Yeah, having a power jack would have been nice, but it wasn't necessary. I took out the dvd drive and put a second battery in. With the time I couldn't use the laptop during takeoff, landing, and a meal, I had power to spare.
You know what they say about making assumptions... As someone who actually used the service, I can assure you it wasn't "$3/minute or more." In fact, I paid around $30 for a transatlantic flight -- which isn't cheap compared to normal wifi access points, but is reasonable in my opinion.
I noticed the default was "quickest" and thought there might just be a really slow road that it avoided. But I was pleased to find it's just as funny if you choose "shortest."
It's because the inkjet and laser groups behave very differently. From linuxprinting.org:
Lexmark produces two lines of printer: the Optras and the Color Jetprinters. The Optras are business-focused printers with the unique characteristic that every Optra supports Postscript and PCL; no other vendor has such uniform support for standardized printing languages. As a result of this, every Optra is 100% supported by free software. The Color Jetprinters are consumer-focused printers with the exact opposite characteristics: not a one of them supports any standard printing language, and not a one of them is 100% supported by free software.
The two groups in the company are very much separate, although the occasional Optra product is produced by taking a reasonable Color Jetprinter and nailing an Optra-style mainboard onto the back; this produces a Postscript/PCL networkable inkjet (like the Optra 40, for example). Efforts to obtain programming information for the Color Jetprinter protocols have been unsuccessful and will probably remain that way; Lexmark apparently feels that the details of the protocol reveal some of the engineering techniques they use to make the Color Jetprinters so competitively inexpensive.
Oh come on. While I'm as much of a Microsoft-basher as the next guy, this is a very useful technique (and not some obscure Microsoft idea). It's a pretty good idea for looking for bugs at all levels of protocol parsing. You send as much valid data as is needed to get the random garbage into the layer or module you want to test. If malformed data can crash the browser, there's a good chance it could be exploitable too.
There are a ton of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. Here's one example: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html. This was the result of 5 seconds of Google research and not anything I personally have any interest in.
it is computationally feasible with today's computing resources to calculate a second different string or dataset that hashes to the same value as the original.
No, what they've shown is that it's possible to find two binary strings that hash to the same value. This is different from being given a hash (e.g. your signed program example) and finding another binary string that produces the same hash.
Here's a paper that talks about this in greater detail.
But CRC32 is not a cryptographic hash, and is not designed to make it difficult to find a collision. CRC32 is in the same class as checksums, and is designed to catch errors introduced by transmission or storage. It's not just "more complex on MD5s" in the way that CRC32 is "more complex" than a checksum; it's an entirely different class of problem.
What these online PCB fab shops or machine shops have figured out is it's exactly the time spent correcting "horribly faulty schematics" that takes so much time and money. Their solution is just to avoid doing it. In the PCB case, there might be an automatic check that will reject the board if it can't be manufactured correctly. But you basically get exactly what you asked for.
Ok, this is completely off topic, but when I clicked on Walmart's P4 system, Walmart suggested as a complementary item a 16-Piece Sirloin Steaks & Steakburgers Pack. I wonder how they decided steak is a good match to an OS-less computer?
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about your personal email or for a company or ISP.
Sorry, I should have made that clear. Everything I've discussed is for my own email. I run my own mailserver just so I can have this level of control over my incoming email. I agree that it would not be appropriate to unilaterally impose this sorts of measures on others.
Hi Ken! Let me be the first to welcome you to Slashdot. Please feel free to go ahead and ask questions, and also please provide us with many quotes that we can use out of context.
Actually, I do care about such inaccuracies. I basically fall into the same category, since I have a static IP from a residential DSL provider.
That's one reason to bounce email with a short reason instead of sending it to/dev/null. Then the sender can find out how to contact me, and how to have the list fixed. The responsible block lists will remove IPs that are incorrectly included. If the list won't make such corrections I won't use it.
Fair enough, but there is something you can do about it: convince your ISP to do something when they receive complaints about spam relaying. I have no desire to block a region or a country, only to avoid netblocks that are large sources of spam.
Perhaps you might care about the intended recipients of the legitimate email that you have deleted.
Actually, not really. Email (for me) is teetering on the edge of becoming completely useless. I'm willing to put up with a few false positives from automated techniques. In the absense of spam mitigation, I'd end up losing more mail just from my inability to deal with the sheer volume of messages.
That said, I certainly would never want to accept email, then decide it's spam and blackhole it. If you try to email me from one of the listed netblocks, you'll get a bounce explaining why and indicating how you can get the message through.
So then, the legitimate email I won't see comes from an address on a block list, and either has an invalid return address or the original sender filters my bounce message. I can live with that.
Most of the spam is from America and sent to Americans.
Yes, that may be true, but although the spam may originate in the US and end up in the US (or Canada, in my case) it's often relayed through places like Korea, where complaints to ISPs have little effect.
My complaint is not with the goverments of Hong Kong, Korea, etc., or the spammers that may operate there (since I get very little, if any spam from them). It's with the ISPs that refuse to do anything about spam being relayed through their network.
What are your "rights" as a broadband client? I don't recall reading in the broadband client bill of rights that ISPs must allow outgoing connections to port 25.
Since ISPs generally don't seem to want to block port 25, if you try to connect to my mailserver from an IP on a dialup black list, I'll reject your mail. Use your ISP's mailserver, get a hotmail account, I don't care. Greater than 98% of the email sent to me from dialup IPs is spam. I don't care if I inconvenience the less than 2% to knock out that much spam.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, having a power jack would have been nice, but it wasn't necessary. I took out the dvd drive and put a second battery in. With the time I couldn't use the laptop during takeoff, landing, and a meal, I had power to spare.
You know what they say about making assumptions... As someone who actually used the service, I can assure you it wasn't "$3/minute or more." In fact, I paid around $30 for a transatlantic flight -- which isn't cheap compared to normal wifi access points, but is reasonable in my opinion.
Well, I've found one for you.
Nor do they use Access, I think. Novice or casual users do not perceive a need for a database.
or the SCO Group (SCOX ), which acquired the Unix trademarks. Geez, that's the one thing SCO admits they don't own.
No, what they've shown is that it's possible to find two binary strings that hash to the same value. This is different from being given a hash (e.g. your signed program example) and finding another binary string that produces the same hash.
Here's a paper that talks about this in greater detail.
In a similar fashion they've completely butchered the co-op application process, too.
Sorry, I should have made that clear. Everything I've discussed is for my own email. I run my own mailserver just so I can have this level of control over my incoming email. I agree that it would not be appropriate to unilaterally impose this sorts of measures on others.
That's one reason to bounce email with a short reason instead of sending it to /dev/null. Then the sender can find out how to contact me, and how to have the list fixed. The responsible block lists will remove IPs that are incorrectly included. If the list won't make such corrections I won't use it.
Fair enough, but there is something you can do about it: convince your ISP to do something when they receive complaints about spam relaying. I have no desire to block a region or a country, only to avoid netblocks that are large sources of spam.
Perhaps you might care about the intended recipients of the legitimate email that you have deleted.
Actually, not really. Email (for me) is teetering on the edge of becoming completely useless. I'm willing to put up with a few false positives from automated techniques. In the absense of spam mitigation, I'd end up losing more mail just from my inability to deal with the sheer volume of messages.
That said, I certainly would never want to accept email, then decide it's spam and blackhole it. If you try to email me from one of the listed netblocks, you'll get a bounce explaining why and indicating how you can get the message through.
So then, the legitimate email I won't see comes from an address on a block list, and either has an invalid return address or the original sender filters my bounce message. I can live with that.
Yes, that may be true, but although the spam may originate in the US and end up in the US (or Canada, in my case) it's often relayed through places like Korea, where complaints to ISPs have little effect.
My complaint is not with the goverments of Hong Kong, Korea, etc., or the spammers that may operate there (since I get very little, if any spam from them). It's with the ISPs that refuse to do anything about spam being relayed through their network.
No, and no. Why do you expect that your $30 cable/DSL connection should have the same benefits and capabilities as a (say) $100 business connection?
Since ISPs generally don't seem to want to block port 25, if you try to connect to my mailserver from an IP on a dialup black list, I'll reject your mail. Use your ISP's mailserver, get a hotmail account, I don't care. Greater than 98% of the email sent to me from dialup IPs is spam. I don't care if I inconvenience the less than 2% to knock out that much spam.