I like having my email online so I can check it anywhere there's a computer and an Internet connection. Notebook PC's are a pain to carry around everywhere....
So do I. That's why I'm set up to hit my personal server with an IMAP client.
You forget that Windows NT was advertised as a high-security C3 operating system.
Provided, of course, that you didn't dual-boot, or install a floppy disk or network adapter. (information from the C3-readiness test app supplied with NT)
By the way, for American readers, early voting is probably starting this coming week/weekend. There is no excuse to not vote:)
Agreed.
What if you are firmly convinced that the whole election process (and indeed the whole of the US political machine) is corrupt beyond retrieval? Voting means acting to perpetuate the broken system, no?
it's a pity that Herbert didn't stop at the first book because the rest were so poor by comparison.
A friend of mine once met Frank Herbert and asked why Dune was so good, yet the other two (at the time) were so weak. Herbert reportedly answered that Dune was a labor of love, and the followups were contractural obligations.
quit mouthing off on the Internet complaining about your government when the House has something ridiculous like a 98% re-election rate.
You're confusing the operation of a well-oiled political machine with a true reflection of public sentiment. Perhaps you've missed the regular redistricting that results in a strong incumbency advantage?
Face it, the game is rigged. Regardless of whom you vote for, a politician still gets elected.
I'd get bounces for such-and-such@watson.com from IBM and it was obvious that wonks at ibm were sending to @watson.com not @watson.ibm.com (the IBM Thomas Watson research center).
I had a similar situation (with the culprit's identity masked, to protect the "innocent"). I registered <name>.com in '96. A couple of years later, a company named <name> started up and, being unable to get <name>.com, settled for <name>-inc.com.
As you may have guessed, I began receiving misdirected mail in my catch-all box. To each, I would politely reply "Perhaps you meant to type <name>-inc.com?" The irony was that the company in question was a computer security consultancy, and I was getting meeting notes, RFP drafts and the like.
Eventually, the company contacted me and bought the domain. That was my little slice of the dot-com boom.
Not to sound like a curmudgeon, but isn't just about everything over an extended WAN, except perhaps BITNET or UUCP batch transactions (you know, pre-old school stuff), hopelessly lag sensitive and extremely painful at best?
Can't speak for BITNET (never used that one), but UUCP was also horribly lag-sensitive, given that it had a one-frame window (which is to say, no window at all). Some folks may remember the venerable Telebit Trailblazer modem's UUCP spoofing feature (it faked the ACKs locally to cut down the turnaround delay), which made the protocol a little less painful.
Visual SourceSafe? I'd rather give myself paper cuts over my body and then roll around in a briny vineagar solution, perhaps with a bunch of cayenne pepper sauce thrown in for good measure.
Yep, that pretty much captures the VSS experience. At the current day job, two of us have been hinting toward a move to Subversion. I think it might only take a couple more VSS database corruptions to get the point across.
it's a FULL peer-to-peer registration and management system, very robust, very complex, _extremely_ good, and people have xxxx-all idea of quite how useful it is
You left out "incredibly chatty" and "hopelessly lag-sensitive", two attributes that make CIFS-based operations over an extended WAN environment painful at best. Ask anyone who's tried to drag'n'drop a few thousand files onto a network share located on the opposite coast from behind a half-ISDN connection. For added fun, try working with a Visual SourceSafe project over that same link.
Good, sure... for a certain limited set of values of "good".
Actually, I'm flabberghasted that after the election controversies of 2000, someone decided to sell a voting machine with LESS accountability than the hanging chads of Florida AND someone bought them.
Ah, but you miss the point. The debacle in Florida wasn't the hanging chads. It was that the gaff was tipped and they had to recount. Then the chads became an uncomfortable embarassment. This made the market ripe for a system that would allow untraceable manipulations. Obviously, one or more manufacturers stepped up to fulfill this demand.
You've got your whole life to write your first album, and 12 months to write the second one. Back when I was a working musician, the common wisdom was "don't even look for a contract unless you have 3 albums' worth of solid material."
Perhaps you mean "shrouded source"? Pretty popular years ago for proprietary *nix programs. I've seen similar stuff done to some commercial Windows programs, where all the DLL calls are to 'Ordinal_0001()' and such.
"Optically read" formats can be forged with a printer.
The format can be, but the data contained can be encrypted/signed, making it difficult to do any more than duplicate an existing barcode. Creating "new" records would be difficult, and given biometric data, duplicating existing ones would be of limited use. Besides, the new plan includes an optical barcode, which carries the key to the encrypted data on the RFID chip.
Contact-based things like smart cards or mag stripes are subject to mechanical wear and operator error.
Interesting that we've not heard of wear issues or operator problems with the submerged mag-stripes in current passports. The readers are drop-dead simple. The Customs goon simply slides the cover through a slot. Sometimes. I've had mine scanned returning from Canada, and not scanned returning from Europe (though that was pre-WTC-attack).
The problem isn't tamper-resistance. The problem is fielding an RFID tag that will uniquely identify a US passport holder, even without decrypting the additional information. The GUID on each RFID passport is unique, in the clear and vulnerable whenever the passport is opened. Like when you check into your foreign hotel or buy a train ticket. Maybe there's a 6-foot dish concealed 60 feet from the check-in desk. Or maybe the clerk's palmtop/scanner is sitting just out of sight, and he gets $1 for every GUID he collects (with timestamp).
And it's just possible that the shielding isn't as effective as we're told (or doesn't exist at all).
I'm waiting for the first bomb that has a proximity fuse looking for a US passport.
I've yet to hear anyone adequately appease this concern.
/me dons the cynical man's hat.
Perhaps that's because that scenario is a deliberate design decision? Or, more correctly, it's an inevitable outfall from a design constraint; that of deploying a mechanism for surreptitiously tracking US passport holders.
Of course, the State Department steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that passports are ever examined except at border crossings.
Well, as long as you implement booleans as ints, they are 2^32-state variables - that's fuzzy logic, you know;).
'Zackley! There's really more fun to be had, since sometime in the near past, MS actually added a 'bool' type (but not to be confused with 'BOOL').
If there is an error, the function returns -1, which is nonzero, which means that a message other than WM_QUIT was retrieved. I presume that the first paragraph should read "the value is greater than 0", but I can't be sure, based on this documentation.
I s'pose one could say that an error is a "message other than WM_QUIT". Just not the "message" one might have been expecting.
I usually say that this requires one to write a what_is_truth() function.
Oh dear god, that gives me nightmares. MFC, Hungarian notation, C++ spaghetti code that makes absolutely no use of classes, and an API from hell.
And let us not forget the wonderful code examples given in the Microsoft documentation that you can cut'n'paste into a project, where they will compile without error and then fail silently at runtime. (CreateFile, anyone?)
But then, what do you expect from an outfit that believes a BOOL is tri-state. (one would have thought that would have been fixed by now, but nooooo....)
You're not getting it-- if it wasn't for the idiots who buy things from spam e-mails and thereby make it a profitable venture, spammers would have no incentive to bother in the first place.
I think I am getting it. It's a Marching Morons problem. In other words, it's impossible to completely educate the idiots that buy spamvertised products. We need to take another tack, and go after the people who profit from the spam. That means the companies who buy the campaigns and the spammers themselves. Pink-contract ISPs also need to be targeted.
Bad meme! If you treat it as a training issue, you're dodging the responsibility. As has been said upthread, spam is theft. It steals our CPU cycles and our bandwidth. People like you stuffing your head in the sand and ignoring the problem only help the spammers win.
I did install it, and it is slick-looking. Off the top, it needs collapsable folder display and either a 'next new' and/or 'show all new'. Oh, and the folder list should scroll independently of the display area.
Slashdot Mirror
</sarcasm>
I don't know what the ultimate answer to spam is, but walled gardens aren't on the list.
Genius, indeed.
Face it, the game is rigged. Regardless of whom you vote for, a politician still gets elected.
As you may have guessed, I began receiving misdirected mail in my catch-all box. To each, I would politely reply "Perhaps you meant to type <name>-inc.com?" The irony was that the company in question was a computer security consultancy, and I was getting meeting notes, RFP drafts and the like.
Eventually, the company contacted me and bought the domain. That was my little slice of the dot-com boom.
Good, sure... for a certain limited set of values of "good".
You've got your whole life to write your first album, and 12 months to write the second one. Back when I was a working musician, the common wisdom was "don't even look for a contract unless you have 3 albums' worth of solid material."
Perhaps you mean "shrouded source"? Pretty popular years ago for proprietary *nix programs. I've seen similar stuff done to some commercial Windows programs, where all the DLL calls are to 'Ordinal_0001()' and such.
The problem isn't tamper-resistance. The problem is fielding an RFID tag that will uniquely identify a US passport holder, even without decrypting the additional information. The GUID on each RFID passport is unique, in the clear and vulnerable whenever the passport is opened. Like when you check into your foreign hotel or buy a train ticket. Maybe there's a 6-foot dish concealed 60 feet from the check-in desk. Or maybe the clerk's palmtop/scanner is sitting just out of sight, and he gets $1 for every GUID he collects (with timestamp).
And it's just possible that the shielding isn't as effective as we're told (or doesn't exist at all).
I'm waiting for the first bomb that has a proximity fuse looking for a US passport.
Perhaps that's because that scenario is a deliberate design decision? Or, more correctly, it's an inevitable outfall from a design constraint; that of deploying a mechanism for surreptitiously tracking US passport holders.
Of course, the State Department steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that passports are ever examined except at border crossings.
I usually say that this requires one to write a what_is_truth() function.
At MS, confusion is Job 1.But then, what do you expect from an outfit that believes a BOOL is tri-state. (one would have thought that would have been fixed by now, but nooooo....)
Obviously, God needs to kill more kittens.
Otherwise, not a bad start!