Unless you're using a new definition of "wrong", which actually means "correct", you're wrong.
they are listed here for the basic speeds
The speeds listed on that page are for downstream only, and it says quite plainly that it's 5Mb/s - which is what I said. There are no references to upstream speeds on any of the pages.
I have Shaw, and I've measured my upstream at 1.5Mb/s.
slow cdrom drive, of which these kind of machines may have a 1x model
I have to say that you have a *REALLY* poor grasp of reality - apart from the debunking that KMSelf gave you, I challenge you to produce a 1X drive that you can boot from.
ADSL in Edmonton is $35.00/month (about $24.00/month USD) that's 1.5M down, and 640K up. Cable is $39.00/month, and it's 5.0M down, 1.5M up (at least mine is.)
There are no hard transfer limits (from any of the companies), but I've heard some people complain that they got letters from their ISPs saying they were using too much (I average 8-10GB/month on my Shaw cable account, and have never heard a thing from them.)
Depending on who you get your service through, support can be either good or bad. In my experience, Interbaun and Shaw have great customer service, while Telus customer service is the worst I've ever encountered.
The fact that it has to be compiled to support your card/driver, and if you upgrade your driver, it stops working.
Can you imagine if you had to have a different build of IPSEC tools for each type of network card ? Or if you had to recompile ipchains when you change your NIC driver?
A few years ago, Telus offered me a job, at 3x what I make now.
I told them to get stuffed.
The problem with Telus is that they grew out of a government department, with a government-mandated monopoly. They got spun off as an independant company 15 years ago, but still think and act like they're a government monopoly.
I was under the impression that the web site was posting the address and personal information of scabs.
No, what the website was doing was posting pictures of Telus managers.
Thats obviously an intimidation tactic, possibly even dangerious.
Yes, and there are methods of dealing with that - like court injunctions.
I think if they felt the site posed a danger to their employees, their right to safety is more important then thier status as a carrier, collateral damage be damned.
Bullshit. If they *really* felt that the site posed a danger, then they could get an injunction in a matter of hours. It is the correct way to do this, and it would actually *WORK*, because it would affect everybody, rather than just Telus customers.
Another flawed (but somewhat more accurate) analogy:
If water was flat rate, and one of your neighbors was spraying his water onto the public street in front of his house, and you walked by and took a drink, should it be illegal?
That's what these "door knocking" analogies all lack - the fact that the wireless network is being broadcast onto public property.
Itake it you think that I was advocating legal restrictions on sex workers, then?
No, I was pointing out the fact that your post began with a logical fallacy. As the rest of your message is based on that fallacy, the whole thing is just bunk.
People who claim something isn't "normal" invariably use their position to justify banning that activity. I was just cutting to the chase.
Please at least read the post your replying to.
I did. I find it interesting that instead of trying to argue your position, you simply ignore my point. I assume that's because you're unable to argue it?
People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention.
Ahh, so let's outlaw singing, mime, juggling, (any kind of street performing, actually), dancing, acting, and any other activity people get paid for which is indicative of attention-seeking then.
boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs
You already have laws in place to prevent this, why do you need another. And please provide any *anecdotal* evidence that any boy has actually thought this.
In other words, give Cisco the opportunity to explain that patching vulnerabilities in major commercial vendor-supported code isn't just something that happens instantaneously.
He gave Cisco *FOUR MONTHS* to fix it, which is hardly "instantaneous".
Recently in the 2.6 branch though, they moved away from that model. Don't remember why.
It was supposed to decrease the amount of backporting, and increase the available testing.
First, as new features (and drivers) were added to the development tree, people backported them to the stable branch, this supposedly drew efforts away from the development tree (ie. people were spending time backporting the new features/drivers when they could be debugging/testing the development tree instead.)
Second, as the development tree is the "stable" tree, there are more users to test it to see if things break (which is good if you're a kernel developer, but bad if you're a regular user and a kernel update breaks your server.) It was argued that as distributions typically supply and test their own kernel that the benefit it gave to the kernel devs outweighed the problems that regular users would see.
I bet they wanted some cash too - so you had to go to the ATM machine and enter your PIN number - but the ATM machine had a blue-screen, something about not enough RAM memory.. or possibly a problem with the NIC card. So just having the VIN number wasn't good enough, right?:o)
People are irrationally giving away software out of some misguided sense of charity.
What planet are you on?
Most open source coders I know "give away" their software because it's the best way to improve it.
The benefit of open source is *collaboration* - the source is shared so that it can be improved. If you believe that the developers get nothing in return, then you *really* don't understand software development at all.
Open Source software leads corporations and consumers to undervalue the value of software. If Open Source software is being given away freely, he argues, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop.
MS-Windows leads corporations and consumers to undervalue the value of software. Because Ms-Windows is hidden in the cost of any new PC purchase, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop.
I'd probably rather the bank/hospital had a few weeks to establish a plan, rather than have to bang something out in an emergency, and whilst the records have already been made much more vulnerable.
Your preference suffers from the flawed (although typically wide-spread) assumtion that only one person is smart enough to discover the flaw.
If a white hat can discover it, then a black hat can too - and black hats are constantly looking. Vulnerabilities need to be *FIXED*, not discussed for weeks in private meetings.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent is wrong about Shaw's speeds
Unless you're using a new definition of "wrong", which actually means "correct", you're wrong.
they are listed here for the basic speeds
The speeds listed on that page are for downstream only, and it says quite plainly that it's 5Mb/s - which is what I said. There are no references to upstream speeds on any of the pages.
I have Shaw, and I've measured my upstream at 1.5Mb/s.
slow cdrom drive, of which these kind of machines may have a 1x model
I have to say that you have a *REALLY* poor grasp of reality - apart from the debunking that KMSelf gave you, I challenge you to produce a 1X drive that you can boot from.
ADSL in Edmonton is $35.00/month (about $24.00/month USD) that's 1.5M down, and 640K up.
Cable is $39.00/month, and it's 5.0M down, 1.5M up (at least mine is.)
There are no hard transfer limits (from any of the companies), but I've heard some people complain that they got letters from their ISPs saying they were using too much (I average 8-10GB/month on my Shaw cable account, and have never heard a thing from them.)
Depending on who you get your service through, support can be either good or bad. In my experience, Interbaun and Shaw have great customer service, while Telus customer service is the worst I've ever encountered.
Is there something wrong with WPA supplicant?
The fact that it has to be compiled to support your card/driver, and if you upgrade your driver, it stops working.
Can you imagine if you had to have a different build of IPSEC tools for each type of network card ? Or if you had to recompile ipchains when you change your NIC driver?
Actually in some South American countries, guinea pigs are a dietary staple.
You're right about squirrels and porcupines.
We don't eat porcupines for the same reason we don't eat skunks - their defense mechanisms make them unappetizing.
Considering there are 5 replies to your post, and nobody *once* mentioned the source of that...
It's amazing - people here can remember the combination to President Skroob's luggage, but can't remember Barfolomew's species!
You're wrong. I use Shaw at home to connect to my mailserver (via POP3) at work every day.
For outbound SMTP, you should be using their mailserver anyway (it's faster, and you're not wasting company bandwidth for outbound email.)
Bingo.
A few years ago, Telus offered me a job, at 3x what I make now.
I told them to get stuffed.
The problem with Telus is that they grew out of a government department, with a government-mandated monopoly. They got spun off as an independant company 15 years ago, but still think and act like they're a government monopoly.
I was under the impression that the web site was posting the address and personal information of scabs.
No, what the website was doing was posting pictures of Telus managers.
Thats obviously an intimidation tactic, possibly even dangerious.
Yes, and there are methods of dealing with that - like court injunctions.
I think if they felt the site posed a danger to their employees, their right to safety is more important then thier status as a carrier, collateral damage be damned.
Bullshit. If they *really* felt that the site posed a danger, then they could get an injunction in a matter of hours. It is the correct way to do this, and it would actually *WORK*, because it would affect everybody, rather than just Telus customers.
Why do you call the U.S.A the "land of the free"?
:o)
They mean free as in beer, not free as in freedom.
Probably the same reason that all the polls are marked as archived.
:o)
My guess is all the editors are on vacation, and the whole site is being run by a shell script.
I doubt that he wants his e-mail to come from bartle189.dsl.frii.net
Why not? The only people who will see it are ones that look at the headers - and even then, they won't care.
Seriously, why would he not want to set his HELO to match his PTR record?
Another flawed (but somewhat more accurate) analogy:
If water was flat rate, and one of your neighbors was spraying his water onto the public street in front of his house, and you walked by and took a drink, should it be illegal?
That's what these "door knocking" analogies all lack - the fact that the wireless network is being broadcast onto public property.
that would be 66% of the company value being taken from shareholders, creditors, etc.
No, it wouldn't. That would be 66% of money that was never SCO's in the first place
Why does Novell get "first bite" at the assets for "maybe" at the expense of 100% for sure creditors/shareholders?
They don't. This isn't talking about assets, it's talking about money that was collected on behalf of Novell. It was never SCO's, it's not an assett.
Itake it you think that I was advocating legal restrictions on sex workers, then?
No, I was pointing out the fact that your post began with a logical fallacy. As the rest of your message is based on that fallacy, the whole thing is just bunk.
People who claim something isn't "normal" invariably use their position to justify banning that activity. I was just cutting to the chase.
Please at least read the post your replying to.
I did. I find it interesting that instead of trying to argue your position, you simply ignore my point. I assume that's because you're unable to argue it?
People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention.
Ahh, so let's outlaw singing, mime, juggling, (any kind of street performing, actually), dancing, acting, and any other activity people get paid for which is indicative of attention-seeking then.
boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs
You already have laws in place to prevent this, why do you need another. And please provide any *anecdotal* evidence that any boy has actually thought this.
My domain has a SPF record
Maybe that's your problem?
the IP resolves, and it doesn't appear to be on any blacklists
I have my own domain, and never have an issue - the only difference between me and you is that I don't use SPF.
Try getting rid of your SPF record and see if that helps.
In other words, give Cisco the opportunity to explain that patching vulnerabilities in major commercial vendor-supported code isn't just something that happens instantaneously.
He gave Cisco *FOUR MONTHS* to fix it, which is hardly "instantaneous".
Recently in the 2.6 branch though, they moved away from that model. Don't remember why.
It was supposed to decrease the amount of backporting, and increase the available testing.
First, as new features (and drivers) were added to the development tree, people backported them to the stable branch, this supposedly drew efforts away from the development tree (ie. people were spending time backporting the new features/drivers when they could be debugging/testing the development tree instead.)
Second, as the development tree is the "stable" tree, there are more users to test it to see if things break (which is good if you're a kernel developer, but bad if you're a regular user and a kernel update breaks your server.) It was argued that as distributions typically supply and test their own kernel that the benefit it gave to the kernel devs outweighed the problems that regular users would see.
I bet they wanted some cash too - so you had to go to the ATM machine and enter your PIN number - but the ATM machine had a blue-screen, something about not enough RAM memory.. or possibly a problem with the NIC card. So just having the VIN number wasn't good enough, right? :o)
If you can access the email via POP, then just use fetchmail.
Use the flags --smtphost gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com and --smtpname YOURDADSEMAIL@gmail.com
Should do the trick.
People are irrationally giving away software out of some misguided sense of charity.
What planet are you on?
Most open source coders I know "give away" their software because it's the best way to improve it.
The benefit of open source is *collaboration* - the source is shared so that it can be improved. If you believe that the developers get nothing in return, then you *really* don't understand software development at all.
Open Source software leads corporations and consumers to undervalue the value of software. If Open Source software is being given away freely, he argues, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop.
MS-Windows leads corporations and consumers to undervalue the value of software. Because Ms-Windows is hidden in the cost of any new PC purchase, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop.
No, it isn't. It's based on the very real consequences of bad publicity.
If the issue is *FIXED*, then nobody will be able to exploit it.
Please try to stay with the group.
I'd probably rather the bank/hospital had a few weeks to establish a plan, rather than have to bang something out in an emergency, and whilst the records have already been made much more vulnerable.
Your preference suffers from the flawed (although typically wide-spread) assumtion that only one person is smart enough to discover the flaw.
If a white hat can discover it, then a black hat can too - and black hats are constantly looking. Vulnerabilities need to be *FIXED*, not discussed for weeks in private meetings.