I haven't read the book you mention, but I did catch PART of the Nova on PBS.
IMHO, it was overproduced drek. It was absolutely the worst NOVA I've ever seen. Dumbed down physics and cutesy graphics and music. I had to turn it off, I just could not take it. Certainly not of the standard I've come to expect from Nova.
I had a string theorist on my Thesis Committee in grad school, and he asked some pretty interesting questions during my Oral Exam. It's a fascinating field, but if you have to dumb it down that far to make it popular and interesting (which I don't believe), save it for those who care to listen.
That said, it's hard for me to take Brian Greene very seriously. But, I bet he's better at math than me, and not by just a little bit.;)
Is that not a bit of a contradiction? When you use the adjective 'buggy,' I immediately think 'buggy to the point of not being usable.' Yep, that describes MY brief experience with Outlook.
Most offices these days depend on the features it has.
Okay, I'll bite. Can you be specific about what features Outlook brings to the table that "most businesses" depend on?
I migrated my whole business to OSS a while back and really don't miss those MS "features" people are always yacking about. I think part of this depency is, well what most depencies are, psychological.
If your business model is based on a secret then you end up spending more on protecting the secret than developing new products.
Exactly. Excellent article today posted on FastCompany details just this point.
Short version: Microsoft has spent A WHOLE BUNCH of money in the past decade and half protecting existing markets rather than innovating new ones. Their R&D dollars go into incremental changes in existing products, rather than the development of new technologies.
In contrast, open source software is meant to be given away.
Not necessarily. Open source merely means the source code is available. True, to those who wish to configure and compile, that may in fact mean free (as in beer).
But, in the business world, not everyone wants to compile every app on every box. I can write an app, compile the binary and sell it, but make the source 'open' to those that want it. Many customers could not care less about the source code, and may lack the skills to do the compiling.
In fact, in the MS Windows world, most users don't even HAVE a compiler. In this case, they are paying me to configure and compile the software for them (a service as you describe it), but the point is that the USABLE software to the customer was NOT free.
Part of the problem "open source vs. closed source" is that it is not JUST about money. It goes much deeper.
the source code is closed (i.e. the PHP files for our client companies)
Isn't PHP code OPEN by definition? If you are writing a deployable product, the code is open; if not, if it's just in-house stuff, who really cares anyway. Then it is ALL 'closed' source in a way.
One of the rules of gift giving is to never give a pet as a gift. It requires a level of responsibility and commitment that cannot be forced upon a person.
The difference here is they don't have to do anything with the disk; it won't die like a pet would.
The choice to use it lies with the receiver of the gift. I say it's okay to give it, but he should not be surprised if few actually use it.
Which would be completely negated by how long it takes OpenOffice to load?;) Just you, know... saying.
Interesting. I recently migrated a workstation in my office from Win2000/Office2000 to Mandrake 10 (with the 2.6 kernel). OOo (and everything else) runs a LOT faster than it EVER did when that box was running Win2000.
The question he asked was "will it work?" To answer that requires an experiment. It can be tried on SOMEONE'S computer SOMEWHERE before you buy it.
My example was I 'tried it to see' with commercial software that worked fine. In my case, I already had the license, and by the way, the commercial developers were glad I 'tried it' and let them know it worked.
And btw, this is not about playing games on Linux just to save $100 on Windows. I moved my systems over to Linux not to save that money, because I already had Windows. The real issue, imo, is this: I run Linux, and I want $COOL_APP, which was COMPILED for Windows. Can I still use it? That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sometimes, life is not as complicated as we try to make it.
This isn't true, it's never been true, and it likely will never be true.
Of course, the best answer, I think, is "try it an see." Without source code to see how tightly integrated a program is with Win, it is very hard to tell. When you do the experiment, sometimes you get a pleasant surprise.
I recently finally migrated my main office workstation to Linux, and am dual booting since there are a few things I still need Winders for. One such, I thought, was a program called MoluCAD by New River Kinematics, a molecule drawing program that I really, really need.
The other day, I tried it with wine, and BOOM! It worked!! Yeah.
It's important, too, to document when a program does not work.
That computers in educational environments have not helped education (sorry, I cannot recall the citation; if I can find it I'll post it). Indeed, there have also been articles written on the degradation of writing due to Internet research.
I've looked a lot at educational software for physical science, and most of it is the same old stuff you can get in a book (only maybe smaller and faster).
I saw a web site a few years ago (again, I cannot recall the url..not much help today apparently) where the arguement was made that web solutions (and thus perhaps computers in general) should only be used to do something DIFFERENT and NEW.
Using games to teach history has some interesting possibilities (perhaps similar to play acting?), but I agree with your point 100% that some objective assessment of effectiveness needs to be maintained.
First, without virus writers (and other crackers), there is no need for the kind of security the malware led to. In other words, in an everything's-great-we-all-get-along world, why do we need to spend billions on computer security?
I remember group settings where the computers were not secure at all. We were on the honor system to not bother each other's data. It is bad behavior that leads to the need for security. As a matter of point, executing the virus writers *may* reduce the need to continue to spend money on developing more and more secure systems that are more and more complex (and costly).
Second, the analogy between biological viruses and bacteria is flawed in this instance. Bioorganisms just grow and evolve. There is no conscious decision to do harm, it's just in their nature. In contrast, the malware writers do in fact make a specific decision to create something potentially harmful (and for little good reason most of the time).
Your prediction about 80 years from now is shakey at best. Why can the bacteria evolve, but we our immune systems cannot? Just as you say our computer systems have evolved to fight the virus threat.
If we removed *some* of the pressure to program for security (by eliminating malware writers), programmers could then focus more on directly productive tasks.
I don't think that's true. With a guitar string, you are changing the 'boundary condition' (ie, the length of the string); with touch screen, all you are changing is the point of initial exitation. This will change the relative amplitudes of certain harmonics, but not the fundamental frequency.
it is currently expensive to do this because you get out less energy than you put in.
You always get out less energy than you put in. That's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That something is currently too expensive is a technological issue.
"In Linux it's a pain in the arse to install a package, to uninstall packages, to do anything that's simple in Windows basically, it's harder in Linux."
Uh, I do it every day on several different distro's. With RH, for example, rpm is NOT that hard to use. Certainly not for removing packages. Debian's apt-get (and Kpackage for gui tool) is easier yet.
"Linux is basically nowhere near ready for the average user."
We have new 'average users,' small kids, non-tech folks, etc, using Linux, AND LIKING IT, daily. This statement is patently untrue when compared to observable fact. Mepis Linux is an excellent distro for new users, and many 'newbies' like it better than they ever liked Windows.
"I've tried Lindows and Xandros and both have serious flaws, Linux is atleast a decade off of a Desktop OS.
This isn't bashing Linux, it's facing facts. Windows is miles ahead, the Mac is way ahead, and there isn't anybody else who stands a chance at the moment."
First of all, you might want to try more distros before you condemn the entire 'family.' DistroWatch
In 2002, radio host Glenn Beck did a War of the Worlds radio broadcast on Halloween. I only heard exerpts, but it was pretty cool. At one time, you could listen to the two hour show online from the web site.
Why should there be a double standard for electronic versions of the mail when snail mail gets to do it? Is it because of the money that the PO gets for the postage?
Uh, how about because snail mail does not put unnecessary wear and tear on MY infrastructure. My real mailbox does not get hundreds of mail items per day, and if it did it would not wear it out faster...quite unlike harddrives, nic's and the like, not only for my computer but the server computers in the route as well. Nor does it generally spread malicious agents as 'spam' can do.
There is no comparison between snail mail and email. They are very different things, that serve very different purposes. I can send a client fifty emails a day to his fifty he sent me as we try to solve a problem. It's quite interactive. I don't write anybody fifty snail mail letters a day; what would be the point?
On the other hand, I don't send checks to my power company by email.
Finally, there is a big difference between junk mail and junk email, but I admit it is only a matter of degree. Spam really does clog up the works. Admins all over the world have had to add hardware, repair hardware failures, emplace tools, etc. just to handle the loads (and abuse) caused by spam. With regular mail, the mail carrier has to run a route everyday whether I get one junk mail item or 20. Further, I don't see direct mailers breaking into my house to use my home as a 'junk mail relay,' a clearly intrusive activity that violates the law.
The real point is one of opt-in vs. opt-out. This guy can opt-in to all the crap he wants to get. Opt-out should be the default, and it SHOULD BE illegal to send spam to anyone who has not explicitly opted-in.
There's not an appreciable difference in the flammability of hydrocarbon fuels vs. alcohol. The parent poster needs to consult a chemistry book, or a gas station with all those "Caution Flammable" signs around.
Gasoline Flash Point: -41 C
Ethanol Flash Point: 12 C
Unless you are considering cold days, on which the ethanol may not even be suitable as a fuel.
Why isn't this being persued as actively as fuel cells?
There are different pollutants emitted when alcohols are burned, and some of these may be as bad as those currently emitted. Examples include CHO and C2H4O radicals.
The Denver area uses alcohol fuel additives in the Winter to help lower smog. However, Larry Anderson (a research chemist in the Denver area) several years ago collected data that showed the INCREASE of these oxygenated pollutants only during the months the alcohol was added to the fuel.
My info is a bit dated, I admit, and I don't have specific info on more recent measurements or correlations. Suffice it to say that new solutions may bring new problems.
The only reason I can think of is that High schoolers would be able to pull up to the gas station and get their resources for the kegger that weekend, (and how is that any different than now anyway?)
Nah. The alcohol is likely be denatured or have other additives (detergents and similar compounds like current hydrocarbon fuels) that would render it poisonous.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is there an issue with the flamibility of alcohol, that's different from the flamibility issues with regular gas?
There's not an appreciable difference in the flammability of hydrocarbon fuels vs. alcohol. The parent poster needs to consult a chemistry book, or a gas station with all those "Caution Flammable" signs around.
Gasoline Flash Point: -41 C
Ethanol Flash Point: 12 C
We have flying cars. Most people call them airplanes and helicopters.
Re:Email Postage also creates new problems
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Fundamentally, your arguement is punish (via higher costs) everyone for the crimes of a few. Because there are a relatively small number of people abusing free email, ALL of us have to devise systems, pay schemes, whitelists, etc etc to protect ourselves.
*I* should not have to do anything to my servers to get email from *legitimate* Internet users sending legit email to protect myself (or my customers) from the actions of those that abuse the system.
I stand by my original point. Go after the spammers. Get rid of them (not as in death, though there are some people who would advocate that, too).
If spamming is already a shady enterprise, why do we assume the spammers will pay the postage, or whatever 'fee' we enact? This is the 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns' idea. In other words, they already try to defeat filtering software, won't they also try to defeat another other "post send" measure?
To me, the fix is to stop it before it leaves the server of ORIGIN, not after it has traversed the net. Nor am I in favor of a system, such as 'postage,' that allows them a way to continue (legitimately) sending spam. I don't want it whether they pay the postage or not.
Maybe this means tight international treaties or some such on how to deal with the spammers (or the ISP's that facilitate them); a pipe dream probably.
They are the ones not playing by the rules - get them out of the game.
What percentage of your server load is caused by SPAM?
I'd have to say on one of our servers it is 80%+. Though this may get hit by SA, it still comes TO the server, and the server has to process it to dump it.
I recently noted some annoying popups and home page redirection on a family member's computer. D/L'd Adaware and found 203 objects (with tens of suspect processes actually running).
Yes, that's 203.
Even with both Adaware and Spybot, this took a while to clean up. Gator was managing to reinstall itself after each reboot, AFTER the startup Adaware scan (so Adaware would not find it after a reboot, at least not until Windows completely finished all of it's start up stuff).
Not suprisingly, the system ran much better after all this crap was gone. To be candid, this was my first exposure to Gator.
Email Postage also creates new problems
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I own a business and we get something like a fair amount of sales leads via email.
I wonder how many people would not bother contacting us to inquire about services if they had to pay for the priviledge?
Also, I exchange A LOT of emails with existing clients...working off-site makes email the prefered mechanism of communication. I already pay for Internet Access (which currently includes access to routes between mail servers); I'd sure hate to have to pay for using a particular service on the Internet that is now free.
IMO, Spam is best fought at the source. Filters like SA are great for the user end, but the demand on the wires is still there (the recipient server has to GET the spam for it to be dropped). Go after the spammers themselves. Hard. With both barrels.
(1) Make it financially unattractive to spam. This can be either by fines or by MORE user education to NOT RESPOND to the dang things.
(2) Go after them criminally. They put an arguably unethical demand on everyone's Internet; who knows how many hardware failures are accelerated by the traffic due to spam (disks, NIC's etc). I liken spammers to someone who blows up, or at least physically blocks, a bridge on a public highway.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't read the book you mention, but I did catch PART of the Nova on PBS.
;)
IMHO, it was overproduced drek. It was absolutely the worst NOVA I've ever seen. Dumbed down physics and cutesy graphics and music. I had to turn it off, I just could not take it. Certainly not of the standard I've come to expect from Nova.
I had a string theorist on my Thesis Committee in grad school, and he asked some pretty interesting questions during my Oral Exam. It's a fascinating field, but if you have to dumb it down that far to make it popular and interesting (which I don't believe), save it for those who care to listen.
That said, it's hard for me to take Brian Greene very seriously. But, I bet he's better at math than me, and not by just a little bit.
Outlook is a great but buggy program.
Is that not a bit of a contradiction? When you use the adjective 'buggy,' I immediately think 'buggy to the point of not being usable.' Yep, that describes MY brief experience with Outlook.
Most offices these days depend on the features it has.
Okay, I'll bite. Can you be specific about what features Outlook brings to the table that "most businesses" depend on?
I migrated my whole business to OSS a while back and really don't miss those MS "features" people are always yacking about. I think part of this depency is, well what most depencies are, psychological.
I don't know why this surprises anyone.
It actually is not surprising that MS will seek a new revenue stream. What may be, well rather sad, is that so many people will pay for it.
Somebody at MS has to realize this will strengthen OSS alternatives even more.
Next week, we'll have a statement released that this fee won't really increase the TCO of MS based systems.
If your business model is based on a secret then you end up spending more on protecting the secret than developing new products.
Exactly. Excellent article today posted on FastCompany details just this point.
Short version: Microsoft has spent A WHOLE BUNCH of money in the past decade and half protecting existing markets rather than innovating new ones. Their R&D dollars go into incremental changes in existing products, rather than the development of new technologies.
In contrast, open source software is meant to be given away.
Not necessarily. Open source merely means the source code is available. True, to those who wish to configure and compile, that may in fact mean free (as in beer).
But, in the business world, not everyone wants to compile every app on every box. I can write an app, compile the binary and sell it, but make the source 'open' to those that want it. Many customers could not care less about the source code, and may lack the skills to do the compiling.
In fact, in the MS Windows world, most users don't even HAVE a compiler. In this case, they are paying me to configure and compile the software for them (a service as you describe it), but the point is that the USABLE software to the customer was NOT free.
Part of the problem "open source vs. closed source" is that it is not JUST about money. It goes much deeper.
the source code is closed (i.e. the PHP files for our client companies)
Isn't PHP code OPEN by definition? If you are writing a deployable product, the code is open; if not, if it's just in-house stuff, who really cares anyway. Then it is ALL 'closed' source in a way.
One of the rules of gift giving is to never give a pet as a gift. It requires a level of responsibility and commitment that cannot be forced upon a person.
The difference here is they don't have to do anything with the disk; it won't die like a pet would.
The choice to use it lies with the receiver of the gift. I say it's okay to give it, but he should not be surprised if few actually use it.
Which would be completely negated by how long it takes OpenOffice to load? ;) Just you, know... saying.
;)
Interesting. I recently migrated a workstation in my office from Win2000/Office2000 to Mandrake 10 (with the 2.6 kernel). OOo (and everything else) runs a LOT faster than it EVER did when that box was running Win2000.
Just sayin....
The question he asked was "will it work?" To answer that requires an experiment. It can be tried on SOMEONE'S computer SOMEWHERE before you buy it.
My example was I 'tried it to see' with commercial software that worked fine. In my case, I already had the license, and by the way, the commercial developers were glad I 'tried it' and let them know it worked.
And btw, this is not about playing games on Linux just to save $100 on Windows. I moved my systems over to Linux not to save that money, because I already had Windows. The real issue, imo, is this: I run Linux, and I want $COOL_APP, which was COMPILED for Windows. Can I still use it? That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sometimes, life is not as complicated as we try to make it.
There's been plenty of crappy linux apps that refused to run unless they're root.
Okay, I'll play along, since you opened the door. Can you name one Linux app that only runs as root?
This isn't true, it's never been true, and it likely will never be true.
Of course, the best answer, I think, is "try it an see." Without source code to see how tightly integrated a program is with Win, it is very hard to tell. When you do the experiment, sometimes you get a pleasant surprise.
I recently finally migrated my main office workstation to Linux, and am dual booting since there are a few things I still need Winders for. One such, I thought, was a program called MoluCAD by New River Kinematics, a molecule drawing program that I really, really need.
The other day, I tried it with wine, and BOOM! It worked!! Yeah.
It's important, too, to document when a program does not work.
That computers in educational environments have not helped education (sorry, I cannot recall the citation; if I can find it I'll post it). Indeed, there have also been articles written on the degradation of writing due to Internet research.
I've looked a lot at educational software for physical science, and most of it is the same old stuff you can get in a book (only maybe smaller and faster).
I saw a web site a few years ago (again, I cannot recall the url..not much help today apparently) where the arguement was made that web solutions (and thus perhaps computers in general) should only be used to do something DIFFERENT and NEW.
Using games to teach history has some interesting possibilities (perhaps similar to play acting?), but I agree with your point 100% that some objective assessment of effectiveness needs to be maintained.
Is twofold.
First, without virus writers (and other crackers), there is no need for the kind of security the malware led to. In other words, in an everything's-great-we-all-get-along world, why do we need to spend billions on computer security?
I remember group settings where the computers were not secure at all. We were on the honor system to not bother each other's data. It is bad behavior that leads to the need for security. As a matter of point, executing the virus writers *may* reduce the need to continue to spend money on developing more and more secure systems that are more and more complex (and costly).
Second, the analogy between biological viruses and bacteria is flawed in this instance. Bioorganisms just grow and evolve. There is no conscious decision to do harm, it's just in their nature. In contrast, the malware writers do in fact make a specific decision to create something potentially harmful (and for little good reason most of the time).
Your prediction about 80 years from now is shakey at best. Why can the bacteria evolve, but we our immune systems cannot? Just as you say our computer systems have evolved to fight the virus threat.
If we removed *some* of the pressure to program for security (by eliminating malware writers), programmers could then focus more on directly productive tasks.
I don't think that's true. With a guitar string, you are changing the 'boundary condition' (ie, the length of the string); with touch screen, all you are changing is the point of initial exitation. This will change the relative amplitudes of certain harmonics, but not the fundamental frequency.
it is currently expensive to do this because you get out less energy than you put in.
You always get out less energy than you put in. That's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That something is currently too expensive is a technological issue.
"In Linux it's a pain in the arse to install a package, to uninstall packages, to do anything that's simple in Windows basically, it's harder in Linux."
Uh, I do it every day on several different distro's. With RH, for example, rpm is NOT that hard to use. Certainly not for removing packages. Debian's apt-get (and Kpackage for gui tool) is easier yet.
"Linux is basically nowhere near ready for the average user."
We have new 'average users,' small kids, non-tech folks, etc, using Linux, AND LIKING IT, daily. This statement is patently untrue when compared to observable fact. Mepis Linux is an excellent distro for new users, and many 'newbies' like it better than they ever liked Windows.
"I've tried Lindows and Xandros and both have serious flaws, Linux is atleast a decade off of a Desktop OS. This isn't bashing Linux, it's facing facts. Windows is miles ahead, the Mac is way ahead, and there isn't anybody else who stands a chance at the moment."
First of all, you might want to try more distros before you condemn the entire 'family.' DistroWatch
IMO, Linux is A LOT closer than than you think.
In 2002, radio host Glenn Beck did a War of the Worlds radio broadcast on Halloween. I only heard exerpts, but it was pretty cool. At one time, you could listen to the two hour show online from the web site.
Why should there be a double standard for electronic versions of the mail when snail mail gets to do it? Is it because of the money that the PO gets for the postage?
Uh, how about because snail mail does not put unnecessary wear and tear on MY infrastructure. My real mailbox does not get hundreds of mail items per day, and if it did it would not wear it out faster...quite unlike harddrives, nic's and the like, not only for my computer but the server computers in the route as well. Nor does it generally spread malicious agents as 'spam' can do.
There is no comparison between snail mail and email. They are very different things, that serve very different purposes. I can send a client fifty emails a day to his fifty he sent me as we try to solve a problem. It's quite interactive. I don't write anybody fifty snail mail letters a day; what would be the point?
On the other hand, I don't send checks to my power company by email.
Finally, there is a big difference between junk mail and junk email, but I admit it is only a matter of degree. Spam really does clog up the works. Admins all over the world have had to add hardware, repair hardware failures, emplace tools, etc. just to handle the loads (and abuse) caused by spam. With regular mail, the mail carrier has to run a route everyday whether I get one junk mail item or 20. Further, I don't see direct mailers breaking into my house to use my home as a 'junk mail relay,' a clearly intrusive activity that violates the law.
The real point is one of opt-in vs. opt-out. This guy can opt-in to all the crap he wants to get. Opt-out should be the default, and it SHOULD BE illegal to send spam to anyone who has not explicitly opted-in.
There's not an appreciable difference in the flammability of hydrocarbon fuels vs. alcohol. The parent poster needs to consult a chemistry book, or a gas station with all those "Caution Flammable" signs around. Gasoline Flash Point: -41 C Ethanol Flash Point: 12 C
Unless you are considering cold days, on which the ethanol may not even be suitable as a fuel.
Why isn't this being persued as actively as fuel cells?
There are different pollutants emitted when alcohols are burned, and some of these may be as bad as those currently emitted. Examples include CHO and C2H4O radicals.
The Denver area uses alcohol fuel additives in the Winter to help lower smog. However, Larry Anderson (a research chemist in the Denver area) several years ago collected data that showed the INCREASE of these oxygenated pollutants only during the months the alcohol was added to the fuel.
My info is a bit dated, I admit, and I don't have specific info on more recent measurements or correlations. Suffice it to say that new solutions may bring new problems.
The only reason I can think of is that High schoolers would be able to pull up to the gas station and get their resources for the kegger that weekend, (and how is that any different than now anyway?)
Nah. The alcohol is likely be denatured or have other additives (detergents and similar compounds like current hydrocarbon fuels) that would render it poisonous.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is there an issue with the flamibility of alcohol, that's different from the flamibility issues with regular gas?
There's not an appreciable difference in the flammability of hydrocarbon fuels vs. alcohol. The parent poster needs to consult a chemistry book, or a gas station with all those "Caution Flammable" signs around.
Gasoline Flash Point: -41 C
Ethanol Flash Point: 12 C
We have flying cars. Most people call them airplanes and helicopters.
Fundamentally, your arguement is punish (via higher costs) everyone for the crimes of a few. Because there are a relatively small number of people abusing free email, ALL of us have to devise systems, pay schemes, whitelists, etc etc to protect ourselves.
*I* should not have to do anything to my servers to get email from *legitimate* Internet users sending legit email to protect myself (or my customers) from the actions of those that abuse the system.
I stand by my original point. Go after the spammers. Get rid of them (not as in death, though there are some people who would advocate that, too).
If spamming is already a shady enterprise, why do we assume the spammers will pay the postage, or whatever 'fee' we enact? This is the 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns' idea. In other words, they already try to defeat filtering software, won't they also try to defeat another other "post send" measure?
To me, the fix is to stop it before it leaves the server of ORIGIN, not after it has traversed the net. Nor am I in favor of a system, such as 'postage,' that allows them a way to continue (legitimately) sending spam. I don't want it whether they pay the postage or not.
Maybe this means tight international treaties or some such on how to deal with the spammers (or the ISP's that facilitate them); a pipe dream probably.
They are the ones not playing by the rules - get them out of the game. What percentage of your server load is caused by SPAM? I'd have to say on one of our servers it is 80%+. Though this may get hit by SA, it still comes TO the server, and the server has to process it to dump it.
I recently noted some annoying popups and home page redirection on a family member's computer. D/L'd Adaware and found 203 objects (with tens of suspect processes actually running).
Yes, that's 203.
Even with both Adaware and Spybot, this took a while to clean up. Gator was managing to reinstall itself after each reboot, AFTER the startup Adaware scan (so Adaware would not find it after a reboot, at least not until Windows completely finished all of it's start up stuff).
Not suprisingly, the system ran much better after all this crap was gone. To be candid, this was my first exposure to Gator.
I own a business and we get something like a fair amount of sales leads via email.
I wonder how many people would not bother contacting us to inquire about services if they had to pay for the priviledge?
Also, I exchange A LOT of emails with existing clients...working off-site makes email the prefered mechanism of communication. I already pay for Internet Access (which currently includes access to routes between mail servers); I'd sure hate to have to pay for using a particular service on the Internet that is now free.
IMO, Spam is best fought at the source. Filters like SA are great for the user end, but the demand on the wires is still there (the recipient server has to GET the spam for it to be dropped). Go after the spammers themselves. Hard. With both barrels.
(1) Make it financially unattractive to spam. This can be either by fines or by MORE user education to NOT RESPOND to the dang things.
(2) Go after them criminally. They put an arguably unethical demand on everyone's Internet; who knows how many hardware failures are accelerated by the traffic due to spam (disks, NIC's etc). I liken spammers to someone who blows up, or at least physically blocks, a bridge on a public highway.
I use W2K as a platform.
I use what has worked reliably for years and years.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?