You seem to be assuming that everyone who has a legitimate reason to spoof "from" addresses also has control of the firewall and DNS entry, or the ability to influence SenderID policy. This is very rarely the case.
Using the envelope-from seems a better approach to me (as in SPF?), but Microsoft seems to want to cause hassle for many people just because it can find no better way of making its software immune to phising.
Yes, sites can always adopt more teleworking-friendly policies. They can also adopt software that is relatively free from virus infection and phising, and a more enlightened attitude to software patents, support fair trade etc. Unfortunately, influencing corporate and technical policy in all these cases seems equally difficult. Most people will give up trying before they are labelled a "trouble-maker".
By the way, I happen to use something like Microsoft's proposed algorithm for verifying senders (using fetchmail's prior-art algorithm). It is a very poor way of detecting spam these days. When it has detected a sender address mismatch in recent months, it is typically due to someone teleworking, very rarely is it spam.
> Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide > spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's > viability was proved years ago?.
It has been tried recently. Despite what lab results may suggest, it turns out that in reality, adding iron salts to the sea removes less CO2 than is generated by the ship that is used to transport it... doesn't sound like a viable solution to me.
> Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?
Because they may in turn also have unexpected and undesirable consequences themselves, or indeed carry a risk that they may make things worse in the long run?
E.g. we could bury liquified CO2 in the oceans or in deep mines, as some oil executives suggest, only for it all to bubble up in a few decades time as the temperature rises, or because of natural landslips, leading to local suffocations and dramatic increases in global temperatures. (There are precedents with natural, underwater C02 and methane deposits in lakes in Africa, where entire towns and villages have been suffocated as a result.)
If your boat springs a leak, you fix it, you don't just install a bigger bilge pump.
Well, it was VMS + 1 = WNT (Windows NT). Microsoft poached the VMS team to get NT off the ground, following Microsoft's decision to stop working with IBM on what was supposed to have been a joint OS/2 replacement for DOS, as I recall.
This may be true of a "US" trillion, but a "European etal" trillion is equivalent to a "US" billion billion...
As both billions and trillions differ, it quickly gets confusing if it is not made clear which version of which is being used. I remember it being very confusing in the UK when the US convention was adopted in the financial sector but not elswehere.
I vote for 10^18 on an international forum... but then again, perhaps it should really be some base 2 approximation of "trillion"? But then we have that other problem, do we mean (10^15)*(2^10) or (2^10)^15...? (I seem to recall a court case about this.)
So you really think its worth 3.5 billion UKP to stop a few months benefit fraud? (And that just the cards, not the card readers and other infrastructure.)
Me thinks there are _many_ better things on which to spend the money than setting up the infrastructure of a police state.
Early in my research career I made the mistake of using FrameMaker. At the time, I actually thought it was quite good for writing long academic reports (compared to troff, eqn, MS-Word and WordPerfect)... until a change in my contractual position at work meant that I lost access to the floating licence. I could not afford to buy my own licence, so I had a many months-worth of written material, with lots of complex formulae and diagrams, that I could no longer use.
I changed to LaTeX for this reason: it runs on virtually everything; it is free; documents will always look exactly the same, regardless of operating system and printer (unlike many wordprocessing systems); it is guaranteed to be backwards compatible `forever'; and it is excellent for integrating different authors' submissions into one uniform volume. (In addition to the document class system, and the unsurpassed quality of the typography, all authors can use LaTeX without paying for an overpriced licence, and without being obliged to run any particular operating system).
Using LaTeX means that I know I, and others, will always have access to everything I have written. There are no such guarantees with Framemaker and other proprietary systems. This will be familiar to Linux users who adopted FrameMaker, only to find that at the end of last year that all software licenses expired permanently, and that their documents were destined to be trapped in an inaccessible proprietary format unless they exported to another format before the licences died.
I find LaTeX fine for day-to-day office work, I just edit simple template documents for letters and faxes. Under X, Lyx and Klyx can be used to put a more friendly face on it. There are similar intefaces available for MS-Windows (e.g. Scientific Workplace) and MacOS.
As for MS-Word, I know of several people who used it to write academic books only to live to regret it. Most would wished they had used WordPerfect or LaTeX (if they had heard of it). In my experience, those involved in writing and editing collaborative work seem to greatly favour LaTeX once they had tried it.
I think that when it comes to digital libraries, it is essential to use open, platform neutral document formats that recognise the need for long-term support. This is one area in which there is nothing that can touch (La)TeX, at least for technical publications.
In relation to computer operating systems, yes they do.
Mm, Microsoft claims trademark on Windows, Word, and other terms, yet in many countries these trademark claims are not legitmate (as I recall, MS has repeatedly had its claim on Word``(tm)'' rejected in the UK for example).
In the case of `(Internet) Explorer', Microsoft actually infringed another US companies trademark, and only settled, for a fairly paltry sum, once they had bankrupted the company by keeping the dispute on the boil for long enough; the trademark owner spent all their capital defending their claim (as apparently they were required to do under US law). It seems that US trademark law is designed to allow the rich bully to win.
Unfortunately the WTO (aka US Empire R US), via Tripps and similar agreements may make matters worse. I do not look forward to the day when common words of one language (English say) registered in a country which does not speak that language (say Brazil) can be defended as world-wide Trademarks. I believe that there are some companies and individuals who specialise in trademarking everyday words around the world.
I always wonder about corporations that engage in a wide range of activities and whether they can really claim trademark rights in all their areas of operation. Virgin for example once threatened legal action against every single company in Australia which used the word Virgin in their name, including window cleaners and small garages. They subsequently dropped the threat due to bad publicity. Clearly they do not see their trademark as being restricted to the original activities of the company (mail-order records).
So if Microsoft diversified into the double-glazing/window replacement business, would it sue?
[Free] has always referred to price. That's what it means. That's all.
That puts an interesting twist on the old phrase `the free-men of Norfolk and Suffolk'!
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the history of this language will know that `free' originally meant `without obligation or binding', a `free-man' being someone who was free to roam and engage in work of their choosing, in contrast to the majority of subjects, who were `tied' to a landlord and/or parish. Compare with rope work; the term `free end' does not refer to the one that does not cost anything.
To me at least, it is clear that when RMS refers to `free' software he is using the word in something like its original sense (except that there is an obligation, which is not to impose further obligations or bindings).
From one RFC supporting HTML-email basher to another:
you have made the common mistake of confusing Microsoft's proprietary and every-changing `Rich Text Format' (RTF) for documents with the open standard for formatting emails which is actually called ``Enriched Text.'' (That was supposed to be a demonstration of the Enriched Text tags)
If only Microsoft, Netscape et al supported the Enriched Text RFC instead of the stupid so-called `HTML email', then (almost) every one would be happy. And if only advocates of open standards could get their facts right...
SECAM is nothing to do with PAL, it has a different number of lines (circa 800) and a different colour encoding scheme. You might be confused by the fact that video tapes and other things are sometimes marked as `PAL/SECAM' compatible. This does not mean that SECAM is a form of PAL.
The PAL world _is_ divided, but only by different audio sub-band offsets when transmitted on analogue UHF, e.g. when moving between Germany and the UK you typically have to get a TV engineer to alter your TV/Video tuner's audio offset, otherwise you cannot get sound and picture at the same time. NICAM sound is another matter...
I sure hope your digital TV isn't at all interactive, because that'd mean it was covered by BT's patent on linking. "Oh, but that's different-- it's a corporation.
Not quite, ``Oh, but that's different...'' because the BT patent to which you refer does not apply in the UK. This may have been an oversight by BT, but it is quite possibly because the USPO is less picky about what can be patented... another symptom of US control freakery?
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be assuming that everyone who has a legitimate reason to spoof "from" addresses also has control of the firewall and DNS entry, or the ability to influence SenderID policy. This is very rarely the case.
Using the envelope-from seems a better approach to me (as in SPF?), but Microsoft seems to want to cause hassle for many people just because it can find no better way of making its software immune to phising.
Yes, sites can always adopt more teleworking-friendly policies. They can also adopt software that is relatively free from virus infection and phising, and a more enlightened attitude to software patents, support fair trade etc. Unfortunately, influencing corporate and technical policy in all these cases seems equally difficult. Most people will give up trying before they are labelled a "trouble-maker".
By the way, I happen to use something like Microsoft's proposed algorithm for verifying senders (using fetchmail's prior-art algorithm). It is a very poor way of detecting spam these days. When it has detected a sender address mismatch in recent months, it is typically due to someone teleworking, very rarely is it spam.
> Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide
> spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's
> viability was proved years ago?.
It has been tried recently. Despite what lab results may suggest, it turns out that in reality, adding iron salts to the sea removes less CO2 than is generated by the ship that is used to transport it... doesn't sound like a viable solution to me.
> Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?
Because they may in turn also have unexpected and undesirable consequences themselves, or indeed carry a risk that they may make things worse in the long run?
E.g. we could bury liquified CO2 in the oceans or in deep mines, as some oil executives suggest, only for it all to bubble up in a few decades time as the temperature rises, or because of natural landslips, leading to local suffocations and dramatic increases in global temperatures. (There are precedents with natural, underwater C02 and methane deposits in lakes in Africa, where entire towns and villages have been suffocated as a result.)
If your boat springs a leak, you fix it, you don't just install a bigger bilge pump.
Well, it was VMS + 1 = WNT (Windows NT). Microsoft poached the VMS team to get NT off the ground, following Microsoft's decision to stop working with IBM on what was supposed to have been a joint OS/2 replacement for DOS, as I recall.
This may be true of a "US" trillion, but a "European etal" trillion is equivalent to a "US" billion billion...
As both billions and trillions differ, it quickly gets confusing if it is not made clear which version of which is being used. I remember it being very confusing in the UK when the US convention was adopted in the financial sector but not elswehere.
I vote for 10^18 on an international forum... but then again, perhaps it should really be some base 2 approximation of "trillion"? But then we have that other problem, do we mean (10^15)*(2^10) or (2^10)^15...? (I seem to recall a court case about this.)
In English money, a trillion was a _million_ billion (i.e. 10^18).
So you really think its worth 3.5 billion UKP to stop a few months benefit fraud? (And that just the cards, not the card readers and other infrastructure.)
Me thinks there are _many_ better things on which to spend the money than setting up the infrastructure of a police state.
Early in my research career I made the mistake of using FrameMaker. At the time, I actually thought it was quite good for writing long academic reports (compared to troff, eqn, MS-Word and WordPerfect)... until a change in my contractual position at work meant that I lost access to the floating licence. I could not afford to buy my own licence, so I had a many months-worth of written material, with lots of complex formulae and diagrams, that I could no longer use.
I changed to LaTeX for this reason: it runs on virtually everything; it is free; documents will always look exactly the same, regardless of operating system and printer (unlike many wordprocessing systems); it is guaranteed to be backwards compatible `forever'; and it is excellent for integrating different authors' submissions into one uniform volume. (In addition to the document class system, and the unsurpassed quality of the typography, all authors can use LaTeX without paying for an overpriced licence, and without being obliged to run any particular operating system).
Using LaTeX means that I know I, and others, will always have access to everything I have written. There are no such guarantees with Framemaker and other proprietary systems. This will be familiar to Linux users who adopted FrameMaker, only to find that at the end of last year that all software licenses expired permanently, and that their documents were destined to be trapped in an inaccessible proprietary format unless they exported to another format before the licences died.
I find LaTeX fine for day-to-day office work, I just edit simple template documents for letters and faxes. Under X, Lyx and Klyx can be used to put a more friendly face on it. There are similar intefaces available for MS-Windows (e.g. Scientific Workplace) and MacOS.
As for MS-Word, I know of several people who used it to write academic books only to live to regret it. Most would wished they had used WordPerfect or LaTeX (if they had heard of it). In my experience, those involved in writing and editing collaborative work seem to greatly favour LaTeX once they had tried it.
I think that when it comes to digital libraries, it is essential to use open, platform neutral document formats that recognise the need for long-term support. This is one area in which there is nothing that can touch (La)TeX, at least for technical publications.
In relation to computer operating systems, yes they do.
Mm, Microsoft claims trademark on Windows, Word, and other terms, yet in many countries these trademark claims are not legitmate (as I recall, MS has repeatedly had its claim on Word``(tm)'' rejected in the UK for example).
In the case of `(Internet) Explorer', Microsoft actually infringed another US companies trademark, and only settled, for a fairly paltry sum, once they had bankrupted the company by keeping the dispute on the boil for long enough; the trademark owner spent all their capital defending their claim (as apparently they were required to do under US law). It seems that US trademark law is designed to allow the rich bully to win.
Unfortunately the WTO (aka US Empire R US), via Tripps and similar agreements may make matters worse. I do not look forward to the day when common words of one language (English say) registered in a country which does not speak that language (say Brazil) can be defended as world-wide Trademarks. I believe that there are some companies and individuals who specialise in trademarking everyday words around the world.
I always wonder about corporations that engage in a wide range of activities and whether they can really claim trademark rights in all their areas of operation. Virgin for example once threatened legal action against every single company in Australia which used the word Virgin in their name, including window cleaners and small garages. They subsequently dropped the threat due to bad publicity. Clearly they do not see their trademark as being restricted to the original activities of the company (mail-order records).
So if Microsoft diversified into the double-glazing/window replacement business, would it sue?
[Free] has always referred to price. That's what it means. That's all.
That puts an interesting twist on the old phrase `the free-men of Norfolk and Suffolk'!
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the history of this language will know that `free' originally meant `without obligation or binding', a `free-man' being someone who was free to roam and engage in work of their choosing, in contrast to the majority of subjects, who were `tied' to a landlord and/or parish. Compare with rope work; the term `free end' does not refer to the one that does not cost anything.
To me at least, it is clear that when RMS refers to `free' software he is using the word in something like its original sense (except that there is an obligation, which is not to impose further obligations or bindings).
From one RFC supporting HTML-email basher to another:
you have made the common mistake of confusing Microsoft's proprietary and every-changing `Rich Text Format' (RTF) for documents with the open standard for formatting emails which is actually called `` Enriched Text.'' (That was supposed to be a demonstration of the Enriched Text tags)
If only Microsoft, Netscape et al supported the Enriched Text RFC instead of the stupid so-called `HTML email', then (almost) every one would be happy. And if only advocates of open standards could get their facts right...
SECAM is nothing to do with PAL, it has a different number of lines (circa 800) and a different colour encoding scheme. You might be confused by the fact that video tapes and other things are sometimes marked as `PAL/SECAM' compatible. This does not mean that SECAM is a form of PAL.
The PAL world _is_ divided, but only by different audio sub-band offsets when transmitted on analogue UHF, e.g. when moving between Germany and the UK you typically have to get a TV engineer to alter your TV/Video tuner's audio offset, otherwise you cannot get sound and picture at the same time. NICAM sound is another matter...
I sure hope your digital TV isn't at all interactive, because that'd mean it was covered by BT's patent on linking. "Oh, but that's different-- it's a corporation.
Not quite, ``Oh, but that's different...'' because the BT patent to which you refer does not apply in the UK. This may have been an oversight by BT, but it is quite possibly because the USPO is less picky about what can be patented... another symptom of US control freakery?