Mozilla isn't the only AOL Free Software. The Linux version of the AOL IM client, written in tcl/tk, is a Free Software project actually initiated by AOL (not purchased, as Mozilla was).
I think AOL has the upper hand in any competition with Microsoft. First of all, AOL is trouncing MSN in terms of user base. Secondly, if Microsoft sufficiently angers AOL, AOL can just threaten to replace the default MSIE that comes with the AOL software with Netscape.
Better in what way? The sound quality of Winamp v2.20 is fine with me (v2.21 and later seem to have strange clicking sounds though). I especially like the windowshade mode of Winamp and the attachable windowshade mode of the playlist, that lets me have a little tiny always-on-top thing listing what song is playing at the moment and how much time is left in that song. The keyboard-control of Winamp is nice as well.
Re:Why use Linux 2.2 -- 2.0.36 is the best Linux y
on
Linux 2.2 DoS Attack
·
· Score: 1
But what good are all those if you have to reboot every two days every time a new bug is found?
Umm, your reply made little sense to me. I want to email people I know on AOL. I do not appreciate an ISP telling me I cannot email these people.
Telling the people "get a new ISP" is not an option. It is not my place to tell my acquaintances what ISPs they are allowed to use, just as it is not my ISP's place to tell me who I am allowed to send email to.
Small ISPs tend to be quite helpful. However, large ISPs are for the most part not. AOL is no worse in this regard than Earthlink, Mindspring, @Home, UUNet, and a myriad of other ISPs that do little to get rid of their abuse users and spam problems. AOL is, in fact, better than many of these ISPs, as it is at least trying to get rid of spammers. AOL, unlike most of the other ISPs, has actually taken large spammers to court, and actively goes after their accounts.
Perhaps you should check the SMTP servers in the headers of the spam you get - the majority of spam from @aol.com is not from AOL - anybody can write "From: bob@aol.com" in the headers.
Well, I've had a lot of problems with *.home.com's unsecured wingates. *.mediaone.com as well. Why not just ban all cablemodem users? Sure, that's fair. Ban AOL, ban cablemodems, ban anybody else remotely likely to cause trouble, and you'll have a trouble-free network. You'll also have no users.
If my ISP were to do that, I'd promptly find another one. Many of the people I contact frequently are on AOL. I do not appreciate an ISP trying to tell me who I am allowed to email.
Well, why were you contacting AOL then? Denial of Service is illegal, and therefore a law enforcement problem. Contact law enforcement, and let them deal with it. AOL will listen if you go through the proper law enforcement channels first.
Banning an ISP because lots of its users are clueless seems like a bad idea to me. First of all, the majority of UseNet problems are from spam, and the majority of UseNet spam does not originate from AOL. AOL is in fact one of the few ISPs actively combating spam, even taking large spammers to court. Earthlink, Mindspring, FlashNet, etc., are all much more guilty in this field. Why don't we ban them all for refusing to clean up their spam problem?
This whole deal seems as absurd to me as the fact that several IRC networks banned all cablemodem providers since a lot of cablemodem users had improperly configured WinGate software that allowed abuse.
Re:Ouch, reading with threshold=-1 make brain hurt
on
VA on Upside
·
· Score: 1
Sure, some of the stuff at -1 is bad, but then again, so is some of the stuff at 2+. Some of the -1 comments are actually quite interesting or informative (such as the one explaining why exactly that guy looks like an alien in the picture - dithering problems in the photo).
Re:Yes he is an alien!
on
VA on Upside
·
· Score: 1
Okay, this post explains why the picture looked weird, and some dumbass moderator marks it down.
Moderation is starting to look worse and worse to me (which is why i read at -1).
Not if you DoS the FBI they don't. They probably cheer you on. They only execute you if you try to spread pro-democracy propaganda or attack Chinese gvt. computers.
Well, MosthateD is basicaly a DoS kiddie, if he's anything like he was when I knew him about a year ago. Denial of Service is illegal, which would explain him being raided.
The Earth and universe are less than 15,000 years old, the Earth is the center of the universe, the sun revolves around it once per day, and Darwin is/was the anti-Christ.
You should be able to find Apple ][e computers fairly easily. Thousands and thousands of these were sold to schools in the eighties. My school got rid of about 150 of them about 4 years ago, and many other schools have as well. Many have been trashed, but there should still be a glut of them around.
-Proud owner of an Apple//c "luggable" (i.e. portable with a briefcase) computer.
Hmm, I didn't see it that way. I've only watched the movie, I didn't watch any interviews (I really don't care what the actors are like in their private lives). Anakin in the movie is self-confident, and definitely has the "good" that we're supposed to see corrupted later on. He's a lot less resentful than any normal person would have been as a slave, and he offers to do the whole pod-racing-for-money thing for Qui-Gon without expecting anything in return. A far cry from the Darth Vader of later films...
Yeah, but the kid did a pretty good job acting. The kid is also not immediately recognizable to most people, so you think "This is anakin skywalker." With Leonardo DiCaprio, you think "This is Leonardo DiCaprio," not "This is anakin skywalker," as you're supposed to be thinking.
I personally liked Anakin's performance in Episode 1. I do not like anything that Leonardo DiCaprio has been in.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla isn't the only AOL Free Software. The Linux version of the AOL IM client, written in tcl/tk, is a Free Software project actually initiated by AOL (not purchased, as Mozilla was).
I think AOL has the upper hand in any competition with Microsoft. First of all, AOL is trouncing MSN in terms of user base. Secondly, if Microsoft sufficiently angers AOL, AOL can just threaten to replace the default MSIE that comes with the AOL software with Netscape.
Better in what way? The sound quality of Winamp v2.20 is fine with me (v2.21 and later seem to have strange clicking sounds though). I especially like the windowshade mode of Winamp and the attachable windowshade mode of the playlist, that lets me have a little tiny always-on-top thing listing what song is playing at the moment and how much time is left in that song. The keyboard-control of Winamp is nice as well.
But what good are all those if you have to reboot every two days every time a new bug is found?
If you won't use Winamp because it's owned by AOL, I certainly hope you aren't using Netscape. We wouldn't want to be hypocritical now would we?
put \v0 somewhere in your modem init string and it'll report the actual carrier speed, rather than the speed you have the port set to.
>Internet Explorere (win)
That should read:
Internet Explorer (win,solaris,mac)
(and soon to be Linux).
Umm, your reply made little sense to me. I want to email people I know on AOL. I do not appreciate an ISP telling me I cannot email these people.
Telling the people "get a new ISP" is not an option. It is not my place to tell my acquaintances what ISPs they are allowed to use, just as it is not my ISP's place to tell me who I am allowed to send email to.
Small ISPs tend to be quite helpful. However, large ISPs are for the most part not. AOL is no worse in this regard than Earthlink, Mindspring, @Home, UUNet, and a myriad of other ISPs that do little to get rid of their abuse users and spam problems. AOL is, in fact, better than many of these ISPs, as it is at least trying to get rid of spammers. AOL, unlike most of the other ISPs, has actually taken large spammers to court, and actively goes after their accounts.
Perhaps you should check the SMTP servers in the headers of the spam you get - the majority of spam from @aol.com is not from AOL - anybody can write "From: bob@aol.com" in the headers.
I've never gotten a reply from Earthlink or Mindspring about spam or denial of service attacks from their users. AOL actually replied. Go figure.
Well, I've had a lot of problems with *.home.com's unsecured wingates. *.mediaone.com as well. Why not just ban all cablemodem users? Sure, that's fair. Ban AOL, ban cablemodems, ban anybody else remotely likely to cause trouble, and you'll have a trouble-free network. You'll also have no users.
What about NetZero, a completely free internet service?
If free trials are evil in your opinion, then permanent free accounts must be doubly so.
But what about the people who can't afford $20/month for an ISP?
If my ISP were to do that, I'd promptly find another one. Many of the people I contact frequently are on AOL. I do not appreciate an ISP trying to tell me who I am allowed to email.
Well, why were you contacting AOL then? Denial of Service is illegal, and therefore a law enforcement problem. Contact law enforcement, and let them deal with it. AOL will listen if you go through the proper law enforcement channels first.
Banning an ISP because lots of its users are clueless seems like a bad idea to me. First of all, the majority of UseNet problems are from spam, and the majority of UseNet spam does not originate from AOL. AOL is in fact one of the few ISPs actively combating spam, even taking large spammers to court. Earthlink, Mindspring, FlashNet, etc., are all much more guilty in this field. Why don't we ban them all for refusing to clean up their spam problem?
This whole deal seems as absurd to me as the fact that several IRC networks banned all cablemodem providers since a lot of cablemodem users had improperly configured WinGate software that allowed abuse.
Sure, some of the stuff at -1 is bad, but then again, so is some of the stuff at 2+. Some of the -1 comments are actually quite interesting or informative (such as the one explaining why exactly that guy looks like an alien in the picture - dithering problems in the photo).
Okay, this post explains why the picture looked weird, and some dumbass moderator marks it down.
Moderation is starting to look worse and worse to me (which is why i read at -1).
Not if you DoS the FBI they don't. They probably cheer you on. They only execute you if you try to spread pro-democracy propaganda or attack Chinese gvt. computers.
Well, MosthateD is basicaly a DoS kiddie, if he's anything like he was when I knew him about a year ago. Denial of Service is illegal, which would explain him being raided.
Unless you live in China, Russia, or some other nation unlikely to turn you over to the FBI.
The Earth and universe are less than 15,000 years old, the Earth is the center of the universe, the sun revolves around it once per day, and Darwin is/was the anti-Christ.
You should be able to find Apple ][e computers fairly easily. Thousands and thousands of these were sold to schools in the eighties. My school got rid of about 150 of them about 4 years ago, and many other schools have as well. Many have been trashed, but there should still be a glut of them around.
//c "luggable" (i.e. portable with a briefcase) computer.
-Proud owner of an Apple
Hmm, I liked Anakin's acting job in the movie. Perhaps I'm just odd. I thought he did a good job of portraying the "good" side that Vader will lose.
As for acting childish, an 8-year-old is not supposed to act mature.
Hmm, I didn't see it that way. I've only watched the movie, I didn't watch any interviews (I really don't care what the actors are like in their private lives). Anakin in the movie is self-confident, and definitely has the "good" that we're supposed to see corrupted later on. He's a lot less resentful than any normal person would have been as a slave, and he offers to do the whole pod-racing-for-money thing for Qui-Gon without expecting anything in return. A far cry from the Darth Vader of later films...
Yeah, but the kid did a pretty good job acting. The kid is also not immediately recognizable to most people, so you think "This is anakin skywalker." With Leonardo DiCaprio, you think "This is Leonardo DiCaprio," not "This is anakin skywalker," as you're supposed to be thinking.
I personally liked Anakin's performance in Episode 1. I do not like anything that Leonardo DiCaprio has been in.