Since the Defendants are a) ignoring the order to cease and desist, b) not co-operating with the process server, and c) indicating they won't pay, I hope the judge will find them in contempt of court and issue a bench warrent for their arrest. Let them get shome nice striped sunlight for a while.
If this happens, I hope somebody puts a webcam on their cell. I'd pay to see that!
Now watch, some spammer will send out spam advertising the WebCam on the spammers. ;^]
Because it will not allow me to use it if I don't send an HTTP-USER-AGENT string. Their stated reason is that "some people are abusing our database, so we don't allow certain agents." This is, of course, silly, since any minerbot could be reconfigured to say it was IE without much difficulty.
If they will design their site to REQUIRE a USER-AGENT string, I will look elsewhere for movie data.
I wonder how this will fare, given how well the satellite TV industry has done against Congress.
For those of you who don't own sat dishes, here's the deal in brief: In the Good Old Days, the owner of a C-Band dish (big dish, not the little mini dishes like Primestar) could subscribe to stations like the Denver 5, and receive NBC/CBS/ABC via sat. Nice clean picture, the best you're going to get via NTSC. Also, if you lived in a time zone other than the origionating station, you gained another chance to watch your favorite show.
Then the cable cabal and the networks banded together, and managed to push the Satellite Home Viewers Act through. Now, if you are in what the FCC calls the "Grade B contour" (read: crappy, ghost-ridden image 80% of the time, nothing 20% of the time) of a local station, you are forbidden by law to receive network programming from satellite unless your local station provides you with a wavier. Yeah, and Mr. Gates will let vendors install Linux next to Win-98.
Given this, I wonder how long the networks will allow Webcasting to go on before they push for an amendment to the SHVA to cover this.
Just like Microsoft and NSI, the networks don't want to see their monopoly end, and just as assuredly, end it must due to technology.
The analogy I like to use for the Human Genome Project is the development of the Periodic Table of elements.
Of itself, the periodic table didn't make any new chemicals. What it did was provide a framework to identify patterns that could be used to predict areas of research. For example, the discovery of helium: the table predicted the existance of the element, and allowed calculation of the spectral lines. The element was then identified in the sun, hence the name (helium, from helios, the sun).
Similiarly, the HGP of itself won't cure any diseases; rather it will allow the mapping of patterns. We'll be able to say, "This gene, which we know does this in wheat, is present in humans. Perhaps it does the same thing?".
Once we get one copy of the human genome sequenced, we'll still need to sequence many others, from [tall|short|skinny|fat|bald|hairy...] people, and start cross-referencing the results.
Think of it as a massive reverse engineering project on a program we only have uncommented object code for.
There is no difference between this, and the User-Agent HTTP header that is sent.
FALSE. An http User-Agent is sent because I told my machine to contact that server. When I launch a game, I am not, in my mind, commanding my system to contact a server unless and until I tell my system to join a network game.
Now, if this packet were sent when you connected to a server, and if id offered servers to play on, and if id then collected the data...
IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG!
The User-Agent header allows the server to better taylor content for my machine. Why would a server care what video card I had?
This is nothing more than another example of the continuing information grab being done on the Internet by unscrupulous individuals.
If Carmak knew about this and didn't fight it, he is a fool. If he didn't know about it until it was out there, he should have come clean, said "mea culpa and we'll remove it in future", and made a model of the marketroid who put this in so we could frag them in effegy.
As they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigalence.
< sig >
Bill Clinton uses NT servers because Linux servers don't go down.
Several people here have made the statement, "I like being salary because if I spend the afternoon reading/. I still get paid." Look, if your company can afford you not working, I'd like a job application please! If you miss a day because you threw your back out carrying your new 25" monitor home, you take a sick day. If your company doesn't have 40 hours of work for you to do, they will find a way to cut costs if they have even the most remote clue, either by laying you off, firing you, or removing somebody else. Salary does not guarantee your money any more than hourly.
Now, if you are hourly, the following good things happen:
Your company starts tracking how many man-hours it takes to get things done. Therefor, you begin to be able to estimate how long new things will take, and schedule appropriately.
Your managers have a strong disincentive to plan for more than 40hrs/week of work.
If something needs to be done, you can put in the time to get it done
At my first job as an software engineer, I was salary non-exempt (work 40 hrs/week, get paid overtime). My project was seriously underestimated (happened before I was hired), and I worked 75+ hour weeks for about three months. Fresh out of college, I was taking home (after taxes) $2500 every two weeks (and this was twelve years ago). This had two distinct benefits: I had lots of money to pay off my loans with, and no time to spend it on anything else!
Now, some people say, "But what if I work 30 hrs this week, and 50 next week?" That's where a smart company will introduce compensation time (comp time). You can place some time into the comp time bank, and take it back out later, or take it as overtime. Ususally, companies that do this and also pay overtime have you get comp time for working 50.
In my opinion, the only time pure salary exempt makes sense is when it is very difficult to determine when you are working. Example: If you are an artist for a company, and you go for a hike in the woods for inspiration. Are you working? Do you bill those hours? Or if you are a CEO, and you go golfing and lunching with some VC's to fund the expansion of your engineering department. How do you bill those hours? In those cases, salary makes sense. But if you can clearly document when you work (even if it is at weird times like most I.S. folks have to work) then you should be hourly.
I don't think this was actually ever done, KT was saying that it was possible. Then again, it's possible to freeze boiling water by putting it on a hot stove IF all the atoms hit each other just right. However, the odds of doing this are close enought to nil as to not be worth worrying about. Same thing the the "cc hack": the odds of making such a change to the compiler that would work under every case, without introducing bugs in the compiler, are pretty low.
Actually, the capacity of a channel is proportional only to the signal to noise ratio of the channel. Were your application of Nyquist's theory valid, you could go no higher than 7200 bps over POTS (plain old telephone service). Now, look real close at your modem. I'll bet it's going higher than 7200bps.
The trick is that a phone line has a very high signal to noise ratio, and you can make use of this to move more bits than the line has hertz of bandwidth.
Now, over a radio link, your signal to noise ratio drops, and you have to use more bandwidth to raise the S/N up. Over wires (like DSL) you are able to maintain a better S/N ratio. However, when your local AM station bleeds in, you lower the S/N ratio and thus reduce the bearing capacity of the channel.
However, part of DSL is avoiding the frequencies that have interference, and using the ones that are clear. Yes, if the line were completely clean you could get more throughput, but crosstalk from the other lines in the bundle, noise from AM and CB radio, and attenuation from the fact the wires were not designed for RF frequencies all reduce throughput and were allowed for in the spec.
I found the Dune books to be much like a rollercoaster: It started out up, and was pretty much downhill from there.
The problem that I have with the Dune series is that Frank Herbert didn't fully follow the implications of his world. He wanted a feudalistic society, but with modern "stuff".
He wanted knife fights, so he has to develop shields. But shields prevent seige engines from attacking your castles, so he had to come up with the lasegun/shield interaction to prevent shields from being used to protect large emplacements. But then he had to make the lasegun explode too, or else you could cap your enemy from a distance.
A feudalistic society cannot exists with a modern information processing infrastructure, so he creates the Mentats and outlaws computers. However, a computer has so many advantages over a Mentat that somebody is going to break the rules to get the advantage.
He wanted witches, so he creates the Bene Geserit. However, if they can develop the mental powers they have, so could anyone else.
If everybody had access to space, you could just drop large rocks on your enemies. So, he places space travel in the hands of the Guild. However, if the guild is not held in check, they rule. So, the spice dependancy. Question: if spice is needed for space travel, how did we get to Arakis in the first place?
Unlike guys like Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Robert Heinlein, et. al. who come up with a world, then go back an make sure it hangs together, Frank Herbert makes these hodge-podge worlds that would fall apart at the slightest disruption.
I, for one, have a major problem with this. Let's say AOL (yeah, I use them, get over it) stopped letting me use SMTP servers. Not only would my AOL account have to be my primary mail account, forcing me to wade through spam to find the good email, but what is currently my primary email address (at silverlight.org) would become inaccessable.
I beleive you are confusing POP3 and SMTP. To retreive your mail, you use POP3, which under my suggestions would be totally unaffected.
The only time my suggestions come into play is when you send mail.
For example, I can retreive my mail at mail.myhomemail.notarealdomain at work, because that's POP3. I cannot send mail via the mailserver at mail.myhomemail.notarealdomain, since the firewall at work blocks the access. However, I can send mail via mail.myworkmail.alsonotarealdomain, addressed as coming from me@mail.myhomemail.notarealdomain, and it works quite fine. (this is a real example, only the domains have been changed).
But if most ISPs enforced these rules, then the few that didn't could be RBL'ed. Let them scream into a barrel until they lose their voice.
Second, I meant these rules a general rules with exceptions given as needed. You run a mailing list, you contact your ISP and they bump the limit. I didn't make myself clear on this; but I didn't say "No exceptions".
And I never suggested, nor would I ever suggest, that your ISP read your mail! If you were red flagged, they would contact you and ask you what was going on, not read your mail. An ISP that reads it customers' mail; well, let me paraphase one of my favorite movies:
Hanging's too good for them. Burning's too good for them! They should be torn into little pieces and buried alive!
I chose a limit of 100 mails/day as a reasonable value that would not affect 90% of users. Granted, if you have been away and not answering your mail, you might want to send more than this. You could, however, spread it over a few days. The goal here is to prevent a spammer from sending a significant number of messages. 100 isn't significant, 1000 is, in my book.
You say blocking access to other peoples SMTP ports is bad, and you give a good example of why. However, my points were intended to be general rules, with exceptions given when needed (and I didn't make that clear.) In your case, you should have to ask your ISP to unblock access. (actually, you should hammer your ISP to get their act together, but that's another story. Usually, ISPs are about clueless, and trying to get them to fix their problems is an uphill battle on a neutron star!).
Disabling sendmail is bad since programs us it to send mail. True. What I meant was, "Don't install sendmail as a daemon by default". Having the program around to send mail is one thing, having it setting on the SMTP port all the time another. Your suggestion is what I meant to say.
This is what comes from posting while drinking my morning coffee and watching Batman Beyond in a window whilst I post.
The reason spam continues to happen is because it works. A spammer sends out a million messages, and gets 20 live ones. That is STILL enough to make money on.
We have to make it unprofitable to spam. Here are my suggestions:
ISPs:
Block all access to other peoples SMTP ports. Force your customers to go through YOUR mailer. Red flag any account that tries to access somebody else's SMTP port.
Limit your customers to 100 mails a day. Red flag any account that hits its limit, and look into it in more detail.
Allow customers to ask for the priviledge of sending more than 100 mails a day, but then scrutinize the customer. Perhaps you should charge more for a higher limit.
Put a line in the contract that says that a customer who uses his account to spam owes you $10000 (adjust the currency symbol as needed). If a customer spams, bill them. If they don't pay, hand it off to a collection agency.
Secure YOUR SMTP ports. Why should you let spammers make money?
Educate your customers! Make them READ and SIGN a form about spamming, including the bit about NOT RESPONDING!
These steps would prevent the small time spammers from "whack-a-mole" spamming. Those 20 bites I mentioned wouldn't begin to pay for $10000, the hassle of bill collectors hammering on your door, etc.
Linux/BSD distro makers:
Don't install sendmail by default! Ideally, installing sendmail should require the sysadmin to go through a detailed setup on sendmail.
Install a good set of firewall rules by default. This helps secure people's systems and prevent h4x0z and script-kiddies from hijacking the systems.
Much of the spam I get is relayed through poorly configured Linux/BSD setups.
My fellow Geeks:
NAIL THE SPAMMERS!
Forward spam to spamrecycle@chooseyourmail.com.
Read the headers. Find the relay, and politely tell them they need to check their settings.
If the spammer is foolish enough to put an e-mail or URL into the mail, traceroute it and get it shut down!
If the spammers find that "send spam, lose website" it the law of the land, then it becomes costly to send spam, and the spam will dry up.
Now, I know what many of you are saying: if ISPs start requiring you to use their mailer, how will all of us Unixen use our local sendmail to handle mail. Simple: configure your mailer to forward the mail to your ISP!
Laws are not the way to end spam, we have to make it not worth the spammers while. We can do this (just look at how effective the RBL is, and how well Spamford Wallace was forced to change his tactics.)
Now, if you will excuse me, I must put on my Nomex firesuit.
Flame on!
Re:not sure if this is the right place for linux
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 2
I think perhaps some of the cooler aplications would be to get a Linux based GUI embedded on systems like o-scopes and logic analyzers where CE seems to have a strangle hold.
As an embedded systems program who designs "o-scopes and logic analyzers" (well, communications service monitors, which have 'scope and analyzer functions built in) I am very glad to see people saying this.
Now, make yourselves heard to the marketing people at companies like HP (now Agilent Technologies), Tektronix, Anritsu, Yokigawa, and (if you buy spectrum analzyers or communications service monitors) IFR Systems (my employer). Tell them you'd rather see penguins than broken glass. PLEASE!. They look at me like I'm on drugs when I suggest this (actually, things are getting better, and we are actually considering a Linux-based design within my department. Now, to get approval...)
I find this rumor questionable, not because I cannot see RedHat buying Cygnus, but because:
Cygnus is used by other companies, too (Wind River Systems for one). If RedHat bought Cygnus, what would WRS do?
Why would anyone at RedHat have a problem with merging with Cygnus? I simply cannot see anyone getting their back up over this. Anyone have a good reason somebody would resign over this? Until I see one, that makes that part of the rumor suspect.
This hypothesis just doesn't seem to fit the facts.
P.S. If you follow the link to WRS above, either disable cookies, or disable "Warn me before accepting cookies". WRS's server is very cookie-happy.
I'm all for ditching the legacy hardware as soon as possible, but...
Why should a manufacturer eliminate the ISA slots in a computer? If you want to avoid using legacy systems, simply do so, but don't deny me the option!
Here are, as I see it, the problems with doing away with the ISA slots as things stand today:
PCI only allows you to have about 4-5 slots without adding a PCI-PCI bridge chip. My two PCI machines have no PCI slots left after:
Video card
3D card (or two)
Network card
SCSI card
Sound card
In fact, my game machine MUST have an ISA sound card, since the dual V2's, video card, NIC and SCSI take up all 5 PCI slots. If it didn't have ISA, it wouldn't have sound!
There are a lot of legacy devices out there that are either not going to be available on other busses or shall be so expensive as to not be worth considering. GPIB cards, EPROM burners, certain DSP development boards all come to mind (gosh, what do I do for a living?)
It is a DAMN site easier to design and prototype an ISA card than a PCI card! Kiss the garage hobbyist goodbye when ISA dies.
Now, I do want to address a couple of items I've seen mentioned in this thread about IRQs:
First, getting rid of ISA doesn't measurably increase the number of IRQs an x86 machine has. When Intel designed the PC implementation of PCI, they (IMNSHO) screwed up by not putting in a dedicated interrupt controller for the PCI bus. So, even when ISA is dead, 15 IRQs will be the law of the land. Now, by sharing an IRQ among all your USB devices, and another IRQ among all your Firewire devices, and getting rid of COM1-4, LPT1-3, and the mouse, you might make a few more devices available, but unless you cut off all back-compatiblity, you cannot get rid of the keyboard IRQ or COM1.
The fact that USB "doesn't use an interrupt" and therefor will require polling is false. USB uses an interrupt, and when a device changes state, it generates a message that causes a USB interrupt. So, you don't poll your USB keyboard/mouse/whatever. Ditto for Firewire.
USB is too slow for disk drives: That would depend upon what you are using. Would I want to hook up a true hard drive to USB? Of course not! But would I hook a Jaz, Orb, or other removable up? The speeds on these devices are not that large compared to USB, especially USB 2.0 (400MBit/sec).
The only thing about USB/Firewire/I2O etc. that worries me is the "You want drivers? Yer runnin' Winders ain'tcha?" mindset most HW venders have. As an embedded systems designer, I am CONSTANTLY telling these morons "No, I am NOT running Windows, I am running a real time OS, and I need the programming specs for that! No, I CANNOT use the BIOS you provide, I am running in protected mode and your BIOS only works in real mode. No, I am NOT running Windows, weren't you listening the first twelve times I told you that?"
However, things are getting better with more HW vendors supporting Linux (therefor releasing source that I can adapt as needed to my needs).
And before you ask, while I am considering using Linux in several projects I am designing, there are other places where it just doesn't make sense, and therefor I have to adapt drivers, not install the RPM. Let's not get into the mindset of "You want drivers? Yer running Linux ain'tcha?";^)
PS: Rob, why don't you put a "Spellcheck" button on the post page? It would sure help us all out!
I think by they they meant that the microcontroller that is in the keyboard should scan the rows of the keyboard randomly, rather than sequentially.
Howerver, there is a much simpler approach to reading a keyboard in a hard to read fashion: you don't scan! Instead, pressing a key ties the row and column together, and thus pulls the column up and the row down. You read the row and column with comparators, and thus no scanning. We do this on the equipment I help design because since we are measuring radio signals, we cannot be trashing the spectrum up.
IIRC, one time they did a Tempest survey on a computer that passed with flying colors, not because it didn't emit any signals, but rather because it threw out so much hash you couldn't recover any useful information from it.
Sounds like the old TRS-80 Model I: plastic case with no sheilding at all. You could pick one of those babies up on an AM radio for a quarter mile!
Jurors are paid for their work. In fact, the amount paid to a juror provides more incentive to a "disadvantaged" individual that to me: I get much more that minimum wage.
The "jury of your peers" does not mean "people identical to you", it means that jurors were not to be some select group appointed to the task by The Powers That Be (like judges) (what do you do for a living? I am a juror, don't mess with me!) but rather from a larger section of the population.
Our founding fathers did not want every Tom, Richard and Harold with a pulse to vote, be on jurys, etc. Originally, only land owners could vote. This was to help eliminate much of the population: the thought being that if you own land, you must have at least some modicum of a clue (or you'd have lost the land by now), and that you have some stake in making things better. Compare and contrast to the way things are now.
Note: were the old rules applied to me, I would not be able to vote or serve on a jury, since, while I am a professional and make good money, I currently do not own any land.
Your analysis is for the most part valid, however, your first premise (a: jury system assumes most people can be jurors) is false.
The American jury system was originally set up to allow only those that can vote to be jurors. However, the original requirment to vote was being a land owner, and that eliminated much of the population. We have since changed the requirements for voting, with the unintended result of lowering the bar for jury duty (I shan't go into what this has done to voting; that is grist for another day's mill)
I also believe you misinterpret what "A jury of your peers" means. For example, if I were a biker, and whacked some cager for touching my ride, would the fact that I am a biker entitle me to a jury of bikers? Of course not. The "jury of your peers" means that the jury is not to be some high-holy tribunal appointed by The Powers That Be.
The problem is not the jury system per se. Yes, the jurors may be clueless about the subject, that is why the attourneys on both sides have to present the facts (as they see them) so that the jury can decide the case.
The problem is that most people today are incapable of
Listening to facts
Remembering the facts
Following a chain of logic
Going with the logical choice no matter what their personal feelings are
Instead, the jurors make a snap, emotional decision, then stick with it, regardless of the facts or reason. In a case like this, the jurors say "You've suffered (somehow), and so we're going to give you a large sum of money. After all, WE aren't paying for it, insurance is." Of course, insurance isn't paying it, we are (via higher costs, premiums, etc.) but all the jurors want it to get back to watching Wheel of Fortune.
Perhaps instead of the current means of jury selection (Show up on this date or else!), what we should do is more like/. moderation:
Congratulations! You've been awarded a chance to make the world a better place and serve on a jury. You may redeem the enclosed token for a chance to sit on a jury anytime within the next three months. If you don't want to take part in the American Legal system, just drop the token into any US Mail box.
This way:
People who don't want to be on a jury won't be. If you don't care, I don't want you there.
People like me, who would serve if possible but are too important to be yanked away from work with little warning could make arrangments. As it is now, if I got a jury notice, my employer would swear blind (truthfully) that my absense would cause great harm to the company, and the system would let me skip (not reschedule, skip).
Hopefully, this would change jury duty from a chore to a privilege (Remember Tom Sawyer? "Not everybody can paint a fence like this")
Of course, the system would still have to compel employers to allow employees to take jury duty time without using vacation time, but they do this for Reserve duty anyway.
Of course, we'd then need MetaJury duty (review these 10 cases and decide it they were unfair, fair, or no opinion...)
Slashdot Mirror
If this happens, I hope somebody puts a webcam on their cell. I'd pay to see that!
Now watch, some spammer will send out spam advertising the WebCam on the spammers.
;^]
If they will design their site to REQUIRE a USER-AGENT string, I will look elsewhere for movie data.
Hmmmmm.
But then, I must be in the 20%.
For those of you who don't own sat dishes, here's the deal in brief: In the Good Old Days, the owner of a C-Band dish (big dish, not the little mini dishes like Primestar) could subscribe to stations like the Denver 5, and receive NBC/CBS/ABC via sat. Nice clean picture, the best you're going to get via NTSC. Also, if you lived in a time zone other than the origionating station, you gained another chance to watch your favorite show.
Then the cable cabal and the networks banded together, and managed to push the Satellite Home Viewers Act through. Now, if you are in what the FCC calls the "Grade B contour" (read: crappy, ghost-ridden image 80% of the time, nothing 20% of the time) of a local station, you are forbidden by law to receive network programming from satellite unless your local station provides you with a wavier. Yeah, and Mr. Gates will let vendors install Linux next to Win-98.
Given this, I wonder how long the networks will allow Webcasting to go on before they push for an amendment to the SHVA to cover this.
Just like Microsoft and NSI, the networks don't want to see their monopoly end, and just as assuredly, end it must due to technology.
Of itself, the periodic table didn't make any new chemicals. What it did was provide a framework to identify patterns that could be used to predict areas of research. For example, the discovery of helium: the table predicted the existance of the element, and allowed calculation of the spectral lines. The element was then identified in the sun, hence the name (helium, from helios, the sun).
Similiarly, the HGP of itself won't cure any diseases; rather it will allow the mapping of patterns. We'll be able to say, "This gene, which we know does this in wheat, is present in humans. Perhaps it does the same thing?".
Once we get one copy of the human genome sequenced, we'll still need to sequence many others, from [tall|short|skinny|fat|bald|hairy...] people, and start cross-referencing the results.
Think of it as a massive reverse engineering project on a program we only have uncommented object code for.
Unless the "junk" DNA are comments...
then you are doing the cyberspace equivelent of having unprotected group sex with heroin addicted prostitutes.
That still does not excuse Comet doing this, however.
P.S. I could have posted this at 2, but chose to do so at 1.
FALSE. An http User-Agent is sent because I told my machine to contact that server. When I launch a game, I am not, in my mind, commanding my system to contact a server unless and until I tell my system to join a network game.
Now, if this packet were sent when you connected to a server, and if id offered servers to play on, and if id then collected the data...
IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG!
The User-Agent header allows the server to better taylor content for my machine. Why would a server care what video card I had?
This is nothing more than another example of the continuing information grab being done on the Internet by unscrupulous individuals.
If Carmak knew about this and didn't fight it, he is a fool. If he didn't know about it until it was out there, he should have come clean, said "mea culpa and we'll remove it in future", and made a model of the marketroid who put this in so we could frag them in effegy.
As they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigalence.
< sig >
Bill Clinton uses NT servers because Linux servers don't go down.
#define salary NO_OVERTIME
#define hourly OVERTIME
Several people here have made the statement, "I like being salary because if I spend the afternoon reading
Now, if you are hourly, the following good things happen:
At my first job as an software engineer, I was salary non-exempt (work 40 hrs/week, get paid overtime). My project was seriously underestimated (happened before I was hired), and I worked 75+ hour weeks for about three months. Fresh out of college, I was taking home (after taxes) $2500 every two weeks (and this was twelve years ago). This had two distinct benefits: I had lots of money to pay off my loans with, and no time to spend it on anything else!
Now, some people say, "But what if I work 30 hrs this week, and 50 next week?" That's where a smart company will introduce compensation time (comp time). You can place some time into the comp time bank, and take it back out later, or take it as overtime. Ususally, companies that do this and also pay overtime have you get comp time for working 50.
In my opinion, the only time pure salary exempt makes sense is when it is very difficult to determine when you are working. Example: If you are an artist for a company, and you go for a hike in the woods for inspiration. Are you working? Do you bill those hours? Or if you are a CEO, and you go golfing and lunching with some VC's to fund the expansion of your engineering department. How do you bill those hours? In those cases, salary makes sense. But if you can clearly document when you work (even if it is at weird times like most I.S. folks have to work) then you should be hourly.
I don't think this was actually ever done, KT was saying that it was possible. Then again, it's possible to freeze boiling water by putting it on a hot stove IF all the atoms hit each other just right. However, the odds of doing this are close enought to nil as to not be worth worrying about. Same thing the the "cc hack": the odds of making such a change to the compiler that would work under every case, without introducing bugs in the compiler, are pretty low.
The trick is that a phone line has a very high signal to noise ratio, and you can make use of this to move more bits than the line has hertz of bandwidth.
Now, over a radio link, your signal to noise ratio drops, and you have to use more bandwidth to raise the S/N up. Over wires (like DSL) you are able to maintain a better S/N ratio. However, when your local AM station bleeds in, you lower the S/N ratio and thus reduce the bearing capacity of the channel.
However, part of DSL is avoiding the frequencies that have interference, and using the ones that are clear. Yes, if the line were completely clean you could get more throughput, but crosstalk from the other lines in the bundle, noise from AM and CB radio, and attenuation from the fact the wires were not designed for RF frequencies all reduce throughput and were allowed for in the spec.
The problem that I have with the Dune series is that Frank Herbert didn't fully follow the implications of his world. He wanted a feudalistic society, but with modern "stuff".
Unlike guys like Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Robert Heinlein, et. al. who come up with a world, then go back an make sure it hangs together, Frank Herbert makes these hodge-podge worlds that would fall apart at the slightest disruption.
Sorry, I'm not inpressed.
Actually, you can define variables at the start of any scope, for example:
if (foo)
{
int i = 0;
}
and in C++ you can define them in the for itself:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
Yes, but would the full version of Glide so built support V1&V2?
I beleive you are confusing POP3 and SMTP. To retreive your mail, you use POP3, which under my suggestions would be totally unaffected.
The only time my suggestions come into play is when you send mail.
For example, I can retreive my mail at mail.myhomemail.notarealdomain at work, because that's POP3. I cannot send mail via the mailserver at mail.myhomemail.notarealdomain, since the firewall at work blocks the access. However, I can send mail via mail.myworkmail.alsonotarealdomain, addressed as coming from me@mail.myhomemail.notarealdomain, and it works quite fine. (this is a real example, only the domains have been changed).
Second, I meant these rules a general rules with exceptions given as needed. You run a mailing list, you contact your ISP and they bump the limit. I didn't make myself clear on this; but I didn't say "No exceptions".
And I never suggested, nor would I ever suggest, that your ISP read your mail! If you were red flagged, they would contact you and ask you what was going on, not read your mail. An ISP that reads it customers' mail; well, let me paraphase one of my favorite movies:
I chose a limit of 100 mails/day as a reasonable value that would not affect 90% of users. Granted, if you have been away and not answering your mail, you might want to send more than this. You could, however, spread it over a few days. The goal here is to prevent a spammer from sending a significant number of messages. 100 isn't significant, 1000 is, in my book.
You say blocking access to other peoples SMTP ports is bad, and you give a good example of why. However, my points were intended to be general rules, with exceptions given when needed (and I didn't make that clear.) In your case, you should have to ask your ISP to unblock access. (actually, you should hammer your ISP to get their act together, but that's another story. Usually, ISPs are about clueless, and trying to get them to fix their problems is an uphill battle on a neutron star!).
Disabling sendmail is bad since programs us it to send mail. True. What I meant was, "Don't install sendmail as a daemon by default". Having the program around to send mail is one thing, having it setting on the SMTP port all the time another. Your suggestion is what I meant to say.
This is what comes from posting while drinking my morning coffee and watching Batman Beyond in a window whilst I post.
Pick a phase you remember by heart. For example:
"Yippy-ky-yay MuthaF**er" from Die Hard[1|2|3]
(I've deliberately chosen to use a weak example)
Now, use the first letter of each word. YKYMF.
You want to make it harder, scramble the capitalization: YkyMF
Maybe add punctuation: YkyMF!
Pick a theme with several such phrases, and there you go: easy to remember, hard to guess passwords.
We have to make it unprofitable to spam. Here are my suggestions:
ISPs:
These steps would prevent the small time spammers from "whack-a-mole" spamming. Those 20 bites I mentioned wouldn't begin to pay for $10000, the hassle of bill collectors hammering on your door, etc.
Linux/BSD distro makers:
Much of the spam I get is relayed through poorly configured Linux/BSD setups.
My fellow Geeks:
NAIL THE SPAMMERS!
If the spammers find that "send spam, lose website" it the law of the land, then it becomes costly to send spam, and the spam will dry up.
Now, I know what many of you are saying: if ISPs start requiring you to use their mailer, how will all of us Unixen use our local sendmail to handle mail. Simple: configure your mailer to forward the mail to your ISP!
Laws are not the way to end spam, we have to make it not worth the spammers while. We can do this (just look at how effective the RBL is, and how well Spamford Wallace was forced to change his tactics.)
Now, if you will excuse me, I must put on my Nomex firesuit.
Flame on!
As an embedded systems program who designs "o-scopes and logic analyzers" (well, communications service monitors, which have 'scope and analyzer functions built in) I am very glad to see people saying this.
Now, make yourselves heard to the marketing people at companies like HP (now Agilent Technologies), Tektronix, Anritsu, Yokigawa, and (if you buy spectrum analzyers or communications service monitors) IFR Systems (my employer). Tell them you'd rather see penguins than broken glass. PLEASE!. They look at me like I'm on drugs when I suggest this (actually, things are getting better, and we are actually considering a Linux-based design within my department. Now, to get approval...)
This hypothesis just doesn't seem to fit the facts.
P.S. If you follow the link to WRS above, either disable cookies, or disable "Warn me before accepting cookies". WRS's server is very cookie-happy.
Why should a manufacturer eliminate the ISA slots in a computer? If you want to avoid using legacy systems, simply do so, but don't deny me the option!
Here are, as I see it, the problems with doing away with the ISA slots as things stand today:
In fact, my game machine MUST have an ISA sound card, since the dual V2's, video card, NIC and SCSI take up all 5 PCI slots. If it didn't have ISA, it wouldn't have sound!
Now, I do want to address a couple of items I've seen mentioned in this thread about IRQs:
The only thing about USB/Firewire/I2O etc. that worries me is the "You want drivers? Yer runnin' Winders ain'tcha?" mindset most HW venders have. As an embedded systems designer, I am CONSTANTLY telling these morons "No, I am NOT running Windows, I am running a real time OS, and I need the programming specs for that! No, I CANNOT use the BIOS you provide, I am running in protected mode and your BIOS only works in real mode. No, I am NOT running Windows, weren't you listening the first twelve times I told you that?"
However, things are getting better with more HW vendors supporting Linux (therefor releasing source that I can adapt as needed to my needs).
And before you ask, while I am considering using Linux in several projects I am designing, there are other places where it just doesn't make sense, and therefor I have to adapt drivers, not install the RPM. Let's not get into the mindset of "You want drivers? Yer running Linux ain'tcha?"
PS: Rob, why don't you put a "Spellcheck" button on the post page? It would sure help us all out!
Howerver, there is a much simpler approach to reading a keyboard in a hard to read fashion: you don't scan! Instead, pressing a key ties the row and column together, and thus pulls the column up and the row down. You read the row and column with comparators, and thus no scanning. We do this on the equipment I help design because since we are measuring radio signals, we cannot be trashing the spectrum up.
IIRC, one time they did a Tempest survey on a computer that passed with flying colors, not because it didn't emit any signals, but rather because it threw out so much hash you couldn't recover any useful information from it.
Sounds like the old TRS-80 Model I: plastic case with no sheilding at all. You could pick one of those babies up on an AM radio for a quarter mile!
Our founding fathers did not want every Tom, Richard and Harold with a pulse to vote, be on jurys, etc. Originally, only land owners could vote. This was to help eliminate much of the population: the thought being that if you own land, you must have at least some modicum of a clue (or you'd have lost the land by now), and that you have some stake in making things better. Compare and contrast to the way things are now.
Note: were the old rules applied to me, I would not be able to vote or serve on a jury, since, while I am a professional and make good money, I currently do not own any land.
The American jury system was originally set up to allow only those that can vote to be jurors. However, the original requirment to vote was being a land owner, and that eliminated much of the population. We have since changed the requirements for voting, with the unintended result of lowering the bar for jury duty (I shan't go into what this has done to voting; that is grist for another day's mill)
I also believe you misinterpret what "A jury of your peers" means. For example, if I were a biker, and whacked some cager for touching my ride, would the fact that I am a biker entitle me to a jury of bikers? Of course not. The "jury of your peers" means that the jury is not to be some high-holy tribunal appointed by The Powers That Be.
The problem is that most people today are incapable of
Instead, the jurors make a snap, emotional decision, then stick with it, regardless of the facts or reason. In a case like this, the jurors say "You've suffered (somehow), and so we're going to give you a large sum of money. After all, WE aren't paying for it, insurance is." Of course, insurance isn't paying it, we are (via higher costs, premiums, etc.) but all the jurors want it to get back to watching Wheel of Fortune.
Perhaps instead of the current means of jury selection (Show up on this date or else!), what we should do is more like
This way:
Of course, the system would still have to compel employers to allow employees to take jury duty time without using vacation time, but they do this for Reserve duty anyway.
Of course, we'd then need MetaJury duty (review these 10 cases and decide it they were unfair, fair, or no opinion...)