I always wonder when my ISP will decide, for the good of all customers, to shut down this or that port or
filter or monitor traffic.
One interesting tactic to bash these connectivity providers with might be: A provider that filters this-and-that port, has become an editor/censor of content of sorts. Therefore, the provider has voluntarily inserted itself into the fracas. IOW, hell if they can filter/block SMTP, HTTP, then by God they ought to be held responsible for all services that are against the wishes of XYZ, Inc.: CDs, DVDs, warez, pedophilia *ugh*, etc.
It's the same logic as that of an ISP that doesn't censor its Usenet feed not being liable for MP3 trading by its users.
You have to remember how few people are in many parts of the Rocky Mountain area compared to the rest of the world. It's just hours and hours of desert.
:0) We need to get some of those brown bears Debian developer status.
I swear, it's times like this that I wonder: How can anyone be satisfied with a RH GNU/Linux (or non-Debian) distro? =) Look at the cool sh_t that gives rise out of these guys.
Looks like the Rocky Mountain range folks are asleep at the switch. No activity there. Cuba is dead, dang that Fidel! But what are the folks at McMurdo doing? Eating Klondike bars?
Moderation Totals:Overrated=1, Total=1.... (Score:0)
What an angry reaction, moderating down a helpful post, and a quantitative one to boot. It is a fact that the CNET author takes *ten* paragraphs before getting to the point: expounding on de facto non-compete rulings even without a contract forbidding same.
Call me ugly while you're at it too; I would've appreciated someone else sparing me from long winded writing. My time is precious. Other folks might appreciate the heads-up. You're not helping them.
From http://www.orbs.org/usingindex.html:
untestable-netblocks.orbs.org - netblocks known to
contain open relays and which have been proven to be blocking the ORBS
tester or who have demanded that ORBS not test. Returns 127.0.0.7.
Updated: hourly
Come on, this is not called fine granularity
Babe, you have to choose to want to block nets that don't want to be
tested. The plainer inputs.orbs.org will not return hits like the above.
IOW, the user now has the granularity to test for verified open relays
(inputs.orbs.org), and if she chooses, for networks that do not allow
themselves to be tested. You have now been given the choice to
discriminate, that is called granularity.
Your problem then would be with the users who specifically choose to
also check for nets that will not allow themselves to be ORBS tested, the assumtion there being that perhaps they could be spammers. Read the ORBS
announcement a few times, it took me a while to get the intent of the
other new entries as well.
For example, I guess that the difference between spamsources.orbs.org
and spamsource-netblocks.orbs.org is that the latter checks, acts on a
netblock basis. Whilst the former is less broad, per IP, I surmise. And
spamsources would 'appear' to indicate a known professional spammer
outfit, IP/netblock. The announcement could use a detailed URL reference
on the nitty-gritty differences.
Basically, the testing distribution is "maintained" by an automatic script, which contains all packages
which have been in the unstable (i.e. development) distribution for two weeks without a release critical
bug being filed
Thank you! Just Saturday driving to the mall I was explaining to my girlfriend the difference between distros, and I tried to remember the ~3 month old story/advantage of Debian going to a stable > testing > unstable tree. Anyway, for the past few days it's been nagging me that I couldn't remember how stable > frozen > unstable was any different.
It's the automatic nature (~2 weeks) of unstable packages coupled with the assumtion that any major bugs {are now!}/will be rectified within unstable before they are shifted to testing. So IOW, testing (packages) can be thought as 'unstable for 2 weeks with any showstopper bugs already dealt with in the 2 week interim to testing.'
And the advantage of that is that Debian users report that nixing such bugs out in the first two weeks provides a typical/like-other Linux distro usable quality (read, a faster more up to date Debian GNU/Linux =)
But this complaint does not allege a duty on NSI's part to give up
those domain names.
Three points on your thoughts (good ones, BTW. I haven't read the docs
but if you're accurate here are some further thoughts).
Under ICANN agreement NSI is explicitly forbidden from
'warehousing' domain names.
NSI's June 2000 announcement to auction abandoned/unpayed
(Read, domain expired but the customer did not formally
notify NSI s/he would not further pay. IOW, they abandoned their
registration. That NSI can laughably claim it needs to recoup costs for
something as simple as using a deactivation script on unpayed domains,
and/or levying a fee on laggard payments is ludicrous. Patently it's a
ploy to leverage their monopoly garnered critical mass of registrations
and therefore solely reap the boon in scam. Greed knows no bounds with
these folks.)
domains shows intent to never be timely, i.e., they can never
be timely when someone else would be the new domain owner, under NSI's
farcical, unilateral June 2000 rules.
I'm aware of at least one case in modern computing lore, and
involving the most famous player in it too, of a court ruling against
one side in a case based solely (as the presiding judge later said, I
didn't understand fully the ramifications of these new concepts but I
understand a simple contract violation) on stated intent and contract
violation.
The case involves the then nascent M$, Gates and Allen; the ownership of
the first available piece of software (Basic) for the first
personal computer -- the Altair. Ed Roberts lost the suit he filed
against Gates and Allen, alleging ownership of Gates/Allen BASIC,
because Robert's attorney had sent a letter stating Roberts'
intent to suppress (do harm) to BASIC. IOW, the Gates/Roberts contract
had called for Roberts to not 'make' harm or suppress Gates/Allen
products. Similarly, (1.) NSI's stated intent to violate the
non-warehousing ICANN clause, or to (2.) auction expired domains would
lend moot the issues of 'timely' release of domains (the WHOIS output
itself tells you that timely/correct WHOIS output: Netsol ``does not
guarantee its accuracy.'') and or harm.
you will eventually start to
lose that portion of your readership which may be influential and have real decision-making powers.
Well, I can't argue with that. Shape up!
Since I'm here: In the end it is the folks that have seniority on the Network (nee, Arpanet) can decide this. However, note that the NYTimes has for years referred to it as "E-mail." Note the capital 'e'. I tried that convention for a while years ago, masochistically too mind you, especially to disassociate myself from the Win crowd. Who typically never pass up an opportunity to gratuitously mangle a phrase, much less a sentence.
I gather the assumption made by the Times is that as snail mail is orthographically denoted as "US mail," electronic mail therefore should be similarly constructed. Thus, transforming email into a proper noun they get Electronic mail or E-mail.
I would go with what old timers use or the Jargon File:
There are numerous spelling variants of this word. In Internet traffic
up to 1995, `email' predominates, `e-mail' runs a
not-too-distant second, and `E-mail' and `Email' are a distant third and fourth.
You'll notice the 1995 reference -- that's when the general unwashed media, corporate analysts, and the rest became aware of the Network. That gibes exactly with my experience. I'd go with "email." Less typos, less filling, tradition. =)
Hmm. It only takes 1-Click to buy something, but a bunch of personal information to get of[f] their mailing
list...
That is an extremely incisive comment. Your comment deserves to be moderated up to 5. I would do it, but I don't have enough cookie points. *sigh* Regardless: someone, do readers a favor here.
Well, if what you want is heavy duty commitment to encryption, security of your computers' data AND swap space, IPSEC -- and what was that other project? F(ree)/SWAN? -- yet you want Linux binary compatibility and throw in it that it must be Free Software, at least as secure as Linux, more so actually, and offers full IPv6 support now to boot, then consider OpenBSD.
It's a UNIX and it's decendant of the BSD code, which means that it offers a very mature networking code base.
From xterm not working properly, to being unable to mount CDs because X has started first (a very quirky bug; Deja mentions several occurrences; RH Web support at last look {...
RH Web support at last look {<8 weeks ago} had no -cure-
for it), to awfully laggard/caching performance on a 32MB RAM
installation -- this is unforgivable--, to ftpd, telnetd, rsh being
defaulted on, well that's enough. After all this nonsense I have decided
to switch to Debian and never look back. I have tried RH and I have been
left wanting.
I don't hate RH but I love Free Software(TM).
I don't hate RH but I love Free Software(TM).
Part of my response was inadvertently cropped, the bold part is the
missing portion.
Mr. Young you're talking to an askew view of the gripes being hurled at you. The sentiment is, RH implements major tool changes, such as your nominal gcc 2.96, that are way outside the logic of most Linux users. I know it bothers me when I read the GCC steering commitee's announcement chiding such a move without any =general= public disclosure as to why such a change is being implemented. Further, it irks me to read RH spokesmen try sophistry when explaing your rationale for such kinds of changes. But, what gives rise to the cake is that by the de facto influence of RH market share RH possesses great leverage in Linux policy. Thus, because I greatly like Linux, Red Hat Linux engenders no similar loyalty in me. IOW, you have the greatest market share, you have (undeniably) therefore great influence, you need to be doing *it* better than the other guy or anybody else. The 'it' is concensus -- you must be doing soemthing wrong to have a bunch of serious users ticked-off at you, accept that fact already.
Lastly, I'm a RHL6.1 user, but I have to tell you, in all sincerity, this distro has given me nothing but grief. From xterm not working properly, to being unable to mount CDs because X has started first (a very quirky bug; Deja mentions several occurences; RH Web support at last look {
I don't hate RH but I love Free Software(TM). BTW, I am surprised ni one else is mentioning this, but it is my theory that RHL ditros are released too soon (Again, I disagree with you on this point, B Young) because RH is trying to surpass SuSE as the highest release-number distro available first -- point in case, RH marketroids suceeded in the silly ommission of the dot 0 in the Official name of "Red Hat 7", the latest RH distro. Isn't that something goofy.
Unless my mind is loosey-goosey tonight, or dysxelai is creeping in, I want an OS that stays up (hard? =) more than three weeks! That's a greater-than sign you have in your story, buddy. I only mention it as I've noticed several times over the past few weeks as the same mistake has been made over-and-over in story text - am I the only one noticing this? Well, I'm off to visit with Buttercup - ah, that Sean Penn is a lucky man.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Intel CPUs Draw Less Than Transmeta's Or Anyone's
on
Crusoe: new benchmarks
·
· Score: 2
Keep in mind that ultra portable machines using low-power consumption RISC processors and components achieve...
The NY Times today ran an article about Intel's PR counter offense (essentially), laying assault on Transmeta as being erroneously knighted the low-power mobile-CPU provider. Intel claims:
Intel, the world's largest semiconductor maker, said that
its current generation of mobile Pentium processors already consumed
less power on average than Transmeta's, and that a set of technologies
on the horizon for 2002 or 2003 would keep Intel comfortably in the
lead.
Anyway, with direct regard to your last point on CPU battery draw, The biggest power consumer is the LCD display... It has an entire light bulb behind it, quotes the Times.
Wait a minute, there are drivers already for the NIC / wireless functionality? And, you spent ca. US $1,100 for the ;base station + 1 wireless NIC from Compaq to watch/do wireless streaming video? Not to mention CF/PC cards---or a pedestrain modem, for me? I am wondering how feasible/affordable is this kind of talk. I envy your disposable income level -- really. If what you mention is available under Linux, then fabulous! I'm not sure it is though. Please prove me in the wrong.
I've had this same idea for a long time. What took so long?
But, first a personal aside, I'm a staunch capitalist, fiscal conservative,
libertarian (i.e., less government), but when the US halls of power are
run by whores prostituting their votes to the biggest special interest
(lobbying group) I get angry! But, I believe there is hope, I've seen
momentum building for nearly a decade against the influence that nothing
decried by Americans seems to stop. Namely, abuses like nearly nil
protection for Americans wanting control (less full control) over their
personal information. It always comes down to the deep pocketed, with
the aid of the power in charge of the capitol, who quickly reverse their
moral stance against such a position as soon as they gain power, calling
the agenda. Just such a thing occurred when the GOP gained the House and the
Senate, lost to them since the 1950's, after the 1994 mid-term national
elections. Riding the wave of change which Americans were churning began
by the election of new young president, representing a new attitude -
by Americans, not the man himself, he was just par for the course -
there was an expectation for some real change to occur. Apparently not.
Or should I say, it's still coming - that's my read.
I see parallels, a new synergy, more importantly I see different
manifestations of the same root gripe, in the violent/vigorous
demonstrations in Seattle, Washington last year. Similarly, with protests
during the presidential nominating conventions just a few months ago. The
French farmer who defaced the local Mc Donald restaurant is part of this
too. It's part of a sentiment which seems at first unrelated. No, not
that globalization sucks, I'm not a socialist for heaven's sake. Rather,
that individuals are, for their myriad reasons,
angry and fed up with the naked purchasing of the process. The British
have their euro-skeptic stance toward EU membership and the lack of
sovereignty that Belgium running bureaucrats might exert over their
national identity. Similarly, I see American's saying to hell with
ridiculous patents made grant-able by a PTO obliged to follow guidelines
paid for by deep pocketed interests investing (you call it tomato, I
call it graft; others lobbying, political donations, and others soft
money contributions) in the extension of their monopolies. It sure looks
like corporate socialism. Further, UCITA, DMCA, lack of control over
personal medical information, financial information, driver's license
information and/or photographs. On and on it goes.
I sure get sick and tire of being sick and tire about this. Listen, I'm
not saying that it's the end of the world, but I sure as hell don't like to
tell Amazon to take a flying a leap if they do a 180 on their privacy
policy as easily as I prefer to just get results, if a disposable credit
card number is one more weapon in my arsenal, great. But, as has been
mentioned AMEX will just have the field all to itself. No ifs, maybes
and of buts. Unless they apply something viral like a GPL kind of
concept (policy won't change unless 100% of users give explicit
permission, say) they'll ride you too, in their own way. Fuck that!
Anyway, that leaves just one route for total privacy, either go the
JD Salinger way: no credit cards, no phone number, no driver's license
a reclusive sort of existence. Or lots of buffers between you and the
world, a little Godfather thing here.;-) Become Amish. Or, do the Howard
Hughes thing, in later life mind you, incorporate yourself, use corporate
shells, credit cards, etc. Nothing nefarious, you're just a guy, gal who
likes to keep control of your destiny. After all the facts of your life
are your personal history. And I shall write mine own. Nobody will read
this anyway.
I use Junkbuster and it works well enough, but it has a basic flaw: It
relies on a handmade-blacklist of banner servers, i.e., you find a banner
advertisement source, and it is added to the regular expression list
which constitutes the mechanism which recognizes ads and filters them.
With this approach the list of banner servers is alway out of date,
is labor intensive, prone to error, and javascript pop-ups are not
automatically handled/culled off by Junkbuster - whether or not they're
advertisements, they're annoying, so this would be a very useful
capability to have in such a utility as JB.
Junkbuster also doesn't do other things which could be very useful, e.g.,
culling "animated images, JavaScripts, Java applets."
Siemen's, A.G. has put out, non-commercial use is gratis, a utility
(Webwasher) for Win/Macs that's just excellent, containing these
features. It would be great to have Junkbuster do these kinds of things
too.
The real nifty thing that Webwasher
does is it does not rely on manual lists of banner servers to determine
ad sources. Rather, it detects 3rd-party-domain supplied images.
WebWasher Product overview:
Filters out unwanted advertising
banners, pop-up windows, animated
images, referers, JavaScripts, Java applets from Web sites
Soviets, eh?? I plum forgot to condider that possibility. USSR came to mind, but Soviet Union was not a proper nation name ever, was it? So, it didn't pop into my head -.sr, maybe. Regardless.
What surprises me greatly is why the.su TLD is not listed in IANA. They're the arbiters of TLDs, shouldn't it absolutely be listed/sanctioned there?
From the writer's sig, Russian affinity, I guessed this was a CIS type nation cc. Curiously, I visited IANA's database, but, I could not find the corresponding nation this TLD belongs to. Why not? Why isn't it listed?
Doing $ dig kiae.su shows Russia is involved in the picture.
[...] ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: kiae.su. 2h59m38s IN SOA ns.kiae.ru. noc-dns.relarn.ru.
Actually, the whole concept of a peer-to-peer local area wireless network raises a host of issues.
Schneier's 8/15 Cryptogram newsletter touched on these issues weeks ago.
Namely, if capability like the US government's Tempest technology (reads electro magnetic pulses, CRT, keyboard radiation, etc. - spy craft stuff) is available, it's a matter of time before such tactics are _readily_ used on commonplace bluetooth devices doing private or delicate matters in public. After all, reading your OpenSSH-downloaded, and GnuPG encrypted email privately to yourself in the back booth might seem secure, but, what if a black hat type is capturing your radiating emissions quite easily? Illusory protection. Treat Bluetooth as a broadcast protocol, because that's what it is, says Schneier.
What amazes me is the dearth of information about the security of this protocol. I'm sure someone has thought about it, a team designed
some security into Bluetooth, and that those designers believe it to be secure. But has anyone reputable examined the protocol? Is the
implementation known to be correct? Are there any programming errors? If Bluetooth is secure, it will be the first time ever that a major
protocol has been released without any security flaws. I'm not optimistic, continues Schneier.
Check out some of these articles on Bluetooth, and it's lack of discussion on it's possibly inherent security shortcomings.
just pre-records all his favorite shows, and then zips thru
the ads with the 30 second-skip button
How long will it be before clicking/skipping through Tivo
advertisements is a matter of relying on a protocol of, say, other Tivo
users networked and having their ad skipping points measured, then
averaged for the best result.
IOW, advertisers are tricky SOB's. I know that I get tired of manually
skipping through ads, only to pause when the ad barrage sems to be over,
only to be tricked and start skipping ads again. Yet after two or three
of these episodes I start to get overly aggressive and I zip through ad
and into the 1st or 2nd minute of a program alike. =(
So, in the system I picture, this measuring would be an averaging of the
best/most accurate ad skippers and perhaps with a bow to Nielsen
Ratings' like families, historically exceptionally accurate ad skippers
(anonymously of course) can have their patterns given extraordinary
weight in splining the the resulting advertisement-skipping average.
This is a long way of saying: I have a Tivo, I am sick of ads, I want to
connect my Tivo to the Net, pipe my ad skipping patterns/usage to
others out there like me, and collectively provide myself or others with
an auto setting as a result that will let me/you sit there and set the
thing on automatic-skip-ads automagically. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Have you had relations with Mae Ling Mak, and if so did you use a condom? Or a dumpling wrapper?
One interesting tactic to bash these connectivity providers with might be: A provider that filters this-and-that port, has become an editor/censor of content of sorts. Therefore, the provider has voluntarily inserted itself into the fracas. IOW, hell if they can filter/block SMTP, HTTP, then by God they ought to be held responsible for all services that are against the wishes of XYZ, Inc.: CDs, DVDs, warez, pedophilia *ugh*, etc.
It's the same logic as that of an ISP that doesn't censor its Usenet feed not being liable for MP3 trading by its users.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Looks like the Rocky Mountain range folks are asleep at the switch. No activity there. Cuba is dead, dang that Fidel! But what are the folks at McMurdo doing? Eating Klondike bars?
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Call me ugly while you're at it too; I would've appreciated someone else sparing me from long winded writing. My time is precious. Other folks might appreciate the heads-up. You're not helping them.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Babe, you have to choose to want to block nets that don't want to be tested. The plainer inputs.orbs.org will not return hits like the above. IOW, the user now has the granularity to test for verified open relays (inputs.orbs.org), and if she chooses, for networks that do not allow themselves to be tested. You have now been given the choice to discriminate, that is called granularity.
Your problem then would be with the users who specifically choose to also check for nets that will not allow themselves to be ORBS tested, the assumtion there being that perhaps they could be spammers. Read the ORBS announcement a few times, it took me a while to get the intent of the other new entries as well.
For example, I guess that the difference between spamsources.orbs.org and spamsource-netblocks.orbs.org is that the latter checks, acts on a netblock basis. Whilst the former is less broad, per IP, I surmise. And spamsources would 'appear' to indicate a known professional spammer outfit, IP/netblock. The announcement could use a detailed URL reference on the nitty-gritty differences.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Thank you! Just Saturday driving to the mall I was explaining to my girlfriend the difference between distros, and I tried to remember the ~3 month old story/advantage of Debian going to a stable > testing > unstable tree. Anyway, for the past few days it's been nagging me that I couldn't remember how stable > frozen > unstable was any different.
It's the automatic nature (~2 weeks) of unstable packages coupled with the assumtion that any major bugs {are now!}/will be rectified within unstable before they are shifted to testing. So IOW, testing (packages) can be thought as 'unstable for 2 weeks with any showstopper bugs already dealt with in the 2 week interim to testing.'
And the advantage of that is that Debian users report that nixing such bugs out in the first two weeks provides a typical/like-other Linux distro usable quality (read, a faster more up to date Debian GNU/Linux =)
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Three points on your thoughts (good ones, BTW. I haven't read the docs but if you're accurate here are some further thoughts).
- Under ICANN agreement NSI is explicitly forbidden from
'warehousing' domain names.
- NSI's June 2000 announcement to auction abandoned/unpayed
domains shows intent to never be timely, i.e., they can never
be timely when someone else would be the new domain owner, under NSI's
farcical, unilateral June 2000 rules.
- I'm aware of at least one case in modern computing lore, and
involving the most famous player in it too, of a court ruling against
one side in a case based solely (as the presiding judge later said, I
didn't understand fully the ramifications of these new concepts but I
understand a simple contract violation) on stated intent and contract
violation.
The case involves the then nascent M$, Gates and Allen; the ownership of the first available piece of software (Basic) for the first personal computer -- the Altair. Ed Roberts lost the suit he filed against Gates and Allen, alleging ownership of Gates/Allen BASIC, because Robert's attorney had sent a letter stating Roberts' intent to suppress (do harm) to BASIC. IOW, the Gates/Roberts contract had called for Roberts to not 'make' harm or suppress Gates/Allen products. Similarly, (1.) NSI's stated intent to violate the non-warehousing ICANN clause, or to (2.) auction expired domains would lend moot the issues of 'timely' release of domains (the WHOIS output itself tells you that timely/correct WHOIS output: Netsol ``does not guarantee its accuracy.'') and or harm.--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
When will Debian scripts be available?
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Well, I can't argue with that. Shape up!
Since I'm here: In the end it is the folks that have seniority on the Network (nee, Arpanet) can decide this. However, note that the NYTimes has for years referred to it as "E-mail." Note the capital 'e'. I tried that convention for a while years ago, masochistically too mind you, especially to disassociate myself from the Win crowd. Who typically never pass up an opportunity to gratuitously mangle a phrase, much less a sentence.
I gather the assumption made by the Times is that as snail mail is orthographically denoted as "US mail," electronic mail therefore should be similarly constructed. Thus, transforming email into a proper noun they get Electronic mail or E-mail.
I would go with what old timers use or the Jargon File: You'll notice the 1995 reference -- that's when the general unwashed media, corporate analysts, and the rest became aware of the Network. That gibes exactly with my experience. I'd go with "email." Less typos, less filling, tradition. =)
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
This Story has been unposted. 2000-10-22 03:23:33 UTC (0 Talkback[s]) (27405 reads)
Why would LinuxToday pull their piece on this M$ advertisement? Are we witnessing a conspiracy in action? =)
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Hmm. It only takes 1-Click to buy something, but a bunch of personal information to get of[f] their mailing list...
That is an extremely incisive comment. Your comment deserves to be moderated up to 5. I would do it, but I don't have enough cookie points. *sigh* Regardless: someone, do readers a favor here.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Well, if what you want is heavy duty commitment to encryption, security of your computers' data AND swap space, IPSEC -- and what was that other project? F(ree)/SWAN? -- yet you want Linux binary compatibility and throw in it that it must be Free Software, at least as secure as Linux, more so actually, and offers full IPv6 support now to boot, then consider OpenBSD.
It's a UNIX and it's decendant of the BSD code, which means that it offers a very mature networking code base.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Part of my response was inadvertently cropped, the bold part is the missing portion.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Mr. Young you're talking to an askew view of the gripes being hurled at you. The sentiment is, RH implements major tool changes, such as your nominal gcc 2.96, that are way outside the logic of most Linux users. I know it bothers me when I read the GCC steering commitee's announcement chiding such a move without any =general= public disclosure as to why such a change is being implemented. Further, it irks me to read RH spokesmen try sophistry when explaing your rationale for such kinds of changes. But, what gives rise to the cake is that by the de facto influence of RH market share RH possesses great leverage in Linux policy. Thus, because I greatly like Linux, Red Hat Linux engenders no similar loyalty in me. IOW, you have the greatest market share, you have (undeniably) therefore great influence, you need to be doing *it* better than the other guy or anybody else. The 'it' is concensus -- you must be doing soemthing wrong to have a bunch of serious users ticked-off at you, accept that fact already.
Lastly, I'm a RHL6.1 user, but I have to tell you, in all sincerity, this distro has given me nothing but grief. From xterm not working properly, to being unable to mount CDs because X has started first (a very quirky bug; Deja mentions several occurences; RH Web support at last look {
I don't hate RH but I love Free Software(TM). BTW, I am surprised ni one else is mentioning this, but it is my theory that RHL ditros are released too soon (Again, I disagree with you on this point, B Young) because RH is trying to surpass SuSE as the highest release-number distro available first -- point in case, RH marketroids suceeded in the silly ommission of the dot 0 in the Official name of "Red Hat 7", the latest RH distro. Isn't that something goofy.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
After all, everyone wants uptime > 3 weeks, eh?
Unless my mind is loosey-goosey tonight, or dysxelai is creeping in, I want an OS that stays up (hard? =) more than three weeks! That's a greater-than sign you have in your story, buddy. I only mention it as I've noticed several times over the past few weeks as the same mistake has been made over-and-over in story text - am I the only one noticing this? Well, I'm off to visit with Buttercup - ah, that Sean Penn is a lucky man.
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
The NY Times today ran an article about Intel's PR counter offense (essentially), laying assault on Transmeta as being erroneously knighted the low-power mobile-CPU provider. Intel claims: Anyway, with direct regard to your last point on CPU battery draw, The biggest power consumer is the LCD display
--
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Wait a minute, there are drivers already for the NIC / wireless functionality? And, you spent ca. US $1,100 for the ;base station + 1 wireless NIC from Compaq to watch/do wireless streaming video? Not to mention CF/PC cards---or a pedestrain modem, for me? I am wondering how feasible/affordable is this kind of talk. I envy your disposable income level -- really. If what you mention is available under Linux, then fabulous! I'm not sure it is though. Please prove me in the wrong.
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
But, first a personal aside, I'm a staunch capitalist, fiscal conservative, libertarian (i.e., less government), but when the US halls of power are run by whores prostituting their votes to the biggest special interest (lobbying group) I get angry! But, I believe there is hope, I've seen momentum building for nearly a decade against the influence that nothing decried by Americans seems to stop. Namely, abuses like nearly nil protection for Americans wanting control (less full control) over their personal information. It always comes down to the deep pocketed, with the aid of the power in charge of the capitol, who quickly reverse their moral stance against such a position as soon as they gain power, calling the agenda. Just such a thing occurred when the GOP gained the House and the Senate, lost to them since the 1950's, after the 1994 mid-term national elections. Riding the wave of change which Americans were churning began by the election of new young president, representing a new attitude - by Americans, not the man himself, he was just par for the course - there was an expectation for some real change to occur. Apparently not. Or should I say, it's still coming - that's my read.
I see parallels, a new synergy, more importantly I see different manifestations of the same root gripe, in the violent/vigorous demonstrations in Seattle, Washington last year. Similarly, with protests during the presidential nominating conventions just a few months ago. The French farmer who defaced the local Mc Donald restaurant is part of this too. It's part of a sentiment which seems at first unrelated. No, not that globalization sucks, I'm not a socialist for heaven's sake. Rather, that individuals are, for their myriad reasons, angry and fed up with the naked purchasing of the process. The British have their euro-skeptic stance toward EU membership and the lack of sovereignty that Belgium running bureaucrats might exert over their national identity. Similarly, I see American's saying to hell with ridiculous patents made grant-able by a PTO obliged to follow guidelines paid for by deep pocketed interests investing (you call it tomato, I call it graft; others lobbying, political donations, and others soft money contributions) in the extension of their monopolies. It sure looks like corporate socialism. Further, UCITA, DMCA, lack of control over personal medical information, financial information, driver's license information and/or photographs. On and on it goes.
I sure get sick and tire of being sick and tire about this. Listen, I'm not saying that it's the end of the world, but I sure as hell don't like to tell Amazon to take a flying a leap if they do a 180 on their privacy policy as easily as I prefer to just get results, if a disposable credit card number is one more weapon in my arsenal, great. But, as has been mentioned AMEX will just have the field all to itself. No ifs, maybes and of buts. Unless they apply something viral like a GPL kind of concept (policy won't change unless 100% of users give explicit permission, say) they'll ride you too, in their own way. Fuck that!
Anyway, that leaves just one route for total privacy, either go the JD Salinger way: no credit cards, no phone number, no driver's license a reclusive sort of existence. Or lots of buffers between you and the world, a little Godfather thing here. ;-) Become Amish. Or, do the Howard
Hughes thing, in later life mind you, incorporate yourself, use corporate
shells, credit cards, etc. Nothing nefarious, you're just a guy, gal who
likes to keep control of your destiny. After all the facts of your life
are your personal history. And I shall write mine own. Nobody will read
this anyway.
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
With this approach the list of banner servers is alway out of date, is labor intensive, prone to error, and javascript pop-ups are not automatically handled/culled off by Junkbuster - whether or not they're advertisements, they're annoying, so this would be a very useful capability to have in such a utility as JB.
Junkbuster also doesn't do other things which could be very useful, e.g., culling "animated images, JavaScripts, Java applets."
Siemen's, A.G. has put out, non-commercial use is gratis, a utility (Webwasher) for Win/Macs that's just excellent, containing these features. It would be great to have Junkbuster do these kinds of things too.
The real nifty thing that Webwasher does is it does not rely on manual lists of banner servers to determine ad sources. Rather, it detects 3rd-party-domain supplied images.
WebWasher Product overview:
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
What surprises me greatly is why the .su TLD is not listed in IANA. They're the arbiters of TLDs, shouldn't it absolutely be listed/sanctioned there?
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
From the writer's sig, Russian affinity, I guessed this was a CIS type nation cc. Curiously, I visited IANA's database, but, I could not find the corresponding nation this TLD belongs to. Why not? Why isn't it listed?
Doing $ dig kiae.su shows Russia is involved in the picture.
[...]
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
kiae.su. 2h59m38s IN SOA ns.kiae.ru. noc-dns.relarn.ru.
What does .su stand for?
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Schneier's 8/15 Cryptogram newsletter touched on these issues weeks ago.
Namely, if capability like the US government's Tempest technology (reads electro magnetic pulses, CRT, keyboard radiation, etc. - spy craft stuff) is available, it's a matter of time before such tactics are _readily_ used on commonplace bluetooth devices doing private or delicate matters in public. After all, reading your OpenSSH-downloaded, and GnuPG encrypted email privately to yourself in the back booth might seem secure, but, what if a black hat type is capturing your radiating emissions quite easily? Illusory protection. Treat Bluetooth as a broadcast protocol, because that's what it is, says Schneier.
What amazes me is the dearth of information about the security of this protocol. I'm sure someone has thought about it, a team designed some security into Bluetooth, and that those designers believe it to be secure. But has anyone reputable examined the protocol? Is the implementation known to be correct? Are there any programming errors? If Bluetooth is secure, it will be the first time ever that a major protocol has been released without any security flaws. I'm not optimistic, continues Schneier.
Check out some of these articles on Bluetooth, and it's lack of discussion on it's possibly inherent security shortcomings.
Bluetooth
A list of Bluetooth articles, none of them about security
One mention of security
An essay about the Bluetooth hype
Recent article on TEMPEST
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
Did you find any? URLs?
Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks
IOW, advertisers are tricky SOB's. I know that I get tired of manually skipping through ads, only to pause when the ad barrage sems to be over, only to be tricked and start skipping ads again. Yet after two or three of these episodes I start to get overly aggressive and I zip through ad and into the 1st or 2nd minute of a program alike. =(
So, in the system I picture, this measuring would be an averaging of the best/most accurate ad skippers and perhaps with a bow to Nielsen Ratings' like families, historically exceptionally accurate ad skippers (anonymously of course) can have their patterns given extraordinary weight in splining the the resulting advertisement-skipping average.
This is a long way of saying: I have a Tivo, I am sick of ads, I want to connect my Tivo to the Net, pipe my ad skipping patterns/usage to others out there like me, and collectively provide myself or others with an auto setting as a result that will let me/you sit there and set the thing on automatic-skip-ads automagically. =)
Good, bad? What do you think?
Me pican las bolas, man!
Gracias