in Florida?) ruled that no renewal term or requirements means this is not even a licence never mind a binding one.
In the UK several on-line pricing boobs have revolved around the question of whether the vendor (ie the website) was totally automated or not. The courts finding that an automated system is not able to form a contract and therefor a miss-priced item does not have to be honoured, while any human intervention in the acceptance system (in one case simply having someone manually checking that buyer's emails go out to legal email addresses) makes a contract which does have to be honoured.
EULA depend on fear of court action, but there are almost no cases of a successful prosecution that did not in fact resolve back to an ordinary copyright violation.
Generally the courts take the position that if I pay for goods and you give me them with no requirement that I ever give them back then it is a sale and I am free to do as I wish other than breach laws such as copyright. Anything else I agree with you has to fit inside contract law and have such items as consideration and evidence of agreement on both sides (eg signitures from seller and buyer), lack of coercion, limits on what can be in a contract etc. Everything else is just wank.
EULA are no more imporant or useful than the typical lawyer, but they can be just as scary too.
TWW
Don't talk shite. If it's a contract, where's your signiture? Or that of the vendor?
EULA's are just a pile of FUD, for a start it's not legally a licence since there is no term or renewal requirements in most cases.
It simply is not possible to enter into a contract with a machine, which is what these useless bits of crap ask you to do.
It's akin to paying someone for a car and driving it off the lot without all the paperwork signed.
No, its akin to someone fully paying for a car and refusing to sign a form agreeing to give the seller their firstborn child. It's not a legal requirement for purchase and it's not legally binding even if they did sign it.
TWW
I was confused because I know people with eye problems that have told me they see spikes around small bright lights and I've seen them myself when going out into the cold night air makes my eyes water, so I assumed that it was a lens thing.
(e.g. the Keck telescopes have 6 spikes instead of four)
Why have 6 instead of 4, surely you want to minimise these spikes?
TWW
TWW
What did you win?
I didn't even know there was a competition running!
TWW
You mean it's bogo-greek!?
TWW
So the answer to the question "how realistic is this?" is that if you had really good eyesight and were very close to these objects you would recognise them from these photos although they might sometimes seem less vibrant.
Also the sharply pointed glare/lensfx spikes around the bright stars look like they are faked-in as well to me... Were they artistically added, were they artifacts of the original camera, or does it "really" look that way?
The spikes are a common artifact of the cameras; a human eye would only see these if you had been crying or suffered from some form of eye trouble (poss astigmatism but I'm not sure). They are no more real than the lens-flare that's added to poorly designed computer games that attempt to make it seem like you're there by adding something you'd only see if you weren't there and were actually viewing the action via a camera. Irony, eh?
TWW
Anyone that wants to can download basically any package, program, or font they want via Usenet. But enough people don't to keep companies afloat. These people are going into PC Word, or the American equivilent, and actually picking software off a shelf and paying what most /.ers would regard as a rip-off price for it at a till.
If a program is not on those shelves, and the vast majority of Linux software isn't in a state a retailer would even consider, then the only audience is the people to whom downloading for free is the norm and that is the single worst market for making money. It's a good market, by and large, for getting free development help, but it's not going to pay the rent.
So the keys are distribution and packaging (including a decent manual), not end-user cost.
TWW
I'm saying that expecting people to hang on to thousands of stupid little documents, which are not needed for any other sort of purchase, for years and years in a field like computing is insane and plain wrong.
Think about it...if the car's, say, 4 or 5 years old, there's no point in making sure it's legally purchased, right? Wrong. That's just plain rediculous.
Cars are expensive and dangerous in the wrong hands. Word is cheap (in comparison) and poses little threat in the hands of a "joy-typist". Are you suggesting that it's okay for someone to come into your office and demand receipts for every sub-$500 item? Do you have proof of purchase for the photocopier? The desks? The lightbulbs?
More to the point: why the hell should you? What happened to burden of proof? Is the world under such dire threat from software piracy that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has to be suspended for this most evil of all crimes? Perhaps the BSA should apply to have hearings held before a miltiary tribunal.
Or perhaps you should get a clue instead.
TWW
At the very least there should be a "statute of limitations" on this. In computing 4 years should be enough, so a machine which is physically newer OR running a version of a package which is newer than this should be open to audit; everything else is not.
TWW