Huh. I have to disagree with you there. I've read several Shakespeare plays on the bus on my Palm Pilot and I used to read the Onion the same way. I can't help but wonder what others thought as I sat there cackling at my little calculator. The only thing that keeps me from reading more books/news/whatever on the Palm is the fact that I dropped it a while back and it tends to burn out batteries now. I'd replace it, but the cost is higher than the benefits at the moment.
So I don't think print will die any time soon, but I doubt it will be because of the tactile quality of books-- most of the reading people do isn't about leisure in the first place and they won't care if they can curl up with the newspaper or the latest memos from the office.
As to your last statement about history being wiped out by a magnet... are you really that clueless? Last time I checked books were highly suspectible to several elements of destruction not limited to fire and water. The only protection against destruction in *any* medium is geographically disparate redundancy.
Well, I'm guessing they would track the IPs submitting the request and complain to your ISP, since if this interfered in the slightest with their normal operations it constitutes a denial of service attack. Fair play maybe for all of us currently receiving someone else's party pictures in large quantities in our incoming email, but nonetheless a legal minefield.
I find R1 fairly listenable in part due to the six hour time difference from England to the central US. The times I'm most likely to listen are evenings and nights. At that point in England it's after midnight-- so I'm usually listening to the overnight show, which is a lot less Clear-Channel-ish and a lot more like dance/club music. All I can say is, thank the gods for the British taxpayers... commercial-free radio, whether talk or music, is awesome... that it's available as Ogg streams is simply icing on the cake.
I'm not arguing against evolution of standards. For example, I'm fine with moving to MIME. This is easy enough to do by sending HTML messages along with a text version of the message and allowing the client software to decide which one to show-- and for non-MIME readers this puts the text version at the top.
But this is a case of a guy, one guy, messing with his mail headers so that people he doesn't want to have an easy time reading his mail, can't. He hasn't written an email client that automatically fouls up Outlook users-- and even if he had, it would have about four users, all of whom could have easily modified their headers themselves anyway. This isn't part of some broader movement. It amuses him to do this and it harms no one.
In fact, we might consider he's done these users a favor by preventing them from easily reading his messages. Nothing he's going to say is bound to be too popular with them anyway, right?
I didn't really say it was fine or dandy. But if the software, by not adhering to the standard, tends to break, I guess I don't have much sympathy for the users thereof. On the other hand, I'm not going to rig my headers because I have better things to do with my time. As to this being in the same league with virus writing: no way in heck. Outlook viruses affect all of us, either by flooding mail servers or our inboxes. This exploit only affects Outlook users in a fairly passive way. And I didn't get any sense that this harmed the Outlook user either... other than to keep them from reading a specific email designed not to be read with their client.
Yes, let's compare a little techno-humor (no matter how meanspirited) to racism. Because as we all know, discrimination on the basis of operating system is plain evil and no one can change their operating system the way they can change their race or gender.
Also, Linux users are widely known to dominate the world, and picking on these defenseless Microsoft users is just plain terrible. God help those poor MS Souls in need!
And in closing, let me remind you that Microsoft and its user-base never reverse discriminates against non-MS-users. The benevolent community leaders in Redmond, persecuted as they are by the mainstream, never stoop to such ugly tactics as browser exclusive features or dirty almost-standard protocol tricks. And even though they don't have to, they work overtime to make sure that all non-MS programs and documents work seamlessly with MS applications on the off chance that someone just has to run Windows, or Outlook, or Internet Explorer, or Word, or Excel, or Access, or IIS, or some other program that almost no one uses.
24 hours to download an ISO over DSL? Switch to cable! It took me an hour to download an ISO I needed recently. Due to my aging hardware it almost took longer to burn the sucker than it did to download.
Also, I'd say that it is fair even if you go downloading ISOs to buy the distro in its official version once in a while. And if you can't stomach that, use Debian and make a contribution to Software in the Public Interest and/or the Free Software Foundation.
And finally (off-topic now), I wasn't aware there were a lot of Nazi feminists. I thought the Nazis primarily promoted "traditional" values regarding the place of women in society.
Not only that, where's the monitor? Am I missing something? This thing should have a flat screen just under the glass, no? Maybe with a setup so the screen can be angled from 0 (flush with desk) to 90 (sticking straight up) degrees... ditto keyboard/mouse: where are they?
That said, it's being billed primarily as a server, so these considerations are not exactly high on the list, I guess.
I agree. It's incredibly tempting as a new Linux user to simply go through the list of options and install a bunch of them cuz you think you want to check them out. And in the process you've set up your one machine with all kinds of services, many of which may require a bit of fiddling to be truly secure. Certainly running telnet/ssh logins can be dangerous since you might not choose the best passwords (after all, it's your home machine right?). And then there's the issue of needing to update vulnerable services (if you bought your distro in shrinkwrap, the odds are high you've got a few older versions sitting around right at install).
I am under the impression that they would be looking to prevent the use of NAT to provide services outside the residence-- as running servers is clearly defined and prohibited in their TOS and Subscriber agreement. So if you want to run servers, get a different service contract (not that I can find any alternatives listed on their site in the five minutes I spent looking).
This is from their FAQ:
Can I use the service on more than one computer?
Yes, customers with home networks may order additional network addresses in order to connect several computers to the service through one cable modem.
You must first subscribe to the basic Comcast High-Speed Internet Service.
Once you become a subscriber, you can sign up for a second and third address.
You will need to have access to network expertise because Comcast High-Speed Internet Service neither installs nor supports networks.
The cost is $6.95 per month for each additional outlet. Customers can have two additional addresses, for a total of three.
Comcast will install the network card and software on a second and third computer for a change of $49 for each computer.
Seems pretty tolerant of self-installed networks if you ask me, and they will do the work for you if you don't know how to do it yourself. It is also worth pointing out that they probably don't support Linux. And correct me if I'm wrong but does Windows even have the ability to turn one machine into a firewall the way you might do with ipfilter or ipchains on Linux?
Shame it has to run on top of XFree really, although it is doing its best, and KDE is making the most use of the extensions available like RENDER.
Why is this a shame? X rocks. Just last night I was marvelling at how cool it was that I can easily set up my laptop as an X server and run X clients on a much more powerful machine elsewhere on the LAN, but view them from the laptop itself. All the while having *other* applications running on the laptop itself and the whole thing looking pretty much like a single desktop.
This beats the tar out of apps like PC Anywhere (which is the only non-X remote desktop I've ever seen in action).
Just so you're aware, children in the US certainly enjoy many rights in the public schools. But this is not because the children have rights. It is because the schools are constrained by the Constitution.
Those same children do not have those same rights when they go home to their parents, or when they attend private schools.
And government is perfectly allowed to discriminate on the basis of age under many circumstances-- for example: curfews. Curfews abridge the normal right to unfettered travel, so children must comply unless they have their parents along. But you can't make a curfew for adults unless there is a riot or natural disaster or something of that nature.
I'm pretty sure they're not far off. I spent some time this morning reading documents at www.copyright.gov and I got the impression that under most circumstances, libraries could do all kinds of things that regular people couldn't.
Hmmm. Instead of saying something intelligent and actually refuting the assertion that children in the US have no rights that don't derive directly from their parents, you're going to trot out some lame ad hominem attacks and a non-sequitor?
I'd tell *you* to grow up, but I don't think that makes a good come back under any circumstances.
Important to note that they will allow you to "opt out" by using a robots.txt file (not sure what you do if the domain is no longer available).
Funny part is, they may not have to allow this, except out of courtesy. Apparently libraries such as this can get away with all kinds of stuff that, if done by private individuals with any kind of profit motive, would normally constitute serious copyright violations. (see http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ21.pdf for information).
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy tickets to live performances? As in, direct audio-- straight from the instrument to your ears (and in some cases through an amplification system).:)
I have mixed opinions, but mostly I tend to agree. This is good for those of us using Linux, as long as an AOL/RedHat Linux remains essentially compatible with the rest of Linux. This means no forked compilers (wasn't this a Red Hat trick that broke binary RPM from 6.2 to 7.0?). This means no proprietary filesystems or services required to operate after install. This means that by adroit use of RPM one could reduce the system to a completely Free software state.
But imagine if a distro that was mostly standard existed and started to be bundled with all those free AOL CDs. People might actually install Linux at home. They might start to question the terms/prices coming out of Redmond.
And while I have some qualms about TW-AOL's business practices (buying competitors, cable lockouts, censorship, RIAA membership, MPAA membership), I also know that they must consider the software they produce to largely be a loss-leader. There is no charge for AOL software, only for the service. This means that they've been doing exactly what everyone's been touting as the "Open Source Business Plan" for a couple of decades now-- so they have a good chance of success with it.
If AOL ends up in court at the RIAA's request they would, in effect, be suing themselves. AOL is TimeWarner is one of the largest magazine publishers, movie production houses, recording labels in the world. If they buy Red Hat, my main concern is how this will affect some of their key employees who work on actually improving Linux (like Alan Cox).
I run GnuPG on Windows all the time. From the command line it is supposed to be a drop-in replacement for PGP. I do not know (since I am comfortable with a command line) what Windows utilities/mailers work with GnuPG. I should point out that MS Outlook 2000 mangles signed emails sent with the signature as a MIME part, so I'm dubious if there is much interactivity on the sending side either.
Slashdot Mirror
Audio and video. Sans compression if possible.
Real life databases for actual businesses with more than two products and employees.
Computer based animation comes to the amateur market.
And these are just a few of the serious ideas I could come up with. I can imagine two silly ideas just to use the space for every serious idea.
Huh. I have to disagree with you there. I've read several Shakespeare plays on the bus on my Palm Pilot and I used to read the Onion the same way. I can't help but wonder what others thought as I sat there cackling at my little calculator. The only thing that keeps me from reading more books/news/whatever on the Palm is the fact that I dropped it a while back and it tends to burn out batteries now. I'd replace it, but the cost is higher than the benefits at the moment.
So I don't think print will die any time soon, but I doubt it will be because of the tactile quality of books-- most of the reading people do isn't about leisure in the first place and they won't care if they can curl up with the newspaper or the latest memos from the office.
As to your last statement about history being wiped out by a magnet... are you really that clueless? Last time I checked books were highly suspectible to several elements of destruction not limited to fire and water. The only protection against destruction in *any* medium is geographically disparate redundancy.
I was only being pragmatic. I agree that the user-agent is irrelevant information as long as it conforms to the HTTP 1.1 standard.
Maybe because Galeon is at version 1.1.2! :)
? faq=user-agent
You might also consider asking Galeon to lie to the web server for you: http://galeon.sourceforge.net/support/answers.php
Well, I'm guessing they would track the IPs submitting the request and complain to your ISP, since if this interfered in the slightest with their normal operations it constitutes a denial of service attack. Fair play maybe for all of us currently receiving someone else's party pictures in large quantities in our incoming email, but nonetheless a legal minefield.
I find R1 fairly listenable in part due to the six hour time difference from England to the central US. The times I'm most likely to listen are evenings and nights. At that point in England it's after midnight-- so I'm usually listening to the overnight show, which is a lot less Clear-Channel-ish and a lot more like dance/club music. All I can say is, thank the gods for the British taxpayers... commercial-free radio, whether talk or music, is awesome... that it's available as Ogg streams is simply icing on the cake.
I'm not arguing against evolution of standards. For example, I'm fine with moving to MIME. This is easy enough to do by sending HTML messages along with a text version of the message and allowing the client software to decide which one to show-- and for non-MIME readers this puts the text version at the top.
But this is a case of a guy, one guy, messing with his mail headers so that people he doesn't want to have an easy time reading his mail, can't. He hasn't written an email client that automatically fouls up Outlook users-- and even if he had, it would have about four users, all of whom could have easily modified their headers themselves anyway. This isn't part of some broader movement. It amuses him to do this and it harms no one.
In fact, we might consider he's done these users a favor by preventing them from easily reading his messages. Nothing he's going to say is bound to be too popular with them anyway, right?
So is that why IE6 renders PNG transparency so poorly? They're trying to outdo inferior browsers?
I didn't really say it was fine or dandy. But if the software, by not adhering to the standard, tends to break, I guess I don't have much sympathy for the users thereof. On the other hand, I'm not going to rig my headers because I have better things to do with my time. As to this being in the same league with virus writing: no way in heck. Outlook viruses affect all of us, either by flooding mail servers or our inboxes. This exploit only affects Outlook users in a fairly passive way. And I didn't get any sense that this harmed the Outlook user either... other than to keep them from reading a specific email designed not to be read with their client.
Yes, let's compare a little techno-humor (no matter how meanspirited) to racism. Because as we all know, discrimination on the basis of operating system is plain evil and no one can change their operating system the way they can change their race or gender.
Also, Linux users are widely known to dominate the world, and picking on these defenseless Microsoft users is just plain terrible. God help those poor MS Souls in need!
And in closing, let me remind you that Microsoft and its user-base never reverse discriminates against non-MS-users. The benevolent community leaders in Redmond, persecuted as they are by the mainstream, never stoop to such ugly tactics as browser exclusive features or dirty almost-standard protocol tricks. And even though they don't have to, they work overtime to make sure that all non-MS programs and documents work seamlessly with MS applications on the off chance that someone just has to run Windows, or Outlook, or Internet Explorer, or Word, or Excel, or Access, or IIS, or some other program that almost no one uses.
24 hours to download an ISO over DSL? Switch to cable! It took me an hour to download an ISO I needed recently. Due to my aging hardware it almost took longer to burn the sucker than it did to download.
Also, I'd say that it is fair even if you go downloading ISOs to buy the distro in its official version once in a while. And if you can't stomach that, use Debian and make a contribution to Software in the Public Interest and/or the Free Software Foundation.
And finally (off-topic now), I wasn't aware there were a lot of Nazi feminists. I thought the Nazis primarily promoted "traditional" values regarding the place of women in society.
Not only that, where's the monitor? Am I missing something? This thing should have a flat screen just under the glass, no? Maybe with a setup so the screen can be angled from 0 (flush with desk) to 90 (sticking straight up) degrees... ditto keyboard/mouse: where are they?
That said, it's being billed primarily as a server, so these considerations are not exactly high on the list, I guess.
I agree. It's incredibly tempting as a new Linux user to simply go through the list of options and install a bunch of them cuz you think you want to check them out. And in the process you've set up your one machine with all kinds of services, many of which may require a bit of fiddling to be truly secure. Certainly running telnet/ssh logins can be dangerous since you might not choose the best passwords (after all, it's your home machine right?). And then there's the issue of needing to update vulnerable services (if you bought your distro in shrinkwrap, the odds are high you've got a few older versions sitting around right at install).
You might want to might want to RTFD WRT sarcasm. AFAIC that was particular joke was pretty obvious. HTH. HAND. :)
This is from their FAQ: Seems pretty tolerant of self-installed networks if you ask me, and they will do the work for you if you don't know how to do it yourself. It is also worth pointing out that they probably don't support Linux. And correct me if I'm wrong but does Windows even have the ability to turn one machine into a firewall the way you might do with ipfilter or ipchains on Linux?
Shame it has to run on top of XFree really, although it is doing its best, and KDE is making the most use of the extensions available like RENDER.
Why is this a shame? X rocks. Just last night I was marvelling at how cool it was that I can easily set up my laptop as an X server and run X clients on a much more powerful machine elsewhere on the LAN, but view them from the laptop itself. All the while having *other* applications running on the laptop itself and the whole thing looking pretty much like a single desktop.
This beats the tar out of apps like PC Anywhere (which is the only non-X remote desktop I've ever seen in action).
Just so you're aware, children in the US certainly enjoy many rights in the public schools. But this is not because the children have rights. It is because the schools are constrained by the Constitution. Those same children do not have those same rights when they go home to their parents, or when they attend private schools. And government is perfectly allowed to discriminate on the basis of age under many circumstances-- for example: curfews. Curfews abridge the normal right to unfettered travel, so children must comply unless they have their parents along. But you can't make a curfew for adults unless there is a riot or natural disaster or something of that nature.
I'm pretty sure they're not far off. I spent some time this morning reading documents at www.copyright.gov and I got the impression that under most circumstances, libraries could do all kinds of things that regular people couldn't.
I also note that archive.org is owned by Alexa Internet, and according to alexa.com: " © 1996-2001, Alexa Internet, Inc. Service provided by Alexa Internet. A wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com. " So what we really need to be concerned with is that this whole thing will be patented and we'll have to get a license from Amazon to have Linux clusters or online databases.
Hmmm. Instead of saying something intelligent and actually refuting the assertion that children in the US have no rights that don't derive directly from their parents, you're going to trot out some lame ad hominem attacks and a non-sequitor?
I'd tell *you* to grow up, but I don't think that makes a good come back under any circumstances.
Important to note that they will allow you to "opt out" by using a robots.txt file (not sure what you do if the domain is no longer available).
Funny part is, they may not have to allow this, except out of courtesy. Apparently libraries such as this can get away with all kinds of stuff that, if done by private individuals with any kind of profit motive, would normally constitute serious copyright violations. (see http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ21.pdf for information).
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy tickets to live performances? As in, direct audio-- straight from the instrument to your ears (and in some cases through an amplification system). :)
Well, what I don't understand is why they would buy RedHat when you can download the ISOs for free. ;)
I have mixed opinions, but mostly I tend to agree. This is good for those of us using Linux, as long as an AOL/RedHat Linux remains essentially compatible with the rest of Linux. This means no forked compilers (wasn't this a Red Hat trick that broke binary RPM from 6.2 to 7.0?). This means no proprietary filesystems or services required to operate after install. This means that by adroit use of RPM one could reduce the system to a completely Free software state.
But imagine if a distro that was mostly standard existed and started to be bundled with all those free AOL CDs. People might actually install Linux at home. They might start to question the terms/prices coming out of Redmond.
And while I have some qualms about TW-AOL's business practices (buying competitors, cable lockouts, censorship, RIAA membership, MPAA membership), I also know that they must consider the software they produce to largely be a loss-leader. There is no charge for AOL software, only for the service. This means that they've been doing exactly what everyone's been touting as the "Open Source Business Plan" for a couple of decades now-- so they have a good chance of success with it.
If AOL ends up in court at the RIAA's request they would, in effect, be suing themselves. AOL is TimeWarner is one of the largest magazine publishers, movie production houses, recording labels in the world. If they buy Red Hat, my main concern is how this will affect some of their key employees who work on actually improving Linux (like Alan Cox).
I run GnuPG on Windows all the time. From the command line it is supposed to be a drop-in replacement for PGP. I do not know (since I am comfortable with a command line) what Windows utilities/mailers work with GnuPG. I should point out that MS Outlook 2000 mangles signed emails sent with the signature as a MIME part, so I'm dubious if there is much interactivity on the sending side either.