Tunneling is the feature where you can double-click a folder holding down the option key and the folder window behind it closes as the new one opens up. Imagine that you have a folder called "letters" inside of a folder called "docs" and have the "docs" window open. Double-click on "letters" holding down the option key. You'll see that docs closes and letters opens instead of keeping both windows open on your desktop. Oh yeah, that works fine. Didn't know the name for it, but I do it all the time (usually using Opt-Cmd-Down or Up arrows, rather than double-clicking). I believe this is something that was originally broken in older versions of OSX though - holding Option would simply invert the "Always open folders in a new window" option of Finder Preferences, making the Finder work as a single-window browser so double-clicking "letters" would cause the contents of the "letters" folder to be displayed in the same window that had been displaying the contents of the "docs" folder. Then you could use the forward/back navigation buttons. However, it's been fixed since then.
It is past tense, as are all the creation verses. The first word (vayitzer) can be exactly translated as "and He formed". (The "He" is left out in translations because the subject (G-d) is mentioned in the next two words.) So what's your opinion of the NIV's "had formed"? Does Hebrew have that tense and it wasn't used here? Does saying "and He formed" imply that this forming happened after what had just been described, or is it common for these things to be listed out of order?
I have two radio-controlled clocks. One of them obeys the DST bit, the other calculates it by the date. There is logic to both approaches.
NIST only changes the DST bit when the time change actually occurs; the broadcast doesn't include anything to say "the time is going to change soon". If you live near Colorado, that's probably fine, but for many of us, the signal is weak enough that depending on the weather, the clock can't actually hear it 24/7. A couple of years ago, when a DST change occurred, my clock failed to change, and I showed up an hour early to church. Within a day or so, it had corrected itself.
If you use the date to calculate when the DST change will occur, you don't have that problem. You can anticipate it, and reset the clock at precisely 2am, no matter what the weather is like. Obviously the problem here is that Congress can arbitrarily muck with it, so there really needs to be a way to update it. My other clock has this problem; I had to switch it from Pacific to Mountain time, then switch it back a few days ago. If I lived on the east coast, there would have been no way to make it display the correct time (it has a manual set button, but as soon as it picks up the radio signal, that will override the manually set time). I'm pretty unhappy about that.
So, is WWVB's broadcast format extensible? Would it be possible to add information about an upcoming DST change, without breaking existing clocks that don't expect this information? I know NTP handles upcoming leap seconds...
Until such is possible, I'll just have to deal with the limited amount of exposure to OSX that I receive while at work (we have a few iMac "workstations" students can use, but mostly they sit empty (the original ones, before the silly white rounded base with "floating" LCD)). How many PCs do you have that are more than 5 years old? How many students choose to use them?
The original iMac was released in August 1998 and the iMac G4 (with the "silly white rounded base") was released in January 2002. It's now 2007.
The last model of G3 iMac, introduced in July 2001, shipped with 256MB RAM standard; older models shipped with as little as 32MB. The all had 15" CRTs. How many PCs do you still have with those specs? It's no wonder they sit empty. Replace them with brand new iMacs (Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 17" or larger LCD) and you'll see students line up for a chance to use them.
window speed/performance of the finder This isn't a feature of classic Mac OS, it's poor coding in Mac OS X. They have improved it dramatically, and I expect them to continue to do so in future versions.
tunneling Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. Enlighten me?
fast open-apple-f find Agreed, Spotlight is great for certain things but not so great for other things. On faster hardware, it's not so bad.
application switch menu in the upper right corner of the screen Surely you don't actually switch between apps using the mouse?!? I always used a third-party solution for Cmd-Tab anyway (specifically, the Microsoft Office Manager), and Cmd-Tab in current versions of OSX is even better. As for identifying the frontmost application, I don't see how the top right corner is so much better than the top left corner - and moving About and Quit out of the File menu really does make a certain amount of sense.
file labels Uhh, they have these. They're just like classic Mac OS, and are backwards-compatible. Open Finder Preferences to change the label names. They now default to the names of the colors, instead of "Work", "Personal", etc., but you can change them back if you want.
Mac OS X is sluggish on a G4 cube. Go figure. It's sluggish on my 800MHz G4 iBook as well. Try it on new hardware. Also, I suspect you may be using an older version of Mac OS X, in which they hadn't yet fixed some of the problems you referred to. I'd say running Mac OS 9 on your Cube isn't a bad idea at all; if you don't need newer applications, the performance will be much better.
It makes me want to run out and buy a used PowerMac 6100/66 and run Mac OS 9 on it. ...However, I would NOT recommend running Mac OS 9 on a 6100. Maybe 8.1, but if 7.6 will suit your needs, that's where you'll see the best performance for that hardware.
Of course, one idea Mac OS 9 borrowed from Windows was making windows resizable by dragging at all four edges. I just wish Mac OS X had borrow that from Mac OS 9! As of Mac OS 8, windows could be moved (not resized) by dragging all four edges. If you were able to resize a window from anywhere but the bottom right corner, you were using a third-party hack.
In Mac OS X, "brushed metal" windows may be moved by dragging their edges (or anywhere else on the brushed metal part of the window); normal Aqua windows are borderless so that doesn't work. Personally I've always felt that having two different kinds of windows like this was pretty stupid; it was obviously a choice they made for visual aesthetics, not usability.
I know! Grr! And what's with that USB logo that's only on one side of the plug, almost as if it's there to tell you which side is the top... Oh wait, that is what it's for. Yeah, but which side of the port is "up" can vary between devices, particularly when the ports are vertical rather than horizontal. Also, the USB logo is molded into the plastic of the plug, so it's exactly the same color as the rest of the plug and impossible to see in low light (such as you're likely to have near a USB port). You might be able to tell the difference tactically, but the feel varies between plugs (if the reverse side were always smooth that might be OK, but it often isn't).
"OK, so the bible says god this, that, and the next thing. Does it say anywhere HOW he did it? And if it doesn't, did you ever wonder why? Did it ever occur to you that if god is POWERFUL enough to make a universe and populate it with life, then he might also be SMART enough to make it run AUTOMATICALLY according to certain laws, such as gravitation and evolution, that don't require constant meddling and micromanagement? And that these laws are simple enough that us mere humans can actually learn and understand them?" I absolutely agree with this line of reasoning. The problem is that although the Bible doesn't say HOW God did it, it does give an indication as to WHEN.
The first chapter of Genesis says the Earth and everything on it was created in a week, and we can extrapolate from genealogies that this was roughly 6,000 years ago. Some people have suggested that a "day" wasn't really a day, but there is absolutely no indication in the text that the six days of Creation were meant to be taken as anything other than literal days.
Although the word "death" often refers to spiritual separation from God rather than physical death, many people believe that there was also no physical death before the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. Evolution over millions of years would obviously have required physical death.
Finally, Genesis 2 is fairly clear that man was created separately from the animals, differently than the animals, in God's image. Woman was also created separately, "taken out of man." This really doesn't make much sense within the context of evolution.
I'm totally with you on other miracles such as Noah's Flood happening automatically through natural processes, though.
There's a slight difference between translations of Genesis 2:19. The NIV says:
"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field"...as in, God had already formed them. However, the KJV and NASB aren't as clear. I'm not a scholar of ancient Hebrew, so I can't say which translation is more accurate to the original text, but if the NIV is accurate, it certainly makes sense.
Genesis 1:27 briefly summarizes what is described in more detail in chapter 2. No contradiction there.
If the answer to one half of the question is yes but the answer to the other half is no, most people's brains will reinterpret the question to mean something other than precisely what was asked, so that they can give a single yes/no answer. There's no way to tell what question these people were really giving their answer to.
(are you with the conservative-christians or the liberal-atheist-scientists?). Do you support warrantless domestic wiretaps, or do you support gay marriage?
Do you support the war in Iraq, or do you support abortion?
This political dichotomy extends far beyond just science.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. We've shown that every prerequisite for life can be synthesized by processes known to happen on Earth prior to life. The only thing we haven't done in the lab is wait the million years for them to get together and start fucking...yet. I do not dispute that you've been able to synthesize these prerequisites, and I applaud your efforts. However, I disagree with your claim that life itself will arise from this all by itself, given enough time.
(By the way, I'm also not convinced that these processes are "known to happen on Earth prior to life". I suspect that what you "know" about conditions on Earth before life are based on what you've concluded "must have been" in order for life to have formed the way you believe it did, rather than on any evidence of what the conditions really were. But who knows?)
I definitely want PayPal to continue sending me e-mail notification whenever it is appropriate to do so. I haven't gotten e-mail from PayPal in a long time, but if somebody sends me money for some reason, I definitely want them to send me an e-mail to let me know.
Virus problems will continue as long as there are people wanting to write viruses, as they are simply an electronic version of spray painting walls, defacing monuments, or other useless and harmful activities that have persisted since the beginnings of civilization. Sure, that used to be the case. Now, I think most viruses are delivery agents for botnet software that can be used to send spam. It's all about the money now, and botnets are where the money is.
Port 25 can't require authentication, but if bots can't connect to port 25 because it's firewalled on their end, then we're making some progress.
WTF? So how the heck does my mailserver figure out if I'm authenticated or not? SMTP authentication can be done whether or not it's on port 25, 587 or any other port. Port 25 can't require authentication; you must allow connections from non-authenticated hosts on port 25, because they may be other mail servers relaying mail to you (however, without authentication, you should not accept mail they send you that isn't destined for your local system). You may accept authentication on port 25, of course, and if a user is authenticated, you can accept mail for either local delivery or relaying.
However, port 587 does not need to accept non-authenticated connections at all, because other mail servers relaying mail to you will only use port 25, never 587. So, you can refuse anything sent to port 587 without authentication, even if it is destined for your local system.
A lot of the security fixes seen in OS X are related to applications, things like "a maliciously crafted quicktime movie could lead to elevated privleges". This is a whole world different than "a buffer overflow in the TCP stack allows remote code execution".
Most of the nasties windows copes with are things that will ambush you when you are doing what should be totally safe things, like browsing a web site or just plain being connected to the internet without a firewall. ...Or watching a QuickTime movie. Should be a totally safe thing, right?
I fail to see why it seems to hard to detect these things. When an ISP sees a machine go from sending out 4 or 5 emails a day to spitting out thousands of emails every hour, it should be obvious there's a problem.
Also, close the damn mail ports off. If a customer wants to host their own email server at home, fine...but make them call in and request that the port be opened. And make it clear that if their machine gets owned, they get cut off and fined before access will be reconnected. You can't look at these as two separate issues.
Currently, most ISPs are not monitoring what you send out on port 25. They have no technical means to do so, and acquiring that ability would be prohibitively expensive. ISPs can monitor what you send out through their SMTP relay server (most don't analyze the patterns proactively, but they can review the logs when they get a complaint) but generally botnets don't relay through the ISP's server.
But you're absolutely right about ISPs blocking outgoing access on port 25, unless a customer requests it to be open. The difficulty here is that most customers have dynamic IP addresses, and dynamically updating a firewall to allow access to port 25 from some customers and not others is non-trivial. My recommendation would be, block access to port 25 for all customers on dynamic IPs, and by default for all static IPs, but let customers with static IPs request for access to be allowed. Users running their own Linux boxes can configure their MTA to forward everything to the ISP's relay server. Everyone who needs to relay through a corporate mail server can use port 587.
So what's the problem with port 587? Not everyone has their mail server configured to allow it. But if ISPs start blocking port 25 and telling their customers to switch to 587 instead, I think more mail servers (that have users who need to relay from home) will start enabling port 587.
So how does switching to port 587 help? Won't the spammers just switch to that too? At first, yes, but here's the difference: MTAs can be configured not to allow any connections to port 587 without authentication and encryption. A bot can't just pick your domain name out of a hat, look up your MX, connect to port 587, and start sending crap, if the MTA is configured to require authentication. Port 25 can't require authentication, but if bots can't connect to port 25 because it's firewalled on their end, then we're making some progress.
This is not a change that should be made overnight; it will cause problems for a small handful of users. ISPs need to plan for this, set a date several months in advance, notify their customers of the plan and what they can do if they will be affected, and ideally coordinate with other ISPs so a whole bunch of ISPs all start blocking port 25 at the same time.
Good luck trying to explain child porn to a jury by stating that your XP was compromised.... You're forgetting, most of the members of the jury run Windows XP too.
In the Pacific Northwest, UW refers to the University of Washington; you may have noticed them credited in pine and pico.
One of these days I keep meaning to drive up to Seattle, find whoever decided all the configuration for imapd should be in a.h file instead of a run-time config file and kick them in the face. At least it's all in a single.h file now, which is a significant improvement from a decade ago...
And the way I would see it translated into English: while open parenthesis sgets open parenthesis buf2 comma 256 comma sec underscore ptr close parenthesis close parenthesis That's not a translation. For an example of a translation, here's an excerpt from the DeCSS code, formatted as a haiku. It's not particularly good haiku; I don't like the way phrases so often span multiple lines, but it does have the correct number of syllables. Still, notice the way a for loop is explained. It's not just reading punctuation aloud.
So here's how you do it: first, take the first byte of im -- that's byte zero;
OR that byte with the number 0x100 (hexadecimal --
that's two hundred and fifty-six to you if you prefer decimal).
Store the result in t1. Take byte one of im. Store it in t2.
Take bytes two through five of im; store them in t3. Take its three low bits
(you can get them by ANDing t3 with seven); store this in t4.
Double t3, add eight, subtract t4; store the result in t3.
Make t5 zero. Now we'll start a loop; set i equal to zero.
i gets values from zero up to four; each time, do all of these steps:
Use t2 for an
index into Table Two:
find a byte b1.
Use t1 for an
index into Table Three:
find a byte b2.
Take exclusive OR
of b1 with b2 and
store this in t4.
Shift t1 right by
a single bit (like halving);
store this in t2.
Take the low bit of
t1 (so, AND it with one),
shift it left eight bits,
then take exclusive
OR of that with t4; store
this back in t1.
Apple cannot and will not make a suite of office applications that are compatible enough with Microsoft Office that I'll be able to use them for much of anything. I plan to buy MS Office 2008; I do not plan to buy iWork.
If you aren't already familiar with Microsoft Office and don't need to exchange files with anybody, I'm sure iWork is great, and will only get better with time. But if your final target isn't a PDF or printed page, nothing but Microsoft Office will cut it.
That is indeed excellent news... but from my experience with the applications that are currently available, I completely agree with the grandparent poster: Microsoft Office for Mac is far more compatible with Microsoft Office for Windows than OpenOffice or NeoOffice is. I hope NeoOffice improves, but I'd be shocked if the new version is compatible enough that I don't still need Microsoft Office.
Slashdot Mirror
I have two radio-controlled clocks. One of them obeys the DST bit, the other calculates it by the date. There is logic to both approaches.
NIST only changes the DST bit when the time change actually occurs; the broadcast doesn't include anything to say "the time is going to change soon". If you live near Colorado, that's probably fine, but for many of us, the signal is weak enough that depending on the weather, the clock can't actually hear it 24/7. A couple of years ago, when a DST change occurred, my clock failed to change, and I showed up an hour early to church. Within a day or so, it had corrected itself.
If you use the date to calculate when the DST change will occur, you don't have that problem. You can anticipate it, and reset the clock at precisely 2am, no matter what the weather is like. Obviously the problem here is that Congress can arbitrarily muck with it, so there really needs to be a way to update it. My other clock has this problem; I had to switch it from Pacific to Mountain time, then switch it back a few days ago. If I lived on the east coast, there would have been no way to make it display the correct time (it has a manual set button, but as soon as it picks up the radio signal, that will override the manually set time). I'm pretty unhappy about that.
So, is WWVB's broadcast format extensible? Would it be possible to add information about an upcoming DST change, without breaking existing clocks that don't expect this information? I know NTP handles upcoming leap seconds...
The original iMac was released in August 1998 and the iMac G4 (with the "silly white rounded base") was released in January 2002. It's now 2007.
The last model of G3 iMac, introduced in July 2001, shipped with 256MB RAM standard; older models shipped with as little as 32MB. The all had 15" CRTs. How many PCs do you still have with those specs? It's no wonder they sit empty. Replace them with brand new iMacs (Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 17" or larger LCD) and you'll see students line up for a chance to use them.
In Mac OS X, "brushed metal" windows may be moved by dragging their edges (or anywhere else on the brushed metal part of the window); normal Aqua windows are borderless so that doesn't work. Personally I've always felt that having two different kinds of windows like this was pretty stupid; it was obviously a choice they made for visual aesthetics, not usability.
In Perl, you just hold down the shift key while you caress the top row. :-)
Oh wait, that is what it's for. Yeah, but which side of the port is "up" can vary between devices, particularly when the ports are vertical rather than horizontal. Also, the USB logo is molded into the plastic of the plug, so it's exactly the same color as the rest of the plug and impossible to see in low light (such as you're likely to have near a USB port). You might be able to tell the difference tactically, but the feel varies between plugs (if the reverse side were always smooth that might be OK, but it often isn't).
The first chapter of Genesis says the Earth and everything on it was created in a week, and we can extrapolate from genealogies that this was roughly 6,000 years ago. Some people have suggested that a "day" wasn't really a day, but there is absolutely no indication in the text that the six days of Creation were meant to be taken as anything other than literal days.
Although the word "death" often refers to spiritual separation from God rather than physical death, many people believe that there was also no physical death before the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. Evolution over millions of years would obviously have required physical death.
Finally, Genesis 2 is fairly clear that man was created separately from the animals, differently than the animals, in God's image. Woman was also created separately, "taken out of man." This really doesn't make much sense within the context of evolution.
I'm totally with you on other miracles such as Noah's Flood happening automatically through natural processes, though.
There's a slight difference between translations of Genesis 2:19. The NIV says:
...as in, God had already formed them. However, the KJV and NASB aren't as clear. I'm not a scholar of ancient Hebrew, so I can't say which translation is more accurate to the original text, but if the NIV is accurate, it certainly makes sense.
"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field"
Genesis 1:27 briefly summarizes what is described in more detail in chapter 2. No contradiction there.
If the answer to one half of the question is yes but the answer to the other half is no, most people's brains will reinterpret the question to mean something other than precisely what was asked, so that they can give a single yes/no answer. There's no way to tell what question these people were really giving their answer to.
Do you support the war in Iraq, or do you support abortion?
This political dichotomy extends far beyond just science.
(By the way, I'm also not convinced that these processes are "known to happen on Earth prior to life". I suspect that what you "know" about conditions on Earth before life are based on what you've concluded "must have been" in order for life to have formed the way you believe it did, rather than on any evidence of what the conditions really were. But who knows?)
Many of us disagree with you.
I definitely want PayPal to continue sending me e-mail notification whenever it is appropriate to do so. I haven't gotten e-mail from PayPal in a long time, but if somebody sends me money for some reason, I definitely want them to send me an e-mail to let me know.
Credit where credit is due: Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, 2006.
Don't forget public education.
WTF? So how the heck does my mailserver figure out if I'm authenticated or not? SMTP authentication can be done whether or not it's on port 25, 587 or any other port. Port 25 can't require authentication; you must allow connections from non-authenticated hosts on port 25, because they may be other mail servers relaying mail to you (however, without authentication, you should not accept mail they send you that isn't destined for your local system). You may accept authentication on port 25, of course, and if a user is authenticated, you can accept mail for either local delivery or relaying.
However, port 587 does not need to accept non-authenticated connections at all, because other mail servers relaying mail to you will only use port 25, never 587. So, you can refuse anything sent to port 587 without authentication, even if it is destined for your local system.
Clear?
Also, close the damn mail ports off. If a customer wants to host their own email server at home, fine...but make them call in and request that the port be opened. And make it clear that if their machine gets owned, they get cut off and fined before access will be reconnected. You can't look at these as two separate issues.
Currently, most ISPs are not monitoring what you send out on port 25. They have no technical means to do so, and acquiring that ability would be prohibitively expensive. ISPs can monitor what you send out through their SMTP relay server (most don't analyze the patterns proactively, but they can review the logs when they get a complaint) but generally botnets don't relay through the ISP's server.
But you're absolutely right about ISPs blocking outgoing access on port 25, unless a customer requests it to be open. The difficulty here is that most customers have dynamic IP addresses, and dynamically updating a firewall to allow access to port 25 from some customers and not others is non-trivial. My recommendation would be, block access to port 25 for all customers on dynamic IPs, and by default for all static IPs, but let customers with static IPs request for access to be allowed. Users running their own Linux boxes can configure their MTA to forward everything to the ISP's relay server. Everyone who needs to relay through a corporate mail server can use port 587.
So what's the problem with port 587? Not everyone has their mail server configured to allow it. But if ISPs start blocking port 25 and telling their customers to switch to 587 instead, I think more mail servers (that have users who need to relay from home) will start enabling port 587.
So how does switching to port 587 help? Won't the spammers just switch to that too? At first, yes, but here's the difference: MTAs can be configured not to allow any connections to port 587 without authentication and encryption. A bot can't just pick your domain name out of a hat, look up your MX, connect to port 587, and start sending crap, if the MTA is configured to require authentication. Port 25 can't require authentication, but if bots can't connect to port 25 because it's firewalled on their end, then we're making some progress.
This is not a change that should be made overnight; it will cause problems for a small handful of users. ISPs need to plan for this, set a date several months in advance, notify their customers of the plan and what they can do if they will be affected, and ideally coordinate with other ISPs so a whole bunch of ISPs all start blocking port 25 at the same time.
It'll never work, of course.
In the Pacific Northwest, UW refers to the University of Washington; you may have noticed them credited in pine and pico.
.h file instead of a run-time config file and kick them in the face. At least it's all in a single .h file now, which is a significant improvement from a decade ago...
One of these days I keep meaning to drive up to Seattle, find whoever decided all the configuration for imapd should be in a
Anyway, sorry, yeah, this is the other UW...
while open parenthesis sgets open parenthesis buf2 comma 256 comma sec underscore ptr close parenthesis close parenthesis That's not a translation. For an example of a translation, here's an excerpt from the DeCSS code, formatted as a haiku. It's not particularly good haiku; I don't like the way phrases so often span multiple lines, but it does have the correct number of syllables. Still, notice the way a for loop is explained. It's not just reading punctuation aloud.
Apple cannot and will not make a suite of office applications that are compatible enough with Microsoft Office that I'll be able to use them for much of anything. I plan to buy MS Office 2008; I do not plan to buy iWork.
If you aren't already familiar with Microsoft Office and don't need to exchange files with anybody, I'm sure iWork is great, and will only get better with time. But if your final target isn't a PDF or printed page, nothing but Microsoft Office will cut it.
That is indeed excellent news... but from my experience with the applications that are currently available, I completely agree with the grandparent poster: Microsoft Office for Mac is far more compatible with Microsoft Office for Windows than OpenOffice or NeoOffice is. I hope NeoOffice improves, but I'd be shocked if the new version is compatible enough that I don't still need Microsoft Office.