PC power supplies that conform to the ATX specification have different behaviors depending whether the power button is pressed and released, versus being pressed and held for 3 seconds.
This has always irked me, when ever a compnay puts up a FAQ or a how-to to use their services with other products they always just mention commercial/for pay products and never ever mention open source products.
WHY is that?
Maybe it is because those products make up 99 and 44/100ths percent of the market? Maybe it is because your favorite open source e-mail client and my favorite open source e-mail client comprise such an insignificant share of the marked that it makes no sense listing? Hmmm?
I never would have believed it if it hadn't happened to me. Yes indeed, the captions on the photo albums mentioned in the article are editable by anyone. Just changed the caption of one of the photos myself.
They have it already - it's called lease-purchase financing. You lease the vehicle, make payments, and then at the end you own - nothing! You get to either start the cycle all over again, leasing another car, or lining up financing to cover the residual value of the vehicle.
In a restaurant, you've heard of "Twice Cooked Chicken?" Well, this is kinda like "Twice Paid Car."
If you are too lazy to click the link, I quote, "Airframe development and production of the Concorde were undertaken jointly by Aerospatiale and BAe, with two final assembly lines, at Toulouse and Filton respectively."
Here's some advice: next time do a quick search to save yourself the shame of your profane public display of ignorance. Hah!
so your aerofoil (wing) at the top of everest has about one third of the mass of gas to ride on as it does at sea level.... if your aerofoil is a fixed wing then you can always travel three times as fast (hence needing a scramjet)
Assuming the same coffficient of lift, Cl, in order to generate the same amount of lift you would have to have the same "dynamic pressure" (to borrow a Boeing term), then (from Bernoulli equation)
Simple economics. In order to travel at Mach 2, the airplane is significantly heavier, mechanically more complicated, less fuel efficient, and overall more expensive to operate. A supersonic aircraft will always be more expensive to operate with respect to a subsonic aircraft. I couldn't believe that Boeing was even seriously considering their "Sonic Cruiser" aircraft for as long as they did before finally acknowledging the obvious. Given these realities, there just isn't the demand for it. Only rich fat-cats and celebrities could afford the $10,000 fare. Regular folks are willing to pay $500 and put up with an 8 hour flight.
Aerospaciale (sp?), the maker of the Concorde, never made a dime on the 16 or so Concordes it built.
You again highlight the absurdity of your argument.
Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Tell you what - let's stick to our arguments and let the moderators decide who is absurd and who isn't.
Cable TV service is something that has to be hooked up to your house from the physical property of your cable TV company.
Not exactly. While you are correct that the physical connection is property of the cable company, the actual cable TV service is just a stream of data, not materially different than streams of data available on Kazaa. The physical cabling may be connected to every house in town, but only those houses that are paying for the service (i.e. the data stream, the "intangible" that you contend cannot be stolen) are legally able to access and consume those data streams. It isn't copyright infringement, it's theft. And if they catch you, you will be brought up on felony charges of theft. So your assertion that intangible data streams cannot be stolen falls flat.
Stealing a CD is theft.
Downloading the audio bits off of Kazaa is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
Again...
You are just spliting hairs like so many here, trying to equate stealing songs to some noble "fair use", civil disobediance, or "artists don't make money from CDs anyway so who am I hurting" nonsense. It doesn't sound so bad when you call it copyright infringement. You go to great lengths to make the distinction between stealing and copyright infringement, however both are wrong. Both cause harm to the owner and/or copyright holder. Seems reasonable to me that the owner and/or copyright holder is well within their rights to enforce their intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law. Seems to me that those who steal, or "infringe" as you would immediately attempt to correct, don't have a leg to stand on either way.
Theft != Copyright Infringment.
So therefore it is OK to steal songs off the Internet.
Or would you be satisfied if I just concluded, "Therefore, it OK to infringe copyrights by downloading songs off the Internet?"
Or alternatively: Is it OK to download songs off the internet without proper compensation to the owner and/or copyright holder?
Obviously the answer is no, but I eagerly await the usual rationalizations...
Try as you might to jump through rhetorical hoops in an attempt to make diversionary distinctions, at the end of the day if you got it and didn't pay for it, then you stole it. Period.
You cannot steal something that is intangible.
Now that's absurd. Try telling that to the prosecutor after being caught with an cable TV connection that you have not been paying for.
the problem here is that the RIAA will not admit to what it is they actually sell: control. They control who listens to what music and where.
Therefore, it is OK to steal music off the Internet.
Musicians don't sell music, they make music. Musicians don't make any money off of CD sales. They make their money off of performances, and generally by actually being entertaining.
Therefore, it is OK to steal music off the Internet.
File sharing destroys that distribution and promotion system. People start to be informed about what music they actually like, and so they only purchase the CDs that they actually want, and they only go to the performances that they think will actually be entertaining. File sharing does NOT take any money away from musicians, and it does NOT slow down the sale of CD's. The only thing File Sharing DOES is to remove the RIAA's control.
Therefore, it is OK to steal music off the Internet.
Go and do something boring (finance, accounting, law),
Actually, finance and accounting are already in the offshore outsourcing crosshairs. Law is one area which still has some significant barriers to entry.
Junk Senders file? Doomed to failure
on
Spam Bits
·
· Score: 1
2971 lines in my Junk Senders file and growing
I sure hope you have a lot of disk space. But it sounds to me like you are wasting your time. That's because every junk mail these days contains a forged 'From:' header, and spammers are smart enough to generate different From headers for each batch of spam they send out. Since the From header cannot be trusted, any rules that make spam/no-spam decisions based on it cannot be trusted either.
It's not theft because you are not depriving them of physical property, you are making a copy.
We can mince words, call it copyright infringement, couch it as some kind of highbrow "fair use," or some other euphamism that doesn't sound so judgemental. But the end of the day, if you got it but you didn't pay for it as you are required to, then that is stealing, plain and simple. No legal jargon, no industry propaganda, just the cold hard fact.
Those against open source itself, like the MPAA and SCO, are doing so because they don't like what is being said, as well as how it is being said.
I have not seen the MPAA (or RIAA) make any stink about open source software. While I certainly will not defend their practices, primarily they are out to stop the blatant theft of their product, which is what they should be doing.
You have the right to remain silent, but please leave me my right to speak.
You're right, just don't confuse that with the notion that you therefore have a right to be heard.
The e-mail clusters can be mapped out by inspecting the 'from', 'to' and 'cc' fields in a user's inbox. An automated system can quickly build up a blacklist of spammers, as well as a 'whitelist' of approved sources.
You mean that someone has come up with a solution for Spam, while the rest of us smart people were thinking really hard about the problem for the past 5 years and could not come up with the silver bullet? Let's see...
Fatal flaw #1: With spam, you can't trust the From: header, and frequently the To: header either.
Fatal flaw #2: A "blacklist of spammers?" That's a hoot! How much disk have you got? I have an equivalent idea: since all e-mail addresses are forged, why not skip the inspection of the user's inbox, and just conjure up random combinations from/usr/share/dict/words? That would be just as effective.
The future of AIDA does not sound all that bright. From their website:
Due to the constantly decreasing interest about our 16-bit DOS system information tool AIDA16, as of February 16, 2004 we have decided to discontinue the product and to remove all AIDA16 related contents from our website aida32.hu.... Please do NOT ask for source code of AIDA16, it is confidential and will not go public.
and
So as of February 16, 2004 we do NOT provide any official support for AIDA32.... We preserve the right to ignore all messages about installation, configuration and application problems, however we will still be active on both the international and the Hungarian discussion forums.
...the more they stay the same. (Sorry about the double post, folks, I hit return instead of tab)
Back in the 1992 timeframe, there was a Dark Avenger virus toolkit that allowed Skr1p7 KidDi3z to create "encrypted, polymorphic viruses". Check out then-InfoWorld columnist Steve Gibson's alarmist article (scroll down to the part entitled "Article 2") It sounds kind of funny now:
"It is clear that the game is forever changed; the sophistication of the Mutation Engine is amazing and staggering. Simple pattern-matching virus scanners will still reliably detect the several thousand well-known viruses; however, these scanners are completely incapable of detecting any of the growing number of viruses now being cloaked by the Dark Avenger Mutation Engine."
That was going to be the end of the world as we knew it. Now we have a VB script engine and the world is going to end. Or not.
Now I'll be the first to say that XHTML is a good thing and all that HTML should have been, but unfortunately the horse has already left the barn, and so designing a more secure barn door lock is mostly an academic exercise. Clients are written to deliberately be tolerant of HTML, and to degrade gracefully in the face of malformed, broken, or just-plain-wrong HTML elements. There is just too much valuable information in HTML 3.2 out there that nobody will accept a client that is hard-core XHTML only, and so if XHTML clients have to be backwards compabible to be used, what's the motivation to go to the pains of converting to XHTML? I don't see it.
Any solution that relies upon millions of people changing their behavior is dead on arrival.
Off topic, sorry. What is it that is running on the site with the article that "hijacks" certain keywords and turns them into advertising links to EBay and other sites?
I noticed that if I read the article on Windows using the excellent Crazy Browser, an IE derivitative, many of the words in the article are double underlined and links to e-commerce sites. Viewing the article with Mozilla, no such hijacking occurs.
For the benefit of those who have not read the F. article, don't miss the "Zen babe" on the Conclusions page. I'll leave the review of that part up to you folks.:)
I think you help to prove my point. You are correct that certain tabbrowser extensions exist.
However, they are nowhere near the level of usability and simplicity found in Galeon for the following reasons:
They are not part of a stock installation, and therefore require a fairly hardcore geek to even know about them (I consider myself a very hardcore geek, and I was not even aware of these extensions). Therefore, to a "normal" non-technical user, these extensions do not exist.
To close a tab you have to pull down a menu and select close. Contrast this with a small X right on the tab in Galeon. One click, goodbye. No pulldowns. No problems.
Too many features - "close all tabs to the right of this one", "close all other tabs", etc. Too many "noise" choices cluttering up the overwhelmingly common use case.
Don't get me wrong. I come not to "dis" Tabbrowser Extensions, only to point out how Galeon really gets the common use case right. That said, I do intend to check these extensions out. Might make Mozilla tabs more bearable.
Honestly, I can't think of any browser I've used that is better than Firebird
That's because you have never experienced the simple greatness that is Galeon. For years now Galeon has been a quick, reliable, and incredibly useful browser. Even with all the effort on other browsers, such as the Johnny-come-lately efforts such as Phoenix and Firebird, none yet come close to the usability of Galeon.
Galeon has a very high level of fit-and-finish: buttons in convenient spots, easy to navigate, and a very comfortable feeling when using it.
And I'll give three specific examples of really small details that make all the diffence:
1. Thought put into tabbed browsing. Like the others, or more accurately, before most of the others, Galeon has tabs, and the little X to close a tab is conveniently located right on the tab itself. No other browser does this, but it improves the usability immensely. It is mousing over to the X at the far right of the screen every time to close tabs that has me shutting down Mozilla and friends and running back to Galeon.
2. Thought put into blocking ads. How many times in other Mozilla-derived browsers do you want to block ads from one server or another? If you're like me, its several times a day. In Galeon, when you right-click on an image, one of the options is to "Block images from <Server Name Here>". In all other Mozilla-derived browsers you first have to right click and click "Properties" so that you can learn the server name - is it DoubleClick (yes, definitely block) or the same server that all the other images are coming from (no, definitely don't block)? Then you can go back and right click in the images and say "Block all images from this server."
3. Blocking pop-ups. OK, lots of browsers have this now, but Galeon was one of the first.
Try Galeon. In my opinion, version 1.2.13, the "stable" version is much better than the latest 1.3.X. I suppose that would be the small part of this post that is relevent to the "rewrites are bad" topic:).
So in summary, if you are looking for a fast browser that is just a browser, very easy to use, use Galeon. Or wait a long time for Firebird and the others to rewrite until they become Galeon.
Sounds like this would be very useful for high quality recording of live events, such as concerts. It is small enough to bring (or sneak) into the venue, and able to record high-quality.mp3 tracks on the fly.
"The new iHP-140 - bringing bootlegging to a higher level!"
But that's the point! If no-one ever responded to spam, then there wouldn't be anyone willing to pay to have it sent on their behalf!
Remember there are three parties involved here, spammer A, the person B paying the spammer to advertise, and the millions of victims C who recieve said spam. The economics are such that as long as A can convince B that it is worth it, cheap enough, will make B enough money, etc., then B will buy from A. The rest of us, C, don't even appear in the equation. And you know what? It doesn't really matter whether the spam was actually recieved or not - spammer gets paid for sending 6 million e-mails, not for delivering e-mails to 6 million people. Big difference.
It is wishful thinking to claim that somehow spammer A will run out of person Bs. Greed, or alternatively stupidity, knows no bounds. There is no end of marks who will gladly step up to the plate. Despite our best efforts, the problem is only getting worse, not better.
When it stops, it will no longer be worth their time or money to send it, and so they'll stop paying for it.
That time has already arrived. It is already not worth B's time or money to send the mail. Despite this, there is no sign of slowdown for the number of Bs willing to do it anyway.
That's why ignoring spam, and making sure that nobody else purchases anything from a spammer, will have no effect on stopping spam.
Slashdot Mirror
PC power supplies that conform to the ATX specification have different behaviors depending whether the power button is pressed and released, versus being pressed and held for 3 seconds.
WHY is that?
Maybe it is because those products make up 99 and 44/100ths percent of the market? Maybe it is because your favorite open source e-mail client and my favorite open source e-mail client comprise such an insignificant share of the marked that it makes no sense listing? Hmmm?
I never would have believed it if it hadn't happened to me. Yes indeed, the captions on the photo albums mentioned in the article are editable by anyone. Just changed the caption of one of the photos myself.
Have fun. Be good!
They have it already - it's called lease-purchase financing. You lease the vehicle, make payments, and then at the end you own - nothing! You get to either start the cycle all over again, leasing another car, or lining up financing to cover the residual value of the vehicle.
In a restaurant, you've heard of "Twice Cooked Chicken?" Well, this is kinda like "Twice Paid Car."
If you are too lazy to click the link, I quote, "Airframe development and production of the Concorde were undertaken jointly by Aerospatiale and BAe, with two final assembly lines, at Toulouse and Filton respectively."
Here's some advice: next time do a quick search to save yourself the shame of your profane public display of ignorance. Hah!
...must proofread posts better...
That should be:
Assuming the same coffficient of lift, Cl, in order to generate the same amount of lift you would have to have the same "dynamic pressure" (to borrow a Boeing term), then (from Bernoulli equation)
If the ratio of densitySL/densityEverest is 1/3, then solving for velocityEverest:
or approximately 1.73 times the speed at sea level.
Simple economics. In order to travel at Mach 2, the airplane is significantly heavier, mechanically more complicated, less fuel efficient, and overall more expensive to operate. A supersonic aircraft will always be more expensive to operate with respect to a subsonic aircraft. I couldn't believe that Boeing was even seriously considering their "Sonic Cruiser" aircraft for as long as they did before finally acknowledging the obvious. Given these realities, there just isn't the demand for it. Only rich fat-cats and celebrities could afford the $10,000 fare. Regular folks are willing to pay $500 and put up with an 8 hour flight.
Aerospaciale (sp?), the maker of the Concorde, never made a dime on the 16 or so Concordes it built.
Does not. Does too. Does not. Does too. Tell you what - let's stick to our arguments and let the moderators decide who is absurd and who isn't.
Cable TV service is something that has to be hooked up to your house from the physical property of your cable TV company.
Not exactly. While you are correct that the physical connection is property of the cable company, the actual cable TV service is just a stream of data, not materially different than streams of data available on Kazaa. The physical cabling may be connected to every house in town, but only those houses that are paying for the service (i.e. the data stream, the "intangible" that you contend cannot be stolen) are legally able to access and consume those data streams. It isn't copyright infringement, it's theft. And if they catch you, you will be brought up on felony charges of theft. So your assertion that intangible data streams cannot be stolen falls flat.
Stealing a CD is theft. Downloading the audio bits off of Kazaa is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
Again...
You are just spliting hairs like so many here, trying to equate stealing songs to some noble "fair use", civil disobediance, or "artists don't make money from CDs anyway so who am I hurting" nonsense. It doesn't sound so bad when you call it copyright infringement. You go to great lengths to make the distinction between stealing and copyright infringement, however both are wrong. Both cause harm to the owner and/or copyright holder. Seems reasonable to me that the owner and/or copyright holder is well within their rights to enforce their intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law. Seems to me that those who steal, or "infringe" as you would immediately attempt to correct, don't have a leg to stand on either way.
Theft != Copyright Infringment.
So therefore it is OK to steal songs off the Internet.
Or would you be satisfied if I just concluded, "Therefore, it OK to infringe copyrights by downloading songs off the Internet?"
Or alternatively: Is it OK to download songs off the internet without proper compensation to the owner and/or copyright holder? Obviously the answer is no, but I eagerly await the usual rationalizations...
Period.
You cannot steal something that is intangible.
Now that's absurd. Try telling that to the prosecutor after being caught with an cable TV connection that you have not been paying for.
Therefore, it is OK to steal music off the Internet.
Musicians don't sell music, they make music. Musicians don't make any money off of CD sales. They make their money off of performances, and generally by actually being entertaining.
Therefore, it is OK to steal music off the Internet.
File sharing destroys that distribution and promotion system. People start to be informed about what music they actually like, and so they only purchase the CDs that they actually want, and they only go to the performances that they think will actually be entertaining. File sharing does NOT take any money away from musicians, and it does NOT slow down the sale of CD's. The only thing File Sharing DOES is to remove the RIAA's control.
Therefore, it is OK to steal music off the Internet.
Actually, finance and accounting are already in the offshore outsourcing crosshairs. Law is one area which still has some significant barriers to entry.
I sure hope you have a lot of disk space. But it sounds to me like you are wasting your time. That's because every junk mail these days contains a forged 'From:' header, and spammers are smart enough to generate different From headers for each batch of spam they send out. Since the From header cannot be trusted, any rules that make spam/no-spam decisions based on it cannot be trusted either.
We can mince words, call it copyright infringement, couch it as some kind of highbrow "fair use," or some other euphamism that doesn't sound so judgemental. But the end of the day, if you got it but you didn't pay for it as you are required to, then that is stealing, plain and simple. No legal jargon, no industry propaganda, just the cold hard fact.
I have not seen the MPAA (or RIAA) make any stink about open source software. While I certainly will not defend their practices, primarily they are out to stop the blatant theft of their product, which is what they should be doing.
You have the right to remain silent, but please leave me my right to speak.
You're right, just don't confuse that with the notion that you therefore have a right to be heard.
You mean that someone has come up with a solution for Spam, while the rest of us smart people were thinking really hard about the problem for the past 5 years and could not come up with the silver bullet? Let's see...
Fatal flaw #1: With spam, you can't trust the From: header, and frequently the To: header either.
Fatal flaw #2: A "blacklist of spammers?" That's a hoot! How much disk have you got? I have an equivalent idea: since all e-mail addresses are forged, why not skip the inspection of the user's inbox, and just conjure up random combinations from /usr/share/dict/words? That would be just as effective.
- Garbage in
- apply algorithm
- Garbage out
- ???
- Profit!
(Always wanted to do one of those:)Back in the 1992 timeframe, there was a Dark Avenger virus toolkit that allowed Skr1p7 KidDi3z to create "encrypted, polymorphic viruses". Check out then-InfoWorld columnist Steve Gibson's alarmist article (scroll down to the part entitled "Article 2") It sounds kind of funny now:
That was going to be the end of the world as we knew it. Now we have a VB script engine and the world is going to end. Or not.
Any solution that relies upon millions of people changing their behavior is dead on arrival.
I noticed that if I read the article on Windows using the excellent Crazy Browser, an IE derivitative, many of the words in the article are double underlined and links to e-commerce sites. Viewing the article with Mozilla, no such hijacking occurs.
And more to the point: how to turn it off?
For the benefit of those who have not read the F. article, don't miss the "Zen babe" on the Conclusions page. I'll leave the review of that part up to you folks. :)
However, they are nowhere near the level of usability and simplicity found in Galeon for the following reasons:
- They are not part of a stock installation, and therefore require a fairly hardcore geek to even know about them (I consider myself a very hardcore geek, and I was not even aware of these extensions). Therefore, to a "normal" non-technical user, these extensions do not exist.
- To close a tab you have to pull down a menu and select close. Contrast this with a small X right on the tab in Galeon. One click, goodbye. No pulldowns. No problems.
- Too many features - "close all tabs to the right of this one", "close all other tabs", etc. Too many "noise" choices cluttering up the overwhelmingly common use case.
Don't get me wrong. I come not to "dis" Tabbrowser Extensions, only to point out how Galeon really gets the common use case right. That said, I do intend to check these extensions out. Might make Mozilla tabs more bearable.That's because you have never experienced the simple greatness that is Galeon. For years now Galeon has been a quick, reliable, and incredibly useful browser. Even with all the effort on other browsers, such as the Johnny-come-lately efforts such as Phoenix and Firebird, none yet come close to the usability of Galeon.
Galeon has a very high level of fit-and-finish: buttons in convenient spots, easy to navigate, and a very comfortable feeling when using it. And I'll give three specific examples of really small details that make all the diffence:
1. Thought put into tabbed browsing. Like the others, or more accurately, before most of the others, Galeon has tabs, and the little X to close a tab is conveniently located right on the tab itself. No other browser does this, but it improves the usability immensely. It is mousing over to the X at the far right of the screen every time to close tabs that has me shutting down Mozilla and friends and running back to Galeon.
2. Thought put into blocking ads. How many times in other Mozilla-derived browsers do you want to block ads from one server or another? If you're like me, its several times a day. In Galeon, when you right-click on an image, one of the options is to "Block images from <Server Name Here>". In all other Mozilla-derived browsers you first have to right click and click "Properties" so that you can learn the server name - is it DoubleClick (yes, definitely block) or the same server that all the other images are coming from (no, definitely don't block)? Then you can go back and right click in the images and say "Block all images from this server."
3. Blocking pop-ups. OK, lots of browsers have this now, but Galeon was one of the first.
Try Galeon. In my opinion, version 1.2.13, the "stable" version is much better than the latest 1.3.X. I suppose that would be the small part of this post that is relevent to the "rewrites are bad" topic :).
So in summary, if you are looking for a fast browser that is just a browser, very easy to use, use Galeon. Or wait a long time for Firebird and the others to rewrite until they become Galeon.
- ...
- Record From Microphone/Dictaphone to MP3
- Real Time MP3 Encoding
Sounds like this would be very useful for high quality recording of live events, such as concerts. It is small enough to bring (or sneak) into the venue, and able to record high-quality"The new iHP-140 - bringing bootlegging to a higher level!"
Remember there are three parties involved here, spammer A, the person B paying the spammer to advertise, and the millions of victims C who recieve said spam. The economics are such that as long as A can convince B that it is worth it, cheap enough, will make B enough money, etc., then B will buy from A. The rest of us, C, don't even appear in the equation. And you know what? It doesn't really matter whether the spam was actually recieved or not - spammer gets paid for sending 6 million e-mails, not for delivering e-mails to 6 million people. Big difference.
It is wishful thinking to claim that somehow spammer A will run out of person Bs. Greed, or alternatively stupidity, knows no bounds. There is no end of marks who will gladly step up to the plate. Despite our best efforts, the problem is only getting worse, not better.
When it stops, it will no longer be worth their time or money to send it, and so they'll stop paying for it.
That time has already arrived. It is already not worth B's time or money to send the mail. Despite this, there is no sign of slowdown for the number of Bs willing to do it anyway.
That's why ignoring spam, and making sure that nobody else purchases anything from a spammer, will have no effect on stopping spam.