Poor Infoworld... used to be a great, important publication in the industry. Now it's a rag pandering to an ever-diminishing cluster of advertisers. Have you seen the magazine recently? It's shrunk so small it looks like a pamphlet. I refused to renew my subscription more than a year ago, but they still keep sending it to me. The only thing sadder than the publication's futile attempt to stay in business, are some of the ridiculous claims they assert.
Linux is in fact, a very viable platform. Tivo being a great example, among many others.
It's really sad to see all the pedantic jokes and offhand comments about the UN and these efforts; people making fun of the UN's use of technology as a diversion from the associated goal of feeding the hungry, but the reality is if there wasn't such an overwhelming amount of ignorance and misinformation being spread about by partisian groups on the UN's purpose and accomplishments, they wouldn't need to release software like this, but unfortunately, many of the sopmoric comments herein show exactly why they do.
People make out spam to be a bigger problem than it is.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Spam is a big problem for everybody and it's not merely an issue of junk in someone's in box. It involves computer tampering, hacking and is the driving force behind the majority of virus and worms being developed and spreading online. Advances in hacking technology primarily for the purpose of controlling third-party computers for spamming has led to a dramatic rise in identity theft and other cyber crimes. The populace's apathy to the spam epidemic is one reason why nothing is being done about it, and there is becoming more and more collateral damage in the form of service interruptions, higher costs, more complexity on the client and server side, less reliable and slower mail and internet service, and a lot more.
First off, the story reeks of being subjective and bogus as well as misleading. That notwithstanding, if someone took a dump on top of your desk, and there was seemingly nothing you could do about it, and this happened 10-100 times a day, each and every day, at some point you wouldn't even smell the shit any more. That in no way proves that you now tolerate someone taking a dump on your desk.
If you really want to find out how well people tolerate spam, I recommend this simple experiment: Place a small box with a button on it in front of someone. Explain to them that if they press this button, they will no longer get any spam. The button will cause the spammer to be rounded up, have his skin slowly peeled off with a pair of rusty pliers, be dipped in salt, and left to slowly die...
There would not be a single button un-pressed. That I guarantee.
The global configuration is kind of spotty at best in helping you determine how to turn some of this stuff off. I assume that maybe if you set the allocated storage space value to "none", then maybe it will disable the use of local stored objects. Otherwise, this looks suspciously like a cookie-type manager where you can only delete the information that has already been stored.
That's the reason why the last console I purchased was a N64. Either there was a shortage of games, or a glut of mediocre games on the market, or they were all of the same 2-3 varieties, which is the way I think the industry is now. I suspect unless game developers get more creative, the console industry will experience another decline.
I have under $18 Billion in assets right now myself. How far under $18B? Well, that's for me to know and you to find out, but thanks to the new traditional press(tm) that doesn't do their reseach, people like this guy appear to have exponentially more resources than they do.
Beyond this, if the spammer actually had to pay for the bandwidth he stole in the process of spamming, at current market rates, he'd never profit. Spamming isn't profitable -- the only time it "appears" to generate profit is at the expense of stealing bandwidth other people are paying for.
I have always contended that the notion that spammers make tons of money is overblown hype. The fact that this company's attorney is the father of the owner is a classic example. If they were really making money they wouldn't be hiring the CEO's dad to do this stuff. And if the CEO's dad is milking the company into bankruptcy, then there is some kind of poetic justice and consistency in the family that almost brings a tear to my eye.
I have both the Genelecs and the NS10s. They're different creatures. I rely more on the NS-10s for mixing. These aren't speakers that are supposed to "sound good" as they are for reference. They're not supposed to reproduce 18Hz bottom end, and neither are most peoples' sound system. They provide a very good representation of the music though.
By the way, it's important to routinely replace the drivers in these units after a few years if you want to maintain their quality. Maybe your friend has a very old pair that's underperforming? Anyway, your mileage may vary but I think the speakers are excellent for what they're supposed to be used for, and if you pick up any copy of Mix magazine, you'll probably see a pair of them in almost every picture of a studio printed. There is a reason for that.
2. Someone uses a cgi script on their site that links to yours, but they use a special "302 Found " HTTP code instead of the standard "Location:" or HREF.
3. As per RFC 2616, a 302 redirect instructs the client to ignore the host and assume the subsequent request originates under the current host reference.
4. Normally this isn't much different from a regular hyperlink but Google has their index rules set up to remove duplicates from the catalog, and by treating a 302 reference the way they are, this could result in Google deleting the original copy of the site from its index and replacing it with the URL from the site that deployed the exploit.
5. End result. Someone hijacks your content in the Google database and associates it with a different URL/host.
Here's the relevant info from RFC 2616:
10.3.3 302 Found
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response
is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header
field.
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
the new URI(s).
If the 302 status code is received in response to a request other
than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the
request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might
change the conditions under which the request was issued.
Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed
to change the method on the redirected request. However, most
existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303
response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless
of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have
been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which
kind of reaction is expected of the client.
It seems to me the thing to do is to ignore the 302-version of the site in lieu of the original host. This would allow Google to continue to honor the 302 spec and keep stuff from being hijacked. Then they could run some automated scripts to refresh any 302 links with their original hosts having priority, so that even sites that weren't indexed by Google, end up being legitimately indexed in favor of their 302 exploitation.
Why Google would give any attention to 302s in the first place is questionable. They don't have to follow that spec -- they determine what content they want to index and why so RFC guidelines are meaningless.
avoid Yamaha NS-10s at all costs. They're pretty much designed to sound like shit, intentionally. Why? Because if it sounds decent on NS-10s.. it should sound good on any other speaker.
What a crock.
NS-10Ms are "reference speakers" -- they are meticulously designed to reproduce sound accurately. If you think they sound like shit, that's because you're used to unnaturally boosting the crap out of audio signals way beyond the way they naturally sound. Don't blame it on the speakers, least of all THE most-used speakers in the history of recording and mastering.
Ask your girlfriend if you'll get laid more often if you have Monster cables. If you don't have a girlfriend, ask some female friend if having Monster cables impresses them and therefore makes you feel better about yourself.
If the answer to any of those questions are "yes", then go buy Monster cables.
Let's be honest here. Monster cables have nothing to do with sound quality. It's a fee you pay as part of your insecurity therapy.
That notwithstanding, better-quality cables are better, but Monster cables are so disproportionally-prices and over-the-top spec-wise, they are products designed for an entirely different, more psychological than audiophile market.
My favorites are Maxell 700 mb Music CDRS (80 minute gold) - for a solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle Maxell 80 Minute Pro (blue) for robust low end, detail and clean immediacy Fuji 80 Minute Audio for a wetter sound (smoothes out the edges). Memorex Music 80 minutes is very nice Taiyo Yuden 700 MB are close, the Mitsui and BASF are in there, Apogees has a nice width but lacks warmth, Experiment and see what you prefer!
This is hilarious! The guy is reviewing CDRs like they were fine wine.
Granted there are differences in ink and CDR technology, but there are probably as many variations in players as there are in media types and to simply pick out media is ridicluous, especially on the basis of "sound quality". The differences, if any, are bound to be highly subjective and potentially un-quantifiable in the first place.
I couldn't agree with you more. I wish I hadn't used up my mod points yesterday.
What the hell was this guy thinking? How dumb do you have to be to completely exploit an established famous mark and the game design owned by somebody else?
Taxpayer money funds the library dude. I know most people don't have the attention span to see the cause-and-effect relationship there, but it is there. Somebody pays for all those books and services that you get for "free", and it's you, or your parents.
Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine. It warrants no reply except to again, suggest you get a clue as to what you're talking about because you don't right now.
The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner, period. It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media. If you don't understand that, nobody can help you. Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of.
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it before you make wildly erroneous claims.
The Fairness doctrine was designed to:
a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues b) recognize that the holders of public broadcast licenses had an obligation to use these public licenses for the public interest (and therefore could not bury news that was of local interest)
It was NEVER about "censoring" the media. You're clueless. And in the wake of the eradication of the Fairness doctrine we don't have more "fair" political discussion... in fact it's so heavily right wing and conservative that the notion of moderate media has been pushed far right of center.
Ask your parents for some money. Go purchase a few clues. Read up on the Fairness Doctrine and what it was, and you'll see it was the most impartial, non-ideological set of rules ever imposed by government, which is exactly why the Republicans had to have it revoked.
That's a mantra for C21st America if ever I heard one. Of course there's such a thing as 'free'. Yeah, someone pays, but if it ain't me, then it's free. If I end up with two copies of a book and I give one away, I've paid for both but the surplus copy is entirely free to whoever I give it to. If I help a friend out with their PC, I pay with my time, but the service is free to them. Things are sometimes done in kindness, or in the service of a better world, even in this day and age. Don't let 'them' convince you otherwise.
Fair enough example, but you're talking about "Free for YOU", not "free" in general. And there is a difference. Today's marketers promote products that seem to have no liability, obligation or burden to anyone whatsoever. This free web space debacle is a good example. It might be "free" for you, but then again it may not be, but one things for sure, it's not "free" in general because someone pays, and because it's not truly "free", you can NEVER count on having this freebie "for life". So as I said before, nothing is free... nothing. Least of all this dumbass "free web space for life" scam.
free (fre) adj. 1. not under the control or power of another,... 9. with no charge or cost.
I guess it all depends upon how flexible you are with defining the terms, but therein lies the problem with the whole notion of something being "free."
Buy one, get one FREE!
FREE! (after $20 mail-in rebate)
There is no such thing as "FREE" really, unless you change the definition of free to relate to a marketing technique designed to convince people that the value of what they exchange for the object product is of such inconsequential quantification that it suggests something for nothing [sic].
Furthermore, the whole notion of a product or service's value to an individual is dependent upon the perceived value of the product. If something is "free", it has exponentially less value in the first place (i.e. if you earn something out of hard work, it has more value).
The whole "dot com boom" (and subsequent bust) was based around this illusionary business model where one would give away products and services (FREE!) and in turn at some point in the future (after garnering market share via whoring themselves out) spontaneously profit. It didn't work that way. It still doesn't work that way, but this doesn't stop, as I said before, people acting like brain dead, drooling baboons at the premise that they can get something for free, which is never, EVER, truly free.
I challenge ANYONE to show me ANYTHING that is "free". Everything has a price. Foolish people who don't value esoteric aspects of their world might claim something is "free" but it's not -- it's just them devaluing their time or other non-traditional forms of payment or trade.
Take Gmail. It's NOT "free". It never was. In return for your "free e-mail account" you enter into a contract with Google to provide value to them. You might not consider the content of your e-mail or the people you acknowledge you communicate with to be an item to barter with, but Google does, and therefore you're naive if you think you're getting something for nothing.
Somebody pays, always. If not you directly, then you pay indirectly; if not now, then later, but you get nothing for free.
Perhaps the biggest infection within our society is this notion that you can get something for nothing, and how otherwise seemingly intelligent people turn into brain dead drooling baboons at the thought of getting a freebie.
You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated, it's all about who has the most media influence.
It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor Infoworld... used to be a great, important publication in the industry. Now it's a rag pandering to an ever-diminishing cluster of advertisers. Have you seen the magazine recently? It's shrunk so small it looks like a pamphlet. I refused to renew my subscription more than a year ago, but they still keep sending it to me. The only thing sadder than the publication's futile attempt to stay in business, are some of the ridiculous claims they assert.
Linux is in fact, a very viable platform. Tivo being a great example, among many others.
It's really sad to see all the pedantic jokes and offhand comments about the UN and these efforts; people making fun of the UN's use of technology as a diversion from the associated goal of feeding the hungry, but the reality is if there wasn't such an overwhelming amount of ignorance and misinformation being spread about by partisian groups on the UN's purpose and accomplishments, they wouldn't need to release software like this, but unfortunately, many of the sopmoric comments herein show exactly why they do.
People make out spam to be a bigger problem than it is.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Spam is a big problem for everybody and it's not merely an issue of junk in someone's in box. It involves computer tampering, hacking and is the driving force behind the majority of virus and worms being developed and spreading online. Advances in hacking technology primarily for the purpose of controlling third-party computers for spamming has led to a dramatic rise in identity theft and other cyber crimes. The populace's apathy to the spam epidemic is one reason why nothing is being done about it, and there is becoming more and more collateral damage in the form of service interruptions, higher costs, more complexity on the client and server side, less reliable and slower mail and internet service, and a lot more.
First off, the story reeks of being subjective and bogus as well as misleading. That notwithstanding, if someone took a dump on top of your desk, and there was seemingly nothing you could do about it, and this happened 10-100 times a day, each and every day, at some point you wouldn't even smell the shit any more. That in no way proves that you now tolerate someone taking a dump on your desk.
If you really want to find out how well people tolerate spam, I recommend this simple experiment: Place a small box with a button on it in front of someone. Explain to them that if they press this button, they will no longer get any spam. The button will cause the spammer to be rounded up, have his skin slowly peeled off with a pair of rusty pliers, be dipped in salt, and left to slowly die...
There would not be a single button un-pressed. That I guarantee.
The global configuration is kind of spotty at best in helping you determine how to turn some of this stuff off. I assume that maybe if you set the allocated storage space value to "none", then maybe it will disable the use of local stored objects. Otherwise, this looks suspciously like a cookie-type manager where you can only delete the information that has already been stored.
That's the reason why the last console I purchased was a N64. Either there was a shortage of games, or a glut of mediocre games on the market, or they were all of the same 2-3 varieties, which is the way I think the industry is now. I suspect unless game developers get more creative, the console industry will experience another decline.
Exactly right.
I have under $18 Billion in assets right now myself. How far under $18B? Well, that's for me to know and you to find out, but thanks to the new traditional press(tm) that doesn't do their reseach, people like this guy appear to have exponentially more resources than they do.
Beyond this, if the spammer actually had to pay for the bandwidth he stole in the process of spamming, at current market rates, he'd never profit. Spamming isn't profitable -- the only time it "appears" to generate profit is at the expense of stealing bandwidth other people are paying for.
I have always contended that the notion that spammers make tons of money is overblown hype. The fact that this company's attorney is the father of the owner is a classic example. If they were really making money they wouldn't be hiring the CEO's dad to do this stuff. And if the CEO's dad is milking the company into bankruptcy, then there is some kind of poetic justice and consistency in the family that almost brings a tear to my eye.
Well, you can be sure at least one person would watch that show.
I have both the Genelecs and the NS10s. They're different creatures. I rely more on the NS-10s for mixing. These aren't speakers that are supposed to "sound good" as they are for reference. They're not supposed to reproduce 18Hz bottom end, and neither are most peoples' sound system. They provide a very good representation of the music though.
By the way, it's important to routinely replace the drivers in these units after a few years if you want to maintain their quality. Maybe your friend has a very old pair that's underperforming? Anyway, your mileage may vary but I think the speakers are excellent for what they're supposed to be used for, and if you pick up any copy of Mix magazine, you'll probably see a pair of them in almost every picture of a studio printed. There is a reason for that.
2. Someone uses a cgi script on their site that links to yours, but they use a special "302 Found " HTTP code instead of the standard "Location:" or HREF.
3. As per RFC 2616, a 302 redirect instructs the client to ignore the host and assume the subsequent request originates under the current host reference.
4. Normally this isn't much different from a regular hyperlink but Google has their index rules set up to remove duplicates from the catalog, and by treating a 302 reference the way they are, this could result in Google deleting the original copy of the site from its index and replacing it with the URL from the site that deployed the exploit.
5. End result. Someone hijacks your content in the Google database and associates it with a different URL/host.
Here's the relevant info from RFC 2616:
Excellent post btw.
It seems to me the thing to do is to ignore the 302-version of the site in lieu of the original host. This would allow Google to continue to honor the 302 spec and keep stuff from being hijacked. Then they could run some automated scripts to refresh any 302 links with their original hosts having priority, so that even sites that weren't indexed by Google, end up being legitimately indexed in favor of their 302 exploitation.
Why Google would give any attention to 302s in the first place is questionable. They don't have to follow that spec -- they determine what content they want to index and why so RFC guidelines are meaningless.
avoid Yamaha NS-10s at all costs. They're pretty much designed to sound like shit, intentionally. Why? Because if it sounds decent on NS-10s.. it should sound good on any other speaker.
What a crock.
NS-10Ms are "reference speakers" -- they are meticulously designed to reproduce sound accurately. If you think they sound like shit, that's because you're used to unnaturally boosting the crap out of audio signals way beyond the way they naturally sound. Don't blame it on the speakers, least of all THE most-used speakers in the history of recording and mastering.
Are Monster cables worth it?
Ask your girlfriend if you'll get laid more often if you have Monster cables. If you don't have a girlfriend, ask some female friend if having Monster cables impresses them and therefore makes you feel better about yourself.
If the answer to any of those questions are "yes", then go buy Monster cables.
Let's be honest here. Monster cables have nothing to do with sound quality. It's a fee you pay as part of your insecurity therapy.
That notwithstanding, better-quality cables are better, but Monster cables are so disproportionally-prices and over-the-top spec-wise, they are products designed for an entirely different, more psychological than audiophile market.
My favorites are Maxell 700 mb Music CDRS (80 minute gold) - for a solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle Maxell 80 Minute Pro (blue) for robust low end, detail and clean immediacy Fuji 80 Minute Audio for a wetter sound (smoothes out the edges). Memorex Music 80 minutes is very nice Taiyo Yuden 700 MB are close, the Mitsui and BASF are in there, Apogees has a nice width but lacks warmth, Experiment and see what you prefer!
This is hilarious! The guy is reviewing CDRs like they were fine wine.
Granted there are differences in ink and CDR technology, but there are probably as many variations in players as there are in media types and to simply pick out media is ridicluous, especially on the basis of "sound quality". The differences, if any, are bound to be highly subjective and potentially un-quantifiable in the first place.
Thanks for making me laugh.
I couldn't agree with you more. I wish I hadn't used up my mod points yesterday.
What the hell was this guy thinking? How dumb do you have to be to completely exploit an established famous mark and the game design owned by somebody else?
Taxpayer money funds the library dude. I know most people don't have the attention span to see the cause-and-effect relationship there, but it is there. Somebody pays for all those books and services that you get for "free", and it's you, or your parents.
Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine. It warrants no reply except to again, suggest you get a clue as to what you're talking about because you don't right now.
The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner, period. It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media. If you don't understand that, nobody can help you. Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of.
Internet Explorer did not suffer from this exploit because it sucks.
Microsoft sycophant whine-fest in 3..2..1..
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it before you make wildly erroneous claims.
The Fairness doctrine was designed to:
a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues
b) recognize that the holders of public broadcast licenses had an obligation to use these public licenses for the public interest (and therefore could not bury news that was of local interest)
It was NEVER about "censoring" the media. You're clueless. And in the wake of the eradication of the Fairness doctrine we don't have more "fair" political discussion... in fact it's so heavily right wing and conservative that the notion of moderate media has been pushed far right of center.
Ask your parents for some money. Go purchase a few clues. Read up on the Fairness Doctrine and what it was, and you'll see it was the most impartial, non-ideological set of rules ever imposed by government, which is exactly why the Republicans had to have it revoked.
That's a mantra for C21st America if ever I heard one. Of course there's such a thing as 'free'. Yeah, someone pays, but if it ain't me, then it's free. If I end up with two copies of a book and I give one away, I've paid for both but the surplus copy is entirely free to whoever I give it to. If I help a friend out with their PC, I pay with my time, but the service is free to them. Things are sometimes done in kindness, or in the service of a better world, even in this day and age. Don't let 'them' convince you otherwise.
Fair enough example, but you're talking about "Free for YOU", not "free" in general. And there is a difference. Today's marketers promote products that seem to have no liability, obligation or burden to anyone whatsoever. This free web space debacle is a good example. It might be "free" for you, but then again it may not be, but one things for sure, it's not "free" in general because someone pays, and because it's not truly "free", you can NEVER count on having this freebie "for life". So as I said before, nothing is free... nothing. Least of all this dumbass "free web space for life" scam.
free (fre) adj. 1. not under the control or power of another, ... 9. with no charge or cost.
I guess it all depends upon how flexible you are with defining the terms, but therein lies the problem with the whole notion of something being "free."
Buy one, get one FREE!
FREE! (after $20 mail-in rebate)
There is no such thing as "FREE" really, unless you change the definition of free to relate to a marketing technique designed to convince people that the value of what they exchange for the object product is of such inconsequential quantification that it suggests something for nothing [sic].
Furthermore, the whole notion of a product or service's value to an individual is dependent upon the perceived value of the product. If something is "free", it has exponentially less value in the first place (i.e. if you earn something out of hard work, it has more value).
The whole "dot com boom" (and subsequent bust) was based around this illusionary business model where one would give away products and services (FREE!) and in turn at some point in the future (after garnering market share via whoring themselves out) spontaneously profit. It didn't work that way. It still doesn't work that way, but this doesn't stop, as I said before, people acting like brain dead, drooling baboons at the premise that they can get something for free, which is never, EVER, truly free.
I challenge ANYONE to show me ANYTHING that is "free". Everything has a price. Foolish people who don't value esoteric aspects of their world might claim something is "free" but it's not -- it's just them devaluing their time or other non-traditional forms of payment or trade.
Take Gmail. It's NOT "free". It never was. In return for your "free e-mail account" you enter into a contract with Google to provide value to them. You might not consider the content of your e-mail or the people you acknowledge you communicate with to be an item to barter with, but Google does, and therefore you're naive if you think you're getting something for nothing.
..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "FREE".
Somebody pays, always. If not you directly, then you pay indirectly; if not now, then later, but you get nothing for free.
Perhaps the biggest infection within our society is this notion that you can get something for nothing, and how otherwise seemingly intelligent people turn into brain dead drooling baboons at the thought of getting a freebie.
You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated, it's all about who has the most media influence.
It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq.