For you "1's" out there, for most ISPs, the cost of accomodating you doesn't come anywhere close to the cost of the administrative headaches that arise from the other 99,999. So it's blocked.
Sorry, but WHAT extra overhead are you talking about? How is allowing INCOMING port 25 traffic less overhead than allowing it? Now, if you want to claim that blocking *outbound* port 25 traffic reduces headaches for an ISP then I could probably agree considering the number of infected Windows PCs spewing SPAM at the world.
And if you think that blocking port 25 makes you not an ISP, then you've never had to administer a mail server *before* the ISP's started blocking port 25, and the wannabe spammers and botnets that generated the majority of that crap.
Wrong. Blocking incoming port 25 does absolutely nothing to prevent spam. Spam has nothing to do with port blocking by many major ISPs. (If they actually cared they would block OUTBOUND port 25 not inbound but only a few do that.)
Inbound port 25 blocking is done for the same reason as inbound port 80, 20, 21, 23 port blocking. To prevent you from running a "server" and offering your own web services without buying a commercial account.
I used to run my own web server and mail server for my own personal and family use. I gaurantee that the total inbound and outbound traffic was a small fraction of that used by a typical P2P file trader or online gamer. So I should have to pay anywhere from 2x to 10x as much for my connection?
You must be the type who is responsible for all these stupid labels on everything.
Things like a "Do not eat!" label on a bottle of rat killer and "Danger: Crossing this fence could result in a fall causing injury or death!" on a guard fence next to a cliff. (Duh!)
Blasting down a snowy slope on skis at 60 MPH with trees all around you could result in you getting hurt. Installing and running beta software (much less relying on it to boot your PC) might result in your PC getting hosed up.
Adding the words "Extremely Hot" to a coffee cup should be enough to tell you not to guzzle the stuff. Adding the word "poison" to the name of a product should be enough to tell you not to eat it. Seeing an enormous cliff on the other side of a fence should be enough to clue you in that jumping the fence might be dangerous.
So YES, just adding "beta" in front of the name absolves the creator of much responsibility especially when combined with the repeated warnings in the install docs.
Now if it had gone out and erased your other computers or if it caused the PC to explode then I would agree that saying it was "beta" isn't good enough. But you are installing beta software that alters the way your PC boots up and apparently not even reading the install documentation. Or if the docs were read the warnings were all ignored. And now you are surprised that something could possibly go wrong? Either way Apple is free and clear on this one.
Less you think I'm just an Apple fan-boy, I'm not. I have issues with several things they do. But in this particular case it's the user who just blindly installed softare clearly marked as beta without reading any documentation or obeying any warnings that is to blame.
Sounds good to me. Either way using beta software (especially if it partitions drives or messes with system boot-up) and being surprised when your system blows up should be mutually exclusive.
Um, that IS the whole point of "beta" software you realize, right?
Don't forget that if you bother to read the install guide (or at least the first paragraph that is highlighted with and labeled "Warning:") Apple tells you to not only back up before trying Boot Camp but also to back up often WHILE USING it.
So developers should forsee major bugs and not release software as beta even though that is exactly the purpose of the "beta" moniker?
Sorry, but if this was happening to more than a percent or so of jokers who couldn't bother to read the instructions I might (possibly) be persuaded to agree.
Gosh yes. They dared to use the term "beta" for software that still was likely to have (and often does) bugs in it. How dare they. Oh wait.. that is exactly what the term means. Doh!
This is not the layout or speak of a piece of beta software.
You mean like the big heading "Boot Camp Public Beta" at the top of the page?
Or are you talking about the first paragraph in the install guide which is highlighted and says: Warning:
Boot Camp Beta is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a
limited time. Do not use Boot Camp Beta in a commercial operating environment or
with important data. You should back up all of your data before installing this
software and regularly back up data while using the software. Your rights to use Boot Camp Beta are subject to acceptance of the terms of the software license agreement that accompanies the software.
Bold mine except the word "Warning" which was both bold, a different color and italicized.
Interesting. Since Google's beta software is more stable than most Windows "production" software they are at fault?
While we're at it, lets blame the majority of open-source apps which remain in beta until almost every bug is squashed. Yes! They are to blame too! After all look at FireFox v0.10.0 (BETA) compared to any Microsoft v1.0 (production) software.
Sorry to tell you but BETA used to be what you called your software until it was nice and stable with no major bugs. ALPHA was what you called it when you were just as likely to run into serious bugs as not. Considering that only a small percentage of users were affected then BETA is probably appropriate.
And if the manual specifically warns you to do backups and firmware restore CDs, etc. before you start then I don't care if it's Beta or production... if you don't follow the directions you deserve what you get. It's not like nothing ever goes wrong when using a computer.
It's definitely possible to find a provider that doesn't rely on SBC or Verizon, povided you live in a fairly major urban area
And there's the rub. Even in Madison, WI where a friend of mine lives you have exactly two choices for broadband. Charter or Verizon. There are a couple of other providers but only if you live downtown and they really only deal with business (according to their account rep.)
It may only have a population of 200,000+ (1/3 the size of Milwaukee) but it's hardly living in the sticks.
In many small towns Verizon won't even bother to offer DSL regardless of the number of interested customers. In these places you have to hope someone else brings in wireless access or soemthing or you are stuck with dial-up.
I suppose because the manufacturers could pre-install a properly licensed Linux distro or FreeDOS instead of Windows.
Personally I would hope that they choose FreeDOS but include CDs for one or more Linux distros. The last thing we need is more press releases claiming that the only reason people buy systems pre-loaded with Linux is to pirate Windows.
In all fairness, the people of Tuttle don't deserve this. Taylor does certainly but not the people of Tuttle many of whom may very well have opposed him in his bid for office.
Besides, they're already stuck with Taylor for CM. Seems they deserve a break.
Right. Anyone can communicate in a foreign langauge as long as they take the time to learn it too. Of course if those who speak it refuse to teach someone who doesn't then good luck trying to master the langauge. The best MS outsiders can do is listen in on the conversation, try to pick out the right words and see what happens when you repeat some of them back to someone else. (With any luck you make no major mistakes and the person you are talking to doesn't become enraged and kill you.)
MS's SMB/CIFS implementation is really not different. They refuse to teach anyone else the protocols (language) and what progress there has been was due to packet sniffing (listening in) and repeating things back that seem right to see what happens.
Look- I am not a big fan of a lot of DRM at the RIAA etc, but you can't expect networks to give their products away.
Why not? Last time I checked you didn't need to pay to watch ABC stuff on your TV. If they leave commercials in it will be little different than if you tivoed the show.
The only problem I have with that is that it's in the last mile where competition is totally messed up. It would almost be better to build up a full last-mile network with peering points thoughout the state. Any Internet provider who wanted to sell ISP services to communities could bring backbone into the city/county and sell services to individuals on the last-mile nets.
It's not hard to bring bandwidth into a town. It's getting all those connections to your end users that keeps competition out. Another advantage would be that not only ISPs could peer into a town's network. Cable TV, phone, or any other service that wanted to could provide their services and would have to compete on price with anyone else.
Sure you'd get the basement-price providers who would have terrible service but if that happens there would be an option to jump ship to another provider.
The internet is really a public utility that enables business, just like roads and electricity.
Actually it is currently as if private firms owned all the roads and can charge whatever price they could extract from the travelers in an area. My personal opinion, however, is that it should be managed just like any other infrastructure. Federal government builds and maintains the massive inter-state connections, states branch off connections to their cities, towns, etc. and municipalities deal with last-mile stuff.
Ok, that may be a little screwed up since the last-mile stuff is actually the most expensive. Regardless it would be nice if the "network" was more or less public and everybody had to actually compete.
It could easily be self funded. Communities who vote to pay for their services directly from taxes could do so. Others could charge individuals like ISPs do now. The biggest flaw is probably that many small cities have nobody who is technically capable of managing a network like this correctly.
The way it is now only in very large cities is there any actual competition for your broadband dollars. Mid-sized cities have 2-3 broadband providers tops in most cases and small towns and vilages are lucky to have any option beyond satellite.
I don't have bevies of hack shysters willing to bleed me by fighting non-cases through the courts year after insane year.
Correction; there is no shortage of lawyers who would be willing to bleed you dry for a non-case. Having enough money to pay them beyond the first day may be an issue though.
Also missing from your plan was the fact that you really want to be a publicly traded company and own a bunch of the stock. That way when your stocks skyrocket your plan to sell off your personal stock portfolio will net you a nice profit. (You also need to completely coincidentally submit a plan to sell your stock BEFORE you decide to sue. IOW, no paper trail about the lawsuit until AFTER you issue your stock sales intention paperwork.)
Does anyone know how much Daryl McBride has made on his stock sales?
Slashdot Mirror
IOW, anyone who didn't buy a copy of Giglio or go see in in the theator is a theif? Wow! I thought it was just a sign of intelligence.
Sorry, but WHAT extra overhead are you talking about? How is allowing INCOMING port 25 traffic less overhead than allowing it? Now, if you want to claim that blocking *outbound* port 25 traffic reduces headaches for an ISP then I could probably agree considering the number of infected Windows PCs spewing SPAM at the world.
Wrong. Blocking incoming port 25 does absolutely nothing to prevent spam. Spam has nothing to do with port blocking by many major ISPs. (If they actually cared they would block OUTBOUND port 25 not inbound but only a few do that.)
Inbound port 25 blocking is done for the same reason as inbound port 80, 20, 21, 23 port blocking. To prevent you from running a "server" and offering your own web services without buying a commercial account.
I used to run my own web server and mail server for my own personal and family use. I gaurantee that the total inbound and outbound traffic was a small fraction of that used by a typical P2P file trader or online gamer. So I should have to pay anywhere from 2x to 10x as much for my connection?
If memory serves me, I belive all 7s works as did anything divisible by 7.
I would add that the patches by Oracle and many other vendors are typically MUCH less likely to break something.
You must be the type who is responsible for all these stupid labels on everything.
Things like a "Do not eat!" label on a bottle of rat killer and "Danger: Crossing this fence could result in a fall causing injury or death!" on a guard fence next to a cliff. (Duh!)
Blasting down a snowy slope on skis at 60 MPH with trees all around you could result in you getting hurt. Installing and running beta software (much less relying on it to boot your PC) might result in your PC getting hosed up.
Adding the words "Extremely Hot" to a coffee cup should be enough to tell you not to guzzle the stuff. Adding the word "poison" to the name of a product should be enough to tell you not to eat it. Seeing an enormous cliff on the other side of a fence should be enough to clue you in that jumping the fence might be dangerous.
So YES, just adding "beta" in front of the name absolves the creator of much responsibility especially when combined with the repeated warnings in the install docs.
Now if it had gone out and erased your other computers or if it caused the PC to explode then I would agree that saying it was "beta" isn't good enough. But you are installing beta software that alters the way your PC boots up and apparently not even reading the install documentation. Or if the docs were read the warnings were all ignored. And now you are surprised that something could possibly go wrong? Either way Apple is free and clear on this one.
Less you think I'm just an Apple fan-boy, I'm not. I have issues with several things they do. But in this particular case it's the user who just blindly installed softare clearly marked as beta without reading any documentation or obeying any warnings that is to blame.
After thinking about this some more... isn't this pretty much what Microsoft does with their programs when they release production paid-for versions?
I agree. Boot Camp is probably for those who have just a few apps or games they want to run and would rather use something non-MS for everything else.
Sounds good to me. Either way using beta software (especially if it partitions drives or messes with system boot-up) and being surprised when your system blows up should be mutually exclusive.
Don't forget that if you bother to read the install guide (or at least the first paragraph that is highlighted with and labeled "Warning:") Apple tells you to not only back up before trying Boot Camp but also to back up often WHILE USING it.
Sorry, but if this was happening to more than a percent or so of jokers who couldn't bother to read the instructions I might (possibly) be persuaded to agree.
Gosh yes. They dared to use the term "beta" for software that still was likely to have (and often does) bugs in it. How dare they. Oh wait.. that is exactly what the term means. Doh!
You mean like the big heading "Boot Camp Public Beta" at the top of the page?
Or are you talking about the first paragraph in the install guide which is highlighted and says:
Warning: Boot Camp Beta is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. Do not use Boot Camp Beta in a commercial operating environment or with important data. You should back up all of your data before installing this software and regularly back up data while using the software. Your rights to use Boot Camp Beta are subject to acceptance of the terms of the software license agreement that accompanies the software.
Bold mine except the word "Warning" which was both bold, a different color and italicized.
While we're at it, lets blame the majority of open-source apps which remain in beta until almost every bug is squashed. Yes! They are to blame too! After all look at FireFox v0.10.0 (BETA) compared to any Microsoft v1.0 (production) software.
Sorry to tell you but BETA used to be what you called your software until it was nice and stable with no major bugs. ALPHA was what you called it when you were just as likely to run into serious bugs as not. Considering that only a small percentage of users were affected then BETA is probably appropriate.
And if the manual specifically warns you to do backups and firmware restore CDs, etc. before you start then I don't care if it's Beta or production... if you don't follow the directions you deserve what you get. It's not like nothing ever goes wrong when using a computer.
And there's the rub. Even in Madison, WI where a friend of mine lives you have exactly two choices for broadband. Charter or Verizon. There are a couple of other providers but only if you live downtown and they really only deal with business (according to their account rep.)
It may only have a population of 200,000+ (1/3 the size of Milwaukee) but it's hardly living in the sticks.
In many small towns Verizon won't even bother to offer DSL regardless of the number of interested customers. In these places you have to hope someone else brings in wireless access or soemthing or you are stuck with dial-up.
They claim competition on one end and then degrade VoIP traffic intionally on the other.
I suppose because the manufacturers could pre-install a properly licensed Linux distro or FreeDOS instead of Windows. Personally I would hope that they choose FreeDOS but include CDs for one or more Linux distros. The last thing we need is more press releases claiming that the only reason people buy systems pre-loaded with Linux is to pirate Windows.
Or at least the four board members who actually believed he had 22 years systems experience when they voted for him.
Besides, they're already stuck with Taylor for CM. Seems they deserve a break.
MS's SMB/CIFS implementation is really not different. They refuse to teach anyone else the protocols (language) and what progress there has been was due to packet sniffing (listening in) and repeating things back that seem right to see what happens.
Why not? Last time I checked you didn't need to pay to watch ABC stuff on your TV. If they leave commercials in it will be little different than if you tivoed the show.
The only problem I have with that is that it's in the last mile where competition is totally messed up. It would almost be better to build up a full last-mile network with peering points thoughout the state. Any Internet provider who wanted to sell ISP services to communities could bring backbone into the city/county and sell services to individuals on the last-mile nets.
It's not hard to bring bandwidth into a town. It's getting all those connections to your end users that keeps competition out. Another advantage would be that not only ISPs could peer into a town's network. Cable TV, phone, or any other service that wanted to could provide their services and would have to compete on price with anyone else.
Sure you'd get the basement-price providers who would have terrible service but if that happens there would be an option to jump ship to another provider.
Actually it is currently as if private firms owned all the roads and can charge whatever price they could extract from the travelers in an area. My personal opinion, however, is that it should be managed just like any other infrastructure. Federal government builds and maintains the massive inter-state connections, states branch off connections to their cities, towns, etc. and municipalities deal with last-mile stuff.
Ok, that may be a little screwed up since the last-mile stuff is actually the most expensive. Regardless it would be nice if the "network" was more or less public and everybody had to actually compete.
It could easily be self funded. Communities who vote to pay for their services directly from taxes could do so. Others could charge individuals like ISPs do now. The biggest flaw is probably that many small cities have nobody who is technically capable of managing a network like this correctly.
The way it is now only in very large cities is there any actual competition for your broadband dollars. Mid-sized cities have 2-3 broadband providers tops in most cases and small towns and vilages are lucky to have any option beyond satellite.
Correction; there is no shortage of lawyers who would be willing to bleed you dry for a non-case. Having enough money to pay them beyond the first day may be an issue though.
Also missing from your plan was the fact that you really want to be a publicly traded company and own a bunch of the stock. That way when your stocks skyrocket your plan to sell off your personal stock portfolio will net you a nice profit. (You also need to completely coincidentally submit a plan to sell your stock BEFORE you decide to sue. IOW, no paper trail about the lawsuit until AFTER you issue your stock sales intention paperwork.)
Does anyone know how much Daryl McBride has made on his stock sales?