If you can't afford a couple hundred bucks for a good backup solution, I suggest you ask some friends if you can borrow some disk space on their machines. Sooner or later, you will lose the data on your laptop, one way or another.
Also, one of the benefits of breaking up Ma Bell was that one company, with one set of software, was no longer running the telephone system in the United States.
Uhh, except that now we have four, and they still haven't gotten rid of the original software. I used to know what it was called, I'm trying to remember - anyone know?
Well, I guess one of those 13 server sites (I assume they mean the roots) isn't running ATLAS now, is it?
I assume that you assume incorrectly.
There are also 13 gTLD servers, in addition to the 13 root servers: [a-m].gtld-servers.net are authoritative for the.com and.net gTLDs. Interestingly, it looks like the root servers are authoritative for.mil? Odd.
Verisign apparently also has [a-g,l-m].nstld.com, which are authoritative for.org,.edu,.gov, and [a,f,g,l].nstld.com share authority of.name with ns[1-3].nic.name.
how hard would it be for the website to say "An email will come from "Auto@domain.com"?
Not that hard, but that's not the point - the point is, how many of them do that now? If you could just get everybody to do things differently, then we wouldn't have all these problems, but you can't.
The first PPCs ran m68k code *slower* than the fastest m68k Macs. In particular, the 6100/60 was badly crippled by its lack of cache, and could be quite handily beaten by the faster 68040 Macs when running m68k apps.
This is true, I had a 6100/60, and running m68k apps, a 40MHz Quadra would run circles around the 60MHz PPC. However, recompile the app for PPC, and it would scream - and new PPC apps were coming out all the time.
The reason it was successful, though, was that running slower wasn't a big problem for the apps that hadn't been updated yet. If it was really important, it would get updated pretty quickly, or an alternative would present itself. Everything WORKED though, and it all worked transparently to the user. It wasn't obvious which apps were native and which weren't.
All that is required, it seems to me is for the leading ISP's to get together and create and enforce a standard that says your new-style email will be digitally signed with your legal name and that only ISP's that comply with enforcement practices will be allowed to use the new email protocol.
Does that mean I can't send e-mail without my real name attached? What if I prefer to maintain some level of anonymity in my online communications? Sure, my ISP can know who I am, but I should be able to send someone mail that doesn't have my real name on it, to someone whose real name I don't know.
I think it's also important for children - someday I'll probably have kids, and I certainly plan to teach them about basic safety rules, which includes not giving out your last name or address to anyone online, including by sending them e-mail with your name on it. Goes along with not taking candy from strangers.
If an ISP's Abuse team receives 300 messages per day, not replying to them can save a lot of time. It doesn't sound hard to just hit the reply button, but it takes more effort than you might expect, on that scale. Just because you don't get a reply doesn't mean they ignored your message - it probably got sorted into a folder with other complaints, and if they have several complaints about one customer, they're all handled together. It's not uncommon for one customer with an open relay to generate, say, 15 complaints from SpamCop plus 3 non-SpamCop complaints within 24 hours, and it would be silly to handle these individually.
Ever sign up for a free account for something on a web site, and it said they'll send you a confirmation e-mail with a link you have to click on to verify your e-mail address? It's a very common technique that works very well.
Except that it won't work if I whitelist my mail. I'd have to add the site to my whitelist before they send me anything, and I don't know where the mail will be coming from. Since it's an automated system, a response from a whitelist system won't be seen by a real human.
You had a puncher? Ha! Kids these days! Why, back in my day, we had to cut the write-protect holes out of our floppies with a pair of kitchen scissors!
IE 5.x on the Mac is NOT the same as IE 5.x on Windows. There are pages that render significantly differently across the two. I've made some, quite by accident.
or clunky ports (Mozilla).
Since Mozilla was designed from the ground up to be fully cross-platform, I don't see how it can be called a "clunky port". IE for Mac OS X could be called a "clunky port", maybe (of IE for Mac OS 9, which was an elegant port of IE for Windows).
This makes the Macintosh feel substantially less consistent than Windows (which is an ironic turn of events).
I hear you there - it's pretty weird to select text in Mozilla, press Command-C to copy it, then paste it into xchat by middle-clicking.
And thus abbreviations were born. ie::) lol, rofl, btw, wtf
This is exactly right. "A/S/L?" came from AOL chatrooms though.
I also think 300 baud modems are partially to blame for L33+ 5p34k, in some way.
I don't think so - l33t sp34k doesn't save characters, and certainly doesn't make things easier to type (or read). I think it evolved from the warez crowd (the ones who deliberately misspelled "wares" with a "z").
I wonder how many people claim to have invented that. Algore perhaps?
I'm not sure, but I've heard people pronounce "warez" as "war-ez" instead of as "wares", and swear up and down that they know what they're talking about. Morons.
That's not an argument, it's just negation. I paid for an argument!
Oh! Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 12-A, just along the corridor.
Re:5 million solders? I dont think so.
on
Blizzard Births BBS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Another example is "Three-hundred baud is around five words a second - you can read faster than that". First of all it's more like fifty words per second, and no, you generally can't read novel material faster than that (and I've tried, on live chat with a 300 baud connection when other people were using 2400bps modems - and I'm a fast reader).
Um, dude, yes, you can read text at 300bps. You might have trouble reading a novel at that speed, but you can certainly read text from a chatroom (or teleconference, as they were called in those days). Assuming N81 (no parity, 8 bits per byte and one stop bit), that's 33 characters per second, which is about 5 words or so. Maybe 6 or 7 if they're short.
If everyone else was at 2400bps, 300bps may have seemed fast if you were also trying to type at the same time the text was coming in. That was kinda challenging.
Likewise, I rather enjoy looking at the Victoria's Secret catalog... Does that make it pornography, and if so, is my mailman a pusher?;)
That reminds me, I should call them and tell them to stop sending those (addressed to someone who no longer lives here).
As far as I know, Victoria's Secret doesn't use models under 18 in their catalog, so even if it is porn, it's not child pornography, and thus not any more illegal than having a subscription to Hustler, which your mailman would also deliver. Unlike spam, the Victoria's Secret catalog generally doesn't arrive unsolicited, and you can easily get them to stop sending it to you. Or at least that's what I'm about to find out.
That's good. Next question, though, is: will the ISP be required to verify that the site does, in fact, have child porn? If so, does that mean they're legally requiring people to view child pornography? That's pretty disturbing, and I certainly wouldn't want that job (nor would I want anyone who would want that job to have that job). If not, what's to stop people from saying "http://slashdot.org/ is a kiddie-pr0n site, and I demand that you block that site now! And besides, they keep linking to http://goatse.cx/"?
Now, it should be patently obvious that Microsoft doesn't want you running Linux-on-Windows, Windows-on-Linux, Windows-on-Mac, or anything other than Windows-on-Windows. So you have to wonder what they're up to, here.
Nope, Windows-on-Mac is fine, because if you're gonna use a Mac, you might as well pay them for a copy of Windows. Windows-on-BSD might even be OK for the same reason. Windows-on-Linux is evil though, because the GPL is anti-American.
Besides, even if it hadnt, how does MSFT make money from PSX games?
By giving people one more reason to buy an X-Box instead of a Playstation, thus allowing the user to buy X-Box games in addition to the Playstation games they would have bought anyway.
And then, by driving Sony out of the console market and then raising the price of the X-Box?
While it does stop some fair use (depending on the technology), I think calling it "anti-piracy technology" is completely appropriate. That is what it is designed for, and the major task it accomplishes. Saying it isn't descriptive enough is like saying the alarm system on a car shouldn't be called an "anti-theft device" because it also stops the rightful owner of breaking in when he loses his keys. Nit-picking at terminology isn't going to help the actual battle.
However, the purpose of the proposed warning labels is to alert consumers of anti-copy technology that may prevent them from legally copying the music they buy. It is not to alert consumers of anti-piracy technology, since piracy (or rather, copyright infringement) is illegal anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't afford a couple hundred bucks for a good backup solution, I suggest you ask some friends if you can borrow some disk space on their machines. Sooner or later, you will lose the data on your laptop, one way or another.
Really, how much is it worth to you?
It's true. They didn't even look at the same RFCs... ;-)
Which came first, BIND or the RFCs?
Also, one of the benefits of breaking up Ma Bell was that one company, with one set of software, was no longer running the telephone system in the United States.
Uhh, except that now we have four, and they still haven't gotten rid of the original software. I used to know what it was called, I'm trying to remember - anyone know?
Well, I guess one of those 13 server sites (I assume they mean the roots) isn't running ATLAS now, is it?
.com and .net gTLDs. Interestingly, it looks like the root servers are authoritative for .mil? Odd.
.org, .edu, .gov, and [a,f,g,l].nstld.com share authority of .name with ns[1-3].nic.name.
I assume that you assume incorrectly.
There are also 13 gTLD servers, in addition to the 13 root servers: [a-m].gtld-servers.net are authoritative for the
Verisign apparently also has [a-g,l-m].nstld.com, which are authoritative for
a.root-servers.net and j.root-servers.net
Yes, and J changed its IP a few months ago when it moved across town - they were both at the same facility, which was dumb.
how hard would it be for the website to say "An email will come from "Auto@domain.com"?
Not that hard, but that's not the point - the point is, how many of them do that now? If you could just get everybody to do things differently, then we wouldn't have all these problems, but you can't.
Didn't I hear that Microsoft bought VirtualPC from Connectix for exactly this reason?
Last I heard it was billg@microsoft.com.
The first PPCs ran m68k code *slower* than the fastest m68k Macs. In particular, the 6100/60 was badly crippled by its lack of cache, and could be quite handily beaten by the faster 68040 Macs when running m68k apps.
This is true, I had a 6100/60, and running m68k apps, a 40MHz Quadra would run circles around the 60MHz PPC. However, recompile the app for PPC, and it would scream - and new PPC apps were coming out all the time.
The reason it was successful, though, was that running slower wasn't a big problem for the apps that hadn't been updated yet. If it was really important, it would get updated pretty quickly, or an alternative would present itself. Everything WORKED though, and it all worked transparently to the user. It wasn't obvious which apps were native and which weren't.
All that is required, it seems to me is for the leading ISP's to get together and create and enforce a standard that says your new-style email will be digitally signed with your legal name and that only ISP's that comply with enforcement practices will be allowed to use the new email protocol.
Does that mean I can't send e-mail without my real name attached? What if I prefer to maintain some level of anonymity in my online communications? Sure, my ISP can know who I am, but I should be able to send someone mail that doesn't have my real name on it, to someone whose real name I don't know.
I think it's also important for children - someday I'll probably have kids, and I certainly plan to teach them about basic safety rules, which includes not giving out your last name or address to anyone online, including by sending them e-mail with your name on it. Goes along with not taking candy from strangers.
If an ISP's Abuse team receives 300 messages per day, not replying to them can save a lot of time. It doesn't sound hard to just hit the reply button, but it takes more effort than you might expect, on that scale. Just because you don't get a reply doesn't mean they ignored your message - it probably got sorted into a folder with other complaints, and if they have several complaints about one customer, they're all handled together. It's not uncommon for one customer with an open relay to generate, say, 15 complaints from SpamCop plus 3 non-SpamCop complaints within 24 hours, and it would be silly to handle these individually.
Ever sign up for a free account for something on a web site, and it said they'll send you a confirmation e-mail with a link you have to click on to verify your e-mail address? It's a very common technique that works very well.
Except that it won't work if I whitelist my mail. I'd have to add the site to my whitelist before they send me anything, and I don't know where the mail will be coming from. Since it's an automated system, a response from a whitelist system won't be seen by a real human.
We had to punch one hole in it to double-side it.
You had a puncher? Ha! Kids these days! Why, back in my day, we had to cut the write-protect holes out of our floppies with a pair of kitchen scissors!
obsolete (IE 5.x)
IE 5.x on the Mac is NOT the same as IE 5.x on Windows. There are pages that render significantly differently across the two. I've made some, quite by accident.
or clunky ports (Mozilla).
Since Mozilla was designed from the ground up to be fully cross-platform, I don't see how it can be called a "clunky port". IE for Mac OS X could be called a "clunky port", maybe (of IE for Mac OS 9, which was an elegant port of IE for Windows).
This makes the Macintosh feel substantially less consistent than Windows (which is an ironic turn of events).
I hear you there - it's pretty weird to select text in Mozilla, press Command-C to copy it, then paste it into xchat by middle-clicking.
I just cannot believe that even as many as 1% of all users are primarily using Linux.
Find 100 people who own a computer, and get them all in a big room. One of them being a Linux user isn't really that hard to imagine, isn't it?
And thus abbreviations were born. ie: :) lol, rofl, btw, wtf
This is exactly right. "A/S/L?" came from AOL chatrooms though.
I also think 300 baud modems are partially to blame for L33+ 5p34k, in some way.
I don't think so - l33t sp34k doesn't save characters, and certainly doesn't make things easier to type (or read). I think it evolved from the warez crowd (the ones who deliberately misspelled "wares" with a "z").
I wonder how many people claim to have invented that. Algore perhaps?
I'm not sure, but I've heard people pronounce "warez" as "war-ez" instead of as "wares", and swear up and down that they know what they're talking about. Morons.
That's not an argument, it's just negation. I paid for an argument!
Oh! Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 12-A, just along the corridor.
Another example is "Three-hundred baud is around five words a second - you can read faster than that". First of all it's more like fifty words per second, and no, you generally can't read novel material faster than that (and I've tried, on live chat with a 300 baud connection when other people were using 2400bps modems - and I'm a fast reader).
Um, dude, yes, you can read text at 300bps. You might have trouble reading a novel at that speed, but you can certainly read text from a chatroom (or teleconference, as they were called in those days). Assuming N81 (no parity, 8 bits per byte and one stop bit), that's 33 characters per second, which is about 5 words or so. Maybe 6 or 7 if they're short.
If everyone else was at 2400bps, 300bps may have seemed fast if you were also trying to type at the same time the text was coming in. That was kinda challenging.
Two stories from three decades ago...I guess Linux can only have so many kernel updates to report about...
Just wait til 2.6 is released (or did I hear they're gonna call in 3.0?); they'll release an update every couple of weeks.
Likewise, I rather enjoy looking at the Victoria's Secret catalog... Does that make it pornography, and if so, is my mailman a pusher? ;)
That reminds me, I should call them and tell them to stop sending those (addressed to someone who no longer lives here).
As far as I know, Victoria's Secret doesn't use models under 18 in their catalog, so even if it is porn, it's not child pornography, and thus not any more illegal than having a subscription to Hustler, which your mailman would also deliver. Unlike spam, the Victoria's Secret catalog generally doesn't arrive unsolicited, and you can easily get them to stop sending it to you. Or at least that's what I'm about to find out.
That's good. Next question, though, is: will the ISP be required to verify that the site does, in fact, have child porn? If so, does that mean they're legally requiring people to view child pornography? That's pretty disturbing, and I certainly wouldn't want that job (nor would I want anyone who would want that job to have that job). If not, what's to stop people from saying "http://slashdot.org/ is a kiddie-pr0n site, and I demand that you block that site now! And besides, they keep linking to http://goatse.cx/"?
gathering themselves together so only 3 baby bells exist?
Four by my count: BellSouth, Verizon, SBC and Qwest. Did I miss a merger?
Now, it should be patently obvious that Microsoft doesn't want you running Linux-on-Windows, Windows-on-Linux, Windows-on-Mac, or anything other than Windows-on-Windows. So you have to wonder what they're up to, here.
Nope, Windows-on-Mac is fine, because if you're gonna use a Mac, you might as well pay them for a copy of Windows. Windows-on-BSD might even be OK for the same reason. Windows-on-Linux is evil though, because the GPL is anti-American.
Besides, even if it hadnt, how does MSFT make money from PSX games?
By giving people one more reason to buy an X-Box instead of a Playstation, thus allowing the user to buy X-Box games in addition to the Playstation games they would have bought anyway.
And then, by driving Sony out of the console market and then raising the price of the X-Box?
While it does stop some fair use (depending on the technology), I think calling it "anti-piracy technology" is completely appropriate. That is what it is designed for, and the major task it accomplishes. Saying it isn't descriptive enough is like saying the alarm system on a car shouldn't be called an "anti-theft device" because it also stops the rightful owner of breaking in when he loses his keys. Nit-picking at terminology isn't going to help the actual battle.
However, the purpose of the proposed warning labels is to alert consumers of anti-copy technology that may prevent them from legally copying the music they buy. It is not to alert consumers of anti-piracy technology, since piracy (or rather, copyright infringement) is illegal anyway.