Do you also trust users to not run a piece of malicious code that shows up purporting to be some groovy new Linux app that will do some groovy new thing?
Do you users actually know how to do such a thing?... I didn't think so.
Ha! That's funny. Isn't it awful though? I can't believe the amount of crap I find on these computers nowadays. I really REALLY want to talk the suits into striking a deal with Norton or some other popular AV company to get our customer a good discount on a quality AV utility. Heck if we could get the cost down to $10/year per user I'd try to talk the suits into giving it to them as part of their installation fees. Then they need to be educated on the use of tools like Adaware. We can't hold their hands for everything but it would sure be nice if we could get them through some of the simple but critical things.
MOD POINTS NEEDED HERE
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. How is this going to work? What will places like SourceForge do with their many mailing lists? Their existing mail systems won't be able to handle the load, that's for sure. Who's gonna foot the bill for more horsepower? What about us as a provider? We're building a new mail system right this very minute thanks to the influx of spam and viruses (our old mail system was about to go under). This system involves 3 pricey Dell SMP boxes. Who's gonna pay for us to buy more horsepower for these damned computations? The customers? I don't think they'd like paying $10 a month extra. This plan is so unbelievably flawed it isn't even funny.
Re:Cha ching, reloaded.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And what the hell are we providers supposed to do? We're already having to upgrade our mail system to deal with the unbelievable increase in infected email and spam. Now we're supposed to add computations to each and every message that passes through our boxes? Who the hell is going to pay for that? We're having to "absorb" the costs of the 3 new SMP boxes that will make up our new mail system. We can't afford to do this ever couple of months. That is unless YOU as a customer want to foot the bill. How would you like to pay an extra $10/month for your Internet access? I didn't think you'd like it. And who's going to pay for the inevitable Microsoft licensing fees? We're sure as hell not going to.
Now just you wait a minute. I've done this very thing and I can certainly tell you I wasn't extorting anybody. I worked for my local provider when I was younger. When I went off to college I was no longer an employee, however I did keep their systems running for free. When I took another job I continued keeping their systems running for free. Why did I do all this free work? I had a previous working relationship with them. I knew many of their customers personally. Hell my mother was one of their customers. If their systems went done it would be me she'd call. If I didn't keep their systems running they'd try to fix a problem themselves and create many times more work for me in the end. I eventually negotiated a contract with them. Before that I had to stop doing any work for them for free because I simply didn't have the time to do two jobs at once, at least not the way they wanted it done when they wanted it done. They eventually signed me on for a regular monthly contract which last for a year. At the end of that year the decided not to renew the contract. I stopped doing all work for them at that point. Every so often they'd ask me to do something for them. I'd tell them about what it would take and tell them to get back to me when they had the approval of the person who could authorize my payment. I'd never hear back from them. This went from the January before last to this past Fall. In the Fall they finally started hiring me to do things for them. I'm doing an awful lot of work for them right now. The point is I stopped doing work I'd previously done for free unless they could afford to higher me. I wasn't extorting them. I just couldn't afford to perform my services for them for free any longer. Simple as that.
Think about it like this: I (a car dealership) loan a van with my logo plastered on the side to you (a private school) to use for your school's needs. I pay the gas. I pay the upkeep. I pay the driver. I agree to do this for free so long as my company's logo stays on the side of the van. After a few years I'm feeling the economical crunch. I tell you that I can't afford to continue providing the van, upkeep, and driver for free. I ask if you can offset my considerable costs. To demonstrate just exactly how much it has costs to operate such a venture, I tell you how much the project has cost me in total: $300,000. I ask if you can help offset my costs. You say no. On my way off the campus I take my van and driver with me (stop the service). You sue me for extortion. Are you in the right? Hell no.
On the topic of ownership, using the example above, do you own my van? Hell no again. Now we're all assuming this guy bought the domain himself and paid all the renewal fees. We're all assuming he never received any compensation for the website of *any* sort. This guy is a former reserve deputy. Was he given any sort of time off from his reserve duties for maintaining this site? etc... From the single fairly unbiased article we have to work with, it sounds like this guy is in the right. The other site is run by the defendant so we sure as hell can't trust what it says. Maybe we'll get more facts in the weeks to come. It does sound like the guy is in the right.
I'm sure of it. I contend that almost every single user that users IE has fell victim to a drive by spyware install. I cleansed a Win98 box back around New Years for a friend of the family. That machine had more pieces of spyware than you could shake a digital stick at. Adaware detected 873 items to remove (bad cookies, binaries, etc). I shit you not. 873. Their machine was running slower than a 486 I once had that had Win95 loaded on it (oh my god it was awful). Spyware was stepping on the feet of other pieces of spyware. Xupiter, Gator, you name it, it was there. Their machine was only a couple years old and had been freshly reloaded (HD crash) less than a year before. This is a fairly educated family of two teachers, a high school-aged son (doesn't use the computer much), and a very small daughter (not old enough to use the computer). They can't stand a better chance of getting infiltrated any more than any other typical Windows user. If they had it that bad imagine what other people have on their machines. 1:20 seems extremely low to me. I'd rather believe 19:20 are infected/infiltrated.
This machine is a 1Ghz eMac I'm borrowing. Not a great machine but it gets the job done. I don't really know what kind of video chipset it has in it. Never really cared enough to look.:)
I didn't actually get the Mac version to work. The mouse scrolling was really bad (slow!) and the graphic acceleration was really off. I didn't mess with it much but it never really worked for me either. I'm sure that figured it out though. I'm buying.:)
You're old fashioned.:-) I can see it going both ways but I've almost always seen it used to negate something. Like in SpamAssassin, the way to negate the checking of a particular rule is to set it's score to 0. Anyhow, I really thought that was odd. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
Ever since my last HD failure (well, not the last one but the one about half a dozen or so back) on my then primary desktop I haven't used a GUI MUA religiously. I use Pine myself. It gets me by. Someday I'll can it and find a good replacement for Claris Emailer (laugh all you want but I loved that app. It worked very well). Until then it's Pine and occasionally SquirrelMail for me.
Ah man. NOOooooooo.... Not Pegasuck. We used to be required to provide support for that at K-State. It was awful. No one wanted to support it. Vet Med used it almost exclusively with their Mercury mail server. I discovered one day that they'd goofed when pre-defining the preferences for everyone (they precreated the default prefs for everyone to streamline the config process). They set the mail check interval (in seconds) to 0. Many of us would assume 0 means not to check automatically. Well, apparently that fact escaped the Pegasuck developers at that time. In that version at least 0 meant to check mail continuously. As soon as one connection was complete Pegasuck would try again. I discovered this while trying to diagnose some major problems for a new Mac user on their network. I had a spare machine with me at the time and an old 3com hub. I hooked it all up and watched the collision light go apeshit. I thought that was a bit odd so I fired up Etherpeek and watched the mail nightmare unfold. Each machine was checking mail on average every 7 seconds (it took that long on average to complete a single connection given the load). It was horrible.
Pegasuck, well, sucks. We hated supporting it as much as we hated supporting SAS and SPSS.
I can think of at least one reason (security concerns excluded). It has absolutley worthless mail filtering capabilities. Don't let the pretty filtering options confuse you. Actually to use them to conditionally filter out a header line like:
X-Spam-Score: 23.7 (23 asterisks go here) CALL_FREE,CHECK_OR_MONEY_ORDER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
I had to remove the 23 asterisks thanks to Slashdot's fscking lameness filter. I hate that god damn thing.
Seriously, try to conditionally filter on that line. If the score is >=5=10 move it into a Spam folder. Come on. I'd like to see you do it. Every other MUA I tried can do it. Outloook can't. Spam filtering is one of my professions. I have to come up with end to end solutions that include MUA filtering. Outlook can't do this simple thing. Here's another one. Look for a header called Sender and then check to see if its value contains "razor-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net." That's it. Real simple filter for most MUAs. Outlook can't do it. Best Outlook can do is match the entire string "Sender: razor-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net" anywhere in the headers, even Subject line.
Outlook has many "pretty" features but the damned thing lacks too many simple features we users of other MUAs take for granted.
The Fat Lady has been warming up on the SCO issue for so long she's as skinny as Calista Flockhart who has been ever so lovingly described as an "anorexic squirrel.":-)
I disagree. The groups you refer have one thing in common that the homosexual group doesn't have. All those groups can be readily identified as being ABC visually. I can simply glamce at an African American and immediately know that he's African American. At the time of the horrific acts committed against the Native Americans it was also quite easy to visually identify them as Native Americans. I contend that if you could readily identify a homosexual person by their appearence than the level of "gay bashing" would drastically increase. I believe it would near the levels of the racial civil rights movement.
Sexual preference is civil rights matter as much as is one's race.
In Europe the parties don't have a canonical way to determine their candidates for office. It's mostly done during a vote on a party convention, and the people going to those conventions are determined by the local party groups of members by whatever method the single local party group thinks is fitting (Even if it is "who has the time to go to that convention?").
If that system isn't one that's horrifically wide open to abuse then I don't know what is. Lets say for example that the local party is run by your local mafia. Do you think you have a say in your local politics (that won't get you knee caps shattered)? Didn't think so. Lets say your local party group is greatly influenced by your major local employer such as a mining company that's the only staple of a community. Think you have as much right to a vote as the company does? Didn't think so. Man, I can't imagine a system like that. Hell it breeds corruption. It makes our screwed up system look good. Yikes.
You know, and I say this in all honesty, I see absolutely no point whatsoever to having political parties. All it does is promote things are in no way shape or form benefit the voters, the constituents, the people our elected officials are supposed to represent. A perfect example of this is the towing of party lines. I didn't vote a political party into office. I voted for a man or woman and their stance on the issues into office. A party, Republican for example, can't represent the views of all Republican voters across the US. A republican in Florida has different views on the issues than a republican in Kansas. A New York Democrat will have different views that a Texas Democrat. How can a single party claim to cover all areas of the US?
If political parties were no more then there wouldn't be a need for party primaries. The only problem I could see here is there might be hundreds of people on the ballot come election time. Some way of thinning the weeds would be neccessary.
Many of the procedures in European countries that you describe are troubling to me. I hate the thought of a political party having complete control over my elected officials. That sounds more like organized crime to me.
Slavery and the horrendous treatment of the Native Americans, of the working class, and of every ethnic minority (e.g., Italian, Irish, Chinese, Africans, etc.) were possible 100 years ago, but are not today.
Today's civil rights (or lack thereof) victim is the homosexual population. In 20 or 30 years we'll look back with our kids at those that supported a constitutional ban against homosexual marriages and shiver at the thought of how their hatred of any possible threat to their sexuality and/or religion compelled their unconstitutional position. We'll look back on the
"gay bashing" violence of that era with the same disdain we have for the racial violence of the 60s and 70s. Until that time however the homosexual community will have a long road ahead of them of troubled times. Best of luck to them.
That then begs the question, "who will be the next group to be discriminated against?"
Any vote in Kansas that is not Republican in nature is a wasted vote. That's pretty bad IMHO. I vote to abolish the electoral college. Heck I vote to abolish political parties altogether since they are entirely worthless in this modern society, but that's just me.
The US already has laws against frivolous lawsuits and frivolous threats of lawsuits. This isn't anything new. These laws are seldom enforced though. This is akin to some large Linux organization taking SCO to court to get an injunction against them (using such laws) to prevent them from dissing the Linux group's userbase. This isn't a matter of 1st Amendment rights. I don't have the right to say (when I know it's wrong) that I own the rights to the software you wrote. I don't have the right to threaten to sue all people that use your software because I own it and didn't license it to them. I don't have the right to paint the picture of drugged-up punks using software allegedly stolen from me, thus slandering their good names. You simply don't understand the law. This is a knee-jerk reaction that makes a bigger deal out of something than it should be. Hell it creates an issue where really there wasn't an issue to begin with.
That's not the way it's supposed to be though. You and I are not customer of Logitech. Apple is Logitech's customer. Only they can call up Logitech and bitch and moan and threaten to take *their* business elsewhere, not us. I'll say it again, WE AREN'T LOGITECH'S CUSTOMER. APPLE IS. If it was a component integrated into the system like a LSI or Adaptec SCSI controller then it would be Apple's problem. It's not however. It's a simple accessory. I argued about this problemm on a different product a few days ago: school buses. Even though our buses have an International chassis we aren't an International customer. Thomas and Blue Bird are International customers. We shouldn't complain to International about problems with our buses. We should complain to Thomas and they as the customer of International should complain for us.
My folks are building a new house at this very moment. Remote control lighting is one of the things my mother would like. It's not so much the turning on and off of lights upstairs from downstairs that she wants (although I'm sure she wouldn't mind the "feature"). Instead she wants the ability to turn on some of the house's lights via remote as she's coming up the drive. The house is in the sticks where it's nice and quiet and no one can hear a Jehovah Witness solicitor scream (:-) ). The bad thing is my folks arrive home at different times and usually after dark. It's a mile or so as the crow flies to the nearest neighbor. Obviously my mother would prefer to turn on numerous lights for security reasons. Does anyone have any recommendations for this application?
I guess I can't support America's paranoia about its own sexuality.
Or utter lack thereof. I swear George Carlin's comedy routine about the "pussification of America" is becoming more and more true everyday. How did my country go from a bunch of billy-badasses to a bunch of snively, whining, bitching, and moaning candy-asses that they are today? Man this sucks.
You also don't have to be religious or prudish to be a half-assed decent parent that either monitors their children's Internet activities or filters it for them. I really get sick of parents copping to blaming someone else for their shitty parenting skills. Perhaps it's that they just don't give a damn and find it's easier to blame someone else when their skills are questioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you users actually know how to do such a thing? ... I didn't think so.
Ha! That's funny. Isn't it awful though? I can't believe the amount of crap I find on these computers nowadays. I really REALLY want to talk the suits into striking a deal with Norton or some other popular AV company to get our customer a good discount on a quality AV utility. Heck if we could get the cost down to $10/year per user I'd try to talk the suits into giving it to them as part of their installation fees. Then they need to be educated on the use of tools like Adaware. We can't hold their hands for everything but it would sure be nice if we could get them through some of the simple but critical things.
Exactly. How is this going to work? What will places like SourceForge do with their many mailing lists? Their existing mail systems won't be able to handle the load, that's for sure. Who's gonna foot the bill for more horsepower? What about us as a provider? We're building a new mail system right this very minute thanks to the influx of spam and viruses (our old mail system was about to go under). This system involves 3 pricey Dell SMP boxes. Who's gonna pay for us to buy more horsepower for these damned computations? The customers? I don't think they'd like paying $10 a month extra. This plan is so unbelievably flawed it isn't even funny.
And what the hell are we providers supposed to do? We're already having to upgrade our mail system to deal with the unbelievable increase in infected email and spam. Now we're supposed to add computations to each and every message that passes through our boxes? Who the hell is going to pay for that? We're having to "absorb" the costs of the 3 new SMP boxes that will make up our new mail system. We can't afford to do this ever couple of months. That is unless YOU as a customer want to foot the bill. How would you like to pay an extra $10/month for your Internet access? I didn't think you'd like it. And who's going to pay for the inevitable Microsoft licensing fees? We're sure as hell not going to.
Now just you wait a minute. I've done this very thing and I can certainly tell you I wasn't extorting anybody. I worked for my local provider when I was younger. When I went off to college I was no longer an employee, however I did keep their systems running for free. When I took another job I continued keeping their systems running for free. Why did I do all this free work? I had a previous working relationship with them. I knew many of their customers personally. Hell my mother was one of their customers. If their systems went done it would be me she'd call. If I didn't keep their systems running they'd try to fix a problem themselves and create many times more work for me in the end. I eventually negotiated a contract with them. Before that I had to stop doing any work for them for free because I simply didn't have the time to do two jobs at once, at least not the way they wanted it done when they wanted it done. They eventually signed me on for a regular monthly contract which last for a year. At the end of that year the decided not to renew the contract. I stopped doing all work for them at that point. Every so often they'd ask me to do something for them. I'd tell them about what it would take and tell them to get back to me when they had the approval of the person who could authorize my payment. I'd never hear back from them. This went from the January before last to this past Fall. In the Fall they finally started hiring me to do things for them. I'm doing an awful lot of work for them right now. The point is I stopped doing work I'd previously done for free unless they could afford to higher me. I wasn't extorting them. I just couldn't afford to perform my services for them for free any longer. Simple as that.
On the topic of ownership, using the example above, do you own my van? Hell no again. Now we're all assuming this guy bought the domain himself and paid all the renewal fees. We're all assuming he never received any compensation for the website of *any* sort. This guy is a former reserve deputy. Was he given any sort of time off from his reserve duties for maintaining this site? etc... From the single fairly unbiased article we have to work with, it sounds like this guy is in the right. The other site is run by the defendant so we sure as hell can't trust what it says. Maybe we'll get more facts in the weeks to come. It does sound like the guy is in the right.
I'm sure of it. I contend that almost every single user that users IE has fell victim to a drive by spyware install. I cleansed a Win98 box back around New Years for a friend of the family. That machine had more pieces of spyware than you could shake a digital stick at. Adaware detected 873 items to remove (bad cookies, binaries, etc). I shit you not. 873. Their machine was running slower than a 486 I once had that had Win95 loaded on it (oh my god it was awful). Spyware was stepping on the feet of other pieces of spyware. Xupiter, Gator, you name it, it was there. Their machine was only a couple years old and had been freshly reloaded (HD crash) less than a year before. This is a fairly educated family of two teachers, a high school-aged son (doesn't use the computer much), and a very small daughter (not old enough to use the computer). They can't stand a better chance of getting infiltrated any more than any other typical Windows user. If they had it that bad imagine what other people have on their machines. 1:20 seems extremely low to me. I'd rather believe 19:20 are infected/infiltrated.
This machine is a 1Ghz eMac I'm borrowing. Not a great machine but it gets the job done. I don't really know what kind of video chipset it has in it. Never really cared enough to look. :)
I hear the SCO lawyers are great at playing pool....
I didn't actually get the Mac version to work. The mouse scrolling was really bad (slow!) and the graphic acceleration was really off. I didn't mess with it much but it never really worked for me either. I'm sure that figured it out though. I'm buying. :)
You're old fashioned. :-) I can see it going both ways but I've almost always seen it used to negate something. Like in SpamAssassin, the way to negate the checking of a particular rule is to set it's score to 0. Anyhow, I really thought that was odd. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
Ever since my last HD failure (well, not the last one but the one about half a dozen or so back) on my then primary desktop I haven't used a GUI MUA religiously. I use Pine myself. It gets me by. Someday I'll can it and find a good replacement for Claris Emailer (laugh all you want but I loved that app. It worked very well). Until then it's Pine and occasionally SquirrelMail for me.
Pegasuck, well, sucks. We hated supporting it as much as we hated supporting SAS and SPSS.
X-Spam-Score: 23.7 (23 asterisks go here) CALL_FREE,CHECK_OR_MONEY_ORDER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
I had to remove the 23 asterisks thanks to Slashdot's fscking lameness filter. I hate that god damn thing.
Seriously, try to conditionally filter on that line. If the score is >=5=10 move it into a Spam folder. Come on. I'd like to see you do it. Every other MUA I tried can do it. Outloook can't. Spam filtering is one of my professions. I have to come up with end to end solutions that include MUA filtering. Outlook can't do this simple thing. Here's another one. Look for a header called Sender and then check to see if its value contains "razor-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net." That's it. Real simple filter for most MUAs. Outlook can't do it. Best Outlook can do is match the entire string "Sender: razor-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net" anywhere in the headers, even Subject line.
Outlook has many "pretty" features but the damned thing lacks too many simple features we users of other MUAs take for granted.
The Fat Lady has been warming up on the SCO issue for so long she's as skinny as Calista Flockhart who has been ever so lovingly described as an "anorexic squirrel." :-)
Sexual preference is civil rights matter as much as is one's race.
If that system isn't one that's horrifically wide open to abuse then I don't know what is. Lets say for example that the local party is run by your local mafia. Do you think you have a say in your local politics (that won't get you knee caps shattered)? Didn't think so. Lets say your local party group is greatly influenced by your major local employer such as a mining company that's the only staple of a community. Think you have as much right to a vote as the company does? Didn't think so. Man, I can't imagine a system like that. Hell it breeds corruption. It makes our screwed up system look good. Yikes.
If political parties were no more then there wouldn't be a need for party primaries. The only problem I could see here is there might be hundreds of people on the ballot come election time. Some way of thinning the weeds would be neccessary.
Many of the procedures in European countries that you describe are troubling to me. I hate the thought of a political party having complete control over my elected officials. That sounds more like organized crime to me.
Today's civil rights (or lack thereof) victim is the homosexual population. In 20 or 30 years we'll look back with our kids at those that supported a constitutional ban against homosexual marriages and shiver at the thought of how their hatred of any possible threat to their sexuality and/or religion compelled their unconstitutional position. We'll look back on the "gay bashing" violence of that era with the same disdain we have for the racial violence of the 60s and 70s. Until that time however the homosexual community will have a long road ahead of them of troubled times. Best of luck to them.
That then begs the question, "who will be the next group to be discriminated against?"
Any vote in Kansas that is not Republican in nature is a wasted vote. That's pretty bad IMHO. I vote to abolish the electoral college. Heck I vote to abolish political parties altogether since they are entirely worthless in this modern society, but that's just me.
The US already has laws against frivolous lawsuits and frivolous threats of lawsuits. This isn't anything new. These laws are seldom enforced though. This is akin to some large Linux organization taking SCO to court to get an injunction against them (using such laws) to prevent them from dissing the Linux group's userbase. This isn't a matter of 1st Amendment rights. I don't have the right to say (when I know it's wrong) that I own the rights to the software you wrote. I don't have the right to threaten to sue all people that use your software because I own it and didn't license it to them. I don't have the right to paint the picture of drugged-up punks using software allegedly stolen from me, thus slandering their good names. You simply don't understand the law. This is a knee-jerk reaction that makes a bigger deal out of something than it should be. Hell it creates an issue where really there wasn't an issue to begin with.
That's not the way it's supposed to be though. You and I are not customer of Logitech. Apple is Logitech's customer. Only they can call up Logitech and bitch and moan and threaten to take *their* business elsewhere, not us. I'll say it again, WE AREN'T LOGITECH'S CUSTOMER. APPLE IS. If it was a component integrated into the system like a LSI or Adaptec SCSI controller then it would be Apple's problem. It's not however. It's a simple accessory. I argued about this problemm on a different product a few days ago: school buses. Even though our buses have an International chassis we aren't an International customer. Thomas and Blue Bird are International customers. We shouldn't complain to International about problems with our buses. We should complain to Thomas and they as the customer of International should complain for us.
My folks are building a new house at this very moment. Remote control lighting is one of the things my mother would like. It's not so much the turning on and off of lights upstairs from downstairs that she wants (although I'm sure she wouldn't mind the "feature"). Instead she wants the ability to turn on some of the house's lights via remote as she's coming up the drive. The house is in the sticks where it's nice and quiet and no one can hear a Jehovah Witness solicitor scream ( :-) ). The bad thing is my folks arrive home at different times and usually after dark. It's a mile or so as the crow flies to the nearest neighbor. Obviously my mother would prefer to turn on numerous lights for security reasons. Does anyone have any recommendations for this application?
Or utter lack thereof. I swear George Carlin's comedy routine about the "pussification of America" is becoming more and more true everyday. How did my country go from a bunch of billy-badasses to a bunch of snively, whining, bitching, and moaning candy-asses that they are today? Man this sucks.
You also don't have to be religious or prudish to be a half-assed decent parent that either monitors their children's Internet activities or filters it for them. I really get sick of parents copping to blaming someone else for their shitty parenting skills. Perhaps it's that they just don't give a damn and find it's easier to blame someone else when their skills are questioned.