At home I also use IMAP, it is just great, it's a shame its so hard to find a good graphical (I come from windows world so I do like my graphical app sometime) imap client for linux (sylpheed I tried and don't like, which leaves mozilla-mail and that is what I call heavy taking 2mins just to check mail, I use it anyway, but I can't wait for minotaur).
Hard? No, I wouldn't say that. Kmail, which has won various awards, fully supports IMAP. Screenshots are here.
Evolution, which is basically a feature-for-feature clone of Microsoft Outlook, also supports IMAP. Screenshots are here.
I've used both and they are both excellent GUI mail clients. I've also used IMAP with both, and their support of IMAP is very good. Evolution is nice because it is a total PIM/Groupware solution, while kmail is a nice "just-a-mail-client" app (it's a lot like Eudora). Both support nice filtering options for POP3 mail. With IMAP you really need server side filtering, though as there is no standards for filtering mail on IMAP. Both support multiple mail accounts and servers and multiple protocols. Both apps support all standard Unix mail formats, including mbox and maildir. In addition, Evolution supports Eudora, Netscape and Outlook Express mailboxes.
Both are nice apps, each has their strengths and weaknesses, but both are open source and run on many Unix platforms and of course Linux.
No it isn't. Just read the bills, particularly some of the crossed out text. Just read this crossed out text from the TX bill:
2) [makes or maintains a connection, whether physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to: [(A) a cable, wire, or other component of or media attached to a multichannel video or information services system; or [(B) a television set, videotape recorder, or other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information system;
Note that the key words here are "multichannel video or information systems [or services]." This bill, as originally written, is targetted squarely at cable TV and Internet customers.
And I wouldn't doubt for 1 second that they didn't have NAT in mind.
You'll notice from this piece that the first public mobile phones began during the period of 1945-1947, "coincidentally" around the time of WWII. Of course, you'll probably never find the documents that say why this technology was "really" being developed, because they'd probably still be classified.
I think you'd be more likely to see this kind of stuff in a HUD on a windshield, rather than goggles. Remember that consumers are little more picky about comfort and style than the military is.:)
Also, I'm sure you will see this developed for civilians. Lots of military technology eventually ends up in the hands of civilians, albeit a bit stripped down or otherwise modified with consumer preferences and safety in mind. Examples include, of course, GPS, various off-road vehicle technologies, cell phones (yep, originally developed for the military), the Internet itself, spread-spectrum wireless technology, the list just goes on and on...
Bottom line: if someone can make a buck off of military-developed technology, they will.:)
You are then left with a choice, stay with an unsecure system which will never be patched (unless independent sources patch the flaw,) or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did, but not have the fatal security flaw.
Really, it's quite an ingenious business plan, because they aren't forcing you to do anything, just making sure they get paid for all these patches they've been releasing for free.
Oh, c'mon, you're giving Microsoft WAYYY to much credit. They might be smart, they might be evil, but they're not *that* smart (but quite possibly that evil;). Do you know how hard it would be to *purposely* add a fatal security flaw in a system that wasn't even obvious until 7 years later?
Nah, if there's a security flaw in an OS and nobody notices it until 7 years later, it's safe to chalk it up to programmer and/or designer error.
Somehow I think that IT managers, especially in small firms will turn away from MS and look to Linux - if for no reason than personal job protection.
As much as I would love it if that were true, somehow I doubt it. I personally am beginning to think that M$ is so entrenched into companies that they'll literally do *anything* M$ says.:(
but maybe you don't have the possibility of deducing the carrier from the number as it is?
That depends on where you are and the ILEC, etc. In Michigan, cell #s were pulled out of a pool from Pontiac, Ann Arbor, and Detroit exchanges...I imagine you could figure it out, but there are so many carriers (Sprint PCS, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Nextel, and Cingular are the bigger ones I can think of off the top of my head) that I'm not at all certain you could keep track of it very easily.
I'll accept that, in the diversity of programmers, there are some that are writing insecure code. But stereotyping of this sort is an act of the columnist. Even if there are some programmers who adopt this stereotype, they do not nearly comprise the entire population. The existence of many professional, responsible programmers is completely discounted by the columnist.
No, it isn't. The columnist points to security holes in software written by our best and brightest: Linux, Samba, and Evolution to name three. Nobody's gonna say that the people who develop these packages are anything less than professional, responsible programmers. People like Alan Cox and Andrew Tridgell. What Lasser is saying is that even the brightest, most professional and responsbile programmers make mistakes, especially when they're writing in a low-level language. Buffer overflow problems or format string errors are very easy to make and are oftentimes not obvious until well after the code is released. And yes, even people like Alan Cox or Andrew Tridgell or Linus Torvalds make mistakes. Shocking, I know.
And if you think about it, in many ways, Lasser is write. I will say that just writing in HLLs is not going to solve the problem. You *can* write bad, insecure code in HLLs. But it's not nearly as easy for professional, responsible programmer to make a mistake in an HLL as it is in LLL. That's the spirit of the article, and I happen to agree with it.
It's a Saturday Night Live thing... the parent post is actually quite funny if you watched Saturday Night Live back when Norm MacDonald was doing the fake news. No actual Germans were harmed in the making of this post.:)
I've written code in RPG. In some ways it's actually kinda cool because you can write very complex programs with very few lines of code. In other ways it sucks because it's stuck in 80-column land and relies on a fixed-field format, yada yada and is wayyyy different than more conventional programming languages like C or Fortran.
Too long. How about, "WARNING: This product is broken and fixing it is illegal. It may not work in your hardware, and it may even break your hardware."
Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying, but Mozilla does, in fact, have this feature. I use it every day to open all of the web comics I want to read.
The last Moz build I used that wasn't phoenix was 1.2a... so I may be a bit behind here...;)
One thing I don't like about Mozilla's tabbed browsing is that there is only one close widget. I prefer Galeon's take, where I can have a close widget on each tab.
I both agree and disagree...I like having individual close widgets on each tab because it's convenient and more intutitive, but at the same time I don't appreciate the extra space they eat up, which causes the titles in the tabs to be truncated even worse.
With pop-up blocking, Mozilla 1.3 grants finer control, with the ability to block pop-ups from specific sites. This grants me a little more leeway between no pop-ups and being able to use some UBB forums with all the JavaScript bells and whistles turned on.
That's in Phoenix, too. You can define which sites are allowed to popup and which ones aren't.
users of slow machines will love Phoenix, and so on.
No, not just slow machines... aside from being lightweight, Phoenix has features that Moz just don't have, such as user-customizable toolbars, the ability to open a whole folder of bookmarks in separate tabs in one click, a cleaner user interface, and pop-ups disabled by default
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, no fair! I really wanted one!!! :-P
No, the Yahoo! story isn't, but the distrowatch story is (obviously).
:)
Quite hilarious, too...Particularly this screenshot of the Windows XP desktop.
No, dude....I downloaded the interpreter...it works... really. I even wrote a silly little program with it...
:)
that's the real AFJ here...
At home I also use IMAP, it is just great, it's a shame its so hard to find a good graphical (I come from windows world so I do like my graphical app sometime) imap client for linux (sylpheed I tried and don't like, which leaves mozilla-mail and that is what I call heavy taking 2mins just to check mail, I use it anyway, but I can't wait for minotaur).
Hard? No, I wouldn't say that. Kmail, which has won various awards, fully supports IMAP. Screenshots are here.
Evolution, which is basically a feature-for-feature clone of Microsoft Outlook, also supports IMAP. Screenshots are here.
I've used both and they are both excellent GUI mail clients. I've also used IMAP with both, and their support of IMAP is very good. Evolution is nice because it is a total PIM/Groupware solution, while kmail is a nice "just-a-mail-client" app (it's a lot like Eudora). Both support nice filtering options for POP3 mail. With IMAP you really need server side filtering, though as there is no standards for filtering mail on IMAP. Both support multiple mail accounts and servers and multiple protocols. Both apps support all standard Unix mail formats, including mbox and maildir. In addition, Evolution supports Eudora, Netscape and Outlook Express mailboxes.
Both are nice apps, each has their strengths and weaknesses, but both are open source and run on many Unix platforms and of course Linux.
No it isn't. Just read the bills, particularly some of the crossed out text. Just read this crossed out text from the TX bill:
2) [makes or maintains a connection, whether
physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to:
[(A) a cable, wire, or other component of or
media attached to a multichannel video or information services
system; or
[(B) a television set, videotape recorder, or
other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information
system;
Note that the key words here are "multichannel video or information systems [or services]." This bill, as originally written, is targetted squarely at cable TV and Internet customers.
And I wouldn't doubt for 1 second that they didn't have NAT in mind.
You'll notice from this piece that the first public mobile phones began during the period of 1945-1947, "coincidentally" around the time of WWII. Of course, you'll probably never find the documents that say why this technology was "really" being developed, because they'd probably still be classified.
Tar is good for preserving some data for a very long time.
:)
tar combined with gzip or bzip2 is even better because it requires less space and may be more usefull on mass-limited spaceshuttles.
I think you'd be more likely to see this kind of stuff in a HUD on a windshield, rather than goggles. Remember that consumers are little more picky about comfort and style than the military is. :)
:)
Also, I'm sure you will see this developed for civilians. Lots of military technology eventually ends up in the hands of civilians, albeit a bit stripped down or otherwise modified with consumer preferences and safety in mind. Examples include, of course, GPS, various off-road vehicle technologies, cell phones (yep, originally developed for the military), the Internet itself, spread-spectrum wireless technology, the list just goes on and on...
Bottom line: if someone can make a buck off of military-developed technology, they will.
You are then left with a choice, stay with an unsecure system which will never be patched (unless independent sources patch the flaw,) or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did, but not have the fatal security flaw.
;). Do you know how hard it would be to *purposely* add a fatal security flaw in a system that wasn't even obvious until 7 years later?
Really, it's quite an ingenious business plan, because they aren't forcing you to do anything, just making sure they get paid for all these patches they've been releasing for free.
Oh, c'mon, you're giving Microsoft WAYYY to much credit. They might be smart, they might be evil, but they're not *that* smart (but quite possibly that evil
Nah, if there's a security flaw in an OS and nobody notices it until 7 years later, it's safe to chalk it up to programmer and/or designer error.
Somehow I think that IT managers, especially in small firms will turn away from MS and look to Linux - if for no reason than personal job protection.
:(
As much as I would love it if that were true, somehow I doubt it. I personally am beginning to think that M$ is so entrenched into companies that they'll literally do *anything* M$ says.
Mmmmm..yummy gooey XBOX-ness... :)
but maybe you don't have the possibility of deducing the carrier from the number as it is?
That depends on where you are and the ILEC, etc. In Michigan, cell #s were pulled out of a pool from Pontiac, Ann Arbor, and Detroit exchanges...I imagine you could figure it out, but there are so many carriers (Sprint PCS, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Nextel, and Cingular are the bigger ones I can think of off the top of my head) that I'm not at all certain you could keep track of it very easily.
I'll accept that, in the diversity of programmers, there are some that are writing insecure code. But stereotyping of this sort is an act of the columnist. Even if there are some programmers who adopt this stereotype, they do not nearly comprise the entire population. The existence of many professional, responsible programmers is completely discounted by the columnist.
No, it isn't. The columnist points to security holes in software written by our best and brightest: Linux, Samba, and Evolution to name three. Nobody's gonna say that the people who develop these packages are anything less than professional, responsible programmers. People like Alan Cox and Andrew Tridgell. What Lasser is saying is that even the brightest, most professional and responsbile programmers make mistakes, especially when they're writing in a low-level language. Buffer overflow problems or format string errors are very easy to make and are oftentimes not obvious until well after the code is released. And yes, even people like Alan Cox or Andrew Tridgell or Linus Torvalds make mistakes. Shocking, I know.
And if you think about it, in many ways, Lasser is write. I will say that just writing in HLLs is not going to solve the problem. You *can* write bad, insecure code in HLLs. But it's not nearly as easy for professional, responsible programmer to make a mistake in an HLL as it is in LLL. That's the spirit of the article, and I happen to agree with it.
We have to hear it twice because I know I'll definitely be using my cellphone underwater.
:)
Yeah, but all the Slashdot readers at Bikini Bottom might like that feature. After all, they are the secret power behind Slashdot.
It's a Saturday Night Live thing ... the parent post is actually quite funny if you watched Saturday Night Live back when Norm MacDonald was doing the fake news. No actual Germans were harmed in the making of this post. :)
Not only that, but the PPP protocol itself supports compression, and is enabled by default on most versions of Windows.
I've written code in RPG. In some ways it's actually kinda cool because you can write very complex programs with very few lines of code. In other ways it sucks because it's stuck in 80-column land and relies on a fixed-field format, yada yada and is wayyyy different than more conventional programming languages like C or Fortran.
Too long. How about, "WARNING: This product is broken and fixing it is illegal. It may not work in your hardware, and it may even break your hardware."
Hmph. I thought 'Linux for the Rest of Us' was called 'Mac OS X'. ;)
Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying, but Mozilla does, in fact, have this feature. I use it every day to open all of the web comics I want to read.
;)
The last Moz build I used that wasn't phoenix was 1.2a... so I may be a bit behind here...
One thing I don't like about Mozilla's tabbed browsing is that there is only one close widget. I prefer Galeon's take, where I can have a close widget on each tab.
I both agree and disagree...I like having individual close widgets on each tab because it's convenient and more intutitive, but at the same time I don't appreciate the extra space they eat up, which causes the titles in the tabs to be truncated even worse.
With pop-up blocking, Mozilla 1.3 grants finer control, with the ability to block pop-ups from specific sites. This grants me a little more leeway between no pop-ups and being able to use some UBB forums with all the JavaScript bells and whistles turned on.
That's in Phoenix, too. You can define which sites are allowed to popup and which ones aren't.
"But Cap'n! I cannae change the laws of physics!"
Umm, actually it's a 5" screen. It takes less space (since the monitor sits inside the case) and it consumes much less power than that 15" CRT.
No, only half bull. ;)
users of slow machines will love Phoenix, and so on.
No, not just slow machines... aside from being lightweight, Phoenix has features that Moz just don't have, such as user-customizable toolbars, the ability to open a whole folder of bookmarks in separate tabs in one click, a cleaner user interface, and pop-ups disabled by default
Hydrogen peroxide as fuel. Insert obligatory bleached-blonde joke here. ;)