Does GMail support encryption though it's web client? Does Yahoo?
I don't know about Yahoo, but Gmail certainly does. Just change the URL used to access gmail to https://gmail.google.com/ and the whole session (not just the passwords) is encrypted. Also, gmail supports smtp-tls, so that it sends and recieves encrypted email if the source or destination supports tls.
I wonder how Seagate (who, if I am not mistaken are the present owners of Quantum's disk drive business) or Quantum feel about the use of the word "Quantum" on the "Combo Card"?
No, they are filled with helium, but after the speeches they've just given up all hope and are too depressed to float anymore.
No, the explanation is much simpler. The balloons no longer float because the density of air around them has been reduced so much by the speeches that the balloons are now heavier than the air and hence sink.
Seriously people, I'm all for civil liberties, but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are and verifying they are allowed to get the identification they are allowed to get.
But what is the benefit? Remember that the 9/11 hijackers all had valid IDs -- identification would not have prevented that tragedy.
To set the dual-boot issue straight: Microsoft has not been working on an actual, side-by-side dual-boot system. We're jointly making it possible to install XP on an arbitrary XO -- subject to the constraints of the Bitfrost theft deterrence system -- and then convert the machine back to Linux easily. I have made it clear that the XP port will not receive my security signoff without this Linux rollback feature, and have no reason to believe it won't be implemented.
One explanation for the non-payment could be that these (or some of these) wiretaps were made without authorization, and would not have been authorized if a request had been made. Note that I am not arguing the warrant/warrantless issue, rather, I am suggesting that rogue agents within the FBI set up these wiretaps without even following whatever minimal control procedures the FBI has in place.
Considering the carbon emissions of atomic power are 0
Actually, there are people seriously arguing that atomic power stations produce more carbon than they save. The problem is that building and fueling an atomic power station takes a considerable amount of energy. The argument seems to hinge on how much fuel can be created by breeder reactors and how much must be mined and refined.
I'd like to see google services fix the computer that "Joe in accounting" just "updated"
He also says that the PC will go away, although he does not say what will replace it.
Obviously, in his scenario, one needs only a browser with various plugins, the question is -- what kind of box will provide this and will it require significant support or no support? Personally, I doubt the "no support" idea.
I suppose that there is also a dumb terminal possibility, where the user terminal provides only something like a VNC viewer however, from an economic standpoint, this has problems -- cpu cycles in a data centre are a lot more expensive than cpu cycles at a user desktop, although greater utilization in the data centre might overcome this disadvantage.
Nowadays you cannot get on a plane carrying any kind of gel or liquid
Cannot or should not? Last time I flew, I did not bother to put my toothpaste in a transparent baggie, and the scanner operator did not find it in my hand baggage -- or if he did see it, he did not care.
Consider car audio - in the UK it is a criminal offence to use a hand-held telephone whilst operating a vehicle (even if you're stopped at the lights etc).
This is a most stupid law. California will have this soon also. It is stupid because research has shown that the distraction is not physical, it is mental -- accidents are more likely because people are concentrating on their conversation and not on driving. Hands free phones do not change this at all.
In the context of stupid prosecutions, the UK certainly has its examples -- wasn't there someone who was prosecuted for taking a quick drink from a water bottle while stopped at lights?
Okay, so the TSA Web site expressly discusses lithium batteries, and not lithium-ion batteries, the latter of which are used in laptops, cell phones, etc.
What is it about this article that people seem to have difficulty reading it? The DOT page clearly gives limits for Lithium-ion batteries. For example:
Lithium-Ion Battery Installed in a Device
(up to 8 grams lithium equivalent content)
Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt.
The AP article may state this, but the DOT page does not. Installed batteries are also subject to limits -- from
the DOT page:
The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:
I have always thought that MS take the "personal" part of "PC" too far -- to the extent that MS does not "get" networking.
In the *nix world, it is common that one can sit down at *any* machine in the network, log on and one's desktop/files, etc are just the same (assuming the same OS). This has never been true in the MS world. MS requires you to have *your computer* and to always use *your computer* if you want to have any semblance of a familiar desktop/files. Even with server stored profiles, the files are copied to the local machine and copied back again at the end of the session. This is a wildly inefficient method -- really a hack layered on to achieve the semblance of providing a real floating profile. If the profile is large, the copying can take a long time or be impossible (because of lack of disk space).
In fact, for most Windows users, the idea that one can sit down at another machine and access one's files, just the same as if one were logged into one's primary machine is totally alien. It is amazing how much MS has trained people to accept poor features.
Apple's Mail client has had "Smart Mailboxes" for years now. Any message that matches the criteria you choose appears in the Smart Mailbox. A single message can appear in any number of Smart Mailboxes so long as it matches their criteria.
I think that you just proved my point that you don't "get" labels in Gmail. As other posters have pointed out, Smart Mailboxes are different to labels -- probably a combination of the two features would be very useful.
Labels are one of the most compelling aspects of Gmail.
I can apply multiple labels to a single email, whereas with traditional email clients, I can merely file emails in a single mailbox, or I can make a copy in another mailbox.
Having applied multiple labels, I can then search for the subset of emails that have a specific combination of labels. Good luck doing that with Thunderbird or any other traditional client.
IMHO, the people who don't "get" Gmail, don't "get" the way labels work.
The risible rhetoric that the "Intellectual Property" barons has been pushing for so long has been so plainly wrong that they don't even have the credibility left to make reasonable claims and be believed.
I believe you are exactly correct. The RIAA and MPAA have been pushing for expanded rights to the detriment of fair use (even denying any fair use rights exist) that people treat them with contempt and have only contempt for their claims.
The *AAs have attempted to make a black and white issue over copying. The problem is that people expect to be able to do some copying and hence the line is now pushed far back into *AAs' territory. If they had respected and promoted fair use rights, most people would have responded with acknowledgment of the *AAs' rights.
Investment funds have huge ownership of shares -- it is the fund managers who should be looking out for the interests of their investors and putting an end to this BS.
IMHO, their lack of action makes them complicit. It's the guys at Fidelity and others that we should get mad at.
And one more thing -- with the instructions given by the instructor and the setup of the website, it was possible to download the source code of other students' version of the assignment.
As the other poster pointed out, this is possible for C programs compiled with TCC. It has a compile-and-run mode, and since it's very fast it allows you to use C for scripts.
This was a C++ class, not C
If the program was intended for use as a CGI script then it is entirely possible that this was the case; the program would start with #/usr/bin/env tcc (or whatever) and the loader would invoke the correct program to run it.
It was not intended to run using tcc. The instructions included compiling the source and putting the binary in the appropriate place to be called when serving the web page.
once had an instructor at an introductory level programming class (which I was required to take and they refused to let me test out of) try to insist that in C and C++ the int in the line:
int main()
stands for initialize.
My daughter took a course on C++ at the local community college. The last assignment required building a program that would run as a cgi on a Linux-based webserver. Prior to this point, everything had been Windows based. The instructor claimed in his notes on the assignment that the C++ code when intended to be compiled and run under Linux should start with:
If I am reading this right, IANAL, blah, blah, blah, RIAA is simply dropping monetary damages. They have not dropped the suit. I don't see how this will effect the counter-claims.
IANAL, but if you read the pdf document, it does not explicitly say that the RIAA is dropping its claim for damages either -- but I think that because both parties request entry of final judgment on the basis that there will be an injunction against the Granny, that ends the matter for both sides -- the RIAA can no longer claim money for past actions and the Granny can no longer claim compensation for anything done by the RIAA relating to this.
I wonder if she could start a new suit against MediaSentry though?
There does not seem to be any exclusivity here, the press release notes that AT&T got the same authorization in November and eight other companies have applied for authorization.
Furthermore, "The Director does not have any authority, however, to regulate the rates, terms or conditions of a provider's service - including the networks or television stations that the video-service company decides to carry", so it is not clear if this "authorization" has much meaningful effect.
Often - very often - a domain farmer picks up the domain for just a week or so (no matter how long the WHOIS says it's really registered for) - and waits to see if the pay-per-click ads generate enough revenue to make it worth keeping. So often the best thing you can do is...nothing.
This is excellent advice -- I would add one more comment -- don't even visit the web page.
I was able to pick up a domain that I wanted this way recently. I knew that the domain would not be renewed (defunct company) so I put an order into goDaddy's domain backordering service. Someone else snagged the domain, but after a week, it was available again and I got it.
This works because of a huge hole in the registering process -- the registrars have 1 week to pay the fee or give up the domain. Thus a registrar can "test-drive" a domain for a week. If ICANN got rid of this ability to return the domain without payment it would go a long way towards removing registration abuses.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how Seagate (who, if I am not mistaken are the present owners of Quantum's disk drive business) or Quantum feel about the use of the word "Quantum" on the "Combo Card"?
If you are a visitor from a country that does not issue passports that meet the requirements, how do you get on a flight?
For those who can't click the link:
One explanation for the non-payment could be that these (or some of these) wiretaps were made without authorization, and would not have been authorized if a request had been made. Note that I am not arguing the warrant/warrantless issue, rather, I am suggesting that rogue agents within the FBI set up these wiretaps without even following whatever minimal control procedures the FBI has in place.
Obviously, in his scenario, one needs only a browser with various plugins, the question is -- what kind of box will provide this and will it require significant support or no support? Personally, I doubt the "no support" idea.
I suppose that there is also a dumb terminal possibility, where the user terminal provides only something like a VNC viewer however, from an economic standpoint, this has problems -- cpu cycles in a data centre are a lot more expensive than cpu cycles at a user desktop, although greater utilization in the data centre might overcome this disadvantage.
In the context of stupid prosecutions, the UK certainly has its examples -- wasn't there someone who was prosecuted for taking a quick drink from a water bottle while stopped at lights?
I have always thought that MS take the "personal" part of "PC" too far -- to the extent that MS does not "get" networking.
In the *nix world, it is common that one can sit down at *any* machine in the network, log on and one's desktop/files, etc are just the same (assuming the same OS). This has never been true in the MS world. MS requires you to have *your computer* and to always use *your computer* if you want to have any semblance of a familiar desktop/files. Even with server stored profiles, the files are copied to the local machine and copied back again at the end of the session. This is a wildly inefficient method -- really a hack layered on to achieve the semblance of providing a real floating profile. If the profile is large, the copying can take a long time or be impossible (because of lack of disk space).
In fact, for most Windows users, the idea that one can sit down at another machine and access one's files, just the same as if one were logged into one's primary machine is totally alien. It is amazing how much MS has trained people to accept poor features.
Labels are one of the most compelling aspects of Gmail.
I can apply multiple labels to a single email, whereas with traditional email clients, I can merely file emails in a single mailbox, or I can make a copy in another mailbox.
Having applied multiple labels, I can then search for the subset of emails that have a specific combination of labels. Good luck doing that with Thunderbird or any other traditional client.
IMHO, the people who don't "get" Gmail, don't "get" the way labels work.
The *AAs have attempted to make a black and white issue over copying. The problem is that people expect to be able to do some copying and hence the line is now pushed far back into *AAs' territory. If they had respected and promoted fair use rights, most people would have responded with acknowledgment of the *AAs' rights.
Investment funds have huge ownership of shares -- it is the fund managers who should be looking out for the interests of their investors and putting an end to this BS. IMHO, their lack of action makes them complicit. It's the guys at Fidelity and others that we should get mad at.
And one more thing -- with the instructions given by the instructor and the setup of the website, it was possible to download the source code of other students' version of the assignment.
Or some such similar nonsense.
I wonder if she could start a new suit against MediaSentry though?
There does not seem to be any exclusivity here, the press release notes that AT&T got the same authorization in November and eight other companies have applied for authorization.
Furthermore, "The Director does not have any authority, however, to regulate the rates, terms or conditions of a provider's service - including the networks or television stations that the video-service company decides to carry", so it is not clear if this "authorization" has much meaningful effect.
I was able to pick up a domain that I wanted this way recently. I knew that the domain would not be renewed (defunct company) so I put an order into goDaddy's domain backordering service. Someone else snagged the domain, but after a week, it was available again and I got it.
This works because of a huge hole in the registering process -- the registrars have 1 week to pay the fee or give up the domain. Thus a registrar can "test-drive" a domain for a week. If ICANN got rid of this ability to return the domain without payment it would go a long way towards removing registration abuses.