That's a problem between you and the ISP you're paying money to. It is fairly trivial to setup an SMTP server that uses authentication.
Arguing that your old ISP is stuck in the stone age isn't a valid reason to throw out one of the only good techniques available today to verify the validity of email (and eliminate spam with forged from lines, which would also go a long way to just plain eliminate spam).
It isn't copyright infringement. It IS trademark infringement. And if Microsoft didn't try to protect it's trademark (no matter how stupid all parties think such actions are), they risk losing their trademark.
When that happens, anybody can use it. You'd start seeing "Microsoft Linux" distros, even though MS had nothing to do with them.
All of your questions demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding about how SPF works.
If you have an email address from another ISP, send email using that ISP's SMTP server.
If you have an email address from a domain you own, add the appropriate SPF records pointing to the SMTP servers you wish to allow email for that domain to come from.
If you have an email address for a domain for which you do not control, and for which no SMTP server exists for, it isn't a real email address.
All SPF does is provide information about what machines can officially send email from a particular domain. If you don't want to connect to those machines (either because you're lazy, or because you don't have access) you shouldn't be sending email with a From line with that domain in it.
If it was just "mikerowe.com" I'd agree with you. But it isn't -- it's "mikerowesoft.com". And as you said, he already admitted to registering the domain because it sounded like "microsoft".
Throw in the fact that he didn't think that reimbursing his costs for the domain was adequate compensation for the domain name, but instead wanted 1000x his costs, and I think it'd be pretty damn easy to make a bad faith case (which is exactly what's happening).
Nor do I think that it would be unreasonable for Microsoft to push ahead with it either, as ignoring it pretty much means they lose their trademark.
People aren't "things" or "machines." Nobody is perfect, and sometimes crap happens to people outside of their control -- debilitating car accident, significant other empties the bank accounts and disappears, someone slips on your sidewalk and sues, your child gets sick and requires expensive medical treatment, your apartment burns down, you have an IQ of 50, etc.
People who think that people deserve to starve or live without a roof on their head "because they don't try hard enough" make me sick. Seriously, who the fuck wants to live like that? What makes you think that someone would want to live like that?
If it's nothing, then why are you dragging it somewhere?
In a GUI, when you click & hold the mouse button on an icon and drag it halfway across the screen, you are picking it up and moving it. When you let go, you are dropping it. This is the expected behavior of the UI. This is the way everything else works in the UI. This is the way the dock works when you rearrange icons in it. This is how you add icons to the dock.
The fact that what an icon represents internally if different than a majority of the icons doesn't change the fact that it is still an icon. As the dock behaves differently in this respect than the behavior of every other drag & drop operation in OS X, it is inconsistant. Inconsistancy is the bane of good UI design. You can get away with it if that inconsistancy isn't "harmful" (ie: making a copy of something instead of moving it), but a deletion isn't harmless.
The "correct" way to delete an item from the dock would be to drag the icon over the trashcan and let go (which would be just as much effort as dragging it off of the dock...).
You may happen to like the way it currently works, but it is NOT good UI design.
I disagree with your assesment. When I drag something off the dock, I am "moving" it out of the dock. Since nothing is actually destroyed, how can it be anything else? Perhaps the puff is a poor indicator of what is happening, but that does not make the action itself wrong.
Right, you're moving it off of the dock. Onto what? Whatever it's at when you 'let go' of the icon. If you let go on the desktop, you expect the icon to move out of the dock onto the desktop.
It doesn't. Instead, it disappears.
The fact that, internally, the icon doesn't represent anything doesn't matter -- because to a user, it is something. From a user perspective, a 'move' operation turned into a 'delete' operation.
You've never actually seen a Microsoft sales pitch before, have you?
Their sales pitches are generally focused around their products allowing you to do more than the competition, faster than the competition, at a lower cost than the competition.
You may not agree with it, but that's their sales pitch.
The complaint wasn't about the PC version of Office, rather the Mac version. I suspect the next version of Office for the Mac will have that support in it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to divert resources to modify a version of the product which will be replaced in a few months by something else which already has that support in it...
You've always been able to buy each application in the Office suite standalone.
Isreal is complaining that the Office bundle has one or more applications they don't want, but it is more expensive to buy the applications separately than it is to buy the bundle (well, DUH).
I hate to break it to you, but you can make any number of copies of an mp3 without degrading the audio quality.
You've only got a problem when you decompress the audio and re-encode it using another lossy algorithm.
This is roughly analogous to making copies of something using any sort of DA->AD conversion (or A->A for that matter)-- you lose information during each conversion. This would include copies of tapes, ripping audio off of cds with your computer (burn a cd, rip it, burn the ripped copy, etc, if you don't believe me... several generations down the road you'll have crap), recording any audio from an analog source on your computer, etc.
Having an audio file in a lossy format isn't a horrible thing if the quality of the encoded file is satisfactory.
I suspect most objections to listening to high bitrate mp3s (or your compression shceme of choice) are rooted in the same realm as those who insist that records are better than cds.
If it works anything like their cd based mp3 players, it will use the id3 tags if present, and fall back to filenames if not present.
High level organization of files is done through the directory structure.
IE:
root\ --> album1 --> album2 --> my favorites
You can navigate through the directories and see the files in each subdirectory. I haven't noticed a way to see all of the files on the unit regardless of what directory they are in (but I've never really cared either...). You can have the player play all files, or files in just a particular directory. You can also have the player play files randomly on the disc, or randomly in a particular directory.
I think there is also a way to create playlists, but I've never messed with it.
The whole point of hyperthreading is that a second thread can run when the first thread stalls (ie: needs to load some data that isn't in the cache) -- instead of stalling for cache data, the cpu switches over to the other thread.
If you know about the storm, then I suppose the Beagle 2 team knew about it too. Then why didn't they postpone the descent? Did it just have to land on Xmas? Or did the bad weather start after separation, a few days ago...
There are two modules in play: 1) an orbiter 2) a lander
The insertion process for the lander had to happen before the orbiter reached the planet and entered orbit. Which means they couldn't choose when to insert the lander, beyond changing what date they launched it from Earth...
The fee is 25c per unit sold, capped at $250,000/year. If you don't sell one million units of whatever the hell it is you're selling per year, you aren't going to be forking over 250k.
Alright, I'll tell you exactly that. I used a digital camera, and reduced the image to 25% using an interpolated scaling to create an image much closer to 'balanced' than a raw digital image would be. By scaling it this way the image was resampled to the new size by combining and averaging the pixels, negating any effect the camera's CCD had.
This depends on the algorithm used to create the image from the sensor. Each pixel in the acquired image influences the color of surrounding pixels. Most of the time, that radius is greater than 4 pixels, so I'd say that sampling to 25% of the original size does not completely negate the pattern of the underlying sensor. A 10-16 pixel radius would not be unexpected (and yes, there is a noticable difference in the images IMO;...whatever algorithm and the parameters it used for your particular camera is not known to me).
What you say is irrelevant for the discussion, really, because a digital camera also uses JPG compression which, as we've discussed, creates a high-res green and low-res red + blue image. That's the other reason I resampled it, it negates the JPG effects and creates a (very lovely) new image without effects from the CCD or JPG compression.
Ick...save the image in RAW or TIFF if the camera gives you the option...
Please tell me that the author did NOT just split an image interpolated from a digital camera, which probably used sensor with pixels layed out in a bayer pattern*, using a CCD type of sensor which tranditionally shows the most noise in the blue channel...
Well DUH the green channel is going to have more detail -- there are twice as many green pixels on the sensor. And DUH the blue channel is going to be the fuzziest, given that is the shade digital cameras have the hardest time capturing (take a picture of a blue sky if you don't believe me)...
On top of that, the author is assuming that the colors are represented in his picture in equal quantity. The blue/red channels might not be as bright because there isn't as much red/blue in the picture as green (the photo does appear to have a yellow tint to it).
His assertion may be true, but his demonstration doesn't prove a dang thing.
* Bayer pattern:
RGRGRG GBGBGB RGRGRG GBGBGB
where R = red pixel, G = green pixel, and B = blue pixel
Basically, the software firewall doesn't kick in until the software firewall starts up, which isn't the instant the network protocols start accepting network traffic.
I cant wait for the support calls to start rolling in. What about businesses that 'Need' to standardize on Longhorn64-Office, but also need to keep support up for some legacy WinXP apps which dont run under Longhorn64 for whatever reason.
What do you think VirtualPC is meant to be used for?
As a side note, a 64bit version of WinXP should (in theory) be released in '04 (probably the 1st quarter of it). It's release will probably be fairly close to the release of.Net 2.0, which should have 64bit versions of the runtime (ie: all.Net apps get a nice "boost" from the new architecture).
But when you talk about campaign finance reform, they say "Oh, no, elections are *way* too important to let anybody actually fund the political speech they believe in, why that would let *money* corrupt politics."
Money isn't speech. It's a piece of green paper you give to someone in exchange for goods or services.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a problem between you and the ISP you're paying money to. It is fairly trivial to setup an SMTP server that uses authentication.
Arguing that your old ISP is stuck in the stone age isn't a valid reason to throw out one of the only good techniques available today to verify the validity of email (and eliminate spam with forged from lines, which would also go a long way to just plain eliminate spam).
It isn't copyright infringement. It IS trademark infringement. And if Microsoft didn't try to protect it's trademark (no matter how stupid all parties think such actions are), they risk losing their trademark.
When that happens, anybody can use it. You'd start seeing "Microsoft Linux" distros, even though MS had nothing to do with them.
All of your questions demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding about how SPF works.
If you have an email address from another ISP, send email using that ISP's SMTP server.
If you have an email address from a domain you own, add the appropriate SPF records pointing to the SMTP servers you wish to allow email for that domain to come from.
If you have an email address for a domain for which you do not control, and for which no SMTP server exists for, it isn't a real email address.
All SPF does is provide information about what machines can officially send email from a particular domain. If you don't want to connect to those machines (either because you're lazy, or because you don't have access) you shouldn't be sending email with a From line with that domain in it.
If it was just "mikerowe.com" I'd agree with you. But it isn't -- it's "mikerowesoft.com". And as you said, he already admitted to registering the domain because it sounded like "microsoft".
Throw in the fact that he didn't think that reimbursing his costs for the domain was adequate compensation for the domain name, but instead wanted 1000x his costs, and I think it'd be pretty damn easy to make a bad faith case (which is exactly what's happening).
Nor do I think that it would be unreasonable for Microsoft to push ahead with it either, as ignoring it pretty much means they lose their trademark.
I suppose that's why 802.11b's encryption scheme is so "secure".
I prefer to subsidize achievement.
Then invest in the stock market.
People aren't "things" or "machines." Nobody is perfect, and sometimes crap happens to people outside of their control -- debilitating car accident, significant other empties the bank accounts and disappears, someone slips on your sidewalk and sues, your child gets sick and requires expensive medical treatment, your apartment burns down, you have an IQ of 50, etc.
People who think that people deserve to starve or live without a roof on their head "because they don't try hard enough" make me sick. Seriously, who the fuck wants to live like that? What makes you think that someone would want to live like that?
If it's nothing, then why are you dragging it somewhere?
In a GUI, when you click & hold the mouse button on an icon and drag it halfway across the screen, you are picking it up and moving it. When you let go, you are dropping it. This is the expected behavior of the UI. This is the way everything else works in the UI. This is the way the dock works when you rearrange icons in it. This is how you add icons to the dock.
The fact that what an icon represents internally if different than a majority of the icons doesn't change the fact that it is still an icon. As the dock behaves differently in this respect than the behavior of every other drag & drop operation in OS X, it is inconsistant. Inconsistancy is the bane of good UI design. You can get away with it if that inconsistancy isn't "harmful" (ie: making a copy of something instead of moving it), but a deletion isn't harmless.
The "correct" way to delete an item from the dock would be to drag the icon over the trashcan and let go (which would be just as much effort as dragging it off of the dock...).
You may happen to like the way it currently works, but it is NOT good UI design.
The whole point is that you HAVE to hit the command key to get the desired/expected behavior. The desired/expected behavior should be the default.
I disagree with your assesment. When I drag something off the dock, I am "moving" it out of the dock. Since nothing is actually destroyed, how can it be anything else? Perhaps the puff is a poor indicator of what is happening, but that does not make the action itself wrong.
Right, you're moving it off of the dock. Onto what? Whatever it's at when you 'let go' of the icon. If you let go on the desktop, you expect the icon to move out of the dock onto the desktop.
It doesn't. Instead, it disappears.
The fact that, internally, the icon doesn't represent anything doesn't matter -- because to a user, it is something. From a user perspective, a 'move' operation turned into a 'delete' operation.
You've never actually seen a Microsoft sales pitch before, have you?
Their sales pitches are generally focused around their products allowing you to do more than the competition, faster than the competition, at a lower cost than the competition.
You may not agree with it, but that's their sales pitch.
The complaint wasn't about the PC version of Office, rather the Mac version. I suspect the next version of Office for the Mac will have that support in it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to divert resources to modify a version of the product which will be replaced in a few months by something else which already has that support in it ...
You've always been able to buy each application in the Office suite standalone.
Isreal is complaining that the Office bundle has one or more applications they don't want, but it is more expensive to buy the applications separately than it is to buy the bundle (well, DUH).
I hate to break it to you, but you can make any number of copies of an mp3 without degrading the audio quality.
... several generations down the road you'll have crap), recording any audio from an analog source on your computer, etc.
You've only got a problem when you decompress the audio and re-encode it using another lossy algorithm.
This is roughly analogous to making copies of something using any sort of DA->AD conversion (or A->A for that matter)-- you lose information during each conversion. This would include copies of tapes, ripping audio off of cds with your computer (burn a cd, rip it, burn the ripped copy, etc, if you don't believe me
Having an audio file in a lossy format isn't a horrible thing if the quality of the encoded file is satisfactory.
I suspect most objections to listening to high bitrate mp3s (or your compression shceme of choice) are rooted in the same realm as those who insist that records are better than cds.
If it works anything like their cd based mp3 players, it will use the id3 tags if present, and fall back to filenames if not present.
High level organization of files is done through the directory structure.
IE:
root\
--> album1
--> album2
--> my favorites
You can navigate through the directories and see the files in each subdirectory. I haven't noticed a way to see all of the files on the unit regardless of what directory they are in (but I've never really cared either...). You can have the player play all files, or files in just a particular directory. You can also have the player play files randomly on the disc, or randomly in a particular directory.
I think there is also a way to create playlists, but I've never messed with it.
Wow, you mean I might actually be able to replace the battery without sending it in for service?!?
If anyone can compete with Apple in this market it is iRiver. I own one of their cd based mp3 players, and it is a very nice unit.
The whole point of hyperthreading is that a second thread can run when the first thread stalls (ie: needs to load some data that isn't in the cache) -- instead of stalling for cache data, the cpu switches over to the other thread.
If you know about the storm, then I suppose the Beagle 2 team knew about it too. Then why didn't they postpone the descent? Did it just have to land on Xmas? Or did the bad weather start after separation, a few days ago...
There are two modules in play:
1) an orbiter
2) a lander
The insertion process for the lander had to happen before the orbiter reached the planet and entered orbit. Which means they couldn't choose when to insert the lander, beyond changing what date they launched it from Earth...
The fee is 25c per unit sold, capped at $250,000/year. If you don't sell one million units of whatever the hell it is you're selling per year, you aren't going to be forking over 250k.
Alright, I'll tell you exactly that. I used a digital camera, and reduced the image to 25% using an interpolated scaling to create an image much closer to 'balanced' than a raw digital image would be. By scaling it this way the image was resampled to the new size by combining and averaging the pixels, negating any effect the camera's CCD had.
...whatever algorithm and the parameters it used for your particular camera is not known to me).
This depends on the algorithm used to create the image from the sensor. Each pixel in the acquired image influences the color of surrounding pixels. Most of the time, that radius is greater than 4 pixels, so I'd say that sampling to 25% of the original size does not completely negate the pattern of the underlying sensor. A 10-16 pixel radius would not be unexpected (and yes, there is a noticable difference in the images IMO;
What you say is irrelevant for the discussion, really, because a digital camera also uses JPG compression which, as we've discussed, creates a high-res green and low-res red + blue image. That's the other reason I resampled it, it negates the JPG effects and creates a (very lovely) new image without effects from the CCD or JPG compression.
Ick...save the image in RAW or TIFF if the camera gives you the option...
Please tell me that the author did NOT just split an image interpolated from a digital camera, which probably used sensor with pixels layed out in a bayer pattern*, using a CCD type of sensor which tranditionally shows the most noise in the blue channel...
Well DUH the green channel is going to have more detail -- there are twice as many green pixels on the sensor. And DUH the blue channel is going to be the fuzziest, given that is the shade digital cameras have the hardest time capturing (take a picture of a blue sky if you don't believe me)...
On top of that, the author is assuming that the colors are represented in his picture in equal quantity. The blue/red channels might not be as bright because there isn't as much red/blue in the picture as green (the photo does appear to have a yellow tint to it).
His assertion may be true, but his demonstration doesn't prove a dang thing.
* Bayer pattern:
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
where R = red pixel, G = green pixel, and B = blue pixel
No. If you are patched you're safe.
Basically, the software firewall doesn't kick in until the software firewall starts up, which isn't the instant the network protocols start accepting network traffic.
I cant wait for the support calls to start rolling in. What about businesses that 'Need' to standardize on Longhorn64-Office, but also need to keep support up for some legacy WinXP apps which dont run under Longhorn64 for whatever reason.
.Net 2.0, which should have 64bit versions of the runtime (ie: all .Net apps get a nice "boost" from the new architecture).
What do you think VirtualPC is meant to be used for?
As a side note, a 64bit version of WinXP should (in theory) be released in '04 (probably the 1st quarter of it). It's release will probably be fairly close to the release of
But when you talk about campaign finance reform, they say "Oh, no, elections are *way* too important to let anybody actually fund the political speech they believe in, why that would let *money* corrupt politics."
Money isn't speech. It's a piece of green paper you give to someone in exchange for goods or services.
All of the above have replaceable batteries, but none of those are user-replaceable, which is what this is all about.
Actually, this all started because Apple didn't have a replacement program. They told their customer to 'buy a new iPod.'