It's just a matter of time until some trojan, virus, or whatever appears in the wild that can get through (or specifically targets) IE6 after it's no longer supported my MS, yes? At what point is it more cost-effective to upgrade to something newer? Before or after something like this happens and guts out your intranet, folks? Really...
Open-source advocates claim that OSS projects better fulfil the needs of their users, respond to and fix bugs faster, and generally respect the users more than their closed-source counterparts. While this might be true in some cases, it obviously is not an inherit trait of OSS (as illustrated by the example above).
I disagree, but at the same time, it depends on what your value of "users" is... If GNOME installation were as common as Win32 systems, it'd be a different matter, but as things stand right now, most OSS is used by more technically-inclined users who tend to share a lot of the attitudes/values of the developers.
I'd also argue that this makes limited OSS desktop usage fall into the same kind of category as a self-fulfilling prophecy, at least until there's enough interest from more "mainstream" folks to start using it.
...though I have to admit that my views on them are colored by the usage on the one we set up at work.
I suspect that there's just too much dilution in the marketplace for any one of them to be really worthwhile -- after all, how many job-boards are there? Even if an HR person sticks only to the "big name" boards, they've only got so much time to post jobs, and if the methods/formats are significantly different from one board to the next, it's just going to take more time and effort, with little or no significant increase in prospects (that's coming from an HR person who gave us feedback on the aforementioned job-board)...
I think it boils down to a lack of standardization from one board to the next, and (as far as I was able to determine during the R&D phase for the site), no consistant way to provide something like a standard upload-a-job function (i.e., allowing someone to have a single Excel file with several jobs, and be able to upload that info to the site).
Though I can't verify it (all my old Photoshop floppies went bad some time ago), I'm pretty sure Photoshop had CMYK support (though I'm not sure about color profile support) pretty much from the get-go. But then again, it was (IIRC) _intended_ for print-publication use from day 1 as well...
Yeah, that'll make a big difference in the Spam I see (most of which is getting bounced off of open realys somewhere in Asia). Can't wait to see how he plans on taxing them...
Hurm... So, if the basic idea behind this is to profile the mouse usage, how will it react when a gummed-up mouse is cleaned? Or with a new mouse? Much better chance of working with an optical, I expect, but even then, won't there be jumps and jitters in mouse-movement if the surface is changed?
And "millions in lost potential revenue due to lost potential customers" infringes on the "RIGHT to make money" how, exactly? Admittedly, it infringes on their ABILITY to make money, but it doesn't touch their right to do so. Admittedly, it will force many telemarketers to change their business practises and/or models.
So what?
Whose rights are more important? The consumers' implicit right to have people leave them alone if they want to be left alone, or the companies' right to make money?
I can't suggest a better way to reach customers. But the people who've listed their numbers are stating, in no uncertain terms, that they have no interest in becoming customers - I'd think that winnowing the list of potential customers down would actually increase the success-to-call ratio. Certainly it will make the entire telemarketing more efficient, as a lot of people who've pre-dertermined that they aren't interested in sales cold-calls have removed themselves from the list of cold-calls to make...
Register a complaint with your phone service provider. They should be able to track the number (even if they say they can't), and might be willing and able to take action if enough people gripe about it under 47 United States Code 227.
Dunno if it's relevant, or useful, but if it is (our could be), there's a claim that Caldera was willing to "release 32/V under an open source license." The Unix Heritage Society is also cited as being partly responsible for that.
Here in Colorado, we've had a do-not-call list for about a year now, and I find that it has made a significant impact - now the only calls we get are from charities and (in election years) politicians' support-groups. While I still get 2-3 of those a month, it's a far cry from the 3-5 a week we got before then. Any given offender is allowed three strikes before punitive action can be taken.
Just telling solicitors that the number is listed on the Colorado no-call list (in the three cases where it's been needed) has gotten them off the line, and never heard from again.
The only thing that it doesn't address is the potential for a spammer to bulk-mail accept-list confirmations prior to or as part of their mass-mailings.
So maybe use a digest of the headers to ID the original message, recover the e-mail address from it, and add it to the whitelist?
But he added that Ebert has no more of a right to make full copies of a movie than anyone else.
Ummm... OK. The implication is that he (and thus anyone else) does have the right to make excerpts, right? Which part of the DVD in question is unencrypted to facilitate this? The part that the studios want to have excerpted, or the part that the individual wants to excerpt?
Is there anyone who could legitimately send them a cease-and-desist letter ("intentional delivery of information in express effort to interrupt and/or block lawful business and/or individual use of Linux" jumps to mind as a basis)? If so, what are you waiting for?
The burden of proof is on SCO, and until violation is proven, this sort of tactic is little better than extortion with a bluff behind it, IIRC/IMO.
So prove it, or shut up and go away, already, SCO!
"People rail about their "rights" without understanding that every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them respect your own."
I find it vaguely amusing that the complaint accuses Spews and Spamhaus of interrupting and blocking "the internet traffic of lawful businesses and individuals."
Name one.
By preference, one that complied with each and every one of the various anti-spam laws in the US. Anyone on the plaintiff's side of the case who did not abide by those laws should be jailed for perjury, I think...
And some of the complaint-items worthy of particular derision:
4: Failure to provide proper and correct addresses to the public for Spews and Spamhaus. Pot calling the kettle black here, maybe? Just a bit?
21: If the IP-addresses and servers in question were your property at the time, all you have to do is prove it. Though I doubt that the business practises were legal anyway...
23: So? So have I. But they didn't block you; they put you on a list that individuals and ISP's used (and trusted) to block you. Sue all of the ISPs that use that list. Dare ya!
32: How many Americans will become unemployed? The owner/operators of the individual spam-companies? Boo hoo!
39: Oh? Really?
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a matter of time until some trojan, virus, or whatever appears in the wild that can get through (or specifically targets) IE6 after it's no longer supported my MS, yes? At what point is it more cost-effective to upgrade to something newer? Before or after something like this happens and guts out your intranet, folks? Really...
There's always Blue Dragon...
Weapons encourage murder;
Printing technology (since the time of Gutenberg) encourages counterfeiting;
Cars encourage drunk driving;
I'd also argue that this makes limited OSS desktop usage fall into the same kind of category as a self-fulfilling prophecy, at least until there's enough interest from more "mainstream" folks to start using it.
Been said before
UserFriendly, Nov. 14, 1999
...though I have to admit that my views on them are colored by the usage on the one we set up at work.
I suspect that there's just too much dilution in the marketplace for any one of them to be really worthwhile -- after all, how many job-boards are there? Even if an HR person sticks only to the "big name" boards, they've only got so much time to post jobs, and if the methods/formats are significantly different from one board to the next, it's just going to take more time and effort, with little or no significant increase in prospects (that's coming from an HR person who gave us feedback on the aforementioned job-board)...
I think it boils down to a lack of standardization from one board to the next, and (as far as I was able to determine during the R&D phase for the site), no consistant way to provide something like a standard upload-a-job function (i.e., allowing someone to have a single Excel file with several jobs, and be able to upload that info to the site).
Now that I'm finished rambling...
Though I can't verify it (all my old Photoshop floppies went bad some time ago), I'm pretty sure Photoshop had CMYK support (though I'm not sure about color profile support) pretty much from the get-go. But then again, it was (IIRC) _intended_ for print-publication use from day 1 as well...
Yeah, that'll make a big difference in the Spam I see (most of which is getting bounced off of open realys somewhere in Asia). Can't wait to see how he plans on taxing them...
Hurm... So, if the basic idea behind this is to profile the mouse usage, how will it react when a gummed-up mouse is cleaned? Or with a new mouse? Much better chance of working with an optical, I expect, but even then, won't there be jumps and jitters in mouse-movement if the surface is changed?
And "millions in lost potential revenue due to lost potential customers" infringes on the "RIGHT to make money" how, exactly? Admittedly, it infringes on their ABILITY to make money, but it doesn't touch their right to do so. Admittedly, it will force many telemarketers to change their business practises and/or models.
So what?
Whose rights are more important? The consumers' implicit right to have people leave them alone if they want to be left alone, or the companies' right to make money?
I can't suggest a better way to reach customers. But the people who've listed their numbers are stating, in no uncertain terms, that they have no interest in becoming customers - I'd think that winnowing the list of potential customers down would actually increase the success-to-call ratio. Certainly it will make the entire telemarketing more efficient, as a lot of people who've pre-dertermined that they aren't interested in sales cold-calls have removed themselves from the list of cold-calls to make...
Register a complaint with your phone service provider. They should be able to track the number (even if they say they can't), and might be willing and able to take action if enough people gripe about it under 47 United States Code 227.
From the page:
"You can register your home and mobile phone numbers for free."
Almost makes me wish I still had my old cell-phone account with Caller Pays...
... wonder how many lawsuits will be filed against it before things finally settle out.
Dunno if it's relevant, or useful, but if it is (our could be), there's a claim that Caldera was willing to "release 32/V under an open source license." The Unix Heritage Society is also cited as being partly responsible for that.
Anyone know how to follow up on/verify the claim?
Hell, the Open Source Initiative website lists 42 others that aren't the GPL (though they may be derivatives...).
So find one that isn't as "restrictive" as either the GPL or the proprietary ones that give no access to the code...
Here in Colorado, we've had a do-not-call list for about a year now, and I find that it has made a significant impact - now the only calls we get are from charities and (in election years) politicians' support-groups. While I still get 2-3 of those a month, it's a far cry from the 3-5 a week we got before then. Any given offender is allowed three strikes before punitive action can be taken.
Just telling solicitors that the number is listed on the Colorado no-call list (in the three cases where it's been needed) has gotten them off the line, and never heard from again.
can be found at internetnews.com
http://www.angel.net/~nic/spam-x/ (with revision history dating back to 2001.
The only thing that it doesn't address is the potential for a spammer to bulk-mail accept-list confirmations prior to or as part of their mass-mailings.
So maybe use a digest of the headers to ID the original message, recover the e-mail address from it, and add it to the whitelist?
But he added that Ebert has no more of a right to make full copies of a movie than anyone else.
Ummm... OK. The implication is that he (and thus anyone else) does have the right to make excerpts, right? Which part of the DVD in question is unencrypted to facilitate this? The part that the studios want to have excerpted, or the part that the individual wants to excerpt?
Is there anyone who could legitimately send them a cease-and-desist letter ("intentional delivery of information in express effort to interrupt and/or block lawful business and/or individual use of Linux" jumps to mind as a basis)? If so, what are you waiting for?
The burden of proof is on SCO, and until violation is proven, this sort of tactic is little better than extortion with a bluff behind it, IIRC/IMO.
So prove it, or shut up and go away, already, SCO!
Hey, Ralsky (and others of your ilk):
"People rail about their "rights" without understanding that every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them respect your own."
Sound familiar?
GoDaddy's Domain Registration policy (at http://registrar.godaddy.com/regAgreement.asp) does not require a physical address. Just a valid "Postal" address (See par. 3).
I find it vaguely amusing that the complaint accuses Spews and Spamhaus of interrupting and blocking "the internet traffic of lawful businesses and individuals."
Name one.
By preference, one that complied with each and every one of the various anti-spam laws in the US. Anyone on the plaintiff's side of the case who did not abide by those laws should be jailed for perjury, I think...
And some of the complaint-items worthy of particular derision:
4: Failure to provide proper and correct addresses to the public for Spews and Spamhaus. Pot calling the kettle black here, maybe? Just a bit?
21: If the IP-addresses and servers in question were your property at the time, all you have to do is prove it. Though I doubt that the business practises were legal anyway...
23: So? So have I. But they didn't block you; they put you on a list that individuals and ISP's used (and trusted) to block you. Sue all of the ISPs that use that list. Dare ya!
32: How many Americans will become unemployed? The owner/operators of the individual spam-companies? Boo hoo!
39: Oh? Really?
"Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, the jury instructions said."
If it doesn't warrant a conviction, does it still warrant an arrest?