Ok, fine, when you are offroad, or where there are no other cars around. My point was is that so-called 'driving lights' should be turned off, just like you turn off your high beams, when there is oncoming traffic. They should *NOT* be on automatically with your low beams.
I dont use any MS software (OS or apps), and my solution for the people that want 'DOC' resumes is to send them a PDF. Their Wincrap OS recognizes it, views it, and they most likely wont even know the difference, unless they try to edit it (which is probably a good thing anyway)
Or better yet, if they are on MS-crack, then I just figure I wouldnt want to work there anyway.
I dont care what technology the light uses. Advances should be used to reduce the size or power use of the lights *without* increasing the light output.
They are often twice as bright as the cars low beams, and when they are on (with the low beams) there is as much or more light coming from the front of the car as with the high beams alone, and are just as blinding to oncoming traffic (or traffic you are following)
Unless you are in an offroad condition, the only white lights illuminated on the front of your vehicle should be the factory low beams, with the only exception being if it is foggy/driving snow, an amber/orange set of foglights (if they are white, they arent fog lights).
What is obnoxious about them is that they blind oncoming drivers, especially if they are aimed too high. Of course even more annoying are the pickup trucks and SUV's with Halogens - not only are they blindingly bright - they are right up in your face.
There should be a law (at least for vehicles driven on public road, do whatever you want in the forest behind your house on your property) as to how high headlights can be above the road surface, and how bright (in lumens) they can be (and I suppose a min brightness too).
Better technology could be used to decrease power consumption and size, while producing the same amount of light, as opposed to being so bright as to melt the retinas of other drivers.
Floodlights (eg the ones you put under the eaves of your house, often with motion sensors, to discourage burglars), not foglights (eg the annoying things that people turn on even when its not foggy), or off-road driving lights (eg, the annoying things that many people seem to think are safe and legal to operate on-road).
Only if its an end-to-end VoiP call. This is related to the VoiP companies such as Vonage, Voicepulse, etc, and calls placed from their customers *to* non-voip lines. And they arent charging *you* the end user, they are charging the voip company for terminating calls on their network (Obviously unless the voipco's want to lose money they will pass the costs on)
Yes, I know there are other telcos, but none of the incumbent (eg ones that descended from or bought out the original bits of the AT&T/Bell monopoly) telcos actually competes in any signifigant manner with each other for any wireline phone service.
Everyone knows why MS is evil - you can read more about why SBC is evil at http://michigantelephone.mi.org/
Once it became known that *.foo.com was a spammer, you could block foo.com *AND* *.foo.com, Domainkeys isnt intended to stop spam, its intended to stop *forgeries* - Once you know a mail isnt *forged*, then it makes it easier to identify and block spammers.
I welcome the spammers to setup domainkeys for their domain, and to sign their mail. If they really mean it when they say they dont want to send mail to anyone that doesnt want it, it will make it that much easier for those that dont want it to identify it.
This doesnt validate the PTR record for your IP - the sending MTA signs the message, with the key for domain in the 'From' header. If you have a domain, and you want to use domainkeys, you make a domainkeys public key, put it in your domains DNS, and then setup your MTA to add the sigs. It doesnt matter what your IP is, or if you relay thru another MTA.
domainkeys is a way to tag your *outgoing* mail with a signature, to enable others a chance to determine if a mail 'from' your domain is valid, or is a forgery.
It has nothing to do with incoming mail unless the sender domain of a given peice of mail uses it, then if you get a mail claiming to be from that domain, you could check it. So before it will have much of an impact, *lots* of domains will have to implement it. But since (at one point at least) the big freemail providers domains were popular for forging as the sender of spam, this will help everyone to be able to identify and block or devnull that..
Comcast doesnt care even if there are problems. Search usenet for comcast - you'll get lots of hits in news.admin.net-abuse.*
Or if you find your mail being rejected, have a look at: http://spews.org/html/S2963.html - scroll down past the listings - you can search on 'Poster child' to get there.
Oh, and note this has nothing to do with 'open relays'
Are they just *using* the product, or have they made proprietary modifications to it? If the former, they are not violating anything. Redistributing an *unmodified* copy of a GPLd program is not restricted.
All of this suggests that in the coming months, Microsoft and Yahoo will roll-out much improved webmail user-interfaces, and complement their webmail services with automated email scanning systems for the purpose of ad placement. Such systems will lead to some controversy, as some people are worried about the privacy implications of automated email scanning. Fortunately, Google supporters have made a lot of effort to appease Gmail privacy concerns, and the road is mostly clear for Microsoft and Yahoo.
The primary reason google 'scanning my email' doesnt concern me is that google has a reputation for being honest. That google has attained that reputation gains absolutely nothing for Yahoo (spammer, spam supporter) or MS (convicted monopolist)
I trust google several orders of magnitude further than I would trust Yahoo or MS. I would *never* use a hotmail or yahoomail account for anything other than a throwaway - yet I have in fact started using a gmail account for normal email.
Anyone who lists an @yahoo.com or @hotmail.com email address anywhere even remotely business-related is showing that they are 'part of the consumer herd' - an @gmail.com address, on the other hand, suggests an air of elitism.
If they follow this model, Im sure Yahoo and MS's ads will be flash and javascript popup ridden - Gmails ads are much less intrusive.
Google knew exactly what they are doing - they arent looking for mass market share of morons.
I'd be very interested to hear your rationale for that conclusion, or your suggestions on what WPC could have done to compete the 50 ton steamroller with the letters M and S on it?
It may still well be good.. Unfortunately, I no longer use MS OS's, and no modern version of WP is available for Linux or FreeBSD. I pretty much avoid word processors altogether, preferring plain text for communication.
For a good read, you might want to see http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html
Accused? Did you miss where they were FOUND GUILTY in the DOJ trial? The remedy part of the case sort of petered out after the US administration change.
Just imagine what the benefit to the economy would be if that 50 billion (or even half of it) was distributed among a few thousand small businesses. Or what it could do to US literacy and competency levels if it was distributed to a few thousand schools. (In both cases, as *CASH* - not vouchers for discounts on overpriced MS products)
I think having 50 billion in cash excluded from circulation by being hoarded by one company cant possibly have any *good* effect on the economy.
Was the calculator you wrote in BASIC once a market leader, and was unable to compete because MS intentionally sabotaged it from running properly on their OS? If so, then you might have a case (IANAL).
MS *has been found guilty* in a court of law. Eg, they are a convict. Why isnt someone in jail? Why are they allowed to *CONTINUE* breaking the same laws?
WordPerfect was a damn good program. WP sold out to Novell, then Novell sold out to Corel. And through either incompetence (or perhaps due to MS), it died while a child of Corel.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, fine, when you are offroad, or where there are no other cars around. My point was is that so-called 'driving lights' should be turned off, just like you turn off your high beams, when there is oncoming traffic. They should *NOT* be on automatically with your low beams.
Hopefully once a critical mass of people recognize windows for the utter trash that it is, you'll be finding new jobs.
I dont use any MS software (OS or apps), and my solution for the people that want 'DOC' resumes is to send them a PDF. Their Wincrap OS recognizes it, views it, and they most likely wont even know the difference, unless they try to edit it (which is probably a good thing anyway)
Or better yet, if they are on MS-crack, then I just figure I wouldnt want to work there anyway.
I dont care what technology the light uses. Advances should be used to reduce the size or power use of the lights *without* increasing the light output.
They are often twice as bright as the cars low beams, and when they are on (with the low beams) there is as much or more light coming from the front of the car as with the high beams alone, and are just as blinding to oncoming traffic (or traffic you are following)
Unless you are in an offroad condition, the only white lights illuminated on the front of your vehicle should be the factory low beams, with the only exception being if it is foggy/driving snow, an amber/orange set of foglights (if they are white, they arent fog lights).
What is obnoxious about them is that they blind oncoming drivers, especially if they are aimed too high. Of course even more annoying are the pickup trucks and SUV's with Halogens - not only are they blindingly bright - they are right up in your face.
There should be a law (at least for vehicles driven on public road, do whatever you want in the forest behind your house on your property) as to how high headlights can be above the road surface, and how bright (in lumens) they can be (and I suppose a min brightness too).
Better technology could be used to decrease power consumption and size, while producing the same amount of light, as opposed to being so bright as to melt the retinas of other drivers.
Floodlights (eg the ones you put under the eaves of your house, often with motion sensors, to discourage burglars), not foglights (eg the annoying things that people turn on even when its not foggy), or off-road driving lights (eg, the annoying things that many people seem to think are safe and legal to operate on-road).
Apparently military.com's editors are all on 'brake'.
Only if its an end-to-end VoiP call. This is related to the VoiP companies such as Vonage, Voicepulse, etc, and calls placed from their customers *to* non-voip lines. And they arent charging *you* the end user, they are charging the voip company for terminating calls on their network (Obviously unless the voipco's want to lose money they will pass the costs on)
SBC and MS - both monopolies
Yes, I know there are other telcos, but none of the incumbent (eg ones that descended from or bought out the original bits of the AT&T/Bell monopoly) telcos actually competes in any signifigant manner with each other for any wireline phone service.
Everyone knows why MS is evil - you can read more about why SBC is evil at http://michigantelephone.mi.org/
Once it became known that *.foo.com was a spammer, you could block foo.com *AND* *.foo.com, Domainkeys isnt intended to stop spam, its intended to stop *forgeries* - Once you know a mail isnt *forged*, then it makes it easier to identify and block spammers.
I welcome the spammers to setup domainkeys for their domain, and to sign their mail. If they really mean it when they say they dont want to send mail to anyone that doesnt want it, it will make it that much easier for those that dont want it to identify it.
You are confused.
This doesnt validate the PTR record for your IP - the sending MTA signs the message, with the key for domain in the 'From' header. If you have a domain, and you want to use domainkeys, you make a domainkeys public key, put it in your domains DNS, and then setup your MTA to add the sigs. It doesnt matter what your IP is, or if you relay thru another MTA.
domainkeys is a way to tag your *outgoing* mail with a signature, to enable others a chance to determine if a mail 'from' your domain is valid, or is a forgery.
It has nothing to do with incoming mail unless the sender domain of a given peice of mail uses it, then if you get a mail claiming to be from that domain, you could check it. So before it will have much of an impact, *lots* of domains will have to implement it. But since (at one point at least) the big freemail providers domains were popular for forging as the sender of spam, this will help everyone to be able to identify and block or devnull that..
Comcast doesnt care even if there are problems. Search usenet for comcast - you'll get lots of hits in news.admin.net-abuse.*
Or if you find your mail being rejected, have a look at: http://spews.org/html/S2963.html - scroll down past the listings - you can search on 'Poster child' to get there.
Oh, and note this has nothing to do with 'open relays'
Raid mirroring only protects against hardware failure. It does not protect against accidental user deletion.
Are they just *using* the product, or have they made proprietary modifications to it? If the former, they are not violating anything. Redistributing an *unmodified* copy of a GPLd program is not restricted.
The primary reason google 'scanning my email' doesnt concern me is that google has a reputation for being honest. That google has attained that reputation gains absolutely nothing for Yahoo (spammer, spam supporter) or MS (convicted monopolist)
I trust google several orders of magnitude further than I would trust Yahoo or MS. I would *never* use a hotmail or yahoomail account for anything other than a throwaway - yet I have in fact started using a gmail account for normal email.
Anyone who lists an @yahoo.com or @hotmail.com email address anywhere even remotely business-related is showing that they are 'part of the consumer herd' - an @gmail.com address, on the other hand, suggests an air of elitism.
If they follow this model, Im sure Yahoo and MS's ads will be flash and javascript popup ridden - Gmails ads are much less intrusive.
Google knew exactly what they are doing - they arent looking for mass market share of morons.
I'd be very interested to hear your rationale for that conclusion, or your suggestions on what WPC could have done to compete the 50 ton steamroller with the letters M and S on it?
You are thinking of the state lawsuit. The federal anti-trust case got them a guilty, and then sort of just disappeared from the radar.
Yeah. MS had a lot more to do with it being beaten out of the mass market than Corel did.
It may still well be good.. Unfortunately, I no longer use MS OS's, and no modern version of WP is available for Linux or FreeBSD. I pretty much avoid word processors altogether, preferring plain text for communication.
For a good read, you might want to see
http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html
Accused? Did you miss where they were FOUND GUILTY in the DOJ trial? The remedy part of the case sort of petered out after the US administration change.
Just imagine what the benefit to the economy would be if that 50 billion (or even half of it) was distributed among a few thousand small businesses. Or what it could do to US literacy and competency levels if it was distributed to a few thousand schools. (In both cases, as *CASH* - not vouchers for discounts on overpriced MS products)
I think having 50 billion in cash excluded from circulation by being hoarded by one company cant possibly have any *good* effect on the economy.
Was the calculator you wrote in BASIC once a market leader, and was unable to compete because MS intentionally sabotaged it from running properly on their OS? If so, then you might have a case (IANAL).
MS *has been found guilty* in a court of law. Eg, they are a convict. Why isnt someone in jail? Why are they allowed to *CONTINUE* breaking the same laws?
WordPerfect was a damn good program. WP sold out to Novell, then Novell sold out to Corel. And through either incompetence (or perhaps due to MS), it died while a child of Corel.