But who has a legitimate reason to connect to SMB on a desktop machine via the Internet? Nobody. Ever.
preventing people from doing stupid things also prevents them from doing clever things.
Yeah. Here's when I needed it: my partner and I want to share our Quickbooks file over the Internet. Quickbooks uses standard Windows shares for simultaneous network access. So we tried opening ports 137/139 on our little routers. Didn't work. Is there any way to do this without setting up some freaky, multi-layered tunnel? This is a case where I'd be pissed if they were blocking ports for "our own good."
Do you honestly want to be writing out all those checks?
My partner and I are incorporated, and I can tell you that the administrative workload increases very quickly when you start doing things in other states, and writing checks is the very least of the load. Have a half-day-a-week employee in the neighboring state? Great...don't forget to open a tax account in that state, deposit witholding taxes there every month, pay unemployment taxes every quarter, and file a tax return every quarter. Client wants you to visit sites in five different states? Super....each of those states expects you to pay income tax on the 12 hours of work you did there. They may have a "neighboring state" agreement with your state, or they may allow you to declare those twelve hours in your home state, but it's totally up to them.
Collecting taxes for every jurisdiction in which you make a sale would be a nightmare for small operators.
PLEASE HELP ME! I'm trying to find a hilarious site that I think I saw on Slashdot within the past few months. It was a standard set of "moon hoax" photos, but as you progressed through the site they turned increasingly bogus, with picnic tables and obvious stuff like that. Anybody know where it is?
I haven't seen anything here that demonstrates that freedom of the press is actually limited in the U.S.
1 - A narrow scope of news available is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. It is an indication of corporatioins making business decisions. You are free to start a newspaper and print whatever you wish. 2 - Reporters put in jail for not revealing sources is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. This is done when the nature of the reporting clearly demonstrates that a crime has been committed, and rarely, if ever, has anything to do with the report itself. Witness Bill Gertz here in D.C. He frequently publishes word-for-word excerpts from highly classified documents, to the unending frustration of military/intelligence types. Bill is still writing whatever he pleases. 3 - Reporters getting arrested for being in off-limits areas is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. Contrary to what they may believe, reporters do not have a constitutional right to go wherever they please or do whatever they please to get a story, any more than I have a right to wander into the White House to exercise my constitutional right to speak freely. 4 - Reporters being criticized for speaking against the administration or government is not an example of restricted freedom of the press. The constitution grants the right to print whatever you please, but does not grant you the right to do so without counter or criticism. 5- The government withholding information from the press is not an indication of restricted freedom. The people in those government positions also have a job to do, and they take it every bit as seriously as those all-holy reporters. Sometimes the best (or only) way to be successful in that job is to keep secrets. (side note -- interesting how the press is so willing to publish information that the military/intelligence community says compromises valuable sources, yet they proudly withstand contempt charges to protect their OWN sources.)
It sounds to me like all the pissing and moaning here would more properly be directed at U.S. society in general (and I disagree with these specific complaints, but you are certainly free to make them.) Your freedom to speak and print what you please is a very specific and simple freedom. It does not include the right to break other laws or hinder the legal process, and certainly doesn't guarantee immunity from angry responses from your fellow citizens.
I invite any examples of REAL restrictions on freedom of the press in the U.S. I know there are some (trial gag orders come to mind.) If we can find two or three, we may have something to discuss.
AOL has been responsible for helping millions of people discover the internet.
Just like Microsoft was responsible for helping millions of people discover PCs. In my opinion, AOL's product sucks, and those millions of people are dumber because of it. There are some good things about their service, but overall I think the internet as a community would be better off if AOL was simply an ISP rather than a content/software/advertising provider.
I've been using Phoenix for about a week now (switched from Opera.) The one feature that Phoenix doesn't support, as near as I can tell, is the "identify as" function that allows my browser to tell a server that it's Mozilla or IE 5.0 or whatever. Without it, my credit card website won't let me in (anyone know a way around this?) But other than that site, I'm sticking with Phoenix for now because I like the stripped down interface. It seems as fast or faster than the version of Opera that I had.
every comment they make was indexed and easy to correlate.
Slightly OT comment: if you catch C-Span, or some other video record of the House or Senate floor, listen for the end of someone's short remarks where they ask for permission to "revise and extend" their remarks. This means they will insert additional written remarks into the official record. As far as I know, there is no way to tell from the written record what was actually said on the floor and what was added in written form later. They could make a bland 60 second remark, then insert an aggressive 20 minute speech for the benefit of the folks back home.
Microsoft's "PR" campaing is no different from what any other company does day in and day out.
I've seen quite a few posts along these lines: "This is a common marketing practice, so what's the big deal?"
Fact is, it IS common for companies to "dramatize" testimonials, but the significance to those here on Slashdot is that Microsoft apparently can't come up with an actual person who voluntarily gave up Mac in favor of Microsoft. When faced with a successful campaign by Apple, featuring real people with realistic stories, the best Microsoft can do is an airbrushed model beaming "My colors are brighter and my whites stay whiter...erm...I mean, I switched to Windows!"
Microsoft doesn't offer one reason to use XP that doesn't also exist in Mac OS X. Microsoft Office?
From the botom of the article:
Editor's Note: Now that we've successfully converted our writer to a Windows PC, we will be working on getting her to try a Pocket PC. Stay tuned for more developments!
I'm pretty sure that what's going on here is that Microsoft found a freelance writer to write glowingly about XP in exchange for free hardwaree and OS. Similar to the old tactic of giving aluminum siding to a family for free so the neighbors can see it in action. 10 bucks says she's on the MS payroll. Also, in response to the posters above who remarked that she is so much better looking than the women in the Mac ads: I'll bet the picture shown is not the writer of the article.
Could be totally wrong on both counts, but that's my impression
1. Take the idiot who cut you off this morning with no turn signal and no glance in the mirror while pulling curlers out of her hair and talking on her cell phone.
2. Drag her from her car like you wanted to anyway.
3. Put her in a helicopter with a failed engine and see how well she does autorotating.
As I pilot, I think that personal flight will occur someday, but only after these two prerequisites are achieved:
1. Antigravity, or some propulsion system that is so simple and efficient that falling out of the sky is not going to happen no matter how inattentive the pilot, and 2. An automatic navigation system that will keep all the vehicles in well-defined "lanes" just as they are now.
Needless to say, I think we have a ways to go yet.
I agree with you, and with the parent to your post, but I was thinking more along the lines of a commercial free (yeah, right!) subscription service as an alternative to satellite. Could we just tune into one "superstation" freq, select a "channel" on that freq, and drive coast to coast with music in the genre of our choice?
Satellite lets you have all the channels no matter where you are in the coutry
A few years ago I did quite a bit of flying over Japan. I noticed that there seemed to be some sort of "Superstation" up and down the country. As soon as one broadcast began to fade from my scanner, I could tune in another identical broadcast (though on a different frequency.) If something similar was done in the U.S., but all on the same freq, there could be a digital superstation from coast to coast.
1. Would current FCC rules allow this?
2. Does anyone here know what the deal was with the station in Japan?
You are totally wrong. You can sell and use any type of encryption you want to within the United States. Again, I think you are thinking of export restrictions concerning what you can export from the U.S.
OTP technology is not widely used because the major problem is how to distribute keys. It has nothing to do with how secure the cypher is. If I have to send a message to my field office, unbreakable crypto does me no good if the other end doesn't have today's unbreakable key. The genius of asymetric crypto is that the two end users can freely exchange the necessary key information without compromising the actual key.
That is what I am talking about. It's illegal to sell such cyphers.
I think this guy will basically be caught in the act. Sooner or later someone will hear or see him take the shot. We may see a big mob chase like what happened with the Night Stalker in California in the 80's. This assumes, of course, that he keeps killing.
he discards or discounts other locations that he believes might skew his findings
When they first announced the use of this system for this case, reporters asked over and over "But won't the shooting way down in Virginia skew the results?" They obviously thought it was some simple formula computing a centroid or something. The cop didn't want to give away details, but anyone with an ounce of sense could see that the Virginia shooting was a statistical anomally (not that they would rule out the possibility that that was the ONE shooting near the shooter's home, either.) It's just a tool, folks.
I'll paraphrase an expert I saw on tv (god, I feel ignorant saying that!): "There is a balance between the criminal's desire to remain anonymous and his desire to operate in his comfort zone." A knowledgeable criminal may try to "game" the profile, but it seems to me that he would still need to operate within his comfort zone. If he strays too far away, that causes other problems for him: he's an outsider, he generates hotel bills, he misses work, he's away from his family, etc.
you can use only APPROVED cyphers and cryptography, this means weak, legal, breakable.
What the hell are you talking about? There's no law that says you can't use any encryption you want. At least in the US. Are you thinking of export laws?
Your cypher must be agreed by many federal commitees...
Good god, man, what the hell are you talking about?
NO ONE in PA can receive telemarketing calls unless they ADD themselves to a list.
This would put a quick end to the old BS line: "Our clients ENJOY hearing about our products and services!" I want to puke every time I hear that...especially from spammers.
It's a common courtesy to answer every single phone call you can.
Other examples of common courtesy:
1. Replying "Thanks, have a nice day." when someone says "No thankyou", instead of immediately shifting down to paragraph C of your script. 2. Leaving a message on my machine when I'm away, something like "I'm trying to sell you X. I'll call back later." instead of just hanging up. I can tell when I'm on a marketer's hotlist, because I get 6 or 8 hangups on my machine in one day. 3. Not forcing a conversation on me in the middle of the only 4 hours a day I get to spend with my wife.
The bottom line is that telemarketing techniques are rude and invasive. I'm polite to everybody who calls, but I will take any step to get them out of my life, including not answering the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
But who has a legitimate reason to connect to SMB on a desktop machine via the Internet? Nobody. Ever.
preventing people from doing stupid things also prevents them from doing clever things.
Yeah. Here's when I needed it: my partner and I want to share our Quickbooks file over the Internet. Quickbooks uses standard Windows shares for simultaneous network access. So we tried opening ports 137/139 on our little routers. Didn't work. Is there any way to do this without setting up some freaky, multi-layered tunnel? This is a case where I'd be pissed if they were blocking ports for "our own good."
throwing buckets of money into a woodchipper 'cause they've run out of places to stack it...
Wouldn't that make it take up more space?
Do you honestly want to be writing out all those checks?
My partner and I are incorporated, and I can tell you that the administrative workload increases very quickly when you start doing things in other states, and writing checks is the very least of the load. Have a half-day-a-week employee in the neighboring state? Great...don't forget to open a tax account in that state, deposit witholding taxes there every month, pay unemployment taxes every quarter, and file a tax return every quarter. Client wants you to visit sites in five different states? Super....each of those states expects you to pay income tax on the 12 hours of work you did there. They may have a "neighboring state" agreement with your state, or they may allow you to declare those twelve hours in your home state, but it's totally up to them.
Collecting taxes for every jurisdiction in which you make a sale would be a nightmare for small operators.
I find this remark very interesting, because a great American once said this:
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That man was Ben Franklin, and his words are more true today than ever before.
I couldn't resist. Go easy on me.
PLEASE HELP ME! I'm trying to find a hilarious site that I think I saw on Slashdot within the past few months. It was a standard set of "moon hoax" photos, but as you progressed through the site they turned increasingly bogus, with picnic tables and obvious stuff like that. Anybody know where it is?
I haven't seen anything here that demonstrates that freedom of the press is actually limited in the U.S.
1 - A narrow scope of news available is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. It is an indication of corporatioins making business decisions. You are free to start a newspaper and print whatever you wish.
2 - Reporters put in jail for not revealing sources is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. This is done when the nature of the reporting clearly demonstrates that a crime has been committed, and rarely, if ever, has anything to do with the report itself. Witness Bill Gertz here in D.C. He frequently publishes word-for-word excerpts from highly classified documents, to the unending frustration of military/intelligence types. Bill is still writing whatever he pleases.
3 - Reporters getting arrested for being in off-limits areas is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. Contrary to what they may believe, reporters do not have a constitutional right to go wherever they please or do whatever they please to get a story, any more than I have a right to wander into the White House to exercise my constitutional right to speak freely.
4 - Reporters being criticized for speaking against the administration or government is not an example of restricted freedom of the press. The constitution grants the right to print whatever you please, but does not grant you the right to do so without counter or criticism.
5- The government withholding information from the press is not an indication of restricted freedom. The people in those government positions also have a job to do, and they take it every bit as seriously as those all-holy reporters. Sometimes the best (or only) way to be successful in that job is to keep secrets. (side note -- interesting how the press is so willing to publish information that the military/intelligence community says compromises valuable sources, yet they proudly withstand contempt charges to protect their OWN sources.)
It sounds to me like all the pissing and moaning here would more properly be directed at U.S. society in general (and I disagree with these specific complaints, but you are certainly free to make them.) Your freedom to speak and print what you please is a very specific and simple freedom. It does not include the right to break other laws or hinder the legal process, and certainly doesn't guarantee immunity from angry responses from your fellow citizens.
I invite any examples of REAL restrictions on freedom of the press in the U.S. I know there are some (trial gag orders come to mind.) If we can find two or three, we may have something to discuss.
sit back and chat on my video phone.
AOL has been responsible for helping millions of people discover the internet.
Just like Microsoft was responsible for helping millions of people discover PCs. In my opinion, AOL's product sucks, and those millions of people are dumber because of it. There are some good things about their service, but overall I think the internet as a community would be better off if AOL was simply an ISP rather than a content/software/advertising provider.
I've been using Phoenix for about a week now (switched from Opera.) The one feature that Phoenix doesn't support, as near as I can tell, is the "identify as" function that allows my browser to tell a server that it's Mozilla or IE 5.0 or whatever. Without it, my credit card website won't let me in (anyone know a way around this?) But other than that site, I'm sticking with Phoenix for now because I like the stripped down interface. It seems as fast or faster than the version of Opera that I had.
every comment they make was indexed and easy to correlate.
Slightly OT comment: if you catch C-Span, or some other video record of the House or Senate floor, listen for the end of someone's short remarks where they ask for permission to "revise and extend" their remarks. This means they will insert additional written remarks into the official record. As far as I know, there is no way to tell from the written record what was actually said on the floor and what was added in written form later. They could make a bland 60 second remark, then insert an aggressive 20 minute speech for the benefit of the folks back home.
Microsoft's "PR" campaing is no different from what any other company does day in and day out.
I've seen quite a few posts along these lines: "This is a common marketing practice, so what's the big deal?"
Fact is, it IS common for companies to "dramatize" testimonials, but the significance to those here on Slashdot is that Microsoft apparently can't come up with an actual person who voluntarily gave up Mac in favor of Microsoft. When faced with a successful campaign by Apple, featuring real people with realistic stories, the best Microsoft can do is an airbrushed model beaming "My colors are brighter and my whites stay whiter...erm...I mean, I switched to Windows!"
Microsoft doesn't offer one reason to use XP that doesn't also exist in Mac OS X. Microsoft Office?
From the botom of the article:
Editor's Note: Now that we've successfully converted our writer to a Windows PC, we will be working on getting her to try a Pocket PC. Stay tuned for more developments!
I'm pretty sure that what's going on here is that Microsoft found a freelance writer to write glowingly about XP in exchange for free hardwaree and OS. Similar to the old tactic of giving aluminum siding to a family for free so the neighbors can see it in action. 10 bucks says she's on the MS payroll. Also, in response to the posters above who remarked that she is so much better looking than the women in the Mac ads: I'll bet the picture shown is not the writer of the article.
Could be totally wrong on both counts, but that's my impression
1. Take the idiot who cut you off this morning with no turn signal and no glance in the mirror while pulling curlers out of her hair and talking on her cell phone.
2. Drag her from her car like you wanted to anyway.
3. Put her in a helicopter with a failed engine and see how well she does autorotating.
As I pilot, I think that personal flight will occur someday, but only after these two prerequisites are achieved:
1. Antigravity, or some propulsion system that is so simple and efficient that falling out of the sky is not going to happen no matter how inattentive the pilot, and
2. An automatic navigation system that will keep all the vehicles in well-defined "lanes" just as they are now.
Needless to say, I think we have a ways to go yet.
I agree with you, and with the parent to your post, but I was thinking more along the lines of a commercial free (yeah, right!) subscription service as an alternative to satellite. Could we just tune into one "superstation" freq, select a "channel" on that freq, and drive coast to coast with music in the genre of our choice?
Satellite lets you have all the channels no matter where you are in the coutry
A few years ago I did quite a bit of flying over Japan. I noticed that there seemed to be some sort of "Superstation" up and down the country. As soon as one broadcast began to fade from my scanner, I could tune in another identical broadcast (though on a different frequency.) If something similar was done in the U.S., but all on the same freq, there could be a digital superstation from coast to coast.
1. Would current FCC rules allow this?
2. Does anyone here know what the deal was with the station in Japan?
Spend a billion to develop a pen that will write in space, and the Russians use a pencil.
I hate to be an OT stick-in-the-mud, but I've seen this jab quite a bit and I have to respond. Simply put, it's BS. Read about it here.
He's referring to the Dutch Mounted Computer Police.
You are totally wrong. You can sell and use any type of encryption you want to within the United States. Again, I think you are thinking of export restrictions concerning what you can export from the U.S.
OTP technology is not widely used because the major problem is how to distribute keys. It has nothing to do with how secure the cypher is. If I have to send a message to my field office, unbreakable crypto does me no good if the other end doesn't have today's unbreakable key. The genius of asymetric crypto is that the two end users can freely exchange the necessary key information without compromising the actual key.
That is what I am talking about. It's illegal to sell such cyphers.
You are simply so wrong that it boggles the mind.
I think this guy will basically be caught in the act. Sooner or later someone will hear or see him take the shot. We may see a big mob chase like what happened with the Night Stalker in California in the 80's. This assumes, of course, that he keeps killing.
he discards or discounts other locations that he believes might skew his findings
When they first announced the use of this system for this case, reporters asked over and over "But won't the shooting way down in Virginia skew the results?" They obviously thought it was some simple formula computing a centroid or something. The cop didn't want to give away details, but anyone with an ounce of sense could see that the Virginia shooting was a statistical anomally (not that they would rule out the possibility that that was the ONE shooting near the shooter's home, either.) It's just a tool, folks.
I'll paraphrase an expert I saw on tv (god, I feel ignorant saying that!): "There is a balance between the criminal's desire to remain anonymous and his desire to operate in his comfort zone." A knowledgeable criminal may try to "game" the profile, but it seems to me that he would still need to operate within his comfort zone. If he strays too far away, that causes other problems for him: he's an outsider, he generates hotel bills, he misses work, he's away from his family, etc.
Are you for real? I don't have any mod points for 'troll', so just fess up.
you can use only APPROVED cyphers and cryptography, this means weak, legal, breakable.
What the hell are you talking about? There's no law that says you can't use any encryption you want. At least in the US. Are you thinking of export laws?
Your cypher must be agreed by many federal commitees...
Good god, man, what the hell are you talking about?
NO ONE in PA can receive telemarketing calls unless they ADD themselves to a list.
This would put a quick end to the old BS line: "Our clients ENJOY hearing about our products and services!" I want to puke every time I hear that...especially from spammers.
It's a common courtesy to answer every single phone call you can.
Other examples of common courtesy:
1. Replying "Thanks, have a nice day." when someone says "No thankyou", instead of immediately shifting down to paragraph C of your script.
2. Leaving a message on my machine when I'm away, something like "I'm trying to sell you X. I'll call back later." instead of just hanging up. I can tell when I'm on a marketer's hotlist, because I get 6 or 8 hangups on my machine in one day.
3. Not forcing a conversation on me in the middle of the only 4 hours a day I get to spend with my wife.
The bottom line is that telemarketing techniques are rude and invasive. I'm polite to everybody who calls, but I will take any step to get them out of my life, including not answering the phone.