SPF is a nice idea, but doesn't cope with a couple issues. The first is that a lot of SPAM comes from trojan'd machines. SPF won't prevent or help mark email coming from these machines as SPAM.
No, but when the luser finds out that their e-mail is broken, they might just do something about their trojaned machine. Which is in fact fixing the problem and not the symptom. Any "authenticated user" idea for SPAM prevention has to account for the fact that there will need to be a "compromised" flag on the account to mark if mails are suspect.
The interesting thing about that application is that the shield could reform when things cool down. If it were an ablative shield (takes damage), then you could potentially have it fix itself between uses.
Am I the only one who had a big "eh???" for the storyline in this one? What exactly did I just watch? Girl upset, finds baby, loses ring, throws baby to ground (!), falls in river, stays there for a few days, then finds ring. What exactly happened? Did I miss something?
What I've thought of in the past is a system where the compression is done by software that interprets the image as a three-dimensional scene. Each object in the image is tracked, and the non-key frames are simply notations on how the objects moved. Lighting would be a bitch to handle though. It could work with existing footage instead of being limited to new renderings.
I think it's unlikely that we'll see a system where the whole rendering process is done on the player purely because of the size of the textures. It might work for some applications, but to cover all of the imagary in a convential movie you'd need a lot of space. Take the likes of Toy Story...the source data for that must have been huge. On the other hand, you can compress down to 700 MB using xvid and the like and still have a very high quality image.
The only feasible way this would get back to the owner in a physical manner would be to give it to the driver of the cab and hope he puts it in lost and found. This would of course require the owner to call that particular cab company to see if someone picked up a memory card for a camera.
And if you hailed the cab in the street, you stand no chance of the above. I've heard of people getting things left in private hire cabs that they phoned for, but not ones hailed on the street.
Hmm, just accept it I think. Let the "unused desktop items" run it's course and it'll go away. Undoubtably it can be switched off somehow. To be honest, I rarely see these things myself.
anybody know of a site that lists laptop models that can run with the lid closed?
This is a non-issue. I have never seen a laptop that will power down via the lid switch set that way by default. With APM, you can usually set it to suspend or hibernate on a lid-close event, but it's not the default. The default is to simply power down the LCD panel, which is desirable in this configuration.
APM is easy to set up on Windows, but I've no idea on the *nix support for such things, having never ran *nix on my laptops in anger. There are APM packages available though for most distos.
You still see the blue screen as well, very briefly IIRC. Enough to make anyone familiar with BSOD think "shit, that's a BSOD". So if XP bluescreened, you'd know.
I get uptimes of over a month regularly on my XP box, it only gets rebooted for patches.
Its bad enough having to troubleshoot something over the phone, without knowing the 50 different paths to get there depending whether the person has chosen to disable the hiding functionality
What are talking about? XP has exactly the same paths as 2000.
disable the "new" control panel (note that in the new control panel, there are icons that you cannot reach from the groups it displays, most notably 3rd party extensions, but a few microsoft things too), etc.
Again, eh? Open control panel, click "switch to classic view". How could you miss it?
XP is just as easy to use, if not more. And with the stuff provided by SP2 (firewall, virus check, update checks), it's the obvious choice for a non-techy user.
Though, what the hell does spending as a percentage of GDP have to do with anything?
Don't know to be honest, although you could argue that the relative wealth of the country is relevant. I just linked them for completeness as the reference site had them together in a section.
If we're spending so much money on public education, why is our educational system so terrible?
Good question! I myself am not from the USA, so I'm not all that familiar with it all. One thing I do note from talking to people that have been through it is that far too much time is spent on the wrong subjects. National history for example; while very little time is spent on world history. The rest is fleshed in by movies etc and given Jerry Brukheimers past, it gives people a very warped view of the world, such as the abhorent belief that the US won WW2 singlehandedly. This is a gross dis-service to the millions of Russians, Brits, Auzzies, Kiwis, Canadians etc (I could go on for ages) that gave their lives. This is a large part of why people from the USA seem so good at annoying the rest of us!;-) The education system almost encourages this form of arrogance, with all the flag waving that is done in school when you should be studying math, literature and science.
I remember someone pointed out to me once while we are learning basic calculus, schools in some countries are still gluing macaroni to card!
The U.S. should just shut down it's public school systems and send everyone to private schools. We'd get better education and probably save money too.
Short term, yes. The private companies would soon realise that they have the local authorities over a barrel and start to jack up the prices once the public system had been torn down beyond the point of no return.
We don't operate in a global economy. If we operated in a global economy that cost of living and paying taxes would be the same everywhere.
Eh, no. A global economy is just national economies that are interlinked through trade. Local tax rates and cost of living don't have anything to do with it.
Joining the miltary is only an option if you have no qualms about shooting brown people for the profit of your leaders' social class. Anyone that joins the military right now would have to be insane. During ww2 etc, I'd have signed up in a flash. Right now, I'd move abroad to avoid the draft if it came to it.
That, and the fact that people try to kill you because your squad mates raped/tortured/burned/killed X number of their family members. Oh yeah, joining the army sounds like a great larf!
If foreign steel is cheaper, the government places import fees on it so that american steel becomes cheaper. The problem is how do you do that with labor?
Fine, impose import tarrifs if you want. Don't act surprised when your trading partner does the same to one of your exports.
Tarrifs are at best a short term solution. If an industry is not profitable, then it is it's responsibility to become profitable or go bust. That's capitalism.
Teachers? The U.S. spends more per student than anywhere else in the world.
No you don't, not even close. The USA doesn't even make the top twenty in several categories. Here comes the science, all statistics from Nationmaster.com:
Just another mindless yank, brainlessly thinking that your country is "teh best!". Sorry if my attitude offends, but I am a little pissed at the USA right now.
Until that time we did not fire a single shot at Japan even though we did withhold oil.
You embargoed an island nation currently at war. What did you expect the response to be? Removal from Christmas card lists?;-)
Those in charge at the time were either complete morons or they knew what they were doing. And as common conceptions about Pearl Harbour are debatable (e.g. radio silence), I'd tend to go for the later. Goggle for "Remember the Maine", this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.
I dare you to produce statistics showing that all, or even most, or even 10 percent of all pitbulls kept in a home turn on their owners.
10%? That would be a enough to have the dogs banned in the publics eye. If I had kids myself, I wouldn't take a 0.1% chance in this question. Given the choice, I would simply choose a more docile breed in a family environment. Kids poke and bite things themselves. Why take a chance that the kid goads the dog into retaliating?
I've nothing against any type of "media friendly" dogs, and I understand that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible. But still, there are a lot of breeds out there, many legendary for being "kid-safe". Why choose a pit bull when you could have a labrador or something along those lines?
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree completely on the bad owners. However, several types of dogs must by law be muzzeled in the UK after a couple of high-profile cases where family dogs just snapped.
You've probably seen the old mpeg that is out there of what appears to be a police dog biting a guy in the face. In that case, the guy had his hands practically round the dogs neck while staring down at the dog. In hindsight, anyone watching the video can see this coming, but children wouldn't ever. All it would take would be the kid poking the dog in the eye or some other form of physical abuse that children so love to dish out to everyone (including each other), and the dog would instinctively switch to self-defence mode. Not a fault of the dog, not a fault of the child.
That's why I'm very weary of putting potentially aggresive dogs around kids. Mind you, I never had dogs growing up (parents choice), so perhaps I'm just resentful!!;-)
You have kids AND a pit bull? You don't deserve any sympathy when the inevitable happens.
I'm getting sick of hearing about kids being mauled by "family pets" who were always "really good with children". Pit bulls are bred to fight. They have no place in a family home. I hope to god that you muzzel it or keep it on a leash when out in public, so at least it's not some innocent bystander that gets it when your dog flips.
Maybe I'm a little prejudiced against these beasts, but this is because here in the UK the only people that have these dogs are almost as agressive as the dogs they keep. Picture your average English football hooligan, and you should have a picture in your mind of a skinhead, tattooed & scared psychopath with a demon dog at the end of a leash.
It just saddens me to see such an investment in entertainment. Especially since entertainment doesn't have any kind of economic return for the individual.
It has a huge return for the advertisers. Stay tuned people! Consume!!!!
People watch TV because they don't know what else to do. I know a lot of people who cannot relax in a sitting room with the TV turned off. Most rooms are laid out to worship the TV.
You think this generation is bad? Wait until you see our kids generation! The internet might be the only thing to draw people away from the hypno-box*
*Studies have shown that watching TV produces the same brain patterns as hypnosis. This is why advertising is so effective. You take in the message without realising it and next time you are in a shop and see the brand, your subconcious mind recognises it and makes it feel familiar to you. People tend to go with what they know when choosing a brand.
It doesn't mean 1500 active channels, they will be used for interactive services. For example, when a new film premiers on digital here in the UK, it is usually done on a Saturday night with shows starting ever 15 minutes. For a two hour film on rotation, that's 8 channels alone. You tune to the "official" channel that it's on, and the set-top box branches you onto the channel that is next about to start showing it.
Add pay-per-view channels, interactive services (BBC has a good set up here), and that bandwidth can be soaked up easily.
at the time they just thought a plane crashed into the WTC [snip]They couldn't know automatically that it was terrorists.
No. In the infamous clip of him in the classroom, Bush is being told that a second plane has hit the towers. Not even he could think that it was an accident.
It doesn't matter who it turned out to be. At that point, he should have been asking that though, instead of just sitting there.
the whole city shut down. People stayed glued to the TV for hours. Me...I heard the news and went back to sleep until I had to go to class. So Bush's "seven minutes" is no more odd to me than the people who watched the TV in silence for hours.
Excuse me?. Are you mental? When we were glued to the TV trying to get every bit of information available, Bush was listening to a childrens story. He should been shouting at people "TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON". That is his job, he is supposed to be a leader. Unless he is simply a puppet and knew that he didn't have to take imediate action. There could have been a jet liner heading to his highly publicised location while he was sitting there. IMHO, he really couldn't have handled it any worse.
There were presentation problems (such as splicing 5-6 different Bush speaches to make it sound like he was saying something else at one given moment)
That's Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine I think you are referring to. Very dishonest filmmaking. At least Moore isn't claiming to be "Fair and Balanced" however...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
No, but when the luser finds out that their e-mail is broken, they might just do something about their trojaned machine. Which is in fact fixing the problem and not the symptom. Any "authenticated user" idea for SPAM prevention has to account for the fact that there will need to be a "compromised" flag on the account to mark if mails are suspect.
Once again, science fiction leads science fact! I've not read any Gundam myself, I was unaware of the reference.
The interesting thing about that application is that the shield could reform when things cool down. If it were an ablative shield (takes damage), then you could potentially have it fix itself between uses.
Hey, if it's naked girls doing the baking, it's probably already been done!
Am I the only one who had a big "eh???" for the storyline in this one? What exactly did I just watch? Girl upset, finds baby, loses ring, throws baby to ground (!), falls in river, stays there for a few days, then finds ring. What exactly happened? Did I miss something?
I think it's unlikely that we'll see a system where the whole rendering process is done on the player purely because of the size of the textures. It might work for some applications, but to cover all of the imagary in a convential movie you'd need a lot of space. Take the likes of Toy Story...the source data for that must have been huge. On the other hand, you can compress down to 700 MB using xvid and the like and still have a very high quality image.
And if you hailed the cab in the street, you stand no chance of the above. I've heard of people getting things left in private hire cabs that they phoned for, but not ones hailed on the street.
Hmm, just accept it I think. Let the "unused desktop items" run it's course and it'll go away. Undoubtably it can be switched off somehow. To be honest, I rarely see these things myself.
This is a non-issue. I have never seen a laptop that will power down via the lid switch set that way by default. With APM, you can usually set it to suspend or hibernate on a lid-close event, but it's not the default. The default is to simply power down the LCD panel, which is desirable in this configuration.
APM is easy to set up on Windows, but I've no idea on the *nix support for such things, having never ran *nix on my laptops in anger. There are APM packages available though for most distos.
I get uptimes of over a month regularly on my XP box, it only gets rebooted for patches.
What are talking about? XP has exactly the same paths as 2000.
disable the "new" control panel (note that in the new control panel, there are icons that you cannot reach from the groups it displays, most notably 3rd party extensions, but a few microsoft things too), etc.
Again, eh? Open control panel, click "switch to classic view". How could you miss it?
XP is just as easy to use, if not more. And with the stuff provided by SP2 (firewall, virus check, update checks), it's the obvious choice for a non-techy user.
Don't know to be honest, although you could argue that the relative wealth of the country is relevant. I just linked them for completeness as the reference site had them together in a section.
If we're spending so much money on public education, why is our educational system so terrible?
Good question! I myself am not from the USA, so I'm not all that familiar with it all. One thing I do note from talking to people that have been through it is that far too much time is spent on the wrong subjects. National history for example; while very little time is spent on world history. The rest is fleshed in by movies etc and given Jerry Brukheimers past, it gives people a very warped view of the world, such as the abhorent belief that the US won WW2 singlehandedly. This is a gross dis-service to the millions of Russians, Brits, Auzzies, Kiwis, Canadians etc (I could go on for ages) that gave their lives. This is a large part of why people from the USA seem so good at annoying the rest of us! ;-) The education system almost encourages this form of arrogance, with all the flag waving that is done in school when you should be studying math, literature and science.
I remember someone pointed out to me once while we are learning basic calculus, schools in some countries are still gluing macaroni to card!
The U.S. should just shut down it's public school systems and send everyone to private schools. We'd get better education and probably save money too.
Short term, yes. The private companies would soon realise that they have the local authorities over a barrel and start to jack up the prices once the public system had been torn down beyond the point of no return.
Eh, no. A global economy is just national economies that are interlinked through trade. Local tax rates and cost of living don't have anything to do with it.
Joining the miltary is only an option if you have no qualms about shooting brown people for the profit of your leaders' social class. Anyone that joins the military right now would have to be insane. During ww2 etc, I'd have signed up in a flash. Right now, I'd move abroad to avoid the draft if it came to it.
That, and the fact that people try to kill you because your squad mates raped/tortured/burned/killed X number of their family members. Oh yeah, joining the army sounds like a great larf!
Fine, impose import tarrifs if you want. Don't act surprised when your trading partner does the same to one of your exports.
Tarrifs are at best a short term solution. If an industry is not profitable, then it is it's responsibility to become profitable or go bust. That's capitalism.
No you don't, not even close. The USA doesn't even make the top twenty in several categories. Here comes the science, all statistics from Nationmaster.com:
Education spending per primary school pupil
Education spending per primary school pupil (per $ GDP)
Education spending per secondary school student
Education spending per secondary school student (per $ GDP)
Just another mindless yank, brainlessly thinking that your country is "teh best!". Sorry if my attitude offends, but I am a little pissed at the USA right now.
Do actually believe that a capitalist country will do good things with the free worlds profits and technical know now?
What's the difference? People are people the world over. A corrupt politican is a corrupt politician.
You embargoed an island nation currently at war. What did you expect the response to be? Removal from Christmas card lists? ;-)
Those in charge at the time were either complete morons or they knew what they were doing. And as common conceptions about Pearl Harbour are debatable (e.g. radio silence), I'd tend to go for the later. Goggle for "Remember the Maine", this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.
10%? That would be a enough to have the dogs banned in the publics eye. If I had kids myself, I wouldn't take a 0.1% chance in this question. Given the choice, I would simply choose a more docile breed in a family environment. Kids poke and bite things themselves. Why take a chance that the kid goads the dog into retaliating?
I've nothing against any type of "media friendly" dogs, and I understand that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible. But still, there are a lot of breeds out there, many legendary for being "kid-safe". Why choose a pit bull when you could have a labrador or something along those lines?
You've probably seen the old mpeg that is out there of what appears to be a police dog biting a guy in the face. In that case, the guy had his hands practically round the dogs neck while staring down at the dog. In hindsight, anyone watching the video can see this coming, but children wouldn't ever. All it would take would be the kid poking the dog in the eye or some other form of physical abuse that children so love to dish out to everyone (including each other), and the dog would instinctively switch to self-defence mode. Not a fault of the dog, not a fault of the child.
That's why I'm very weary of putting potentially aggresive dogs around kids. Mind you, I never had dogs growing up (parents choice), so perhaps I'm just resentful!! ;-)
I'm getting sick of hearing about kids being mauled by "family pets" who were always "really good with children". Pit bulls are bred to fight. They have no place in a family home. I hope to god that you muzzel it or keep it on a leash when out in public, so at least it's not some innocent bystander that gets it when your dog flips.
Maybe I'm a little prejudiced against these beasts, but this is because here in the UK the only people that have these dogs are almost as agressive as the dogs they keep. Picture your average English football hooligan, and you should have a picture in your mind of a skinhead, tattooed & scared psychopath with a demon dog at the end of a leash.
It has a huge return for the advertisers. Stay tuned people! Consume!!!!
People watch TV because they don't know what else to do. I know a lot of people who cannot relax in a sitting room with the TV turned off. Most rooms are laid out to worship the TV.
You think this generation is bad? Wait until you see our kids generation! The internet might be the only thing to draw people away from the hypno-box*
*Studies have shown that watching TV produces the same brain patterns as hypnosis. This is why advertising is so effective. You take in the message without realising it and next time you are in a shop and see the brand, your subconcious mind recognises it and makes it feel familiar to you. People tend to go with what they know when choosing a brand.
Add pay-per-view channels, interactive services (BBC has a good set up here), and that bandwidth can be soaked up easily.
No. In the infamous clip of him in the classroom, Bush is being told that a second plane has hit the towers. Not even he could think that it was an accident.
It doesn't matter who it turned out to be. At that point, he should have been asking that though, instead of just sitting there.
Excuse me?. Are you mental? When we were glued to the TV trying to get every bit of information available, Bush was listening to a childrens story. He should been shouting at people "TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON". That is his job, he is supposed to be a leader. Unless he is simply a puppet and knew that he didn't have to take imediate action. There could have been a jet liner heading to his highly publicised location while he was sitting there. IMHO, he really couldn't have handled it any worse.
There were presentation problems (such as splicing 5-6 different Bush speaches to make it sound like he was saying something else at one given moment)
That's Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine I think you are referring to. Very dishonest filmmaking. At least Moore isn't claiming to be "Fair and Balanced" however... ;-)