Besides, what's the point in supporting IE rendering, when Mozilla's is more robust and compliant to current standards?
Because some websites, for one reason or another, don't render properly in FireFox (or maybe firefox doesn't render them correctly, who knows), and it's useful to have a one-click "use IE for this site".
Ironically, one of the site I find doesn't render correctly with FireFox is Slashdot! (The first few comments tend to overlap with the menus on the left.)
A flat rate insurance system means that safe drivers, or those who drive rarely, are subsidizing frequent drivers, and incompetent or risky drivers.
Any insurance policy is based on pooled risk, so that the lucky ones always subsidize the unlucky ones. There will always be people who claim more then they pay in premiums, and there will also be people who pay more in than they ever claim.
So this system not only distributes the costs of insurance more accurately,
The more "accurate" it distributes the cost of insurance, the less like insurance it becomes. Taken to the extreme, if everyone was in a pool of one why bother with insurance at all? Your premium would just be equal to your accident cost + insurance company profit in that case.
Does anyone see the challenge of getting EVERYONE in the world to adopt SPF tactics to stop spam?
SPf has an inbuilt network effect. If largeisp.com implements it, all spf aware clients will filter a lot of the forged emails "from" largeisp.com. Result, largeisp.com gets fewer complaints/bounces, clients see less spam "from" largeisp.com, spammers switch domains to otherlargeisp.com. Otherlargeisp.com sees complaints/bounces rise as their domains is more widely forged and decide to implement it.
Repeat until spammers are forced to use their own domains, and can more easily be blacklisted, sued, etc.
So the only problem this poses to spammers is to find a few of those domain names that don't incorporate SPF records, and *tada*, they have a new list of email domains to zombify.
Which will increase the presure on that domain to do something about all the forged emails, either they do (like spf), or they run the risk of being blocked as a non-spf server becomes the new open relay as a no-no for admins.
That's just not going to be acceptable to anyone. The reply-to is only used during a reply. When the recipient first receives the message, he sees what the From: line says, not what the Reply-To: says
Maybe that's why there are three common headers in use for this exact purpose - Sender, From, and Reply-To, who sent it, who it is from, and who to reply to in that order.
So,
Sender: Your isp address, verified by spf
From: Your address, so they recognise you
Reply-to: wherever you want.
Frankly, I don't understand why porn doesn't have it's own extension.
That's because there is no widespread agreement of what defines "porn", what one person might regard as harmless fun, another might regard as porn.
Also, in computer security, as it's common practice in input parsing to "accept good characters, reject everything else", instead of "reject known bad characters, accept everything else", would it not be more sensible to have a.kids domain instead?
I take my son to the supermarket with me and let him look at the candy bars while I grab some bread in the next isle. My son grabs a pack of cigarettes and purchases them, then it is 100% my fault and the supermarket is not liable? Of course it's my fault he bought them, but the clerk has just broken the law by selling them to a minor
A more accurate comparasion would be your son buying the cigarettes from a vending machine (which has the age limit displayed on it) - the web site can't personally verify the age of the purchaser either.
In this comparasion, the law would be trying to outlaw all cigarette vending machines just because children might buy from them if unsupervised. A better way to deal with it, imo, would be to ensure that cigarette vending machines are located in places where either children aren't allowed, or where they are likely to be accompanied - and many people would take the position that the internet isn't a place for unaccompanied children, hence the parent's comment about parential responsibility.
To say there is no cost is not accurate, and the owners deserve to have the most accurate picture of comapny finances available.
The problem is that there are several ways of looking at the same issue, and depending on the viewpoint, it's possible to come to different rationales. Take a simple example of 1000 options at a strike price of $10, vesting after a year when the price is $50:
Bought 1,000 of its own shares in the market for $10, total cost $10,000
Kept these shares separate for the year
"sold" these shares to employees (when exercised) for $10 each, total income $10,000 (or to the market, if the employee didn't want them)
Different ways of looking at this could be
Total cost - Total income = $0 = no profit/loss
Expense the $10,000 on granting and record the $10,000 income on excerise
potential profit "lost" by company $40,000 expensed on exercise. (similar to situation if company has to buyback to balance share numbers share
If the price dropped and the options expired underwater, the company could also expense a captial loss, as they then sell them back to the market.
So, there is no simple answer, I personally perfer the expensing at granting, incoming at excercise, as over time that should be neutral and is indifferent to the stock price
Besides, it's always interesting to throw an off-the-wall question at someone and see how they respond.
Where I worked, we interviewed our boss, and one of the Q's was "do you keep goats?" (as we had heard he had a farm. Positive answer, great boss, so that was added to our standard list of questions. Next interview (a few years later) when we asked "do you keep goats?", we got an answer of "No, but I minded cheetehs for a while, does that count?" (boss was from south Africa, and was an excellent one!)
The 1st admendment guarantees "free speech",and tou have rightly pointed out that this has to apply to everyone to give it any meaning at all. But how many people have the same opinion when it comes to "due process"?
to paraphrase your arguement gives:
Due process applies to everybody, and that includes suspected terrorists. I am in no way supporting suspected terrorist, but they still have the right to due process and a fair trial no matter how serious the crime they are accussed of. (and imo, the more serious the charge, the more important due process is to avoid miscarriages)
However, the current US government has "opted out" of the constition with regards to the suspects in camp X-ray. so what's to stop them removing free speech from "racists" - if you're not against them, you must be with them, right?
Censorship of any kind is just the start of a slippery slope.
The US is already on this slope, if the government want to remove the constitional rights from someone, all they currently have to do is say they are a "suspected terrorist with links to al-quaeda", voila, their rights no longer exist.
"If a law is illegal in our country, your 'citizen' can't do it in our country.
That should be news for all the people that come from places where gambling is illegal, vacationing in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc.
You've got it the wrong way around, the original poster meant that someone from Las Vagas (where gambling is legal, can't go to a place where it's illegal and expect to be able to continue just because it's legal at home.
IOW, when you travel, you don't take your laws with you, although some countries do take the stance that their citizens are subject to their domestic laws even when abroad, so can be procescuted for actions aboard, even if those actions were legal where they are located at the time, so your comment would be valid in that case.
The only possible point of a patent (or having a system of patents) is to limit what others can produce. Where is the -10, What are you talking about? moderation button?
I think what the previous poster meant was that nothing stops someone getting a patent and not intending to do anything with it. So, getting a patent can be more about blocking progress for others, instead of enhancing progress for yourself. Maybe if you re-state it as patents don't enforce an obligation on the holder to produce anything, would it make more sense?
The difference is that one is focused on making everyone else fail, rather than making yourself more successful. Too many companies act as if success is only possible when all their competitors have failed.
Your customer files a bug report for something totally unrelated to the modem driver code, say a filesystem bug
In which case, the bug should also manifest itself if the modem wasn't loaded, so why lie about the module licence?.
... so he files the report in/dev/null.
What companies are doing if they lie in the module licence is using the linux developers as 1st line support - someone looks at the problem in a so-called "clean" kernel, tracks it down to one bolted on "black box" and refer the user to the supplier. Result, developer wastes time locating non-related bugs, which I believe is the reason the "tainted" message came into being in the first place
It's still a pretty good reason, though, to have your driver lie to the kernel. Maybe, just maybe, you're sure your driver is ok, and don't want its closed-ness to get in the way of people getting bug reports for completely different parts of the kernel.
No, it's not a valid reason at all. If you're sure you're driver is okay, a kernel bug should still be there if your driver is absent. If it's not, maybe, just maybe, the bug is with the module, and by lying to the kernel you're just wasting everyones time.
If the ID card scheme violates the European Convention on Human Rights
If it does violate it, don't expect the ID card scheme to change, instead the government will Opt out just like it did before when the law didn't suit them.
The truth of the matter is that the GPL will never be declared unenforceable;
The way I describe it, is that there is no such thing as a "GPL" violation - you either abide by the GPL, or you are infringing copyright. Maybe the idea of "GPL violation" == "copyright infringement" should be explained to reporters, I'd guess that in the corperate world, a headline of "Company A infringing copyright of company B" sounds more serious and understandable than "Company B is being chased to uphold GPL licence conditions"
Looks like no one's mentioned the "Zeroth Law" yet, which I think was added towards the end of the Foundation series (I want to say in Foundation and Earth,...
The introduction was in Robots and Empire, (the book where Giskard ceases functioning) this introduction is what is referred to in this is what is referred to Foundation and Earth
Aside trivia point, where was Daneel Olivaw created? In the Caves of Steel, he says the was assembled on Earth, and has not seen Aurora, but in Foundation and Earth, he mentions that he was manufactured on Aurora. An oversight, or a case of manufacture != assembly?
This is a very important difference, and is why people who don't understand the difference incorrectly believe SPF will prevent them from sending email as some other address than the domain their machine is on. There's nothing that says that the sender in the envelope and the sender in the headers must be the same thing.
Indeed. The way I explain it is to compare it to a real letter - the "From:" is the return address that you write on the top left of the envelope, but the "From" is the postmark that hits the stamp. You can set your return address to whatever you like in a letter, but you shouldn't be forging the postmark, as that's an indication of where it entered the system. At the moment, with email, you can post something in South Carolina (Spam), and tell the local post office to postmark it from Alaska (AOL) What AOL are doing are giving out their co-ordinates (IPaddress) so you can verify that the location that the email is coming from matches the postmark onthe envelope. If it doesn't it's likely to be forged.
Slashdot Mirror
Because some websites, for one reason or another, don't render properly in FireFox (or maybe firefox doesn't render them correctly, who knows), and it's useful to have a one-click "use IE for this site".
Ironically, one of the site I find doesn't render correctly with FireFox is Slashdot! (The first few comments tend to overlap with the menus on the left.)
Not always! Visa (The CC company) won a case against someone who were trying to introduce Visa condoms (A pun on visa being a "permit to enter")
For those that remember when coding meant peeks, pokes, and games were worth playing, look at Hey, Hey, 16k (Flash 7 needed, but it's well worth it!
Find a link, fine
Follow the link, fine
Spider the link, not fine - google's Robots.txt does not give them permission to.
Any insurance policy is based on pooled risk, so that the lucky ones always subsidize the unlucky ones. There will always be people who claim more then they pay in premiums, and there will also be people who pay more in than they ever claim.
So this system not only distributes the costs of insurance more accurately,
The more "accurate" it distributes the cost of insurance, the less like insurance it becomes. Taken to the extreme, if everyone was in a pool of one why bother with insurance at all? Your premium would just be equal to your accident cost + insurance company profit in that case.
SPf has an inbuilt network effect. If largeisp.com implements it, all spf aware clients will filter a lot of the forged emails "from" largeisp.com. Result, largeisp.com gets fewer complaints/bounces, clients see less spam "from" largeisp.com, spammers switch domains to otherlargeisp.com. Otherlargeisp.com sees complaints/bounces rise as their domains is more widely forged and decide to implement it.
Repeat until spammers are forced to use their own domains, and can more easily be blacklisted, sued, etc.
So the only problem this poses to spammers is to find a few of those domain names that don't incorporate SPF records, and *tada*, they have a new list of email domains to zombify.
Which will increase the presure on that domain to do something about all the forged emails, either they do (like spf), or they run the risk of being blocked as a non-spf server becomes the new open relay as a no-no for admins.
Maybe that's why there are three common headers in use for this exact purpose - Sender, From, and Reply-To, who sent it, who it is from, and who to reply to in that order.
So,
Sender: Your isp address, verified by spf
From: Your address, so they recognise you
Reply-to: wherever you want.
Next question?
That's because there is no widespread agreement of what defines "porn", what one person might regard as harmless fun, another might regard as porn.
Also, in computer security, as it's common practice in input parsing to "accept good characters, reject everything else", instead of "reject known bad characters, accept everything else", would it not be more sensible to have a .kids domain instead?
A more accurate comparasion would be your son buying the cigarettes from a vending machine (which has the age limit displayed on it) - the web site can't personally verify the age of the purchaser either.
In this comparasion, the law would be trying to outlaw all cigarette vending machines just because children might buy from them if unsupervised. A better way to deal with it, imo, would be to ensure that cigarette vending machines are located in places where either children aren't allowed, or where they are likely to be accompanied - and many people would take the position that the internet isn't a place for unaccompanied children, hence the parent's comment about parential responsibility.
The problem is that there are several ways of looking at the same issue, and depending on the viewpoint, it's possible to come to different rationales. Take a simple example of 1000 options at a strike price of $10, vesting after a year when the price is $50:
- Bought 1,000 of its own shares in the market for $10, total cost $10,000
- Kept these shares separate for the year
- "sold" these shares to employees (when exercised) for $10 each, total income $10,000 (or to the market, if the employee didn't want them)
Different ways of looking at this could beSo, there is no simple answer, I personally perfer the expensing at granting, incoming at excercise, as over time that should be neutral and is indifferent to the stock price
Where I worked, we interviewed our boss, and one of the Q's was "do you keep goats?" (as we had heard he had a farm. Positive answer, great boss, so that was added to our standard list of questions. Next interview (a few years later) when we asked "do you keep goats?", we got an answer of "No, but I minded cheetehs for a while, does that count?" (boss was from south Africa, and was an excellent one!)
In short - ask about pets! :)
to paraphrase your arguement gives:
Due process applies to everybody, and that includes suspected terrorists. I am in no way supporting suspected terrorist, but they still have the right to due process and a fair trial no matter how serious the crime they are accussed of. (and imo, the more serious the charge, the more important due process is to avoid miscarriages)
However, the current US government has "opted out" of the constition with regards to the suspects in camp X-ray. so what's to stop them removing free speech from "racists" - if you're not against them, you must be with them, right?
Censorship of any kind is just the start of a slippery slope.
The US is already on this slope, if the government want to remove the constitional rights from someone, all they currently have to do is say they are a "suspected terrorist with links to al-quaeda", voila, their rights no longer exist.
Would that be Macs you're talking about then?
That's because there's no F in team either!
That should be news for all the people that come from places where gambling is illegal, vacationing in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc.
You've got it the wrong way around, the original poster meant that someone from Las Vagas (where gambling is legal, can't go to a place where it's illegal and expect to be able to continue just because it's legal at home.
IOW, when you travel, you don't take your laws with you, although some countries do take the stance that their citizens are subject to their domestic laws even when abroad, so can be procescuted for actions aboard, even if those actions were legal where they are located at the time, so your comment would be valid in that case.
I think what the previous poster meant was that nothing stops someone getting a patent and not intending to do anything with it. So, getting a patent can be more about blocking progress for others, instead of enhancing progress for yourself. Maybe if you re-state it as patents don't enforce an obligation on the holder to produce anything, would it make more sense?
The difference is that one is focused on making everyone else fail, rather than making yourself more successful. Too many companies act as if success is only possible when all their competitors have failed.
In which case, the bug should also manifest itself if the modem wasn't loaded, so why lie about the module licence?.
What companies are doing if they lie in the module licence is using the linux developers as 1st line support - someone looks at the problem in a so-called "clean" kernel, tracks it down to one bolted on "black box" and refer the user to the supplier. Result, developer wastes time locating non-related bugs, which I believe is the reason the "tainted" message came into being in the first place
It's still a pretty good reason, though, to have your driver lie to the kernel. Maybe, just maybe, you're sure your driver is ok, and don't want its closed-ness to get in the way of people getting bug reports for completely different parts of the kernel.
No, it's not a valid reason at all. If you're sure you're driver is okay, a kernel bug should still be there if your driver is absent. If it's not, maybe, just maybe, the bug is with the module, and by lying to the kernel you're just wasting everyones time.
If it does violate it, don't expect the ID card scheme to change, instead the government will Opt out just like it did before when the law didn't suit them.
But have you noticed that the proverb never tells you how the fool gets the money in the first place?
The way I describe it, is that there is no such thing as a "GPL" violation - you either abide by the GPL, or you are infringing copyright. Maybe the idea of "GPL violation" == "copyright infringement" should be explained to reporters, I'd guess that in the corperate world, a headline of "Company A infringing copyright of company B" sounds more serious and understandable than "Company B is being chased to uphold GPL licence conditions"
But does it also say: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles imported into any State?
You forgot one:
"Windows has discovered new hardware"
No, no, the scariest one is:
Windows has detected: "unknown device", and is installing drivers for it
Looks like no one's mentioned the "Zeroth Law" yet, which I think was added towards the end of the Foundation series (I want to say in Foundation and Earth, ...
The introduction was in Robots and Empire, (the book where Giskard ceases functioning) this introduction is what is referred to in this is what is referred to Foundation and Earth
Aside trivia point, where was Daneel Olivaw created? In the Caves of Steel, he says the was assembled on Earth, and has not seen Aurora, but in Foundation and Earth, he mentions that he was manufactured on Aurora. An oversight, or a case of manufacture != assembly?
You're almost there, pity you're not drinking the right stuff, though - whiskey is Irish, but whisky is a Scotch
Indeed. The way I explain it is to compare it to a real letter - the "From:" is the return address that you write on the top left of the envelope, but the "From" is the postmark that hits the stamp. You can set your return address to whatever you like in a letter, but you shouldn't be forging the postmark, as that's an indication of where it entered the system. At the moment, with email, you can post something in South Carolina (Spam), and tell the local post office to postmark it from Alaska (AOL) What AOL are doing are giving out their co-ordinates (IPaddress) so you can verify that the location that the email is coming from matches the postmark onthe envelope. If it doesn't it's likely to be forged.