Well, if you look at what Google doesn't index you might think twice about that. The only thing I can tell that google does index is the flat version of pages -- e.g. look what a search for 'linux' on Slashdot returned from google - pretty much only the static pages. Though these do have some comments on them; I think it's whatever is rated >= 1.
Well then I don't understand what your post was for. I was disputing someone's claim that Firewire 2.0 would be out "real soon now," since people have been saying that for 3 years. Specifically, since USB 2.0 was announced, I've been hearing "by the time USB 2.0 is out, Firewire will be at 800 Mbps." Well, USB 2.0 is here, and Firewire 2.0 is not. Now this person is saying "by the time USB On-the-Go is here, Firewire will be at 800 Mbps." I was disputing that suggestion, and that was the point of my post.
Maybe you can help me understand what the point of your post was, since all you did was list some devices, and say "Firewire > USB 2.0", which is possibly the worst argument for a specific technology that I've ever seen. As I implied in my original reply to you, you should brush up on your reading comprehension and re-read my post, which asked, "Where's Firewire 2.0?" now that USB 2.0 is here.
And I didn't mean for this to get into a "USB SUXOR/FIREWIRE ROXOR" flame war, but regarding your statement: No USB 2.0 implimentation I have ever seen can match Firewire's throughput. How many USB 2.0 implementations have you evaluated? I mean personally. Are you an engineer, or somebody who just reads MacKiDo and regurgitates that info as gospel?
And as for people using what's better, that's just plain wrong. You disproved that yourself by mentioning Windows, which is used by 95% of the world as their desktop operating system despite obvious benefits in Mac OS. Firewire vs USB is another area that disproves that theory, as is MP3 vs Ogg. In all of these situations, the better technology is losing out for various reasons.
I was not trying to compare the price or availability of USB 2.0 vs Firewire. I was saying that the original poster's comment that "By the time USB ___ ships, firewire will be twice as fast" has been said for about 2 or 3 years now, and Firewire 2.0 is still not here. People said Firewire 2.0 would be out by the time USB 2.0 shipped, and here we are and Firewire 2.0 is nowhere in sight. I am sure it will come out eventually, but at this point I think USB 3.0 will probably come out first. I'm not debating the technological merits of either protocol, but if history has taught us anything it's that people buy computer equipment based on meaningless numbers such as MHz. If you tell some joe on the street all the benefits of each protocol and then say "Firewire is 400 Mbps, USB 2 is 480 Mbps" he's going to pick USB2, especially since his home PC has a USB connection anyway. It's a shame, because I personally think firewire is superior, but Firewire 2.0 has been vaporware for about 3 years now.
http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html Undated, but apparently soon after USB 2.0 was announced:"FireWire will go to 800 Mbps this year or next, and 1.6 Gbps probably in another year or so after that. USB 2.0 is not born yet... in fact, it isn't even yet fully conceived -- it is more a dirty thought in someone's mind. "
By the time this ships, Firewire will be twice as fast.
You realize that people have been saying this since USB 2.0 was announced, right? USB 2.0 is here; you can go to any store and buy a PCI card for it, and it comes standard on many PCs. Where's FireWire 2.0?
Should video card manufacturers start using better fans for reliability? Or do they just want us to upgrade next year when the fan dies?
Yes, and yes.
Last Christmas I purchased a GeForce 3 Ti500 for my girlfriend. about 3 months ago, the fan basically stopped spinning -- actually it spins about 10 rpm, so slow that I can watch it turn, which is as good as stopped in thie case. I am glad that VisionTek is dying; this is the second card of theirs that I have (the first Ti500 was DOA; this was the replacement) and it is by far the worst experience I have ever had with any manufacturer. From now on I will stick with someone like Abit or Asus, who actually have experience making components like these -- though I recently bought a Gainward GeForce 4 4200 128 meg ViVo that, so far, has been pretty flawless. Anyhow, I guess it's just a crapshoot.
Re:Why do no stories display the year?
on
Slashdot Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
Did you ever respond to this message from John Gilmore, which asks why you sided against Karl Auerbach, who (to the best of my knowledge) sought to gain access to ICANN's financial documents? From what I can tell, ICANN's only motivation is to make ICANN more influential (i.e. for its directors to line their own pockets). Given that ICANN is technically a nonprofit organization, this doesn't seem very ethical. Anyhow, the email text is below:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:26:26 -0800
From: John Gilmore
Subject: Re: ICANN: Auerbach's Allegations Off Target
To: vcerf@mci.net, gnu@new.toad.com
> "Karl paints this as a dispute between him and ICANN management, but
> nothing could be further from the truth," noted Board chairman Vint Cerf.
> "ICANN management is merely carrying out its obligation to follow the
> wishes of the Board as a whole rather than follow the dictates of any
> single Director."
Hi, Vint.
I
haven't wanted to disrupt our friendship, so I've held off a long time in
telling you what I think about how you are leading ICANN. That's why this
message is a little longer than it needs to be; I'm saying things that I've
been bottling up for a while.
I don't want to be considered a friend of what you now stand for.
You
are on the wrong side of this issue, as you have been on the wrong side of
many issues regarding ICANN. If ICANN has secrets about who it is doing backdoor
favors with, those *should* be made public. And you, as Chairman, as the
most prominent and trusted board member, and as the architect of the openness
that should still be in the Internet, should have been way ahead of Karl
Auerbach in making them public.
Even
if those secrets are never made public, or even if there are no terrible
secrets inside ICANN, the activities of ICANN MUST be available to every
person on the Board of Directors. Without restriction, without delay, without
subversion. By law, and for good reasons.
You
have been a rubber stamp for many corrupt ideas out of Network Solutions,
Verisign and ICANN ever since your election. When I complained to you in
the past, such as when the NSI contract was amended to give them a perpetual
monopoly, you said that there was nothing else that you could do. I disagreed
with that sentiment then, and I disagree with it now. You could have left
the contract the way it was, rather than amend it. You don't even have to
make things better to keep my respect; you could keep things from getting
worse. But you continue to choose to make things worse. Now you are defending
ICANN's lack of openness even with its own elected directors!
ICANN
was created to promise openness, transparency, accountability, and competition.
It has provided none of those, and actively works every month to reduce what
little it has provided. You have worked with it to eliminate, rather than
create, those promises.
Opening
whatever squirming can of worms that is calling the shots at ICANN is what
is needed. I can see that ICANN management is terrified that directors from
outside the old-boy network might actually find out the details of what ICANN
does day by day. They have eliminated any future threat of that, by eliminating
outside directors after this term. And they are delaying the current directors'
access to information, in the hope that they can permanently avoid outside
scrutiny.
I've
been a director of several California corporations. I've read that part of
the law myself. I've invoked it in a couple of occasions. I contributed significant
funding for Karl's lawsuit. Karl is right and you and the ICANN staff are
wrong. And now I find you lying about it in a press release. "ICANN management
is merely carrying out its obligation to follow the wishes of the Board as
a whole..." ICANN *management* instigated those policies, the board didn't.
The board has never even considered them.
Virtually
everyone at EFF has been looking for ways that we could help to open ICANN
and get it to do what it was chartered to do. I've had to hold them back
for years, telling them that participation was a waste of our scarce time
-- and that no matter how much time they put in, ICANN would have to get
really bad before it would ever get better. I put two years of my own life
into the domain-name issues, with CORE. It became clear that the strings
were being pulled behind the scenes, because the right answers were relatively
obvious, yet the wrong answers got approved, providing billions of dollars
of benefit to certain parties with heavy ties to the US military. Rather
than ICANN making open decisions and using transparent processes, whoever
pulls those strings is still controlling what happens. But under ICANN, the
process is even murkier and further hidden from public scrutiny. And you're
helping.
All
the way back at the start of ICANN, EFF and I proposed amendments that would
provide a "Bill of Rights" and a "Sunshine Act" and a "Freedom of Information
Act" in ICANN's Bylaws. These were all summarily rejected. ICANN does not
give a damn about the fundamental rights of citizens or Internet users. It
does not want to operate in. the sunshine. And it does not want information
about what it's doing to be made available even to its own directors, let
alone to the public. Give me one good reason why such an organization should
get even a millisecond more of your support -- or anyone's.
The
law gives directors an "absolute right" because directors exist to be INDEPENDENT
OF and SUPERIOR TO the management. Each and every director has a separate
duty to the company; each one carries it out in their own. way. The Board
cannot prevent any board member from merely inquiring into the state of the
company. The Board cannot condition any board member's inquiry on agreement
to a set of arbitrary terms. Nor can the management. This is not only a good
idea -- it's the law.
ICANN
is going down, one way or another. Either it will go down like East Germany,
with a peaceful transition to governance responsive to the public will, or
it will go down like Japan, with big bombs dropped on it. ICANN has lost
all semblance of credibility and merely seeks to entrench its unaccountable
power.
I
have absolutely no idea what you are doing leading that megalomaniac, unaccountable,
unresponsive, anti-expression, anti-public-interest organization. Did they
take your kids hostage? Did you sell your soul for a mess of pottage? What
hold do they have over you?
I
used to think much better of you than this, Vint. You can see that even now
I'm grasping at straws rather than believe that YOU are one of the megalomaniacs.
But the evidence continues to pile up, and I'm afraid it's true. I don't
want to be the friend of such a person. I'll see you from the other side
of the courtroom. Bye.
So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now? Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends?
Yes, as World War III looms on the horizon, the world unites to stop the patent madness and give us the uberweapon we really need: One Click Shopping!
One: Apple's revenue comes from it's hardware sales. If people can go out and buy plain vanilla PCs and install MacOS on them for significantly cheaper than they can buy a Mac, Apple's income will drop a great deal.
Just because it runs x86 hardware doesn't mean any x86 system can run the operating system. As Microsoft has shown with the Xbox, it is possible to take standard x86 hardware and make it really hard to run anything besides what it's been designed for by the manufacturer. I would imagine there's a similar way to ensure that software only runs on "approved" hardware -- i.e. only the Apple P3 system.
I personally am tired of hearing this ridiculous rumor -- I've been hearing it for 5 years now, at least, and it seems no closer to reality than then. The people pushing these rumors are probably the ones who have had "proof" in the past that "Apple is releasing a PDA at the next MacWorld!" I can't figure out why anyone gives them any credence at all.
A Linux worm that started spreading a week ago has reached a plateau after infecting about 7,000 servers and turning the hosts into a peer-to-peer network that could be used to attack other computers.
Known as Linux.Slapper.Worm, Slapper and Apache/mod_ssl, the worm's spread has fallen far short of the biggest attackers in recent times. For example, Code Red infected 400,000 servers last summer. And according to the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, the Nimda virus compromised 86,000 systems last fall.
If these "new" worms exploit the same hole in OpenSSL, wouldn't one expect them to have a similarly low plateau? And for the record, exactly what configurations are vulnerable? If you have Apache compiled with mod_ssl, but don't do "apachectl startssl", are you vulnerable?
Basicly, on the 4200's, if you go for double the memory for almost double the price, you will see a performance hit.
I purchased A GF4 4200 128MB VIVO for my girlfriend for $170 (price has since increased). Are you telling me the GeForce 4 4200 64 Meg sells for $85? Frankly, every review I read said that the extra 64 megs of ram is of far more benefit than 56 more MHz of memory speed, so I don't believe your claim of a performance hit. Which do you think is really of more value; being able to process the data 11.2% faster, or being able to store 100% more textures? (which I would guess equates to 50% fewer disk seeks?)
I wrote a big long reply to this, but closed the browser before posting it. Sigh again.
Local archiving: no, never came up, but something I'll have to consider.
Working offline: no, but the benefits of not being bound to the exchange server in our office outweighed the possibility of the network going down.
We have tested Netscape, IE, Mozilla and Opera, though only 2 or 3 versions of each. It's not like the interface is using advanced dhtml or javascript... I would imagine that good old html renders pretty similarly across browsers?
It does use SSL.
It's quite fast, though since we have only 5 users it's hard to test "heavy load."
It is publicly accessible, though you need a login and password to check mail, of course. Rather than a problem, this was seen as a major benefit as it allows users to check mail from home (yes, I know it is possible with imap clients, but these people are not really the configure-your-own-mail-client types).
Thanks for the tips, and thanks for replying. We're going to be evaluating the situation this week. As I said, the other users are currently running Outlook 2000 which has horrible imap and imap-ssl support. If Outlook doesn't work for them then I guess we'll try Mozilla or Netscape mail next, and then if they still don't like that, we'll look at using webmail as the primary.
If UT is setup like Q3 was with the Master Server authenticating the CD Key, I don't think anybody needs to register it to show they're running Linux, since the Master Server can easily track the client OS. Of course, registering the product wouldn't hurt.
Well, I submitted the following to Ask Slashdot and it was rejected, so I guess I will ask here. With all the stupid-assed, inane questions that frequently get asked of Slashdot I thought mine would be a shoe-in, as it's an actual real-world issue whose answer is not available in the first ten lines of a Google search, but I guess the retardedness factor was too low in my post. Can anyone either a) help with the questions below, or b) help me make the question stupid enough that Slashdot will approve it?
Ask Slashdot: Using Webmail for a Company's Main Email Client? Posted by SmartSlashdotEditor on 9:01 Saturday 21 September 2002 from the slashdot-too-stupid-to-really-post-this dept. Evro writes: "I work for a small company and this week I finished setting up the IMAP server that is expected to replace our Exchange 5.5 system. I had really high hopes for the new system, but it seems to be acting very quirky. Everyone wants to continue using Outlook 2000 as the mail client, and it gives us nothing but problems when trying to use imap-ssl - users can check their mail, then 5 minutes later it says they can't open messages that are already in their inbox; even regular IMAP gives problems from time to time. Plus there's the annoyance of Outlook not saving sent mail to the server's Sent folder. I personally use Mozilla mail and it works pretty well, but I don't think these people are quite ready for Mozilla's quirks yet, though the fact that Mozilla works as well as it does is what leads me to believe the problem is with the clients rather than the server. I've set up Squirrel Mail as a webmail interface, and that's been received much better than Outlook, Outlook Express, or Eudora (which worked well technically, but nobody liked the interface) as mail clients. Squirrel Mail (over https) seems to do everything I would expect a mail client to do, does it pretty well, and is extremely easy to use and set up. My question is, has anyone setup a mail system for their (or any) company in which the main interface is a webmail client such as Squirrel Mail? If so, what problems have you encountered, and/or what pitfalls can you foresee?"
You know, I have never worked for a company that disbursed my salary two weeks after the end of the pay cycle! Always right at the end of the cycle, or even a couple days before. Is that legal?
My girlfriend works for a government agency now and has a similar latency between pay period and payroll issuance, so I don't think it's illegal -- I find it highly inconvenient, however. I think the theory is that when you're laid off, you'll still get 2 paychecks, assuming of course that the company's not run by a crook.
It's been quite a while since I scanned anything, but I remember that with whatever scanner I was using at the time, in Photoshop you would do file->acquire->twain and it would bring up the scanning program. This program scanned the image lightly as a preview, and then let you select however many "jobs" you wanted at once, so you could select 1 square as job 1, another as job 2, another as job 3. Then it would make one pass and generate an image for each job.
As I said, this was a while ago and I don't remember the scanner, but it was probably some UMAX. The name "Mira scanner" stands out in my mind as the scanning software. You scanner may have this capability also; poke around a bit.
I would like to thank you for participating on Slashdot. I can't think of anyone (famous) from the "open source community" that spends as much time actually interacting with the lay of the community. Rasmus from PHP, John Carmack, JWZ, a few of the samba guys, and maybe some others can be seen from time to time, but you are a relatively frequent poster. Thanks for giving us some info that's not fed through the filter of the media, and for bringing the "community" to Slashdot. Few "famous" people seem to have the balls/time to interact with the lusers in such a public forum, and it's appreciated greatly.
Honestly, no, because of the way he's whined about the tons of spam he's had to delete in the past (which, granted, may have made it past his filters). But point taken.
Slashdot Mirror
Also in that directory:
-rw-r--r-- 1 modssl modssl 753416 Oct 4 13:53 mod_ssl-2.8.11-1.3.27.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 modssl modssl 286 Oct 4 13:53 mod_ssl-2.8.11-1.3.27.tar.gz.asc
I have always wondered what Pixar's stance on this is. Jobs is one of Pixar's head guys, but they are owned by Disney.
What about fact checking? Pixar is not owned by Disney.
Well, if you look at what Google doesn't index you might think twice about that. The only thing I can tell that google does index is the flat version of pages -- e.g. look what a search for 'linux' on Slashdot returned from google - pretty much only the static pages. Though these do have some comments on them; I think it's whatever is rated >= 1.
Well then I don't understand what your post was for. I was disputing someone's claim that Firewire 2.0 would be out "real soon now," since people have been saying that for 3 years. Specifically, since USB 2.0 was announced, I've been hearing "by the time USB 2.0 is out, Firewire will be at 800 Mbps." Well, USB 2.0 is here, and Firewire 2.0 is not. Now this person is saying "by the time USB On-the-Go is here, Firewire will be at 800 Mbps." I was disputing that suggestion, and that was the point of my post.
Maybe you can help me understand what the point of your post was, since all you did was list some devices, and say "Firewire > USB 2.0", which is possibly the worst argument for a specific technology that I've ever seen. As I implied in my original reply to you, you should brush up on your reading comprehension and re-read my post, which asked, "Where's Firewire 2.0?" now that USB 2.0 is here.
And I didn't mean for this to get into a "USB SUXOR/FIREWIRE ROXOR" flame war, but regarding your statement: No USB 2.0 implimentation I have ever seen can match Firewire's throughput. How many USB 2.0 implementations have you evaluated? I mean personally. Are you an engineer, or somebody who just reads MacKiDo and regurgitates that info as gospel?
And as for people using what's better, that's just plain wrong. You disproved that yourself by mentioning Windows, which is used by 95% of the world as their desktop operating system despite obvious benefits in Mac OS. Firewire vs USB is another area that disproves that theory, as is MP3 vs Ogg. In all of these situations, the better technology is losing out for various reasons.
Please point me to anything that indicates that your TiBook, Gateway, or any of your other equipment runs on 800 Mbps Firewire.
You really need to go back to school and work on your reading comprehension skills.
I was not trying to compare the price or availability of USB 2.0 vs Firewire. I was saying that the original poster's comment that "By the time USB ___ ships, firewire will be twice as fast" has been said for about 2 or 3 years now, and Firewire 2.0 is still not here. People said Firewire 2.0 would be out by the time USB 2.0 shipped, and here we are and Firewire 2.0 is nowhere in sight. I am sure it will come out eventually, but at this point I think USB 3.0 will probably come out first. I'm not debating the technological merits of either protocol, but if history has taught us anything it's that people buy computer equipment based on meaningless numbers such as MHz. If you tell some joe on the street all the benefits of each protocol and then say "Firewire is 400 Mbps, USB 2 is 480 Mbps" he's going to pick USB2, especially since his home PC has a USB connection anyway. It's a shame, because I personally think firewire is superior, but Firewire 2.0 has been vaporware for about 3 years now.
By the time this ships, Firewire will be twice as fast.
You realize that people have been saying this since USB 2.0 was announced, right? USB 2.0 is here; you can go to any store and buy a PCI card for it, and it comes standard on many PCs. Where's FireWire 2.0?
Should video card manufacturers start using better fans for reliability? Or do they just want us to upgrade next year when the fan dies?
Yes, and yes.
Last Christmas I purchased a GeForce 3 Ti500 for my girlfriend. about 3 months ago, the fan basically stopped spinning -- actually it spins about 10 rpm, so slow that I can watch it turn, which is as good as stopped in thie case. I am glad that VisionTek is dying; this is the second card of theirs that I have (the first Ti500 was DOA; this was the replacement) and it is by far the worst experience I have ever had with any manufacturer. From now on I will stick with someone like Abit or Asus, who actually have experience making components like these -- though I recently bought a Gainward GeForce 4 4200 128 meg ViVo that, so far, has been pretty flawless. Anyhow, I guess it's just a crapshoot.
This is a setting you can change in your preferences. Go to http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome, it's the first item on the list.
an administration that wasn't living in the Dark Ages.
So true. Crusades, anyone?
... to get me to stop wearing my brainwave deflecting hat! Sinister indeed...
So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now? Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends?
Yes, as World War III looms on the horizon, the world unites to stop the patent madness and give us the uberweapon we really need: One Click Shopping!
One: Apple's revenue comes from it's hardware sales. If people can go out and buy plain vanilla PCs and install MacOS on them for significantly cheaper than they can buy a Mac, Apple's income will drop a great deal.
Just because it runs x86 hardware doesn't mean any x86 system can run the operating system. As Microsoft has shown with the Xbox, it is possible to take standard x86 hardware and make it really hard to run anything besides what it's been designed for by the manufacturer. I would imagine there's a similar way to ensure that software only runs on "approved" hardware -- i.e. only the Apple P3 system.
I personally am tired of hearing this ridiculous rumor -- I've been hearing it for 5 years now, at least, and it seems no closer to reality than then. The people pushing these rumors are probably the ones who have had "proof" in the past that "Apple is releasing a PDA at the next MacWorld!" I can't figure out why anyone gives them any credence at all.
Printable/Low bandwidth version
Though this has no banner ads, so Anand doesn't get any money if you view this one, but take your pick.
Basicly, on the 4200's, if you go for double the memory for almost double the price, you will see a performance hit.
I purchased A GF4 4200 128MB VIVO for my girlfriend for $170 (price has since increased). Are you telling me the GeForce 4 4200 64 Meg sells for $85? Frankly, every review I read said that the extra 64 megs of ram is of far more benefit than 56 more MHz of memory speed, so I don't believe your claim of a performance hit. Which do you think is really of more value; being able to process the data 11.2% faster, or being able to store 100% more textures? (which I would guess equates to 50% fewer disk seeks?)
- Local archiving: no, never came up, but something I'll have to consider.
- Working offline: no, but the benefits of not being bound to the exchange server in our office outweighed the possibility of the network going down.
- We have tested Netscape, IE, Mozilla and Opera, though only 2 or 3 versions of each. It's not like the interface is using advanced dhtml or javascript... I would imagine that good old html renders pretty similarly across browsers?
- It does use SSL.
- It's quite fast, though since we have only 5 users it's hard to test "heavy load."
- It is publicly accessible, though you need a login and password to check mail, of course. Rather than a problem, this was seen as a major benefit as it allows users to check mail from home (yes, I know it is possible with imap clients, but these people are not really the configure-your-own-mail-client types).
Thanks for the tips, and thanks for replying. We're going to be evaluating the situation this week. As I said, the other users are currently running Outlook 2000 which has horrible imap and imap-ssl support. If Outlook doesn't work for them then I guess we'll try Mozilla or Netscape mail next, and then if they still don't like that, we'll look at using webmail as the primary.If UT is setup like Q3 was with the Master Server authenticating the CD Key, I don't think anybody needs to register it to show they're running Linux, since the Master Server can easily track the client OS. Of course, registering the product wouldn't hurt.
Well, I submitted the following to Ask Slashdot and it was rejected, so I guess I will ask here. With all the stupid-assed, inane questions that frequently get asked of Slashdot I thought mine would be a shoe-in, as it's an actual real-world issue whose answer is not available in the first ten lines of a Google search, but I guess the retardedness factor was too low in my post. Can anyone either a) help with the questions below, or b) help me make the question stupid enough that Slashdot will approve it?
Ask Slashdot: Using Webmail for a Company's Main Email Client?
Posted by SmartSlashdotEditor on 9:01 Saturday 21 September 2002
from the slashdot-too-stupid-to-really-post-this dept.
Evro writes: "I work for a small company and this week I finished setting up the IMAP server that is expected to replace our Exchange 5.5 system. I had really high hopes for the new system, but it seems to be acting very quirky. Everyone wants to continue using Outlook 2000 as the mail client, and it gives us nothing but problems when trying to use imap-ssl - users can check their mail, then 5 minutes later it says they can't open messages that are already in their inbox; even regular IMAP gives problems from time to time. Plus there's the annoyance of Outlook not saving sent mail to the server's Sent folder. I personally use Mozilla mail and it works pretty well, but I don't think these people are quite ready for Mozilla's quirks yet, though the fact that Mozilla works as well as it does is what leads me to believe the problem is with the clients rather than the server. I've set up Squirrel Mail as a webmail interface, and that's been received much better than Outlook, Outlook Express, or Eudora (which worked well technically, but nobody liked the interface) as mail clients. Squirrel Mail (over https) seems to do everything I would expect a mail client to do, does it pretty well, and is extremely easy to use and set up. My question is, has anyone setup a mail system for their (or any) company in which the main interface is a webmail client such as Squirrel Mail? If so, what problems have you encountered, and/or what pitfalls can you foresee?"
You know, I have never worked for a company that disbursed my salary two weeks after the end of the pay cycle! Always right at the end of the cycle, or even a couple days before. Is that legal?
My girlfriend works for a government agency now and has a similar latency between pay period and payroll issuance, so I don't think it's illegal -- I find it highly inconvenient, however. I think the theory is that when you're laid off, you'll still get 2 paychecks, assuming of course that the company's not run by a crook.
Thanks for the tips, I'll look into them.
It's been quite a while since I scanned anything, but I remember that with whatever scanner I was using at the time, in Photoshop you would do file->acquire->twain and it would bring up the scanning program. This program scanned the image lightly as a preview, and then let you select however many "jobs" you wanted at once, so you could select 1 square as job 1, another as job 2, another as job 3. Then it would make one pass and generate an image for each job.
As I said, this was a while ago and I don't remember the scanner, but it was probably some UMAX. The name "Mira scanner" stands out in my mind as the scanning software. You scanner may have this capability also; poke around a bit.
Bruce,
I would like to thank you for participating on Slashdot. I can't think of anyone (famous) from the "open source community" that spends as much time actually interacting with the lay of the community. Rasmus from PHP, John Carmack, JWZ, a few of the samba guys, and maybe some others can be seen from time to time, but you are a relatively frequent poster. Thanks for giving us some info that's not fed through the filter of the media, and for bringing the "community" to Slashdot. Few "famous" people seem to have the balls/time to interact with the lusers in such a public forum, and it's appreciated greatly.
Sincerely,
Evan
Linux Poser & pseudo admin
Honestly, no, because of the way he's whined about the tons of spam he's had to delete in the past (which, granted, may have made it past his filters). But point taken.