RMS didn't say there was no reason to do it, he said it can be just as secure as the rest of the campus without the RFID...
Based on what i've read about this new building, I doesn't sound like that is the case to me. It might be the case that none of the other buildings have the RFID locks on them, but that doesn't mean that this building would be just as secure without them. It has to do with the way the building is designed and laid out.
When i was at school, on my campus, most of the buildings were unlocked 24 hours a day. The exceptions were the student housing buildings and the government research buildings which were locked 24/7, and the architecture department building which was locked nights and weekends. Why only the architecture department building, and not the other departments? Because the other buildings were more traditional school buildings, Where all of the individual classrooms and offices could be locked, and getting into the building only got you into the hallways where there was nothing interesting. But the architecture building was essentially one giant classroom, and once you were inside you had access to almost everything in the building except for a few storage closets and such in the basement, so you have to be a lot more careful about letting people in.
Of course, in the time since i graduated, i believe they are moving towards putting locks on the other buildings as well. Because even without the problem of theft, there's the issue of bums in the area using the building as a warm place to sleep, or people off the street coming in and assaulting or scaring the crap out of students in the building.
That was my initial reaction too, but I have no doubt that another institution wouldn't quickly take him in and house and feed him while he continues doing exactly what he's doing now...
What I can understand is why they want this info. If there's equipment that goes missing.. it's quite usefull to know who is in the building, or who opened the door to the room.
Besides the issue of knowing who is in there, I suspect its as much of an issue of keeping people who dont belong in there out. The problem with keys is that if somebody loses one, in order to maintain security, you have to re-key all of the locks with that key and re-issue keys to everyone who is supposed to have access. With ID cards, you can deactivate that one ID in the system and issues a new ID to one person. While this is not a big problem with offices and classrooms, it's much more of an issue with areas that are "common areas" accessible to most of the campus.
As for why the common areas would have to be locked, well, from my understanding, MIT isn't in one of the nicest areas of Boston. I went to school at IIT (Illinois Institute of Technology, not ITT) which was in the middle of the projects on the south side of chicago, and they've started using stuff like this in a lot of the buildings on campus lately there too. Even ignoring the issue of theft, there's also the issue of bums using your stariwells as a warm place to spend the night in winter, and students getting assaulted by people coming in off the street. I remember my parents reaction when they first saw the campus where I went to school, and that was before they had installed most of the newer security measures. If noting else, a system like this probably helps the parents rest easier knowing that their children are attending a school that's actually concerned about their safety.
Actually, CPC is right. There are a couple of different metrics for pricing internet advertising. The most common ones are:
CPM - Cost Per (M)1000* impressions
CPC - Cost Per Click
CPA - Cost Per Acquisition(?)
Not many people do CPM anymore, but it was popular back in the ".com era". CPA is the method most liked by people buying the advertisements- they only have to pay for the ads when they actually sell something. Of course it's also not too common because the company delivering the advertisements needs a way to know when the advertiser sold something in order to not get screwed.
which leaves us with CPC as the most popular payment method for internet advertisements. and as somebody else pointed out, the going rate for CPC last i checked is about $1-$2.50, and may be higher now.
*I had always assumed the M in CPM was related to the roman numeral M. But apparently according to one of the other posters, CPM is derived from a French word whose use in advertising predates the internet...
while i'm no big fan of george bush, most people seem to have forgotten that the patriot act wass passed overwhelmingly in an evenly divided house and all but unanimously (1 dissenting vote) in an evenly divided senate. so dubya is hardly the cause of our problems (at least wrt patriot). bill clinton has spoken very favorably of patriot also, and iirc tried to pass something similar after the oklahoma city bombings. apparently there wasn't quite enough public outrage after that one to push it through....
i am aware of magic_quotes_sybase, but even if the data is escaped properly, i'm mainly just against the idea of php auto-munging my variables.
if you have sybase magic quotes turned on, then your code will be wrong on mysql. i know that sounds nit-picky, but i have worked on projects before where i had to track data in both oracle and mysql databases. if you use bind variables in your sql statements, (as i demonstrated in my previous post) you shouldn't even have to worry about which database you're trying to escape data for, which is the way it should be.
People want SUVs because they think it makes them come off as a wimp (male or female, but especially males) to drive a minivan. Personally, I think it makes you a dumbshit to drive a SUV. It's not good at anything, not community, nor grocery getting, off roading, cruising, or for ferrying around children. The only exceptions to this rule are vehicles which existed before we called anything a "sport utility" vehicle, which is to say the suburban.
i agree with your point, but i think that the original generation of vehicles labeled as "sport utility" actually lived up to their name. e.g. the jeep cherokee, older ford explorers, chevy blazer, etc.
my parents have owned a jeep or explorer for about 12 years now. at this point, it's mostly because it's what my mom is comfortable driving, but before my brother and i went away to college, it actually served a purpose. my family always drove on vacations, and we tended to do a lot of camping in the summer and skiing in the winter. a family car just isn't practical for driving around four (essentially) full grown people for extended (i.e. one week) periods of time, especially when you take in to consideration the amount of gear you need for the trips we would go on. we tried renting a minivan once or twice before we got the first jeep but they just didn't work out too well. before that we owned a full size van as a third vehicle which we only used when we were on vacation. since my mom only drives about a mile or so to work, using an SUV as a daily use vehicle was much more practical than having a larger, dedicated vehicle just for traveling.
anyway, this is bordering on an OT rant now, but i know so many people who make blanket complaints about SUV's and it's started to drive me crazy.
back to the original point though- there are certain vehicles in the "SUV" category that drive me crazy. the primary one being H2. i live in chicago, the second largest city in the country, and i see about 2-3 of these a day. even downtown! i'm pretty sure that the H2 is just some sort of penis extension for rich guys who got made fun of too much when they were younger. the other ones that drive me crazy are the 'luxury' SUV's- Porche, BMW, Infinity (and the Murano since its essentially the same thing). they're just station wagons for people who think they're too cool to drive a station wagon (they even look like station wagons, to me at least)
Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane
on
The Bugatti Veyron
·
· Score: 1
The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .
i believe there was a lot of interest in aviation use early on because their streamlined shape made them more appropriate aerodynamically for wing mounted engines, however they never saw widespread use, as the early generations of rotaries were plagued by fuel inefficiency and mechanical difficulties (as mentioned by other posts). still, the interest was there, and i wonder now that it seems some of these issues have been solved whether they might see a resurgence in aviation use of rotary engines.
that might be a good solution if it was the right way to escape quotes in most databases. what databases use \' other than mysql? in my experience, the correct way to escape a ' on oracle, ms sql, sybase, postgresql, etc. is ''. this drives me crazy at work, because for some unknown reason, we actually have magic_quotes enabled, so i have to strip_slashes, _and_ properly escape my quotes. grr....
at least with PEAR::DB now, i can finally do: $db->query(select * from foo where a = ?", $a) and not worry about it- the way it should have been all along.
while i can't really speak with any authority on sound cards, my experience with video cards has been exactly the opposite. i had an old STB video card that i got from a friend who used it with windows 95. it has worked with linux for as long as i can remember (and still does), but there are no drivers for this card that will work with windows 2000 or xp.
for most types of hardware that are well supported by linux (network cards, video cards, sound cards, etc.) linux legacy support fr exceeds windows legacy support, at least in my experience.
What is easier - a multiple choice test, or a fill in the blank test?
Of course in the Microsoft multiple choice test, every single question has the option "E. None of the Above". And I can tell you, (because I had a teacher that did it once) that if you give students a multiple choice test where the correct answer to almost every question is "none of the above", 90% of them will score worse than they would on a short answer test with the same questions.
Never ask the sales person how good their product is, all you'll get is whatever they can spout off the top of their head as the newest sales line.
not true at all....
there was a company i worked at in early 2001 where the head salesperson (the highest paid person in the company btw) claimed he couldn't give our product away. downright depressing to overhear his sales calls too: "you see, we sell this piece of middleware..." no wonder the company only lasted 9 months.
shame too, because that was some pretty kick ass software we were working on.
The transition to PPC that the parent post is talking about has nothing to do with G5, or G-anything, and it happened about 10 years ago or so..... He's refering to Apple's switch from the Motorola 68K CPU's to the IBM/Motorola PowerPC chips which happened IIRC in the early 90's. At that point having more than one processor in a desktop or even small server machine was little more than a pipedream, and scalability of number of processors meant nothing to ~95% of the computing world.
As attractive as the idea appears, there's one fatal flaw. If you allow anyone to revoke a certificate, (or in this case, a significant number of anyones) sooner or later somebody (probably a spammer, or maybe somebody who just wants to create chaos for the heck of it) is going to start a campaign to mass revoke certificates. It could be an organized group of people that get together, or maybe instead of writing viruses that spam, people will write viruses that send out spam complaints and certificate revocation requests.
i don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but i think that it would at best be about as successful as the various rbl lists we have right now- in fact when you think about what your idea is trying to achieve rather than the specifics of how it achieves it, it's really not all that different from the rbls that we have now, and i suspect that it would work with about the same degree of success and suffer from many of the same problems.
although i do agree with you, i have to point out one thing: Secondly, I can, by publishing spf-records on my own domain eliminate the problem of spam bouncing back to me because it *claims* to be sent from me.
This won't eliminate the problem- it will only affect messages sent to a destination that verifies SPF records. So while it will reduce the problem, it won't come close to eliminating it until the majority of SMTP servers check SPF records by default.
still would be a massive improvement in my book though, and i plan on setting this up on my domain when we move to our new mail server.
I have done this on occasion back when I worked as a consultant. Consultant C shouldn't be using Customer A's email server to send email anyway. He should have his own email server set up that he uses as an outgoing SMTP server. And ideally it would have a webmail interface he can use for cases where he is working on a network that blocks outbound SMTP that is not through their mail server.
As a consultant, do you really want one of your clients to have access to your communications with other clients?
This also applies to the comments who are talking about people sending office emails when they are on business trips- they should still be sending through their company email server....
Or, perhaps the claim is that we've been pumping out more calories of dino-fuel to actually feed us, and have been doing that since humans evolved. I know I've heard claims to that effect, but that simply cannot answer how humans could've ever survived without pumping oil out of the ground.
It's something along those lines. The key is that it's not something we've been doing since humans evolved. In fact it's mostly a development of the last thirty years or so. A long time ago, the last time i took any kind of course in biology, at one point the text book went into efficiency of food production. My memory is a bit fuzzy on the details, but taking into account all of the non-solar energy that goes into food production (mainly work from humans and domesticated animals, or fossil fuels) modern industrial agriculture is something like a fifth to a tenth as efficient as farming methods in this country 50 to 80 years ago, and around a fiftieth to a hundredth as efficient as susbsistence farming in most undeveloped countries. Quite simply, as you consolidate your food production more and more, you need bigger and bigger machinery to make the work manageable, and your food supply gets further and further away from the consumers. All of this adds up to greatly increased fossil fuel consumption for the sake of reducing the human time and effort involved.
To be honest, i'm not entirely sure whether the amount of energy (in the form of fossil fuels) used to grow corn is greater or less then the amount of energy in the corn we end up with. There are some out there who say it is less. But it is certain that our efficiency in converting calories of dino-fuel to calories of corn has gone way down, and if it's not negative already, the extra loss that comes from distilling the corn into ethanol almost guarantees it is.
I don't think the parent poster was refering to the amount of energy that is required for the distillation process. The point is that predominant agricultural methods, at least in this country, are very heavy in fossil fuel usage. Sure, the sun provides the energy to get the corn to grow, but have you ever seen the size of the tractors that they use to plant the fields, fertilize the fields, harvest the corn, etc. If you actually do the math, chances are that more energy in the form of fossil fuels is expended to get a ton of corn to a food processing plant than even exists in the corn. Even if none of that energy is lost in the distillation process, and even if the distillation was performed entirely using solar power, the ethanol you'd end up with would probably have less energy content than the fossil fuels used up by all of the vehicles used to grow and transport the corn.
In short, our current agricultural methods would
have to be drastically overhauled in order for corn to be truly viable as a source of anything other than food.
well, if you look at their benchmarks, three of the six are based on programs that likely aren't available in source or non-x86 binary form. it would be kind of a lame benchmark if for half of their tests they said, "well we couldn't compare one of our processors in this category".
of course, i may be wrong- it's possible that there is a ppc linux version of q3 or unreal tournament available, but i've never heard of them....
I've seens afew billboards recently in Michigan and Ohio advertising a bottled water called "Outhose Springs" with the tagline "It's number 1, not number 2".
However, if any of the code in the X libraries falls under this new license, then the FSF's interpretation of the GPL means that you wouldn't be able to link any GPLed program against the X libraries and distribute it. That's fairly bad.
Actually, there is a clause in the gpl that makes an exception for libraries that are part of the system distribution. This is a left over bit from a time when there were few (or no) free unices, and no free X toolkits. The exception was necessary because otherwise it would be impossible to distribute binary GPL programs for non-free unices, as they would have to be linked against a non-GPL compatible libc. It also had the side effect of allowing GPL programs that link against motif, since pretty much every commercial unix had a vendor supplied motif library. As XFree86 is included in the standard distribution of basically every free unix-like operating system, I think it would safely fall under this exception with regard to linking issues.
The only reason not being GPL compatible would be an issue for the XFree86 folks is that it would not be legal for someone to incorporate code licensed under the new XFree86 license into a project that they wanted to license under the GPL. This of course may be the intention of the XFree86 folks, or if not, it may be something to which they are altogether indifferent towards. It wouldn't affect in any way how XFree86 could be used, only how the code covered by this license could be reused elsewhere.
In the end, though, I still don't see what all the fuss is about There's nothing that I see in this license that would make it incompatible with the GPL. The well known "advertising clause" (which disappeareed from the BSD license at least a year or so ago, BTW) refers to (you guessed it) advertising materials. It stated that any advertisements for a product containing the code covered by the license had to have a notice stating that fact. The proposed XFree86 license has no such clause. It merely states that the copyright notice has to appear in any binary distribution (which the GPL also requires) and any documentation (which the GPL does not explicitly require, but one could perhaps argue that the documentation is part of the full 'source' of the program, or a derivation thereof, and therefore must be distributed with a copy of the license anyway)
For example, some claims of the Goldberg Patents are broadly directed to network-based persentations, i.e. changing advertising such as pop-up advertising or rotating banners...
did the lawyer sending the notice make that typo, or was the letter just transcribed wrong? i'm not sure i would pay a whole lot of attention to a lawyer who screwed up something that basic.
Frankly, while I detest a LOT of things people are doing with Flash (namely ads), things like JoeCartoon.com, CampChaos.com, Homestarrunner.com, oddtodd.com, and one-offs by would-be web artists everywhere make the whole thing worth it.
while i disagree with the patent itself, i am in agreement with the original post that this could be one of the greatest things ever to happen to the web. The two things that i really like flash for, comics and small games (my favorite), would not be adversely affected by any of the proposed solutions to avoid patent infringement- flash would be a separate application and the flash file you want would load in that application instead of seemlessly into your browser window. when the flash file is actually content itself, there's no real disadvantage to this. however- flash adds, flash navigation menus, flash splash pages, and every other horrific misuse of flash would no longer work correctly and would need to be scrapped.
i'm trying really hard to find a downside to disabling flash as a seemless browser plugin. i only wish there was an easy way to do it now.
IF theres alot of bad content and criminals using freenet, its because most people are bad.
not really. it just means that so-called good things (like, for example, linux ISO's) are currently much more convenient to distribute via traditional methods. right now, freenet is mostly used to share or retrieve things which people would prefer not to have other people know that they are sharing or retrieving. this is not to say that everything on freenet is illegal or objectionable material. but it is most definately not a reasonable cross-section of human nature either. the real conclusion you could draw from freenet traffic right now is that there are a lot of bad people out there. however, in order to do any real statistical analysis on "good" vs. "bad" people and what type of information people want to share, freenet would have to be the most convenient and defacto method for sharing ALL kinds of data, regardless of whether people cared who knew what they were sharing or not.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS didn't say there was no reason to do it, he said it can be just as secure as the rest of the campus without the RFID...
Based on what i've read about this new building, I doesn't sound like that is the case to me. It might be the case that none of the other buildings have the RFID locks on them, but that doesn't mean that this building would be just as secure without them. It has to do with the way the building is designed and laid out.
When i was at school, on my campus, most of the buildings were unlocked 24 hours a day. The exceptions were the student housing buildings and the government research buildings which were locked 24/7, and the architecture department building which was locked nights and weekends. Why only the architecture department building, and not the other departments? Because the other buildings were more traditional school buildings, Where all of the individual classrooms and offices could be locked, and getting into the building only got you into the hallways where there was nothing interesting. But the architecture building was essentially one giant classroom, and once you were inside you had access to almost everything in the building except for a few storage closets and such in the basement, so you have to be a lot more careful about letting people in.
Of course, in the time since i graduated, i believe they are moving towards putting locks on the other buildings as well. Because even without the problem of theft, there's the issue of bums in the area using the building as a warm place to sleep, or people off the street coming in and assaulting or scaring the crap out of students in the building.
That was my initial reaction too, but I have no doubt that another institution wouldn't quickly take him in and house and feed him while he continues doing exactly what he's doing now...
What I can understand is why they want this info. If there's equipment that goes missing.. it's quite usefull to know who is in the building, or who opened the door to the room.
Besides the issue of knowing who is in there, I suspect its as much of an issue of keeping people who dont belong in there out. The problem with keys is that if somebody loses one, in order to maintain security, you have to re-key all of the locks with that key and re-issue keys to everyone who is supposed to have access. With ID cards, you can deactivate that one ID in the system and issues a new ID to one person. While this is not a big problem with offices and classrooms, it's much more of an issue with areas that are "common areas" accessible to most of the campus.
As for why the common areas would have to be locked, well, from my understanding, MIT isn't in one of the nicest areas of Boston. I went to school at IIT (Illinois Institute of Technology, not ITT) which was in the middle of the projects on the south side of chicago, and they've started using stuff like this in a lot of the buildings on campus lately there too. Even ignoring the issue of theft, there's also the issue of bums using your stariwells as a warm place to spend the night in winter, and students getting assaulted by people coming in off the street. I remember my parents reaction when they first saw the campus where I went to school, and that was before they had installed most of the newer security measures. If noting else, a system like this probably helps the parents rest easier knowing that their children are attending a school that's actually concerned about their safety.
Not many people do CPM anymore, but it was popular back in the ".com era". CPA is the method most liked by people buying the advertisements- they only have to pay for the ads when they actually sell something. Of course it's also not too common because the company delivering the advertisements needs a way to know when the advertiser sold something in order to not get screwed.
which leaves us with CPC as the most popular payment method for internet advertisements. and as somebody else pointed out, the going rate for CPC last i checked is about $1-$2.50, and may be higher now.
*I had always assumed the M in CPM was related to the roman numeral M. But apparently according to one of the other posters, CPM is derived from a French word whose use in advertising predates the internet...
while i'm no big fan of george bush, most people seem to have forgotten that the patriot act wass passed overwhelmingly in an evenly divided house and all but unanimously (1 dissenting vote) in an evenly divided senate. so dubya is hardly the cause of our problems (at least wrt patriot). bill clinton has spoken very favorably of patriot also, and iirc tried to pass something similar after the oklahoma city bombings. apparently there wasn't quite enough public outrage after that one to push it through....
i am aware of magic_quotes_sybase, but even if the data is escaped properly, i'm mainly just against the idea of php auto-munging my variables.
if you have sybase magic quotes turned on, then your code will be wrong on mysql. i know that sounds nit-picky, but i have worked on projects before where i had to track data in both oracle and mysql databases. if you use bind variables in your sql statements, (as i demonstrated in my previous post) you shouldn't even have to worry about which database you're trying to escape data for, which is the way it should be.
People want SUVs because they think it makes them come off as a wimp (male or female, but especially males) to drive a minivan. Personally, I think it makes you a dumbshit to drive a SUV. It's not good at anything, not community, nor grocery getting, off roading, cruising, or for ferrying around children. The only exceptions to this rule are vehicles which existed before we called anything a "sport utility" vehicle, which is to say the suburban.
i agree with your point, but i think that the original generation of vehicles labeled as "sport utility" actually lived up to their name. e.g. the jeep cherokee, older ford explorers, chevy blazer, etc.
my parents have owned a jeep or explorer for about 12 years now. at this point, it's mostly because it's what my mom is comfortable driving, but before my brother and i went away to college, it actually served a purpose. my family always drove on vacations, and we tended to do a lot of camping in the summer and skiing in the winter. a family car just isn't practical for driving around four (essentially) full grown people for extended (i.e. one week) periods of time, especially when you take in to consideration the amount of gear you need for the trips we would go on. we tried renting a minivan once or twice before we got the first jeep but they just didn't work out too well. before that we owned a full size van as a third vehicle which we only used when we were on vacation. since my mom only drives about a mile or so to work, using an SUV as a daily use vehicle was much more practical than having a larger, dedicated vehicle just for traveling.
anyway, this is bordering on an OT rant now, but i know so many people who make blanket complaints about SUV's and it's started to drive me crazy.
back to the original point though- there are certain vehicles in the "SUV" category that drive me crazy. the primary one being H2. i live in chicago, the second largest city in the country, and i see about 2-3 of these a day. even downtown! i'm pretty sure that the H2 is just some sort of penis extension for rich guys who got made fun of too much when they were younger. the other ones that drive me crazy are the 'luxury' SUV's- Porche, BMW, Infinity (and the Murano since its essentially the same thing). they're just station wagons for people who think they're too cool to drive a station wagon (they even look like station wagons, to me at least)
The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .
i believe there was a lot of interest in aviation use early on because their streamlined shape made them more appropriate aerodynamically for wing mounted engines, however they never saw widespread use, as the early generations of rotaries were plagued by fuel inefficiency and mechanical difficulties (as mentioned by other posts). still, the interest was there, and i wonder now that it seems some of these issues have been solved whether they might see a resurgence in aviation use of rotary engines.
that might be a good solution if it was the right way to escape quotes in most databases. what databases use \' other than mysql? in my experience, the correct way to escape a ' on oracle, ms sql, sybase, postgresql, etc. is ''. this drives me crazy at work, because for some unknown reason, we actually have magic_quotes enabled, so i have to strip_slashes, _and_ properly escape my quotes. grr....
at least with PEAR::DB now, i can finally do:
$db->query(select * from foo where a = ?", $a)
and not worry about it- the way it should have been all along.
while i can't really speak with any authority on sound cards, my experience with video cards has been exactly the opposite. i had an old STB video card that i got from a friend who used it with windows 95. it has worked with linux for as long as i can remember (and still does), but there are no drivers for this card that will work with windows 2000 or xp.
for most types of hardware that are well supported by linux (network cards, video cards, sound cards, etc.) linux legacy support fr exceeds windows legacy support, at least in my experience.
What is easier - a multiple choice test, or a fill in the blank test?
Of course in the Microsoft multiple choice test, every single question has the option "E. None of the Above". And I can tell you, (because I had a teacher that did it once) that if you give students a multiple choice test where the correct answer to almost every question is "none of the above", 90% of them will score worse than they would on a short answer test with the same questions.
Never ask the sales person how good their product is, all you'll get is whatever they can spout off the top of their head as the newest sales line.
not true at all....
there was a company i worked at in early 2001 where the head salesperson (the highest paid person in the company btw) claimed he couldn't give our product away. downright depressing to overhear his sales calls too: "you see, we sell this piece of middleware..." no wonder the company only lasted 9 months.
shame too, because that was some pretty kick ass software we were working on.
The transition to PPC that the parent post is talking about has nothing to do with G5, or G-anything, and it happened about 10 years ago or so..... He's refering to Apple's switch from the Motorola 68K CPU's to the IBM/Motorola PowerPC chips which happened IIRC in the early 90's. At that point having more than one processor in a desktop or even small server machine was little more than a pipedream, and scalability of number of processors meant nothing to ~95% of the computing world.
As attractive as the idea appears, there's one fatal flaw. If you allow anyone to revoke a certificate, (or in this case, a significant number of anyones) sooner or later somebody (probably a spammer, or maybe somebody who just wants to create chaos for the heck of it) is going to start a campaign to mass revoke certificates. It could be an organized group of people that get together, or maybe instead of writing viruses that spam, people will write viruses that send out spam complaints and certificate revocation requests.
i don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but i think that it would at best be about as successful as the various rbl lists we have right now- in fact when you think about what your idea is trying to achieve rather than the specifics of how it achieves it, it's really not all that different from the rbls that we have now, and i suspect that it would work with about the same degree of success and suffer from many of the same problems.
although i do agree with you, i have to point out one thing:
Secondly, I can, by publishing spf-records on my own domain eliminate the problem of spam bouncing back to me because it *claims* to be sent from me.
This won't eliminate the problem- it will only affect messages sent to a destination that verifies SPF records. So while it will reduce the problem, it won't come close to eliminating it until the majority of SMTP servers check SPF records by default.
still would be a massive improvement in my book though, and i plan on setting this up on my domain when we move to our new mail server.
I have done this on occasion back when I worked as a consultant. Consultant C shouldn't be using Customer A's email server to send email anyway. He should have his own email server set up that he uses as an outgoing SMTP server. And ideally it would have a webmail interface he can use for cases where he is working on a network that blocks outbound SMTP that is not through their mail server.
As a consultant, do you really want one of your clients to have access to your communications with other clients?
This also applies to the comments who are talking about people sending office emails when they are on business trips- they should still be sending through their company email server....
Or, perhaps the claim is that we've been pumping out more calories of dino-fuel to actually feed us, and have been doing that since humans evolved. I know I've heard claims to that effect, but that simply cannot answer how humans could've ever survived without pumping oil out of the ground.
It's something along those lines. The key is that it's not something we've been doing since humans evolved. In fact it's mostly a development of the last thirty years or so. A long time ago, the last time i took any kind of course in biology, at one point the text book went into efficiency of food production. My memory is a bit fuzzy on the details, but taking into account all of the non-solar energy that goes into food production (mainly work from humans and domesticated animals, or fossil fuels) modern industrial agriculture is something like a fifth to a tenth as efficient as farming methods in this country 50 to 80 years ago, and around a fiftieth to a hundredth as efficient as susbsistence farming in most undeveloped countries. Quite simply, as you consolidate your food production more and more, you need bigger and bigger machinery to make the work manageable, and your food supply gets further and further away from the consumers. All of this adds up to greatly increased fossil fuel consumption for the sake of reducing the human time and effort involved.
To be honest, i'm not entirely sure whether the amount of energy (in the form of fossil fuels) used to grow corn is greater or less then the amount of energy in the corn we end up with. There are some out there who say it is less. But it is certain that our efficiency in converting calories of dino-fuel to calories of corn has gone way down, and if it's not negative already, the extra loss that comes from distilling the corn into ethanol almost guarantees it is.
I don't think the parent poster was refering to the amount of energy that is required for the distillation process. The point is that predominant agricultural methods, at least in this country, are very heavy in fossil fuel usage. Sure, the sun provides the energy to get the corn to grow, but have you ever seen the size of the tractors that they use to plant the fields, fertilize the fields, harvest the corn, etc. If you actually do the math, chances are that more energy in the form of fossil fuels is expended to get a ton of corn to a food processing plant than even exists in the corn. Even if none of that energy is lost in the distillation process, and even if the distillation was performed entirely using solar power, the ethanol you'd end up with would probably have less energy content than the fossil fuels used up by all of the vehicles used to grow and transport the corn.
In short, our current agricultural methods would have to be drastically overhauled in order for corn to be truly viable as a source of anything other than food.
well, if you look at their benchmarks, three of the six are based on programs that likely aren't available in source or non-x86 binary form. it would be kind of a lame benchmark if for half of their tests they said, "well we couldn't compare one of our processors in this category".
of course, i may be wrong- it's possible that there is a ppc linux version of q3 or unreal tournament available, but i've never heard of them....
I've seens afew billboards recently in Michigan and Ohio advertising a bottled water called "Outhose Springs" with the tagline "It's number 1, not number 2".
However, if any of the code in the X libraries falls under this new license, then the FSF's interpretation of the GPL means that you wouldn't be able to link any GPLed program against the X libraries and distribute it. That's fairly bad.
Actually, there is a clause in the gpl that makes an exception for libraries that are part of the system distribution. This is a left over bit from a time when there were few (or no) free unices, and no free X toolkits. The exception was necessary because otherwise it would be impossible to distribute binary GPL programs for non-free unices, as they would have to be linked against a non-GPL compatible libc. It also had the side effect of allowing GPL programs that link against motif, since pretty much every commercial unix had a vendor supplied motif library. As XFree86 is included in the standard distribution of basically every free unix-like operating system, I think it would safely fall under this exception with regard to linking issues.
The only reason not being GPL compatible would be an issue for the XFree86 folks is that it would not be legal for someone to incorporate code licensed under the new XFree86 license into a project that they wanted to license under the GPL. This of course may be the intention of the XFree86 folks, or if not, it may be something to which they are altogether indifferent towards. It wouldn't affect in any way how XFree86 could be used, only how the code covered by this license could be reused elsewhere.
In the end, though, I still don't see what all the fuss is about There's nothing that I see in this license that would make it incompatible with the GPL. The well known "advertising clause" (which disappeareed from the BSD license at least a year or so ago, BTW) refers to (you guessed it) advertising materials. It stated that any advertisements for a product containing the code covered by the license had to have a notice stating that fact. The proposed XFree86 license has no such clause. It merely states that the copyright notice has to appear in any binary distribution (which the GPL also requires) and any documentation (which the GPL does not explicitly require, but one could perhaps argue that the documentation is part of the full 'source' of the program, or a derivation thereof, and therefore must be distributed with a copy of the license anyway)
For example, some claims of the Goldberg Patents are broadly directed to network-based persentations, i.e. changing advertising such as pop-up advertising or rotating banners...
did the lawyer sending the notice make that typo, or was the letter just transcribed wrong? i'm not sure i would pay a whole lot of attention to a lawyer who screwed up something that basic.
Frankly, while I detest a LOT of things people are doing with Flash (namely ads), things like JoeCartoon.com, CampChaos.com, Homestarrunner.com, oddtodd.com, and one-offs by would-be web artists everywhere make the whole thing worth it.
while i disagree with the patent itself, i am in agreement with the original post that this could be one of the greatest things ever to happen to the web. The two things that i really like flash for, comics and small games (my favorite), would not be adversely affected by any of the proposed solutions to avoid patent infringement- flash would be a separate application and the flash file you want would load in that application instead of seemlessly into your browser window. when the flash file is actually content itself, there's no real disadvantage to this. however- flash adds, flash navigation menus, flash splash pages, and every other horrific misuse of flash would no longer work correctly and would need to be scrapped.
i'm trying really hard to find a downside to disabling flash as a seemless browser plugin. i only wish there was an easy way to do it now.
sorry. i have a hard time imagining the guys at id getting even a little scared about anyone else's game engine.
IF theres alot of bad content and criminals using freenet, its because most people are bad.
not really. it just means that so-called good things (like, for example, linux ISO's) are currently much more convenient to distribute via traditional methods. right now, freenet is mostly used to share or retrieve things which people would prefer not to have other people know that they are sharing or retrieving. this is not to say that everything on freenet is illegal or objectionable material. but it is most definately not a reasonable cross-section of human nature either. the real conclusion you could draw from freenet traffic right now is that there are a lot of bad people out there. however, in order to do any real statistical analysis on "good" vs. "bad" people and what type of information people want to share, freenet would have to be the most convenient and defacto method for sharing ALL kinds of data, regardless of whether people cared who knew what they were sharing or not.