You kind of have it backwards. You want to put the cables in a conductive conduit. The air layer would be non-conductive already, though there are simpler ways to achieve that (e.g., rubber or plastic).
When the OP talks about "funding the UN", he's not referring to dues. He's talking about actually paying for the activities of the UN, such as troops on the ground in hotspots, which many other countries are unwilling to do.
Of course, there's still a fuzzy line there - sometimes it can be argued that the US is just using the UN as a cover for their own activities (e.g., trying to get the UN to authorise an invasion of Iraq, then the entire Iraqi war would be considered a UN mandate, and thus count toward "US funding the UN"). Trying to separate this out, though, is a futile effort. No matter what methods you use to try, there will be wide disagreement.
I think the bigger threat to lawyers is disbarment. It's a disgrace to the law profession to put through frivolous lawsuits, and feeds the negative view of lawyers that the general populace already has. Disbarment proceedings should be automatic any time a judge (not jury) decides that a failed lawsuit is frivolous (the jury can recommend, but only a judge should decide this, IMO). And "but my client would have just hired someone else if I said no" should not be construed as a defence.
However, your idea is not without merit, IMNSHO. I would say that the plaintiff of said frivolous lawsuit (i.e., the party hoping to profit off the mess) should be held accountable for the entire costs of both parties, plus punitive damages as appropriate given the plaintiff's means and amount sued for. And then only allow insurance companies to insure a certain percentage (say 50% or 75%) of frivolous judgements to ensure the pain is real. (The lower the percentage, the more affordable the coverage is, and the less it affects those who don't use frivolous lawsuits to bully their way in the world.)
It gets much more fun if it's a law firm frivolously suing someone...
Well, I did see a pattern start to emerge after the first two examples, but wasn't entirely clear. But then I read the third example, and... well, now I don't see any pattern.
There is your problem. We HAVE to accept email from the 3 biggest players PERIOD.
What if... you didn't have to? I know, I know, you said you "CANNOT AFFORD to blacklist" them. But that's just because too many people have email accounts with them.
I'm thinking of someone *ahem* taking the bulk of your post as evidence why MS is *about* to be blacklisted by most ISPs in the world (omitting the part where you say why you can't do this), and emailing it to all their friends with a subject of "WARNING! Hotmail to be blacklisted!" (maybe a few more exclamation points), and encouraging everyone to get another email account before it's too late, and PLEASE forward to all their friends who may know anyone on hotmail to be sure everyone gets the message before their emails get blocked!
Once you see the incoming traffic from hotmail slow to a trickle other than spam, you should have no trouble blacklisting them.:-)
On my previous PC, I had 4GB RAM on a 32-bit intel box. I put on an 8GB swap partition. On a 200GB disk. Yes, 4% of the disk. But, really, when I ran out of disk space, I stuck a 500GB disk in for cheap, and used WAY more than 8GB on that disk, so it really wasn't significant. Anyway, I started to find that I was swapping heavily (say 1-2GB going into the swap space). And the system started to slow down. A lot. Eventually, I upgraded.
Now, I have a PC with 8GB RAM on a 64-bit amd box. I have a 15GB swap partition, on a 1TB disk. So, only 1.5% of the disk used for swap. And, according to conky, I'm using 4.16GiB of swap and 5.74GiB of physical RAM. And the system isn't slow.
As to your recommendation to upgrade RAM - both this and the previous boxes are maxed out. Their MBs don't support more RAM. Can't upgrade.
Why am I using so much RAM? Well, firefox is currently eating 11.52% (approx 1GB)...:-) I really need to shut it down and restart it... I think I've installed one or two updates to firefox since the last time I started it.
# cat/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies cat:/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies: No such file or directory # echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies bash:/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies: No such file or directory
I CAN'T TURN IT OFF!
(Manually-built kernels FTW!:
$ gunzip -c/proc/config.gz | grep -i syn.*cook # CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES is not set
You've apparently been drinking far too much of Lotus' kool-aid. Yes, Notes can do lots of databasey things. But, let's be honest here. No matter how much Notes infrastructure your company tries to put in place, well over 90% of most users' experience with it is email. Lotus simply needs to understand that.
I really wish Lotus would get this concept through their heads. I don't care HOW much they try to sell its other "features" (which now directly compete against... WEB APPLICATIONS!), if they can't get a usable, reliable, crash-proof email program set up, nothing else will matter.
(I get regular "surveys" from Lotus... and I keep sending them this same feedback each time. I don't expect them to listen, but at least I can feel like I've done all I can to improve the lives of millions of Lotus users.)
Apparently, whatever application supports scan-barcode-and-show-comparison-pricing needs to also take into account:
The distance from where you are to the store with the better price,
The fuel efficiency of your vehicle, and
The current price of gas.
Ideally, it'd also warn you of the time involved, especially with an on-line order that needs 2-3 weeks to get to you, but even for just driving across town (which can be hours for large towns, especially during rush hour(s)).
Kinda like the idiots that drive all over the place looking to save a few cents per litre (or worse, per gallon) when filling up. Seriously, folks, saving an entire cent per litre, in my 60L tank, means I'm saving an entire 60 cents. At current prices, that's about half a litre of fuel. At my current fuel economy, that's approximately 5km of driving. Yours won't be significantly different. Same comparison has to be made about saving $1 on your DVD, or $250 on a couch (much more worth it). e.g., I saved about $300 on my last computer by driving to the other side of town (approx 30km each way). That was worth it. But most day-to-day purchases won't be worth it. Any app that fails to remind math-challenged users about this fact will be doing their users a huge disservice.
Re:What the problem with Gmail?
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"[I]t is YOUR job to keep them safe, not the responsibility of the e-mail provider."
So, looking for technological tools to help you accomplish a task you're given (or that you've volunteered for or been volunteered for, whatever) is suddenly verbotten? Look, the OP isn't looking to force you to use any particular email provider, he's doing some work in looking for such a provider for himself. And if there already is a good choice out there, why not take the short-cut and use it instead of re-inventing the wheel?
It's not as if he's asking for all email providers to provide such service, thereby denying you the choice to get your porn spam. Just a shortcut.
Seriously, the answers here have given me a few good ideas on eventually giving my daughter an email account - but I have a domain, and can thus put something into postfix's queue to actually enforce a whitelist on the way in. But it *would* be nice to have a good solution already available.
That is backwards. You need something that is clear by default (so that you don't get tagged for parking on a public roadway, such as a residential zone), and only blocks when electricity is applied. I'd hate for a power-draw on my battery just for sitting there to keep the plate visible.
Actually, I'd say that involving "end of life" calculations would do nothing but *encourage* murder. Better to kill you now to get the clock ticking than to wait for your natural death.
Better to just say "X years, regardless whether the owner is still alive or dead." Doesn't matter if you kill the author or not, copy rights will survive to the estate if the author dies, and you still won't have unfettered access to the material.
Of course, X should be no more than 25. I mean, really. Anything more is silly. Even 25 is excessive.
But in the business world the cost of MS Office doesn't outweigh the fact that MS Office can do more, and do it more quickly still today than Open Office can.
Can do more isn't a benefit to most anyone who can afford continual licensing. That is, they realise who it is in their organisation that really needs "more" and who need nothing more than a glorified WordPad. There are other things that provide value to the business (same program their clients/vendors use = interoperability; everyone has it so everyone knows it; brand recognition; ease of finding training for those who don't know it; someone to yell at if something breaks, aka support), and we can debate on how much value should be placed on each, but I don't think "can do more" is generally of any value to most users.
You know, this would have been +1, Funny (Double Entendre) if we were talking about the UK, and you could be referring to both the North and South sides if the isle. As it is, though, it's merely -0.25, Bad Spelling (Aisle vs Isle) and -0.25, Bad Spelling (Reagan vs Regan). Apparently the moderators round down.
It's not entrapment when someone else does it because the definition of entrapment includes "government officials" in it. As Fortuny isn't a government official, we fail the first test.
Further, committing adultery, while legal grounds for divorce (in many jurisdictions that still require any reasons whatsoever), is not a crime, thus we fail the second test.
Even if Fortuny were a government agent pursuing people for committing an actual crime of adultery (yeah, right, politicians banning adultery? They'd lose their favourite pasttime, right after spending our money!), would this be an illegal entrapment? From "The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon", I see a definition that requires three things:
First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
These men were perusing a personals section of an on-line classifieds site. They were already thinking of finding new girlfriends/sexual partners while married. Fail.
Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
This one appears to be more subjective. However, based on the fact that there was but a single ad, and not continuous taunting or pressure from Fortuny, I'd say this is a fail, too.
And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
See the first point. They were perusing a section of Craig's List which was for this purpose. They were ready and willing to commit the "crime" already.
So, no, this is not entrapment. There isn't a single similarity with entrapment here. This is merely allowing people to make fools of themselves and then following up by actually showing the fools for what they are. Going up to an undercover cop and buying a dime of heroin isn't entrapment. Nor is an undercover cop buying from a street dealer. This isn't even close.
I'm not vouching for infidelity and don't tell me this prankster was out to do any good. He was doing it to humiliate these people.
Seriously, people. This guy put out a honeypot. And those of low moral character took the bait. And he alleges that he learned from this (expecting no responses, getting nearly 200). IT Security folks do this all the time. He just took the technical security solution, and made it a social security solution. (Nevermind that the term "honeypot" actually originates closer to Fortuny's actions than the IT solution.)
And, I bet that those wives who filed for divorce over this are thanking Fortuny for exposing their (now or soon-to-be) ex-husbands for the cheaters that they are. The married men who responded obviously weren't thinking too much of their vows.
That said, I do think they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which was broken. Fortuny could have got his point across just fine by smudging the photos before posting them.
Slashdot Mirror
You kind of have it backwards. You want to put the cables in a conductive conduit. The air layer would be non-conductive already, though there are simpler ways to achieve that (e.g., rubber or plastic).
How about ISO?
(duck!)
Oh, no you don't. We don't want you blaming us AGAIN if something goes wrong.
When the OP talks about "funding the UN", he's not referring to dues. He's talking about actually paying for the activities of the UN, such as troops on the ground in hotspots, which many other countries are unwilling to do.
Of course, there's still a fuzzy line there - sometimes it can be argued that the US is just using the UN as a cover for their own activities (e.g., trying to get the UN to authorise an invasion of Iraq, then the entire Iraqi war would be considered a UN mandate, and thus count toward "US funding the UN"). Trying to separate this out, though, is a futile effort. No matter what methods you use to try, there will be wide disagreement.
I think the bigger threat to lawyers is disbarment. It's a disgrace to the law profession to put through frivolous lawsuits, and feeds the negative view of lawyers that the general populace already has. Disbarment proceedings should be automatic any time a judge (not jury) decides that a failed lawsuit is frivolous (the jury can recommend, but only a judge should decide this, IMO). And "but my client would have just hired someone else if I said no" should not be construed as a defence.
However, your idea is not without merit, IMNSHO. I would say that the plaintiff of said frivolous lawsuit (i.e., the party hoping to profit off the mess) should be held accountable for the entire costs of both parties, plus punitive damages as appropriate given the plaintiff's means and amount sued for. And then only allow insurance companies to insure a certain percentage (say 50% or 75%) of frivolous judgements to ensure the pain is real. (The lower the percentage, the more affordable the coverage is, and the less it affects those who don't use frivolous lawsuits to bully their way in the world.)
It gets much more fun if it's a law firm frivolously suing someone...
I don't think Mr AC is asking you to respect his POV. Merely his right to have his own POV.
Well, I did see a pattern start to emerge after the first two examples, but wasn't entirely clear. But then I read the third example, and ... well, now I don't see any pattern.
Can you elaborate?
What if ... you didn't have to? I know, I know, you said you "CANNOT AFFORD to blacklist" them. But that's just because too many people have email accounts with them.
I'm thinking of someone *ahem* taking the bulk of your post as evidence why MS is *about* to be blacklisted by most ISPs in the world (omitting the part where you say why you can't do this), and emailing it to all their friends with a subject of "WARNING! Hotmail to be blacklisted!" (maybe a few more exclamation points), and encouraging everyone to get another email account before it's too late, and PLEASE forward to all their friends who may know anyone on hotmail to be sure everyone gets the message before their emails get blocked!
Once you see the incoming traffic from hotmail slow to a trickle other than spam, you should have no trouble blacklisting them. :-)
On my previous PC, I had 4GB RAM on a 32-bit intel box. I put on an 8GB swap partition. On a 200GB disk. Yes, 4% of the disk. But, really, when I ran out of disk space, I stuck a 500GB disk in for cheap, and used WAY more than 8GB on that disk, so it really wasn't significant. Anyway, I started to find that I was swapping heavily (say 1-2GB going into the swap space). And the system started to slow down. A lot. Eventually, I upgraded.
Now, I have a PC with 8GB RAM on a 64-bit amd box. I have a 15GB swap partition, on a 1TB disk. So, only 1.5% of the disk used for swap. And, according to conky, I'm using 4.16GiB of swap and 5.74GiB of physical RAM. And the system isn't slow.
As to your recommendation to upgrade RAM - both this and the previous boxes are maxed out. Their MBs don't support more RAM. Can't upgrade.
Why am I using so much RAM? Well, firefox is currently eating 11.52% (approx 1GB) ... :-) I really need to shut it down and restart it ... I think I've installed one or two updates to firefox since the last time I started it.
Apparently, I should panic:
I CAN'T TURN IT OFF!
(Manually-built kernels FTW!:
)
You've apparently been drinking far too much of Lotus' kool-aid. Yes, Notes can do lots of databasey things. But, let's be honest here. No matter how much Notes infrastructure your company tries to put in place, well over 90% of most users' experience with it is email. Lotus simply needs to understand that.
I really wish Lotus would get this concept through their heads. I don't care HOW much they try to sell its other "features" (which now directly compete against ... WEB APPLICATIONS!), if they can't get a usable, reliable, crash-proof email program set up, nothing else will matter.
(I get regular "surveys" from Lotus ... and I keep sending them this same feedback each time. I don't expect them to listen, but at least I can feel like I've done all I can to improve the lives of millions of Lotus users.)
Apparently, whatever application supports scan-barcode-and-show-comparison-pricing needs to also take into account:
Ideally, it'd also warn you of the time involved, especially with an on-line order that needs 2-3 weeks to get to you, but even for just driving across town (which can be hours for large towns, especially during rush hour(s)).
Kinda like the idiots that drive all over the place looking to save a few cents per litre (or worse, per gallon) when filling up. Seriously, folks, saving an entire cent per litre, in my 60L tank, means I'm saving an entire 60 cents. At current prices, that's about half a litre of fuel. At my current fuel economy, that's approximately 5km of driving. Yours won't be significantly different. Same comparison has to be made about saving $1 on your DVD, or $250 on a couch (much more worth it). e.g., I saved about $300 on my last computer by driving to the other side of town (approx 30km each way). That was worth it. But most day-to-day purchases won't be worth it. Any app that fails to remind math-challenged users about this fact will be doing their users a huge disservice.
"[I]t is YOUR job to keep them safe, not the responsibility of the e-mail provider."
So, looking for technological tools to help you accomplish a task you're given (or that you've volunteered for or been volunteered for, whatever) is suddenly verbotten? Look, the OP isn't looking to force you to use any particular email provider, he's doing some work in looking for such a provider for himself. And if there already is a good choice out there, why not take the short-cut and use it instead of re-inventing the wheel?
It's not as if he's asking for all email providers to provide such service, thereby denying you the choice to get your porn spam. Just a shortcut.
Seriously, the answers here have given me a few good ideas on eventually giving my daughter an email account - but I have a domain, and can thus put something into postfix's queue to actually enforce a whitelist on the way in. But it *would* be nice to have a good solution already available.
I've got my response narrowed to two options, but can't narrow it further. So, take your pick:
If they want to have "loveable" in a family, they should get Bill Shatner. He did great with those "Fiber-is-your-friend" challenge ads.
That is backwards. You need something that is clear by default (so that you don't get tagged for parking on a public roadway, such as a residential zone), and only blocks when electricity is applied. I'd hate for a power-draw on my battery just for sitting there to keep the plate visible.
It does amuse me that looking at my Ad-Block Plus status, I see that this page has two things being blocked ... and one is google-analytics.com.
Apparently, it's worth twice as much with a full tank as with an empty one.
It's also called "denial." :-P
Actually, I'd say that involving "end of life" calculations would do nothing but *encourage* murder. Better to kill you now to get the clock ticking than to wait for your natural death.
Better to just say "X years, regardless whether the owner is still alive or dead." Doesn't matter if you kill the author or not, copy rights will survive to the estate if the author dies, and you still won't have unfettered access to the material.
Of course, X should be no more than 25. I mean, really. Anything more is silly. Even 25 is excessive.
Can do more isn't a benefit to most anyone who can afford continual licensing. That is, they realise who it is in their organisation that really needs "more" and who need nothing more than a glorified WordPad. There are other things that provide value to the business (same program their clients/vendors use = interoperability; everyone has it so everyone knows it; brand recognition; ease of finding training for those who don't know it; someone to yell at if something breaks, aka support), and we can debate on how much value should be placed on each, but I don't think "can do more" is generally of any value to most users.
You know, this would have been +1, Funny (Double Entendre) if we were talking about the UK, and you could be referring to both the North and South sides if the isle. As it is, though, it's merely -0.25, Bad Spelling (Aisle vs Isle) and -0.25, Bad Spelling (Reagan vs Regan). Apparently the moderators round down.
It's not entrapment when someone else does it because the definition of entrapment includes "government officials" in it. As Fortuny isn't a government official, we fail the first test.
Further, committing adultery, while legal grounds for divorce (in many jurisdictions that still require any reasons whatsoever), is not a crime, thus we fail the second test.
Even if Fortuny were a government agent pursuing people for committing an actual crime of adultery (yeah, right, politicians banning adultery? They'd lose their favourite pasttime, right after spending our money!), would this be an illegal entrapment? From "The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon", I see a definition that requires three things:
First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. These men were perusing a personals section of an on-line classifieds site. They were already thinking of finding new girlfriends/sexual partners while married. Fail. Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. This one appears to be more subjective. However, based on the fact that there was but a single ad, and not continuous taunting or pressure from Fortuny, I'd say this is a fail, too. And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him. See the first point. They were perusing a section of Craig's List which was for this purpose. They were ready and willing to commit the "crime" already.So, no, this is not entrapment. There isn't a single similarity with entrapment here. This is merely allowing people to make fools of themselves and then following up by actually showing the fools for what they are. Going up to an undercover cop and buying a dime of heroin isn't entrapment. Nor is an undercover cop buying from a street dealer. This isn't even close.
Seriously, people. This guy put out a honeypot . And those of low moral character took the bait. And he alleges that he learned from this (expecting no responses, getting nearly 200). IT Security folks do this all the time. He just took the technical security solution, and made it a social security solution. (Nevermind that the term "honeypot" actually originates closer to Fortuny's actions than the IT solution.)
And, I bet that those wives who filed for divorce over this are thanking Fortuny for exposing their (now or soon-to-be) ex-husbands for the cheaters that they are. The married men who responded obviously weren't thinking too much of their vows.
That said, I do think they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which was broken. Fortuny could have got his point across just fine by smudging the photos before posting them.
Worse, it means no internet.