I don't think would be at all reasonable to call the Elise "mostly Toyota". Frame, body, suspension, brakes, wheels, interior, intake, exhaust, are all Lotus. The engine and transmission are made by Toyota for Lotus. There's still a lot of Lotus in the engine bay. For example, the engine cover says "LOTUS" not "TOYOTA".:)
Art is a luxury, and I can live without it. I can definitely live without the crap art that some corporate executive thinks is so valuable that it has to be double encrypted and locked in an iron box with only a tiny peep-hole to let the consumer masses pay through the nose catch a glimpse of it.
I don't give a rat's ass about copying movies. I'd never even bother to go to the trouble of copying a DVD. It's totally worth the $2 to me to rent the disc and watch it once. In the unlikely event I ever want to watch the movie again I'll pay another $2; the extremely rare movie I'd want to watch 10 times in my life, I'll gladly pay $20 for that. But because of the idiotic encryption and corporate-purchased federal laws and typically brain-dead packaged software, I'll never spend a cent on DVDs, either to rent or to buy.
Doesn't "Open Source" just mean the source code is freely available to everybody? I don't think it inherently implies anything about distributing derivative works. E.g. Qmail is Open Source, but not Free.
While I was still contracting there, I saw two kids expelled for hitting CTRL-C to dump to DOS and explore the C: drive. Both ended up enrolling at a local private high school, to my knowledge.
Sounds like those kids passed the test and got a chance for a real education instead of government standard cattle programming.
Killing a process without permission (which usually means "owned by a different user") requires elevated privileges. The "Administrator" user has most privileges available but by default not enabled. Task Manager does not attempt to enable the necessary privileges before attempting to kill processes.
Same experience here. SEA, SLC, and MCO are all pretty polite and laid-back. Maybe the rest of the country sucks? More likely there are a few bad places that really stand out in people's memories.
I think the Nazi attrocities are more infamous because they killed what, half the Jews in Europe? The Japanese could never have put a dent in the Chinese race -- however many they killed, there would still be hundreds of millions left.
It's not necessary to go to those lengths. Just do every spam run twice. Most victims will get two copies; greylisters will get one. I never bothered with greylisting because the workaround is so simple I can't believe they haven't started using it already (or won't very soon).
The competition to have the loudest disc in the changer will continue. We've run out of room with CDs, having compressed everything into the top 5 db or so out of the 96 db range. Eventually we'll only be using the top 5 db of the DVDA's 145, but that's a few years away yet.
If you get rid of ports then you can't use the same hostname (or address) for multiple services. That is, if you want to SSH to an FTP server, you can't use its primary address or hostname. So we'd end up with ftp.box1.mydomain and ssh.box1.mydomain and dns.box1.mydomain and ntp.box1.mydomain, and so on. You'd end up having to type more, not less, to connect to any particular machine that hosts multiple services (which includes almost every machine). I believe that in practice this would be very cumbersome and difficult to manage.
As others have mentioned it's already trivial to assign multiple addresses to a single host (and cheap in IPV6) so that's a much better solution to the problem.
Because running is a very human thing, and reciting pi is not.
Any legged animal can run, and most do it way better than we do. Reciting pi is peculiar to humans. Training a human to run fast is like training a cheetah to do complicated tricks.
"Kiloton" could possibly be interpreted to mean 2 million pounds, which is indeed a measure of force. But that's sheer coincidence and clearly not what the writer intended. What they intended was, er, some big numbers and physics words that sound really impressive. Make big boom! Whee!
taustin, take note! Parent has nailed it. Recipient's SPF is misconfigured; they should whitelist the forwarder and the problem is completely solved. If they want SPF checking on forwarded mail it'll have to be done by the forwarder. This is not exactly rocket surgery.
I stopped answering my telephone * years ago, and there have been no complaints. Yeah, I don't hear from strangers and travellers who can't be bothered to leave a message on the answering machine, but I waste a lot less time talking to cold-call salesmen and beggars. It works for me.
* unless I recognize the CLID
Refusing mail from actively repudiated servers is quite a bit less agressive filtering. It's certainly nowhere near the level of ignoring all calls (or refusing all incoming mail). What was the point of this comparison again? Maybe that if you incorrectly reject mail from Joe User then Joe User cannot possibly have any way of contacting you to complain? That's so obviously dumb that it can't be what was intended.
As an example, see the Bonded Sender program. The idea is that you register your mail server with them (a central database of "trusted" mail servers) and everybody can use that database as a whitelist, automatically accepting all mail from any server in it.
In practice it's often referred to as the "Bonded Spammer" program, as the central authority's criteria for trusting mail servers are somewhat looser than yours and mine. (Some spam filters even use it as a blacklist!) I believe any central authority will suffer from this same problem. Wherever you draw the line between "spam" and "not spam" there will be people undeservedly on the wrong side of it.
For instance I call it spam when an automated process sends anything other than a confirmation request to any unconfirmed email address. A vast number of "legitimate" businesses appear to disagree, judging by the huge loads of crap from them in my spam dump. (In these cases, I have no reason to doubt that _somebody_ entered a bogus address in my domain into some web signup form somewhere, but that's not enough excuse to start spraying ads at that address every day without confirmation.) Would companies that engage in the practice be allowed in the central database of trusted mail servers? Probably. Would my small organization's mail server be allowed? Not if we didn't pay the $N/t fee, which may well be more than we can reasonably afford.
You have to realize that very few people understand what "The Internet" is. When dumbass marketeers like this doubleclick guy say "Internet" they are referring only to that small fraction of the WWW that comprises marketable, profitable, branded websites.
Killing the banner-ad business might very well lead to the end of free access to that small fraction of the WWW, just as he claims. On the other hand, it might not. Providers might find some value in providing "free" access to information without third-party advertisements.
None of my little hobby websites have any advertising on them, and they will continue to be free (gratis) as long as they continue to promote my interests. If the WWW consisted only of websites like mine, I wouldn't mind too much.
On the other hand.... Perhaps some people believe that the actual Internet itself, in particular the core routers and long haul fibre, are subsidised at least in part by big "content providers" who are in turn funded by third-party advertising. This seems unlikely to me. I believe that even without online advertising revenue and ad-supported free content, individuals and businesses would continue to pay for Internet connections -- the inherently "free" services such as email, peer-to-peer services, online shopping, and nerdy little websites like mine, as well as availability of subscription-based websites, would be worth the relatively small cost of Internet service.
Even among the ad-supported websites, how many of those exist only to make advertising profit? Would we miss them? Could the others come up with some way of providing the same (or similar) content and availability at lower cost (e.g. distributed peer hosting, a la BitTorrent)?
If musical artists don't hold copyrights on their music while they're alive, only the record company gets anything from the sale of those records.
That's right and proper, because they're the ones actually making something: a physical CD+case that you can hold in your hands. With public domain content they could only charge about $3 for a CD; if you don't feel like coughing that up just download it on the Internet or copy it from a friend's collection for free. Once the copyright's limited term has expired this is exactly how it should be.
With sigs turned off in the Slashdot preferences there's basically no way to see sigs. You'd think they'd show each user's sig somewhere in one of the user's info pages, but no. So don't just say "see sig for details" -- actually include the relevant details in the comment text, because lots of readers can't see your sig.
Ha, I got one of those by mistake from a leftovers bin. Hit [space] with the wrong thumb and it deletes what you just typed! Ha ha ha! Alt+Ctrl+Shift+LeftSpace fixes it, toggling between 3 modes: left=bs,right=sp; left=sp,right=bs; left=sp,right=sp.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're just showing off. :-P
Doesn't "Open Source" just mean the source code is freely available to everybody? I don't think it inherently implies anything about distributing derivative works. E.g. Qmail is Open Source, but not Free.
Killing a process without permission (which usually means "owned by a different user") requires elevated privileges. The "Administrator" user has most privileges available but by default not enabled. Task Manager does not attempt to enable the necessary privileges before attempting to kill processes.
Same experience here. SEA, SLC, and MCO are all pretty polite and laid-back. Maybe the rest of the country sucks? More likely there are a few bad places that really stand out in people's memories.
In Washington State you can only legally self-insure if you have a "fleet" of more than 25 vehicles.
Sufficiently advanced Chinese are indistinguishable from elves.
I think the Nazi attrocities are more infamous because they killed what, half the Jews in Europe? The Japanese could never have put a dent in the Chinese race -- however many they killed, there would still be hundreds of millions left.
It's not necessary to go to those lengths. Just do every spam run twice. Most victims will get two copies; greylisters will get one. I never bothered with greylisting because the workaround is so simple I can't believe they haven't started using it already (or won't very soon).
The competition to have the loudest disc in the changer will continue. We've run out of room with CDs, having compressed everything into the top 5 db or so out of the 96 db range. Eventually we'll only be using the top 5 db of the DVDA's 145, but that's a few years away yet.
As others have mentioned it's already trivial to assign multiple addresses to a single host (and cheap in IPV6) so that's a much better solution to the problem.
"Kiloton" could possibly be interpreted to mean 2 million pounds, which is indeed a measure of force. But that's sheer coincidence and clearly not what the writer intended. What they intended was, er, some big numbers and physics words that sound really impressive. Make big boom! Whee!
taustin, take note! Parent has nailed it. Recipient's SPF is misconfigured; they should whitelist the forwarder and the problem is completely solved. If they want SPF checking on forwarded mail it'll have to be done by the forwarder. This is not exactly rocket surgery.
* unless I recognize the CLID
Refusing mail from actively repudiated servers is quite a bit less agressive filtering. It's certainly nowhere near the level of ignoring all calls (or refusing all incoming mail). What was the point of this comparison again? Maybe that if you incorrectly reject mail from Joe User then Joe User cannot possibly have any way of contacting you to complain? That's so obviously dumb that it can't be what was intended.
In practice it's often referred to as the "Bonded Spammer" program, as the central authority's criteria for trusting mail servers are somewhat looser than yours and mine. (Some spam filters even use it as a blacklist!) I believe any central authority will suffer from this same problem. Wherever you draw the line between "spam" and "not spam" there will be people undeservedly on the wrong side of it.
For instance I call it spam when an automated process sends anything other than a confirmation request to any unconfirmed email address. A vast number of "legitimate" businesses appear to disagree, judging by the huge loads of crap from them in my spam dump. (In these cases, I have no reason to doubt that _somebody_ entered a bogus address in my domain into some web signup form somewhere, but that's not enough excuse to start spraying ads at that address every day without confirmation.) Would companies that engage in the practice be allowed in the central database of trusted mail servers? Probably. Would my small organization's mail server be allowed? Not if we didn't pay the $N/t fee, which may well be more than we can reasonably afford.
Killing the banner-ad business might very well lead to the end of free access to that small fraction of the WWW, just as he claims. On the other hand, it might not. Providers might find some value in providing "free" access to information without third-party advertisements.
None of my little hobby websites have any advertising on them, and they will continue to be free (gratis) as long as they continue to promote my interests. If the WWW consisted only of websites like mine, I wouldn't mind too much.
On the other hand.... Perhaps some people believe that the actual Internet itself, in particular the core routers and long haul fibre, are subsidised at least in part by big "content providers" who are in turn funded by third-party advertising. This seems unlikely to me. I believe that even without online advertising revenue and ad-supported free content, individuals and businesses would continue to pay for Internet connections -- the inherently "free" services such as email, peer-to-peer services, online shopping, and nerdy little websites like mine, as well as availability of subscription-based websites, would be worth the relatively small cost of Internet service.
Even among the ad-supported websites, how many of those exist only to make advertising profit? Would we miss them? Could the others come up with some way of providing the same (or similar) content and availability at lower cost (e.g. distributed peer hosting, a la BitTorrent)?
The Forever War by Joe Haldeman makes use of near-lightspeed interstellar travel (quick for the travellers, slow for everybody else).
Four years, eleven months, and three weeks ago today: "All your base" and "set us up" references and variants stopped being funny.
Do you really want some pointy-haired MSCE deciding whether you are "competent" to be on the Internet?
s/be on the Internet/have a child/
With sigs turned off in the Slashdot preferences there's basically no way to see sigs. You'd think they'd show each user's sig somewhere in one of the user's info pages, but no. So don't just say "see sig for details" -- actually include the relevant details in the comment text, because lots of readers can't see your sig.
Ha, I got one of those by mistake from a leftovers bin. Hit [space] with the wrong thumb and it deletes what you just typed! Ha ha ha! Alt+Ctrl+Shift+LeftSpace fixes it, toggling between 3 modes: left=bs,right=sp; left=sp,right=bs; left=sp,right=sp.