...The poster was referring to the user interface, which is usually handled by the OS for most applications.
That is also, I might mention, the best place to deal with a specialized user interface so that you need not depend upon every application developer to try to put in special support for the disabled.
I mostly agree. There are many interpretations about what is considered "part of the OS", but the bottom line is that none of it matters. What matters is whether the system as a whole works for a given user.
Yes, each OS has a different line drawn between "OS" and "Application", but if a usser -- especially one with specific needs -- finds the system useful, it will likely be his/her system of choice. He or she isn't going to worry about whether this or that is "part of the OS" or not.
So draw the line wherever you like. The system as a whole is what is important. I do agree that there should be some core elements that were built with accessibility in mind -- so the application developers don't have to worry so much about that aspect... as well as consistancy. The OS (or GUI or WM or whatever) should be responsible for providing an API or interface for the "differently abled", and the app developers should utilize, or at least be aware of, these interfaces.
When you build a web site, do you not at least view it on a system with large fonts, to ensure it will be viewable by all? Likewise, software developers should test their software with different accessibility options enabled to make sure it at least functions in those environments.
I have been to a wide variety of fast food joints in my day and have never once ever been asked "would you like fries with that". Ever. Where does this myth come from?
In my day I've done my time in a few fast-food places. That particular phrase may not always apply (especially with so-called "value meals"), but the up-sell is always there. It may not be fries, instead it might be "we have apple pies 2 for $1.00 this month..." or "would you like something to drink with that" (if a drink wasn't ordered)...
Anyway, this isn't unique to the fast-food industry, though it seems that this particular industry uses this tactic more than most others...
And don't forget that most people want extra ketchup packets.
Extra? These days they don't even offer them. Used to be they gave you ketchup & salt by default. Then they'd ask if you wanted it. Now days, ketchup is "upon request", so if you don't think about it, you just don't get any. Most fast-food places have gone this route and I personally think it sucks.
The point is, any business will do whatever it takes to reduce their bottom line. I recall reading about some airline (American?) who saved millions by cutting their olives from 3 to 2 in their salads. Whatever it takes. Stop offering ketchup without the customer asking? Times several thousand stores? Surely that adds up...
If you look at open source software, it's not hard to see innovation here and there. Enlightenment (WM), ReiserFS, Python (the language), Emacs, to name a few.
I agree, and more on-topic (browsers), tabbed browsing and popup blocking appeared in OSS before other browsers (and hell, MSIE still doesn't offer either). Not to mention the many other features like an integrated download manager, better security/privacy options, etc that have always been there since (at least) Mozilla 0.95...
For a while there, IE was the best browser in my opinion. This was back in 1998 or so. When I heard that the original Netscape code was going open-source as "Mozilla", I followed it for a while.
Since about 2000 or so, I'd moved to Mozilla and haven't looked back. The latest Firefox blows IE out of the water no question... and when I'm forced to use IE, I'm reminded of the reasons I don't use it on my PCs (popups, buggy redrawing code *still*, etc).
We continuousely see people complaining that linux apps copy windows-land GUI features (look at OpenOffice, and firefox that has copied almost all the innovative features introduced by Opera).
(Emphasis added)
Think about this: can you name one web browser that lacks tabbed browsing? I can, in two letters: IE. Sure, Opera has a variation of this feature, but I personally don't care for the MDI interface. IE, of course, simply doesn't offer this feature.
Firefox (like Mozilla before it) implemented Tabbed Browsing in a way that makes sense, at least to me. I constantly find myself on someone else's box hitting CTRL+T in MSIE, only to realize that their browser is IE, which lacks that particular feature. Then of course windows start spawning, showing me ads, and reminding me of why I moved to Mozilla back in 2001...
Opera has the right idea as far as new/innovative features as well. I may not agree with their licensing, but their end product is quite nice.
But the attitude in Slashdot is that if it's Open Source, we accept it in the name of attracting more users. On the contrary, when Microsoft does it, we always have 600-comment discussions of people whining!
Name a feature that Microsoft's browser has that OSS browsers don't. A useful, on a day-to-day basis, feature. Tabbed browsing? Nope, IE is the only one without it. Popup blocking/prevention? Again, no; only with third-party "plugins" that work less than half the time. The only features you'll find exclusive to IE are MS-specific technologies, or useless (and often annoying) features like "Friendly HTTP Error Messages"...
Try Firefox (or Opera) for a couple weeks, then try going back to IE. Then you'll realize what OSS (or otherwise free) browsers can offer that IE doesn't (note: it's not that they can't, they simply don't.) Tabbed browsing or popup blocking could be added to IE quite easily, but they don't want to/need to offer new features when their product is the default on 99% of new PCs sold in the US...
It has been said here on/. many times that if there were no money for spammers, there will be no spam. When spam becomes an issue which decides where money goes (who wins and who looses), the economics will take over.
I agree 100%. The problem is educating the "average" PC user to recognize spam. To most of us it's easy, but to a casual user, that offer they received looks like a great deal. Hm, refinance at 1.3% interest? Enlarge certain appendages with all-natural herbs? One must be educated to be able to recognize scams for what they are.
Forcing monitoring is counter-productive. ISP's need to voluntarily enact monitoring schemes for their own benefit and that of other parties. When an ISP is convinced that they can contribute to stopping spam and that this is in their best interests, their efforts are more likely to be aimed at succeeding not simply complying.
Agreed 100%. As much as I hate to admit, AOL has done quite a bit to help the issue (took them long enough!)
They started blocking port 25 a while ago. This normally sucks, but how many AOL users would be using an outside (leased/hosted) mail server? They also apparently offer spam blocking tools, though I haven't evaluated them personally...
Instead, inform buyers who is responsible for letting spam through. Who should you not do business with? Do not be condescending or militant - be simple and clear. "So-and-so sends spam to your inbox."
Not quite the same thing I'll admit, but I've steered a few friends/family away from X10 due to their popup ad practices. I believe they still continue this, though since Firefox I haven't seen their ads...
More importantly, the best advise I give to friends and family is this: if it sounds too good to be true (especially on the 'Net), it most likely is. Bill gates isn't going to send you to Disney World, and you aren't going to find 10,000,000 USD in your bank account from some random Nigerian with money to launder.
If the majority of people would learn these things, the majority of spam would no longer be profitable, and would ultimately cease...
Legislate against spam. As long as spam is legal, or the penalties against it are too low, or it is too easy to do, people will continue to try and make a quick buck.
I don't see that helping. Legislate in what jurisdiction? In which countries can it be enforced? Note that one can simply lease servers in a country immune to such legislation, or outsource to a company in such a country.
Besides, FAX spam has been illegal for years, yet it continues to happen pretty constantly.
Also, force all ISP's to monitor how much bandwith a source has. If you get too much usage per day, say 200 megabytes or more, then that person has to explain why they need that much bandwith.
My DSL provider seems to have recently blocked port 25 outbound on me. Thanks to spammers I'm sure. So now I'm forced to use SBC's mail servers, or use a different port on my own servers.
Which is not fair at all. Neither would a bandwidth cap, when I'm paying for "unlimited" usage regardless of what port(s) the traffic may travel on.
Also, force all email to have some element which identifies the source. Not just a header that can be forged, but something that can't be hacked. And if a source can not be found, but it is selling a product an identifiable site, charge that site just as if they were the ones sending the spam.
I can deal with the first part of this: if everyone can agree on some authentication/validation standard, some verification can be good. As long as it doesn't cost the sending server operator anything other than the time taken to verify who they are.
The second part, though, won't fly. Forging the sender's address and/or IP is entirely too simple. And I've seend spam promoting a completely unaffiliated site, in the interest of getting a competing site shut down. In other words, send anonymous (forged headers) spam promoting your competitor, getting them shut down. Unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the company in question is in fact responsible for the spam, you can't convict or punish them...
Interesting idea, however invalid address responses are sent within 5 minutes of the original mail. If the response is sent over a day after the original mail is sent, the spammer could just discard it.
The thing is, I don't belive spammers ever remove an address due to an error. I had a domain that received a ton of spam, and that domain expired. Two years later (fighting with Network Solutions) I got the domain back, and immediately started receiving a ton of spam. Two years of spammers sending spam to invalid addresses (no DNS on the domain) and they still continued.
Why?
Simple: the spammers don't receive bounce messages, and the spam-servers (which could be static servers, or compromised zombie machines) don't provide accurate return information. Much like how telemarketers often show invalid or "Unknown" caller-ID info. It costs nearly nothing to send a spam message to an address, whether that address is valid or not. It costs much more to weed out invalid or unreachable addresses from your list by intercepting bounce messages etc.
And spammers don't give a shit. Most of the time, they are using someone else's machine (a zombie'd Windows box, or an open relay) so they don't need to care. So this trick simply doesn't work. It's cheaper to just continue sending to invalid addresses. Not to mention, many newbie spammers get their lists from less-than-legit sources who are selling large lists; they don't care (and are usually fully aware) that many of the addresses they are selling are bogus or no longer valid...
In short, simple tricks like this don't work, when dealing with an "industry" that doesn't give a shit...
This is a good outcome; the razor-markup model has always been a bit dishonest.
I disagree to an extent. In the razor blade case, the handle is really cheap to manufacture; the real technology lies in the blade.
It can be argued, in cases where the print head is a part of the ink cartridge, that the real technology lies in the cartridge. But there still exists a lot of tech in the printer itself in any case.
I personally stay away from Lexmark after a couple of bad experiences -- their inkjet printers are utter crap (buggy drivers, and much more). I found it cheaper to buy a new Brother inkjet.
My new printer does a couple of things right: first, the ink cartridges are just ink wells (the print head is within the printer). This gives better alignment (never had to align mine, even out of the box). The ink is cheaper, and each color is a separate cartridge (Epson and Brother are the only ones I know of that are doing this).
I also bought an all-in-one deal, and even then the unit was only $99. The ink wells aren't expensive, and after 4 months I'm still on the original ink cartridges...
I can't say whether this unit will last longer than my last Lexmark (which lasted about 6 months), but the drivers are solid and the ink is much less expensive (I had replaced the Lexmark's ink cartridges within the first 3 months).
Oh yeah, SACD and DVD-A might be uncracked now, but neither one has supplanted the CD yet. Once the CD is long gone, there will be a much greater interest in cracking the new format.
I'm sure some won't agree with me, but SACD and DVD-A are (IMO) both unnecessary formats. CD audio -- 16 bits at 44.1 KHz sample rate -- is far more than good enough for most people. Anything more is just wasted bits/bandwidth.
They are counting on the fact that people will buy it because it's "better", even if (given the limitations of human hearing) it really isn't, practically speaking.
For most people (even most of us who can hear serious detail and seriously high frequencies), there's not much (or any) difference between DVD-A or SACD and a standard, 16-bit CD in perceptable audio quality. The only reason they're trying to sell these new formats to us is, they can control the new formats; sound quality is the same (or, if it "seems" better, is mostly psychological, and isn't real given that human organs can't pick up that kind of detail).
The fact of the matter is, most "sheep" in the US will believe that these new formats are "better", even if the human ear can't tell the difference... but they're taught (by the TV or radio) that these new formats are "better", and thus believe it.
End result: the "sheep" buy into the new formats, while those with some intelligence don't if something already exists to accomplish the task at hand.
Unfortunately, we are in the minority (hell, Bush was elected, after all). No matter what kind of evidence is provided, we (scientists) are ignored most of the time, and usually end up in the "told you so" role that is among the most unappreciative rolls in existance...
Anyway, I need to stop chatting because I should be in bed by now (an hour ago really)...
They might advertise lower cost but from my e-bay experiences, it's a nuissance to have to open up a paypal account in order to pay somebody online.
This is no longer true; PayPal no longer requires that a buyer register a PayPal account for a one-time payment.
Ontop of that, if you sell something and receive payment by paypal, there really wasn't a way to cash out other than to use the money in the paypal account to buy stuff in other auctions.
That has never been true (I've had an account since 2000). You can deposit money directly to your bank account, and even get a debit card. It's nice to be able to pull out cash 10 minutes after someone pays you...
(now that I think about it, this may only apply to "business" PayPal accounts... I'm honestly not sure)
Now I won't say I haven't had my share of problems with PayPal, but the points you made have never been an issue for me. Once in a while the debit card decides not to function ("transaction unavailable at this time" and such), so I try not to rely on it too heavily...
I am skeptical this technology will ever actually take off in carpets like the article suggests. Who would want to have their carpet tell them they were a fatass every time they got up to walk around?
Or, worse yet, your carpet informs you that the "hot chic" you slept with last night (who was brought home via 'beer goggles') was much heavier than you (many beers and several shots of peppermint Schnapp's later) had thought...
Of course this is NOT from personal experience... despite what my so-called "friends" and "family" might tell you...;)
Interestingly they never disabled the default "test" user for MySQL. Not that much can be done (user "test" has no privileges on any databases) but I was in fact able to log in...
AND this was before the latest security advisories hit.
AND Netcraft has issued an advisory indicating that banner ads could be used to spread malware.
I have to wonder if the average user really understands these advisories though. I mean, they always refer to an Outlook exploit as an "email virus".
Even worse, and almost made me sick, was when my cousin said the other day: You're still using Google? Didn't you hear about the Google virus? I just banged my head on my desk for a while until he went away...
Though I have noticed more and more people on Firefox lately, I think most users don't understand the concept of a "browser", and rather than being scared of Microsoft software (as they should) they are scared of the Internet and computers in general.
On my site, IE has slipped a couple percentage points in the past couple months (and it's not a tech site).
I've noticed the same thing on most of my sites, most of which target Windows users.
I also know a surprising amount of non-tech people using FireFox. I used to try to migrate people to Mozilla, and most didn't like it. FireFox has all the right options available (and all the right ones hidden), and really appeals to IE users.
Primary reasons given by people I ask: popup blocking, and tabbed browsing. Two things that nearly every browser on the market has, except for IE because IE didn't have to innovate (or even copy ideas). Until now.
I am a web developer and we DO tailor our sites for IE. When 95% of your viewers are using IE...
It would be stupid not to at least make sure a site works/looks right in IE. But that doesn't mean it can't also be standards-compliant and work in other browsers.
The motto on one of my sites is: Best viewed in a standards compliant browser, but also works in IE. After making it standards compliant, I then made the necessary tweaks to work around IE rendering quirks... and yes, the motto is there to be funny, but it's funny because it's true.
I just find it funny that, since IE 4.0, no major features have been added, and many bugs/quirks remain. Having the majority of the market there was no reason to innovate, until now (hell, IE is about the only browser without tabbed browsing and popup blocking). Competition is good...
I was experimenting with the idea of running an ATX system from a 12v battery (UPS battery). Most boards will fire up with only the +12 and +5 leads connected, and I had built a 5v regulator to supply the 5v side.
So I connected black to black and red to red, from the battery to the board. Oops -- red is the 5v lead in the PC.
The board still works, as does everything in the PC except for the hard drive. Unfortunately this was my MP3 drive (15 gig Maxtor, huge at the time), so I attempted a repair. First I bought an identical drive ($149 IIRC), thinking I'd swap the circuit boards and... possibly return the drive with the fried board. Didn't work, the drive still didn't function.
Then I decided (stupidly and desparately) to try and swap the platters. Needless to say, I lost my MP3s, and was out not one but two drives.
All this stupidity from someone holding an A+ cert at the time, no less...:)
Previously, Linux Distros in general, weren't too friendly and you had to spend a lot of time configuring things yourself.
I've never used Suse, but I do concur that things have gotten a lot better with most distros in the last few years. I haven't seen or touched an X86Config file in a couple of years, and though I still compile a custom kernel it's not necessary to make things work.
I'm not entirely sure I'd recommend Linux to a typical Windows user, but for the curious I have no issues telling them to try a couple and pick the one they like. In the past this resulted in too much tech support questions, but these days it's not difficult for the savvy to try out Linux, without worrying about which major distro they choose. Which is IMO a great thing.
Most impressive to me was my laptop. When I first got it, RedHat 6.2 required a ton of mucking around to make it work. Each distro got better, but Fedora Core 1 went on there so nicely (graphical installer, even with the Trident video chip that gave me problems before). The only thing I had to install manually was a module for the WinModem -- which was much easier than I had expected. Hell, they didn't even have a Win2k driver for the modem, but the Linux community had it working without breaking a sweat.
Wait till the spammers decide to spam your whole domain.
That's exactly when I decided to disable the "catch-all" and allow only specific addresses. Some spammer sent several hundred identical messages, in a few hours, to made-up names at my domain.
Catch-all is no longer a good idea in my opinion...
Something tells me calling yourself a "certified architect" in those countries would be even a little worse.
I tend to agree, though I personally think that the bastardisation of "Engineer" is even worse. We now have Software Engineers, Network Engineers, and even Sanitation Engineers. It seems to me that an Engineer usually does something innovative, solves a problem, or something requiring a lot of skill and intelligence.
Architect is also something that requires quite a bit of skill (and, like a true Engineer, carries some responsibility/liability), so as I said I agree that some terms should be "reserved" to, at minimum, avoid diluting the meaning of the term. Imagine if Microsoft or RedHat offered some kind of cert making one a "Doctor of Network Systems" or similar...
E: "Oh, no, not this again... it's RPM DEPENDANCY HELL!!!"
That's what I usually shout. Especially when you find a package that requires a different version of RPM itself... ugh!
I personally love the Ports collection in FreeBSD, and love the idea of apt (but haven't used it yet), but otherwise I "grew up" on RedHat... it's a love/hate thing, but in the end I'm still using RedHat for most server projects...
The company uses MS as an abbreviation for itself all the time. MSN, MS-DOS, and MSDN are the first three examples that spring to mind.
MS-DOS, MSIE (not sure if that one is officially used), MSNBC... just the next few that springs to my mind. In reality MS is a fine abreviation for Microsoft, regardless of whether it's a compound word or not.
But, the grandparent is correct that it's MCSE, if only because it would otherwise be MSCSE, even more difficult to remember:)
That said, I used to screw it up all the time before and say MSCE, only because of the frequent use of MS in their product names/abreviations... Since becoming concious of my error I now always get it right, but until it was pointed out I transposed the C and S constantly...
Slashdot Mirror
...The poster was referring to the user interface, which is usually handled by the OS for most applications.
That is also, I might mention, the best place to deal with a specialized user interface so that you need not depend upon every application developer to try to put in special support for the disabled.
I mostly agree. There are many interpretations about what is considered "part of the OS", but the bottom line is that none of it matters. What matters is whether the system as a whole works for a given user.
Yes, each OS has a different line drawn between "OS" and "Application", but if a usser -- especially one with specific needs -- finds the system useful, it will likely be his/her system of choice. He or she isn't going to worry about whether this or that is "part of the OS" or not.
So draw the line wherever you like. The system as a whole is what is important. I do agree that there should be some core elements that were built with accessibility in mind -- so the application developers don't have to worry so much about that aspect... as well as consistancy. The OS (or GUI or WM or whatever) should be responsible for providing an API or interface for the "differently abled", and the app developers should utilize, or at least be aware of, these interfaces.
When you build a web site, do you not at least view it on a system with large fonts, to ensure it will be viewable by all? Likewise, software developers should test their software with different accessibility options enabled to make sure it at least functions in those environments.
I have been to a wide variety of fast food joints in my day and have never once ever been asked "would you like fries with that". Ever. Where does this myth come from?
In my day I've done my time in a few fast-food places. That particular phrase may not always apply (especially with so-called "value meals"), but the up-sell is always there. It may not be fries, instead it might be "we have apple pies 2 for $1.00 this month..." or "would you like something to drink with that" (if a drink wasn't ordered)...
Anyway, this isn't unique to the fast-food industry, though it seems that this particular industry uses this tactic more than most others...
And don't forget that most people want extra ketchup packets.
Extra? These days they don't even offer them. Used to be they gave you ketchup & salt by default. Then they'd ask if you wanted it. Now days, ketchup is "upon request", so if you don't think about it, you just don't get any. Most fast-food places have gone this route and I personally think it sucks.
The point is, any business will do whatever it takes to reduce their bottom line. I recall reading about some airline (American?) who saved millions by cutting their olives from 3 to 2 in their salads. Whatever it takes. Stop offering ketchup without the customer asking? Times several thousand stores? Surely that adds up...
If you look at open source software, it's not hard to see innovation here and there. Enlightenment (WM), ReiserFS, Python (the language), Emacs, to name a few.
I agree, and more on-topic (browsers), tabbed browsing and popup blocking appeared in OSS before other browsers (and hell, MSIE still doesn't offer either). Not to mention the many other features like an integrated download manager, better security/privacy options, etc that have always been there since (at least) Mozilla 0.95...
For a while there, IE was the best browser in my opinion. This was back in 1998 or so. When I heard that the original Netscape code was going open-source as "Mozilla", I followed it for a while.
Since about 2000 or so, I'd moved to Mozilla and haven't looked back. The latest Firefox blows IE out of the water no question... and when I'm forced to use IE, I'm reminded of the reasons I don't use it on my PCs (popups, buggy redrawing code *still*, etc).
We continuousely see people complaining that linux apps copy windows-land GUI features (look at OpenOffice, and firefox that has copied almost all the innovative features introduced by Opera).
(Emphasis added)
Think about this: can you name one web browser that lacks tabbed browsing? I can, in two letters: IE. Sure, Opera has a variation of this feature, but I personally don't care for the MDI interface. IE, of course, simply doesn't offer this feature.
Firefox (like Mozilla before it) implemented Tabbed Browsing in a way that makes sense, at least to me. I constantly find myself on someone else's box hitting CTRL+T in MSIE, only to realize that their browser is IE, which lacks that particular feature. Then of course windows start spawning, showing me ads, and reminding me of why I moved to Mozilla back in 2001...
Opera has the right idea as far as new/innovative features as well. I may not agree with their licensing, but their end product is quite nice.
But the attitude in Slashdot is that if it's Open Source, we accept it in the name of attracting more users. On the contrary, when Microsoft does it, we always have 600-comment discussions of people whining!
Name a feature that Microsoft's browser has that OSS browsers don't. A useful, on a day-to-day basis, feature. Tabbed browsing? Nope, IE is the only one without it. Popup blocking/prevention? Again, no; only with third-party "plugins" that work less than half the time. The only features you'll find exclusive to IE are MS-specific technologies, or useless (and often annoying) features like "Friendly HTTP Error Messages"...
Try Firefox (or Opera) for a couple weeks, then try going back to IE. Then you'll realize what OSS (or otherwise free) browsers can offer that IE doesn't (note: it's not that they can't, they simply don't.) Tabbed browsing or popup blocking could be added to IE quite easily, but they don't want to/need to offer new features when their product is the default on 99% of new PCs sold in the US...
It has been said here on /. many times that if there were no money for spammers, there will be no spam. When spam becomes an issue which decides where money goes (who wins and who looses), the economics will take over.
I agree 100%. The problem is educating the "average" PC user to recognize spam. To most of us it's easy, but to a casual user, that offer they received looks like a great deal. Hm, refinance at 1.3% interest? Enlarge certain appendages with all-natural herbs? One must be educated to be able to recognize scams for what they are.
Forcing monitoring is counter-productive. ISP's need to voluntarily enact monitoring schemes for their own benefit and that of other parties. When an ISP is convinced that they can contribute to stopping spam and that this is in their best interests, their efforts are more likely to be aimed at succeeding not simply complying.
Agreed 100%. As much as I hate to admit, AOL has done quite a bit to help the issue (took them long enough!)
They started blocking port 25 a while ago. This normally sucks, but how many AOL users would be using an outside (leased/hosted) mail server? They also apparently offer spam blocking tools, though I haven't evaluated them personally...
Instead, inform buyers who is responsible for letting spam through. Who should you not do business with? Do not be condescending or militant - be simple and clear. "So-and-so sends spam to your inbox."
Not quite the same thing I'll admit, but I've steered a few friends/family away from X10 due to their popup ad practices. I believe they still continue this, though since Firefox I haven't seen their ads...
More importantly, the best advise I give to friends and family is this: if it sounds too good to be true (especially on the 'Net), it most likely is. Bill gates isn't going to send you to Disney World, and you aren't going to find 10,000,000 USD in your bank account from some random Nigerian with money to launder.
If the majority of people would learn these things, the majority of spam would no longer be profitable, and would ultimately cease...
Reply to my own post:
And I've seend spam promoting a completely unaffiliated site, in the interest of getting a competing site shut down.
Just to clarify, the typo should have said I've seen spam.... The way it's typed could be interpreted as I've sent, which is certainly not the case...
Legislate against spam. As long as spam is legal, or the penalties against it are too low, or it is too easy to do, people will continue to try and make a quick buck.
I don't see that helping. Legislate in what jurisdiction? In which countries can it be enforced? Note that one can simply lease servers in a country immune to such legislation, or outsource to a company in such a country.
Besides, FAX spam has been illegal for years, yet it continues to happen pretty constantly.
Also, force all ISP's to monitor how much bandwith a source has. If you get too much usage per day, say 200 megabytes or more, then that person has to explain why they need that much bandwith.
My DSL provider seems to have recently blocked port 25 outbound on me. Thanks to spammers I'm sure. So now I'm forced to use SBC's mail servers, or use a different port on my own servers.
Which is not fair at all. Neither would a bandwidth cap, when I'm paying for "unlimited" usage regardless of what port(s) the traffic may travel on.
Also, force all email to have some element which identifies the source. Not just a header that can be forged, but something that can't be hacked. And if a source can not be found, but it is selling a product an identifiable site, charge that site just as if they were the ones sending the spam.
I can deal with the first part of this: if everyone can agree on some authentication/validation standard, some verification can be good. As long as it doesn't cost the sending server operator anything other than the time taken to verify who they are.
The second part, though, won't fly. Forging the sender's address and/or IP is entirely too simple. And I've seend spam promoting a completely unaffiliated site, in the interest of getting a competing site shut down. In other words, send anonymous (forged headers) spam promoting your competitor, getting them shut down. Unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the company in question is in fact responsible for the spam, you can't convict or punish them...
Interesting idea, however invalid address responses are sent within 5 minutes of the original mail. If the response is sent over a day after the original mail is sent, the spammer could just discard it.
The thing is, I don't belive spammers ever remove an address due to an error. I had a domain that received a ton of spam, and that domain expired. Two years later (fighting with Network Solutions) I got the domain back, and immediately started receiving a ton of spam. Two years of spammers sending spam to invalid addresses (no DNS on the domain) and they still continued.
Why?
Simple: the spammers don't receive bounce messages, and the spam-servers (which could be static servers, or compromised zombie machines) don't provide accurate return information. Much like how telemarketers often show invalid or "Unknown" caller-ID info. It costs nearly nothing to send a spam message to an address, whether that address is valid or not. It costs much more to weed out invalid or unreachable addresses from your list by intercepting bounce messages etc.
And spammers don't give a shit. Most of the time, they are using someone else's machine (a zombie'd Windows box, or an open relay) so they don't need to care. So this trick simply doesn't work. It's cheaper to just continue sending to invalid addresses. Not to mention, many newbie spammers get their lists from less-than-legit sources who are selling large lists; they don't care (and are usually fully aware) that many of the addresses they are selling are bogus or no longer valid...
In short, simple tricks like this don't work, when dealing with an "industry" that doesn't give a shit...
What you mean is that it is not a 12x9 resolution(all HDTV res's), instead it is a 4x3 resolution.
:)
Hm, 12:9 is the same as 4:3... though I assume you mean 16:9, standard HDTV aspect ratio.
Just thought I'd point that out
This is a good outcome; the razor-markup model has always been a bit dishonest.
I disagree to an extent. In the razor blade case, the handle is really cheap to manufacture; the real technology lies in the blade.
It can be argued, in cases where the print head is a part of the ink cartridge, that the real technology lies in the cartridge. But there still exists a lot of tech in the printer itself in any case.
I personally stay away from Lexmark after a couple of bad experiences -- their inkjet printers are utter crap (buggy drivers, and much more). I found it cheaper to buy a new Brother inkjet.
My new printer does a couple of things right: first, the ink cartridges are just ink wells (the print head is within the printer). This gives better alignment (never had to align mine, even out of the box). The ink is cheaper, and each color is a separate cartridge (Epson and Brother are the only ones I know of that are doing this).
I also bought an all-in-one deal, and even then the unit was only $99. The ink wells aren't expensive, and after 4 months I'm still on the original ink cartridges...
I can't say whether this unit will last longer than my last Lexmark (which lasted about 6 months), but the drivers are solid and the ink is much less expensive (I had replaced the Lexmark's ink cartridges within the first 3 months).
As always, your mileage will vary...
I think a lot of these problems could be negated if you add a PIN number...
Oh yeah, SACD and DVD-A might be uncracked now, but neither one has supplanted the CD yet. Once the CD is long gone, there will be a much greater interest in cracking the new format.
I'm sure some won't agree with me, but SACD and DVD-A are (IMO) both unnecessary formats. CD audio -- 16 bits at 44.1 KHz sample rate -- is far more than good enough for most people. Anything more is just wasted bits/bandwidth.
They are counting on the fact that people will buy it because it's "better", even if (given the limitations of human hearing) it really isn't, practically speaking.
For most people (even most of us who can hear serious detail and seriously high frequencies), there's not much (or any) difference between DVD-A or SACD and a standard, 16-bit CD in perceptable audio quality. The only reason they're trying to sell these new formats to us is, they can control the new formats; sound quality is the same (or, if it "seems" better, is mostly psychological, and isn't real given that human organs can't pick up that kind of detail).
The fact of the matter is, most "sheep" in the US will believe that these new formats are "better", even if the human ear can't tell the difference... but they're taught (by the TV or radio) that these new formats are "better", and thus believe it.
End result: the "sheep" buy into the new formats, while those with some intelligence don't if something already exists to accomplish the task at hand.
Unfortunately, we are in the minority (hell, Bush was elected, after all). No matter what kind of evidence is provided, we (scientists) are ignored most of the time, and usually end up in the "told you so" role that is among the most unappreciative rolls in existance...
Anyway, I need to stop chatting because I should be in bed by now (an hour ago really)...
They might advertise lower cost but from my e-bay experiences, it's a nuissance to have to open up a paypal account in order to pay somebody online.
This is no longer true; PayPal no longer requires that a buyer register a PayPal account for a one-time payment.
Ontop of that, if you sell something and receive payment by paypal, there really wasn't a way to cash out other than to use the money in the paypal account to buy stuff in other auctions.
That has never been true (I've had an account since 2000). You can deposit money directly to your bank account, and even get a debit card. It's nice to be able to pull out cash 10 minutes after someone pays you...
(now that I think about it, this may only apply to "business" PayPal accounts... I'm honestly not sure)
Now I won't say I haven't had my share of problems with PayPal, but the points you made have never been an issue for me. Once in a while the debit card decides not to function ("transaction unavailable at this time" and such), so I try not to rely on it too heavily...
I am skeptical this technology will ever actually take off in carpets like the article suggests. Who would want to have their carpet tell them they were a fatass every time they got up to walk around?
;)
Or, worse yet, your carpet informs you that the "hot chic" you slept with last night (who was brought home via 'beer goggles') was much heavier than you (many beers and several shots of peppermint Schnapp's later) had thought...
Of course this is NOT from personal experience... despite what my so-called "friends" and "family" might tell you...
3306/tcp open mysql
Interestingly they never disabled the default "test" user for MySQL. Not that much can be done (user "test" has no privileges on any databases) but I was in fact able to log in...
AND this was before the latest security advisories hit.
AND Netcraft has issued an advisory indicating that banner ads could be used to spread malware.
I have to wonder if the average user really understands these advisories though. I mean, they always refer to an Outlook exploit as an "email virus".
Even worse, and almost made me sick, was when my cousin said the other day: You're still using Google? Didn't you hear about the Google virus? I just banged my head on my desk for a while until he went away...
Though I have noticed more and more people on Firefox lately, I think most users don't understand the concept of a "browser", and rather than being scared of Microsoft software (as they should) they are scared of the Internet and computers in general.
On my site, IE has slipped a couple percentage points in the past couple months (and it's not a tech site).
:)
I've noticed the same thing on most of my sites, most of which target Windows users.
I also know a surprising amount of non-tech people using FireFox. I used to try to migrate people to Mozilla, and most didn't like it. FireFox has all the right options available (and all the right ones hidden), and really appeals to IE users.
Primary reasons given by people I ask: popup blocking, and tabbed browsing. Two things that nearly every browser on the market has, except for IE because IE didn't have to innovate (or even copy ideas). Until now.
Competition is good
I am a web developer and we DO tailor our sites for IE. When 95% of your viewers are using IE...
It would be stupid not to at least make sure a site works/looks right in IE. But that doesn't mean it can't also be standards-compliant and work in other browsers.
The motto on one of my sites is: Best viewed in a standards compliant browser, but also works in IE. After making it standards compliant, I then made the necessary tweaks to work around IE rendering quirks... and yes, the motto is there to be funny, but it's funny because it's true.
I just find it funny that, since IE 4.0, no major features have been added, and many bugs/quirks remain. Having the majority of the market there was no reason to innovate, until now (hell, IE is about the only browser without tabbed browsing and popup blocking). Competition is good...
I was experimenting with the idea of running an ATX system from a 12v battery (UPS battery). Most boards will fire up with only the +12 and +5 leads connected, and I had built a 5v regulator to supply the 5v side.
... possibly return the drive with the fried board. Didn't work, the drive still didn't function.
:)
So I connected black to black and red to red, from the battery to the board. Oops -- red is the 5v lead in the PC.
The board still works, as does everything in the PC except for the hard drive. Unfortunately this was my MP3 drive (15 gig Maxtor, huge at the time), so I attempted a repair. First I bought an identical drive ($149 IIRC), thinking I'd swap the circuit boards and
Then I decided (stupidly and desparately) to try and swap the platters. Needless to say, I lost my MP3s, and was out not one but two drives.
All this stupidity from someone holding an A+ cert at the time, no less...
Previously, Linux Distros in general, weren't too friendly and you had to spend a lot of time configuring things yourself.
I've never used Suse, but I do concur that things have gotten a lot better with most distros in the last few years. I haven't seen or touched an X86Config file in a couple of years, and though I still compile a custom kernel it's not necessary to make things work.
I'm not entirely sure I'd recommend Linux to a typical Windows user, but for the curious I have no issues telling them to try a couple and pick the one they like. In the past this resulted in too much tech support questions, but these days it's not difficult for the savvy to try out Linux, without worrying about which major distro they choose. Which is IMO a great thing.
Most impressive to me was my laptop. When I first got it, RedHat 6.2 required a ton of mucking around to make it work. Each distro got better, but Fedora Core 1 went on there so nicely (graphical installer, even with the Trident video chip that gave me problems before). The only thing I had to install manually was a module for the WinModem -- which was much easier than I had expected. Hell, they didn't even have a Win2k driver for the modem, but the Linux community had it working without breaking a sweat.
Wait till the spammers decide to spam your whole domain.
That's exactly when I decided to disable the "catch-all" and allow only specific addresses. Some spammer sent several hundred identical messages, in a few hours, to made-up names at my domain.
Catch-all is no longer a good idea in my opinion...
Something tells me calling yourself a "certified architect" in those countries would be even a little worse.
I tend to agree, though I personally think that the bastardisation of "Engineer" is even worse. We now have Software Engineers, Network Engineers, and even Sanitation Engineers. It seems to me that an Engineer usually does something innovative, solves a problem, or something requiring a lot of skill and intelligence.
Architect is also something that requires quite a bit of skill (and, like a true Engineer, carries some responsibility/liability), so as I said I agree that some terms should be "reserved" to, at minimum, avoid diluting the meaning of the term. Imagine if Microsoft or RedHat offered some kind of cert making one a "Doctor of Network Systems" or similar...
E: "Oh, no, not this again... it's RPM DEPENDANCY HELL!!!"
That's what I usually shout. Especially when you find a package that requires a different version of RPM itself... ugh!
I personally love the Ports collection in FreeBSD, and love the idea of apt (but haven't used it yet), but otherwise I "grew up" on RedHat... it's a love/hate thing, but in the end I'm still using RedHat for most server projects...
The company uses MS as an abbreviation for itself all the time. MSN, MS-DOS, and MSDN are the first three examples that spring to mind.
:)
MS-DOS, MSIE (not sure if that one is officially used), MSNBC... just the next few that springs to my mind. In reality MS is a fine abreviation for Microsoft, regardless of whether it's a compound word or not.
But, the grandparent is correct that it's MCSE, if only because it would otherwise be MSCSE, even more difficult to remember
That said, I used to screw it up all the time before and say MSCE, only because of the frequent use of MS in their product names/abreviations... Since becoming concious of my error I now always get it right, but until it was pointed out I transposed the C and S constantly...