What in the hell are you talking about? Not only is this completely off-topic but you're also very ill informed.
*At least* if you're going to post something like this, you'd have the brains to actually read up a little bit on it. Not only are you wrong about Mozilla using "obsolete Netscape 4.x code" (as netscape is based on Mozilla, NOT the other way around) but you're also wrong about IE being the standard for "all web protocols" - no, IE is the standard for "all microsoft-only protocols."
This guy makes some really trivial changes - a 233 to a 322, etc. And he's "dissapointed" that they weren't picked up in 48 hours. Give me a break!!
He changed five small tid-bits of information, five changes amongst the millions of words, and hundreds of thousands of articles. What does he expect? Does he think that there's a million people milling around checking every single little number or word, 24 hours a day?
Given a few months, chances are someone would have been looking for that information, cross-referenced it somewhere else, and then made the corrections.
I didn't say SPF wouldn't help anything - in the context of the threat I thought it was pretty clear that I meant "Blocking domains" wouldn't help anything.
Sure, it would be nice if everyone used SPF - and it seems to be the trend so that's good - so spammers stop spoofing the sender's domain name. But really, that's just about the only good thing to come out of SPF.
Maybe it will cost spammers a few extra bucks but they could easily pass the $20 domain registration fee onto the people buying into these spam "campaigns."
That would be a lot more work - I work for a company that recieves about 80,000 spam a day or more. And since we're a company that serves many, many thousands of businesses across the world and work with many thousands more, we can't just quarantine messages from domains we don't recieve many from.
Sure, if your spam scanner has a scoring system like Spamassassin, you could simply score "untrusted" domains a little higher- but tools like Spamassass already have an auto-whitelist that should take care of that automatically.
There's... ohh, you know. An unlimited amount of domain names you can have. Spammer sends out a few spam "campaigns" and simply changes domain names, SPF and all.
It won't help anything. Many of them will use stolen credit cards, or register under other false information, register 300 domains, and use them until they are blocked. Then move on.
So the problem of scanning each and every e-mail for spammishness will still prevail.
Cox Communications just increased their standard service to 5Mbit/512kbit. It's 45 a month. They have a 6Mbit/768kbit package but it's a lot more expensive - something like $80/mo.
But cox still sucks anyways because they block ports 21, 25, 80, 53 (udp too), 443, and a bunch of others.
When I was in NYC I had an 8.1Mbit/980Kbit ADSL. The CO was across the street. It was $200/mo.
BUT SHIT IT WAS FAST. And I had all sorts of fun stuff like NO blocked ports, my own router with a 32 IP address subnet, etc. There was no distinction between "home" and "Business" users with the service I used - it was just fast or slow.
DSL can be terribly cool, but truely fast DSL is nearly non-existant except for the huge cities. I live in a very densly populated area in Rhode Island and you can't even get DSL in 80% of the area because the CO's are so far apart. I'm something like 14,000 ft from mine.
He never said it wouldn't help anything other then Open Source - why do you assume one but not the other? There are such things that can help without hindring or help everyone.
It would have been great if they didn't patent it at all. You'll likely still have to pay this non-profit (which means shit BTW) group to use it.
Re:Stupid is a Stupid does
on
Hardening Apache
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I actually like ping, I leave it on since my cablemodem isn't all that reliable and it's a nice easy way to check if it's up when I'm at work. If port 23456 stops responding, I can ping to see if it's just the application or the connection.
I also use it as a monitor from another location so I can redirect certian traffic if it stops responding.
Sure, I could go firewall nazi and only allow ping from certain locations, but hell, it's only ping.
Not to say you MUST use it, but I find nothing particularly evil about it that it MUST be blocked.
Re:Stupid is a Stupid does
on
Hardening Apache
·
· Score: 4, Funny
And I'm supposed to listen to some that just calls people out as "stupid" without learning more first?
There's lag in the MX700 - I owned one and I returned it for a wired mouse. It was supposed to be much better then other wireless mice in the past but it still suffered from typical wireless issues; batteries suck, there's a noticable delay when you move the pointer (maybe you don't notice it but I do) and when the mouse sits for a few seconds it "sleeps" and takes even longer to move the pointer.
Wireless mice add complexity to a very simple device that I just shouldn't have to think about. I don't mind the wire. It's never been an issue in the past for me. And you still have a wire that attaches to the computer and runs to your desk, so it's not like wireless mice eliminate cables completely.
And, in the end, the ergonomic logitech mice are just a little too bulky for me. I much prefer the simple design of the much smaller Microsoft Intellipoint mouse. I'm not alone here either, just read around; a lot of people prefer a smaller mouse.
Glad I'm not the only one. I, like the other replier to your post, also use an older first-gen Microsoft Optical mouse. Small, easy. And I like mouse pads for multiple reasons so being able to use the thing on a mirror doesn't mean crap to me.
I'd like to have a mouse that had better tracking during moments of high movement (ie some games) but it works just fine.
And I don't want a cordless mouse dammit. Who wants to worry about having your mouse die on you? Or having the batteries eventually not take a charge? Some people are hell bent on removing the cords from everything but for some things like the mouse, it just adds complexity where none is needed nor wanted.
They make some nice mouse pads- I hate but bulky ones with the big gel-packs and crap, but I like the ones with a really nice surface like a velvet-like material I have on my main workstation.
They help the mouse move smoother; if you have a hard surface they get "sticky" and make it difficult to make precise movements. The pads get dirty really fast without a mouse pad. AND, you can really screw up the surface of your desk if you use the mouse without a pad.
Who wants a sticky mouse that grinds over dirt and wears out your desk? I'll take my nice comfortable mouse pad any day.
"Using the keyboard with a single click mouse is faster than the 2/3 button mouse in a Windows environment."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Seems to me that pressing a special key and clicking is more cumbersome then right applying pressure to one of your fingers to right-click or whatever.
I don't like all the buttons though; I think that three is fine. Meaning, two buttons, wheel, and the third button is pushing the wheel. All the extra buttons just seem to get in my way when I accidently tap them all the time.
I have worked with many Macintoshes over the years, and I'm always frustrated by the fact that there's no right mouse button, and in recent times, there's no wheel. The wheel rules, it's so useful.
They'll probably come out with the "WMG" format which you will have to pay for a license to sign your own images. Users that visit your site will contact a Microsoft server and ask if it's okay to decode the images. Only IE will work with this system.
The official press release would be something like "We feel that this new open (to IE) format will provide the much needed protection against web site theft and give necessary control to Microsoft over your own content."
Cordless mice - all the ones I've used, and I've used a lot of different ones - suffer from laggy response and poor sample rates.
Can't use them with games for sure, and the low sample rates cause frustration for graphic designers and such.
I've been using mice for as long as they've been on personal computers and even just farting around the computer is annoying for me when using a wireless mouse.
USB mice are fantastic.
The only mouse I really like in recent years is the first-generation standard Microsoft optical mouse with two buttons and a wheel. Not too bulky, not too many buttons I'll never use porposfully (very annoying when you tap the side buttons on the intellipoint explorer behemoth.) Too bad it suffered from poor tracking during times of high movement. The newer ones are better with this, and mostly the same design.
Maybe the super-new ones *might* have this option - but not any of them I've seen and I've seen some brand new (past month) boards.
It sure will be sweet when this is mainstream; boot up a copy of whatever OS and do some troubleshooting or virus removal. Or even just some easy file copies.
Slashdot Mirror
What in the hell are you talking about? Not only is this completely off-topic but you're also very ill informed.
*At least* if you're going to post something like this, you'd have the brains to actually read up a little bit on it. Not only are you wrong about Mozilla using "obsolete Netscape 4.x code" (as netscape is based on Mozilla, NOT the other way around) but you're also wrong about IE being the standard for "all web protocols" - no, IE is the standard for "all microsoft-only protocols."
Get your facts straight, dumbshit.
nt
OHH COME ON!!
This guy makes some really trivial changes - a 233 to a 322, etc. And he's "dissapointed" that they weren't picked up in 48 hours. Give me a break!!
He changed five small tid-bits of information, five changes amongst the millions of words, and hundreds of thousands of articles. What does he expect? Does he think that there's a million people milling around checking every single little number or word, 24 hours a day?
Given a few months, chances are someone would have been looking for that information, cross-referenced it somewhere else, and then made the corrections.
What an idiot.
I didn't say SPF wouldn't help anything - in the context of the threat I thought it was pretty clear that I meant "Blocking domains" wouldn't help anything.
Sure, it would be nice if everyone used SPF - and it seems to be the trend so that's good - so spammers stop spoofing the sender's domain name. But really, that's just about the only good thing to come out of SPF.
Maybe it will cost spammers a few extra bucks but they could easily pass the $20 domain registration fee onto the people buying into these spam "campaigns."
That would be a lot more work - I work for a company that recieves about 80,000 spam a day or more. And since we're a company that serves many, many thousands of businesses across the world and work with many thousands more, we can't just quarantine messages from domains we don't recieve many from.
Sure, if your spam scanner has a scoring system like Spamassassin, you could simply score "untrusted" domains a little higher- but tools like Spamassass already have an auto-whitelist that should take care of that automatically.
It's true - the only method of "kill spam by blocking it" that would be effective is one that is 100% effective. Not 99.9%.
Each year there's better spam protection, and each year there's been huge increases in spam. Doesn't anyone else see a pattern here?
65 times smaller? So a patch that's normally 100k is now 1.5k?
Maybe sometimes, but I don't see that happening on average.
There's... ohh, you know. An unlimited amount of domain names you can have. Spammer sends out a few spam "campaigns" and simply changes domain names, SPF and all.
It won't help anything. Many of them will use stolen credit cards, or register under other false information, register 300 domains, and use them until they are blocked. Then move on.
So the problem of scanning each and every e-mail for spammishness will still prevail.
Yea, I bet it's cheaper then it used to be. I was in NYC in the later part of 2001, so this is likely. But I doubt it's $29.90, that's very cheap.
Cox Communications just increased their standard service to 5Mbit/512kbit. It's 45 a month. They have a 6Mbit/768kbit package but it's a lot more expensive - something like $80/mo.
But cox still sucks anyways because they block ports 21, 25, 80, 53 (udp too), 443, and a bunch of others.
When I was in NYC I had an 8.1Mbit/980Kbit ADSL. The CO was across the street. It was $200/mo.
BUT SHIT IT WAS FAST. And I had all sorts of fun stuff like NO blocked ports, my own router with a 32 IP address subnet, etc. There was no distinction between "home" and "Business" users with the service I used - it was just fast or slow.
DSL can be terribly cool, but truely fast DSL is nearly non-existant except for the huge cities. I live in a very densly populated area in Rhode Island and you can't even get DSL in 80% of the area because the CO's are so far apart. I'm something like 14,000 ft from mine.
He never said it wouldn't help anything other then Open Source - why do you assume one but not the other? There are such things that can help without hindring or help everyone.
It would have been great if they didn't patent it at all. You'll likely still have to pay this non-profit (which means shit BTW) group to use it.
I actually like ping, I leave it on since my cablemodem isn't all that reliable and it's a nice easy way to check if it's up when I'm at work. If port 23456 stops responding, I can ping to see if it's just the application or the connection.
I also use it as a monitor from another location so I can redirect certian traffic if it stops responding.
Sure, I could go firewall nazi and only allow ping from certain locations, but hell, it's only ping.
Not to say you MUST use it, but I find nothing particularly evil about it that it MUST be blocked.
How many of you so called admins do this:
%su
%httpd start
when we all know it should be
%su
#httpd start
And I'm supposed to listen to some that just calls people out as "stupid" without learning more first?
There's lag in the MX700 - I owned one and I returned it for a wired mouse. It was supposed to be much better then other wireless mice in the past but it still suffered from typical wireless issues; batteries suck, there's a noticable delay when you move the pointer (maybe you don't notice it but I do) and when the mouse sits for a few seconds it "sleeps" and takes even longer to move the pointer.
Wireless mice add complexity to a very simple device that I just shouldn't have to think about. I don't mind the wire. It's never been an issue in the past for me. And you still have a wire that attaches to the computer and runs to your desk, so it's not like wireless mice eliminate cables completely.
And, in the end, the ergonomic logitech mice are just a little too bulky for me. I much prefer the simple design of the much smaller Microsoft Intellipoint mouse. I'm not alone here either, just read around; a lot of people prefer a smaller mouse.
Glad I'm not the only one. I, like the other replier to your post, also use an older first-gen Microsoft Optical mouse. Small, easy. And I like mouse pads for multiple reasons so being able to use the thing on a mirror doesn't mean crap to me.
I'd like to have a mouse that had better tracking during moments of high movement (ie some games) but it works just fine.
And I don't want a cordless mouse dammit. Who wants to worry about having your mouse die on you? Or having the batteries eventually not take a charge? Some people are hell bent on removing the cords from everything but for some things like the mouse, it just adds complexity where none is needed nor wanted.
Not sure what you mean. It would be good for a computer-litterate person to be able to boot off of USB; I didn't say anything to the contrary to that.
Well, how do you pronounce WMA or WMV? Or even MP3, PSD? You just say the letters =)
They make some nice mouse pads- I hate but bulky ones with the big gel-packs and crap, but I like the ones with a really nice surface like a velvet-like material I have on my main workstation.
They help the mouse move smoother; if you have a hard surface they get "sticky" and make it difficult to make precise movements. The pads get dirty really fast without a mouse pad. AND, you can really screw up the surface of your desk if you use the mouse without a pad.
Who wants a sticky mouse that grinds over dirt and wears out your desk? I'll take my nice comfortable mouse pad any day.
"Using the keyboard with a single click mouse is faster than the 2/3 button mouse in a Windows environment."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Seems to me that pressing a special key and clicking is more cumbersome then right applying pressure to one of your fingers to right-click or whatever.
I don't like all the buttons though; I think that three is fine. Meaning, two buttons, wheel, and the third button is pushing the wheel. All the extra buttons just seem to get in my way when I accidently tap them all the time.
I have worked with many Macintoshes over the years, and I'm always frustrated by the fact that there's no right mouse button, and in recent times, there's no wheel. The wheel rules, it's so useful.
Anyways..
They'll probably come out with the "WMG" format which you will have to pay for a license to sign your own images. Users that visit your site will contact a Microsoft server and ask if it's okay to decode the images. Only IE will work with this system.
The official press release would be something like "We feel that this new open (to IE) format will provide the much needed protection against web site theft and give necessary control to Microsoft over your own content."
Would it surprise you?
Cordless mice - all the ones I've used, and I've used a lot of different ones - suffer from laggy response and poor sample rates.
Can't use them with games for sure, and the low sample rates cause frustration for graphic designers and such.
I've been using mice for as long as they've been on personal computers and even just farting around the computer is annoying for me when using a wireless mouse.
USB mice are fantastic.
The only mouse I really like in recent years is the first-generation standard Microsoft optical mouse with two buttons and a wheel. Not too bulky, not too many buttons I'll never use porposfully (very annoying when you tap the side buttons on the intellipoint explorer behemoth.) Too bad it suffered from poor tracking during times of high movement. The newer ones are better with this, and mostly the same design.
Bah. Cordless mice are too laggy and they don't have good sample rates. Not like a standard USB mouse.
Sure, it's fine for office stuff but that's all. A person that does graphic work or a person that plays games don't use wireless mice.
Maybe the super-new ones *might* have this option - but not any of them I've seen and I've seen some brand new (past month) boards.
It sure will be sweet when this is mainstream; boot up a copy of whatever OS and do some troubleshooting or virus removal. Or even just some easy file copies.