If it's true, then let's not waste another moment -- blast a trench and cut the whole state off from the country while we have the chance!
Remember the attack on Florida at the beginnning of the last Enterprise season? The one that blasted a trench through the state of Florida? Evidently your post went through a time warp and started the whole thing.
The ability to type at all is necessary, sure, but touch-typing is not necessary unless you're a secretary.
Touch typing may not be "necessary", but it sure is handy, not so much for speed, but for the way it makes typing pretty much automatic.
I took typing in high school, back in the early '70s (I'm dating myself here, aren't I?), and it turned out to be the most practical course I took. I discovered computers in college, and have been banging away on a variety of computer keyboards ever since (and I do mean a variety. The alpha keys may pretty much stay in the same place, but since the '70s the rest of the keys have roamed around quite a bit. I can remember at one workplace having to deal with a mixture of ASCII layout (parens over the 8 and 9 keys) and Selectric layout (parens over the 9 and 0 keys, as is typical nowadays) keyboards. Since I do touch-type the number row, this was potentially a hazard, but I eventually got to the place where I could acclimate to whatever keyboard I was using in a few minutes. I won't get into what the keypunch keyboards were like.). I haven't really paid much attention my typing speed (though I do get occasional comments about how fast I type).
The real advantage of touch typing, at least for developer types, is that eventually you get to where typing isn't something you have to think about - it's automatic and almost, at times, unconscious. This means that you don't have to interrupt your flow of thought in order to get it into the computer. This is a bit different than the focus of the traditional typing course, which is mainly concerned with transcription. While I've gotten comments on my typing speed, my transcription speed is less than my 'direct from brain to computer' speed (and typically less accurate - not long ago I transcribed my paper ham radio logs to the computer - I'm sure I'm going to be finding typos in those logs for awhile).
The issue isn't just 'bandwidth', it's also a question of having the act of getting information into the computer not interrupt mental 'flow'. Hunt and peck is more likely to be that interruption than touch-typing brought to the 'nearly unconscious' level.
Watch an aging Indy in a wheelchair fight off seniale ex-Nazis in a search for the bathroom so he doesn't have to use that bedpan any more. Yet when he gets there, a seniale ex-Nazi has the last roll of toliet paper! Watch as they battle it out with canes, and pause many times to take a breather and adjust their bifocal glasses.
are you sure all those bounced messages arent from mail worms forging from addresses?
No, of course I can't be sure, as they're bounced, and I never see them. With the apparent connections between worm writers and spammers nowadays, I'm not sure I'm inclined to make much difference between the two. And whether it's actual spam or worm bounces, junk is junk.
From personal experience, I've found that only a very small percentage of spam I get comes from using the catch-all address.
My experience doesn't match. I've got my own domain, hosted on my home computers. I don't use a catch-all address, but my mail logs show anywhere from 400 to 1200 emails daily bounced because they're addressed to invalid email addresses. Roughly 80% of these come with an envelope from address of (null, supposed to be used only by bounce messages). Because spammers are sometimes known to use as an envelope from address on spam, I can't be sure that these are all bounce messages. I am pretty sure, though, that they represent either spammers using a dictionary attack on my domain, or spammers using @mydomain> as a From address for that spam. And the other ~20% are pretty well for sure dictionary attacks on my domain.
Now, I'll admit that while I'm by no means a big-time anti-spammer, I have done my share of reporting spammers to their ISPs and posting on nanae. It's possible that I've gotten on a list of 'known anti-spammers' that spammers use for generating spam from addresses, just for harrassment potential. My experience may apply mostly to those who go beyond filtering in fighting spam. But it is another data point.
Balmer saying linux is a cancer is attacking the product, not the owners/developers of the product. This Brazilian saying MS is ussing drug dealer like tactics in selling Windows is directly attacking the owners/developers of the product and not the product itself. That my friend is the difference between marketing and defamation.
So, on that basis, the AdTI report qualifies as defamation?
There might be prior art in, of all things, amateur radio handhelds. Amateur Radio VHF/UHF handhelds have, for several years, typically carried enough functionality that getting to it all given the limited number of buttons on the radio requires the time-based hardware button tricks Microsoft is describing. For example, on my Yaesu FT-51R (purchased in 1998, 4 years before Microsoft's patent filing, and in fact available before then (actually the even earlier FT-530 uses the same tricks)), saving to a memory requires holding down a button for a second, changing to the memory you want to save to, and then pressing the same button within a particular time. That same button, if merely pressed rather than held, causes other buttons of the radio to perform different functions then if it had not been pressed (but only for a limited amount of time). Hence, different functionality depending the length of time the button is pressed.
Note that these radios are controlled by internal microprocessors, and thus might be considered a 'limited resource computing device'. In any case, the idea of having the functionality of a button change depending on how long the button is pressed preceeds Microsoft's patent filing enough that Microsoft's idea should be seen an an obvious transfer of the idea to an only slightly different device.
If you must say something then how about "I'm not going to dignify that with a response."
There are people out there who are going to take this report at face value unless shown how shoddy the research is. These people are going to take silence as an admission that it's true. Better to loudly trumpet its flaws
How will I be able to send mail using my own business' domain, as I do today, when it is going out via an ISP server?
The current implementation of SPF handles this. It's possible to say 'the valid mail servers for <domain> are also valid mail senders for me'. As long as your ISP has SPF entries made, you can thus incorporate them in your own SPF entry.
This is nothing more than the RIAA wanting to shift their legal burden over to the taxpayer...
Bingo! Give that man a ceegar! And it's not the first time they've done it. Getting certain levels of copyright infringement declared criminal was the first time.
Ditto. And one thing I've love to see IBM do is to port the WorkPlace Shell to Linux. When I finally had to uninstall OS/2, the WPS was the thing I really missed.
Almost certainly paypal had no choice in this manner. There are a great deal of government regulations about monetary transfers that prohibit anonymity.
What's that got to do with it? There are no anonymous monetary transfers going on here, just non-anonymous monetary transfers to a project supporting anonymous file transfers, which is not at all the same thing. I don't think government regulations had a thing to do with this.
My ISO files match the md5sum file included, but does that mean that they are really from fedora? Or does it just mean that the ISOs I have are the ones that were inteneded to be sent over the torrert...ie. no corrupted files?
The matching by itself only means the latter - that the files you received aren't corrupted.
What gives some confidence that the files are from Fedora is the fact that the MD5SUM file is digitally signed by Fedora's signing key. Once you've installed the Fedora Project's key into your gpg keyring (run
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 4F2A6FD2
), you can verify this by running
gpg --verify MD5SUM
Since the MD5 checksums are digitally signed by the Fedora Project, you can be pretty confident those checksums come from the Fedora Project, and since the torrent files match the checksums, you can be pretty confident that these files come from Fedora.
nj8j@frodo:/home/newiso/FC2-i386-isos$ md5sum -c MD5SUM FC2-i386-disc1.iso: OK FC2-i386-disc2.iso: OK FC2-i386-disc3.iso: OK FC2-i386-disc4.iso: OK md5sum: FC2-i386-DVD.iso: No such file or directory FC2-i386-DVD.iso: FAILED open or read FC2-i386-rescuecd.iso: OK md5sum: FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso: No such file or directory FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso: FAILED open or read md5sum: FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso: No such file or directory FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso: FAILED open or read md5sum: FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso: No such file or directory FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso: FAILED open or read md5sum: FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso: No such file or directory FC2-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso: FAILED open or read md5sum: WARNING: 5 of 10 listed files could not be read
The failures on the DVD and the SRPM isos, I expect because they aren't included. The 4 install disks and the rescue disk look good.
Just finished downloading the iso images from the bittorrent link. Public key verification doesn't look good.
gpg --verify./MD5SUM
gpg: Signature made Thu 13 May 2004 01:25:04 PM MDT using DSA key ID 4F2A6FD2
gpg: Good signature from "Fedora Project "
This indicates that the MD5SUM has been verified correctly with the indicated key
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
This indicates that gpg can't find a chain of signatures from either your key or from a key marked as 'trusted' in the trust database to this particular key. If you've never signed anyone else's key, or you're never maintained the trust database in gpg, you can pretty well expect to get this message on any file you verify. It's pretty well meaningless unless you've taken steps to use the 'web of trust' features in pgp/gpg. Unless you're really paranoid, I wouldn't worry about the validity of the signature
I've never gotten decent speeds on bittorrent, at best I've gotten medicore speeds.
This time I'm not even getting medicore speeds, once in a great while I get 1k/s. Most of the time I'm getting nothing.
I'm currently getting about 140KB/s, which on my link means I'm pretty well saturating the downlink.
If you're on an ADSL link, I've found it helps to limit upload rate (in my case, to 15KB/s). Otherwise, the uploads saturate the uplink and actually slow ACKs for the download. I don't know if that's your problem, but it definitely helped here.
The upgrade path would have been a bit easier if it was possible to run BitTorrent on Fedora Core 1. But you can't.
So, the bittorrent rpm that's installed on my FC1 system is just a figment of my imagination? The very bittorrent install that's currently downloading FC2? Drat!
I read that book first, and nodded my head. Then I started checking out some of the practices, and discovered that XP is actually pretty good. For example, pair programming seems to be able to produce the same results in about 55% of the time that one programmer would take, -->but with about 40% less software faults--. Not only does it get past the "9 women to produce a full-term baby in one month" problem, but with significant quality improvement. Just don't go overboard
Exactly. The problem with XP isn't that it's bad, it's that it's overdone. We use pair programming to a some degree in the small custom-development shop I'm part of, typically when we come up on a tough problem. For that, it's quite effective. The fact that you have have to think through the problem enough to explain it to someone else helps, plus bouncing it across someone with a different perspective has benefits. And we definitely at times produce code better than either one of us would write. But not all code needs a pair to program it.
I noticed for the first time the other day that WinXP bundles CD-R burning functionality. I wonder how long until the makers of software like Nero start finding their market disappearing because the functionality that their software provides is now bundled into Windows already?
I wonder what other markets M$ is on its way to kill in the same way?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the attack on Florida at the beginnning of the last Enterprise season? The one that blasted a trench through the state of Florida? Evidently your post went through a time warp and started the whole thing.
Does your therapist sell stock? I see a long-term investment here.
Touch typing may not be "necessary", but it sure is handy, not so much for speed, but for the way it makes typing pretty much automatic.
I took typing in high school, back in the early '70s (I'm dating myself here, aren't I?), and it turned out to be the most practical course I took. I discovered computers in college, and have been banging away on a variety of computer keyboards ever since (and I do mean a variety. The alpha keys may pretty much stay in the same place, but since the '70s the rest of the keys have roamed around quite a bit. I can remember at one workplace having to deal with a mixture of ASCII layout (parens over the 8 and 9 keys) and Selectric layout (parens over the 9 and 0 keys, as is typical nowadays) keyboards. Since I do touch-type the number row, this was potentially a hazard, but I eventually got to the place where I could acclimate to whatever keyboard I was using in a few minutes. I won't get into what the keypunch keyboards were like.). I haven't really paid much attention my typing speed (though I do get occasional comments about how fast I type).
The real advantage of touch typing, at least for developer types, is that eventually you get to where typing isn't something you have to think about - it's automatic and almost, at times, unconscious. This means that you don't have to interrupt your flow of thought in order to get it into the computer. This is a bit different than the focus of the traditional typing course, which is mainly concerned with transcription. While I've gotten comments on my typing speed, my transcription speed is less than my 'direct from brain to computer' speed (and typically less accurate - not long ago I transcribed my paper ham radio logs to the computer - I'm sure I'm going to be finding typos in those logs for awhile).
The issue isn't just 'bandwidth', it's also a question of having the act of getting information into the computer not interrupt mental 'flow'. Hunt and peck is more likely to be that interruption than touch-typing brought to the 'nearly unconscious' level.
Didn't Bruce Campbell already do this, sorta?
Or at least the cattle rustling part of it.
No, of course I can't be sure, as they're bounced, and I never see them. With the apparent connections between worm writers and spammers nowadays, I'm not sure I'm inclined to make much difference between the two. And whether it's actual spam or worm bounces, junk is junk.
My experience doesn't match. I've got my own domain, hosted on my home computers. I don't use a catch-all address, but my mail logs show anywhere from 400 to 1200 emails daily bounced because they're addressed to invalid email addresses. Roughly 80% of these come with an envelope from address of (null, supposed to be used only by bounce messages). Because spammers are sometimes known to use as an envelope from address on spam, I can't be sure that these are all bounce messages. I am pretty sure, though, that they represent either spammers using a dictionary attack on my domain, or spammers using @mydomain> as a From address for that spam. And the other ~20% are pretty well for sure dictionary attacks on my domain.
Now, I'll admit that while I'm by no means a big-time anti-spammer, I have done my share of reporting spammers to their ISPs and posting on nanae. It's possible that I've gotten on a list of 'known anti-spammers' that spammers use for generating spam from addresses, just for harrassment potential. My experience may apply mostly to those who go beyond filtering in fighting spam. But it is another data point.
So, on that basis, the AdTI report qualifies as defamation?
There might be prior art in, of all things, amateur radio handhelds. Amateur Radio VHF/UHF handhelds have, for several years, typically carried enough functionality that getting to it all given the limited number of buttons on the radio requires the time-based hardware button tricks Microsoft is describing. For example, on my Yaesu FT-51R (purchased in 1998, 4 years before Microsoft's patent filing, and in fact available before then (actually the even earlier FT-530 uses the same tricks)), saving to a memory requires holding down a button for a second, changing to the memory you want to save to, and then pressing the same button within a particular time. That same button, if merely pressed rather than held, causes other buttons of the radio to perform different functions then if it had not been pressed (but only for a limited amount of time). Hence, different functionality depending the length of time the button is pressed.
Note that these radios are controlled by internal microprocessors, and thus might be considered a 'limited resource computing device'. In any case, the idea of having the functionality of a button change depending on how long the button is pressed preceeds Microsoft's patent filing enough that Microsoft's idea should be seen an an obvious transfer of the idea to an only slightly different device.
There are people out there who are going to take this report at face value unless shown how shoddy the research is. These people are going to take silence as an admission that it's true. Better to loudly trumpet its flaws
The current implementation of SPF handles this. It's possible to say 'the valid mail servers for <domain> are also valid mail senders for me'. As long as your ISP has SPF entries made, you can thus incorporate them in your own SPF entry.
Bingo! Give that man a ceegar! And it's not the first time they've done it. Getting certain levels of copyright infringement declared criminal was the first time.
Ditto. And one thing I've love to see IBM do is to port the WorkPlace Shell to Linux. When I finally had to uninstall OS/2, the WPS was the thing I really missed.
I think that .iso is actually contained inside the Disk 1 .iso, so I just tossed it out.
What's that got to do with it? There are no anonymous monetary transfers going on here, just non-anonymous monetary transfers to a project supporting anonymous file transfers, which is not at all the same thing. I don't think government regulations had a thing to do with this.
The matching by itself only means the latter - that the files you received aren't corrupted.
What gives some confidence that the files are from Fedora is the fact that the MD5SUM file is digitally signed by Fedora's signing key. Once you've installed the Fedora Project's key into your gpg keyring (run
), you can verify this by runningSince the MD5 checksums are digitally signed by the Fedora Project, you can be pretty confident those checksums come from the Fedora Project, and since the torrent files match the checksums, you can be pretty confident that these files come from Fedora.
I think it's you:
The failures on the DVD and the SRPM isos, I expect because they aren't included. The 4 install disks and the rescue disk look good.
Well, if it is, they've managed to get hold of or cracked Fedora's signing key, as the MD5SUM does validate to that key.
This indicates that the MD5SUM has been verified correctly with the indicated key
This indicates that gpg can't find a chain of signatures from either your key or from a key marked as 'trusted' in the trust database to this particular key. If you've never signed anyone else's key, or you're never maintained the trust database in gpg, you can pretty well expect to get this message on any file you verify. It's pretty well meaningless unless you've taken steps to use the 'web of trust' features in pgp/gpg. Unless you're really paranoid, I wouldn't worry about the validity of the signature
I'm currently getting about 140KB/s, which on my link means I'm pretty well saturating the downlink.
If you're on an ADSL link, I've found it helps to limit upload rate (in my case, to 15KB/s). Otherwise, the uploads saturate the uplink and actually slow ACKs for the download. I don't know if that's your problem, but it definitely helped here.
So, the bittorrent rpm that's installed on my FC1 system is just a figment of my imagination? The very bittorrent install that's currently downloading FC2? Drat!
Really? Doesn't
work for you?Exactly. The problem with XP isn't that it's bad, it's that it's overdone. We use pair programming to a some degree in the small custom-development shop I'm part of, typically when we come up on a tough problem. For that, it's quite effective. The fact that you have have to think through the problem enough to explain it to someone else helps, plus bouncing it across someone with a different perspective has benefits. And we definitely at times produce code better than either one of us would write. But not all code needs a pair to program it.
Maybe they're getting their new lawyers from the same place the SCO Group is.
I noticed for the first time the other day that WinXP bundles CD-R burning functionality. I wonder how long until the makers of software like Nero start finding their market disappearing because the functionality that their software provides is now bundled into Windows already?
I wonder what other markets M$ is on its way to kill in the same way?