I already control my cookies via the privacy settings. But i dont want to have a huge list of DO NOT URLS. I want something that i can say "YES I WANT THIS AND ONLY THIS" otherwise im adding and growing this list continuesly.
Welcome to the world of computing, where we're always balancing ease of use with security. Of course, your argument is a bit weak. Which do you have more of, sites that you visit that you don't trust, or sites that you visit that you do trust? If the former, I suggest you change your viewing habits.
Not to say, of course, that you should totally trust ANY site, but that well-behaved sites don't try to force software on you. IMO, the default level in IE is sufficient for well-behaved sites...it prompts you before downloading and executing potentially dangerous code.
IF you, however, wish to change the dfeault behaivor...go for it. Then add the sites you trust into the Trusted Sites zone. You'll probably end up witt a larger collection of URLs than the other way, but you'll be a tad bit safer.
Why can I ONLY see a checkbox for "Always trust downloads from this company"
and NOT "Always MISTRUST downloads from this company" on the install dialog on IE?
Add them to the Restricted Sites zone. That will (by default) keep them from running any code, including signed and unsigned ActiveX, and even cookies.
I'm running Win95b with IE 5.5, IE does check for updates every time I start it
Then change your home page and or options. Assuming you don't want it to. And, evidently, it doesn't auto install the updates or you'd presumably be running IE6.
the GURU ISP, make the user take a test if they want to open an account. If they cannot answer some reasonable networking questions, tell them thanks and refer them to another ISP.
We don't have a tech support staff, so you have to know what you are doing. When you do sign up, you will just get a USERNAME, PASSWORD and MODEM PHONE NUMBER. Nothing else.
We don't run Microsoft stuffs (like FrontPage, IIS or Access) and never will.
56K connections are the bane of all ISPs. 56K is so dependent on line conditions. You get what you get. No ISP in the world can gurantee 56K speeds, or anywhere close to it.
If you say that your "other" ISP had better 56k connections, then you best go back to that ISP. Really folks, a 3K or 5K difference in connection speed is nothing.
do you want to bitch and bitch, or connect?
No need to tell us anything, so please don't. I get way too much email as it is.
If your question could have been answered by you reading these pages, then most likely I'll just delete your email without a response.
And the winner....
"As a general rule, America Online users are not computer savvy or it seems,
capable of the level of technical sophistication necessary to operate a
computer outside of an AOL environment."
alternative browsers, ftp clients, software required for connecting to the ISP servers and that's it...the ISPs should not intrude on the users personal computer other than with software required to use the connection.
So, then that would be...no software? Right? All modern OS's include a PPP client. Windows 95b and later, and most Linux distros include a browser. With a browser, it's trivial to get an FTP client. Even without a browser, there's always CLI FTP. The only thing that would fit in your description would be PPPoE software, if the ISP requires it.
That's a good idea in theory, but -- ever used norton antivirus? The newer ones come with an email cleaning feature. It tries to redirect your mail to a norton server, or put slashes in your username, etc, etc...and in the process hoses up your pop3 settings horrendously.
Actually, in all fairness to Norton, it simply acts as a POP/SMTP proxy. The / is for the DNS name of the server you're trying to log into. Relatively standard stuff. Now, of course, if NAV isn't running at the time, things get a little messed up.That's a good idea in theory, but -- ever used norton antivirus? The newer ones come with an email cleaning feature. It tries to redirect your mail to a norton server, or put slashes in your username, etc, etc...and in the process hoses up your pop3 settings horrendously.
Oh, and it's quite easily disabled. And I usually do so...at least on the POP end. People don't get quite as upset when they can't send email as when they can't receive it.
Ah, Windows. That reminds me of the following call between a customer (running Linux) and some telephone monkey. The problem was that the dial-up connection was problamatic. Sometimes the customer would dial-in and connect, but after that, nothing. All packets just disappeared into the bit bucket. The only solution was to hang up and dial again, which usually solved the problem. After explaining this, the following discussion ensued:
You know, I used to work tech support, and I realize that this sort of stuff goes on. But, IMO, if your computer savvy enough to know what's going on, then you shouldn't be calling tech support unless you know it's their problem. Tech support is for the computer dummies. The NOC is for computer geeks. And if they won't escalate your call after relaizing that you're more competent than them, you need to switch ISP's. My god, man...it's a dial-up account. Not broadband. You do have a choice.
As an aside, it's usually pretty easy to get the NOC's number. Just call up the switchboard and ask. If that doesn't work, call up and say you're with a local networking outfit and need the NOC. If the NOC thinks I'm full of shit, then they're free to push me thru tech support. Of course, I only call the NOC when I've gone through the troubleshooting to prove that it's their end, and after a reasonable amount of downtime has elapsed...no need to pull one of them away from the downed router so I can let them know their router is down.
Frowning on an act would indicate some remedial conscience or morals, and as we see everyday corporations have NONE.
While you and I may believe that, evidently others do not.
We allow corporations to donate soft money, thereby influencing the political process, probably more so than the votes. We even allow them to give favors to candidates and politicians. They have property rights, can invent, can author creative works, can be exempted from laws, can buy other laws, can be sued, and can even sue for wrongs done to it! In the meantime, we also award companies for being "good corporate citizens"!
When I go to a message board looking for answers, I usually find the answers, not the usual "why doesn't this work?" questions that can be found in "normal" boards for Windows users.
Doesn't somebody have to ask the question for there to be an answer? I guess you missed that part.
but again the point is prevention of the problem happening. Why does somebody have to fly at 55mph in a 25mph zone. Most people wont understand this unless they are parents, nothing worst that seeing a kid run into the street chasing a ball.
Interestingly enough, I don't think young children should be playing anywhere near the street. If they're not old/mature enough to avoid getting hit by cars, then they should be in a backyard or park area.
Well anyway, we've upgraded the situation, the local law enforcement now parks a van with the radar speed so that everyone slows down. Helps even more. At night a few times a week, they park infront of my house an unmarked car catch a few speeder ( I bring out coffee for them at 2am or 4 am when i see them) so I have improved and taken accountable actions to improve my area for better long term results.
I understand your concern and pray that nothing unfortunate happens....I have no problem with legitimate concerns of safety. Speed in residential areas should be regulated (contrary to my previous post). Highway speeds, however, are a different issue.
I have an old Pentium 90 running a recent version of Linux, including a recent firewall, recent NAT, recent Apache, recent NFS server, etc. I think it's pretty clear that the same availability does not apply to Windows 3.1 - sure you can still run it, but you will be stuck with old, outdated applications
No, I don't know of those services being available for Win 3.1. But I could easily install Windows 95/98/98SE or even Windows NT 4.0 Server or Workstation on your Pentium-90.
I think what he means is...
Have you tried to run a game that requires DirectX 8 and your installed version is 7?
Bingo, update/feature enhancement that killed backward compatability
I think you may be missing the point of backward compatibility. Things are said to be backwards compatible when they are the same as the previous version OF THE SAME PRODUCT. Obviously, App1 v5.0 is not backwards compatible with App2 v7.1. They're not the same app!
DX8 is backwards compatible with DX7. That is, DX8 externally performs and acts the same as DX7, for everything DX7 does. External programs don't know the difference.
Your scenario would mean there would never be any updates, because my new program requires a Pentium-233 MHz, which means it killed backwards compatiblity with my 486DX-33MHz. Gotta compare apples to apples you know.
Evolution (as in "altering of physical form of whole populations of individuals due to external factors") seems much more likely to happen over a few generations. The "old school" is teaching us that evolution is happening only on course of hundeds or thousands of generations. This may not be the case actually.
It's not evolution! It's common sense! Use your thumbs more, and they'll become stonger, more flexible, and more dexterous. Not evolution, muscles.
Re:That was quick....
on
He Writes Back
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Maybe that's the best way to fight spam - post the URL here and let the./ effect overload their servers/pipe.
Bandwidth costs money, so this approach might persuade them the cost of untargetted advertising is too high.
Maybe we could even automate this?
Funny you should mention that as a reply to me. Here's a story I submitted recently:
2002-02-27 21:47:57 The SPAMdot Effect (articles,news) (rejected)
After a spam telling me how to increase traffic to my site, slashdot.org, I figured that the best way to show them what kind of traffic Slashdot already gets would be to slashdot them! Oh well, guess the editors didn't agree....
That was quick....
on
He Writes Back
·
· Score: 4, Funny
5 comments, and the sites already slashdotted. Here's the only one I could get to load up:
Dear Sirs,
Thanks for your continuing interest in TROYRICH INVESTMENT CORPORATION.You/your firm contacted us a while back for funding. We are contacting you to see if you can use additional capital for your business. We have merged with new investors that are very motivated and aggressive in their funding practice. We will be working with them to perform a full thorough evaluation for potential investment into lucrative projects. If you are still interested in us providing funding for you or your company, please forward an UP-DATED VERSION of your Executive Summary/ Proposal to us for a review.
Regards,
TroyRich Investment
Does your business need a creative approach to financing? Do you need capital to "get rolling"?We solve your financial funding needs!
I have an excellent opportunity for you to invest in. We're motivated and aggressive, and while we aren't a money-making venture, our service is extremely valuable to America.
My name is Colonel Jonathan "Hannibal" Land, and I've assembled a team of mercenaries second to none. Here's a little background on each of the guys:
Lieutenant Templeton 'Face' Peck: As you could guess by his nickname, "Face" is a very handsome man. He's also an extremely persuasive smooth talker. He can get his way with anything that can be remotely attracted to a man. If that doesn't work, we put him in a dress. I'm questioning my own feelings about gender and sexuality just talking about him. Anyway, while he's charming the pants off of someone, the rest of the team takes full advantage of catching said person with their pants down to carry out the mission in question. Face is our people person. If I haven't convinced you to invest in my team here, I hope you'd allow Face to take a meeting with you.
Captain H.M. 'Howling Mad' Murdock: Everyone has their faults and 'Howling Mad' Murdock is no exception. This guy is literally crazy. So crazy, he's been institutionalized, yet he's an amazing pilot, mechanic and tinkerer of odd contraptions that are wonderful pseudo-weapons which inflict damage but don't hurt anyone. He was MacGuyver before MacGuyver. Now I bet you're thinking, "Crazy guy??? Pilot??? Shouldn't this guy be closely followed by missile-loaded F-16s wherever he goes???" Hell no! He's endearingly crazy, like a toned-down Robin Williams who can actually be likable in small doses. We're talking crazy-brilliant in A Beautiful Mind sort of way, not crazy-crazy like a kamikaze.
Sergeant Bosco 'B.A.' Baracus: 'B.A.' Baracus is the most distinctive member of our team. Picture a huge, muscular black man with a mohawk, approximately fifty thousand dollars worth of cheap gold chains around his neck, and a facial expression of bitterness that only lemons coated in alimony payments can provide. He also has enough rings on his fingers to make a long-dead Liberace claw his way out of his grave out of pure jealousy. Now you're probably thinking, "Wait, I thought Murdock was the crazy one?" Like I said before, we all have our faults, and Baracus's is merely a terminal lack of taste. He's just flamboyant, and I mean that in the most heterosexual way, that's all. He's our weapons guy, driver and intimidator. He's also a man of great compassion. He pities every last fool out there.
Me: I'm the cigar-chomping brains of the outfit. I keep the situation under control, I keep the team in check, and most of all, I love it when a plan comes together.
You mention the words "get rolling" in your pitch, which evoked in me and the boys the "let's roll" battle-cry that's been generated by the unfortunate circumstances of September 11th. We might be a team of only four, but we're truly greater than the sum of our parts. We'd like you to finance a trip for us to Iraq so we can take out Saddam Hussein. I assure you we can do this. You'll have to respect our tactics though. This won't be a bloodbath. We'll do stuff like customize a vacuum cleaner to shoot out whole cabbages, and we'll just pelt him until he gives up and knows he's been defeated. We've done it before. I swear it works.
We were going to offer our help in Afghanistan, but we wouldn't want to step on toes. Plus, we're all dishonorably discharged military men, and given the amount of military personnel there, laying low would be difficult, and the Osama Bin Laden version of the mission would probably be compromised.
So what do you say? Invest in us, and the world will love you! Let's do it! Man, I love it when a plan comes together.
Colonel Jonathan "Hannibal" Land
What about Microsoft's Encrypted File System, built-in to Windows 2000? It's a transparent encryption/decryption process trapped by a EFS driver right above the I/O system, built into NTFS 5. Wouldn't this technology be subject to this patent?
You sound just like a client. Instead of looking to solve your problem, you want the world. As always, though, the world will cost you. Just about anything can be done, it just depends on the cost, timeframe, and man hours.
Let's first look at your stated problem:
It became clear to me (when my main machine had to be sent away for repairs for a week) that it's high time to finally divorce myself from any particular computer...
Which is an easy enough problem to solve. Store data files and the like on a server, and access them through your client PC. For program installs and the like, either keep a swappable PC with all the software loaded, or a Ghost image/duplicate HDD of the PC to be loaded on a spare PC when the time comes. Most OS's can even cope with dissimilar hardware without too much of a pain. For the most part, you could even install to the server and make a backup of the WINNT folder and registry, use roaming profiles, and restore just that to a new machine.
But then, you get into:
...using data and software accessible from any internet connected computer as much as possible.
Which is a totally different ball of wax. That's the realm of Application Service Providers. While this is doable, it's expensive, cumbersome, and a PITA. And, I think it's one of things MS is trying to do with.NET.
If the latter is really something you want to look at doing, then you have the option of homegrown or ASP.
VNC and Terminal Services (as mentioned) are possible solutions, but, unless you're looking at starting a TS cluster (doubtful), then you're still tied to that one machine. You're just moving your keyboard and monitor further away, with the resultant UI lag. Not a good solution, IMO. What you need are apps that are designed to be internet accessible (and bandwidth conservative) from the start. There's compromises inherent in those solutions, but I think I could live with less features easier than I could with UI lag. Start thinking of your browser as the ultimate front end to your apps. Look for good webmail servers. Productivity apps are a little more difficult, and could entirely depend on what you actually do with them. It's not terribly difficult to code an ASP page that will allow you to enter and edit simple Excel spreadhseets in HTML. I'd imagine Word would be about the same (though I have no experience with Word in that manner). Access and other databases, of course, have well documented, and some ready-made, solutions.
A Visual IDE, though, may be a bit more difficult. It might depend on your language needs. I haven't toyed with VS.NET yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to use ActiveX to control it from an ASP page. If not, you may need to design your own internet version of an IDE.
Difficult? Yeah. Time consuming? Absolutely. Necessary? You tell me. Of course, good backups would have had you up and running within 30 minutes of finding another PC.
I use PCAnywhere a lot for managing machines over a VPN, and I would kill myself if I had to use a system like this to do what this person is talking about. Unless you're running the PCAnywhere (or VNC) server on a really fast machine, and your network connection is at least 10base-T, you're going to hate working through this because of the lag-time in the UI.
Try TightVNC, which is TridiaVNC plus JPEG compression and "Tight" compression, minus the support and fee structure of the commerical TridaVNC (TridiaVNC does have a free, non supported version). Claims are of > 25% improvement over VNC's Zlib encoding.
I've found that it works reasonably well over broadband with highest compression, though the JPEG compression takes a toll on CPU and image quality at the highest levels. 10base-T is just about like being there, and dial-up is usable for short periods of time. Anything more, and you'll want to just jump in the car though.
To be honest, for managing Windows 2000 servers, I usually use the MS Terminal Services Advanced Client. It's accessible through a web browser and is pretty responsive over dial-up or broadband. When I need access to the actual desktop session (Term Services satrts a new session on the server) to see error messages or such, I use VNC-X, which is an ActiveX VNC client. I simply add it to the same page that I launch TSAC from and have 1-click access to any server through either VNC or TSAC. (Hey, maybe I should patent that!)
I am not a lawyer, but this is *exactly* what promisorry estoppel is all about. The employer (through middle manger) makes a un-written promise, the employee does work (or continues to do work) based on this promise, and then the employer (upper managment, lawyers, etc) go back on the promise. In this case, it is unfair for the employer to take back their part of the deal... even if it was unwritten. The consideration for the promise could be extra overtime or staying with the company or even doing the open source work with the company's email address.
That's interesting how you got the promissory estoppel definition correct, but then totally mangled your example. Promissory estoppel occurs when a promise is mead without consideration. The one who was promised then reasonably takes actions based on the promise to his detriment. Silence, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.
In this case, if a manager or other agent of the company orally or verbally agreed to let the worker work on open source projects without consideration, then you could claim promissory estoppel. If there was consideration, whether oral or written, then there's a contract which would amend his previous one. The only argument then would be if the manager or agent of the company was acting for the company or not.
As for silence constituting agreement, there would have to be some sort of discussion beforehand to that effect. If, for instance, the worker approached management and they discussed open source work, but did not come to an agreement-and then later the worker, with management knowledge, writes and posts OSS, and management does not complain, you could argue that silence constituted an agreement. I say argue because it would be dependent on the prior conversations, and would probably be a pretty weak case.
In this instance, I'd say it's a pretty weak case altogether. It's common in R&D fields to sign over all projects whether directly or indirectly related to work. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know if this is common or not in programming fields. The one saving grace may be if the OSS was a totally different field than work software.
Depending on the original contract, he may be able to claim joint ownership of the OSS work. Without an express agreement to the contrary, patents are awarded to the individual that invented it, with the employer receiving shop rights-a royalty free, non transferable license to use the invention. Of course, the caveats there are that he can't be employed in inventing, can't have signed away rights to them, and can't have been assigned to invent. That's patent law...copyright law may be a bit different on that matter.
With all due respect, this is a load of crap. You could use the same logic to argue against drunk driving laws. Put people in jail only if they're driving drunk and they actually hit someone. If they're loaded and they drive home safely, what's the problem? Drunk driving and drag racing in populated areas (during the day no less, from what I can infer from the previous post) are both highly hazardous activities that indeed should be regulated. Don't believe me? Check out this (slightly overdramatic) story on drag racing:
So, you point out an admittedly overdramatic, ironic exception that's been overblown by the media to make your point?
You're right. I could use the same logic against drunk driving laws. And I do. Why should someone who drives drunk be arrested, when there's a lot of people who drive worrse sober! Ever been to New York or Florida lately?
You also could use your logic against concealed permit laws. And against people driving in general. And against sheep.
Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, I can't find any reliable statistics on street racing and deaths to others not involved in the action (eg., not participants or spectators), but I doubt that it's very significant. As for drunk driving, you're more likely to be killed by yourself or a sober driver than a drunk one. Not to mention that there are usually multiple factors leading to a traffic death, yet if alcohol (or, lately, a handheld cell phone) is present, it will be listed on the alcohol side of the charts (note the wording "alcohol figures into", not "alcohol the leading contributor").
Nobody seems to care about the results of their actions. People were I live are very much like this person. Thinking that they are always correct and could give 2 sh*t about the effects. Lately I've figured out how to fight them, Video tape and submision to the local police enforcement. It's been working, I no longer have people drag racing on my street as much. ( we have a park in the center and there are a ton of kids playing )
Actually, one of the biggest problems is that people are no longer able to take responsibility for their actions because the government (read:well intentioned liberals) try to outlaw things that might lead to a crime! Such as your drag-racing example. Did any of the people you video taped harm anybody? Did they hit the kids? Or do you just think they might hit the kids?
If they hit the kid, then fine, lock them up and throw away the key. Or execute them on the fact that they willfully endangered human life. But no, instead, you videtape them drag racing and maybe they get a speeding ticket (depending on your state's laws about an officer witnessing the crime). And then they're off to drag race in somebody else's neighborhood. You didn't solve the problem, you simply moved it.
Instead of legislating and criminalizing actions that may or may not lead to an actual crime (read: a crime with a victim), how about we just appropiately, swiftly, and mercilessly apply justice to people who have done wrong?
Have you ever tried sending a letter without a zip code (and with the state spelled out)? The good ol' postal service gets it to the destination every time for me...
Yes, but it requires a bit more work and can ultimately delay the mail, depending on its destination. I think the more logical idea would be to omit the city and state, and just use the ZIP code. The city and state info is redundant, AFAIK.
Your assumption that this is how the plugi nworks is quite unfounded.
Perhaps, but I at least know the basics of what they're trying to accomplish. Rewriting and/or modifying the IP stack is not the way they'd go about doing it.
I can imagine a plugin that modifies the IP stack in some way to achieve this same end. It may even do other things too. It sounds to me like this is what they are doing (perhaps the whole point of the plugin is to add new.net to the search path while hiding the fact that its there, and preventing it from being changed)
You can imagine it? Wonderful. Unfortunately for you, that's nowhere near even circumstantial eveidence that that's what they've done.
AFAIK, there's only 1 version of the plugin. With Windows 2000 having a different stack than Win9x, I'd assume they'd need a different plugin. And note that the plugin, by claiming to only work with Netscape or Internet Explorer, does not seem to be coded at such a low level as you seem to believe. If it did modify the IP stack (a step that Win2K would not take too lightly, I might add) then it would work with ALL TCP/IP applications.
Now, do you, or anybody else, have any evidence supporting your claim that it modifes the IP stack? Besides, "I removed it and it trashed my IP stack"? Once again, I'm not saying that I'd go out and install this plugin, but it's highly unlikely that it's a nefarious as you seem to believe.
No, no, no, New.net is not to do with Microsoft's.NET thing. It's some weirdass domain level company that buggers up your IP stack. There aren't any links in the article, but you can find more here [new.net].
How, exactly, does New.net's software mess with the IP stack? At worst, I understand it to be a simple DNS proxy that filters between new.net domains and regular domains. If I try to browse to ladeda.lala, my IP stack doesn't know that's invalid, the DNS server I use does, and returns that error.
At best, note that ladeda.lala.new.net is actually what ladeda.lala is being referenced to. (Try it, you can't browse to www.nike.golf, but you can do www.nike.golf.new.net). So, at best, this plugin should simply make a registry entry to append.new.net to the domain suffix search list. Then, when the DNS servers return a not found for nike.golf, you try again with nike.golf.new.net.
Not that I think this is a particualry useful idea, but I don't see how IP stack corruption could come from this. With that being said, I won't install it to find out.;)
For instructions on configuring a DNS server to add these domains, see here.For a MS Word doc explaining alternatives to using their plugin, see here. If you're too much of Linux zealot to read an MS Word doc, and won't even use StarOffice to read it on principle, then here it is in plain text glory:
SysAdmin Instructions
Resolving our new TLDs in a business network environment
If your business accesses the Internet via one of our service provider partners, then your staff will be already activated to access the new domains. If not, however, then there are several options open to you to get your company activated.
Enable DNS resolution of our domains without the plug-in
Alternatively, you can enable users to access our domains by adding ".new.net" to the search path in your company's DNS system that you wish to grant such access to; either centrally via the Registry, or locally on each machine via the Append Search Paths option.
Editing the Registry
Under Win2000 and WinNT, the "append these DNS suffixes" data are stored as comma-delimited data in the REG_SZ value "SearchList" in the following registry key:
KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Service s\Tcpip\Parameters
You will of course use Regedit to do this task, and you will need to have system administrator status to edit the Registry. Edit the value of "SearchList" to add "new.net" making it the last entry in that key (or the only one if you have no others listed already). You should propagate this change to the machines on your network in the usual manner in which you employ for such updates.
Adding "new.net" to the Domain Suffix Search Order in TCP/IP Properties
In the Control Panel on each machine that you wish to activate for the new domains, Open "Network." Select "Protocols" and then select the item listed there, "TCP/IP Protocol." Now select "Properties." In the properties box select the menu item "DNS." At the bottom of this dialog box is a section headed "Domain Suffix Search Order." Click "Add" and then enter "new.net" and press "Add" again. Now you have successfully added the new.net domain to your DNS search path and all the new domains will now be resolved. Exit the Network control panels.
Note: if you have added new.net to the DNS search path via a Registry change, then this will also appear here too.
(c) by new.net, not by me
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the world of computing, where we're always balancing ease of use with security. Of course, your argument is a bit weak. Which do you have more of, sites that you visit that you don't trust, or sites that you visit that you do trust? If the former, I suggest you change your viewing habits.
Not to say, of course, that you should totally trust ANY site, but that well-behaved sites don't try to force software on you. IMO, the default level in IE is sufficient for well-behaved sites...it prompts you before downloading and executing potentially dangerous code.
IF you, however, wish to change the dfeault behaivor...go for it. Then add the sites you trust into the Trusted Sites zone. You'll probably end up witt a larger collection of URLs than the other way, but you'll be a tad bit safer.
Add them to the Restricted Sites zone. That will (by default) keep them from running any code, including signed and unsigned ActiveX, and even cookies.
Then change your home page and or options. Assuming you don't want it to. And, evidently, it doesn't auto install the updates or you'd presumably be running IE6.
You must mean like this one. Selected quotes:
So, then that would be...no software? Right? All modern OS's include a PPP client. Windows 95b and later, and most Linux distros include a browser. With a browser, it's trivial to get an FTP client. Even without a browser, there's always CLI FTP. The only thing that would fit in your description would be PPPoE software, if the ISP requires it.
Actually, in all fairness to Norton, it simply acts as a POP/SMTP proxy. The / is for the DNS name of the server you're trying to log into. Relatively standard stuff. Now, of course, if NAV isn't running at the time, things get a little messed up.That's a good idea in theory, but -- ever used norton antivirus? The newer ones come with an email cleaning feature. It tries to redirect your mail to a norton server, or put slashes in your username, etc, etc...and in the process hoses up your pop3 settings horrendously.
Oh, and it's quite easily disabled. And I usually do so...at least on the POP end. People don't get quite as upset when they can't send email as when they can't receive it.
You know, I used to work tech support, and I realize that this sort of stuff goes on. But, IMO, if your computer savvy enough to know what's going on, then you shouldn't be calling tech support unless you know it's their problem. Tech support is for the computer dummies. The NOC is for computer geeks. And if they won't escalate your call after relaizing that you're more competent than them, you need to switch ISP's. My god, man...it's a dial-up account. Not broadband. You do have a choice.
As an aside, it's usually pretty easy to get the NOC's number. Just call up the switchboard and ask. If that doesn't work, call up and say you're with a local networking outfit and need the NOC. If the NOC thinks I'm full of shit, then they're free to push me thru tech support. Of course, I only call the NOC when I've gone through the troubleshooting to prove that it's their end, and after a reasonable amount of downtime has elapsed...no need to pull one of them away from the downed router so I can let them know their router is down.
While you and I may believe that, evidently others do not.
We allow corporations to donate soft money, thereby influencing the political process, probably more so than the votes. We even allow them to give favors to candidates and politicians. They have property rights, can invent, can author creative works, can be exempted from laws, can buy other laws, can be sued, and can even sue for wrongs done to it! In the meantime, we also award companies for being "good corporate citizens"!
For something that only exists on paper, and that has no morals, ethics, conscience, spirit or life...corporations sure do have a lot of corporate rights. As if a they were "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...".
Doesn't somebody have to ask the question for there to be an answer? I guess you missed that part.
Interestingly enough, I don't think young children should be playing anywhere near the street. If they're not old/mature enough to avoid getting hit by cars, then they should be in a backyard or park area.
I understand your concern and pray that nothing unfortunate happens....I have no problem with legitimate concerns of safety. Speed in residential areas should be regulated (contrary to my previous post). Highway speeds, however, are a different issue.
You do realize that feral cats are, by definition, wild and untamed. Therefore, they have no owner....Right?
No, I don't know of those services being available for Win 3.1. But I could easily install Windows 95/98/98SE or even Windows NT 4.0 Server or Workstation on your Pentium-90.
I think you may be missing the point of backward compatibility. Things are said to be backwards compatible when they are the same as the previous version OF THE SAME PRODUCT. Obviously, App1 v5.0 is not backwards compatible with App2 v7.1. They're not the same app!
DX8 is backwards compatible with DX7. That is, DX8 externally performs and acts the same as DX7, for everything DX7 does. External programs don't know the difference.
Your scenario would mean there would never be any updates, because my new program requires a Pentium-233 MHz, which means it killed backwards compatiblity with my 486DX-33MHz. Gotta compare apples to apples you know.
It's not evolution! It's common sense! Use your thumbs more, and they'll become stonger, more flexible, and more dexterous. Not evolution, muscles.
Funny you should mention that as a reply to me. Here's a story I submitted recently:
2002-02-27 21:47:57 The SPAMdot Effect (articles,news) (rejected)
After a spam telling me how to increase traffic to my site, slashdot.org, I figured that the best way to show them what kind of traffic Slashdot already gets would be to slashdot them! Oh well, guess the editors didn't agree....
What about Microsoft's Encrypted File System, built-in to Windows 2000? It's a transparent encryption/decryption process trapped by a EFS driver right above the I/O system, built into NTFS 5. Wouldn't this technology be subject to this patent?
Let's first look at your stated problem:
Which is an easy enough problem to solve. Store data files and the like on a server, and access them through your client PC. For program installs and the like, either keep a swappable PC with all the software loaded, or a Ghost image/duplicate HDD of the PC to be loaded on a spare PC when the time comes. Most OS's can even cope with dissimilar hardware without too much of a pain. For the most part, you could even install to the server and make a backup of the WINNT folder and registry, use roaming profiles, and restore just that to a new machine.
But then, you get into:
Which is a totally different ball of wax. That's the realm of Application Service Providers. While this is doable, it's expensive, cumbersome, and a PITA. And, I think it's one of things MS is trying to do with .NET.
If the latter is really something you want to look at doing, then you have the option of homegrown or ASP.
VNC and Terminal Services (as mentioned) are possible solutions, but, unless you're looking at starting a TS cluster (doubtful), then you're still tied to that one machine. You're just moving your keyboard and monitor further away, with the resultant UI lag. Not a good solution, IMO. What you need are apps that are designed to be internet accessible (and bandwidth conservative) from the start. There's compromises inherent in those solutions, but I think I could live with less features easier than I could with UI lag. Start thinking of your browser as the ultimate front end to your apps. Look for good webmail servers. Productivity apps are a little more difficult, and could entirely depend on what you actually do with them. It's not terribly difficult to code an ASP page that will allow you to enter and edit simple Excel spreadhseets in HTML. I'd imagine Word would be about the same (though I have no experience with Word in that manner). Access and other databases, of course, have well documented, and some ready-made, solutions.
A Visual IDE, though, may be a bit more difficult. It might depend on your language needs. I haven't toyed with VS.NET yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to use ActiveX to control it from an ASP page. If not, you may need to design your own internet version of an IDE.
Difficult? Yeah. Time consuming? Absolutely. Necessary? You tell me. Of course, good backups would have had you up and running within 30 minutes of finding another PC.
Try TightVNC, which is TridiaVNC plus JPEG compression and "Tight" compression, minus the support and fee structure of the commerical TridaVNC (TridiaVNC does have a free, non supported version). Claims are of > 25% improvement over VNC's Zlib encoding.
I've found that it works reasonably well over broadband with highest compression, though the JPEG compression takes a toll on CPU and image quality at the highest levels. 10base-T is just about like being there, and dial-up is usable for short periods of time. Anything more, and you'll want to just jump in the car though.
To be honest, for managing Windows 2000 servers, I usually use the MS Terminal Services Advanced Client. It's accessible through a web browser and is pretty responsive over dial-up or broadband. When I need access to the actual desktop session (Term Services satrts a new session on the server) to see error messages or such, I use VNC-X, which is an ActiveX VNC client. I simply add it to the same page that I launch TSAC from and have 1-click access to any server through either VNC or TSAC. (Hey, maybe I should patent that!)
That's interesting how you got the promissory estoppel definition correct, but then totally mangled your example. Promissory estoppel occurs when a promise is mead without consideration. The one who was promised then reasonably takes actions based on the promise to his detriment. Silence, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.
In this case, if a manager or other agent of the company orally or verbally agreed to let the worker work on open source projects without consideration, then you could claim promissory estoppel. If there was consideration, whether oral or written, then there's a contract which would amend his previous one. The only argument then would be if the manager or agent of the company was acting for the company or not.
As for silence constituting agreement, there would have to be some sort of discussion beforehand to that effect. If, for instance, the worker approached management and they discussed open source work, but did not come to an agreement-and then later the worker, with management knowledge, writes and posts OSS, and management does not complain, you could argue that silence constituted an agreement. I say argue because it would be dependent on the prior conversations, and would probably be a pretty weak case.
In this instance, I'd say it's a pretty weak case altogether. It's common in R&D fields to sign over all projects whether directly or indirectly related to work. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know if this is common or not in programming fields. The one saving grace may be if the OSS was a totally different field than work software.
Depending on the original contract, he may be able to claim joint ownership of the OSS work. Without an express agreement to the contrary, patents are awarded to the individual that invented it, with the employer receiving shop rights-a royalty free, non transferable license to use the invention. Of course, the caveats there are that he can't be employed in inventing, can't have signed away rights to them, and can't have been assigned to invent. That's patent law...copyright law may be a bit different on that matter.
So, you point out an admittedly overdramatic, ironic exception that's been overblown by the media to make your point?
You're right. I could use the same logic against drunk driving laws. And I do. Why should someone who drives drunk be arrested, when there's a lot of people who drive worrse sober! Ever been to New York or Florida lately?
You also could use your logic against concealed permit laws. And against people driving in general. And against sheep.
Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, I can't find any reliable statistics on street racing and deaths to others not involved in the action (eg., not participants or spectators), but I doubt that it's very significant. As for drunk driving, you're more likely to be killed by yourself or a sober driver than a drunk one. Not to mention that there are usually multiple factors leading to a traffic death, yet if alcohol (or, lately, a handheld cell phone) is present, it will be listed on the alcohol side of the charts (note the wording "alcohol figures into", not "alcohol the leading contributor").
Actually, one of the biggest problems is that people are no longer able to take responsibility for their actions because the government (read:well intentioned liberals) try to outlaw things that might lead to a crime! Such as your drag-racing example. Did any of the people you video taped harm anybody? Did they hit the kids? Or do you just think they might hit the kids?
If they hit the kid, then fine, lock them up and throw away the key. Or execute them on the fact that they willfully endangered human life. But no, instead, you videtape them drag racing and maybe they get a speeding ticket (depending on your state's laws about an officer witnessing the crime). And then they're off to drag race in somebody else's neighborhood. You didn't solve the problem, you simply moved it.
Instead of legislating and criminalizing actions that may or may not lead to an actual crime (read: a crime with a victim), how about we just appropiately, swiftly, and mercilessly apply justice to people who have done wrong?
That would be taking responsibility for actions.
Yes, but it requires a bit more work and can ultimately delay the mail, depending on its destination. I think the more logical idea would be to omit the city and state, and just use the ZIP code. The city and state info is redundant, AFAIK.
Perhaps, but I at least know the basics of what they're trying to accomplish. Rewriting and/or modifying the IP stack is not the way they'd go about doing it.
You can imagine it? Wonderful. Unfortunately for you, that's nowhere near even circumstantial eveidence that that's what they've done.
AFAIK, there's only 1 version of the plugin. With Windows 2000 having a different stack than Win9x, I'd assume they'd need a different plugin. And note that the plugin, by claiming to only work with Netscape or Internet Explorer, does not seem to be coded at such a low level as you seem to believe. If it did modify the IP stack (a step that Win2K would not take too lightly, I might add) then it would work with ALL TCP/IP applications.
Now, do you, or anybody else, have any evidence supporting your claim that it modifes the IP stack? Besides, "I removed it and it trashed my IP stack"? Once again, I'm not saying that I'd go out and install this plugin, but it's highly unlikely that it's a nefarious as you seem to believe.
How, exactly, does New.net's software mess with the IP stack? At worst, I understand it to be a simple DNS proxy that filters between new.net domains and regular domains. If I try to browse to ladeda.lala, my IP stack doesn't know that's invalid, the DNS server I use does, and returns that error.
At best, note that ladeda.lala.new.net is actually what ladeda.lala is being referenced to. (Try it, you can't browse to www.nike.golf, but you can do www.nike.golf.new.net). So, at best, this plugin should simply make a registry entry to append .new.net to the domain suffix search list. Then, when the DNS servers return a not found for nike.golf, you try again with nike.golf.new.net.
Not that I think this is a particualry useful idea, but I don't see how IP stack corruption could come from this. With that being said, I won't install it to find out. ;)
For instructions on configuring a DNS server to add these domains, see here.For a MS Word doc explaining alternatives to using their plugin, see here. If you're too much of Linux zealot to read an MS Word doc, and won't even use StarOffice to read it on principle, then here it is in plain text glory: