The point is when someone buys a product, they should be able to use it however they want
They can try to do whatever they want with the product, but if the product doesn't support the action, it ain't gonna work. I want MS-Word to open binary files and let me view them in hex; I've bought the program - why won't it let me? The point (and I thought the point of this article) is that people are not forced to buy software; the flip-side of that is that poor software leads to declining sales. It's then up to the software publisher to decide what to do about it, whether features need to be changed or added. If you don't like that, or in the case of the OP, want a feature that doesn't make much sense, then simply don't buy the software (I'm assuming that it says "on the box" that you can only print four times; if it doesn't, then that's a different issue)
No company should have the right to tell me how many times I should be allowed to print out a form
The company has every right to decide how its own software will work. You don't like it? Then don't buy it.
"This apple is terrible - it doesn't taste of orange"
I usually need at least [four prints] because of spotting errors and fixing them up!
Do I understand you right? You fill in all your info in QT, then print it out to review it, then enter corrections back into QT and print it out again. Rinse and repeat. For the love of all things holy, WHY ARE YOU DOING IT THIS WAY?!? What's the point of using QT in the first place if you're still dependent on paper?
This is only one step removed from people who insist on printing every email they receive and send (side note : I once worked at an organisation where it was not possible to print from the email application. Guess what - the world didn't end, nobody died, everybody was still able to do their work and we saved a bunch on paper.)
I've love to see some evidence on this...ya know, facts?
Use google; this fact is well covered in plenty of research. Note that the root source for the information is the pharmcos SEC filings
why are you concerned how much they spend on marketing?
Because, in this context, it shows up the "our research costs are crippling us" line for the lie it is.
Do you understand why they market?
Yes. To encourage consumers to badger their doctors into prescribing a particular brand.
Neurontin...makes 93% of it's profit from off label perscription...it's working in patients because of the advertising of the low side effects.... While people weren't sure of the action, they could prescribe this drug and see if it helped. Because they knew it existed, because of advertising
Good grief. I thought at first you were just a pharmco shill, 'cos your dad works there or something, but these last comments are laughable. Clue 1 : drugs work or they do not; advertising has no effect on their efficacy. Clue 2 : "people" do not prescribe drugs, doctors do. Why are the pharmcos advertising so heavily to the consumers?
If you want any further responses, you need to log in. Seeya.
You missed : former senior executive of the largest US grain exporter, Dan Amstutz, to be in charge of agricultural "reconstruction" in Iraq.
Oh, hang on, that actually is true. And in all seriousness, it's way more important; I doubt many Iraqis will be worrying about "intellectual property" while they don't have anything to eat.
If all the UN's resolutions were going to be applied with equal vigour, I wouldn't have a problem. It's the selective nature of enforcement that undermines any authority the UN has/had. The stench of hypocracy is quite overwhelming.
[France] are the ones who said that they would veto any resolution that would remove those in power in Iraq.
Absolutely wrong (though certainly US media portrayed the situation that way). The French (and others too, remember) would not support a resolution that led to automaticity of force - ie that any military action should only be with the approval of the Security Council. As for their financial motivations, I don't think anyone's dispusting that they are owed money by Iraq (many Western countries dealt with Saddam for many years, including *after* the incident at Halabja; Rumsfeld visited Baghdad personally to make arms deals). Then again, wasn't it the US administration that spent the first nine months of its existence unilaterally withdrawing from international treaties on the grounds that it wasn't in the financial interest of the US? (That approach to policy of course begs the question - is the US action in Iraq "in the financial interest of the US" - but we'd better not get side-tracked into that can of worms).
...prove that the US is an unjust society.
Well, I'm not going to get sidetracked into how skewed the domestic US justice system is (eg black imprisonment rates). My point is that it should be the UN that decides international "justice", not a cabal in Washington. To put it more bluntly - who made Bush judge, jury and executioner? That's why so many individuals and governments are outraged about this.
You seem to have bought fully into this "you're with us or against us" bullshit; that attitude may be expected from children in the playground, but it's astonishingly ignorant for a president. It's the language of the bully. The "coalition of the willing" is very much in the minority, globally, and I have a suspicion that this reckless go-it-alone attitude will come back to bite the US in the ass. I'm sure none of us wants that.
All of which matters not, now. The war is on, illegal or not, and we can't go back. The real question now is whether this was the right thing to do. We won't be able to know for years, but I fear the legacy of damage will be very significant and long lasting, far longer lasting that the current administration.
You can do your hand waving, put words in my mouth and play semantic games all you like, but the fact remains that it is for the Security Council to decide these things; not you, not me, and not governments acting outside of the remit of the UN. Or are we going to do away with the UN now and replace it with a bully-boy, "might is right" approach to international relations? That would appear to be a perfect example of "force without justice" which your own quote defines as tyranny.
Allow me to quote the resolution to you:...
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations....
I'm not sure what you thought Serious Consequences meant but it didn't mean we would send them milk and cookies and ask them to play nice!
You're quoting the resolution, but you're not understanding it (not that it's for you to determine what "serious consequences" means anyway; the language of diplomacy is a world away from/. babble). The resolution did not authorise automaticity of force, however much you would like it to be the case. The cororally to that : if the resolution had contained such language, it would never have been passed in the first place.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the current action is in breach of the UN Charter and is therefore "illegal". What remains to be seen (and I think it will be 5, 10 years maybe more before we can truly know) is whether this action is the right thing to do.
I can't find anything other than this comment in which you say "sendmail is great for everything". You may call that an answer; seems like zealous idiocy to me.
>...[accusations of qmail/postfix zealotry]...[scads of hand-waving and speculation about bugs in qmail]...
I don't agree with his licensing either.
This last sentence shows how you are just as much a zealot as those you started this thread by castigating. But let's keep this focussed on sendmail. To take you back to your original claim (and I'm not disputing that different MTAs have different strengths), tell me : in what situations do you settle on sendmail as the solution? What strengths does it have and in what circumstances is it the best choice? (I have my own answer, but I'll save it just in case you can't come up with one)
Also, I dont use pop or imap myself at all. I still use pine (and no i will not change heh)
Switch to using maildir anyway. Seriously. Pine will work with maildir format, but now you can also hook other stuff on top : courier to provide imap service (I always do it over ssl myself), and web access (again over ssl) with either sqwebmail or squirrelmail. Best of all worlds!
...my only experence with qmail or postfix was reading the documentation to see how hard it would be to convert my sendmail setup...
I don't see anything unusual in your list. Do you think there aren't qmail users who have widely varied and specialised needs? I'm not going to pretend that you won't have to do any reading and learning in order to migrate to qmail, but that's very different than claiming that only sendmail has the features you need. Unfortunately, I am unable to give you step-by-step instructions, but given that you're intelligent enough to understand how to configure sendmail, you shouldn't have any problem starting with the qmail home page and proceeding from there. Also good is life with qmail.
qmail and postfix dont do near as much as sendmail.
And sendmail doesn't do as much as Exchange, so what's that got to do with it? The major weakness of sendmail compared to qmail is precisely that it's a monolithic beast that tries to do everything. Qmail's approach is to have small modules that perform one task, and perform it well (and securely - still no claims on the security guarantee in six years).
Thank you for preaching, please drive through.
Seems to be that like many others, it's the author of qmail that's your problem, not the actual software. So go on, tell us : what features does sendmail provide that can't be found in other MTAs?
We cannot move on NK without China being OK with it. Well, we could, but then we'd have to deal with a very pissed off China
True, but actually there's a much more pragmatic reason than diplomatic considerations - the SK capital is within artillery distance of NK. Seoul would be flattened in no time in the event of any hostilities.
No, it's your analogy with doorknobs that is nonsense. And there have already been several cases go through the courts where port scanning was found to not be illegal. There's a big difference between requesting a TCP connection be set up, and attempting to make (unauthorised) use of a service behind that TCP port.
This may not be the crowd that wants to hear this, but some radical changes need to be made in the email protocol
It's nothing to do with wanting to hear it, more to do with the reality that this isn't a practical solution. There already are protocols that add "trust" to email (OpenPGP, SMIME etc), but hardly anyone uses them. Do you propose forcing the entire world to suddenly switch over to a new email protocol (if by some miracle we can all agree on one), or would there be some backward compatibility? If the latter, then you don't solve the spam problem.
Changing entrenched protocols is sticky business - how long has IPV6 been in the works? How long still til the entire net has switched over?
Slashdot Mirror
They can try to do whatever they want with the product, but if the product doesn't support the action, it ain't gonna work. I want MS-Word to open binary files and let me view them in hex; I've bought the program - why won't it let me? The point (and I thought the point of this article) is that people are not forced to buy software; the flip-side of that is that poor software leads to declining sales. It's then up to the software publisher to decide what to do about it, whether features need to be changed or added. If you don't like that, or in the case of the OP, want a feature that doesn't make much sense, then simply don't buy the software (I'm assuming that it says "on the box" that you can only print four times; if it doesn't, then that's a different issue)
The company has every right to decide how its own software will work. You don't like it? Then don't buy it.
"This apple is terrible - it doesn't taste of orange"
Do I understand you right? You fill in all your info in QT, then print it out to review it, then enter corrections back into QT and print it out again. Rinse and repeat. For the love of all things holy, WHY ARE YOU DOING IT THIS WAY?!? What's the point of using QT in the first place if you're still dependent on paper?
This is only one step removed from people who insist on printing every email they receive and send (side note : I once worked at an organisation where it was not possible to print from the email application. Guess what - the world didn't end, nobody died, everybody was still able to do their work and we saved a bunch on paper.)
Slashdotted in seconds...?
When you hear people screaming on a ride, it means it isn't scary. On really scary rides, people go silent
Um, you haven't met many lawyers, then?
You're trolling, right?
Use google; this fact is well covered in plenty of research. Note that the root source for the information is the pharmcos SEC filings
Because, in this context, it shows up the "our research costs are crippling us" line for the lie it is.
Yes. To encourage consumers to badger their doctors into prescribing a particular brand.
Good grief. I thought at first you were just a pharmco shill, 'cos your dad works there or something, but these last comments are laughable. Clue 1 : drugs work or they do not; advertising has no effect on their efficacy. Clue 2 : "people" do not prescribe drugs, doctors do. Why are the pharmcos advertising so heavily to the consumers?
If you want any further responses, you need to log in. Seeya.
This tired old line of reasoning is worth very little once you understand that pharmcos spend twice as much on marketing as they do on research.
How many times does it have to be said - "re-write SMTP!" is not insightful, it's a failure to understand the problem.
Aiee! Nerd^H^H^H^HGeeks with mod points! I take back what I said.
Check out the 2002 Award Winners "...Amateur of the Year - Larry "Tree" Tyree, N6TR, of Boring, Oregon..."
You missed : former senior executive of the largest US grain exporter, Dan Amstutz, to be in charge of agricultural "reconstruction" in Iraq.
Oh, hang on, that actually is true. And in all seriousness, it's way more important; I doubt many Iraqis will be worrying about "intellectual property" while they don't have anything to eat.
So what you're saying is that it won't be funny once we have a Beowulf cluster of these?
If all the UN's resolutions were going to be applied with equal vigour, I wouldn't have a problem. It's the selective nature of enforcement that undermines any authority the UN has/had. The stench of hypocracy is quite overwhelming.
Absolutely wrong (though certainly US media portrayed the situation that way). The French (and others too, remember) would not support a resolution that led to automaticity of force - ie that any military action should only be with the approval of the Security Council. As for their financial motivations, I don't think anyone's dispusting that they are owed money by Iraq (many Western countries dealt with Saddam for many years, including *after* the incident at Halabja; Rumsfeld visited Baghdad personally to make arms deals). Then again, wasn't it the US administration that spent the first nine months of its existence unilaterally withdrawing from international treaties on the grounds that it wasn't in the financial interest of the US? (That approach to policy of course begs the question - is the US action in Iraq "in the financial interest of the US" - but we'd better not get side-tracked into that can of worms).
Well, I'm not going to get sidetracked into how skewed the domestic US justice system is (eg black imprisonment rates). My point is that it should be the UN that decides international "justice", not a cabal in Washington. To put it more bluntly - who made Bush judge, jury and executioner? That's why so many individuals and governments are outraged about this.
You seem to have bought fully into this "you're with us or against us" bullshit; that attitude may be expected from children in the playground, but it's astonishingly ignorant for a president. It's the language of the bully. The "coalition of the willing" is very much in the minority, globally, and I have a suspicion that this reckless go-it-alone attitude will come back to bite the US in the ass. I'm sure none of us wants that.
All of which matters not, now. The war is on, illegal or not, and we can't go back. The real question now is whether this was the right thing to do. We won't be able to know for years, but I fear the legacy of damage will be very significant and long lasting, far longer lasting that the current administration.
You can do your hand waving, put words in my mouth and play semantic games all you like, but the fact remains that it is for the Security Council to decide these things; not you, not me, and not governments acting outside of the remit of the UN. Or are we going to do away with the UN now and replace it with a bully-boy, "might is right" approach to international relations? That would appear to be a perfect example of "force without justice" which your own quote defines as tyranny.
You're quoting the resolution, but you're not understanding it (not that it's for you to determine what "serious consequences" means anyway; the language of diplomacy is a world away from /. babble). The resolution did not authorise automaticity of force, however much you would like it to be the case. The cororally to that : if the resolution had contained such language, it would never have been passed in the first place.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the current action is in breach of the UN Charter and is therefore "illegal". What remains to be seen (and I think it will be 5, 10 years maybe more before we can truly know) is whether this action is the right thing to do.
I can't find anything other than this comment in which you say "sendmail is great for everything". You may call that an answer; seems like zealous idiocy to me.
This last sentence shows how you are just as much a zealot as those you started this thread by castigating. But let's keep this focussed on sendmail. To take you back to your original claim (and I'm not disputing that different MTAs have different strengths), tell me : in what situations do you settle on sendmail as the solution? What strengths does it have and in what circumstances is it the best choice? (I have my own answer, but I'll save it just in case you can't come up with one)
Switch to using maildir anyway. Seriously. Pine will work with maildir format, but now you can also hook other stuff on top : courier to provide imap service (I always do it over ssl myself), and web access (again over ssl) with either sqwebmail or squirrelmail. Best of all worlds!
I don't see anything unusual in your list. Do you think there aren't qmail users who have widely varied and specialised needs? I'm not going to pretend that you won't have to do any reading and learning in order to migrate to qmail, but that's very different than claiming that only sendmail has the features you need. Unfortunately, I am unable to give you step-by-step instructions, but given that you're intelligent enough to understand how to configure sendmail, you shouldn't have any problem starting with the qmail home page and proceeding from there. Also good is life with qmail.
And sendmail doesn't do as much as Exchange, so what's that got to do with it? The major weakness of sendmail compared to qmail is precisely that it's a monolithic beast that tries to do everything. Qmail's approach is to have small modules that perform one task, and perform it well (and securely - still no claims on the security guarantee in six years).
Seems to be that like many others, it's the author of qmail that's your problem, not the actual software. So go on, tell us : what features does sendmail provide that can't be found in other MTAs?
Utter bullshit. Name those 30 countries.
Rebooting is appropriate only for hardware upgrades. The vast majority of Windows apps I've ever seen fail this "appropriateness" requirement.
True. And how much of Afghanistan outside of Kabul is not under the control of the warlords? Hardly any.
True, but actually there's a much more pragmatic reason than diplomatic considerations - the SK capital is within artillery distance of NK. Seoul would be flattened in no time in the event of any hostilities.
No, it's your analogy with doorknobs that is nonsense. And there have already been several cases go through the courts where port scanning was found to not be illegal. There's a big difference between requesting a TCP connection be set up, and attempting to make (unauthorised) use of a service behind that TCP port.
It's nothing to do with wanting to hear it, more to do with the reality that this isn't a practical solution. There already are protocols that add "trust" to email (OpenPGP, SMIME etc), but hardly anyone uses them. Do you propose forcing the entire world to suddenly switch over to a new email protocol (if by some miracle we can all agree on one), or would there be some backward compatibility? If the latter, then you don't solve the spam problem.
Changing entrenched protocols is sticky business - how long has IPV6 been in the works? How long still til the entire net has switched over?