Those are good points: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But you also need to be prepared for it to break. If the PC he's using dies, will the app run on a new one? Does DOS boot on a new machine? I've never tried, but I'd guess not. Does the BASIC interpreter run on a new machine? Maybe yes, maybe no. For example, old Turbo Pascal apps fail on fast machines, because they do a timer calibration loop at the beginning, and it overflows. (There are known fixes, but if you're running on old hardware, have you got them installed? Will you be able to find them when you need them?)
Using stuff that's really old can lead to big problems when it finally fails. Staying relatively current lets you discover the problems before they cause disasters.
No, they included more than the kernel. Only 1% of the bugs they found were in the kernel. You can see a bit of a breakdown of what the bugs were and where they were found here.
The best part was after sending a note around on the new policy of 12 digit case sensitive alpha numeric mkpwd (or mkpasswd i forget which one is which)
and then later...
The next problem are managers who are more worried about the whining of their staff in regards to the ENSLAVEMENT of having to remember 10+ digit alpha numeric passwords (I have trained myself to do it in 8 looks.)
So you can memorize 10 digit alpha numeric passwords in 8 looks, but can't remember whether it's mkpwd or mkpasswd? How many tries do you need on those passwords?
Re:What Google needs is Lexis-Nexis and Journal ta
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
It sounds as though you should know about scholar.google.com. It does full text indexing. You need to arrange your own access to the content for now, but it seems like an obvious money maker for Google to do it for you. It's beta, send them a suggestion.
It's the sending machine that needs to be told by the SMTP server that there's an error (no such user, or some other such message), then the sending machine can generate a bounce message to the user that submitted the message. Bounces aren't supposed to be sent from the receiving machine or a mail client.
Sending a message that looks like a bounce from an email client is possible (there are Outlook add-ins that do it), but it's a bad idea. By the time the message is in your inbox, it's hard to tell how much of it is forged. You'll probably be sending the bounce to some innocent bystander, instead of just refusing the connection from the spamming machine.
"METI Endorsement Furthers Sun's Linux Lead, and Commitment to Linux Market. Now why?"
See? It says "Sun's Linux". It was a joke. I intentionally misread it to make fun of the original article where the phrase "Red Hat's Linux" was misinterpreted.
Mods, please mod my explanation down as redundant.
Check RFC2476. The Uni's MSA SHOULD immediately reject mail sent with an address that it cannot confirm in real time is the return path to the ACTUAL SENDER.
Does it really say something like that? I don't see it.
There are lots of reasons to use a return address other than the originating machine's address. As long as some authentication method is used to make sure only trusted users can send mail, what's the problem? Yes, it doesn't work with SPF, but not everyone uses that.
For example, I used to be an officer of a scientific organization. When I was sending official mail, I'd use the Society's address as a return address, even though mail to that address didn't go directly to the SMTP server I was using. (I did have it forwarding there).
There was very little risk of abuse, because the SMTP server only accepted local connections. (I used SSH tunneling to fake one). SPF wouldn't work on the Society's mail, because the officers who used those addresses were all over the place.
Reading the original is a great idea, because there's pressure on the original to present the results honestly. For example, the title is "A Preliminary Study", and the conclusion in the abstract is that this study "..provides evidence consistent with the notion...".
The Slashdot title is wrong when it says this treatment "helps cure". There's very little evidence that the effect will be reproducible. There was no control group in the study, so the possibility is very great that a selection bias was entirely responsible for the better outcomes in this trial than in historical measurements.
As the abstract says, the primary purpose of this study was to determine whether PEG treatment was safe. Only secondarily was this study trying to determine whether there might be clinical benefit.
A better title for the submission would be "New Treatment Not Immediately Harmful, May Be Helpful"
The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the writing of the message. The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message.
Requiring clear identification of all federal employees is acceptable at this juncture in time. Banning Islamic foreign students and Chinese students (including those from Taiwan province and Hong Kong) from federally funded projects at American universities is also acceptable.
This is a fantastic idea --- for Canada and Europe. The USA built its strength by taking the best and brightest students from around the world. If you ban them from all federally funded projects, they'll go elsewhere, for our gain and your loss. We're already seeing this as your increased paranoia makes Canada a more attractive place to study.
even the worst code is a million times easier to read than the output of a disassembler
So what you're saying is, assembler is not code? Weird. I guess these old skool coderz weren't coders after all.
No, the message is that disassemblers don't produce source code. They produce something which can be passed through an assembler to produce the same object code, but all the semantics that were in the filenames, variable names, macros, etc. are lost.
Those ads cost more than a nickle to click on my friend. Depending on the populatiry of the search, one click can cost as much as $20.00, (that I have seen myself).
If the ads cost only a nickel, it would not be worth my time to click on them. Saying they cost $20 makes it look like a viable approach to fighting the spammers.
BTw, we sell hardware. We do not send out unsolicited email. Your method would wrongfully harm a number of upstanding companies that hate spam too.
Just make sure your ad is clear about what you do, and people won't click on it maliciously. Of course, if people set up robots to do this, I guess those particular adwords will become a barren wasteland...
All you need to make a red-blue 3D movie is two cameras a certain distance apart. Apply a red filter to one and a blue filter to the other, and voila. This multiple-flash technique uses a single camera, as would the parent's suggestion.
Actually, you don't want to apply the filters to the camera, you want to apply them after the image has been captured, when you combine the two images onto one piece of film.
The codec example wasn't mine, but it does illustrate my point better than yours. If I re-invent a patented compression algorithm, do you really think the patent holder would be able to recognize their algorithm, let alone prove infringement in court? Good compression algorithms do not tend to have very readable implementations, especially if someone has made an effort to optimize their implementation.
On the other hand, if I copy someone's implementation (or implement a published one, like LZW), the similarity of the source code and the comments in it will likely make clear what I've done. So open source is vulnerable when it copies implementations, but it's not particularly vulnerable to being sued over reinventing something that was already patented.
The MP3, GIF, and JPEG files are not patented. The methods used to compress data is. It can be hard to detect, unless a violator is using those files in their particular implementation. There is nothing to say that the patented methods would be used in compatible files. Without reverse engineering the code or seeing the source code, it's plausibly deniable unless you have an oracle.
If you're unwittingly violating a patent, you've likely got an independent implementation of the same idea, rather than just a copy of someone else's source code. Except in really trivial cases, the source code isn't going to be much easier to recognize than the behaviour would be.
That's a nice theory, and I can believe that attack has been used against proprietary competitors, but I don't know of any cases where MS has forced an open source project to drop something or pay royalties because of a dubious patent claim.
You know, if this were anywhere but Slashdot I'd suggest that you could try to RTFA if you wonder about a claim in it.
Then you'd find that the proposal is to put this at the L1 point. The Earth's gravity helps to hold it up, it's not entirely held up by centrifugal force.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are good points: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But you also need to be prepared for it to break. If the PC he's using dies, will the app run on a new one? Does DOS boot on a new machine? I've never tried, but I'd guess not. Does the BASIC interpreter run on a new machine? Maybe yes, maybe no. For example, old Turbo Pascal apps fail on fast machines, because they do a timer calibration loop at the beginning, and it overflows. (There are known fixes, but if you're running on old hardware, have you got them installed? Will you be able to find them when you need them?)
Using stuff that's really old can lead to big problems when it finally fails. Staying relatively current lets you discover the problems before they cause disasters.
The "Linux" code base just includes the kernel.
No, they included more than the kernel. Only 1% of the bugs they found were in the kernel. You can see a bit of a breakdown of what the bugs were and where they were found here.
The best part was after sending a note around on the new policy of 12 digit case sensitive alpha numeric mkpwd (or mkpasswd i forget which one is which)
...
and then later
The next problem are managers who are more worried about the whining of their staff in regards to the ENSLAVEMENT of having to remember 10+ digit alpha numeric passwords (I have trained myself to do it in 8 looks.)
So you can memorize 10 digit alpha numeric passwords in 8 looks, but can't remember whether it's mkpwd or mkpasswd? How many tries do you need on those passwords?
It sounds as though you should know about scholar.google.com. It does full text indexing. You need to arrange your own access to the content for now, but it seems like an obvious money maker for Google to do it for you. It's beta, send them a suggestion.
It's the sending machine that needs to be told by the SMTP server that there's an error (no such user, or some other such message), then the sending machine can generate a bounce message to the user that submitted the message. Bounces aren't supposed to be sent from the receiving machine or a mail client.
Sending a message that looks like a bounce from an email client is possible (there are Outlook add-ins that do it), but it's a bad idea. By the time the message is in your inbox, it's hard to tell how much of it is forged. You'll probably be sending the bounce to some innocent bystander, instead of just refusing the connection from the spamming machine.
Sigh.
The headline in the blog entry was
"METI Endorsement Furthers Sun's Linux Lead, and Commitment to Linux Market. Now why?"
See? It says "Sun's Linux". It was a joke. I intentionally misread it to make fun of the original article where the phrase "Red Hat's Linux" was misinterpreted.
Mods, please mod my explanation down as redundant.
At least he doesn't claim it's Sun's Linux.
But he did.
... as he did in an earlier blog entry.
Or maybe we're both misreading things?
Check RFC2476. The Uni's MSA SHOULD immediately reject mail sent with an address that it cannot confirm in real time is the return path to the ACTUAL SENDER.
Does it really say something like that? I don't see it.
There are lots of reasons to use a return address other than the originating machine's address. As long as some authentication method is used to make sure only trusted users can send mail, what's the problem? Yes, it doesn't work with SPF, but not everyone uses that.
For example, I used to be an officer of a scientific organization. When I was sending official mail, I'd use the Society's address as a return address, even though mail to that address didn't go directly to the SMTP server I was using. (I did have it forwarding there).
There was very little risk of abuse, because the SMTP server only accepted local connections. (I used SSH tunneling to fake one). SPF wouldn't work on the Society's mail, because the officers who used those addresses were all over the place.
Reading the original is a great idea, because there's pressure on the original to present the results honestly. For example, the title is "A Preliminary Study", and the conclusion in the abstract is that this study "..provides evidence consistent with the notion...".
The Slashdot title is wrong when it says this treatment "helps cure". There's very little evidence that the effect will be reproducible. There was no control group in the study, so the possibility is very great that a selection bias was entirely responsible for the better outcomes in this trial than in historical measurements.
As the abstract says, the primary purpose of this study was to determine whether PEG treatment was safe. Only secondarily was this study trying to determine whether there might be clinical benefit.
A better title for the submission would be "New Treatment Not Immediately Harmful, May Be Helpful"
According to the standard, the from field should have the email address the mail was sent from (in this case your uni addy).
No, that's "Sender". From RFC 2822:
The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the writing of the message. The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message.
Requiring clear identification of all federal employees is acceptable at this juncture in time. Banning Islamic foreign students and Chinese students (including those from Taiwan province and Hong Kong) from federally funded projects at American universities is also acceptable.
This is a fantastic idea --- for Canada and Europe. The USA built its strength by taking the best and brightest students from around the world. If you ban them from all federally funded projects, they'll go elsewhere, for our gain and your loss. We're already seeing this as your increased paranoia makes Canada a more attractive place to study.
Keep up the good work! We really appreciate it!
even the worst code is a million times easier to read than the output of a disassembler
So what you're saying is, assembler is not code? Weird. I guess these old skool coderz weren't coders after all.
No, the message is that disassemblers don't produce source code. They produce something which can be passed through an assembler to produce the same object code, but all the semantics that were in the filenames, variable names, macros, etc. are lost.
Those ads cost more than a nickle to click on my friend. Depending on the populatiry of the search, one click can cost as much as $20.00, (that I have seen myself).
If the ads cost only a nickel, it would not be worth my time to click on them. Saying they cost $20 makes it look like a viable approach to fighting the spammers.
BTw, we sell hardware. We do not send out unsolicited email. Your method would wrongfully harm a number of upstanding companies that hate spam too.
Just make sure your ad is clear about what you do, and people won't click on it maliciously. Of course, if people set up robots to do this, I guess those particular adwords will become a barren wasteland...
All you need to make a red-blue 3D movie is two cameras a certain distance apart. Apply a red filter to one and a blue filter to the other, and voila. This multiple-flash technique uses a single camera, as would the parent's suggestion.
Actually, you don't want to apply the filters to the camera, you want to apply them after the image has been captured, when you combine the two images onto one piece of film.
How do we know that this hasn't already happened and that there isn't already a bathtub sized chunk of copper on it.
It'll be easy to tell them apart. Aliens are generally either tall and thin or short and squat, so their bathtubs would be quite a different shape.
I don't know if Canada has had record sales, but they are up over last year according to stats published by the Canadian record industry association. Sales up 7% year to date, profits up 1%.
Win ME is not NT based, so it wouldn't support NTFS. You would have been using FAT32 or FAT16.
The codec example wasn't mine, but it does illustrate my point better than yours. If I re-invent a patented compression algorithm, do you really think the patent holder would be able to recognize their algorithm, let alone prove infringement in court? Good compression algorithms do not tend to have very readable implementations, especially if someone has made an effort to optimize their implementation.
On the other hand, if I copy someone's implementation (or implement a published one, like LZW), the similarity of the source code and the comments in it will likely make clear what I've done. So open source is vulnerable when it copies implementations, but it's not particularly vulnerable to being sued over reinventing something that was already patented.
The MP3, GIF, and JPEG files are not patented. The methods used to compress data is. It can be hard to detect, unless a violator is using those files in their particular implementation. There is nothing to say that the patented methods would be used in compatible files. Without reverse engineering the code or seeing the source code, it's plausibly deniable unless you have an oracle.
If you're unwittingly violating a patent, you've likely got an independent implementation of the same idea, rather than just a copy of someone else's source code. Except in really trivial cases, the source code isn't going to be much easier to recognize than the behaviour would be.
I think in order to survive the onslaught, it will be necessary to garner support elsewhere.
What onslaught? Do *you* know of any cases where MS has attacked open source projects using patents?
This is pure FUD.
People get away with spreading all this FUD, because readers don't verify the information that's being cited...
What I don't understand is why the authorities get away with it.
Simple enough, isn't it? People don't RTFA. What's hard to understand about that?
That's a nice theory, and I can believe that attack has been used against proprietary competitors, but I don't know of any cases where MS has forced an open source project to drop something or pay royalties because of a dubious patent claim.
Do you?
I remember when they discovered rings around Uranus, and suddenly it had to be renamed to "You're a nuss".
You know, if this were anywhere but Slashdot I'd suggest that you could try to RTFA if you wonder about a claim in it.
Then you'd find that the proposal is to put this at the L1 point. The Earth's gravity helps to hold it up, it's not entirely held up by centrifugal force.