Then what's with the 'different first page' option then? That seems obsolete if you can use sections. Maybe if it hadn't been there I would've looked up the proper way to do it.
One thing that DOESN'T seem to have changed, judging by a screenshot, is the silly page numbering limitation Word gives you. You can only have a unique header for the first page, and optionally odd/even pages. You can't have several different sets of page numbers within one document, or start page numbering from page x, or have custom headers/footers for any page you choose. Madness, I tell you; why haven't they fixed this yet? I don't want to number my table of contents, nor create 2 separate documents!
Nope. And in all fairness, it doesn't happen often now anyway. I read that they're prevelant during adolescence because of the tonsils being bigger then, and get fewer as you get older, which would seem to be the case with me.
Thanks to the responses.:-) After a bit of Googling, I've found out that these things are almost certainly 'tonsil stones', or tonsilliths. You get more google results for "tonsil stone" though.
I only ever get tham occasionally, but it's a bit disconcerting to see that they're generally indicative of poor oral hygiene. The less it happens, the better, it seems.:-\
Whilst we're on the topic of weird medical phenomenons, does anyone know what the cause is of occasionally coughing up little white 'things' about half the size of a peanut, that smell and taste... well; pretty nasty? They're freaky and look kinda like bits of brain. Does this have a medical name? No I'm not psychotic. I think.:-)
Also I've know a couple of other people that had this happening too.
Well, let's say you're my work colleague. I'm your work colleague. You're reading with MS Outlook. I know you have the functionality. If you don't, you'd probably just complain that you needed it anyway.
In this age of modern broadband, would you set up an FTP server that allowed anonymous uploads? Allow just anyone to upload anything they wanted to your computer, with no controls what-so-ever?
No, but only because there's already a method for me to receive attachments from non tech-savvy people in place.
Why should we allow anyone who wants to send us anything they want?
We don't in the case of spam, but in the case of attachments - how about, because we don't have to open them if we don't want to?
Some of them are wrapped in ".SCR" or ".PIF" or, in this case, ".DOC" files, but I still receive them.
But they're wrapped in.SCR or.PIF so don't run them, who cares? I know, I'm ignoring technocal ignorance but you were referring to yourself.
It's like I have an FTP server set up to allow anyone to upload anything.
A reasonably valid analogy; seems fine to me. Every 'uploaded' thing is dumped in one 'directory' (inbox) and you choose what to open/send to the trash. This has the added benefit that there are no FTP client exploits to worry about.;-)
Slashdot doesn't allow me to attach Word files. Why should email?
Because the latter is used far more widely and more commonly than the former, and there are some valid reasons to allow attachments for e-mails, as many less tech-savvy users aren't able to send complex stuff over the public internet otherwise.
If I could, I'd deny all email messages with attachments.
I'm sure you could implement a filter in your mail client, SpamAssassin, Exim, etc. that would do this.
Thanks for the most sensible post on this issue I've seen for a while.
The only sane way to think of the issue is that *some* and only some tools should be allowed, some banned. All-or-nothing leads to insanity. So societies reason based on heuristic questions, and different societies have different priorities/opinions/momentums, and make different tools legal/illegal.
I've never understood the idea that because a tool can be used to commit a crime, that it inherantly makes the tool evil.
Maybe not evil, but overly dangerous. I bet most NRA members would agree that owning a tank, bunker-buster or bazooka should be illegal. How about ricin? They're all 'tools', but put to the wrong use (hard to use some of them any other way), their effects on society are too nasty to allow general ownership.
Having established that, we've established that there's no absolute "all tools are OK" rule, it's a matter of drawing the line. So I guess my question would be, why do most of you gun supporters draw the line at guns, and not bazookas, missiles, tanks, stealth bombers, etc.?
As far as you're concerned?! Cripes, what do you consider an enjoyable user experience? I have 1GB of RAM which is only because I like to play TES:Oblivion (one of the meatiest PC games out there) comfortably, which I do. Either you're very discerning (how did you live in the days of DOS?) or Vista's graphics are *extremely* inefficient (doesn't seem likely).
Isn't the point of steganography that the authorities don't even know you've encrypted something? It's the holy grail of encryption, really. An encorypted file *really could* just be an innocent file (hi-res image usually), and just by co-incidence be decryptable to reveal your data.
I might have to start thinking about this soon. Have a textfile with ALL my important data, the million-and-one passwords I have for online services, particularly sensitive/personal info, encryption keys, etc. As it's only text, a very hi-res BMP image should suffice to hide it in, methinks. Everybody should be encouraged to have one such 'disguised lockbox' on their computers, stegonographically encrypted/decrypted by software. And of course, the key for that file would only be safe as a long password in one place. My head.
This law effectively requires that law enforcement must put a respectable amount of effort into collecting and cataloguing what could be billions of encryption keys.
No, it doesn't! Wow, are you people misunderstanding.
Only if they want the key(s), do they demand the key(s).
Wishful thinking, they extended it to 28 days without trial/evidence instead. Blair was still spouting on that the country's security had been compromised. Because police and security services had some power removed, right?...
One of Blair's favourite lines went something like this,
"I don't understand why people seem to think that the rights of terrorist suspects should be more important than those of innocent people."
All SPF does is allow a recipient to verify that mail claiming to come from example.com actually does come from a mail server authorised by the owners of the example.com domain to send mail.
Well, it solves the problem of me getting tons of bounce mail to my domain. Every day now for weeks I've been getting 10-20 e-mails, bounces sent to addresses like 'kwmwkkw@mydomain.com', saying they're sorry that a spam e-mail couldn't be delivered. If SPF was required, I wouldn't get any of them as I'd sent none of the origianls. The spammers would have to endure the bounces themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
McCotter: Secretary, throw that trash from the fax machine on the fire.
Secretary: Woohoo! More heat!
Then what's with the 'different first page' option then? That seems obsolete if you can use sections. Maybe if it hadn't been there I would've looked up the proper way to do it.
One thing that DOESN'T seem to have changed, judging by a screenshot, is the silly page numbering limitation Word gives you. You can only have a unique header for the first page, and optionally odd/even pages. You can't have several different sets of page numbers within one document, or start page numbering from page x, or have custom headers/footers for any page you choose. Madness, I tell you; why haven't they fixed this yet? I don't want to number my table of contents, nor create 2 separate documents!
Nope. And in all fairness, it doesn't happen often now anyway. I read that they're prevelant during adolescence because of the tonsils being bigger then, and get fewer as you get older, which would seem to be the case with me.
Thanks to the responses. :-) After a bit of Googling, I've found out that these things are almost certainly 'tonsil stones', or tonsilliths. You get more google results for "tonsil stone" though.
:-\
I only ever get tham occasionally, but it's a bit disconcerting to see that they're generally indicative of poor oral hygiene. The less it happens, the better, it seems.
Whilst we're on the topic of weird medical phenomenons, does anyone know what the cause is of occasionally coughing up little white 'things' about half the size of a peanut, that smell and taste... well; pretty nasty? They're freaky and look kinda like bits of brain. Does this have a medical name? No I'm not psychotic. I think. :-)
Also I've know a couple of other people that had this happening too.
Well, let's say you're my work colleague. I'm your work colleague. You're reading with MS Outlook. I know you have the functionality. If you don't, you'd probably just complain that you needed it anyway.
In this age of modern broadband, would you set up an FTP server that allowed anonymous uploads? Allow just anyone to upload anything they wanted to your computer, with no controls what-so-ever?
.SCR or .PIF so don't run them, who cares? I know, I'm ignoring technocal ignorance but you were referring to yourself.
;-)
No, but only because there's already a method for me to receive attachments from non tech-savvy people in place.
Why should we allow anyone who wants to send us anything they want?
We don't in the case of spam, but in the case of attachments - how about, because we don't have to open them if we don't want to?
Some of them are wrapped in ".SCR" or ".PIF" or, in this case, ".DOC" files, but I still receive them.
But they're wrapped in
It's like I have an FTP server set up to allow anyone to upload anything.
A reasonably valid analogy; seems fine to me. Every 'uploaded' thing is dumped in one 'directory' (inbox) and you choose what to open/send to the trash. This has the added benefit that there are no FTP client exploits to worry about.
Slashdot doesn't allow me to attach Word files. Why should email?
Because the latter is used far more widely and more commonly than the former, and there are some valid reasons to allow attachments for e-mails, as many less tech-savvy users aren't able to send complex stuff over the public internet otherwise.
If I could, I'd deny all email messages with attachments.
I'm sure you could implement a filter in your mail client, SpamAssassin, Exim, etc. that would do this.
Thanks for the most sensible post on this issue I've seen for a while.
The only sane way to think of the issue is that *some* and only some tools should be allowed, some banned. All-or-nothing leads to insanity. So societies reason based on heuristic questions, and different societies have different priorities/opinions/momentums, and make different tools legal/illegal.
I've never understood the idea that because a tool can be used to commit a crime, that it inherantly makes the tool evil.
Maybe not evil, but overly dangerous. I bet most NRA members would agree that owning a tank, bunker-buster or bazooka should be illegal. How about ricin? They're all 'tools', but put to the wrong use (hard to use some of them any other way), their effects on society are too nasty to allow general ownership.
Having established that, we've established that there's no absolute "all tools are OK" rule, it's a matter of drawing the line. So I guess my question would be, why do most of you gun supporters draw the line at guns, and not bazookas, missiles, tanks, stealth bombers, etc.?
As far as you're concerned?! Cripes, what do you consider an enjoyable user experience? I have 1GB of RAM which is only because I like to play TES:Oblivion (one of the meatiest PC games out there) comfortably, which I do. Either you're very discerning (how did you live in the days of DOS?) or Vista's graphics are *extremely* inefficient (doesn't seem likely).
Actually, those 2 sound about as plausible to me as each other. Both have zero evidence going for them, and rely 100% on faith.
Color blindness is not genetically transferrable.
Where did you get that idea?
Isn't the point of steganography that the authorities don't even know you've encrypted something? It's the holy grail of encryption, really. An encorypted file *really could* just be an innocent file (hi-res image usually), and just by co-incidence be decryptable to reveal your data.
I might have to start thinking about this soon. Have a textfile with ALL my important data, the million-and-one passwords I have for online services, particularly sensitive/personal info, encryption keys, etc. As it's only text, a very hi-res BMP image should suffice to hide it in, methinks. Everybody should be encouraged to have one such 'disguised lockbox' on their computers, stegonographically encrypted/decrypted by software. And of course, the key for that file would only be safe as a long password in one place. My head.
Agreed. Whenever a piece of legislation like this is used to illustrate that 'Europe' is as bad as America, I always think, no; the 51st State is.
Americans need to understand that the UK and Europe aren't the same thing, and aren't as close as you seem to think, at least not now.
Bush and Blair prey together. That gives you some idea.
Ya know, it's possible not to drink and drive, too. :-)
This law effectively requires that law enforcement must put a respectable amount of effort into collecting and cataloguing what could be billions of encryption keys.
No, it doesn't! Wow, are you people misunderstanding.
Only if they want the key(s), do they demand the key(s).
I'm pretty sure that idea died a Horrifying death
...
Wishful thinking, they extended it to 28 days without trial/evidence instead. Blair was still spouting on that the country's security had been compromised. Because police and security services had some power removed, right?
One of Blair's favourite lines went something like this,
"I don't understand why people seem to think that the rights of terrorist suspects should be more important than those of innocent people."
v'z fher v'yy trg zbqqrq qbja sbe guvf fvapr v'z rkcerffvat n ceb-crefbany-svernezf ivrjcbvag, ohg naljnl...
Wow. I never realised how good Polish was at encrypting stuff!
What a great idea! Thanks. :-) Maybe democracy.domain.com would be even more effective, though.
Repeat after me: SPF does not prevent spam.
All SPF does is allow a recipient to verify that mail claiming to come from example.com actually does come from a mail server authorised by the owners of the example.com domain to send mail.
Well, it solves the problem of me getting tons of bounce mail to my domain. Every day now for weeks I've been getting 10-20 e-mails, bounces sent to addresses like 'kwmwkkw@mydomain.com', saying they're sorry that a spam e-mail couldn't be delivered. If SPF was required, I wouldn't get any of them as I'd sent none of the origianls. The spammers would have to endure the bounces themselves.
Nah. He'd have found a way to get around that with accessibility measures and continue spamming. Most of it is no doubt highly automated.
50 hours should be enough for anybody.
I don't think it would be illegal to sue anyone for anything.
I wish I got $200 every time I went for my Wii.