I fight a continuing problem with name pattern nazis. I go by my second of four names so (with initials) my name would be written "R. Craig T. Altenburg". Way too many forms and computer programs tend to expect only names in the "First Name -- Middle Initial -- Last Name" pattern. I get somewhat upset when others try to mangle my name to fit.
My rule is that others can use my full name without any initials; they can use the form shown above; or they can use simply "Craig Altenburg". I tend to use the latter.
I had given (passing) thought to giving one of my kids "7" as a middle initial. If you say it as part of a full name it does not sound too obnoxious but, it would cause grief with some (in may opinion) brain damaged programs.
When I code programs that require users to enter a name, I prefer asking for "Family Name" and "Given Names". Where either field can contain whatever characters the users wish to enter.
According to the Info World article about Microsoft's Caller ID patents, Microsoft's license "... will encourage all parties involved to allow the Caller ID technology to develop and improve without being hindered by license restrictions or royalty schemes"; and "Microsoft wants to do more than merely give (Caller ID) away, they also want to make sure nobody else can profit from it."
Seems like a perfect application for the GPL to me.:-)
It's not so much that I cannot delete all the SPAM that I get as it is that I worry about losing messages that I need to receive in all the noise.
Althought I am not a primary point of contact for external requests, I do sometimes get message from customers. My in-box currenly has 75 messages that made it through spam-assassin all of which are proabaly SPAM, but I'll have to scan this list for subjects and senders for messages that look at least somewhat legitimate.
I have the m5310 too and really like it. The only issue is they only supply those stupid restore disks for Windoze which makes setting up a dual boot with linux a bit of a kluge.
If the proxy was linked into the TCP/IP protocol stack it could not just slow down the connection but NAC,say, 90% of the packets from the spammer or open relay.
I have been programming on the Mac for about 14 years or so but have become a big Linux fan. When OS-X came out I figured I'd give it a try. I bought a G3 laptop which I use most every day and I have OS-X on my Macintosh at work.
Although I really like OS-X I still find that I use my Linux machines more for day-to-day work. I really like the multiple desk tops that KDE offers and the Linux distributions have more of the low level programming and system tools that I am used to using.
The biggest gripe that I have with OS-X is the ugly way that the underlying unix directory structures are layed out. This seem reminisant of Apples old decision to use <CR> as a line terminator instead of <LF> or <CR><LF> -- why go out of your way to be different? I'm not familiar with other BSD distributions so perhaps Apple followed the BSD standard. I am familiar with Solaris and Linux and I have a bear of a time with OS-X.
The improvements to OS-X that I'd like to see are, multipe desktops, built in X-Windows support, and addition of the wide range of open source tools that I get with SUSE to the OS-X distribution disks.
I do plan on continuing to use the Macintosh and I recently ordered version 10.2.
Biological neurons may have been shown to grow new connections based on information learned, but programs can do much the same thing.
People seem to think that there is something "magical" about the human brain but this need not be so.
Critics of AI point to the most complex program and say, "see, it's mechanical -- given the same input it produces the same output." The problem with this argument is that we cannot make the same test on a human brain. I'd bet that if we could save the state of a human brain, run a series of tests, then reload the old state and run the tests again, we would begin to see the mechanism underlying our program.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an athiest, you insensitive clod.
I fight a continuing problem with name pattern nazis. I go by my second of four names so (with initials) my name would be written "R. Craig T. Altenburg". Way too many forms and computer programs tend to expect only names in the "First Name -- Middle Initial -- Last Name" pattern. I get somewhat upset when others try to mangle my name to fit.
My rule is that others can use my full name without any initials; they can use the form shown above; or they can use simply "Craig Altenburg". I tend to use the latter.
I had given (passing) thought to giving one of my kids "7" as a middle initial. If you say it as part of a full name it does not sound too obnoxious but, it would cause grief with some (in may opinion) brain damaged programs.
When I code programs that require users to enter a name, I prefer asking for "Family Name" and "Given Names". Where either field can contain whatever characters the users wish to enter.
According to the Info World article about Microsoft's Caller ID patents, Microsoft's license "... will encourage all parties involved to allow the Caller ID technology to develop and improve without being hindered by license restrictions or royalty schemes"; and "Microsoft wants to do more than merely give (Caller ID) away, they also want to make sure nobody else can profit from it."
:-)
Seems like a perfect application for the GPL to me.
Actually YES.
It's not so much that I cannot delete all the SPAM that I get as it is that I worry about losing messages that I need to receive in all the noise.
Althought I am not a primary point of contact for external requests, I do sometimes get message from customers. My in-box currenly has 75 messages that made it through spam-assassin all of which are proabaly SPAM, but I'll have to scan this list for subjects and senders for messages that look at least somewhat legitimate.
We gotta do something about this crap!!!!
s/broke/broken/
I knew I should have clicked the "preview" button.
Will "mussel glue" fix broke eye glasses?
I have the m5310 too and really like it. The only issue is they only supply those stupid restore disks for Windoze which makes setting up a dual boot with linux a bit of a kluge.
Please, Oh Please, don't give them ideas.
If the proxy was linked into the TCP/IP protocol stack it could not just slow down the connection but NAC ,say, 90% of the packets from the spammer or open relay.
I have been programming on the Mac for about 14 years or so but have become a big Linux fan. When OS-X came out I figured I'd give it a try. I bought a G3 laptop which I use most every day and I have OS-X on my Macintosh at work.
Although I really like OS-X I still find that I use my Linux machines more for day-to-day work. I really like the multiple desk tops that KDE offers and the Linux distributions have more of the low level programming and system tools that I am used to using.
The biggest gripe that I have with OS-X is the ugly way that the underlying unix directory structures are layed out. This seem reminisant of Apples old decision to use <CR> as a line terminator instead of <LF> or <CR><LF> -- why go out of your way to be different? I'm not familiar with other BSD distributions so perhaps Apple followed the BSD standard. I am familiar with Solaris and Linux and I have a bear of a time with OS-X.
The improvements to OS-X that I'd like to see are, multipe desktops, built in X-Windows support, and addition of the wide range of open source tools that I get with SUSE to the OS-X distribution disks.
I do plan on continuing to use the Macintosh and I recently ordered version 10.2.
See: http://www.mindwrap.com/cmvsdm.html
Biological neurons may have been shown to grow new connections based on information learned, but programs can do much the same thing.
People seem to think that there is something "magical" about the human brain but this need not be so.
Critics of AI point to the most complex program and say, "see, it's mechanical -- given the same input it produces the same output." The problem with this argument is that we cannot make the same test on a human brain. I'd bet that if we could save the state of a human brain, run a series of tests, then reload the old state and run the tests again, we would begin to see the mechanism underlying our program.