Why do you suppose I don't read the news simply because I have a different view? I do read the news. I am well aware that combatants captured overseas are held at Gitmo. I am also well aware that wiretaps have occurred where one end of the call is overseas, even if the other end is domestic. I applaud Bush for his use of signing statements. He is the head of the executive branch (i.e. a president), not the head of the legislative branch (i.e. a prime minister). If you think of it like a company, the president is sort of like the chief executive and the congress is sort of like the board. The chief executive does not have to do everything the board asks, although if he doesn't he risks losing the next election. Bush has no more elections to win so the only thing possible is to remove him from office. Short of proving he committed treason (that's what "high crimes" means) he cannot be removed from office.
I might ask what propaganda has programmed your brain? Accusing the president of committing treason is easy to do. Believing it (true or false) as you seem to is also an easy thing to do. Actually proving it is an entirely different matter. I am sure that if there was proof there is nothing the Democrats would want more than to impeach the president in the house and convict him in the senate. But they have not because the fact is they can't prove it and it's all hot air used to win elections.
In order to assert that the RIAA should prosecute the Bush twins you first have to assert that the making of a "mix tape" for a friend/relative is equal to allowing anyone in the world to download songs from your computer.
As far as I can tell, there are various ways to accomplish this leap of logic. One is to think like the people at the RIAA and try to define every act of copying music as if it were piracy. The problem is that I don't even think most of the people at the RIAA would buy that. Sometimes they act as though this is what they want, and it probably is, but I think even they know that the public would never go for this.
Another way to make this leap of logic is to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. In this case you already believe that everything the president does is bad and/or illegal but he "gets away with it" because he is president and congress won't impeach him. Well, news flash, even the now Democrat-controlled congress isn't going to do this for the simple reason that they have nothing to charge him with. But if you suffer from BDS then that is no problem, you can just grossly pervert the common interpretations of laws and voila, Bush can now be charged with something.
If this story actually gets big in the mainstream media and I were the RIAA, I'd issue a press release stating that the RIAA does not wish to prosecute someone for making a mix tape for private use. I might even go one step further and make sure that this idiot Florida lawyer's anti-Bush rhetoric made it to the mainstream news for the sole purpose of then making the press release stating that prosecution will not occur.
I wonder if the author realizes that all of the over the air HDTV stations are broadcast on UHF frequencies so you need only a standard UHF attenna. Those are the loop kind or occasionally they enclose the loop in a rectangular thing. You can fold the rabbit ears down because you don't need them at all.
Still, this is interesting. I might think about running a cable feed to the tuner and see what happens. I went with OTA in the first place because the cable company wasn't carrying the local NBC and FOX stations in HD but now they are. Never even dreamed I'd get the occasional free VOD stuff.
What a load of bullshit. It sounds like some PETA propaganda. You can rationalize all you want that a no-meat diet is preferable to a some-meat diet. You can throw out bogus statements about eating an animal being "disgusting." You can even make bogus assertions that because we can't eat many animals without tools that we aren't supposed to be eating them. A particularly good example is the assertion that we eat hen's eggs that contain half-developed chicks. Apparently you are pretty damn ignorant. When a cock is not around, a hen will not lay fertilized eggs but unfertilized eggs. Chickens do not reproduce asexually. There are several tricks employed to ensure that the eggs you buy have no chance at becoming chicks. The obvious one is to not have a cock around the hens laying eggs for food. The other one is to candle the eggs a few days after they have been laid. If you see red spots or veins of any sort then it is obviously an embryo.
Frankly I see no problem with eating meat in a rational quantity. It is a good source of nutrients that a human may not otherwise pick up from a typical diet of plant material. It is true that the nutrients ultimately come from plant material but they build up in certain ways in animals that have beneficial effects for the human consumer.
Personally, I am quite healthy and take ZERO supplements. I get plenty of water and plenty of food and I vary my diet among different foods. I do not eat hamburgers every day. I do go out in the sun, although less in the winter than I probably should. All I can tell anyone is that this works for me and also a number of other people. If you get to talking with the guys that live to be 90 or 100 in good health you generally see that they eat a varied diet. Anecdotal, I know, but to me it seems more trustworthy than studies like this that focus on one specific nutrient.
If veganism works for you, great. But you come off sounding like a preaching kool-aid drinker. And if you want to talk religion (i.e. "the wages of sin" crap you spew) then perhaps you might try reading the bible sometime and tell me if you get the impression that it tries to convey a message of never killing or eating any animals. Why the bible? Putting the word of god stuff aside you can still take it for what it is which is the oldest known book about building and maintaining societies. Gluttony, of course, is a sin and one could certainly make a case that overindulging on bad food on a consistent basis is not healthy for the body nor the soul. It takes a massive leap of logic to go from that to veggies-only.
If your developers are writing code that is so bad that it needs to go through 5 levels of review before it is considered acceptable then you need new developers.
So really, theology in theology class, science in science. Besides, most schools don't have enough money for the equipment to observe how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
How many angels fit on the head of a pin is not intended to be an exercise in measurement but rather an exercise in abstract thinking. Taking angels out of the equation I could phrase it as how many geometric points fit on the head of a pin? Recall that a geometric point is a nonexistant abstraction. That it is represented by a dot on a piece of paper does not change the fact that a point is defined to take no space. This is the point of the angels-on-the-head-of-a pin brain-teaser.
On the other hand, you sound as if perhaps you already know that and were just being sarcastic. Aside from the absurdity of angels on the head of a pin there was one important point in your recent post I'd like to concur with.
"Anything we're going to present as fact has been labelled as such due to much observation and measurement and such. However, it is all up for reconsideration and you are welcome to challenge it if you find contradictory evidence. This is the method by which these conclusions have been reached and here's how you can apply them yourself."
Spot on. I misattributed the uncritical thinking of others (the third person) to you (the second person). What I oppose in the classroom and the university is the idea that facts are unchangeable dogma. There was a time when the elements were defined as Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water. Yet we now know there to be hundreds of them that make up more complex compounds like water. Then there was a time when we believed that these new elements were unbreakable, hence the term "element." Yet we now know that they can be broken apart and put back together, sometimes to devastating effect.
Be it Mendel's plants or Darwin's finches the idea that a species has within it variations is not a particularly new one. The entire practice of husbandry exists because of it. And in fact few people, even those who do see religion as opposing science, will dispute this part of evolution. What is oft disputed is the idea that out of these variations an entirely new species will be formed. Saying that "god did it" is of course ignoring the scientific method.
I do, however, question how scientific Darwin's methods really were. When it comes right down to it, what would be an experiment that could be performed to verify the truth of Darwin's claims? The current method seems to be examination of the fossil record but that is not really an experiment so much as a simple gathering of data points.
Take, for example, something like Newton's laws. They are supported not through evidence but through actual experimentation. Granted, they fail to accurately predict behavior at insanely large or small scales but for most purposes, they work well. One can even do his own experiments to verify the validaty of Newton's laws. This, to me, defines the scientific method. Is it really a scientific method when one (Darwin) writes a broad theory that cannot actually be tested for validity? Or is it more of a philosophical exercise?
It seems clear to me that the real reason Darwin's theory is trumpeted is that it is the only theory in existence that attempts to explain a mechanism for the origin of species. No competing scientific theories exist and so there is an imagined competition between the scientific theory of evolution and the biblical statement that God made the earth. For the most part, religious people do not see scientific principle in conflict with religion. And I hope that for the most part scientists don't see religion in conflict with science. Unfortunately, an article such as this one makes a blatant attempt to pit religion against science. And to what end? The cynic in me believes that those who eschew religion tend to seek it in other places. To them, Darwin is compelling because they believe it allows
Do you think Apple DRMs music because the industry makes them, but Microsoft DRMs music because they choose to?
Considering the public statements that have been consistently made by Apple vs. those of Microsoft I think this would be a reasonable conclusion to draw. From the very beginning of the iTunes Music Store, Jobs was quoted as saying to the record executives that he employed hundreds of engineers telling him that DRM can never be completely foolproof and that he trusted the professional opinions of his engineers. Jobs has always been of the position that DRM was something that can never work but merely an assinine stipulation coming from the recording companies.
Microsoft, like Macrovision, is actively trying to sell the promise of foolproof DRM to content distributors. As any of us here know, it can never truly work. Jobs knows it can't work. That's why Jobs didn't try to sell a promise he couldn't fulfill but instead sold the record companies the promise of selling billions of songs and making a truckload of money doing it. I believe it was always his intention to get rid of the DRM once he could prove that selling music online could not only be done but would generate a hefty revenue stream.
Let's not forget that there are few if any serious competitors to the iTunes Music Store. Before iTMS, the labels had the impression that computers were only good for stealing music and that they would have to lock it down tight to prevent that from occurring. Some executives even made public statements about how the iPod was all about stealing music. After iTMS the labels realize that iTMS is now one of their biggest distribution channels and poised to become the biggest. Jobs has a lot more leverage now that iTMS is one of the largest sources of cash flow into the labels' pockets.
We're also slowly starting to see the labels adapt to this new business model. The pop album is most likely going to disappear and in its place we'll have singles on iTMS. Does that mean the album itself is dead? No. Many good musicians will continue to release their work as a full album. Perhaps even with a few "preview" singles they can charge for before releasing the full album. The revenue potential here is absolutely enormous and the labels are realizing this.
The idea that mere man could possibly unravel how God did anything can be very upsetting to these people and as long as you are entertaining them by allowing God into the conversation you've opened the door to their further interference.
So in a failed attempt to quiet some idiots who take the bible not as the observed Truth about society but as if it were a literal account of how the earth was created you have quite nearly stooped to their level by declaring that evolution is not a best educated guess supported by evidence but instead an absolute unshakeable truth about how things were created.
Many scientists are quite able to handle theology alongside science. In Christian theology one may say that it is the Holy Trinity which drives one to create. Devising theories about how the world was Created is in itself an act of human creation. The alternative to creating for a higher power or more generally for society is to create for selfish gain which generally makes for bad science.
And that's why I say leave the theology out of the science classroom. Nature may have no subjects, but schools most certainly do.
This is an unfortunate axiom of the currently practiced education system. It has not always been this way and I have strong doubts that it should remain this way. It clouds the students' minds by forcing them to break the natural connections among disciplines. How different really is the scientific method from a mathematical proof or well-thought rhetoric? How different is any of it from good theology (note: not religion) and philosphy? It is all ultimately a form of critical thinking.
Christian theology does not demand its followers to be unthinking sheep. In fact, it demands quite the opposite. A good Christian should question the theology at every turn just as he should question every other statement made by any other person and even those he makes himself! One only actually need read the new testament, particularly something like Romans, to understand that it is not a set of absolute statements but rather the ramblings on of a man attempting to reconcile his beliefs with reality. He and others expected an all-powerful interfering God to send a great warrior to kill the Romans who were oppressing the Jews. What actually happened according to the accounts of the new testament is that God sent no such thing but rather sent a Son to be killed by the Romans because He recognized that the Jews were in effect oppressing themselves.
That is, in a nutshell, the fundamental Christian belief. One must look inward and not expect God to fix ones problems. Perhaps if that were taught in school we would have less people looking for god replacements in people like politicians who profess to be the solvers of all the world's problems, or scientists who profess to speak the truth.
Foundations of scientific thinking are not based on "God did it."
For many scientists, the foundation is "How did God do it?" That of course is a theocratic remark but to suggest that it has no overlap with science is assinine. On the language side of things we see that the question has morphed from the active voice to the passive voice and has become "How was it done?"
Nature is not neatly divided into math, science, language, and theocracy. There are no subjects in nature. Your proclamation that a Creator has no place in science is just as ludicrous as the proclamation that science has no place in theocracy.
So call them to order service instead. It costs them money to pay someone take the call. Politely explain that the reason you are calling is that their website doesn't work with Firefox/Safari/whatever. If they give online-only discounts, politely ask that you receive the discount. Eventually, they'll figure it out.
Back in the day when I called up their support with a problem, and mentioned I was using an OpenBSD box as a firewall/gateway the response was: 'cool!'
I'm not entirely sure that the big ISPs are as bad as some around here claim them to be. I have had Cox for years now and AT&T (now Comcast) where I used to live (back in 2000 or so) and I had no problems using a Linux box as the gateway.
I have never had trouble getting information about default gateways or routes or DNS servers or anything of the sort. With most modern Cable ISPs everything is DHCP anyway. DSL is similar although a lot of them use that PPPoE crap.
As far as installation goes, about a year ago when I moved into my apartment I had Cox install a line for cable. Once I saw the installer was done hooking up the line outside and was coming back in I went ahead and hooked up the modem and got it going on my Linux gateway. By the time he got up the stairs (third floor apartment) I was already on the internet. He was quite pleased since he didn't have to configure anything on the machine except hook it up.
I've been on the other side too. Back in 2000 or so I worked for an AT&T subcontractor. Most installs were Windows or whatever but in one case their kid and one of his friends had already gotten a Linux box ready to go. I gave them the information, they got it routing and knowing that obviously the paying customer wants their PC to work I made sure that the internet was working from the PC through the NAT router. The parents signed the paperwork and I took off. Easiest install I ever did.
If you are willing to take responsibility for making your router work then I don't think any of the big ISPs have any problems. However, I will say that a friend of the family called comcast and they gave her a bunch of bullshit about needing to disconnect her router and what not which she did but then of course her wireless laptop wouldn't work. So I had to give her the lowdown on resetting the router (Linksys seem to be notorious for this) and to please call me instead of Comcast if that doesn't work. The only real problem I have with this is that the Comcast tech could've saved himself 10 minutes of having her rearrange everything just by having her power cycle the modem and the router.
My experience with Cox on the other hand has always been that if you tell them you have a router then the first thing they will do is have you power cycle the modem and the router. Saves them time.
The bottom line is to not ascribe any malice to the big ISPs. They are a business and are just trying to keep their costs down. Their agreements clearly state they won't support your router. However, the smarter ones figure out that sometimes supporting the router a little bit (i.e. tell user to power cycle it) is cheaper and so they put that in their tech support scripts. Only if that doesn't work will they move on to having you directly connect the computer. From a troubleshooting perspective this makes perfect sense. Remove as many variables as you can.
You really ought to get a Mac. Get yourself a mini or a MacBook or something. Give it a good solid try and be open-minded about the differences between it and most other GUIs.
I did this back in early 2002 at work because I needed to port a GUI photo-enhancing package from Windows to Mac. I was still working on the Windows version when my company bought the Mac so I made a point to play with it a couple of hours each day. When the time came to do the port I had a pretty good idea of what was going on with it.
It did help that I had a few books I could thumb through to learn it. There's also a lot of Mac and even NeXT philosophy you may want to learn. For example, it helps to understand how Library exists in both "/" as well as in your home dir (/Users/yourname) as well as in/System and that each one has a purpose. Sort of similar to how some good NIX software has a default config setup (/usr/share maybe) and a system-customized config (/etc) and a user-specific config (~/.something).
If you like the ideals behind UNIX but don't care for GUIs that look like Windows bolted on top of UNIX then you really need to check out a Mac. Apple finally got the UNIX desktop right.
It seems to me that you all think that the Indian police are incompetent and evil.
Woah there, don't go attributing that to me. I said almost exactly the opposite. You are exactly correct that the police should be the good guys and that helping them should be good. I am myself somewhat cynical but I am definitely not in the "G00gl3 is teh 3v1l!!!" camp on this one.
After reviewing the articles I've come to the conclusion that while I don't condone investigating people for hate-speech against India that I see no problem with investigating the source of a mob boss fan club. Even applying the U.S. constitution (which of course India is not held to) I would see no problem with this. The police can and should investigate something like this. If it turns out it's someone not connected to the criminal then that's fine. But if it turns out that it's part of a conspiracy to drum up public support and poison the jury pool then that is an entirely different matter. Who's to say that this anonymously submitted article is not part of that conspiracy?
I believe Google did the right thing by turning over records to the police. Anonymity is not sacrosanct. Freedom to say what you want is, and if that is not allowed in India then that should be changed. However, impeding a criminal investigation is not a good way to bring about change.
I wish I could point out a specific attribution but it's not a new concept that one must work within ones societal rules to change society for the better. I believe it is mentioned at least a few times in the new testament and most likely in other religious and philosophical texts as well.
Do they ever. The disk image mounting in OS X makes Linux's loopback devices look like crap. While you can make an image containing only a filesystem you can also make one containing a full disk image (including MBR and everything). When mounted it will for example show up as/dev/disk2 (whole disk),/dev/disk2s1 (first partition),/dev/disk2s2 (second partition) and so on. Makes disk recovery of an imaged disk a shitload easier because you don't have to go through the laborious task of calculating offsets based off the partition table. The kernel does it for you like it would with any other "disk".
Wow. Your post shows a lot of ignorance. OS X has a kernel API for implementing new filesystems which is similar to BSDs although using opaque structures with accessor "methods" rather than direct access to structure data. It was apparently good enough for Amit Singh to implement FUSE on top of which now allows any Linux FS that can run under FUSE to be readily ported.
UNIX of course depends on what variant but at the very worst they all have some sort of NFS client so you could theoretically run a localhost-only NFS server to expose your filesystem to the kernel. Some UNIX and UNIX-clones like linux are open source so anything can be done.
And finally, we come to Windows. I know for a FACT that Windows has supported pluggable network filesystems for a long time now. What do you think Novell Client32 is? Sure, it's a GINA replacement for login but it also is a "filesystem redirector". It makes \\SERVERNAME\SHARENAME\... try the NetWare File Protocol on SERVERNAME before deferring to MS's CIFS.
And as others have mentioned, there is OpenAFS which does something similar.
I think the real problem is that most developers would rather deal with Windows remotely. Writing a CIFS server using your favorite development platform (generally some type of UNIX) is a lot nicer than writing a network redirector for several versions of windows. These days though it's probably easier because almost everything now is of the NT lineage so one versioni with maybe a few conditionals should be sufficient.
Still, it's worth pointing out that Novell has dropped support for NT4 and doesn't yet support Vista. Samba works with all of them.
As someone who develops in Cocoa and.NET (but who, admittedly, is writing this on a MacBook), I have to say that Cocoa is not *that* far ahead of.NET. If you're the hairy-chest C++ strongly typed unsigned volatile sealed abstract interface kind of programmer, you'll definitely like.NET more than Cocoa.
Thanks for your comment. Always nice to hear from people who don't limit themselves to one thing. I must say that I am most definitely not the C++ type of programmer. I can get around in C++ fine and I think having the incomplete port of wxWidgets to Cocoa proves that. However, it was in doing that that I realized that programming GUI in C++ just plain sucks.
I've since moved on to doing a couple of very huge web applications using WebObjects which is written in Java but was ported from Objective-C about 7 years ago. The one feature I find most useful about Objective-C is the ability to call a method by name at runtime. Without it, Cocoa's.nib files are impossible. This can also be done in Java and.NET using the reflection APIs and one can even write some classes to make it easier. If you can live with only being able to call methods with a very specific signature (specifically, setters and getters) then the "key value coding" provided by WebObjects brings a lot of Objective-C feel to Java.
I think the biggest difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple's (actually NeXT's) engineers put a lot of thought into their API designs and coordinated between teams. If they even had many teams that is. Apple's stuff has the distinct feel of being written by a few very select programmers. Microsoft's stuff has the distinct feel of being forced together from many disparate pieces none of which quite work the same way. If Microsoft is going to compete they are basically going to have to fire most of their employees. The problem is, you're already seeing the good ones start to leave for greener pastures.
Mac users.. probably not. Linux users, probably not either. Socialist open-source zealots. Yeah.
I gotta say, I'd love it if Microsoft were able to actually deliver a decent product. But the sad fact is that they are never going to so long as their programming tools suck. Compare developing in Cocoa with developing in Win32, MFC, or even.NET. Once you understand Cocoa it's amazing how much easier it is. This I think is also why Linux is trailing. Most programmers seem stuck in mindset of writing toolkits that more or less work like Win32 or the classic Mac OS toolbox. When there is RAD available it feels more like a huge hack than an ingrained part of the toolkit like it does on Cocoa.
The only reason "Linux" (i.e. open source desktops) has made so many strides is that there are simply more programmers and the toolkits are ever so slightly easier to work with than Win32/MFC.
The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts. Especially when what is actually going on is a restriction in what you can do. e.g. Banks actually charge quite a bit for the service of looking after your money. At the very least they lend and invest your money and collect the interest on in.
I think the poster I was replying to was referring to cashing a check at the issuing bank or at some check cashing joint, not depositing it in his account or cashing it at his own bank with his own account as collateral.
To me it sounds like he's pissed off because he's a poor bastard who's being denied his "rights" to do something. The reality of it is that the government isn't denying his rights to do anything. Most likely, he needs a driver's license to cash a check because he can't just take it to his own bank. I have no trouble with the issuing bank or a third party check casher telling him to piss off if he can't identify himself.
a government tells a manufacturer what it's citizens find acceptable. In many industries, this is a more direct route from customer feedback to manufacturer than the financial link. In both cases it is a matter of many customers collectively negotiating by proxy.
Not really. What actually occurs is that a few rather vocal people decide that it's absolutely horrid that some seller is selling something they don't like and they beat at the government's door so they can have their way. Socialism is about giving the populace the illusion of control with the reality that every sufficiently vocal bunch of assholes on a power trip will get their way. Taken to the extreme, no one can conduct business at all. Free market economies are about giving the populace actual control and the illusion that no one is in control.
It's really a shame that free market economies don't actually exist. Especially not in the U.S. (where I am from).
How is it any different than Wal*Mart mandating what can and cannot be sold in its stores? Doesn't Wal*Mart have the right to decide what they want to sell in their stores? Doesn't Norway have the right to decide what they want to sell in their borders?
In that case it's not. Norway is a sovereign nation and can decide not to let Apple do some or all of its business there. But don't go claiming that this is an example of a free market economy. It's an example of a sovereign nation asserting its rights over what occurs within its borders. Totally different thing.
Apple has several hundred countries in which they can sell their products, and which Norway has no influence over. Most commercial products rely on a handful of distribution and sales corporations to reach the vast majority of the retail customers. In terms of viable economic market choices, Apple has a lot more freedom of where to sell and under that terms than Norway does of what to buy and under what terms.
Indeed. If I were Apple I would simply abide by the drop-dead date and stop selling iTunes songs. Problem solved.
Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
If you see it that way then you're an idiot. Your drivers license should not be required for anything except for driving ever. You may be required to display some form of identification to verify your age when purchasing alcohol. That is because when prohibition was repealed, states were specifically authorized to regulate all aspects of alcohol by the constitutional amendment.
And it is bullshit that your California license is invalid in other states. It is valid because the states have agreements with each other to honor each others driver's licenses. Even if they didn't, Congress could pass a law stating this (if they haven't already) because one of the powers they explicitly do have is regulating inter-state commerce.
A bank may require identification for cashing a check. A bank is not the government. An employer may require identification for employing you. An employer is not the government.
The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts.
A distributor tells a manufacturer what product features the retail customers find acceptable and you're talking about free market principles?
Yes, governments are part of the free market.
A distributor tells a manufacturer what it will buy based on what it thinks its retail customers will find acceptable. That is a whole lot different from a government mandating what can and cannot be sold. In the first case, the manufacturer can always find a different distribution channel or create its own. These two things don't even come close to equating which to me shows how skewed your view of economics is.
Your mail server and/or client is configured incorrectly. Change your mail client to use port 587 (the mail submission port) instead of port 25. If it doesn't work, bitch to your server administrator to run an MSA on port 587. It's not Cox's fault that your configuration is wrong.
Here's the wrinkle: if I'm at a friend's house, using his wireless, then I can't send email without reconfiguring my mail client. Nor vice-versa, because smtp.east.cox.net won't accept email from outside the Cox network. Similarly, anyone who brings their laptop to work/school/library/cybercafe from a place using Cox cable, or vice versa, will have to dick around with SMTP settings in order to get their mail to work in both places.
You are 100% correct. If your mail client is configured to send to a hopefully authenticated server on port 25 then it won't work when you connect through Cox and you'll have to reconfigure your mail client. And when you leave the Cox network indeed you will have to reconfigure back to your authenticated server.
You could, of course, set up an authenticated relay on some high port on a server halfway across the net, but this requires technical skills, a server halfway across the net, and double the bandwidth usage.
This is exactly what you should do. You don't set it up on "some high port". You set it up on port 587 which is specifically intended for this purpose. If your mail submission server isn't running on port 587 then you get what you deserve. If you are purely an end-user and don't have control over the server then bitch to your IT guy and tell him to fix his shit.
There is a trade off to be made here if you are the ISP. You can support the old method of running both MSA and MTA on port 25 by not blocking port 25 and have to deal with the increased complexity of blocking spam trojans when (note: not if) they happen. Or you can simply block port 25, provide a local mail server not requiring authentication that will send to anywhere (so mail can go through if necessary) and leave outbound port 587 open so that people whose mail servers are properly configured are completely unaffected.
Please, PLEASE, read what I am saying here instead of just spouting off and saying that port 25 must be open for authenticated mail submission. Port 25 mail submission is only necessary if your config is borked. Since _your_ config is borked, don't blame Cox.
That actually appears to be a legitimate mail. It appears that someone logged in to Cox's webmail and sent the message through it. The spammer probably used a phishing scam to get the password and probably used some sort of screen-scraping app to send the message rather than logging in and doing it manually. However, the point still remains that it was most likely sent by authenticating to a server.
No one can stop idiot users from using weak passwords and giving them out to bad guys. And I don't think it would be right for Cox to terminate the user's account. Maybe inform him that it has been breached and send some information about phishing and not using weak passwords. And how do you know they did or didn't do anything? It's not generally a good idea for a business to start outing its customers as being stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you suppose I don't read the news simply because I have a different view? I do read the news. I am well aware that combatants captured overseas are held at Gitmo. I am also well aware that wiretaps have occurred where one end of the call is overseas, even if the other end is domestic. I applaud Bush for his use of signing statements. He is the head of the executive branch (i.e. a president), not the head of the legislative branch (i.e. a prime minister). If you think of it like a company, the president is sort of like the chief executive and the congress is sort of like the board. The chief executive does not have to do everything the board asks, although if he doesn't he risks losing the next election. Bush has no more elections to win so the only thing possible is to remove him from office. Short of proving he committed treason (that's what "high crimes" means) he cannot be removed from office.
I might ask what propaganda has programmed your brain? Accusing the president of committing treason is easy to do. Believing it (true or false) as you seem to is also an easy thing to do. Actually proving it is an entirely different matter. I am sure that if there was proof there is nothing the Democrats would want more than to impeach the president in the house and convict him in the senate. But they have not because the fact is they can't prove it and it's all hot air used to win elections.
In order to assert that the RIAA should prosecute the Bush twins you first have to assert that the making of a "mix tape" for a friend/relative is equal to allowing anyone in the world to download songs from your computer.
As far as I can tell, there are various ways to accomplish this leap of logic. One is to think like the people at the RIAA and try to define every act of copying music as if it were piracy. The problem is that I don't even think most of the people at the RIAA would buy that. Sometimes they act as though this is what they want, and it probably is, but I think even they know that the public would never go for this.
Another way to make this leap of logic is to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. In this case you already believe that everything the president does is bad and/or illegal but he "gets away with it" because he is president and congress won't impeach him. Well, news flash, even the now Democrat-controlled congress isn't going to do this for the simple reason that they have nothing to charge him with. But if you suffer from BDS then that is no problem, you can just grossly pervert the common interpretations of laws and voila, Bush can now be charged with something.
If this story actually gets big in the mainstream media and I were the RIAA, I'd issue a press release stating that the RIAA does not wish to prosecute someone for making a mix tape for private use. I might even go one step further and make sure that this idiot Florida lawyer's anti-Bush rhetoric made it to the mainstream news for the sole purpose of then making the press release stating that prosecution will not occur.
I wonder if the author realizes that all of the over the air HDTV stations are broadcast on UHF frequencies so you need only a standard UHF attenna. Those are the loop kind or occasionally they enclose the loop in a rectangular thing. You can fold the rabbit ears down because you don't need them at all.
Still, this is interesting. I might think about running a cable feed to the tuner and see what happens. I went with OTA in the first place because the cable company wasn't carrying the local NBC and FOX stations in HD but now they are. Never even dreamed I'd get the occasional free VOD stuff.
What a load of bullshit. It sounds like some PETA propaganda. You can rationalize all you want that a no-meat diet is preferable to a some-meat diet. You can throw out bogus statements about eating an animal being "disgusting." You can even make bogus assertions that because we can't eat many animals without tools that we aren't supposed to be eating them. A particularly good example is the assertion that we eat hen's eggs that contain half-developed chicks. Apparently you are pretty damn ignorant. When a cock is not around, a hen will not lay fertilized eggs but unfertilized eggs. Chickens do not reproduce asexually. There are several tricks employed to ensure that the eggs you buy have no chance at becoming chicks. The obvious one is to not have a cock around the hens laying eggs for food. The other one is to candle the eggs a few days after they have been laid. If you see red spots or veins of any sort then it is obviously an embryo.
Frankly I see no problem with eating meat in a rational quantity. It is a good source of nutrients that a human may not otherwise pick up from a typical diet of plant material. It is true that the nutrients ultimately come from plant material but they build up in certain ways in animals that have beneficial effects for the human consumer.
Personally, I am quite healthy and take ZERO supplements. I get plenty of water and plenty of food and I vary my diet among different foods. I do not eat hamburgers every day. I do go out in the sun, although less in the winter than I probably should. All I can tell anyone is that this works for me and also a number of other people. If you get to talking with the guys that live to be 90 or 100 in good health you generally see that they eat a varied diet. Anecdotal, I know, but to me it seems more trustworthy than studies like this that focus on one specific nutrient.
If veganism works for you, great. But you come off sounding like a preaching kool-aid drinker. And if you want to talk religion (i.e. "the wages of sin" crap you spew) then perhaps you might try reading the bible sometime and tell me if you get the impression that it tries to convey a message of never killing or eating any animals. Why the bible? Putting the word of god stuff aside you can still take it for what it is which is the oldest known book about building and maintaining societies. Gluttony, of course, is a sin and one could certainly make a case that overindulging on bad food on a consistent basis is not healthy for the body nor the soul. It takes a massive leap of logic to go from that to veggies-only.
If your developers are writing code that is so bad that it needs to go through 5 levels of review before it is considered acceptable then you need new developers.
So really, theology in theology class, science in science. Besides, most schools don't have enough money for the equipment to observe how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
How many angels fit on the head of a pin is not intended to be an exercise in measurement but rather an exercise in abstract thinking. Taking angels out of the equation I could phrase it as how many geometric points fit on the head of a pin? Recall that a geometric point is a nonexistant abstraction. That it is represented by a dot on a piece of paper does not change the fact that a point is defined to take no space. This is the point of the angels-on-the-head-of-a pin brain-teaser.
On the other hand, you sound as if perhaps you already know that and were just being sarcastic. Aside from the absurdity of angels on the head of a pin there was one important point in your recent post I'd like to concur with.
"Anything we're going to present as fact has been labelled as such due to much observation and measurement and such. However, it is all up for reconsideration and you are welcome to challenge it if you find contradictory evidence. This is the method by which these conclusions have been reached and here's how you can apply them yourself."
Spot on. I misattributed the uncritical thinking of others (the third person) to you (the second person). What I oppose in the classroom and the university is the idea that facts are unchangeable dogma. There was a time when the elements were defined as Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water. Yet we now know there to be hundreds of them that make up more complex compounds like water. Then there was a time when we believed that these new elements were unbreakable, hence the term "element." Yet we now know that they can be broken apart and put back together, sometimes to devastating effect.
Be it Mendel's plants or Darwin's finches the idea that a species has within it variations is not a particularly new one. The entire practice of husbandry exists because of it. And in fact few people, even those who do see religion as opposing science, will dispute this part of evolution. What is oft disputed is the idea that out of these variations an entirely new species will be formed. Saying that "god did it" is of course ignoring the scientific method.
I do, however, question how scientific Darwin's methods really were. When it comes right down to it, what would be an experiment that could be performed to verify the truth of Darwin's claims? The current method seems to be examination of the fossil record but that is not really an experiment so much as a simple gathering of data points.
Take, for example, something like Newton's laws. They are supported not through evidence but through actual experimentation. Granted, they fail to accurately predict behavior at insanely large or small scales but for most purposes, they work well. One can even do his own experiments to verify the validaty of Newton's laws. This, to me, defines the scientific method. Is it really a scientific method when one (Darwin) writes a broad theory that cannot actually be tested for validity? Or is it more of a philosophical exercise?
It seems clear to me that the real reason Darwin's theory is trumpeted is that it is the only theory in existence that attempts to explain a mechanism for the origin of species. No competing scientific theories exist and so there is an imagined competition between the scientific theory of evolution and the biblical statement that God made the earth. For the most part, religious people do not see scientific principle in conflict with religion. And I hope that for the most part scientists don't see religion in conflict with science. Unfortunately, an article such as this one makes a blatant attempt to pit religion against science. And to what end? The cynic in me believes that those who eschew religion tend to seek it in other places. To them, Darwin is compelling because they believe it allows
Considering the public statements that have been consistently made by Apple vs. those of Microsoft I think this would be a reasonable conclusion to draw. From the very beginning of the iTunes Music Store, Jobs was quoted as saying to the record executives that he employed hundreds of engineers telling him that DRM can never be completely foolproof and that he trusted the professional opinions of his engineers. Jobs has always been of the position that DRM was something that can never work but merely an assinine stipulation coming from the recording companies.
Microsoft, like Macrovision, is actively trying to sell the promise of foolproof DRM to content distributors. As any of us here know, it can never truly work. Jobs knows it can't work. That's why Jobs didn't try to sell a promise he couldn't fulfill but instead sold the record companies the promise of selling billions of songs and making a truckload of money doing it. I believe it was always his intention to get rid of the DRM once he could prove that selling music online could not only be done but would generate a hefty revenue stream.
Let's not forget that there are few if any serious competitors to the iTunes Music Store. Before iTMS, the labels had the impression that computers were only good for stealing music and that they would have to lock it down tight to prevent that from occurring. Some executives even made public statements about how the iPod was all about stealing music. After iTMS the labels realize that iTMS is now one of their biggest distribution channels and poised to become the biggest. Jobs has a lot more leverage now that iTMS is one of the largest sources of cash flow into the labels' pockets.
We're also slowly starting to see the labels adapt to this new business model. The pop album is most likely going to disappear and in its place we'll have singles on iTMS. Does that mean the album itself is dead? No. Many good musicians will continue to release their work as a full album. Perhaps even with a few "preview" singles they can charge for before releasing the full album. The revenue potential here is absolutely enormous and the labels are realizing this.
So in a failed attempt to quiet some idiots who take the bible not as the observed Truth about society but as if it were a literal account of how the earth was created you have quite nearly stooped to their level by declaring that evolution is not a best educated guess supported by evidence but instead an absolute unshakeable truth about how things were created.
Many scientists are quite able to handle theology alongside science. In Christian theology one may say that it is the Holy Trinity which drives one to create. Devising theories about how the world was Created is in itself an act of human creation. The alternative to creating for a higher power or more generally for society is to create for selfish gain which generally makes for bad science.
And that's why I say leave the theology out of the science classroom. Nature may have no subjects, but schools most certainly do.This is an unfortunate axiom of the currently practiced education system. It has not always been this way and I have strong doubts that it should remain this way. It clouds the students' minds by forcing them to break the natural connections among disciplines. How different really is the scientific method from a mathematical proof or well-thought rhetoric? How different is any of it from good theology (note: not religion) and philosphy? It is all ultimately a form of critical thinking.
Christian theology does not demand its followers to be unthinking sheep. In fact, it demands quite the opposite. A good Christian should question the theology at every turn just as he should question every other statement made by any other person and even those he makes himself! One only actually need read the new testament, particularly something like Romans, to understand that it is not a set of absolute statements but rather the ramblings on of a man attempting to reconcile his beliefs with reality. He and others expected an all-powerful interfering God to send a great warrior to kill the Romans who were oppressing the Jews. What actually happened according to the accounts of the new testament is that God sent no such thing but rather sent a Son to be killed by the Romans because He recognized that the Jews were in effect oppressing themselves.
That is, in a nutshell, the fundamental Christian belief. One must look inward and not expect God to fix ones problems. Perhaps if that were taught in school we would have less people looking for god replacements in people like politicians who profess to be the solvers of all the world's problems, or scientists who profess to speak the truth.
For many scientists, the foundation is "How did God do it?" That of course is a theocratic remark but to suggest that it has no overlap with science is assinine. On the language side of things we see that the question has morphed from the active voice to the passive voice and has become "How was it done?"
Nature is not neatly divided into math, science, language, and theocracy. There are no subjects in nature. Your proclamation that a Creator has no place in science is just as ludicrous as the proclamation that science has no place in theocracy.
Wise up.
So call them to order service instead. It costs them money to pay someone take the call. Politely explain that the reason you are calling is that their website doesn't work with Firefox/Safari/whatever. If they give online-only discounts, politely ask that you receive the discount. Eventually, they'll figure it out.
I'm not entirely sure that the big ISPs are as bad as some around here claim them to be. I have had Cox for years now and AT&T (now Comcast) where I used to live (back in 2000 or so) and I had no problems using a Linux box as the gateway.
I have never had trouble getting information about default gateways or routes or DNS servers or anything of the sort. With most modern Cable ISPs everything is DHCP anyway. DSL is similar although a lot of them use that PPPoE crap.
As far as installation goes, about a year ago when I moved into my apartment I had Cox install a line for cable. Once I saw the installer was done hooking up the line outside and was coming back in I went ahead and hooked up the modem and got it going on my Linux gateway. By the time he got up the stairs (third floor apartment) I was already on the internet. He was quite pleased since he didn't have to configure anything on the machine except hook it up.
I've been on the other side too. Back in 2000 or so I worked for an AT&T subcontractor. Most installs were Windows or whatever but in one case their kid and one of his friends had already gotten a Linux box ready to go. I gave them the information, they got it routing and knowing that obviously the paying customer wants their PC to work I made sure that the internet was working from the PC through the NAT router. The parents signed the paperwork and I took off. Easiest install I ever did.
If you are willing to take responsibility for making your router work then I don't think any of the big ISPs have any problems. However, I will say that a friend of the family called comcast and they gave her a bunch of bullshit about needing to disconnect her router and what not which she did but then of course her wireless laptop wouldn't work. So I had to give her the lowdown on resetting the router (Linksys seem to be notorious for this) and to please call me instead of Comcast if that doesn't work. The only real problem I have with this is that the Comcast tech could've saved himself 10 minutes of having her rearrange everything just by having her power cycle the modem and the router.
My experience with Cox on the other hand has always been that if you tell them you have a router then the first thing they will do is have you power cycle the modem and the router. Saves them time.
The bottom line is to not ascribe any malice to the big ISPs. They are a business and are just trying to keep their costs down. Their agreements clearly state they won't support your router. However, the smarter ones figure out that sometimes supporting the router a little bit (i.e. tell user to power cycle it) is cheaper and so they put that in their tech support scripts. Only if that doesn't work will they move on to having you directly connect the computer. From a troubleshooting perspective this makes perfect sense. Remove as many variables as you can.
You really ought to get a Mac. Get yourself a mini or a MacBook or something. Give it a good solid try and be open-minded about the differences between it and most other GUIs.
I did this back in early 2002 at work because I needed to port a GUI photo-enhancing package from Windows to Mac. I was still working on the Windows version when my company bought the Mac so I made a point to play with it a couple of hours each day. When the time came to do the port I had a pretty good idea of what was going on with it.
It did help that I had a few books I could thumb through to learn it. There's also a lot of Mac and even NeXT philosophy you may want to learn. For example, it helps to understand how Library exists in both "/" as well as in your home dir (/Users/yourname) as well as in /System and that each one has a purpose. Sort of similar to how some good NIX software has a default config setup (/usr/share maybe) and a system-customized config (/etc) and a user-specific config (~/.something).
If you like the ideals behind UNIX but don't care for GUIs that look like Windows bolted on top of UNIX then you really need to check out a Mac. Apple finally got the UNIX desktop right.
Woah there, don't go attributing that to me. I said almost exactly the opposite. You are exactly correct that the police should be the good guys and that helping them should be good. I am myself somewhat cynical but I am definitely not in the "G00gl3 is teh 3v1l!!!" camp on this one.
After reviewing the articles I've come to the conclusion that while I don't condone investigating people for hate-speech against India that I see no problem with investigating the source of a mob boss fan club. Even applying the U.S. constitution (which of course India is not held to) I would see no problem with this. The police can and should investigate something like this. If it turns out it's someone not connected to the criminal then that's fine. But if it turns out that it's part of a conspiracy to drum up public support and poison the jury pool then that is an entirely different matter. Who's to say that this anonymously submitted article is not part of that conspiracy?
I believe Google did the right thing by turning over records to the police. Anonymity is not sacrosanct. Freedom to say what you want is, and if that is not allowed in India then that should be changed. However, impeding a criminal investigation is not a good way to bring about change.
I wish I could point out a specific attribution but it's not a new concept that one must work within ones societal rules to change society for the better. I believe it is mentioned at least a few times in the new testament and most likely in other religious and philosophical texts as well.
Do they ever. The disk image mounting in OS X makes Linux's loopback devices look like crap. While you can make an image containing only a filesystem you can also make one containing a full disk image (including MBR and everything). When mounted it will for example show up as /dev/disk2 (whole disk), /dev/disk2s1 (first partition), /dev/disk2s2 (second partition) and so on. Makes disk recovery of an imaged disk a shitload easier because you don't have to go through the laborious task of calculating offsets based off the partition table. The kernel does it for you like it would with any other "disk".
Wow. Your post shows a lot of ignorance. OS X has a kernel API for implementing new filesystems which is similar to BSDs although using opaque structures with accessor "methods" rather than direct access to structure data. It was apparently good enough for Amit Singh to implement FUSE on top of which now allows any Linux FS that can run under FUSE to be readily ported.
UNIX of course depends on what variant but at the very worst they all have some sort of NFS client so you could theoretically run a localhost-only NFS server to expose your filesystem to the kernel. Some UNIX and UNIX-clones like linux are open source so anything can be done.
And finally, we come to Windows. I know for a FACT that Windows has supported pluggable network filesystems for a long time now. What do you think Novell Client32 is? Sure, it's a GINA replacement for login but it also is a "filesystem redirector". It makes \\SERVERNAME\SHARENAME\... try the NetWare File Protocol on SERVERNAME before deferring to MS's CIFS.
And as others have mentioned, there is OpenAFS which does something similar.
I think the real problem is that most developers would rather deal with Windows remotely. Writing a CIFS server using your favorite development platform (generally some type of UNIX) is a lot nicer than writing a network redirector for several versions of windows. These days though it's probably easier because almost everything now is of the NT lineage so one versioni with maybe a few conditionals should be sufficient.
Still, it's worth pointing out that Novell has dropped support for NT4 and doesn't yet support Vista. Samba works with all of them.
As someone who develops in Cocoa and .NET (but who, admittedly, is writing this on a MacBook), I have to say that Cocoa is not *that* far ahead of .NET. If you're the hairy-chest C++ strongly typed unsigned volatile sealed abstract interface kind of programmer, you'll definitely like .NET more than Cocoa.
Thanks for your comment. Always nice to hear from people who don't limit themselves to one thing. I must say that I am most definitely not the C++ type of programmer. I can get around in C++ fine and I think having the incomplete port of wxWidgets to Cocoa proves that. However, it was in doing that that I realized that programming GUI in C++ just plain sucks.
I've since moved on to doing a couple of very huge web applications using WebObjects which is written in Java but was ported from Objective-C about 7 years ago. The one feature I find most useful about Objective-C is the ability to call a method by name at runtime. Without it, Cocoa's .nib files are impossible. This can also be done in Java and .NET using the reflection APIs and one can even write some classes to make it easier. If you can live with only being able to call methods with a very specific signature (specifically, setters and getters) then the "key value coding" provided by WebObjects brings a lot of Objective-C feel to Java.
I think the biggest difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple's (actually NeXT's) engineers put a lot of thought into their API designs and coordinated between teams. If they even had many teams that is. Apple's stuff has the distinct feel of being written by a few very select programmers. Microsoft's stuff has the distinct feel of being forced together from many disparate pieces none of which quite work the same way. If Microsoft is going to compete they are basically going to have to fire most of their employees. The problem is, you're already seeing the good ones start to leave for greener pastures.
Mac users.. probably not. Linux users, probably not either. Socialist open-source zealots. Yeah.
I gotta say, I'd love it if Microsoft were able to actually deliver a decent product. But the sad fact is that they are never going to so long as their programming tools suck. Compare developing in Cocoa with developing in Win32, MFC, or even .NET. Once you understand Cocoa it's amazing how much easier it is. This I think is also why Linux is trailing. Most programmers seem stuck in mindset of writing toolkits that more or less work like Win32 or the classic Mac OS toolbox. When there is RAD available it feels more like a huge hack than an ingrained part of the toolkit like it does on Cocoa.
The only reason "Linux" (i.e. open source desktops) has made so many strides is that there are simply more programmers and the toolkits are ever so slightly easier to work with than Win32/MFC.
I think the poster I was replying to was referring to cashing a check at the issuing bank or at some check cashing joint, not depositing it in his account or cashing it at his own bank with his own account as collateral.
To me it sounds like he's pissed off because he's a poor bastard who's being denied his "rights" to do something. The reality of it is that the government isn't denying his rights to do anything. Most likely, he needs a driver's license to cash a check because he can't just take it to his own bank. I have no trouble with the issuing bank or a third party check casher telling him to piss off if he can't identify himself.
Not really. What actually occurs is that a few rather vocal people decide that it's absolutely horrid that some seller is selling something they don't like and they beat at the government's door so they can have their way. Socialism is about giving the populace the illusion of control with the reality that every sufficiently vocal bunch of assholes on a power trip will get their way. Taken to the extreme, no one can conduct business at all. Free market economies are about giving the populace actual control and the illusion that no one is in control.
It's really a shame that free market economies don't actually exist. Especially not in the U.S. (where I am from).
How is it any different than Wal*Mart mandating what can and cannot be sold in its stores? Doesn't Wal*Mart have the right to decide what they want to sell in their stores? Doesn't Norway have the right to decide what they want to sell in their borders?In that case it's not. Norway is a sovereign nation and can decide not to let Apple do some or all of its business there. But don't go claiming that this is an example of a free market economy. It's an example of a sovereign nation asserting its rights over what occurs within its borders. Totally different thing.
Apple has several hundred countries in which they can sell their products, and which Norway has no influence over. Most commercial products rely on a handful of distribution and sales corporations to reach the vast majority of the retail customers. In terms of viable economic market choices, Apple has a lot more freedom of where to sell and under that terms than Norway does of what to buy and under what terms.Indeed. If I were Apple I would simply abide by the drop-dead date and stop selling iTunes songs. Problem solved.
Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
If you see it that way then you're an idiot. Your drivers license should not be required for anything except for driving ever. You may be required to display some form of identification to verify your age when purchasing alcohol. That is because when prohibition was repealed, states were specifically authorized to regulate all aspects of alcohol by the constitutional amendment.
And it is bullshit that your California license is invalid in other states. It is valid because the states have agreements with each other to honor each others driver's licenses. Even if they didn't, Congress could pass a law stating this (if they haven't already) because one of the powers they explicitly do have is regulating inter-state commerce.
A bank may require identification for cashing a check. A bank is not the government. An employer may require identification for employing you. An employer is not the government.
The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts.
A distributor tells a manufacturer what product features the retail customers find acceptable and you're talking about free market principles?
Yes, governments are part of the free market.
A distributor tells a manufacturer what it will buy based on what it thinks its retail customers will find acceptable. That is a whole lot different from a government mandating what can and cannot be sold. In the first case, the manufacturer can always find a different distribution channel or create its own. These two things don't even come close to equating which to me shows how skewed your view of economics is.
Your mail server and/or client is configured incorrectly. Change your mail client to use port 587 (the mail submission port) instead of port 25. If it doesn't work, bitch to your server administrator to run an MSA on port 587. It's not Cox's fault that your configuration is wrong.
You are 100% correct. If your mail client is configured to send to a hopefully authenticated server on port 25 then it won't work when you connect through Cox and you'll have to reconfigure your mail client. And when you leave the Cox network indeed you will have to reconfigure back to your authenticated server.
This is exactly what you should do. You don't set it up on "some high port". You set it up on port 587 which is specifically intended for this purpose. If your mail submission server isn't running on port 587 then you get what you deserve. If you are purely an end-user and don't have control over the server then bitch to your IT guy and tell him to fix his shit.
There is a trade off to be made here if you are the ISP. You can support the old method of running both MSA and MTA on port 25 by not blocking port 25 and have to deal with the increased complexity of blocking spam trojans when (note: not if) they happen. Or you can simply block port 25, provide a local mail server not requiring authentication that will send to anywhere (so mail can go through if necessary) and leave outbound port 587 open so that people whose mail servers are properly configured are completely unaffected.
Please, PLEASE, read what I am saying here instead of just spouting off and saying that port 25 must be open for authenticated mail submission. Port 25 mail submission is only necessary if your config is borked. Since _your_ config is borked, don't blame Cox.
That actually appears to be a legitimate mail. It appears that someone logged in to Cox's webmail and sent the message through it. The spammer probably used a phishing scam to get the password and probably used some sort of screen-scraping app to send the message rather than logging in and doing it manually. However, the point still remains that it was most likely sent by authenticating to a server.
No one can stop idiot users from using weak passwords and giving them out to bad guys. And I don't think it would be right for Cox to terminate the user's account. Maybe inform him that it has been breached and send some information about phishing and not using weak passwords. And how do you know they did or didn't do anything? It's not generally a good idea for a business to start outing its customers as being stupid.