I was reacting to the supposed US skill of ending a war: The Iraq war seems to be a perfect example of a war that has been won in a record time (couple of weeks), but with a severly messed up handling of the post-war period (still ongoing...)
As Field Marshall Rommel said, no nation goes to war more incompetently than the United States, but no nation ends a war better than the United States.
Obviously, Rommel lived more than 60 years before the operation Iraqi freedom, or he'd not have make such bold claims...
With the dollar going the way it is it'll cost me more to bank the cheque than it is worth over here!
The cheque will still make
nice kindling for the fireplace. Or, if you don't mind its scruffiness, you can still use it for a more obvious use, demonstrating your opinion of the American economy...
Incorrect. Basic economics: maximizing revenue means maximizing the product of the demand curve times the NET profit per unit. The demand curve is fixed, but any cost incurred will reduce NET profits. You therefore need to shift to a different point on the demand curve in order to maximize profits - that means rasing prices.
This would be true if this was really a per unit cost. However it is not. It is a one-time expense in R&D. As such, it will not affect the end price in the same way that a real per-unit cost would. Think about it:
P = (S-C) * N - F
Where P is the profit, S the sale price, C the cost of producing each unit, N the number of units sold and F the "fixed" costs (which are independant of number of units produced). N is obviously function of price:
P = (S-C) * N(S) - F
You want to maximize that quantity, the maximum is where the derivative is zero:
P' = (S-C) * N'(S) + N(S) = 0
===> There is no dependcy on F here any longer, as this is an additive constant, which "disappears" when taking the derivative!
The only decisions affected by development costs is whether to produce the product at all or not (if P_max would be negative...), and when to make a new version. Consumer price is not affected by it.
Also aren't other mail servers supposed to check that the envelope sender matches the host it's being sent from?
They are. It's called SPF. However, this standard is still new and thus not very widely implemented yet, but this will probably change in the next couple of weeks.
Don't ever do that, all spam has forged headers. You're just making life hard on someone who had their address sold.
That's what SPF is for. It allows the owner of a domain to publish a specification of IP addresses which are allowed to use that domain name (foo.com). If somebody, who claims to be pete@foo.com now attempts to send a mail to an SPF-enabled receiver, his mail is rejected, because his IP is not in the foo.com approved set.
Rejection happens immediately on submission, so the mail stays on the fraudulent server.
"SallySmith@aol.com" probably did not send spam-mail from a ".kr" ISP.
Prepare yourself for a visit from the DMCA police.
I'm not overly worried here. I'm European, and fortunately we do have weapons of mass destructions (France's force de frappe), so I'm quite confident that coward Bush will not dare to set his feet here, hehe!
(For those who don't know: one reason why Iraq was invaded was because they did not have any WMDs. On the other hand, countries that do have WMDs, such as North Korea, are safe!)
Referer header. If NYT thinks that you were referred by Google news, it lets you in, if it sees that you come from Slashdot, it doesn't (except with the PARTNER hack...).
As Google news, and Google the search engine have the same Domain, NYT apparently does not (yet...) tell them apart.
A usual with the NYT, Google is your friend. Just click on the "If the URL is valid..." link, and here you go, without any need to make up data for the subscription form!
Then again, you'd think you'd see this with people who wear glasses, too, when they remove them
This does occur, especially if your new glasses are much stronger than your old glasses.
For the first hour or so of wearing them, you'll feel somewhat disoriented and maybe even nauseous, until your brain adapts.
The phenomenon is even more obvious for astigmatismus glasses (rather than plain short- or far-sightedness). Try wearing a friend's glasses whose prescription is very different from your own, and walk around in them.
As far as removing the glasses is concerned: the world will be too blurred, and the brain will hook on that blurriness, and not even notice that it is "distorted" as well.
In Steve's case, he still sees a perfectly on-focus world, but distorted compared to what he is used to (i.e. not distorted, but he was accustomed to the distorted image given by his screen).
Just like Munich, Israel shied away from Microsoft not only because of the price, but also in order to avoid vendor lock-in.
And just like in Munich's case, Microsoft did a counter-proposal that was much cheaper than its normal offering (in the case of Munich, the MSFT proposal ended up being cheaper than the SuSE/IBM/Linux proposal)!
And just like Munich, Israel still kept sticking with Linux, despite Microsoft's concession on the price!
Do we see a pattern here? Hint: it's not because of the price. It's because of whatever else Microsoft stands for (vendor lock-in, lack of security, lack of reliability, proprietary interfaces, disregard for consumer and competition,...)
Just patch the supplied milter to whitelist your known forwarding addresses or secondary MX'es:
Patch snipped because Slashdot complains about too many junk characters.
Admittedly, this is still not an ideal solution, as it takes an intervention by the sysadmin whenever a user decides to sign up with a "new" forwarding service.
However, on the SPF mailing list, they are mentioning a trusted-forwarder.org domain, which, when finished, will act as a DNSwl (DNS white list) to inventory all known forwarders (such as pobox, netcourrier,...)
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you can browser their internal PDF's Just vary the number after id...
However, you can still browse unpublished contents, hehe...
Too bad only since they've stopped using pub_status=0 since ages...
But there are other tables which might prove to be more fruitful!
... but we are smarter and bigger. How long until somebody will turn this nice SQL injection into some world-class defacement?
Yeah, I know, it's not yet April 1st, but this sure sounds like it
And even if they can spell it, they most certainly can't spell its plural!
I was reacting to the supposed US skill of ending a war: The Iraq war seems to be a perfect example of a war that has been won in a record time (couple of weeks), but with a severly messed up handling of the post-war period (still ongoing...)
Obviously, Rommel lived more than 60 years before the operation Iraqi freedom, or he'd not have make such bold claims...
The king is dead, long live the king!
Oh, and the young lad in the boat is still alive as well!
Modded down as Flamebait, how appropriate! Good to know that I've got some karma to burn!
That's far worse than eternal damnation, it's eternal copyright!
The cheque will still make nice kindling for the fireplace. Or, if you don't mind its scruffiness, you can still use it for a more obvious use, demonstrating your opinion of the American economy...
This would be true if this was really a per unit cost. However it is not. It is a one-time expense in R&D. As such, it will not affect the end price in the same way that a real per-unit cost would. Think about it:
P = (S-C) * N - F
Where P is the profit, S the sale price, C the cost of producing each unit, N the number of units sold and F the "fixed" costs (which are independant of number of units produced). N is obviously function of price:
P = (S-C) * N(S) - F
You want to maximize that quantity, the maximum is where the derivative is zero:
P' = (S-C) * N'(S) + N(S) = 0
===> There is no dependcy on F here any longer, as this is an additive constant, which "disappears" when taking the derivative!
The only decisions affected by development costs is whether to produce the product at all or not (if P_max would be negative...), and when to make a new version. Consumer price is not affected by it.
They are. It's called SPF. However, this standard is still new and thus not very widely implemented yet, but this will probably change in the next couple of weeks.
That's what SPF is for. It allows the owner of a domain to publish a specification of IP addresses which are allowed to use that domain name (foo.com). If somebody, who claims to be pete@foo.com now attempts to send a mail to an SPF-enabled receiver, his mail is rejected, because his IP is not in the foo.com approved set.
Rejection happens immediately on submission, so the mail stays on the fraudulent server.
"SallySmith@aol.com" probably did not send spam-mail from a ".kr" ISP.
Nor would that mail be accepted by an SPF-enabled sendmail. Indeed, AOL is one of the first major ISPs to have published SPF records.
I'm not overly worried here. I'm European, and fortunately we do have weapons of mass destructions (France's force de frappe), so I'm quite confident that coward Bush will not dare to set his feet here, hehe!
(For those who don't know: one reason why Iraq was invaded was because they did not have any WMDs. On the other hand, countries that do have WMDs, such as North Korea, are safe!)
Would certainly help against spam <duck!>
Hehe!
"It smelled really bad," he said.
Don't tell that a Swiss!
As Google news, and Google the search engine have the same Domain, NYT apparently does not (yet...) tell them apart.
A usual with the NYT, Google is your friend. Just click on the "If the URL is valid..." link, and here you go, without any need to make up data for the subscription form!
So, should our (ink-selling) monks call themselves The Monastery Gates instead of The Lasermonks?
This does occur, especially if your new glasses are much stronger than your old glasses. For the first hour or so of wearing them, you'll feel somewhat disoriented and maybe even nauseous, until your brain adapts.
The phenomenon is even more obvious for astigmatismus glasses (rather than plain short- or far-sightedness). Try wearing a friend's glasses whose prescription is very different from your own, and walk around in them.
As far as removing the glasses is concerned: the world will be too blurred, and the brain will hook on that blurriness, and not even notice that it is "distorted" as well.
In Steve's case, he still sees a perfectly on-focus world, but distorted compared to what he is used to (i.e. not distorted, but he was accustomed to the distorted image given by his screen).
And just like in Munich's case, Microsoft did a counter-proposal that was much cheaper than its normal offering (in the case of Munich, the MSFT proposal ended up being cheaper than the SuSE/IBM/Linux proposal)!
And just like Munich, Israel still kept sticking with Linux, despite Microsoft's concession on the price!
Do we see a pattern here? Hint: it's not because of the price. It's because of whatever else Microsoft stands for (vendor lock-in, lack of security, lack of reliability, proprietary interfaces, disregard for consumer and competition, ...)
Be careful what you wish for!
Patch snipped because Slashdot complains about too many junk characters.
Admittedly, this is still not an ideal solution, as it takes an intervention by the sysadmin whenever a user decides to sign up with a "new" forwarding service.
However, on the SPF mailing list, they are mentioning a trusted-forwarder.org domain, which, when finished, will act as a DNSwl (DNS white list) to inventory all known forwarders (such as pobox, netcourrier, ...)