That isn't what they're saying. They're saying that computer use alone is not a sufficient explanation for CTS (not RSIs in general).
According to my wife's physician (who is treating her for mild CTS), the current thinking in the medical field is that predisposition to getting CTS may in fact be hereditary. Some people will never get it, while it's just a matter of time for others.
For some people, keyboarding and mousing are the triggers. For others, it's continuous back-and-forth motion. (Ever notice how many grocery store cashiers have wrist braces?) For my wife, it was doing the edging when we repainted our house.
The manufacturer's site lists it at 93 and US$93 for the 128MB model, evidently not taking the exchange rate into consideration:
The first portable Memory on your wrist
32MB Euro 42,- / USD 42,-
64MB Euro 64,- / USD 64,-
128MB Euro 93,- / USD 93,-
However, they charge 42.15 for UPS international shipping, which may have something to do with Thinkgeek's higher price. This is only shown on their fax order form, so most people probably missed it.
You laugh, but things like this really do happen here in Peoria. Take a look at the
police blotter [Google cache] from our local paper from an issue from last month. Scroll down to the bottom, it's the second-to-last item.
Linux does have sar/mpstat/iostat, though they aren't installed by default in most distributions. They're distributed in a package called sysstat. As for prstat, much of the same functionality is already present in Linux ps.
A short blurb on this appeared in my local paper today (they don't have it online, sorry). The gist of it is Verisign physically relocated the server to another building on their campus. The stated intent was (1) to move it to an undisclosed location in the interest of physical security, and (2) to get it off a network segment that another root server (a.root-servers.net) was already on.
It doesn't prove that much as there may be fewer Apache-SSL sites on linux than there are IIS sites.
It proves even less than that. There are two SSL add-ons for Apache, and only mod_ssl is vulnerable to the current Slapper variants (partly due to the fact it advertises the OpenSSL version). Apache-SSL sites are not presently being hit, but they could be.
Fox Sports Net broadcasters John Kelly and Peter McNab sure felt that one from the broadcast booth of the Compaq Center (soon to be the "HP Pavilion") in San Jose,...
Steve Levy on ESPN wouldn't shut up about it, as though the Bay Area had never had an earthquake before.
First of all, there is no way Microsoft can enforce conditions upon the implementation of a standard (read: "standard"). Entering into a contract requires, well, that you enter into a contract.
That's precisely what they're saying you must do. If you reference their spec in order to complete your implementation, they say you must go to their Web site, print out and sign a form that says you agree to abide by the conditions, and mail it to them. Postal mail, no less. They want the actual signed paper document, which is more compelling in court than a "Yes" button that you click on. That's your contract.
When I read this story, I figured it was another deal like the Kerberos/Win2000 thing. As some will recall, you could download the specs, but the self-extracting archive required you to agree to licensing terms before it would extract the document. Not so with the CIFS spec. It's just a WinZip self-extractor with no restrictions. It's available here. What you do with it is your business... though bear in mind that Microsoft might make it their business, too.
If it helps, they're made by a company called TTC, who in turn became a company called Acterna in 2000 through a series of mergers and acquisitions. They still sell various T1 test set models under the T-Berd name.
With in-car MP3, XM and Sirius are headed for the same landfill that Iridium and Ricochet are in, namely, great technology that solves no problems. What a waste!
Perhaps, if your radio use is limited to music. I'm a talk radio junkie, and the area I live and work in is small enough that there aren't many radio options. The nearest NPR station is a small FM station 100 miles away, and reception is poor. People around here couldn't even pick up the World Series this year because the one sports radio station in town doesn't have an agreement with ESPN Radio. As you point out, it's not for everyone, but it sucks less than nothing at all.
I could see this being legit if, somehow, it prevented the SENDING of spam...
The wording of their FAQ confuses the issue. Though they might make use of something Microsoft-specific in POP3, that probably isn't what they meant. They want to control SMTP.
They are requiring the use of specific Microsoft mailers because they are the only ones which support certain SMTP AUTH mechanisms. LOGIN (a plaintext method) and NTLM are the most likely. A more complete list can be found here [sendmail.org]. They are almost certainly restricting outbound SMTP to their own servers.
They can't stop spam with this, but it does provide them with an audit trail. If one of their user's sends spam, they can determine with reasonable certainly which account it came from. It saves them the step of matching mail log entries with corresponding dialup log entries.
Re:That's not what they mean by "unique."
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 1
update() wrote:
And you people think it's unfair that the people who contributed tissue samples don't collect royalties?
The part I find unfair is that consent is often not obtained or even sought. I make regular monetary donations to charity, and I don't have a problem donating blood or mucous or skin cells or whatever to science either. However, I do expect a little common courtesy in return.
Also, what you're seeing here is the contempt for innovation and creation in the "free everything" mentality.
No, what we're seeing are corporations increasingly viewing the general public as a means toward profit before anything else. We are not simply sets of eyeballs to be marketed to. We are not your private little petri dish. We are individual human beings who deserve to be treated with a little dignity.
... you ungrateful pinheads...
Riiight. Just remember who you call when your precious research equipment breaks down.
Art Wittmann of Network Computing had a similar epiphany back in September. In a nutshell, he speculates that sometime next year Novell will either be acquired by a heavyweight (IBM and Oracle are mentioned) or go under completely.
Uh, British Telcom dosent have to go through the Unites States Patent Office.
They do if they want their claim honored in the United States. They did apply for the patent with the USPTO (15 August 1980), and it was granted (10 October 1989, patent no. 4,873,662) . That's what all the fuss was about. Had public feedback been solicited, the patent might not have been granted in the US because of the clear examples of prior art missed by the Patent Office.
"Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."
It is important to note that this only applies to applications the Director has determined to be for business methods. It's a step in the right direction, but it still wouldn't help in cases such as BT's purported patent on hyperlinking.
This is probably a moot point by now, but in my opinion allowing new TLDs to vary in length is not a good idea. I'm reminded of when the FCC started expanding area codes, and some PBXes were unable to place calls to those numbers because the second digit of the area code was not a 1 or 0. I can't help but wonder just how much software out there depends on the TLD being exactly 3 letters (or 2 for ccTLDs) and will break with confronted with www.disney.kids or www.barnesandnoble.store.
I certainly won't argue the disk space point. I'm a sysadmin for an ISP, and we have to expire the spool twice daily just to keep up. It just happens that Usenet bites you in the pocketbook twice, once for bigger disk arrays and once for bandwidth.
The last time we did any measurements (informal at best), we determined that our newsfeed consumes almost an entire T1 when articles are streaming (which is most of the time). We don't even take a full feed either, just the Big 8 and alt.*. As the original article points out, there are still a lot of university sites out there using a single T1.
Furthermore, it's been my experience that Usenet users at a particular site generally generate less total network traffic than the upstream feeds themselves. This might be different in a university environment, but I have a hunch it isn't.
Lastly, the deployment of these boxxen on networks could be challenged under the First Amendment by a particularly talented ACLU/EFF type law team.
Not too likely. I fail to see how this is any different from alt.binaries.* on Usenet. Plenty of companies and universities no longer carry them (or any newsgroups for that matter) for the exact same reason sites now wish to restrict bandwidth used by Napster: It uses up an inordinate amount of bandwidth at the expense of those who wish or need to do real work. If this is the monumental civil rights violation you make it out to be, why aren't you up in arms about office dwellers and university students not getting their Usenet pr0n?
My company generally does not purchase name-brand PCs. There isn't a single Compaq or HP or Dell desktop PC in the building. Instead, we opt to purchase components from a local wholesaler and assemble the PCs on our own. We purchase software separately, and make sure we have proper licensing on everything like good little lemmings.
I put one PC together last year that had a very new video card. It was just another no-name card, typical OEM wholesale fare. It was new enough that Win95 did not have drivers for it, so I had to use the ones that came with the card. The drivers came on a CD that was enclosed in a sealed paper envelope. Covering the flap was a sticker that read:
PLEASE NOTE THAT REMOVAL OF THIS LABEL IS YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT USE OF THE ENCLOSED SOFTWARE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE ENCLOSED LICENSE AGREEMENT. IF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE, PLEASE RETURN THE ENTIRE PRODUCT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASING FOR A FULL REFUND.
I swear I am not making this up. In order to read the license, I had to open the envelope. However, by opening the envelope, I automatically agreed to whatever terms the license laid out. Automatically.
Originally, I thought it was humorous that some company that no one had ever heard of (so unknown that they couldn't even be bothered to put their own name on the product) was so paranoid about what people might do with the drivers for it. I was so amused by it that a photocopied enlargement of the sticker is hanging in my office.
In retrospect, however, I completely missed the hidden message sent by that little sticker. The message is loudly amplified by the present debate on Microsoft's licensing practices. That message is this: "We are the software company. We will settle for nothing less than total submission by all who wish to use our software. We will not tolerate anyone using any of our software in any way that we disapprove of, nor will we tolerate anyone attempting to use any software other that ours. Don't bother trying to defend your rights. You have no rights."
There's the crux of the matter. This isn't just about reducing software piracy or keeping people from trying alternative operating systems. It's all about control.
Slashdot Mirror
According to my wife's physician (who is treating her for mild CTS), the current thinking in the medical field is that predisposition to getting CTS may in fact be hereditary. Some people will never get it, while it's just a matter of time for others.
For some people, keyboarding and mousing are the triggers. For others, it's continuous back-and-forth motion. (Ever notice how many grocery store cashiers have wrist braces?) For my wife, it was doing the edging when we repainted our house.
Linux does have sar/mpstat/iostat, though they aren't installed by default in most distributions. They're distributed in a package called sysstat. As for prstat, much of the same functionality is already present in Linux ps.
A short blurb on this appeared in my local paper today (they don't have it online, sorry). The gist of it is Verisign physically relocated the server to another building on their campus. The stated intent was (1) to move it to an undisclosed location in the interest of physical security, and (2) to get it off a network segment that another root server (a.root-servers.net) was already on.
It's JavaScript embedded in the page:
When I read this story, I figured it was another deal like the Kerberos/Win2000 thing. As some will recall, you could download the specs, but the self-extracting archive required you to agree to licensing terms before it would extract the document. Not so with the CIFS spec. It's just a WinZip self-extractor with no restrictions. It's available here. What you do with it is your business... though bear in mind that Microsoft might make it their business, too.
If it helps, they're made by a company called TTC, who in turn became a company called Acterna in 2000 through a series of mergers and acquisitions. They still sell various T1 test set models under the T-Berd name.
They are requiring the use of specific Microsoft mailers because they are the only ones which support certain SMTP AUTH mechanisms. LOGIN (a plaintext method) and NTLM are the most likely. A more complete list can be found here [sendmail.org]. They are almost certainly restricting outbound SMTP to their own servers.
They can't stop spam with this, but it does provide them with an audit trail. If one of their user's sends spam, they can determine with reasonable certainly which account it came from. It saves them the step of matching mail log entries with corresponding dialup log entries.
-jeavis
Art Wittmann of Network Computing had a similar epiphany back in September. In a nutshell, he speculates that sometime next year Novell will either be acquired by a heavyweight (IBM and Oracle are mentioned) or go under completely.
This is probably a moot point by now, but in my opinion allowing new TLDs to vary in length is not a good idea. I'm reminded of when the FCC started expanding area codes, and some PBXes were unable to place calls to those numbers because the second digit of the area code was not a 1 or 0. I can't help but wonder just how much software out there depends on the TLD being exactly 3 letters (or 2 for ccTLDs) and will break with confronted with www.disney.kids or www.barnesandnoble.store.
[Options]
BootMulti=0
BootGUI=0
as was possible with Win9x?
The last time we did any measurements (informal at best), we determined that our newsfeed consumes almost an entire T1 when articles are streaming (which is most of the time). We don't even take a full feed either, just the Big 8 and alt.*. As the original article points out, there are still a lot of university sites out there using a single T1.
Furthermore, it's been my experience that Usenet users at a particular site generally generate less total network traffic than the upstream feeds themselves. This might be different in a university environment, but I have a hunch it isn't.
Not too likely. I fail to see how this is any different from alt.binaries.* on Usenet. Plenty of companies and universities no longer carry them (or any newsgroups for that matter) for the exact same reason sites now wish to restrict bandwidth used by Napster: It uses up an inordinate amount of bandwidth at the expense of those who wish or need to do real work. If this is the monumental civil rights violation you make it out to be, why aren't you up in arms about office dwellers and university students not getting their Usenet pr0n?
I put one PC together last year that had a very new video card. It was just another no-name card, typical OEM wholesale fare. It was new enough that Win95 did not have drivers for it, so I had to use the ones that came with the card. The drivers came on a CD that was enclosed in a sealed paper envelope. Covering the flap was a sticker that read:
I swear I am not making this up. In order to read the license, I had to open the envelope. However, by opening the envelope, I automatically agreed to whatever terms the license laid out. Automatically.Originally, I thought it was humorous that some company that no one had ever heard of (so unknown that they couldn't even be bothered to put their own name on the product) was so paranoid about what people might do with the drivers for it. I was so amused by it that a photocopied enlargement of the sticker is hanging in my office.
In retrospect, however, I completely missed the hidden message sent by that little sticker. The message is loudly amplified by the present debate on Microsoft's licensing practices. That message is this: "We are the software company. We will settle for nothing less than total submission by all who wish to use our software. We will not tolerate anyone using any of our software in any way that we disapprove of, nor will we tolerate anyone attempting to use any software other that ours. Don't bother trying to defend your rights. You have no rights."
There's the crux of the matter. This isn't just about reducing software piracy or keeping people from trying alternative operating systems. It's all about control.
--
møøse bites are pritti nasti.