You can't just hide your head in the sand. Email, like everything else in the Internet, is a voluntary service and there is no law requiring that ports 25, 110, and 143 have to be accepted for transit across your network from any other network.
People don't mind carrying legitimate mail for free because legitimate stuff actually doesn't cost enough that the costs outweigh the non-monetary benefits. If you say to large networks that they're just going to have to eat a never-ending cost black hole of more and more spam they're either a. not going to listen and site filter or b. work on draconian legislation to put people in jail. I much prefer c. set up some sort of filtering mechanism where mail you send can be traced back to you or if you're using some sort of anonymizing software that you can't send more than a thousand or so messages per day.
Re:Maybe it's not about money, but about convenien
on
.Mac Alternatives?
·
· Score: 1
Well, you might want to look up OpenDirectory and implement that if address sync interests you. Also you could do webdav calendar sharing as well without.mac
The easy way to go would be mac OS X server but at $500 that's a bit pricey just to bring things in hosue for a few computers.
I doubt that they would 1. prevail in court 2. go into such a suit just for the hell of it or 3. ever launch such a silly suit in the first place
A simple application that changes your local dns to point to apple's.mac service or your own homegrown.mac competitor is all that's necessary for isync/ical sync/publish. Disk space via webdav is trivial and you can swap out icons to make them distinctive and avoid lawsuit.
In reality what I can see this used for is a bonus for people to sign up to for-pay mac groups. Perhaps a premium for MacSurfer or one of their competitors.
Both Mac OS X and Mac OS classic provide locations which do, in fact, take care of this issue. Make a new location, swap one setting, and all your network settings change between sets.
The problem with filtering at the receiving end is that you have an entire transit infrastructure that has to be radically upsized for mail that is simply not going to be read in the end. That works for a postal system where transmission has costs associated with it but here we have a system where sending is essentially free but routing all those bits across the internet is not (at least not in the kind of huge streams of data most ISP's handle).
I think you make a mistake when you differentiate between filtering by individual user and filtering by site. Think of properly configured PTR records as the equivalent of a clause in standard international mail delivery treaties. Such things do exist and they guarantee that my mail will be able to go from one country to another. Under certain circumstances (war, sanctions) direct mail simply does not go through (USCuba being a recent example).
Fortunately, the technical solution is simple in this case, configure your PTR records properly. If you're small and don't have sufficient IPs then stop accepting the limitations of IPv4 and start asking for IPv6 and a decent block of static IP numbers.
If you got 256 addresses with your broadband connection, how much more would that be worth?
I say IPv6 to the rescue. A broadband ISP that did that (used IPv6 and gave out lots of IP addresses with each DSL line) would have a distinctive market opportunity.
The problem does not require major advancements to have major gains in pollution efficiency. In most regulatory regimes, old plants are grandfatherred until they are modified/upgraded at which point pollution controls have to be upgraded too. The practical effect is that people work very hard at keeping the old, very polluting plants running because the new pollution controls are so expensive.
A similar thing happens with cars with old beaters creating the majority of pollution and pollution control tech making cars so expensive that the beaters stay out on the road far longer.
The 2001 numbers are apparently the most recent compiled statistics available. This is normal for the type of data examined, a huge number of data points gathered by lethargic bureaucrats and compiled and checked as fast as limited budgets allow.
Apologies to the constitutional monarchies out there. They aren't democracies either so the larger point holds. If you're going to complain about your system not performing to spec, you should know the spec.
One thing you don't have to deal with is VAT in California. The US has a flat sales tax with simple paperwork, VAT gets calculated over and over again at each stage of production. Sales tax rates run up to 10% in our most leftist areas but usually are much lower (4-7%) while Canada seems to have a 15% VAT.
I don't know of anybody in the US moving up to Canada for the superior economic opportunities but I do know several people moving the other way. It's not a scientific sample but the principle's right. Watch the population flows and you'll see through the bull
I doubt that our Canada invasion plans are any further up to date than our plans to invade the UK (ie probably a century old at least and worthless). The problem isn't invading Canada but preserving the economic benefits of NAFTA including the low/no border controls.
None of the countries called democracies are actually democracies, they are called republics. To be specific, democratic republics (where the republican representatives are chosen via democratic means) are the formal name for all our systems, US, Canada, Australia, the EU states and others.
Thank your local education establishment, media, and political class for creating the confusion. Wankers.
Um, are you aware how many sick canadians get shuttled over the border because your healthcare system kept them waiting in line until they were critically ill? These people depend on no border controls to stay alive.
The US depends on Canada to keep enough crazies out that it's not an attractive base for people who want to kill us and use that same no-controls system to get around any defense we put up on our other entry points. Fanatics who want to kill you and me because we don't want to live as 2nd class citizens to muslims do not have any right to access the US even if they're coming through a 3rd country like Canada.
Actually, most of those balkan muslims are light-skinned local people who were slammed into their religion by their islamic colonial masters centuries before when the Ottoman empire was still around.
In 1812, the military balance of power was nothing like it is today. I'm in favor of a republic, not an empire but tweaking the US' nose about long ago military failure just pisses everybody off and makes the imperialist's position stronger.
Relaxing border controls via NAFTA was always predicated on the understanding that each country would control things enough that bad things did not come over the border (like terrorists and diseases).
If Canada doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, the US can either ask it to shape up or we all go back to the pre-NAFTA regime. Obviously, speaking is a lot better than treaty withdrawal. The consequences of border inspections and visa requirements are likely to be far more severe for Canada. All those ambulances that dump emergency patients in US border hospitals could no longer rush across the border without delay. People would die in significant quantities.
Let's all not go there. I don't like terrorist deaths nor would I like increased Canadian healthcare mortality.
Islamists believe that it's ok for an unelected, unvetted imam to pass death sentences and for his followers to carry them out worldwide including the US and Canada. These people are walking/talking civil liberties violations and unfit for entrance into the US or any other civilized place.
One of the fundamental jobs of a government is to stop people from violating your civil rights. If Canada is doing a bad job in protecting everybody's civil liberties by letting these people operate in Canada and thus in the NAFTA free travel zone to the US, the US has every right to complain.
I'm guessing that they haven't finished the French/German/UK etc translations, nor have they signed sufficient non-US content or navigated the nightmare of IP rules in all the various legal regimes out there in markets that Apple has a presence in.
The last thing that Apple wants is to be protested in France for US cultural imperialism.
If there's an album with 14 good tracks on it available for $10, getting an account at the Apple Music store doesn't stop you from buying the CD and ripping it. If you see a CD and it has two good songs on it, the Apple store just saved you $7 off that $10 CD.
Then again, if you've been copying and not paying anything just move along, it's just another conspiracy by the man to suck money out from your too thin wallet.
I think that you're looking at pricing very unrealistically. William Shatner Sings! tracks are overpriced at even $0.25 for my taste but some people possibly might pay even $2 a track for his rendition of a particular song.
Each song is different and until now it's generally been bundled into an album so all you could get are compilations, often with only a few songs on the album being worthwhile. This solves that problem by allowing you to pay $3 for three songs you like instead of $15 for the entire CD which is filled with filler trash.
This solves a real problem in the music industry, just not the problem you think it should be solving. Hey! that leaves a competitive opportunity for you.
"never been easy to get users around even an OS 9 desktop"?
I think you have some issues here. OS 9 compared to Windows and certainly Linux has always been viewed as the ease of use winner. What operating system are you comparing MacOS 9 to in order to arrive at this dubious conclusion?
As for OSX printer sharing, are you trying to get a mac's printer to be seen by others or are you trying to get a mac to see windows printers?
If the former, you open the system preferences application, click on sharing, then click on printer sharing (ooh, unbelievably hard isn't it). The latter can be done but requires a little more effort and instructions can be found here.
CUPS was a 3rd party hack in 10.1 and standard in 10.2. I expect that by 10.3 they'll make a nice UI for it. But look at where we're starting from. The conversation's about an easy to use Unix. At worst, Mac OS X is as powerful as Linux and as hard to use for uses that the Apple team hasn't created a GUI for. These cases are getting fewer and further apart with every iteration. Admittedly, printing was one of the weakest parts of 10.0 but the only case where you even have to do a hack these days is for printers that are smb shared and do not have appletalk options, IP printing, rendezvous, Lexmark inkjet networking, jetdirect, LPD/LPR, or are not registered with directory services.
For large installations, it would probably be best if you tied in directory services to your active directory tree and all printers available with active directory would also become available to your mac (and if there are no Mac drivers, standard CUPS drivers are available and easily installed).
When you get into large enough numbers, no group is monolithic. Linux supporters outgrew monolithic motivations a long time ago.
I think that Linux *is* about revenge for many, but not the way you think. I think that some companies want to screw their competitors by contributing to free software projects that replace major revenue streams for their competitors or are otherwise strategically important. That sort of thing exists as well as the conventional I hate MS stuff but also the 'scratch an itch' motivation and the 'give back to the community' motivation.
This multiplicity of motivation and the flexibility of the community structure that allows the power play people to happily coexist with the driver writers who do it for love is Linux's true core value.
If you want that level of user friedliness in a Unix, get a Mac. You'll find that Apple's X11 beta already supports MacOS clipboard integration so any app can swap clipboard data (and that's just one example).
Apple's survived for this long expressly because they are positively anal retentive about the user experience. If it matters to you, seriously look at them.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't just hide your head in the sand. Email, like everything else in the Internet, is a voluntary service and there is no law requiring that ports 25, 110, and 143 have to be accepted for transit across your network from any other network.
People don't mind carrying legitimate mail for free because legitimate stuff actually doesn't cost enough that the costs outweigh the non-monetary benefits. If you say to large networks that they're just going to have to eat a never-ending cost black hole of more and more spam they're either
a. not going to listen and site filter
or
b. work on draconian legislation to put people in jail.
I much prefer
c. set up some sort of filtering mechanism where mail you send can be traced back to you or if you're using some sort of anonymizing software that you can't send more than a thousand or so messages per day.
Well, you might want to look up OpenDirectory and implement that if address sync interests you. Also you could do webdav calendar sharing as well without .mac
The easy way to go would be mac OS X server but at $500 that's a bit pricey just to bring things in hosue for a few computers.
I doubt that they would
.mac service or your own homegrown .mac competitor is all that's necessary for isync/ical sync/publish. Disk space via webdav is trivial and you can swap out icons to make them distinctive and avoid lawsuit.
1. prevail in court
2. go into such a suit just for the hell of it
or
3. ever launch such a silly suit in the first place
A simple application that changes your local dns to point to apple's
In reality what I can see this used for is a bonus for people to sign up to for-pay mac groups. Perhaps a premium for MacSurfer or one of their competitors.
Of course if you're doing it for you and your 50 person extended family who all use macs it suddenly looks pretty attractive.
Both Mac OS X and Mac OS classic provide locations which do, in fact, take care of this issue. Make a new location, swap one setting, and all your network settings change between sets.
The problem with filtering at the receiving end is that you have an entire transit infrastructure that has to be radically upsized for mail that is simply not going to be read in the end. That works for a postal system where transmission has costs associated with it but here we have a system where sending is essentially free but routing all those bits across the internet is not (at least not in the kind of huge streams of data most ISP's handle).
I think you make a mistake when you differentiate between filtering by individual user and filtering by site. Think of properly configured PTR records as the equivalent of a clause in standard international mail delivery treaties. Such things do exist and they guarantee that my mail will be able to go from one country to another. Under certain circumstances (war, sanctions) direct mail simply does not go through (USCuba being a recent example).
Fortunately, the technical solution is simple in this case, configure your PTR records properly. If you're small and don't have sufficient IPs then stop accepting the limitations of IPv4 and start asking for IPv6 and a decent block of static IP numbers.
If you got 256 addresses with your broadband connection, how much more would that be worth?
I say IPv6 to the rescue. A broadband ISP that did that (used IPv6 and gave out lots of IP addresses with each DSL line) would have a distinctive market opportunity.
The problem does not require major advancements to have major gains in pollution efficiency. In most regulatory regimes, old plants are grandfatherred until they are modified/upgraded at which point pollution controls have to be upgraded too. The practical effect is that people work very hard at keeping the old, very polluting plants running because the new pollution controls are so expensive.
A similar thing happens with cars with old beaters creating the majority of pollution and pollution control tech making cars so expensive that the beaters stay out on the road far longer.
The 2001 numbers are apparently the most recent compiled statistics available. This is normal for the type of data examined, a huge number of data points gathered by lethargic bureaucrats and compiled and checked as fast as limited budgets allow.
Sorry, it's still not a democracy which is what the grandparent was complaining about. Oh well, at least I know the US is a democratic republic.
Apologies to the constitutional monarchies out there. They aren't democracies either so the larger point holds. If you're going to complain about your system not performing to spec, you should know the spec.
One thing you don't have to deal with is VAT in California. The US has a flat sales tax with simple paperwork, VAT gets calculated over and over again at each stage of production. Sales tax rates run up to 10% in our most leftist areas but usually are much lower (4-7%) while Canada seems to have a 15% VAT.
I don't know of anybody in the US moving up to Canada for the superior economic opportunities but I do know several people moving the other way. It's not a scientific sample but the principle's right. Watch the population flows and you'll see through the bull
You forgot Pixar, that would make the Music store #4
I doubt that our Canada invasion plans are any further up to date than our plans to invade the UK (ie probably a century old at least and worthless). The problem isn't invading Canada but preserving the economic benefits of NAFTA including the low/no border controls.
None of the countries called democracies are actually democracies, they are called republics. To be specific, democratic republics (where the republican representatives are chosen via democratic means) are the formal name for all our systems, US, Canada, Australia, the EU states and others.
Thank your local education establishment, media, and political class for creating the confusion. Wankers.
Um, are you aware how many sick canadians get shuttled over the border because your healthcare system kept them waiting in line until they were critically ill? These people depend on no border controls to stay alive.
The US depends on Canada to keep enough crazies out that it's not an attractive base for people who want to kill us and use that same no-controls system to get around any defense we put up on our other entry points. Fanatics who want to kill you and me because we don't want to live as 2nd class citizens to muslims do not have any right to access the US even if they're coming through a 3rd country like Canada.
Is this what you're fighting to preserve?
Actually, most of those balkan muslims are light-skinned local people who were slammed into their religion by their islamic colonial masters centuries before when the Ottoman empire was still around.
In 1812, the military balance of power was nothing like it is today. I'm in favor of a republic, not an empire but tweaking the US' nose about long ago military failure just pisses everybody off and makes the imperialist's position stronger.
Dumb move, gomer.
Relaxing border controls via NAFTA was always predicated on the understanding that each country would control things enough that bad things did not come over the border (like terrorists and diseases).
If Canada doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, the US can either ask it to shape up or we all go back to the pre-NAFTA regime. Obviously, speaking is a lot better than treaty withdrawal. The consequences of border inspections and visa requirements are likely to be far more severe for Canada. All those ambulances that dump emergency patients in US border hospitals could no longer rush across the border without delay. People would die in significant quantities.
Let's all not go there. I don't like terrorist deaths nor would I like increased Canadian healthcare mortality.
Islamists believe that it's ok for an unelected, unvetted imam to pass death sentences and for his followers to carry them out worldwide including the US and Canada. These people are walking/talking civil liberties violations and unfit for entrance into the US or any other civilized place.
One of the fundamental jobs of a government is to stop people from violating your civil rights. If Canada is doing a bad job in protecting everybody's civil liberties by letting these people operate in Canada and thus in the NAFTA free travel zone to the US, the US has every right to complain.
I'm guessing that they haven't finished the French/German/UK etc translations, nor have they signed sufficient non-US content or navigated the nightmare of IP rules in all the various legal regimes out there in markets that Apple has a presence in.
The last thing that Apple wants is to be protested in France for US cultural imperialism.
Bzzt. Wrong!
If there's an album with 14 good tracks on it available for $10, getting an account at the Apple Music store doesn't stop you from buying the CD and ripping it. If you see a CD and it has two good songs on it, the Apple store just saved you $7 off that $10 CD.
Then again, if you've been copying and not paying anything just move along, it's just another conspiracy by the man to suck money out from your too thin wallet.
I think that you're looking at pricing very unrealistically. William Shatner Sings! tracks are overpriced at even $0.25 for my taste but some people possibly might pay even $2 a track for his rendition of a particular song.
Each song is different and until now it's generally been bundled into an album so all you could get are compilations, often with only a few songs on the album being worthwhile. This solves that problem by allowing you to pay $3 for three songs you like instead of $15 for the entire CD which is filled with filler trash.
This solves a real problem in the music industry, just not the problem you think it should be solving. Hey! that leaves a competitive opportunity for you.
Good luck.
"never been easy to get users around even an OS 9 desktop"?
I think you have some issues here. OS 9 compared to Windows and certainly Linux has always been viewed as the ease of use winner. What operating system are you comparing MacOS 9 to in order to arrive at this dubious conclusion?
As for OSX printer sharing, are you trying to get a mac's printer to be seen by others or are you trying to get a mac to see windows printers?
If the former, you open the system preferences application, click on sharing, then click on printer sharing (ooh, unbelievably hard isn't it). The latter can be done but requires a little more effort and instructions can be found here.
CUPS was a 3rd party hack in 10.1 and standard in 10.2. I expect that by 10.3 they'll make a nice UI for it. But look at where we're starting from. The conversation's about an easy to use Unix. At worst, Mac OS X is as powerful as Linux and as hard to use for uses that the Apple team hasn't created a GUI for. These cases are getting fewer and further apart with every iteration. Admittedly, printing was one of the weakest parts of 10.0 but the only case where you even have to do a hack these days is for printers that are smb shared and do not have appletalk options, IP printing, rendezvous, Lexmark inkjet networking, jetdirect, LPD/LPR, or are not registered with directory services.
For large installations, it would probably be best if you tied in directory services to your active directory tree and all printers available with active directory would also become available to your mac (and if there are no Mac drivers, standard CUPS drivers are available and easily installed).
When you get into large enough numbers, no group is monolithic. Linux supporters outgrew monolithic motivations a long time ago.
I think that Linux *is* about revenge for many, but not the way you think. I think that some companies want to screw their competitors by contributing to free software projects that replace major revenue streams for their competitors or are otherwise strategically important. That sort of thing exists as well as the conventional I hate MS stuff but also the 'scratch an itch' motivation and the 'give back to the community' motivation.
This multiplicity of motivation and the flexibility of the community structure that allows the power play people to happily coexist with the driver writers who do it for love is Linux's true core value.
If you want that level of user friedliness in a Unix, get a Mac. You'll find that Apple's X11 beta already supports MacOS clipboard integration so any app can swap clipboard data (and that's just one example).
Apple's survived for this long expressly because they are positively anal retentive about the user experience. If it matters to you, seriously look at them.