I'm not surprised, since the cost of getting that print copy of the Journal to the reader is large and the cost of getting the online version to the reader is negligiable. It's this cost that convinced so many publishers in the 90's, like all the computer magazines, to give all their content away online. Bad decision, if they had had the nerve, like the Journal, to make people pay for access they would have been better off.
Verizon Wireless also has signal in Penn Station in New York City and in the tunnels under the Hudson river that lead to it. If you're a train commuter in NJ Verizon Wireless is the only way to go.
Actually, that article describes Powell effectively working to change a longstanding policy, well predating the Bush administration, and it describes absolutely no use of outside travel money by Powell himself. The claim of Powell taking money in this thread is still unsubstantiated.
If it was fair for McCain-Feingold to create the limits on speech that it creates then these offensive rules are fair as well. This is what we've come to.
>>It's doomed anyway, but they can probably keep charging people for it for some decades, if they play their usual monopolistic game correctly.
More likely you'll start seeing the SBC and Verizon start to sell off their copper line infrastructure, especially after 2006-7 when huge new amounts of wireless spectrum get auctioned off. It's a white elephant in the long term, but someone can make money off it for a while longer.
Note that this ruling does not prevent CLECs like Covad and their ISPs, like Speakeasy.net, from providing naked DSL service. I have this service from Speakeasy. They call it OneLink and I'm no longer an explicit customer of Verizon on that line, although Speakeasy still kicks a few bucks a month back to Verizon; it is their wire and their CO I suppose.
But in the end I have all my services, including VOIP, through Speakeasy.net thanks to naked DSL.
I never liked the speech regulation parts of McCain-Feingold, but what does this phrase mean in the context of a blog? How do they know how many people read my blog unless they demand my log files?
Well, largely unrelated. Schneier argues that there are two major classes of attacks that bypass the issues users encounter in the consumer space. And conversely, that the issues solved by 2 factor authentication aren't the ones encountered by real users.
But logging into your local computer or the LAN is different, and 2 factor authentication could be helpful. It wouldn't necessarily be helpful against trojan attacks; once an authenticated user infects their own system the attack can continue to run with the credentials of the user. But it should defeat some network attacks and enhance security of systems that are physically compromised.
No, neither the Netcraft article nor the NANOG posting to which it refers says that the domain was LOCKed. There's a lot of speculation on the NANOG list about it, but no real answer.
Obviously we're basically agreeing with each other, but I do think that this equates to significant presence in the market for Microsoft. As long as Metaframe depends on Terminal Services Microsoft doesn't need to view it as a competitor.
But popping the stack a bit, I don't see terminal solutions like this as the answer for Microsoft in the context of this particular Slashdot topic, but rather a web service-based local application, where the application runs partly locally, partly remote. This is the vision of the.NET approach.
There are two ways to look at this. Bandwidth may eventually be dirt cheap, but local processing power is already there and it would be a waste to run a dumb terminal. The other is that the manageability of a completely host-based solution is worth giving up local processing power.
Remember that this sort of solution for PC applications has been available for corporate networks for a very, very long time, something like 15 years. The first Citrix versions were based on OS/2 1.x. They are as popular as the day is long, but they haven't taken over, so the market hasn't completely bit.
>>SP2 should have been released separately from the firewall. >>That way, users such as he with apps such as those could still get the OS patches and work on deploying the firewall by itself.
So deploy SP2 and turn off the firewall. It's on by default, but it's not mandatory, and it's GPO-manageable so you can control the deployment of the firewall through the whole network.
I have seen this sort of challenge with an audio option for the sight-impaired. I'll see if that's an option for us.
In the meantime, if my choice were between having the spam and this accessibility problem, I'll put up with the accessibility problem for now and look for a solution to it. The spam was intolerable and the only thing blind users are denied is the ability to post.
We had a similar problem on our ziffdavis.com blogs (like my security blog) and we think we have solved it with with one of those graphic field challenges to the user (enter the value in the nearby graphic).
And another thing about exit polls: they're self-selecting. I've never been exit-polled, but my sister (in Delaware) was this year. There was a table outside of people and they asked her if she would answer some questions and she did. Not everybody would I'm sure. What is the effect of that? And how do the exit pollsters decide who to ask?
Microsoft never told anyone not to write for Windows; they made the phony argument that writing for Windows was the path to eventually writng for OS/2.
But the phoniness of this argument is best displayed by pointing out that the only program worse than Word Perfect for Windows was Word Perfect for OS/2. It was a completely horrible program that was so slow that it couldn't even keep up with your typing. Even the worst screwball OS/2 zealots didn't try to defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Antivirus is available.
Now it's safe to get e-mail on W64.
San Francisco is 46.7 square mile
I'm not surprised, since the cost of getting that print copy of the Journal to the reader is large and the cost of getting the online version to the reader is negligiable. It's this cost that convinced so many publishers in the 90's, like all the computer magazines, to give all their content away online. Bad decision, if they had had the nerve, like the Journal, to make people pay for access they would have been better off.
Verizon Wireless also has signal in Penn Station in New York City and in the tunnels under the Hudson river that lead to it. If you're a train commuter in NJ Verizon Wireless is the only way to go.
Actually, that article describes Powell effectively working to change a longstanding policy, well predating the Bush administration, and it describes absolutely no use of outside travel money by Powell himself. The claim of Powell taking money in this thread is still unsubstantiated.
If it was fair for McCain-Feingold to create the limits on speech that it creates then these offensive rules are fair as well. This is what we've come to.
>>It's doomed anyway, but they can probably keep charging people for it for some decades, if they play their usual monopolistic game correctly.
More likely you'll start seeing the SBC and Verizon start to sell off their copper line infrastructure, especially after 2006-7 when huge new amounts of wireless spectrum get auctioned off. It's a white elephant in the long term, but someone can make money off it for a while longer.
I assume he beats his wife too. WTF is this bribes stuff? Please document.
I guess you're calling me a liar, so fuck you and look at the OneLink page.
Maybe you guys can't do it because you're incompetent.
Note that this ruling does not prevent CLECs like Covad and their ISPs, like Speakeasy.net, from providing naked DSL service. I have this service from Speakeasy. They call it OneLink and I'm no longer an explicit customer of Verizon on that line, although Speakeasy still kicks a few bucks a month back to Verizon; it is their wire and their CO I suppose.
But in the end I have all my services, including VOIP, through Speakeasy.net thanks to naked DSL.
I never liked the speech regulation parts of McCain-Feingold, but what does this phrase mean in the context of a blog? How do they know how many people read my blog unless they demand my log files?
Well, largely unrelated. Schneier argues that there are two major classes of attacks that bypass the issues users encounter in the consumer space. And conversely, that the issues solved by 2 factor authentication aren't the ones encountered by real users.
But logging into your local computer or the LAN is different, and 2 factor authentication could be helpful. It wouldn't necessarily be helpful against trojan attacks; once an authenticated user infects their own system the attack can continue to run with the credentials of the user. But it should defeat some network attacks and enhance security of systems that are physically compromised.
There are 10 patents on nose-picking, one for each finger.
The same is true of brute force, just with a larger set of possible data
Will someone please mod this dipshit down?
No, neither the Netcraft article nor the NANOG posting to which it refers says that the domain was LOCKed. There's a lot of speculation on the NANOG list about it, but no real answer.
Obviously we're basically agreeing with each other, but I do think that this equates to significant presence in the market for Microsoft. As long as Metaframe depends on Terminal Services Microsoft doesn't need to view it as a competitor.
.NET approach.
But popping the stack a bit, I don't see terminal solutions like this as the answer for Microsoft in the context of this particular Slashdot topic, but rather a web service-based local application, where the application runs partly locally, partly remote. This is the vision of the
There are two ways to look at this. Bandwidth may eventually be dirt cheap, but local processing power is already there and it would be a waste to run a dumb terminal. The other is that the manageability of a completely host-based solution is worth giving up local processing power.
Remember that this sort of solution for PC applications has been available for corporate networks for a very, very long time, something like 15 years. The first Citrix versions were based on OS/2 1.x. They are as popular as the day is long, but they haven't taken over, so the market hasn't completely bit.
Incidentally, I wrote a book on Terminal Services.
Every Windows-based Citrix server is a Terminal Services server, and you need Terminal Services CALs for it.
>>SP2 should have been released separately from the firewall.
>>That way, users such as he with apps such as those could still get the OS patches and work on deploying the firewall by itself.
So deploy SP2 and turn off the firewall. It's on by default, but it's not mandatory, and it's GPO-manageable so you can control the deployment of the firewall through the whole network.
Works fine for me, sorry if you have a problem.
I have seen this sort of challenge with an audio option for the sight-impaired. I'll see if that's an option for us.
In the meantime, if my choice were between having the spam and this accessibility problem, I'll put up with the accessibility problem for now and look for a solution to it. The spam was intolerable and the only thing blind users are denied is the ability to post.
We had a similar problem on our ziffdavis.com blogs (like my security blog) and we think we have solved it with with one of those graphic field challenges to the user (enter the value in the nearby graphic).
The supposed quote was about 640K, not 64K, and it's a myth
>>How will this affect evolution?
Until they put human testicles on a mouse it won't affect it.
And another thing about exit polls: they're self-selecting. I've never been exit-polled, but my sister (in Delaware) was this year. There was a table outside of people and they asked her if she would answer some questions and she did. Not everybody would I'm sure. What is the effect of that? And how do the exit pollsters decide who to ask?
>>MS told them that OS/2 was the way to go...
Microsoft never told anyone not to write for Windows; they made the phony argument that writing for Windows was the path to eventually writng for OS/2.
But the phoniness of this argument is best displayed by pointing out that the only program worse than Word Perfect for Windows was Word Perfect for OS/2. It was a completely horrible program that was so slow that it couldn't even keep up with your typing. Even the worst screwball OS/2 zealots didn't try to defend it.