Yeah, and don't forget hotmail had free pop3 back in the day.
This certainly encouraged my use of hotmail initially, and then I stopped once pop3 was removed.
I would imagine that Google will alter the policy if they lose significant revenue from pop. I would imagine inserting adds into peoples email would be foolish.
It would probably break signing and encryption for one thing.
A firewall is something that controls traffic flow through it. Not in a particular direction.
A reverse firewall is one that you have simply turned around. This just makes it harder to plug the cables in. Or easier if you are using non-specific hardware as a platform.
So don't say it anymore.
Oh crap look at Google, there are already 670 entries for "reverse firewall".
It is endlessly frustrating when there are posts like this.
Why isn't it obvious that the only traffic allowed in and out of a network or PC is that traffic that has been explicitly defined as being allowed. Even if that network consists of nothing but your home PC.
You don't "block email not coming from your server", you simply do not *unblock* anything but the traffic you need.
Explicit! Not implicit! Repeat until you either get it or you get someone else to do it that gets it.
Sigh.
This was disappointing five years ago, and will undoubtedly disappoint in another five.
I remember being the operator for an IBM 4361. The controllers (like massive coax hubs) booted from an 8inch floppy.
It wouldn't boot one day, so I called tech. We worked out that the boot floppy was currupt and we'd need a new one. They said they would need a copy of the floppy to do this.
That presented me with a problem, as the floppy was currupt of course, and I didn't have a spare anyway.
They tech guy said, no problem, just photocopy it and fax it to us.
Well. I was all prepared to explain exactly how stupid he was when it transpired that the floppy had a label on it with the codes required to gen a new copy!
The downside is that I am now going to have to find a new name for my nigritude ultramarine paint. Such a nigritude sea blue, no other name really describes it.
Not to mention all the legitimate search engine optimising companies I have already paid in preparation for the launch.
Sigh...
---
An OS manufacturer suggesting such a hard drive storage requirement would suggest in turn that not only the OS is going to grow significantly, but also all the other applications that MS want you to isntall are also going to grow significantly. Presumably the terabyte storage is so that they can still say "our stuff is only using 1% of your diskspace".
But anyway. People keep going on about the OS requirements as if it is such a terrible thing that the OS would need so much hardware engine to make it go.
My question is "Why not?". I have my PC here and the only thing that even begins to drive it is the latest 3D shooter. I am going to have all that power sitting there for that reason, so why shouldn't the OS utilise it? I for one am sick of these 2D windows with slow redraw times. This is my working environment. I want it to look good. I want it to give at least as good a visual impression as a game. Now I don't mean that I want to run down a corridor to find my finance spreadsheet, but some flexibility in the front end would be such a boon.
Whatever the validity of that mostly suspect spec - it is just a prediction at best - I would like to see a breed of OSs that allow you to commit the resources you have available to you toward the process of getting stuff done, rather than have them sitting idle waiting for the next time you pull up Doom III.
koan
Almost any network problem can be solved by thought experiment, and testing. You need to hold the structure of the section of the network with a problem in your head, and mentally traverse the tree of possibilities that can cause the problem.
However, you may miss a branch or two, and when that happens, it is time to dig out the sniffer.
I can often tell what mood my brain is in with these things, and know when to just get out the sniffer in the first place.. hangover days for example.
There is also a level of comfort that can be gained from just have a look at the raw information about what is flowing around the network. Countless times I have picked up on things that just wouldn't have presented themselves until a component failed, and the backup mysteriously didn't kick in.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and don't forget hotmail had free pop3 back in the day.
This certainly encouraged my use of hotmail initially, and then I stopped once pop3 was removed.
I would imagine that Google will alter the policy if they lose significant revenue from pop. I would imagine inserting adds into peoples email would be foolish.
It would probably break signing and encryption for one thing.
Everyone stop saying "reverse firewall".
No, just stop.
A firewall is something that controls traffic flow through it. Not in a particular direction.
A reverse firewall is one that you have simply turned around. This just makes it harder to plug the cables in. Or easier if you are using non-specific hardware as a platform.
So don't say it anymore.
Oh crap look at Google, there are already 670 entries for "reverse firewall".
Damn, thats another one.
koan
It is endlessly frustrating when there are posts like this.
Why isn't it obvious that the only traffic allowed in and out of a network or PC is that traffic that has been explicitly defined as being allowed. Even if that network consists of nothing but your home PC.
You don't "block email not coming from your server", you simply do not *unblock* anything but the traffic you need.
Explicit! Not implicit! Repeat until you either get it or you get someone else to do it that gets it.
Sigh.
This was disappointing five years ago, and will undoubtedly disappoint in another five.
koan
This has saved me countless times since I started taking my keyboard on flights.
Now the TSA have started confiscating them, what am I supported to do?
Shouldn't that be "beowolf cluster of these"?
The declassifications of the location of the development of those aircraft were simply misinformation.
There is no Area 51 and no research of any kind goes on here. I mean there.
Well, he might hope to get a reward from them before he dies though.
I remember being the operator for an IBM 4361. The controllers (like massive coax hubs) booted from an 8inch floppy.
It wouldn't boot one day, so I called tech. We worked out that the boot floppy was currupt and we'd need a new one. They said they would need a copy of the floppy to do this.
That presented me with a problem, as the floppy was currupt of course, and I didn't have a spare anyway.
They tech guy said, no problem, just photocopy it and fax it to us.
Well. I was all prepared to explain exactly how stupid he was when it transpired that the floppy had a label on it with the codes required to gen a new copy!
koan
The downside is that I am now going to have to find a new name for my nigritude ultramarine paint. Such a nigritude sea blue, no other name really describes it. Not to mention all the legitimate search engine optimising companies I have already paid in preparation for the launch. Sigh... ---
In truth "standard" barcodes are 2D. The normal dimension encodes the barcode "number", and the second dimension encodes the height.
Of course, you were thinking the height fields are all identical, and so can only encode a single unit of information.
In reality they are all minutely different, and this information is scanned to track your movements and read your very thoughts by the establishment.
Wear a tin foil hat at all times.
--
An OS manufacturer suggesting such a hard drive storage requirement would suggest in turn that not only the OS is going to grow significantly, but also all the other applications that MS want you to isntall are also going to grow significantly. Presumably the terabyte storage is so that they can still say "our stuff is only using 1% of your diskspace". But anyway. People keep going on about the OS requirements as if it is such a terrible thing that the OS would need so much hardware engine to make it go. My question is "Why not?". I have my PC here and the only thing that even begins to drive it is the latest 3D shooter. I am going to have all that power sitting there for that reason, so why shouldn't the OS utilise it? I for one am sick of these 2D windows with slow redraw times. This is my working environment. I want it to look good. I want it to give at least as good a visual impression as a game. Now I don't mean that I want to run down a corridor to find my finance spreadsheet, but some flexibility in the front end would be such a boon. Whatever the validity of that mostly suspect spec - it is just a prediction at best - I would like to see a breed of OSs that allow you to commit the resources you have available to you toward the process of getting stuff done, rather than have them sitting idle waiting for the next time you pull up Doom III. koan
Almost any network problem can be solved by thought experiment, and testing. You need to hold the structure of the section of the network with a problem in your head, and mentally traverse the tree of possibilities that can cause the problem.
However, you may miss a branch or two, and when that happens, it is time to dig out the sniffer.
I can often tell what mood my brain is in with these things, and know when to just get out the sniffer in the first place.. hangover days for example.
There is also a level of comfort that can be gained from just have a look at the raw information about what is flowing around the network. Countless times I have picked up on things that just wouldn't have presented themselves until a component failed, and the backup mysteriously didn't kick in.