Agreed. I love Las Vegas, but I go for the bars (Red Square at Mandalay Bay is my personal favorite) and the tacky glitz. I don't gamble myself, but have often been around people who do and they all go into it with their eyes open. Most people I know who gamble will allow a certain amount for gambling losses, the same way you'd allocate money for any other vacation expenses, and quit when they've hit their limit.
I can definitely see the entertainment value in it, even if I don't participate (mostly due to being a tightwad).
Actually, Verizon is the only major ISP I've heard about who is clueless enough to require that you use their domain name in your outbound mail. I'm sure there are other smaller ISPs doing it, but so far they're the exception, not the rule. Not by a long shot.
I'm pretty sure all that's meant by "pass-through" in this context is an SMTP server that the ISP's users can send mail through. In other words, the same mail server that you'd be using from your mail client if you didn't have your own SMTP server. I've never heard of an ISP that didn't provide outgoing mail service. With the exception of the aforementioned clueless ISPs (eg, Verizon), you'd be able to sent mail from your MTA just as well as you could from your MUA. SMTP is SMTP.
True, but that's a case of a company comparing their lesser-used product against the entrenched first place product. You rarely see leading companies in any given field attacking their smaller competitors. How many times have you seen Coke mention Pepsi by name?
I use OS X full time at home: My iBook is for general purpose stuff, and I've recently replaced my Debian file/misc household server with a G4 tower, which is running all the same stuff the Linux machine was (Apache, Samba, BIND, dhcpd, etc). I do a little web development, so I have Windows 2000 installed via Virtual PC so I can check my sites in Win/IE, but that's the only thing it's ever used for.
At work I use a Red Hat machine for about 80% of my work, and a Windows 2000 machine pretty much just for our Windows-only ticketing system (*sigh*).
I had that exact same problem with my old Linksys router. I'd have to power cycle it once a week or so after it would stop working for no readily apparent reason. That's what ultimately drove me to replacing it with something decent, in my case a Cisco SOHO 91.
Personally, I'm not against someone making money from the work they put into their site, except when it seems the bulk of the work was figuring out how to get the most page views out of an article that should be on maybe two or three pages max.
I'm against sacrificing usability in favor of ad revenue. Which is why I don't read articles on sites like this.
The trouble is...what if you don't have a windows computer to see how 'it looks' under IE?
Well, you'd have that problem with or without this technique, wouldn't you? Testing in different browsers on different operating systems has always been a major inconvenience in the web designer/developer's life.
I've found that running OS X give me the most options next to keeping extra computers around. I have Virtual PC installed for testing sites in IE, and I can test Gecko and KHTML based browsers natively using Mozilla and Safari.
People who leech bandwidth by using images on other servers are usually presenting the images as their own, as in the case of the aforementioned Ebay auction. In that situation someone else is profiting from my content (the image, and more importantly, my bandwidth) without my permission. If it were me, you can bet I'd be upset about having to pay for them to use my image in their high-traffic Ebay auction while they make money off it, and you can bet I'd get a great laugh out of changing the image located at the URL they're using (to just the words "I'm a leech" if I'm in a good mood, to the goatse guy if I'm not).
The "deep linking" people were annoyed about was newspaper and magazine web sites not wanting people to link directly to their sub-pages instead of being forced to go to their main page first and navigate their way to the story they want to read. Nothing was being presented out of context and nothing was being presented as belonging to someone else.
These are two completely different issues. I don't care if people link directly to sub-pages on my site, that's what the site is there for, to read. Not to simply supply images for other people's convenience.
I hate pointing out the obvious, but there is a world of difference between someone not wanting people to "deep link" to their content and someone not wanting other to leech their bandwidth by using their images on other sites without permission. Especially when it's a high-traffic site like Ebay, Livejournal, etc, this sort of thing can lead to high bandwidth bills for the owner of the site whose images are being used. When all this bandwidth is being used by people loading a different, unrelated site, being upset about it is quite understandable.
Even in cases where there is no theft/copyright infringment going on (clipart sites, for example) it's considered rude to link to the image on the original server instead of uploading a copy to your own server.
There is no "redirection" going on in either case, so I'm not sure you understand what's being talked about.
Maybe not, but many many users would request the port be unblocked and then run an insecure mail server (ie, open relay).
If you want to run a mail server, spring for a static IP address. Mail servers shouldn't be run on temporary connections anyway. If you're just sending mail out and not receiving it, smarthost through your ISP's SMTP servers. If you want to use some other off-site SMTP server for whatever reason, either use a VPN or SMTP AUTH on a different port. Problem solved.
You'd be surprised. I work in the abuse department of a large ISP and we see spammers setting up throw-away accounts with unique stolen credit card numbers daily. Spammers are no longer just sending bulk e-mail; now they also frequently traffic in stolen CC numbers and create viruses that install proxy servers on home users' Windows machines for the purpose of covering their tracks.
I guess they figure the reward is worth the risk. Plus they're stupid.
Hmm, that I can't help you with, I'm afraid. I've never used one of those radio adapters. Stop in to your local car stereo shop, I'm sure they'll be able to answer that for you.
Sure it is, if your car stereo has an auxiliary input jack (think CD changer jack). I decided against getting a CD changer in my new car in favor of buying an iPod and an adapter so I can plug it in. It holds way more music than a CD changer and I can take it with me.
Benefits of a CD/MP3 player:
- Data format car stereo compatible
Only if you're talking about regular audio CDs. MP3 CDs in a portable player are exactly as car stereo compatible as an iPod.
You need a ground loop isolator for that whine you're hearing, you can pick one up at Radio Shack for under $20. It's a small box with RCA jacks on either side, just put it on the line between your iPod and your car stereo and that should take care of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I love Las Vegas, but I go for the bars (Red Square at Mandalay Bay is my personal favorite) and the tacky glitz. I don't gamble myself, but have often been around people who do and they all go into it with their eyes open. Most people I know who gamble will allow a certain amount for gambling losses, the same way you'd allocate money for any other vacation expenses, and quit when they've hit their limit.
I can definitely see the entertainment value in it, even if I don't participate (mostly due to being a tightwad).
Britney's "Toxic"
I'll assume you're not using that apostrophe in the possessive sense.
Actually, Verizon is the only major ISP I've heard about who is clueless enough to require that you use their domain name in your outbound mail. I'm sure there are other smaller ISPs doing it, but so far they're the exception, not the rule. Not by a long shot.
I'm pretty sure all that's meant by "pass-through" in this context is an SMTP server that the ISP's users can send mail through. In other words, the same mail server that you'd be using from your mail client if you didn't have your own SMTP server. I've never heard of an ISP that didn't provide outgoing mail service. With the exception of the aforementioned clueless ISPs (eg, Verizon), you'd be able to sent mail from your MTA just as well as you could from your MUA. SMTP is SMTP.
How do you expect to send this mail if you can't make outbound port 25 connections?
True, but that's a case of a company comparing their lesser-used product against the entrenched first place product. You rarely see leading companies in any given field attacking their smaller competitors. How many times have you seen Coke mention Pepsi by name?
Never let it be said that Slashdot readers don't have a sense of humor.
I use OS X full time at home: My iBook is for general purpose stuff, and I've recently replaced my Debian file/misc household server with a G4 tower, which is running all the same stuff the Linux machine was (Apache, Samba, BIND, dhcpd, etc). I do a little web development, so I have Windows 2000 installed via Virtual PC so I can check my sites in Win/IE, but that's the only thing it's ever used for.
At work I use a Red Hat machine for about 80% of my work, and a Windows 2000 machine pretty much just for our Windows-only ticketing system (*sigh*).
Don't look under your sofa then...
Actually, all she really wants is a cute space probe (and to one-up her sister, Spirit).
I had that exact same problem with my old Linksys router. I'd have to power cycle it once a week or so after it would stop working for no readily apparent reason. That's what ultimately drove me to replacing it with something decent, in my case a Cisco SOHO 91.
Personally, I'm not against someone making money from the work they put into their site, except when it seems the bulk of the work was figuring out how to get the most page views out of an article that should be on maybe two or three pages max.
I'm against sacrificing usability in favor of ad revenue. Which is why I don't read articles on sites like this.
Especially not the articles we're commenting on!
But following that link results in:
Nice one.
The trouble is...what if you don't have a windows computer to see how 'it looks' under IE?
Well, you'd have that problem with or without this technique, wouldn't you? Testing in different browsers on different operating systems has always been a major inconvenience in the web designer/developer's life.
I've found that running OS X give me the most options next to keeping extra computers around. I have Virtual PC installed for testing sites in IE, and I can test Gecko and KHTML based browsers natively using Mozilla and Safari.
People who leech bandwidth by using images on other servers are usually presenting the images as their own, as in the case of the aforementioned Ebay auction. In that situation someone else is profiting from my content (the image, and more importantly, my bandwidth) without my permission. If it were me, you can bet I'd be upset about having to pay for them to use my image in their high-traffic Ebay auction while they make money off it, and you can bet I'd get a great laugh out of changing the image located at the URL they're using (to just the words "I'm a leech" if I'm in a good mood, to the goatse guy if I'm not).
The "deep linking" people were annoyed about was newspaper and magazine web sites not wanting people to link directly to their sub-pages instead of being forced to go to their main page first and navigate their way to the story they want to read. Nothing was being presented out of context and nothing was being presented as belonging to someone else.
These are two completely different issues. I don't care if people link directly to sub-pages on my site, that's what the site is there for, to read. Not to simply supply images for other people's convenience.
I hate pointing out the obvious, but there is a world of difference between someone not wanting people to "deep link" to their content and someone not wanting other to leech their bandwidth by using their images on other sites without permission. Especially when it's a high-traffic site like Ebay, Livejournal, etc, this sort of thing can lead to high bandwidth bills for the owner of the site whose images are being used. When all this bandwidth is being used by people loading a different, unrelated site, being upset about it is quite understandable.
Even in cases where there is no theft/copyright infringment going on (clipart sites, for example) it's considered rude to link to the image on the original server instead of uploading a copy to your own server.
There is no "redirection" going on in either case, so I'm not sure you understand what's being talked about.
Maybe not, but many many users would request the port be unblocked and then run an insecure mail server (ie, open relay).
If you want to run a mail server, spring for a static IP address. Mail servers shouldn't be run on temporary connections anyway. If you're just sending mail out and not receiving it, smarthost through your ISP's SMTP servers. If you want to use some other off-site SMTP server for whatever reason, either use a VPN or SMTP AUTH on a different port. Problem solved.
Eudora is available for both Windows and Mac OS. If I'm not mistaken, it actually started out as a Mac application.
The engine in my Integra has 'Honda' stamped all over it.
1. You understand that there is such thing as legitimate bulk e-mail, don't you? See also: "opt-in".
2. You understand that Slashdot is doing business with Google for those ads, not bulk-email companies, right?
You'd be surprised. I work in the abuse department of a large ISP and we see spammers setting up throw-away accounts with unique stolen credit card numbers daily. Spammers are no longer just sending bulk e-mail; now they also frequently traffic in stolen CC numbers and create viruses that install proxy servers on home users' Windows machines for the purpose of covering their tracks.
I guess they figure the reward is worth the risk. Plus they're stupid.
Gross. There is nothing sexy about Windows XP. It's about the least deserving OS of that title.
Hmm, that I can't help you with, I'm afraid. I've never used one of those radio adapters. Stop in to your local car stereo shop, I'm sure they'll be able to answer that for you.
And the list of [iPod] non-plusses:
- Data format not car stereo compatible
Sure it is, if your car stereo has an auxiliary input jack (think CD changer jack). I decided against getting a CD changer in my new car in favor of buying an iPod and an adapter so I can plug it in. It holds way more music than a CD changer and I can take it with me.
Benefits of a CD/MP3 player:
- Data format car stereo compatible
Only if you're talking about regular audio CDs. MP3 CDs in a portable player are exactly as car stereo compatible as an iPod.
You need a ground loop isolator for that whine you're hearing, you can pick one up at Radio Shack for under $20. It's a small box with RCA jacks on either side, just put it on the line between your iPod and your car stereo and that should take care of it.