But to launch stuff from the moon, the launcher has to get to the moon, and that means from earth. Don't start with railgun launchers like in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, that's a long ways off. For the next few decades, anything coming from the moon has to come in a vehicle coming from the earth originally, and using fuel coming from the earth originally.
Do you understand how annoying it is to talk an African-American and constantly keep telling yourself not to use certain derogatory terms?
Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to an Irish-American and not use various derogatory terms?
Ditto for Polish-Americans, American Indians, women, hackers, how often do you mistakenly talk to someopne and unknowingly insult them? Ever use the word suit to a suit, to his face, by mistake?
Face it, you are insulting RMS by using derogatory terms. If you don't like that, if you think he is overly sensitive, then turn around and look at it from his point of view, and maybe, just maybe, you will see you need a bit of sensitivity in your language. Maybe you need to see RMS as a human being who doesn't like being insulted, and maybe you will see how arrogant you are to think he should adapt to your terms and accept your insulting language.
I don't like M$ software for several reasons, in order: it's buggy, i's inflexible, and M$ ethics.
Several months ago, I had to use Visual Studio 6, for the first time, and within a day had found several bugs in it. Now whether these bugs were me not knowing the "proper" usage, or genuine bugs, that has been typical of my experience with M$, and leads to the second point, inflexibility.
If you don't use M$ products in the M$ way, you can't use them at all. Take windows, for instance, multiple windows. You get click to focus and raise on focus whether you want that or not. Sometimes I like to have several windows open for reading while typing into another window which is mostly hidden behind the others, and the mouse is in the small visible piece of hat window and thus my typing goes there while reading from the windows I have arranged so I can read what I need. This is not an everyday usage, but often enough that using M$ windows frustrates the heck out of me.
Lack of ethics is the third reason, but not nearly as important.
Why can't SMTP relays reject mail whose most recent Received-From: header does not match the the sender?
My bad... I meant the Received: header, and my experience has been that the server which adds this header includes the IP addresses of both itself and who sent it. Thus an SMTP server could verify this header when receiving a message. If an SMTP server receives a connection from 1.2.3.4 with a message whose Received: header says 5.6.7.8, then the server would reject the message, possibly logging a non-compliant server.
That fly by night ISP must get its internet connection from somewhere. And it isn't as easy to set up a fly by night ISP as a fly by night account on an ISP.
I must need education on pobox.com. If they originate the first Received-From: header, isn't that good enough? It's either a valid connection from one of their customers or it isn't. Are you saying that because the Received-From: header is not a valid To: address, the scheme wouldn't work? I am not thinking of the SMTP relay replying to the email, never, only verifying the chain of Received-From: headers and rejecting a relay if the most recent is wrong. I know you can't rely on headers in general, they can all be forged, and you can send mail without any headers, or at least very few. But the Received-From: header check would still fail if the most recent was forged. And all you have to do is reject email if the latest one is forged. Nothing to do with replying. Now if a recipient doesn't like the email, he can always complain to the oldest (or oldest valid) Received-From: header, whether or not that is the riginator or the originator's ISP. And if 1% of the recipeinets do, ISPs will be much mre careful about signing up fly by night accounts.
I am not an expert on much, but I have written servers of various kinds and have some understand of SMTP and networks. Corrections to my naivite are welcome:-)
Seems to me that the problem could be self correcting if there were no forged headers. If spam could always be traced back to its originator, or to a bad relay who accepted forged headers, then only 1% of the recipients would have to reply to flood the miscreant's mailbox.
So why is it not possible to prevent forged headers? Why can't SMTP relays reject mail whose most recent Received-From: header does not match the the sender? As long as you can trace these backwards, at some point you will hit a forged header or the originator. If the header is forged, that means the the next relay did not verify headers, and is a worthy target of complaints about spam, as good as the originator, in fact.
If only 10% of SMTP relays and ISPs enforce this, that would seem to me enough to flood spammers with complaints.
Why would this not work? Worst I can see is it would take a few months to become widespread enough to have an effect, and early adopters would have a slight processing overhead increase, due to having to check for forged Received-From: headers.
To demagnetize my pockets or purse, they merely have to put a big magnet in a purse or bag and ride a crowded bus or train, swinging it right at pocket or purse level.
Aside from this thing probably not using a magnetic strip, of course. But someone who wanted to trash dozens or hundres of credit and debit cards, this would be easy.
Sure is strange that energy prices could jump by a factor of 100... not double, not triple, but one hundred times. Anything jumping that much, seems pretty much like solid evidence right there of price gouging.
Deregulation certainly was screwed, capping retail but not wholesale prices... but even doubling of prices would have been inexplicable, and a factor of 100... it really must have boggled your mind for you to ignore it.
Maybe they are looking for hungry new law grads (== cheap) and figure the eagle eyed ones will see a way to fill their hands with someone else's money. It's a way to filter out the ones that don't see opportunity in every ambulance.
Retinal scan at the front door tells the house who is in, now you get email, messages, soup cooked the way you like, lighting set up the way you like...
Who's to say you didn't come home with spouse and kids, guests, neighbors, or who knows who? What does it do if the spouse or kids or guests arrive after you, separately? Now whose settings does it use?
Seems that Microsoft hasn't shed their single user single tasking legacy.
Besides that nonsense, the idea that you would always want your soup heated the same amount is terrible. Recipes based on ingredients you put on a counter; pardon me, I think I'd pick the recipe first, then shop for the ingredients I don't have.
Everything described here seems so primitive and so Microsoft. The map shows where the kids are supposed to be. That is not useful, it gives all the appearance of safety and none of the reality.
The idea that Microsoft security could enforce a homework lockdown by the parents on the kids, ha! Parents would let the computer read to the kids in their place, a real miss the point instance, like everything else.
The work situation; a competitor has invented a better widget. What is our response? Announce our own better widgit which doesn't exist yet! Where have we heard that before? They come up with nonsense of scanning all the suppliers etc, see if the production can be sped up, as if our company was running at slow speed to start with.
This house is unimaginative and nonsensical. If this is the best they can come up with, they haven't got much research for the buck.
What does that phrase mean? Beavers build dams. Predators kill prey. Ants raise caterpillars and fungi and enslave other ants and bugs for their own benefit. Species drive other species to extinction. All animals shit all over. But if humans build dams, run ranches, hunt, farm, and drive other species to extinction.
Where is the limit? Was it ok for American Indians to drive big land animals to extinction when they first arrived here from Siberia, but not current humans? Is it ok for birds to shit all over islands and pollute them to hell and back, we think it cute and call it guano and harvest it for fertilizer. But if humans shit too much, that's pollution!
Boeing camne out with their model 247, I think it was, in the 1930s, the first "modern" airliner, but United had a lock on production for the first long batch, and all the other airlines could see they were in trouble any of their own, so they got Douglas to come out with the DC-2 and DC-3, which proved to be a better model, and Boeing ended up with a short production run. It's not quite like Beta and VHS, but still, sometimes being exclusive and greedy fails pretty spectacularly.
If you go back and read the thread, you will see someone claiming the second world war started in 1939. Now you can have your cake or eat it, not both. Either a European war by itself was a world war, ha ha, or the entry of the US and Japan into it in 1941 made it a world war retroactively, because it started in 1939 but became a world war in 1941. And if that is the argument, then the war that started in 1937 became a world war when the European phase started in 1939, or it became a world war when the US entered in 1941. But you cannot assert that the 1939 war by itself was a world war, because that involved only part of one continent.
I don't want a key locked to my machine, because it becomes useless if I switch machines, if the old one breaks, or I simply want something better.
Why is it so hard to understand that what is wrong with private keys is that I don't have complete control over them? If it's my private key, it's mine, not something hardware generated that I can't keep or delete or copy at my whim. When it goes out of my control, it's somebody else's, not mine, and I don't want it!
So when Germany invaded Poland, that somehow made it a world war?
Or when Britain and France declared war, that made it a world war?
Or when Italy joined in, that made it a world war?
Or maybe when Germany invaded the European part of Russia, that made it a world war?
Or maybe when Italy and Germany invaded nearby North Africa, when it finally reached a continent outside Europe, that still wasn't quite the 3 or 4 continents you claim necessary?
So, exactly how does Europe equal the world but China, a much bigger area, not?
JWZ, who has credentials, criticizes the state of video players.
Many comments criticize JWZ. The best of them say he should stop criticizing and go to work on the problem. Nowhere do any of these criticizers present their credentials or xplain why they can criticize a criticism JWZ is not allowed to.
Other criticisms are nothing but flamebait.
If some of the criticisms of JWZ had explained why his criticism is wrong, I might be impressed. As it is, nope.
See how I am halfway between. I offer constructive criticism of the criticizers, but offer no credentials myself.
I realize this may come as a shock to some Western readers, but the Second World War started in '37, when Japan invaded China, not September 1st 1939. Or do Chinese deaths and war not count?
Slashdot Mirror
Web server after all ...
But to launch stuff from the moon, the launcher has to get to the moon, and that means from earth. Don't start with railgun launchers like in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, that's a long ways off. For the next few decades, anything coming from the moon has to come in a vehicle coming from the earth originally, and using fuel coming from the earth originally.
First you brag GTK+ makes VERY efficient use of X.
Then you complain Give some concrete evidence (e.g. benchmarks) before making wild claims about performance.
Which is it?
What system? What version? What version of X did it replace? What version of mozilla? What monitor and video card? What CPU? What compiler?
No bull.
Every patent discussion on /. eventually brings up a dozen such patents. Prior art!
Do you understand how annoying it is to talk an African-American and constantly keep telling yourself not to use certain derogatory terms?
Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to an Irish-American and not use various derogatory terms?
Ditto for Polish-Americans, American Indians, women, hackers, how often do you mistakenly talk to someopne and unknowingly insult them? Ever use the word suit to a suit, to his face, by mistake?
Face it, you are insulting RMS by using derogatory terms. If you don't like that, if you think he is overly sensitive, then turn around and look at it from his point of view, and maybe, just maybe, you will see you need a bit of sensitivity in your language. Maybe you need to see RMS as a human being who doesn't like being insulted, and maybe you will see how arrogant you are to think he should adapt to your terms and accept your insulting language.
Emacs is better for starting a flamewar when everyone else is agreeing that vi is better. There are some things even vi can't do.
I don't like M$ software for several reasons, in order: it's buggy, i's inflexible, and M$ ethics.
Several months ago, I had to use Visual Studio 6, for the first time, and within a day had found several bugs in it. Now whether these bugs were me not knowing the "proper" usage, or genuine bugs, that has been typical of my experience with M$, and leads to the second point, inflexibility.
If you don't use M$ products in the M$ way, you can't use them at all. Take windows, for instance, multiple windows. You get click to focus and raise on focus whether you want that or not. Sometimes I like to have several windows open for reading while typing into another window which is mostly hidden behind the others, and the mouse is in the small visible piece of hat window and thus my typing goes there while reading from the windows I have arranged so I can read what I need. This is not an everyday usage, but often enough that using M$ windows frustrates the heck out of me.
Lack of ethics is the third reason, but not nearly as important.
See, now you know why they want to eliminate the back button, no more dups on /.
When I said
... I meant the Received: header, and my experience has been that the server which adds this header includes the IP addresses of both itself and who sent it. Thus an SMTP server could verify this header when receiving a message. If an SMTP server receives a connection from 1.2.3.4 with a message whose Received: header says 5.6.7.8, then the server would reject the message, possibly logging a non-compliant server.
Why can't SMTP relays reject mail whose most recent Received-From: header does not match the the sender?
My bad
That fly by night ISP must get its internet connection from somewhere. And it isn't as easy to set up a fly by night ISP as a fly by night account on an ISP.
I must need education on pobox.com. If they originate the first Received-From: header, isn't that good enough? It's either a valid connection from one of their customers or it isn't. Are you saying that because the Received-From: header is not a valid To: address, the scheme wouldn't work? I am not thinking of the SMTP relay replying to the email, never, only verifying the chain of Received-From: headers and rejecting a relay if the most recent is wrong. I know you can't rely on headers in general, they can all be forged, and you can send mail without any headers, or at least very few. But the Received-From: header check would still fail if the most recent was forged. And all you have to do is reject email if the latest one is forged. Nothing to do with replying. Now if a recipient doesn't like the email, he can always complain to the oldest (or oldest valid) Received-From: header, whether or not that is the riginator or the originator's ISP. And if 1% of the recipeinets do, ISPs will be much mre careful about signing up fly by night accounts.
I am not an expert on much, but I have written servers of various kinds and have some understand of SMTP and networks. Corrections to my naivite are welcome :-)
Seems to me that the problem could be self correcting if there were no forged headers. If spam could always be traced back to its originator, or to a bad relay who accepted forged headers, then only 1% of the recipients would have to reply to flood the miscreant's mailbox.
So why is it not possible to prevent forged headers? Why can't SMTP relays reject mail whose most recent Received-From: header does not match the the sender? As long as you can trace these backwards, at some point you will hit a forged header or the originator. If the header is forged, that means the the next relay did not verify headers, and is a worthy target of complaints about spam, as good as the originator, in fact.
If only 10% of SMTP relays and ISPs enforce this, that would seem to me enough to flood spammers with complaints.
Why would this not work? Worst I can see is it would take a few months to become widespread enough to have an effect, and early adopters would have a slight processing overhead increase, due to having to check for forged Received-From: headers.
To burn my cash, they have to steal it from me.
To demagnetize my pockets or purse, they merely have to put a big magnet in a purse or bag and ride a crowded bus or train, swinging it right at pocket or purse level.
Aside from this thing probably not using a magnetic strip, of course. But someone who wanted to trash dozens or hundres of credit and debit cards, this would be easy.
Sure is strange that energy prices could jump by a factor of 100 ... not double, not triple, but one hundred times. Anything jumping that much, seems pretty much like solid evidence right there of price gouging.
... but even doubling of prices would have been inexplicable, and a factor of 100 ... it really must have boggled your mind for you to ignore it.
Deregulation certainly was screwed, capping retail but not wholesale prices
Maybe they are looking for hungry new law grads (== cheap) and figure the eagle eyed ones will see a way to fill their hands with someone else's money. It's a way to filter out the ones that don't see opportunity in every ambulance.
Retinal scan at the front door tells the house who is in, now you get email, messages, soup cooked the way you like, lighting set up the way you like ...
Who's to say you didn't come home with spouse and kids, guests, neighbors, or who knows who? What does it do if the spouse or kids or guests arrive after you, separately? Now whose settings does it use?
Seems that Microsoft hasn't shed their single user single tasking legacy.
Besides that nonsense, the idea that you would always want your soup heated the same amount is terrible. Recipes based on ingredients you put on a counter; pardon me, I think I'd pick the recipe first, then shop for the ingredients I don't have.
Everything described here seems so primitive and so Microsoft. The map shows where the kids are supposed to be. That is not useful, it gives all the appearance of safety and none of the reality.
The idea that Microsoft security could enforce a homework lockdown by the parents on the kids, ha! Parents would let the computer read to the kids in their place, a real miss the point instance, like everything else.
The work situation; a competitor has invented a better widget. What is our response? Announce our own better widgit which doesn't exist yet! Where have we heard that before? They come up with nonsense of scanning all the suppliers etc, see if the production can be sped up, as if our company was running at slow speed to start with.
This house is unimaginative and nonsensical. If this is the best they can come up with, they haven't got much research for the buck.
What does that phrase mean? Beavers build dams. Predators kill prey. Ants raise caterpillars and fungi and enslave other ants and bugs for their own benefit. Species drive other species to extinction. All animals shit all over. But if humans build dams, run ranches, hunt, farm, and drive other species to extinction.
Where is the limit? Was it ok for American Indians to drive big land animals to extinction when they first arrived here from Siberia, but not current humans? Is it ok for birds to shit all over islands and pollute them to hell and back, we think it cute and call it guano and harvest it for fertilizer. But if humans shit too much, that's pollution!
Bah.
Boeing camne out with their model 247, I think it was, in the 1930s, the first "modern" airliner, but United had a lock on production for the first long batch, and all the other airlines could see they were in trouble any of their own, so they got Douglas to come out with the DC-2 and DC-3, which proved to be a better model, and Boeing ended up with a short production run. It's not quite like Beta and VHS, but still, sometimes being exclusive and greedy fails pretty spectacularly.
If you go back and read the thread, you will see someone claiming the second world war started in 1939. Now you can have your cake or eat it, not both. Either a European war by itself was a world war, ha ha, or the entry of the US and Japan into it in 1941 made it a world war retroactively, because it started in 1939 but became a world war in 1941. And if that is the argument, then the war that started in 1937 became a world war when the European phase started in 1939, or it became a world war when the US entered in 1941. But you cannot assert that the 1939 war by itself was a world war, because that involved only part of one continent.
I don't want a key locked to my machine, because it becomes useless if I switch machines, if the old one breaks, or I simply want something better.
Why is it so hard to understand that what is wrong with private keys is that I don't have complete control over them? If it's my private key, it's mine, not something hardware generated that I can't keep or delete or copy at my whim. When it goes out of my control, it's somebody else's, not mine, and I don't want it!
So when Germany invaded Poland, that somehow made it a world war?
Or when Britain and France declared war, that made it a world war?
Or when Italy joined in, that made it a world war?
Or maybe when Germany invaded the European part of Russia, that made it a world war?
Or maybe when Italy and Germany invaded nearby North Africa, when it finally reached a continent outside Europe, that still wasn't quite the 3 or 4 continents you claim necessary?
So, exactly how does Europe equal the world but China, a much bigger area, not?
JWZ, who has credentials, criticizes the state of video players.
Many comments criticize JWZ. The best of them say he should stop criticizing and go to work on the problem. Nowhere do any of these criticizers present their credentials or xplain why they can criticize a criticism JWZ is not allowed to.
Other criticisms are nothing but flamebait.
If some of the criticisms of JWZ had explained why his criticism is wrong, I might be impressed. As it is, nope.
See how I am halfway between. I offer constructive criticism of the criticizers, but offer no credentials myself.
I realize this may come as a shock to some Western readers, but the Second World War started in '37, when Japan invaded China, not September 1st 1939. Or do Chinese deaths and war not count?