Why cant we simply have a device that filters callers based on their caller ID? Obviously there would be issues with callers that block the caller ID (they can do that in the UK - I dont know if it's possible in the US).
Perhaps it could have a 'known ID's only' mode - personally I dont WANT anyone to call me unless I know who it is - it would be nice if the phone didnt even ring unless it was someone I wanted to answer for.
General SPAM avoidance rules would appear to also apply - simply dont give out your number.
I just installed and updated OSX 10.1.4 on our aging G3 fileserver with 572Mb RAM and it's way faster than it was running OS9. The main performance increase has to be the fact that with the *NIX kernel we finally have some 'real' multitasking rather than the pathetic OS9 (on OS9 - hold down the mouse button - all disk access stops!! Yes, your web server stops serving pages too!) I dont think I'll be complaining about OSX considering how crap an utterly unreliable OS9 is as a server. I dont think we'll be upgrading our 200 OS8.6 / OS9 clients for some time though - not unless we get offered free OSX versions of all apps overnight.
Blimey - it appears that now the moron Bonfield has been forced to resign, his successor MIGHT have actually grasped the concept that people want lower broadband prices and not pathetic 'extras' like classical music services. They lower the price and more people take it up - genius.
This sounds interesting - particularly how essentially this is something that makes an unstructured filing system suddenly become a structured filing system. What implications does this have for UK law? UK data protection states that copies of email have to be kept for a 28 day minimum period. It advises that "email is a transitory medium" and our company person in charge of such policies has just written a policy that says I'm supposed to program our mail systems to auto-delete mail after a three month period. Staff are supposed to save their emails that they want to keep to their local hard drives, as they suddenly become "documents" rather than emails. Why? because in the UK any individual can legally ask for copies of any email that mentions them individually by name. Local hard drives can be searched, however this is only if the documents are stored in a "structured filing system". I have raised concerns about what constitutes a "structured filing system" to the point where I would argue that FAT, NTFS and HFS are structured due to the fact they utilise indexes. Add to this the new MS Object Oriented Filing System (OFS) that is basically going to be a simplified version of SQL server as a filing system, is the ability to search previously considered "unstructured" data going to complicate the UK law?
And the content will be stored in hunderds of web caches.
Face it - if they want people to use their site they shouldn't use a stupid registration system.
Another typical example of managers who dont have a ****ing clue deciding 'whats best'.
Speaking as my sound engineer persona, I agree whole heartedly. However I want something about the size of a (portable!) minidisc recorder that I can get a DI from a mixing desk from for recording live gigs that I can also use as an MP3 player. I'd get minidisc but lets face it - moving parts are obsolete.
The 6Gb model mentioned in another post I have seen - it would appear to be basically a 6Gb 3.5" HDD in a plastic case with an embedded OS. I'm sure it works very well however I wouldnt like to drop it!
Anyone know of small, portable solid state MP3 recorders? Must be able to record preferably 160kbps but 128kbps would be acceptable. Ideally store onto removable media such as CF or MM cards.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just wondering where they are going to steal anti virus software from.
I'll bet at least some of them try P2P as a source...
...I dont know what happened to the hyperlink there - here is the link in text form:
7 /2 002-05-17/2002-05-23/1
http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/25462
And another try at a hyperlink.
I remember the topic of Kazaa infection being brought up on Bugtraq Bugtraq months ago.
I saw it at midnight BST, didnt get home until 3am and was off the next day.
I saw it first! ner!
Right that's it - I'm moving to Germany!
Problem is they always seemed to block their number, so dialling 1472 to get the CLI number didn't work
In case taht wasnt a typo, it's 1471! Might explain why you didnt get that number...
Why cant we simply have a device that filters callers based on their caller ID? Obviously there would be issues with callers that block the caller ID (they can do that in the UK - I dont know if it's possible in the US).
Perhaps it could have a 'known ID's only' mode - personally I dont WANT anyone to call me unless I know who it is - it would be nice if the phone didnt even ring unless it was someone I wanted to answer for.
General SPAM avoidance rules would appear to also apply - simply dont give out your number.
I just installed and updated OSX 10.1.4 on our aging G3 fileserver with 572Mb RAM and it's way faster than it was running OS9. The main performance increase has to be the fact that with the *NIX kernel we finally have some 'real' multitasking rather than the pathetic OS9 (on OS9 - hold down the mouse button - all disk access stops!! Yes, your web server stops serving pages too!) I dont think I'll be complaining about OSX considering how crap an utterly unreliable OS9 is as a server. I dont think we'll be upgrading our 200 OS8.6 / OS9 clients for some time though - not unless we get offered free OSX versions of all apps overnight.
Blimey - it appears that now the moron Bonfield has been forced to resign, his successor MIGHT have actually grasped the concept that people want lower broadband prices and not pathetic 'extras' like classical music services.
They lower the price and more people take it up - genius.
...it knackers your microwave! True! (you DONT want to know how I know this)
This sounds interesting - particularly how essentially this is something that makes an unstructured filing system suddenly become a structured filing system. What implications does this have for UK law?
UK data protection states that copies of email have to be kept for a 28 day minimum period. It advises that "email is a transitory medium" and our company person in charge of such policies has just written a policy that says I'm supposed to program our mail systems to auto-delete mail after a three month period. Staff are supposed to save their emails that they want to keep to their local hard drives, as they suddenly become "documents" rather than emails.
Why? because in the UK any individual can legally ask for copies of any email that mentions them individually by name. Local hard drives can be searched, however this is only if the documents are stored in a "structured filing system". I have raised concerns about what constitutes a "structured filing system" to the point where I would argue that FAT, NTFS and HFS are structured due to the fact they utilise indexes. Add to this the new MS Object Oriented Filing System (OFS) that is basically going to be a simplified version of SQL server as a filing system, is the ability to search previously considered "unstructured" data going to complicate the UK law?
That's not a problem - that's what Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) is for; to prevent copying over digital links such as SP/DIF and optical.
And the content will be stored in hunderds of web caches. Face it - if they want people to use their site they shouldn't use a stupid registration system. Another typical example of managers who dont have a ****ing clue deciding 'whats best'.
Speaking as my sound engineer persona, I agree whole heartedly. However I want something about the size of a (portable!) minidisc recorder that I can get a DI from a mixing desk from for recording live gigs that I can also use as an MP3 player. I'd get minidisc but lets face it - moving parts are obsolete. The 6Gb model mentioned in another post I have seen - it would appear to be basically a 6Gb 3.5" HDD in a plastic case with an embedded OS. I'm sure it works very well however I wouldnt like to drop it! Anyone know of small, portable solid state MP3 recorders? Must be able to record preferably 160kbps but 128kbps would be acceptable. Ideally store onto removable media such as CF or MM cards.