I'm about to try out Microsoft Intelligent Message Filter for exchange
A couple of my customers asked me to install that for them. It's not very configurable or very granular, but it seems to work at least passably well. Plus, it's very easy to install and configure and requires little maintenance.
Dollywood's Splash Country in Tennessee does this. For a couple of bucks, you can tag your kid with a radio transponder and one or more of the parents. The tags are paired at rental time. At any kiosk throughout the park, you can hold your transponder up to the scanner and it will show you the location of all other matching transponders on a little video map, as well as the last time it was detected.
I found it *extremely* useful since I could let my daughter ride the waterslides without worrying about how to find her when it was time for lunch or time to go home. Likewise, she could find me quickly and easily if she needed to. I certainly didn't feel that my privacy was being invaded and I wasn't able to track any other users in the park.
Is there potential for abuse? Of course there is, but it's like any other tool. It can be used for good or evil. In this case, I feel there's no evil intent and it helps prevent lost kids.
No, it's not. It's only mostly free of advertising. All of the rebroadcast stations (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) still have commercials, as do many of the talk-type stations like the comedy channels. The only stations commercial-free are the all-music ones.
Sadly, that's one of the main reasons to use Firefox. Actually, pogo.com itself works, it's just that when you close the page, firefox.exe remains resident in memory. Then when you try to re-launch the app, you get the "Choose a profile" dialogue box. The only solution I've found is to Ctrl-Alt-Delete and kill the process. A bit too involved for my mother-in-law.
I use Firefox on Windows and Linux platforms. I convinced my wife and mother-in-law to switch. They both switched back almost immediately. Firefox constantly crashed on their favorite website (pogo.com). Slashdot itself frequently requires multiple refreshes to render properly. Both bugs duly reported months ago with no response (ok, I know they're minor and low-priority). Firefox has come a long way, but until it's done, wide acceptance will be hard to achieve.
Yes, the Olympics are over commercialized, but what isn't? It does not mean that the the athletes are evil. Most of the athletes are not there for the money. Most have no hope of winning, and many have very little chance of getting on TV.
I never said the Olympics were over-commercialized. I said that the IOC exploits the athletes to line its pockets. According to the IOC, they own the athletes completely. The IOC claims to own every image, every word, every thought, every movement of every athlete as a potential cash cow. The IOC rakes in *billions* through advertising deals and sale of broadcast rights and not a single red cent goes to any of the athletes. Not only that, the athletes (and now apparently anyone who sets foot inside the Olympic arenas) are specifically barred from talking about their experiences (in the form of blogs, books, photo essays, etc.) because it supposedly infringes on the IOC's "product". You say "most of the athletes are not there for the money. Most have no hope of winning, and many have very little chance of getting on TV". So tell me why *are* they there? It used to be so that they could compete and have a story to tell. The IOC has stolen that story and sold it to the highest bidder.
I am not opposed to commercialization and I have nothing against the sponsors. I'm opposed to the IOC's rape and exploitation of the very athletes it is supposed to serve.
Anybody remember when the Olympics were about bringing people from diverse cultures together for healthy competition in the spirit of brotherhood? Yeah, me neither. The horrifying way that the IOC exploits the athletes to fill their own coffers makes me sick. For that and many other reasons, I stopped supporting the Olympics many years ago.
The way I read this is that you can connect it to your computer *or* to the wall ethernet jack. That's why it supports USB power but also includes a separate power supply. It looks like it does not have to be connected to your computer to act as as access point or router. Seems like a nice tool, if you ask me. I'm frequently working in server rooms, etc. that do not have a handy ethernet jack near my workspace. I carry a bulky access point around to assist, but a device that can switch from one mode to another, is small, and comes in a rugged carrying case (preferrably with the words "Don't Panic" written in large, friendly letters on the cover) would be nice.
If what your eyes tell you (you're moving) is out of sync with what your inner ear tells you (you're not moving) a lot of people get nauseous and toss their cookies. That's why folks who get car sick are okay if they keep looking out the window; their eyes tell them that they're moving, so it's in sync with their inner ear.
That is complete and utter baloney. Ask anyone who suffers regularly from motion sickness to ride a Tilt-A-Whirl but keep their eyes closed. They will *still* end up dizzy and sick. A common "remedy" that non-motion-sickness-sufferers like to advise is to keep your eyes on something that's moving with you (like the floor of said Tilt-A-Whirl), or alternately, keep your eyes *away* from the floor and on the outside world. Doesn't matter where you keep your eyes, you're still gonna get dizzy and that dizziness doesn't just go away when the ride stops. In severe cases, it can take several days.
No, I understand perfectly, but protecting an internal network is not the firewall's job. The firewall's job is to act as a gatekeeper to traffic passing through it wherever it's placed in the network. What you are proposing is a fundamental change in network design, of which the firewall is only a very small part. VLAN's, proxy servers, etc. all play a part in securing an internal network. It doesn't make sense to place the blame for an insecure internal network at the feet of a single firewall (misconfigured or otherwise).
If someone brings in an insecure laptop and plugs it into a random port on your switch, you can hardly blame the firewall between your LAN and the internet if the laptop starts spewing Sasser around your network. That's where VLAN's, internal firewalls, and other security measures come into play.
Regardless, my response was in answer to your comment about firewalls not protecting internal networks, not the intricacies of switchport-level network security.
Firewalls assume they're (sic) aren't malicious things happening on your side of it.
Might I suggest that you preprend the words "Poorly configured" to that sentence? A well-administered firewall assumes *anything* going through it is potentially malicious.
This was back in the day. Back when floppies were the only thing anyone used. The policy was obviously developed by managers who had an inkling of technology, but not a complete grasp, so they ended up taking the shotgun approach, hitting a lot, but missing just as much.
I used to work at a government defense contractor and this type of policy was standard there. No CD players, no radios, nothing with any type electronics could be brought in just in case they could somehow be used as a transmitter or to steal data or something. Oddly enough, floppies could be used. Go figure.
So, after having read the article, it looked like the reason behind every one of those selections was because the owner of the patent chose to enforce it. There wasn't one word mentioned on why any of the patents themselves were a bad idea. For example:
1) "The EFF is worried that Acacia, which has already sued several large communications companies, is unfairly targeting small audio- and video-streaming websites."
5) "...said the EFF is afraid Ideaflood may try to go after LiveJournal members."
7) "The EFF is afraid Test Central will use its patent to scare off distance-learning organizations."
8) "But Nintendo is being a big bully."
And so on. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of those patents look dangerous to me, given the overly-vague and broad descriptions, but revoking a patent simply because a company is "a big bully" is ridiculous. What would be the point of having a patent if you couldn't use it? Furthermore, just because a technology is extremely useful (read: Kill App) doesn't mean it belongs in the pubic domain.
Let's consider #3 for a moment, Acceris Communication's voice over IP technology patent. Assuming it's much more specific than the article suggests, why should they not be able to benefit from creating that particular VOIP technology? So what if lots of people use it? Isn't that the whole point? Create a killer app, then sell it for tons of money. Then when the patent expires other people can copy it.
There's no mention of prior art anywhere in the article, which is a whole other argument. I mean, if I suddenly patented the wheel, for example, and started suing everyone who had ever used a certain geometrically shaped object, then I could see you having a case.
Slashdot Mirror
killing Superman would be just like killing Daffy Duck.
You can't kill Daffy Duck. All you can do is blow his feathers off with dynamite or make his beak spin around with a shotgun blast or something.
read the prompt with incredulity and then apply their best judgment
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
I wouldn't trust the average user to make toast without burning down the house.
Im going to the pyramid with the ever-widening hole in it.
it wouldn't really need the WiFi
/. complaints that it was lacking. Personally, I'd rather have it over-featured than under.
But if it *didn't* have WiFi, you'd see
Looks like they use at least some of the same USGS satellite pictures that Terraserver uses.
Any idea what SCL threshold you were using on the gateway?
I think it's generally set to 7 or 8. There's a procedure in one of the guides to track hit rate to help you adjust it for your environment.
I'm about to try out Microsoft Intelligent Message Filter for exchange
A couple of my customers asked me to install that for them. It's not very configurable or very granular, but it seems to work at least passably well. Plus, it's very easy to install and configure and requires little maintenance.
Dollywood's Splash Country in Tennessee does this. For a couple of bucks, you can tag your kid with a radio transponder and one or more of the parents. The tags are paired at rental time. At any kiosk throughout the park, you can hold your transponder up to the scanner and it will show you the location of all other matching transponders on a little video map, as well as the last time it was detected.
I found it *extremely* useful since I could let my daughter ride the waterslides without worrying about how to find her when it was time for lunch or time to go home. Likewise, she could find me quickly and easily if she needed to. I certainly didn't feel that my privacy was being invaded and I wasn't able to track any other users in the park.
Is there potential for abuse? Of course there is, but it's like any other tool. It can be used for good or evil. In this case, I feel there's no evil intent and it helps prevent lost kids.
Because XM is free of advertising.
No, it's not. It's only mostly free of advertising. All of the rebroadcast stations (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) still have commercials, as do many of the talk-type stations like the comedy channels. The only stations commercial-free are the all-music ones.
but he didn't think it was the radiation
I submit that he was grasping for any alternative he could make himself believe that didn't involve him dying a horrible death.
the popup blocking has to be turned off
Sadly, that's one of the main reasons to use Firefox. Actually, pogo.com itself works, it's just that when you close the page, firefox.exe remains resident in memory. Then when you try to re-launch the app, you get the "Choose a profile" dialogue box. The only solution I've found is to Ctrl-Alt-Delete and kill the process. A bit too involved for my mother-in-law.
I use Firefox on Windows and Linux platforms. I convinced my wife and mother-in-law to switch. They both switched back almost immediately. Firefox constantly crashed on their favorite website (pogo.com). Slashdot itself frequently requires multiple refreshes to render properly. Both bugs duly reported months ago with no response (ok, I know they're minor and low-priority). Firefox has come a long way, but until it's done, wide acceptance will be hard to achieve.
And it only costs thousands of dollars more than a regular thermostat! What a bargain!
Yes, the Olympics are over commercialized, but what isn't? It does not mean that the the athletes are evil. Most of the athletes are not there for the money. Most have no hope of winning, and many have very little chance of getting on TV.
I never said the Olympics were over-commercialized. I said that the IOC exploits the athletes to line its pockets. According to the IOC, they own the athletes completely. The IOC claims to own every image, every word, every thought, every movement of every athlete as a potential cash cow. The IOC rakes in *billions* through advertising deals and sale of broadcast rights and not a single red cent goes to any of the athletes. Not only that, the athletes (and now apparently anyone who sets foot inside the Olympic arenas) are specifically barred from talking about their experiences (in the form of blogs, books, photo essays, etc.) because it supposedly infringes on the IOC's "product". You say "most of the athletes are not there for the money. Most have no hope of winning, and many have very little chance of getting on TV". So tell me why *are* they there? It used to be so that they could compete and have a story to tell. The IOC has stolen that story and sold it to the highest bidder.
I am not opposed to commercialization and I have nothing against the sponsors. I'm opposed to the IOC's rape and exploitation of the very athletes it is supposed to serve.
Anybody remember when the Olympics were about bringing people from diverse cultures together for healthy competition in the spirit of brotherhood? Yeah, me neither. The horrifying way that the IOC exploits the athletes to fill their own coffers makes me sick. For that and many other reasons, I stopped supporting the Olympics many years ago.
The way I read this is that you can connect it to your computer *or* to the wall ethernet jack. That's why it supports USB power but also includes a separate power supply. It looks like it does not have to be connected to your computer to act as as access point or router. Seems like a nice tool, if you ask me. I'm frequently working in server rooms, etc. that do not have a handy ethernet jack near my workspace. I carry a bulky access point around to assist, but a device that can switch from one mode to another, is small, and comes in a rugged carrying case (preferrably with the words "Don't Panic" written in large, friendly letters on the cover) would be nice.
If what your eyes tell you (you're moving) is out of sync with what your inner ear tells you (you're not moving) a lot of people get nauseous and toss their cookies. That's why folks who get car sick are okay if they keep looking out the window; their eyes tell them that they're moving, so it's in sync with their inner ear.
That is complete and utter baloney. Ask anyone who suffers regularly from motion sickness to ride a Tilt-A-Whirl but keep their eyes closed. They will *still* end up dizzy and sick. A common "remedy" that non-motion-sickness-sufferers like to advise is to keep your eyes on something that's moving with you (like the floor of said Tilt-A-Whirl), or alternately, keep your eyes *away* from the floor and on the outside world. Doesn't matter where you keep your eyes, you're still gonna get dizzy and that dizziness doesn't just go away when the ride stops. In severe cases, it can take several days.
display the caller-id from my cell phone
That would be awesome!
they are laughing all the way to the bank
That explains all the funny looks.
You misunderstand.
No, I understand perfectly, but protecting an internal network is not the firewall's job. The firewall's job is to act as a gatekeeper to traffic passing through it wherever it's placed in the network. What you are proposing is a fundamental change in network design, of which the firewall is only a very small part. VLAN's, proxy servers, etc. all play a part in securing an internal network. It doesn't make sense to place the blame for an insecure internal network at the feet of a single firewall (misconfigured or otherwise).
If someone brings in an insecure laptop and plugs it into a random port on your switch, you can hardly blame the firewall between your LAN and the internet if the laptop starts spewing Sasser around your network. That's where VLAN's, internal firewalls, and other security measures come into play.
Regardless, my response was in answer to your comment about firewalls not protecting internal networks, not the intricacies of switchport-level network security.
Firewalls assume they're (sic) aren't malicious things happening on your side of it.
Might I suggest that you preprend the words "Poorly configured" to that sentence? A well-administered firewall assumes *anything* going through it is potentially malicious.
This was back in the day. Back when floppies were the only thing anyone used. The policy was obviously developed by managers who had an inkling of technology, but not a complete grasp, so they ended up taking the shotgun approach, hitting a lot, but missing just as much.
I used to work at a government defense contractor and this type of policy was standard there. No CD players, no radios, nothing with any type electronics could be brought in just in case they could somehow be used as a transmitter or to steal data or something. Oddly enough, floppies could be used. Go figure.
So, after having read the article, it looked like the reason behind every one of those selections was because the owner of the patent chose to enforce it. There wasn't one word mentioned on why any of the patents themselves were a bad idea. For example:
1) "The EFF is worried that Acacia, which has already sued several large communications companies, is unfairly targeting small audio- and video-streaming websites."
5) "...said the EFF is afraid Ideaflood may try to go after LiveJournal members."
7) "The EFF is afraid Test Central will use its patent to scare off distance-learning organizations."
8) "But Nintendo is being a big bully."
And so on. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of those patents look dangerous to me, given the overly-vague and broad descriptions, but revoking a patent simply because a company is "a big bully" is ridiculous. What would be the point of having a patent if you couldn't use it? Furthermore, just because a technology is extremely useful (read: Kill App) doesn't mean it belongs in the pubic domain.
Let's consider #3 for a moment, Acceris Communication's voice over IP technology patent. Assuming it's much more specific than the article suggests, why should they not be able to benefit from creating that particular VOIP technology? So what if lots of people use it? Isn't that the whole point? Create a killer app, then sell it for tons of money. Then when the patent expires other people can copy it.
There's no mention of prior art anywhere in the article, which is a whole other argument. I mean, if I suddenly patented the wheel, for example, and started suing everyone who had ever used a certain geometrically shaped object, then I could see you having a case.
And all because of that damned XML! Curse you, convienent and powerful notational scripting language!