The IE Patcher Tool will patch existing apps that call the MSHTML engine to call the Gecko engine instead. It doesn't always work, but in many cases it does, removing the dependence on IE and fixing rendering issues.
The extension that adds Windows Update to the menu is just a shortcut to wupdmgr.exe, the same thing you have in your Start Menu. It doesn't add any new features, it just mimics IE's feature of having a shortcut to it right in the browser. It's been a while since I tried, but I don't think the ActiveX plugin supports WU. This plug-in is designed for custom, legacy and intranet solutions and nothing else.
I don't think they've changed it. Their tech support board is still full of people complaining that they can't download patches at more than a crawl. And unless you forward the 20 "standard" BitTorrent ports on your router, you're still going to get lower download speeds.
Since there are multiple PCs here, and no way to specify in the patcher what ports to use, I actually rip the.torrent out of the patcher, and download it with my existing, already-configured BT client. I benefit from and assist those using the patcher, while avoiding most of its downfalls. http://www.wowtorrents.de.vu/ hosts the.torrent files, so you don't have to rip them out yourself. http://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?t=34 931 explains the process if you'd rather do it yourself.
I was just reading this blog about how Gmail's forwarding (and later, POP3) actually detracts from Google's ideas behind Gmail. If you just forward all your mail to another account or download it to your your mail client, you're not seeing their ads (which they use to support the service).
However, by having that option, they're providing a way to try the service risk-free. If they don't like the Gmail web interface, they can forward everything to Hotmail and forget Gmail ever existed, without having to tell everyone to switch back to their old email address. The fact that they can leave Gmail easily makes it easier for them to try Gmail in the first place. Try to lock them in before they become your customers, and you'll just lock them out.
Likewise, "Linux" programs on Windows allow people to try out non-proprietary stuff without the commitment of wiping everything they have and starting over with a new OS. It will be much easier to migrate a user from Windows to Linux who uses Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, and OpenOffice over one who uses IE, Outlook, AIM/ICQ/MSN/YIM, and MS Office. If a user finds that they can do everything they need with all these "Linux" programs, they're quite likely to realize that they can use Linux instead of Windows. These ports may slow down migration at first, but when they're looking at a new PC or Windows eats itself again, they'll probably be a lot more likely to at least consider Linux.
I don't know about you, but I think there is something kind of depersonalizing about being tried in front of cameras and monitors. I would much rather think that all of the parties involved would serve the legal system much better by being in the same room. For instance, being in front of a jury, having them watch over you, being examined by a prosecutor right in front of your face while also having people in the cheap seats watching over you has a certain effect which I think brings out the defendant/witnesses true self. It's much easier talking in front of a camera then in front of a hundred or so people.
Lawyers say e-Courtrooms help reduce trial time by making evidence display and tracking documents more efficient
Maybe so, but I don't see how that couldn't be done in a courtroom with some computers and projectors. Besides, I think the legal system is one of the few places where nothing should be compromised. I think looking for shortcuts trying to make things shorter and cheaper can have pretty dangerous consequences
As stated by many others, this isn't about putting people in separate rooms and linking them via cameras and monitors. This is basically exactly what you suggested, some computers and projectors. But instead of digging through the stack to find transparency #42 to throw on the projector, you can just click on 42 and have it pop up on the monitors. As the article states, instead of showing something to the witnesses, then taking it over to the jurors, it can simply be shown to everyone on their monitors at once.
While replacing major portions of the trial (like using an AI judge or not being able to actually see the people involved) most likely wouldn't be good, this system seems to simply make evidence organization and presentation easier. Like others have said, that should lead to a better, faster trial.
As the others said, it's a matter of baby vs. bathwater. People (usually) don't just block all of China because there are some spammers there, they block all of China because there are some spammers there and they don't expect to receive any valid email from China. While there may be a huge amount of spam coming from the US, most of their valid email is probably coming from the US also. It simply wouldn't make sense to block the entire US. It would be the equivalent of an email filter that deletes all of your mail, because most incoming messages are spam.
There are some admins/RBLs that do block huge sections of the internet for any spam. These people take the collateral damage approach. Their plan is to interfere with the ISP's legitimate emails enough that the ISP decides it's in their best interest to terminate the spammer. For example, blocking any mail from any AOL server, because one AOL user sent some spam. In my experience, these tend to be the angsty types who are doing it more as revenge than as an actual anti-spam tool. There isn't much effort put into validating the blacklist info or keeping it updated.
SPF adds a list to the domain's DNS records that specifies what servers are allowed to send mail with that domain name. You can specify by name, IP address, or even include other domains' info (mycustomdomain.com could be configured to include all of myactualisp.net's SPF info).
This prevents spoofing by stating the valid source(s) of email claiming to be from a domain. It doesn't affect people with their own domain names, it affects people who want to use an email address in that domain, but through some other server. Like if you gave your buddy a custom email address at your domain, and he wanted to use his ISP's mail settings. You'd have to include otherisp.net's SPF info too, so that the email he sent out (from his ISP, with your domain name) would be considered from a valid source.
This would affect you if you were doing the opposite, and wanted to send out mail from your own SMTP server using your ISP's email address. When you sent the email from joeschmoe@myisp.net, it would check with myisp.net's SPF settings. Your own personal server would not be listed in their DNS record, so it would be considered coming from an invalid source.
Even that doesn't necessarily mean the email won't get delivered. It could just be used to crank up the SpamAssassin rating. It could move the mail to a gray area. Or it could go to the extreme and completely reject the mail.
SPF is just a way to say that email claiming to be from a domain can only come from certain places. There's a lot more involved before the recipient that determines how the failed SPF test is handled. Play with the SPF record wizard and you'll get a better idea of what it does.
Check out The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond. One of the main ideas it points out is that software is more like a service industry than a traditional tangible product industry. It also explains that open sourcing is not just about giving away code so that "all the information can be free" and hippy crap like that. While some people do just want to give code away, most open sourced programs end up gaining more from open sourcing than they would from staying closed. There are benefits to open sourcing like massive peer review, less chance of extinction, name recognition, etc. These benefits come at the cost of giving up your program's "secret bits" (the hidden stuff you thought up that makes your program so much better than competitors). In many cases, programs gain much much more from the open source process, than what they lose by giving up their secret code.
There's more to the decision to open source than just keeping your awesome code secret vs. showing it to everyone. It should be a decision just like hiring less experienced developers for less money vs. more experienced devs at a higher rate. There are pros and cons to each choice, and each will work better in some situations than others.
Likewise, this method simply can't be applied to all things. The example would be better correlated to open source software by saying that architects would give out blueprints for public buildings (rather than actually building them). Drawing up blueprints is a service also (the only real expense involved is time), and could have results similar to open source software - name recognition and people improving on others' ideas, just to name a couple.
I agree totally. There's nothing inherently wrong with adware. The term simply means software that is supported by ads. The free version of Opera is adware even.
While neither term has any well-accepted definition...
You want to pass a law that criminalizes something that's not even defined? Klerck is right about this being a very slippery slope, but even more than that, I just think that they won't be able to come up with a definition that actually covers malware without affecting other "legitimate" software as well. If you refer to the data collection aspect, that could include a lot of companies who happen to collect some of your data for some purpose, even if their privacy policy matches your ideal definition. Most likely, a law for this would just lead to another paragraph in the program's EULA detailing exactly what data it sends where (many already have this info) or another question to answer, but since nobody reads the EULA and just click on every Yes button anyway, it won't actually have any effect on the end result.
These programs do offer some additional value to the user, though it's often something menial. True to the capitalist system, your payment for their service is that they collect data on you to sell to advertisers or whatever. You get something in return for giving them something. Even though most people probably wouldn't find the software worth the cost if they stopped and thought about it, there's nothing that inherently makes this software any less valid than any other piece of software.
Barring bugs in your software, just pay attention to what you install and you won't have problems. When I see a page in a setup program that asks if I want to install Gator too, I uncheck the box or click Cancel. I don't click yes to every popup I get. My parents don't even have a problem with spyware. (Hint: There are browsers available that aren't littered with remote execution bugs and don't automatically run every program they come to. That's a good start to keeping this stuff off your computer.) If they're using software holes to install themselves without your knowledge, then they're probably in violation of some clause in the DMCA, and already illegal. Making more laws that can't be and/or don't get enforced always solves problems, right?
"You like this stuff? You're the only person in this country that wants spyware on their computer," Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said to Beales. Referring to the rest of the panel, Barton added, "I would double down and bet that if asked whether they want to take it off, every one but you, sir, (would)."
Many can be uninstalled just by using the Add/Remove Programs tool. If so many people want to take it off, how come I find so many computers where it could be removed with a few clicks, and isn't?
Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., told Thompson, "I'm a little concerned that you're not outraged that people have access to someone's privacy, Social Security numbers, and all this, and you're saying let it go by the wayside."
I can monitor what data a program on my computer accesses. It's not real easy to sift through all that information, but it's available if I want to use it. My firewall blocks outgoing transmissions unless I authorize them. I honestly don't care if there are a million programs on my PC spying on me, because the information doesn't leave my computer.
One House bill defines spyware as "any software" that "transmits" personal information--a category that would include any e-mail client (because it transmits an address on the "from" line) and many Unix utilities.
I don't think it gets any simpler than that. That's the sort of laws that we're looking at. Either they're going to have loopholes so the intended software can get around them, or they'll be so broad as to outlaw all data transmission over the internet.
Forget the firewall (Well, don't forget it. Just don't block the outgoing mail) Instead, just report your IP to the major blacklists. Everyone who uses an RBL wil be unaffected, and the people who don't will have more pressure put on them to use blacklists. Problem solved...
Sorry, I prefer to determine what is and isn't spam myself. I worked for a company whose legitimate web/mail server was blacklisted for no reason other than being on a cable modem. It was a business cable account, with static IPs, specifically designated for servers. It was secure and all information on the website and in the WHOIS entry matched and was accurate. I contacted the blacklist maintainers and explained the situation, to no avail.
We did everything we could, short of buying a T1 (for about 10 users doing mild web and email). When you're willing to buy a dedicated connection for every legitimate mail server that can't afford one, then I'll put all my trust into RBLs.
Some RBLs go so far as to state outright that their purpose is to cause collateral damage. If one person gets one spam from a Comcast address, the RBL blocks all of Comcast. The idea is to hurt Comcast's legitimate email enough that they're pressured into getting rid of the spammer. Do they block one area around the spammer? One state? The whole nationwide ISP? And considering how many spoofed virus emails still get sent back to the "sender", I don't trust network admins to even correctly figure out where the spam is actually coming from. (The point of that is not that finding originating mail servers is like finding email addresses, but that people are generally incompetent.)
Sorry, but RBLs are far from perfect. As such, I won't rely on them. But thanks for trying to force your opinion of software onto me.
Alternate Stylesheet Switcher - restores the "Use Style" menu from Mozilla in Firefox
I'm not sure why it's not included. The RFCs don't state whether stylesheet switching should be handled by the browser or by the code, so perhaps it's still viewed as optional?
This site showcases some amazing stuff, all done with standard HTML and CSS. No Javascript, no (specific browser)-only code. That doesn't mean it works in all browsers, as the different versions of IE have varying bugs and/or missing implementations. This site is flat-out proof that the internet doesn't need the majority of proprietary code that sites use. The fact of the matter is that in most cases, the author used the easy way (auto-generated proprietary code) as opposed to the right way.
Demo and Demo-IE are a good example. IE does get it mostly right, but not quite. On the complexspiral pages, you can see again that IE doesn't do the background image the way it's supposed to.
This is a great site. It's 100% standards-compliant (i.e. it follows the rules set up to ensure proper operation of the web), does some neat visual stuff, and points out IE's flaws all at once.
RQ3 is a pretty good game. I was actually one of the people involved with the birth of the idea.
RQ3 came about because the A-Team was working on Action Half-Life and Action Unreal Tournament, and had no plans to port Action Quake 2 to Q3. A group of old-school AQ2ers took it upon themselves to port it over themselves.
If you like RQ3, you should check out AQ2. It's what RQ3 is trying to mimic (right down to adding the strafe-jump bug back into the Q3 code). AQ2 isn't quite as pretty, but it's more popular, has more maps, and will run better on older PCs. I believe AQ2 is/was the most popular Q2 mod overall. Note that Gooseman of Counter-Strike fame worked on AQ2 back in the day. Most AQ2 fans consider CS to be a cheap copy of AQ2 with less of the fun stuff and more boring added.
A lot of the AQ2-related sites have died off now. The last official version was released early '99, so that's to be expected. However, if you can get a hold of them, there are many variants out there. There were several DM bots coded to make use of the unique features of AQ2. A coder who went by "William" added scripting and AI bots, making for something to do single-player besides DM with a bunch of bots. An Action version of the single-player Q2 has been released. You play through the standard game but with Action weapons, items, and damage. AQDT maintains the Tournament Edition. It has controls for doing competition matches and scenario-based games like Capture The Briefcase, Assassinate The Leader, and Capture And Hold. People have also tweaked the code just to get something different. One version increased the kick on weapons, so shooting would send you flying backwards. Another modified every bullet particle to be a knife (one-hit kills).
Action is not the best place to learn to play online. However, getting good at Action will make you better at other FPSes. Action requires more thinking than other games. Rather than just grabbing the biggest gun and mowing everyone down, you slowly bleed to death when you get shot. You can stop and bandage, but you can't shoot while doing so. You can add a laser sight to your rifle to increase your accuracy, or you can wear slippers to sneak up behind your victim, or you can wear kevlar to provide some extra protection. Each weapon also has strengths and weaknesses. Even the standard DM scoring rewards smart play - you get more points per kill the longer you stay alive.
http://aq2.action-web.net/ is the website for AQ2. http://aq2.action-web.net/about.htm has some info about the game if you want to check it out before jumping in completely. This game truly is a classic, and probably at least partly responsible for many of the "realistic" FPS games out there now. With the Q2 source being released, you can even download a free standalone version of the game.
Agreed, there is no valid reason for a business to have a completely open relay. There are many methods you can use to secure a relay while still having it available to as large a userbase as needed. POP/IMAP-before-SMTP or some form of authenticated SMTP will allow any valid user of your system to send mail from anywhere, without giving anyone else the ability to use your mail server for other purposes.
The only valid reason to have an open relay is for anonymity. While it may be debatable how truly anonymous they would be, you could even require the use of a login/password to use these systems, so that they wouldn't be 100% open to anyone randomly passing by.
A friend from another messageboard is working on this project, and just posted to let us know that he's been/.ed (which is sort of a cool thing in the geek world).
And of course they got it all wrong. Heritrix != WayBackMachine.
Heritrix gathers web pages (harvests)
The WayBackMachine gives access to harvested material.
Also Heritrix is a new web crawler meant to replace the one that IA has been using (which is owned by Alexa Internet).
That's what he had to say about it. The post and the article both say it's the crawler, but the title states that it's the Wayback Machine. The two parts are separate though, and this is only the crawler part.
Note that any PC with a modem and printer attached meets this definition. 5+ years ago I actually had the text of this law as my email signature (as did others) as my PC could qualify as a fax machine, and therefore the $500 minimum per unsolicited message. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who actually followed through on this for email.
If you had an email account set up to automatically print any incoming messages (similar to a fax machine) you might be able to get it in under this law. However, I don't think you'd win a case just because your regular PC that you check your Hotmail with has a printer and modem.
I was on a different EQ server (each server is basically a separate copy of the same world) when all this happened. A friend who started "playing" EQ just to chat with friends was actually on the server but had no clue what The Sleeper was when the event started. While it's really only impressive to a small group that understands what all went into it, there is still the point of doing something that has been said to be impossible.
Nobody seems to know for sure exactly how many hitpoints Kerafyrm had, or what his regen rate was. It can definitely be considered in the "obscene hp regeneration rate coupled with pornographic hp" range. As for "insta-death to anyone within theoretical attack range", he hits for just under 7000hp with each swat. For comparison, my level 52 has about 2000hp. At the time, level 60 was the upper limit. 7000hp would be enough to kill just about anyone near him, and that's not taking into account his other attacks. The clerics were constantly resurrecting the dead. It wasn't just that people are now ten times stronger (current level cap is 65 plus Alternate Advancement abilities) and could stand up to the guy.
As was stated, the story goes that Kerafyrm was put to sleep to prevent him from destroying a whole bunch of stuff. When players manage to kill the four warders guarding the Sleeper, he wakes up and goes on his scripted rampage through the zones. Once he is awoken, that's it; it doesn't happen again. Other creatures will eventually regen or respawn, but Kerafyrm was a special creature that played an important role in some of Sony's scripts. GMs (the in-game Sony people) have said in the past that Kerafyrm was a part of the EQ2 storyline, so they simply wouldn't allow him to be killed. Resetting the zone, spawning other creatures to attack the players in the middle of the Sleeper fight, or whatever else they might think up. I guess we'll have to see how that one plays out.
Sony has also outsourced some EQ stuff to other companies in foreign countries. The Sleeper was just recently killed on one of these outsourced Asian servers, but they are several expansions behind, and therefore Kerafyrm hasn't received the upgrades that the main servers have. It was an official Sleeper kill, just not the same Sleeper most of us are used to.
While it may not be "Stuff that matters." in the grand scheme of things, it's definitely "News for Nerds." Congratulations again to those who took down the beast.
As an example look at Google Advanced Group Search. The Combo Box for dates doesn't open up with the mouse click - it does on IE. I have to use the keyboard to chose a date from the Combo Box on Firebird. Like this there are some irritants once in every 10 sites, which is preventing me from using Firebird.
Works for me with the official November 7 nightly build. [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031107 Firebird/0.7+] http://s87708598.onlinehome.us/images/fb_gagsdate. jpg is a screenshot of it working. Paint Shop Pro was used to capture the cursor in the shot.
More often than not, the problem is due to poor HTML. IE typically renders "what they meant" while Gecko renders "what they coded." Check out The Burning Edge to see all the bugs and fixes in the nightly builds of Firebird. Check out the FB Bugs forum at Mozillazine and see how many of the "This site doesn't work right!" posts are due to coding errors rather than bugs in the rendering engine. Thanks to IE, people have gotten used to non-standard HTML and poor coding. If you write some really bad HTML that IE happens to render properly (the way you want it to look), and Mozilla renders it exactly the way you wrote it (errors and all), the problem is still your code, not Mozilla's rendering engine. Oddly enough, if you write correct, standard code it will work on any browser (disregarding bugs in the browser, which aren't your problem).
I too have non-technical family members using Mozilla. I actually haven't heard a single complaint from them about anything not working right with it. They love the built-in popup blocker and Bayesian spam filter as well.
Try Kerio Personal Firewall. The only feature I miss from ZoneAlarm is the "This program changes frequently" box. It effectively lets you disable the checksum on just that one program, while still using it on everything else. Very handy for the constantly-updating EverQuest client (and similar programs). KPF is completely free for personal use, and doesn't have the cartoony look of ZA. Also, I had problems with VPN and some other network stuff due to ZA. It would cause the problems unless completely uninstalled. Disabling all blocking inside the program or shutting the program down didn't help, only removing it.
Personally, I think it's a lot smarter to disable Messenger-related stuff from outside your LAN, rather than disable the service completely. Most people don't need it, but I'm sure there are some who do need it but aren't aware of it, and will screw things up by disabling it. And how would you send them amusing (to us, confusing to them) messages if they all disable Messenger? =)
Correct. Adware is a generic term for any ad-supported software. There are many free programs that are supported by ads. The money paid by the companies advertised in the banners supports the software, so that you don't have to pay for a copy of the program.
Spyware is software which spies on you. It monitors something on your computer, and reports it back to a "home server" where something is done with all this collected data.
A program can be adware, or it can be spyware, or it can be both. But adware and spyware are not the same, and just because something is one doesn't mean it's also the other.
So long as Gator doesn't monitor what you do and collect data on it, unknown to you, then it's not spyware. I couldn't tell you what it does, because I've never installed it. I pay attention to what I install and read the documents regarding the ones I do. It's really not that hard to avoid, so long as you don't automatically click Yes on any dialog that pops up... Even my parents have never gotten it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://pctech.invisibill.net.nyud.net:8090/MySpeak easy.xpi/ has a copy of the XPI (http://www.speakeasy.net/software/MySpeakeasy.xpi ), all extracted out. http://pctech.invisibill.net.nyud.net:8090/MySpeak easy.xpi/chrome/speakeasy.jar/content/menu.xul seems to have all the new links, if that's what you want to check out. ThinkGeek, Fark, Snopes, Homestar Runner, AnandTech... Quite a variety.
The IE Patcher Tool will patch existing apps that call the MSHTML engine to call the Gecko engine instead. It doesn't always work, but in many cases it does, removing the dependence on IE and fixing rendering issues.
The extension that adds Windows Update to the menu is just a shortcut to wupdmgr.exe, the same thing you have in your Start Menu. It doesn't add any new features, it just mimics IE's feature of having a shortcut to it right in the browser. It's been a while since I tried, but I don't think the ActiveX plugin supports WU. This plug-in is designed for custom, legacy and intranet solutions and nothing else.
I find it easier just to not use Windows Update. I use Automatic Updates to get all my critical updates. If you're paranoid about AU, use their RSS feed and Security Bulletin Search.
I don't think they've changed it. Their tech support board is still full of people complaining that they can't download patches at more than a crawl. And unless you forward the 20 "standard" BitTorrent ports on your router, you're still going to get lower download speeds.
Since there are multiple PCs here, and no way to specify in the patcher what ports to use, I actually rip the .torrent out of the patcher, and download it with my existing, already-configured BT client. I benefit from and assist those using the patcher, while avoiding most of its downfalls. http://www.wowtorrents.de.vu/ hosts the .torrent files, so you don't have to rip them out yourself. http://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?t=34 931 explains the process if you'd rather do it yourself.
I was just reading this blog about how Gmail's forwarding (and later, POP3) actually detracts from Google's ideas behind Gmail. If you just forward all your mail to another account or download it to your your mail client, you're not seeing their ads (which they use to support the service).
However, by having that option, they're providing a way to try the service risk-free. If they don't like the Gmail web interface, they can forward everything to Hotmail and forget Gmail ever existed, without having to tell everyone to switch back to their old email address. The fact that they can leave Gmail easily makes it easier for them to try Gmail in the first place. Try to lock them in before they become your customers, and you'll just lock them out.
Likewise, "Linux" programs on Windows allow people to try out non-proprietary stuff without the commitment of wiping everything they have and starting over with a new OS. It will be much easier to migrate a user from Windows to Linux who uses Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, and OpenOffice over one who uses IE, Outlook, AIM/ICQ/MSN/YIM, and MS Office. If a user finds that they can do everything they need with all these "Linux" programs, they're quite likely to realize that they can use Linux instead of Windows. These ports may slow down migration at first, but when they're looking at a new PC or Windows eats itself again, they'll probably be a lot more likely to at least consider Linux.
As stated by many others, this isn't about putting people in separate rooms and linking them via cameras and monitors. This is basically exactly what you suggested, some computers and projectors. But instead of digging through the stack to find transparency #42 to throw on the projector, you can just click on 42 and have it pop up on the monitors. As the article states, instead of showing something to the witnesses, then taking it over to the jurors, it can simply be shown to everyone on their monitors at once.
While replacing major portions of the trial (like using an AI judge or not being able to actually see the people involved) most likely wouldn't be good, this system seems to simply make evidence organization and presentation easier. Like others have said, that should lead to a better, faster trial.
I thought it was common knowledge that most spam comes from the US. http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/
As the others said, it's a matter of baby vs. bathwater. People (usually) don't just block all of China because there are some spammers there, they block all of China because there are some spammers there and they don't expect to receive any valid email from China. While there may be a huge amount of spam coming from the US, most of their valid email is probably coming from the US also. It simply wouldn't make sense to block the entire US. It would be the equivalent of an email filter that deletes all of your mail, because most incoming messages are spam.
There are some admins/RBLs that do block huge sections of the internet for any spam. These people take the collateral damage approach. Their plan is to interfere with the ISP's legitimate emails enough that the ISP decides it's in their best interest to terminate the spammer. For example, blocking any mail from any AOL server, because one AOL user sent some spam. In my experience, these tend to be the angsty types who are doing it more as revenge than as an actual anti-spam tool. There isn't much effort put into validating the blacklist info or keeping it updated.
DarkMan's got it right.
SPF adds a list to the domain's DNS records that specifies what servers are allowed to send mail with that domain name. You can specify by name, IP address, or even include other domains' info (mycustomdomain.com could be configured to include all of myactualisp.net's SPF info).
This prevents spoofing by stating the valid source(s) of email claiming to be from a domain. It doesn't affect people with their own domain names, it affects people who want to use an email address in that domain, but through some other server. Like if you gave your buddy a custom email address at your domain, and he wanted to use his ISP's mail settings. You'd have to include otherisp.net's SPF info too, so that the email he sent out (from his ISP, with your domain name) would be considered from a valid source.
This would affect you if you were doing the opposite, and wanted to send out mail from your own SMTP server using your ISP's email address. When you sent the email from joeschmoe@myisp.net, it would check with myisp.net's SPF settings. Your own personal server would not be listed in their DNS record, so it would be considered coming from an invalid source.
Even that doesn't necessarily mean the email won't get delivered. It could just be used to crank up the SpamAssassin rating. It could move the mail to a gray area. Or it could go to the extreme and completely reject the mail.
SPF is just a way to say that email claiming to be from a domain can only come from certain places. There's a lot more involved before the recipient that determines how the failed SPF test is handled. Play with the SPF record wizard and you'll get a better idea of what it does.
Check out The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond. One of the main ideas it points out is that software is more like a service industry than a traditional tangible product industry. It also explains that open sourcing is not just about giving away code so that "all the information can be free" and hippy crap like that. While some people do just want to give code away, most open sourced programs end up gaining more from open sourcing than they would from staying closed. There are benefits to open sourcing like massive peer review, less chance of extinction, name recognition, etc. These benefits come at the cost of giving up your program's "secret bits" (the hidden stuff you thought up that makes your program so much better than competitors). In many cases, programs gain much much more from the open source process, than what they lose by giving up their secret code.
There's more to the decision to open source than just keeping your awesome code secret vs. showing it to everyone. It should be a decision just like hiring less experienced developers for less money vs. more experienced devs at a higher rate. There are pros and cons to each choice, and each will work better in some situations than others.
Likewise, this method simply can't be applied to all things. The example would be better correlated to open source software by saying that architects would give out blueprints for public buildings (rather than actually building them). Drawing up blueprints is a service also (the only real expense involved is time), and could have results similar to open source software - name recognition and people improving on others' ideas, just to name a couple.
http://secunia.com/advisories/12321/
For more info...
http://www.filerush.com/torrents/tribes_gsi.exe.to rrent
Correct, Firefox wouldn't work for me either. Went through in IE. I didn't take the time to figure out what the problem is.
I agree totally. There's nothing inherently wrong with adware. The term simply means software that is supported by ads. The free version of Opera is adware even.
You want to pass a law that criminalizes something that's not even defined? Klerck is right about this being a very slippery slope, but even more than that, I just think that they won't be able to come up with a definition that actually covers malware without affecting other "legitimate" software as well. If you refer to the data collection aspect, that could include a lot of companies who happen to collect some of your data for some purpose, even if their privacy policy matches your ideal definition. Most likely, a law for this would just lead to another paragraph in the program's EULA detailing exactly what data it sends where (many already have this info) or another question to answer, but since nobody reads the EULA and just click on every Yes button anyway, it won't actually have any effect on the end result.
These programs do offer some additional value to the user, though it's often something menial. True to the capitalist system, your payment for their service is that they collect data on you to sell to advertisers or whatever. You get something in return for giving them something. Even though most people probably wouldn't find the software worth the cost if they stopped and thought about it, there's nothing that inherently makes this software any less valid than any other piece of software.
Barring bugs in your software, just pay attention to what you install and you won't have problems. When I see a page in a setup program that asks if I want to install Gator too, I uncheck the box or click Cancel. I don't click yes to every popup I get. My parents don't even have a problem with spyware. (Hint: There are browsers available that aren't littered with remote execution bugs and don't automatically run every program they come to. That's a good start to keeping this stuff off your computer.) If they're using software holes to install themselves without your knowledge, then they're probably in violation of some clause in the DMCA, and already illegal. Making more laws that can't be and/or don't get enforced always solves problems, right?
Many can be uninstalled just by using the Add/Remove Programs tool. If so many people want to take it off, how come I find so many computers where it could be removed with a few clicks, and isn't?
I can monitor what data a program on my computer accesses. It's not real easy to sift through all that information, but it's available if I want to use it. My firewall blocks outgoing transmissions unless I authorize them. I honestly don't care if there are a million programs on my PC spying on me, because the information doesn't leave my computer.
I don't think it gets any simpler than that. That's the sort of laws that we're looking at. Either they're going to have loopholes so the intended software can get around them, or they'll be so broad as to outlaw all data transmission over the internet.
Sorry, I prefer to determine what is and isn't spam myself. I worked for a company whose legitimate web/mail server was blacklisted for no reason other than being on a cable modem. It was a business cable account, with static IPs, specifically designated for servers. It was secure and all information on the website and in the WHOIS entry matched and was accurate. I contacted the blacklist maintainers and explained the situation, to no avail.
We did everything we could, short of buying a T1 (for about 10 users doing mild web and email). When you're willing to buy a dedicated connection for every legitimate mail server that can't afford one, then I'll put all my trust into RBLs.
Some RBLs go so far as to state outright that their purpose is to cause collateral damage. If one person gets one spam from a Comcast address, the RBL blocks all of Comcast. The idea is to hurt Comcast's legitimate email enough that they're pressured into getting rid of the spammer. Do they block one area around the spammer? One state? The whole nationwide ISP? And considering how many spoofed virus emails still get sent back to the "sender", I don't trust network admins to even correctly figure out where the spam is actually coming from. (The point of that is not that finding originating mail servers is like finding email addresses, but that people are generally incompetent.)
Sorry, but RBLs are far from perfect. As such, I won't rely on them. But thanks for trying to force your opinion of software onto me.
http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/
I'm not sure why it's not included. The RFCs don't state whether stylesheet switching should be handled by the browser or by the code, so perhaps it's still viewed as optional?
css/edge
This site showcases some amazing stuff, all done with standard HTML and CSS. No Javascript, no (specific browser)-only code. That doesn't mean it works in all browsers, as the different versions of IE have varying bugs and/or missing implementations. This site is flat-out proof that the internet doesn't need the majority of proprietary code that sites use. The fact of the matter is that in most cases, the author used the easy way (auto-generated proprietary code) as opposed to the right way.
Demo and Demo-IE are a good example. IE does get it mostly right, but not quite. On the complexspiral pages, you can see again that IE doesn't do the background image the way it's supposed to.
This is a great site. It's 100% standards-compliant (i.e. it follows the rules set up to ensure proper operation of the web), does some neat visual stuff, and points out IE's flaws all at once.
RQ3 is a pretty good game. I was actually one of the people involved with the birth of the idea.
RQ3 came about because the A-Team was working on Action Half-Life and Action Unreal Tournament, and had no plans to port Action Quake 2 to Q3. A group of old-school AQ2ers took it upon themselves to port it over themselves.
If you like RQ3, you should check out AQ2. It's what RQ3 is trying to mimic (right down to adding the strafe-jump bug back into the Q3 code). AQ2 isn't quite as pretty, but it's more popular, has more maps, and will run better on older PCs. I believe AQ2 is/was the most popular Q2 mod overall. Note that Gooseman of Counter-Strike fame worked on AQ2 back in the day. Most AQ2 fans consider CS to be a cheap copy of AQ2 with less of the fun stuff and more boring added.
A lot of the AQ2-related sites have died off now. The last official version was released early '99, so that's to be expected. However, if you can get a hold of them, there are many variants out there. There were several DM bots coded to make use of the unique features of AQ2. A coder who went by "William" added scripting and AI bots, making for something to do single-player besides DM with a bunch of bots. An Action version of the single-player Q2 has been released. You play through the standard game but with Action weapons, items, and damage. AQDT maintains the Tournament Edition. It has controls for doing competition matches and scenario-based games like Capture The Briefcase, Assassinate The Leader, and Capture And Hold. People have also tweaked the code just to get something different. One version increased the kick on weapons, so shooting would send you flying backwards. Another modified every bullet particle to be a knife (one-hit kills).
Action is not the best place to learn to play online. However, getting good at Action will make you better at other FPSes. Action requires more thinking than other games. Rather than just grabbing the biggest gun and mowing everyone down, you slowly bleed to death when you get shot. You can stop and bandage, but you can't shoot while doing so. You can add a laser sight to your rifle to increase your accuracy, or you can wear slippers to sneak up behind your victim, or you can wear kevlar to provide some extra protection. Each weapon also has strengths and weaknesses. Even the standard DM scoring rewards smart play - you get more points per kill the longer you stay alive.
http://aq2.action-web.net/ is the website for AQ2. http://aq2.action-web.net/about.htm has some info about the game if you want to check it out before jumping in completely. This game truly is a classic, and probably at least partly responsible for many of the "realistic" FPS games out there now. With the Q2 source being released, you can even download a free standalone version of the game.
Agreed, there is no valid reason for a business to have a completely open relay. There are many methods you can use to secure a relay while still having it available to as large a userbase as needed. POP/IMAP-before-SMTP or some form of authenticated SMTP will allow any valid user of your system to send mail from anywhere, without giving anyone else the ability to use your mail server for other purposes.
The only valid reason to have an open relay is for anonymity. While it may be debatable how truly anonymous they would be, you could even require the use of a login/password to use these systems, so that they wouldn't be 100% open to anyone randomly passing by.
That's what he had to say about it. The post and the article both say it's the crawler, but the title states that it's the Wayback Machine. The two parts are separate though, and this is only the crawler part.
If you had an email account set up to automatically print any incoming messages (similar to a fax machine) you might be able to get it in under this law. However, I don't think you'd win a case just because your regular PC that you check your Hotmail with has a printer and modem.
Nobody seems to know for sure exactly how many hitpoints Kerafyrm had, or what his regen rate was. It can definitely be considered in the "obscene hp regeneration rate coupled with pornographic hp" range. As for "insta-death to anyone within theoretical attack range", he hits for just under 7000hp with each swat. For comparison, my level 52 has about 2000hp. At the time, level 60 was the upper limit. 7000hp would be enough to kill just about anyone near him, and that's not taking into account his other attacks. The clerics were constantly resurrecting the dead. It wasn't just that people are now ten times stronger (current level cap is 65 plus Alternate Advancement abilities) and could stand up to the guy.
As was stated, the story goes that Kerafyrm was put to sleep to prevent him from destroying a whole bunch of stuff. When players manage to kill the four warders guarding the Sleeper, he wakes up and goes on his scripted rampage through the zones. Once he is awoken, that's it; it doesn't happen again. Other creatures will eventually regen or respawn, but Kerafyrm was a special creature that played an important role in some of Sony's scripts. GMs (the in-game Sony people) have said in the past that Kerafyrm was a part of the EQ2 storyline, so they simply wouldn't allow him to be killed. Resetting the zone, spawning other creatures to attack the players in the middle of the Sleeper fight, or whatever else they might think up. I guess we'll have to see how that one plays out.
Sony has also outsourced some EQ stuff to other companies in foreign countries. The Sleeper was just recently killed on one of these outsourced Asian servers, but they are several expansions behind, and therefore Kerafyrm hasn't received the upgrades that the main servers have. It was an official Sleeper kill, just not the same Sleeper most of us are used to.
While it may not be "Stuff that matters." in the grand scheme of things, it's definitely "News for Nerds." Congratulations again to those who took down the beast.
Works for me with the official November 7 nightly build. [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031107 Firebird/0.7+] http://s87708598.onlinehome.us/images/fb_gagsdate. jpg is a screenshot of it working. Paint Shop Pro was used to capture the cursor in the shot.
More often than not, the problem is due to poor HTML. IE typically renders "what they meant" while Gecko renders "what they coded." Check out The Burning Edge to see all the bugs and fixes in the nightly builds of Firebird. Check out the FB Bugs forum at Mozillazine and see how many of the "This site doesn't work right!" posts are due to coding errors rather than bugs in the rendering engine. Thanks to IE, people have gotten used to non-standard HTML and poor coding. If you write some really bad HTML that IE happens to render properly (the way you want it to look), and Mozilla renders it exactly the way you wrote it (errors and all), the problem is still your code, not Mozilla's rendering engine. Oddly enough, if you write correct, standard code it will work on any browser (disregarding bugs in the browser, which aren't your problem).
I too have non-technical family members using Mozilla. I actually haven't heard a single complaint from them about anything not working right with it. They love the built-in popup blocker and Bayesian spam filter as well.
Try Kerio Personal Firewall. The only feature I miss from ZoneAlarm is the "This program changes frequently" box. It effectively lets you disable the checksum on just that one program, while still using it on everything else. Very handy for the constantly-updating EverQuest client (and similar programs). KPF is completely free for personal use, and doesn't have the cartoony look of ZA. Also, I had problems with VPN and some other network stuff due to ZA. It would cause the problems unless completely uninstalled. Disabling all blocking inside the program or shutting the program down didn't help, only removing it.
Personally, I think it's a lot smarter to disable Messenger-related stuff from outside your LAN, rather than disable the service completely. Most people don't need it, but I'm sure there are some who do need it but aren't aware of it, and will screw things up by disabling it. And how would you send them amusing (to us, confusing to them) messages if they all disable Messenger? =)
Spyware is software which spies on you. It monitors something on your computer, and reports it back to a "home server" where something is done with all this collected data.
A program can be adware, or it can be spyware, or it can be both. But adware and spyware are not the same, and just because something is one doesn't mean it's also the other.
So long as Gator doesn't monitor what you do and collect data on it, unknown to you, then it's not spyware. I couldn't tell you what it does, because I've never installed it. I pay attention to what I install and read the documents regarding the ones I do. It's really not that hard to avoid, so long as you don't automatically click Yes on any dialog that pops up... Even my parents have never gotten it.