I think Jobs' perspective should be put into context.
First of all, iTunes DRM is not designed for a subscription model. Re-engineering would be required, including firmware updates for older iPods, to enforce the subscriptions.
Moreover, not all songs are typically available via the subscription model. Jobs continues to make an issue about variable pricing for songs, with the DRM-free option being the one exception. Yet, consider how they are planning to implement this: by a preference in which the user selects which kind of music s/he prefers to buy.
Some have said a subscription model would require a whole new iTunes Store -- a separate store, with rentable tracks. This is not really true -- users could be presented with a "Buy Song" or "Rent Song" button where applicable.
A subscription service is "not out of the question," he says, but it doesn't look like it's in Apple's interests -- they would bear the price of increasing download costs, unlike the record companies.
DRM-free music, on the other hand, allows for seamlessness. Users can download music, copy it between iPods, computers, and friends' computers without a hassle. Rentable tracks would lend themselves to the opposite kind of experience.
I'm very curious to see how it pans out. It would certainly see a lot of analyst attention, the first paid-for iTunes-only subscription.*
Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show. I could buy two hours of Galactica (or something more popular.... Desperate Housewives, for the mainstream audience) for $3.98. Or I could pay double for the same amount of plain audio.
They need to offer a lot more for this to be successful.
99 cents a show is simple enough. That, I'd try out.
This is an unproven medium. A good entry point is required. Individual tracks sold like songs would work well. What they're trying to do will put many people off. Then again, maybe enough people really really like Ricky Gervais. But probably not.
* (iTunes + audible, whatever -- everyone will focus on the Apple end of things; they're more newsworthy, whether or not you agree with it.)
"I want some software (security stuff) to stay closed-source forever"
The source isn't closed. It's not Free Software, but you can see it. I guess now this means you shouldn't use Java, seeing as all those evil hackers are gonna be rummaging through it.
And if you hadn't recalled, there already was a Java runtime from Microsoft. Wasn't compatible with Sun's Java. Doesn't exist anymore. Trademarks are sweet.
"The Mac interface *will not* execute even files that are marked as executable! It will only execute.APP directories"
This is completely wrong.
Carbon and Classic applications do not have.app extensions. These are single-file executables without an extension.
Apple is presently better at confirming application execution, especially after the Safari installation of Dashboard widgets without confirmation incident, which prompted that really annoying but incredibly nice for safety reasons "yada yada is an app / might be an app" (it bugs you about Apps and *potential* apps, and any sort of archive that could possibly contain one -- tar, zip, dmg, etc.) --
That said, get the user to download a JPEG, it'll open automatically in Preview w/o asking, and if you've got a vulnerability in Preview.app, that's how to get a virus onto a Mac... except, you can't touch the System, because of that Password box that always opens, every time, naming the app calling it, and even listing its path.
Except nowadays, MS isn't too bad in this case either. It's just the damned opened ports for services no one ever freaking uses. Screw the firewall -- if nothing's listening, you don't need the bloody thing. (Rendezvous... so far so good, but who knows in the future....)
It's just that Apple's so consistent weird stuff is noticed more... or at least, that's my best guess.
I went to U.S. Airforce Space Readiness Briefing while I was a Congressional intern this summer.
Lasers were covered and I had a brief chat with the Air Force representative after the briefing.
The USAF is sticking lasers in 747's and the army is testing ground-based systems.
The aircraft-based lasers cannot inflict any physical damage. They are powerful enough to scramble electronics. The goal is to target a missile shortly after it is launched so that its guidance systems fail and the missile lands in the enemy's territory, never reaching its target (us). Their goal is to use this as a powerful deterrent by making it very risky to launch missiles.
The ground-based systems can inflict physical damage, but are nowhere close to being airborne (they're much too massive). They are, as I was told in July, still "in the lab." (I later saw a full-page ad in "The Hill," a capitol hill newspaper, promoting Lockheed Martin's ground-based laser systems as though they were about ready. I'll trust the USAF officer's discussion more than the corporate advertisement.)
A key misunderstanding of lasers is in the kind of damage they inflict. Lasers will poke holes through objects but do not cause a target's destruction or explosion -- however, shooting through or over-heating a target's fuel tank will cause an explosion. And of course, to re-emphasize my major point, we don't have airborne laser cannons --- their goal is basically to inflict a kind of EMP-like damage to missiles. I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.
Most of the movie is CGI of ships, walkers, etc. with a narrator's voice discussing the Empire's army in some sort of documentary that's part poorly written propaganda film and part unemotional and cheap knock-off of COPS.
Clearly the CGI was a lot of work; it's beyond what I could have done -- but it's hardly spectacular --- and I believe much of the criticism of a certain sci-fi film is how CGI does not a good movie make.
The acting is poor. Of course, it's hard to express emotion when you don't see a single face throughout the entire movie, save for a few moments at the end, where officers suddenly appear for no apparent reason. The demeanor is off for military personnel, and the whole thing just doesn't come together in the end. Apparently, the crime involved the smuggling of teddy bears and action figures. That's fine for a joke, but not after 20 minutes of tedium.
I'm sorry but there's nothing to empathize with in this movie. It drags on without purpose, without being sure of its concept at large. The beginning narration feels like it's about to be cut off, and then just keeps going on and on and on. It makes you scream, "Make it stop!"
I don't think much thought went into this film as far as the story or script are concerned. A very vague idea went in, and some people went to work on their computers. I'd give it half a star out of 5.
After reading this I can only wonder what MLAgazine is, but I don't even feel like reading it's homepage.
All this is general commentary anyone could find on any number of pages.
It's notable only because of all the errors --- misnaming Marc Andreesen as well as the names of the various browsers at different points
Here's a simple reason Netscape fell.
Back then, pretty much everyone was in "ooh! flashy button" mode. The browser was gonna replace the OS, or something like that. Every pretty new feature was taken so enthusiastically, every flashy element that a designer could put on his page.
So what happened? People developed menus, buttons, every kind of flashy new DHTML widget they could think up.
And how'd they do it? IE had document.all, Netscape had document.layers.
IE displayed CSS kinda buggy, Netscape crashed and burned.
Document.all could arbitrarily access any part of the page, document.layers was finicky, couldn't handle real-time manipulation of most CSS styles, and you couldn't keep track of where an element was to find it.
You got your job done quick with IE4, and then decided you'd rather add new features and improve your site than spending countless more hours dealing with a buggy Netscape interface. Netscape users could look at your site the old fashioned way --- after all, they're used to it, aren't they?
(Besides, once you've done it for IE, doing the same thing again is boring.)
Now Mozilla comes along. document.getElementById is the same as document.all for any practical purpose, and for most basic DHTML manipulations, you can write a single tiny function that abstracts the two.
IE4 was closer to the standard that the W3C eventually released.
Netscape was an entirely different paradigm, and it didn't work.
I don't like Microsoft, but I don't hate them. I don't love Apple, I don't hate them either. (Although I am using Safari at the moment.) Netscape 4 sucked. IE4 was actually better. So monopoly power helped, but even still, they actually had the better product. Both companies pulled the same crap --- Netscape abused standards just as much, if not more, than Microsoft.
Mozilla's great not because Microsoft's bad. Mozilla's great because it lets me browse the web on all my computers -- Linux, Mac, and Windows too.
Mozilla's even greater because now that people use the standards, I don't have to use Mozilla. I can use Konqueror, Safari, and even (newer versions of) Internet Explorer and get the same page. On any computer. Exactly what Microsoft didn't want. And frankly, exactly what Netscape didn't want either: other browsers doing the same thing. It wasn't about the OS becoming irrelevant, it was about NS becoming the new platform, not browsers in general. Neither company was noble. Now, with all the browsers, OSS (or not), there exists a situation close to what people really wanted.
The article is quite vague. But I really think that Reuters is misunderstanding the details here and creating this inclarity. The FTC is not so stupid as to block port 25.
This site appears to be geared for the people who actually understand what's going on. The very first bullet point on the site states very clearly: "block port 25 except for the outbound SMTP requirements of authenticated users of mail servers designed for client traffic. Explore implementing Authenticated SMTP on port 587 for clients who must operate outgoing mail servers."
In other words, under their proposal, can still send emails so long as we are authenticating to an SMTP server.
We can use our College email, our Google, Yahoo, etc. accounts.
This is how I interpret their idea:
- You want to send email? Connect to an SMTP server and log on.
- Incoming traffic is not interfered with.
- If you send SMTP traffic directly from your computer to someone else's computer, this is blocked.
I'm not sure exactly how one would implement this because one cannot know every "legitimate" mail server. Further, ISP's will not (should not) be scanning all of our SMTP packets to see what kind of traffic is coming from our computers. The easiest solution is something already in place, although it annoys me. I can still send SMTP from my computer (RoadRunner ISP, New York City) but if I send to an AOL user, for example, I get a reply back from AOL explaining that AOL will not accept emails from a Residential IP address. This is irritating, but it's no bother. Simply have all the ISP's say, these IP blocks are for our residential customers --- if you get email from them, it's probably a spam zombie, so you may wish to block such SMTP traffic if it becomes a bother.
I'm not proposing anything, just trying to piece together what the FTC is actually saying. Trust me, they're not so clueless; it's usually the papers, especially in these generic wire reports, that mess up the details.
The FTC is most certainly _not_ recommending that all port 25 traffic is blocked; they are not limiting anyone to their ISP's mail servers.How would the FTC people log in to their own FTC email from their homes? They'd have the same issues we'd have.
Anyway, since I *never* use my ISP mail server (mostly because Google is faster, has more storage, and is easier to access when I don't feel like carrying my laptop around; and because for professional stuff I tell people to contact me @honorscollege.cuny.edu (even though I SMTP back through Google).
Though less technical, I'm sure, most professional people require such a setup. Think things through. I see so many posts regarding outright and absolute SMTP / Port 25 blocking. That's too ridiculous to believe. Indeed, it's not even close to what the FTC actually says, as I cite above.
Read their site if you still have your doubts. Let it be said, however, that the government is not as stupid as some would like to believe.
Let's say I look up some documents on Lexis-Nexus. I have to cite Lexis-Nexis; otherwise it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter where those documents originally came from. My citation must include a reference to Lexis-Nexus saying how I got this information.
If I don't do this, I've committed plagiarism. I would receive an automatic F and face the possibility of further, much more damaging to myself, ramifications.
I don't know about how this might play out in the minutae of copyright law, but in academics SCO would be in serious trouble.
I don't understand how people keep saying that KDE and Gnome don't work together. They're different environments, but all they're parts are pretty darn interchangeable. A while ago, for the heck of it, I replaced gnome-panel in Session prefs with kicker. Worked perfectly. After reading your post, I called kwin --replace to switch from metacity to kde's wm.
And OO.org... that's for running across OS's, not KDE/Gnome. Besides, Native Widget Framework is due for the next major release AFAIK.
Mozilla... it uses gtk+ or gtk2, many of which would consider to be (sort of) Gnome. XUL is not a KDE/Gnome issue. Like OO.o, it's another platform issue.
Gnome and KDE don't need to converge. At this point, they're aiming at different markets. KDE is uber-customizable. Gnome is focusing on KISS usability issues. The important backend stuff is already being taken care of via freedesktop.org.
...But this wouldn't be the first time SCO's been DOS'd by a misguided Linux user.
Whether or not this was really written by a fanatical user of my favorite OS, it's really bad PR for Linux that only goes to prove SCO's point. Especially if news reports also reference this DOS attack against sco. Undoubtedly, SCO will use it to bolster their Linux==terrorism garbage
We may know better, but the media doesn't. But at this point I wonder whether it's more likely that someone who isn't even involved in Linux thought this would be the perfect trinket to add to his latest virus. Here's hoping this won't turn out to be done by a Linux hacker...
"Unfortunately, I see a lot of perfectly good PCs get tossed because the owner has hosed Windows with some sort of adware/spyware/Kazaa. Most of these PCs have WinME or 98 on them. As long as they have 128 megs of RAM (256 better) and a ~500Mhz processor, they are good machines."
I found out a couple days ago that a relative, in a whim I guess, threw out his 300mhz p-2, 256mb ram win98 pc. It got too slow, he said. Well, sans spyware/etc. it should be running at the same speed as it was when he bought it. Why it didn't occur to him to donate it to, e.g., my school, which has a number of computers slower than that, I simply can't fathom.
"I'm thinking of starting a PC recycling business because most trashed PCs these days are still acceptable performers. I'll take all these PCs, install Linux and then donate them to churches and schools. Brilliant!"
my school gets a lot of computers from the cristina foundation (cristina.org) which does exactly that. the staff there strongly prefers apple, but when the school gets PCs, i of course fix them by installing linux.
only problem is we didn't realize it was the surges right away. they kicked 'em off and on, so i just thought they crashed the computers. wasn't until i was sitting a few feet away from a kid stretching his legs that i realized what was going on. as for the regents thing, this happened in the middle of these events, before i realized it was people leaning into the surges.
also, they were placed right against the wall. it was a select few students who managed to accomplish the poweroffs.
I'm sorry to say that this isn't uncommon. I work on the computers at my high school, and often enough I've been called in to find that an idiot kid stretched his legs playing some stupid game and switched off the surge protector. As crazy as that is, it kept happening, with different students. While I've since fixed their habits (using unspecified bofh-style reinforcers (which I'll decline to specify) to get the message through), the damage got pretty bad when this happened: a student, after spending hours on english regents essays (an exam required to get a high school degree in nyc), stretched her legs and, you guessed it, pressed her foot on the surge protector. She didn't save the file even once and lost all her work. I'm not sure if it's funny or just really horrible.
"I have just been wondering, those guys don't care about the US, the just want to make sure they don't alow their kids to eat pork or their wives to be seen in public, (that does not make them terrorists. Wacky, yes, terrorists, no)."
As I recall, the Taliban stoned women to death for adultery, flogged both sexes for (what they considered to be) immodest dress, and toppled walls then bulldozed over homosexuals.
I don't think "wacky" appropriately describes them.
IANAL, but suppose this will work - that owning one 10 millionth of a company can give me such rights to their assets - how long would it take for the laws to be revised?
This wouldn't just affect the music industry - it could be used on tv shows, movies, books, magazines, software, and anything else I haven't thought of; the concept is no different when applied to any of those things.
Were this legal, it would devastate our economic infrastructure. And, even if it would work, for these reasons... fastest new law ever.
(And, in any case, were this only applicable to the RIAA, and, I suppose, a "Good Thing" to many slashdot readers, it would be struck down by corporate lobbying alone.)
If a company as large as Microsoft suffers because of bullshit patents, maybe our legislators will finally do something about it.
This may be a machiavellian idea, but if I had to pick a corporation to finally get in trouble because of this kind of nonsense, Microsoft is a good choice.
"But think about the larger consequences here. Think about sitesyouwont be able to print.. or copy text out of or look at the source for."
before changing the browser identification?
DRM is stupid. My dad was listening to archives of a radio show, provided online in windoze media audio, which he could not skip through - it had to be played from beginning to end. Long story short: save target as, opened file in notepad, saw "no skip" ahead of an actual reference to the real audio; opened ms media player, file->open url, copy-paste, and voila! the drm is gone.
What it boils down to is that at some point they have to show you the data. If you want to get really crazy, load some future drm-enabled webpage in winbloze on home network with linux box running ethereal, follow tcp stream, cut/paste code into file and view in mozilla, an open source drm-free environment.
So Apple catches up (almost) to desktops (eventually) but then what about notebooks? By the time these are out we'll be seeing 90nm pentium-m notebooks. Say the reviewers, pentium-m's perform extremely well per clock. What I'm wondering is whether these can scale (as the pentium-m's can to 500mhz) because if they can't, then Apple is going to lose performance *and* battery-life in notebooks.
"Fair points. However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have? What should MS have done in order for that to not be an abusive action of a monopoly? The only answers I can come up with involve MS intentionally crippling their own product. I don't feel that's reasonable. I'm open to suggestions."
They had the choice of whether or not to provide OEMs with discounts, one of the conditions being Netscape not preinstalled.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Jobs' perspective should be put into context.
First of all, iTunes DRM is not designed for a subscription model. Re-engineering would be required, including firmware updates for older iPods, to enforce the subscriptions.
Moreover, not all songs are typically available via the subscription model. Jobs continues to make an issue about variable pricing for songs, with the DRM-free option being the one exception. Yet, consider how they are planning to implement this: by a preference in which the user selects which kind of music s/he prefers to buy.
Some have said a subscription model would require a whole new iTunes Store -- a separate store, with rentable tracks. This is not really true -- users could be presented with a "Buy Song" or "Rent Song" button where applicable.
A subscription service is "not out of the question," he says, but it doesn't look like it's in Apple's interests -- they would bear the price of increasing download costs, unlike the record companies.
DRM-free music, on the other hand, allows for seamlessness. Users can download music, copy it between iPods, computers, and friends' computers without a hassle. Rentable tracks would lend themselves to the opposite kind of experience.
I'm very curious to see how it pans out. It would certainly see a lot of analyst attention, the first paid-for iTunes-only subscription.*
... Desperate Housewives, for the mainstream audience) for $3.98. Or I could pay double for the same amount of plain audio.
Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show. I could buy two hours of Galactica (or something more popular.
They need to offer a lot more for this to be successful.
99 cents a show is simple enough. That, I'd try out.
This is an unproven medium. A good entry point is required. Individual tracks sold like songs would work well. What they're trying to do will put many people off. Then again, maybe enough people really really like Ricky Gervais. But probably not.
* (iTunes + audible, whatever -- everyone will focus on the Apple end of things; they're more newsworthy, whether or not you agree with it.)
Java's source code is available for free. See http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/source_license.html .
"I want some software (security stuff) to stay closed-source forever"
The source isn't closed. It's not Free Software, but you can see it. I guess now this means you shouldn't use Java, seeing as all those evil hackers are gonna be rummaging through it.
And if you hadn't recalled, there already was a Java runtime from Microsoft. Wasn't compatible with Sun's Java. Doesn't exist anymore. Trademarks are sweet.
"The Mac interface *will not* execute even files that are marked as executable! It will only execute .APP directories"
.app extensions. These are single-file executables without an extension.
... except, you can't touch the System, because of that Password box that always opens, every time, naming the app calling it, and even listing its path.
... or at least, that's my best guess.
This is completely wrong.
Carbon and Classic applications do not have
Apple is presently better at confirming application execution, especially after the Safari installation of Dashboard widgets without confirmation incident, which prompted that really annoying but incredibly nice for safety reasons "yada yada is an app / might be an app" (it bugs you about Apps and *potential* apps, and any sort of archive that could possibly contain one -- tar, zip, dmg, etc.) --
That said, get the user to download a JPEG, it'll open automatically in Preview w/o asking, and if you've got a vulnerability in Preview.app, that's how to get a virus onto a Mac
Except nowadays, MS isn't too bad in this case either. It's just the damned opened ports for services no one ever freaking uses. Screw the firewall -- if nothing's listening, you don't need the bloody thing. (Rendezvous... so far so good, but who knows in the future....)
It's just that Apple's so consistent weird stuff is noticed more
I went to U.S. Airforce Space Readiness Briefing while I was a Congressional intern this summer.
Lasers were covered and I had a brief chat with the Air Force representative after the briefing.
The USAF is sticking lasers in 747's and the army is testing ground-based systems.
The aircraft-based lasers cannot inflict any physical damage. They are powerful enough to scramble electronics. The goal is to target a missile shortly after it is launched so that its guidance systems fail and the missile lands in the enemy's territory, never reaching its target (us). Their goal is to use this as a powerful deterrent by making it very risky to launch missiles.
The ground-based systems can inflict physical damage, but are nowhere close to being airborne (they're much too massive). They are, as I was told in July, still "in the lab." (I later saw a full-page ad in "The Hill," a capitol hill newspaper, promoting Lockheed Martin's ground-based laser systems as though they were about ready. I'll trust the USAF officer's discussion more than the corporate advertisement.)
A key misunderstanding of lasers is in the kind of damage they inflict. Lasers will poke holes through objects but do not cause a target's destruction or explosion -- however, shooting through or over-heating a target's fuel tank will cause an explosion. And of course, to re-emphasize my major point, we don't have airborne laser cannons --- their goal is basically to inflict a kind of EMP-like damage to missiles. I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.
I had trouble finishing the film.
Most of the movie is CGI of ships, walkers, etc. with a narrator's voice discussing the Empire's army in some sort of documentary that's part poorly written propaganda film and part unemotional and cheap knock-off of COPS.
Clearly the CGI was a lot of work; it's beyond what I could have done -- but it's hardly spectacular --- and I believe much of the criticism of a certain sci-fi film is how CGI does not a good movie make.
The acting is poor. Of course, it's hard to express emotion when you don't see a single face throughout the entire movie, save for a few moments at the end, where officers suddenly appear for no apparent reason. The demeanor is off for military personnel, and the whole thing just doesn't come together in the end. Apparently, the crime involved the smuggling of teddy bears and action figures. That's fine for a joke, but not after 20 minutes of tedium.
I'm sorry but there's nothing to empathize with in this movie. It drags on without purpose, without being sure of its concept at large. The beginning narration feels like it's about to be cut off, and then just keeps going on and on and on. It makes you scream, "Make it stop!"
I don't think much thought went into this film as far as the story or script are concerned. A very vague idea went in, and some people went to work on their computers. I'd give it half a star out of 5.
After reading this I can only wonder what MLAgazine is, but I don't even feel like reading it's homepage.
All this is general commentary anyone could find on any number of pages.
It's notable only because of all the errors --- misnaming Marc Andreesen as well as the names of the various browsers at different points
Here's a simple reason Netscape fell.
Back then, pretty much everyone was in "ooh! flashy button" mode. The browser was gonna replace the OS, or something like that. Every pretty new feature was taken so enthusiastically, every flashy element that a designer could put on his page.
So what happened? People developed menus, buttons, every kind of flashy new DHTML widget they could think up.
And how'd they do it? IE had document.all, Netscape had document.layers.
IE displayed CSS kinda buggy, Netscape crashed and burned.
Document.all could arbitrarily access any part of the page, document.layers was finicky, couldn't handle real-time manipulation of most CSS styles, and you couldn't keep track of where an element was to find it.
You got your job done quick with IE4, and then decided you'd rather add new features and improve your site than spending countless more hours dealing with a buggy Netscape interface. Netscape users could look at your site the old fashioned way --- after all, they're used to it, aren't they?
(Besides, once you've done it for IE, doing the same thing again is boring.)
Now Mozilla comes along. document.getElementById is the same as document.all for any practical purpose, and for most basic DHTML manipulations, you can write a single tiny function that abstracts the two.
IE4 was closer to the standard that the W3C eventually released.
Netscape was an entirely different paradigm, and it didn't work.
I don't like Microsoft, but I don't hate them. I don't love Apple, I don't hate them either. (Although I am using Safari at the moment.) Netscape 4 sucked. IE4 was actually better. So monopoly power helped, but even still, they actually had the better product. Both companies pulled the same crap --- Netscape abused standards just as much, if not more, than Microsoft.
Mozilla's great not because Microsoft's bad. Mozilla's great because it lets me browse the web on all my computers -- Linux, Mac, and Windows too.
Mozilla's even greater because now that people use the standards, I don't have to use Mozilla. I can use Konqueror, Safari, and even (newer versions of) Internet Explorer and get the same page. On any computer. Exactly what Microsoft didn't want. And frankly, exactly what Netscape didn't want either: other browsers doing the same thing. It wasn't about the OS becoming irrelevant, it was about NS becoming the new platform, not browsers in general. Neither company was noble. Now, with all the browsers, OSS (or not), there exists a situation close to what people really wanted.
The article is quite vague. But I really think that Reuters is misunderstanding the details here and creating this inclarity. The FTC is not so stupid as to block port 25.
/ index.htm
I immediately went to ftc.gov.
Here is a link to their actual press release:
http://ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/zombies.htm
They have a more detailed website at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/spam/zombie
This site appears to be geared for the people who actually understand what's going on. The very first bullet point on the site states very clearly:
"block port 25 except for the outbound SMTP requirements of authenticated users of mail servers designed for client traffic. Explore implementing Authenticated SMTP on port 587 for clients who must operate outgoing mail servers."
In other words, under their proposal, can still send emails so long as we are authenticating to an SMTP server.
We can use our College email, our Google, Yahoo, etc. accounts.
This is how I interpret their idea:
- You want to send email? Connect to an SMTP server and log on.
- Incoming traffic is not interfered with.
- If you send SMTP traffic directly from your computer to someone else's computer, this is blocked.
I'm not sure exactly how one would implement this because one cannot know every "legitimate" mail server. Further, ISP's will not (should not) be scanning all of our SMTP packets to see what kind of traffic is coming from our computers. The easiest solution is something already in place, although it annoys me. I can still send SMTP from my computer (RoadRunner ISP, New York City) but if I send to an AOL user, for example, I get a reply back from AOL explaining that AOL will not accept emails from a Residential IP address. This is irritating, but it's no bother. Simply have all the ISP's say, these IP blocks are for our residential customers --- if you get email from them, it's probably a spam zombie, so you may wish to block such SMTP traffic if it becomes a bother.
I'm not proposing anything, just trying to piece together what the FTC is actually saying. Trust me, they're not so clueless; it's usually the papers, especially in these generic wire reports, that mess up the details.
The FTC is most certainly _not_ recommending that all port 25 traffic is blocked; they are not limiting anyone to their ISP's mail servers.How would the FTC people log in to their own FTC email from their homes? They'd have the same issues we'd have.
Anyway, since I *never* use my ISP mail server (mostly because Google is faster, has more storage, and is easier to access when I don't feel like carrying my laptop around; and because for professional stuff I tell people to contact me @honorscollege.cuny.edu (even though I SMTP back through Google).
Though less technical, I'm sure, most professional people require such a setup. Think things through. I see so many posts regarding outright and absolute SMTP / Port 25 blocking. That's too ridiculous to believe. Indeed, it's not even close to what the FTC actually says, as I cite above.
Read their site if you still have your doubts. Let it be said, however, that the government is not as stupid as some would like to believe.
the doors don't close.
i believe that they are pressure sensitive -- for the very reason you bring up.
you are not strong enough to hold them open, hence they are designed so as to, well, not injure you.
This is like doing a research paper in college.
Let's say I look up some documents on Lexis-Nexus. I have to cite Lexis-Nexis; otherwise it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter where those documents originally came from. My citation must include a reference to Lexis-Nexus saying how I got this information.
If I don't do this, I've committed plagiarism. I would receive an automatic F and face the possibility of further, much more damaging to myself, ramifications.
I don't know about how this might play out in the minutae of copyright law, but in academics SCO would be in serious trouble.
$49.94 from staples.com
It's the full product; "One year security and maintenance updates via Red Hat Network"
AIUI, anyone could just pick up a bunch of these and each box is good for a year's worth of RHN.
I don't understand how people keep saying that KDE and Gnome don't work together. They're different environments, but all they're parts are pretty darn interchangeable. A while ago, for the heck of it, I replaced gnome-panel in Session prefs with kicker. Worked perfectly. After reading your post, I called kwin --replace to switch from metacity to kde's wm.
... that's for running across OS's, not KDE/Gnome. Besides, Native Widget Framework is due for the next major release AFAIK.
... it uses gtk+ or gtk2, many of which would consider to be (sort of) Gnome. XUL is not a KDE/Gnome issue. Like OO.o, it's another platform issue.
And OO.org
Mozilla
Gnome and KDE don't need to converge. At this point, they're aiming at different markets. KDE is uber-customizable. Gnome is focusing on KISS usability issues. The important backend stuff is already being taken care of via freedesktop.org.
...But this wouldn't be the first time SCO's been DOS'd by a misguided Linux user.
Whether or not this was really written by a fanatical user of my favorite OS, it's really bad PR for Linux that only goes to prove SCO's point. Especially if news reports also reference this DOS attack against sco. Undoubtedly, SCO will use it to bolster their Linux==terrorism garbage
We may know better, but the media doesn't. But at this point I wonder whether it's more likely that someone who isn't even involved in Linux thought this would be the perfect trinket to add to his latest virus. Here's hoping this won't turn out to be done by a Linux hacker...
"Unfortunately, I see a lot of perfectly good PCs get tossed because the owner has hosed Windows with some sort of adware/spyware/Kazaa. Most of these PCs have WinME or 98 on them. As long as they have 128 megs of RAM (256 better) and a ~500Mhz processor, they are good machines."
I found out a couple days ago that a relative, in a whim I guess, threw out his 300mhz p-2, 256mb ram win98 pc. It got too slow, he said. Well, sans spyware/etc. it should be running at the same speed as it was when he bought it. Why it didn't occur to him to donate it to, e.g., my school, which has a number of computers slower than that, I simply can't fathom.
"I'm thinking of starting a PC recycling business because most trashed PCs these days are still acceptable performers. I'll take all these PCs, install Linux and then donate them to churches and schools. Brilliant!"
my school gets a lot of computers from the cristina foundation (cristina.org) which does exactly that. the staff there strongly prefers apple, but when the school gets PCs, i of course fix them by installing linux.
only problem is we didn't realize it was the surges right away. they kicked 'em off and on, so i just thought they crashed the computers. wasn't until i was sitting a few feet away from a kid stretching his legs that i realized what was going on. as for the regents thing, this happened in the middle of these events, before i realized it was people leaning into the surges.
also, they were placed right against the wall. it was a select few students who managed to accomplish the poweroffs.
I'm sorry to say that this isn't uncommon. I work on the computers at my high school, and often enough I've been called in to find that an idiot kid stretched his legs playing some stupid game and switched off the surge protector. As crazy as that is, it kept happening, with different students. While I've since fixed their habits (using unspecified bofh-style reinforcers (which I'll decline to specify) to get the message through), the damage got pretty bad when this happened: a student, after spending hours on english regents essays (an exam required to get a high school degree in nyc), stretched her legs and, you guessed it, pressed her foot on the surge protector. She didn't save the file even once and lost all her work. I'm not sure if it's funny or just really horrible.
"I have just been wondering, those guys don't care about the US, the just want to make sure they don't alow their kids to eat pork or their wives to be seen in public, (that does not make them terrorists. Wacky, yes, terrorists, no)."
As I recall, the Taliban stoned women to death for adultery, flogged both sexes for (what they considered to be) immodest dress, and toppled walls then bulldozed over homosexuals.
I don't think "wacky" appropriately describes them.
IANAL, but suppose this will work - that owning one 10 millionth of a company can give me such rights to their assets - how long would it take for the laws to be revised?
... fastest new law ever.
This wouldn't just affect the music industry - it could be used on tv shows, movies, books, magazines, software, and anything else I haven't thought of; the concept is no different when applied to any of those things.
Were this legal, it would devastate our economic infrastructure. And, even if it would work, for these reasons
(And, in any case, were this only applicable to the RIAA, and, I suppose, a "Good Thing" to many slashdot readers, it would be struck down by corporate lobbying alone.)
If a company as large as Microsoft suffers because of bullshit patents, maybe our legislators will finally do something about it.
This may be a machiavellian idea, but if I had to pick a corporation to finally get in trouble because of this kind of nonsense, Microsoft is a good choice.
"But think about the larger consequences here. Think about sitesyouwont be able to print.. or copy text out of or look at the source for."
before changing the browser identification?
DRM is stupid. My dad was listening to archives of a radio show, provided online in windoze media audio, which he could not skip through - it had to be played from beginning to end. Long story short: save target as, opened file in notepad, saw "no skip" ahead of an actual reference to the real audio; opened ms media player, file->open url, copy-paste, and voila! the drm is gone.
What it boils down to is that at some point they have to show you the data. If you want to get really crazy, load some future drm-enabled webpage in winbloze on home network with linux box running ethereal, follow tcp stream, cut/paste code into file and view in mozilla, an open source drm-free environment.
So Apple catches up (almost) to desktops (eventually) but then what about notebooks? By the time these are out we'll be seeing 90nm pentium-m notebooks. Say the reviewers, pentium-m's perform extremely well per clock. What I'm wondering is whether these can scale (as the pentium-m's can to 500mhz) because if they can't, then Apple is going to lose performance *and* battery-life in notebooks.
"Fair points. However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have? What should MS have done in order for that to not be an abusive action of a monopoly? The only answers I can come up with involve MS intentionally crippling their own product. I don't feel that's reasonable. I'm open to suggestions."
They had the choice of whether or not to provide OEMs with discounts, one of the conditions being Netscape not preinstalled.
"We should set our clocks based on the rate that the universe is rotating instead."
yeah, i just checked nasa's latest theory on that, it's so accurate i'm sure that number will *never* change!
an engineer applies science to design/build something.
a computer programmer applies computer science to design/build software.
i've used the pro keyboards, and sometimes the del key places weird characters ( "^" and something).
:set mouse=a
and when i say mouse support, i mean as in links or vi with
(btw, that post was not intended as serious)