I stayed the night at a friend's house once, and noticed that the kitchen light was on all night. When I pointed this out, he said "we can't turn it off". He demonstrated that he could take the fluorescent tube out of its fitting, and it was still glowing.
I never found out where the radiation was coming from, but I never wanted to stay in his house again.
The problem is simple: the people who subscribe to the blacklist are not the people using email.
If my ISP subscribes to a blacklist, then every so often it will deliberately destroy email communications that were addressed to me. I don't even get to know that this has happened, so I don't get any say in the matter.
If the regular (snail-mail) postal service took to burning all letters posted in (say) Wisconsin, instead of delivering them, just because some people in Wisconsin were known to be sending out unsolicited leaflets, there would be an outcry. Yet when an ISP does what is effectively the same thing, everyone on Slashdot thinks it is a great idea.
If a person to whom I sent some mail chooses to ignore it, that's fine by me. If he chooses to set up an automated system for ignoring my mail, that's fine too. But if a third party entrusted with delivering my mail chooses to block it, that's a very different matter.
In other words, the other explanation is "Microsoft are yet again using undocumented features of their own software to give themselves an advantage over their competitors"
I've been watching the BBC here in the UK for many years now, and I'm sure the quality is dropping.
At the same time, the BBC is spending more and more money supporting digital channels that nobody watches.
Could there be any connection here? From what I've seen of US TV, the more "choice" you have, the fewer things there are that you might actually want to choose.
They also carefully chose an area with poor reception, and then built a new transmitter to give them excellent digital reception. Of course they voted for it.
None of this will be mentioned when the change is imposed on the rest of the country: the line will simply be "95% of people voted for it".
This illustrates nicely why we in Britain are opposed the the introduction of ID cards:
1. A car hit you - you didn't do anything wrong, but the police wanted your ID. Why?
The last time we had ID cards here, a woman found some item in the street and tried to hand in in to the police as lost property. They demanded her ID. She had forgotten to carry it, so was arrested. This caused such a scandal that it led to the abolition of ID cards.
Criminals don't leave their ID number at the scene of the crime, so issuing ID cards will not help solve crimes. But it will create a useful new power that the police can use to harass any group they take a dislike to: the power to stop them and ask for their identity card.
2. The bank wants to see your ID. Why?
I've got a card from my bank too. When I want to take money out, it proves that I am the same person who put the money in. That's all they need to know. They don't need to know my nationality, or medical history, or police record. So I don't want a single ID that will link all that data together.
OK, I'm British too, so I don't understand this either.
Can anyone please answer this: is there any way that the people asking you for your SSN can validate the answer you give?
If so, what's the point in trying to keep your SSN secret, if anyone can find our what it is?
If not, why not just think up some other random number with the same number of digits, and give out that when anyone asks you for your SSN?
It looks to me like what has gone wrong with "EH1" is that the multimap version is a genuine map (it looks to me like a regular Ordnance Survey map) whereas the google version is just an air photograph coloured in: it looks wrong because it is wrong, because it's been taken from an angle. I suppose they couldn't afford to pay for proper map data, so they just paid some people in India to trace over the roads on some photos they took from a plane or satellite.
Which is funny since the DoD was targeted:
last year nearly 75,000 times with intrusion
attempts.
That's about 7 per hour. I get about that many probes to port 135 on my home ADSL box.
Basically, they're saying "we're doing something very important, but we can't tell you what it is". It all smells like FUD to me.
Your "fact" doesn't disprove your "fallacy". Since when did the people who know anything about computers get to make the purchasing decisions? That's the job of the ignorant managers!
Because in any normal market, retailers sell goods from a variety of manufacturers: that way they reach as many customers as possible. If you see a retailer only selling one brand, you have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes to influence that decision: maybe the manufacturer is distorting the market, to the detriment of the customers, by threatening the retailer.
Re:Drupal was good, now I use e107.
on
Drupal 4.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, the "open" one is left over from 2002, and all the subsequent ones have been fixed. Looks to me like they never went back to check whether the old bug was fixed or not.
I'd also like to point out that I've been following all of the suggestions and tips on/. regarding Windows security and permissions and I haven't had my machine corrupted.
As one of the most common/. suggestions is to use Linux instead, I'm not surprised.
Until laptop Linux becomes more popular, the manufacturers will continue to save money by only supplying drivers for Windows.
And until the manufacturers start making the investment in Linux driver development, the Linux market will remain small.
So your idea for security is that everyone in the world should strictly follow this rule all the time, with no exceptions, and should never forget it? That isn't going to happen.
What could happen is that the phone manufacturers could make the effort to install a secure operating system. Then I could accept files from other users all the time, without worrying about how much I trusted them to follow such rules. You know, just like I do with my email.
No. It means that the software company doesn't have to put so much effort into security, because they can go back and fix problems afterwards with an update.
So they get into a cycle of virus.. patch.. new virus.. new patch... and many people have viruses all the time. Look at Windows for an example of this.
Of course you need an update system, because you can't guarantee to find every possible security hole before you issue your code, but it's no substitute for good quality code.
If the law said you should help to gas the Jews, I'm sure you would work hard to get it changed. But would you obey it while waiting for that to happen?
OK, that's an extreme example. But once you've said "no" to that, you've accepted the principle that you should break some laws because you don't like them. So the only remaining questions is: where do you draw the line?
And if the blank media tax compensates the copyright owners for downloading, then it must also be compensating them for uploading, because you can't have one without the other. So if a country has such a tax, it should make uploading legal too.
But they also state elsewhere in their documentation, that operating systems must be ported to run on Xen. Obviously this would be impossible to achieve with Windows, as the source code is not available.
If I understand it correctly, the big problem is that the X86 architecture was designed without this sort of thing in mind, so it is difficult to get it to work well without making changes to the operating system. The new 64-bit architecture addresses this limitation.
In English, you can find examples of good literature that do all sorts of weird things. The "rules" are often just arbitrary, and are "enforced" by anal retentives who want to post to Slashdot, but have got nothing interesting to say on the topic under discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I stayed the night at a friend's house once, and noticed that the kitchen light was on all night. When I pointed this out, he said "we can't turn it off". He demonstrated that he could take the fluorescent tube out of its fitting, and it was still glowing.
I never found out where the radiation was coming from, but I never wanted to stay in his house again.
If my ISP subscribes to a blacklist, then every so often it will deliberately destroy email communications that were addressed to me. I don't even get to know that this has happened, so I don't get any say in the matter.
If the regular (snail-mail) postal service took to burning all letters posted in (say) Wisconsin, instead of delivering them, just because some people in Wisconsin were known to be sending out unsolicited leaflets, there would be an outcry. Yet when an ISP does what is effectively the same thing, everyone on Slashdot thinks it is a great idea.
If a person to whom I sent some mail chooses to ignore it, that's fine by me. If he chooses to set up an automated system for ignoring my mail, that's fine too. But if a third party entrusted with delivering my mail chooses to block it, that's a very different matter.
In other words, the other explanation is "Microsoft are yet again using undocumented features of their own software to give themselves an advantage over their competitors"
Since what you pay in tax isn't voluntary, you don't get a vote.
I've been watching the BBC here in the UK for many years now, and I'm sure the quality is dropping.
At the same time, the BBC is spending more and more money supporting digital channels that nobody watches.
Could there be any connection here? From what I've seen of US TV, the more "choice" you have, the fewer things there are that you might actually want to choose.
None of this will be mentioned when the change is imposed on the rest of the country: the line will simply be "95% of people voted for it".
1. A car hit you - you didn't do anything wrong, but the police wanted your ID. Why?
The last time we had ID cards here, a woman found some item in the street and tried to hand in in to the police as lost property. They demanded her ID. She had forgotten to carry it, so was arrested. This caused such a scandal that it led to the abolition of ID cards.
Criminals don't leave their ID number at the scene of the crime, so issuing ID cards will not help solve crimes. But it will create a useful new power that the police can use to harass any group they take a dislike to: the power to stop them and ask for their identity card.
2. The bank wants to see your ID. Why?
I've got a card from my bank too. When I want to take money out, it proves that I am the same person who put the money in. That's all they need to know. They don't need to know my nationality, or medical history, or police record. So I don't want a single ID that will link all that data together.
OK, I'm British too, so I don't understand this either. Can anyone please answer this: is there any way that the people asking you for your SSN can validate the answer you give?
If so, what's the point in trying to keep your SSN secret, if anyone can find our what it is?
If not, why not just think up some other random number with the same number of digits, and give out that when anyone asks you for your SSN?
It looks to me like what has gone wrong with "EH1" is that the multimap version is a genuine map (it looks to me like a regular Ordnance Survey map) whereas the google version is just an air photograph coloured in: it looks wrong because it is wrong, because it's been taken from an angle. I suppose they couldn't afford to pay for proper map data, so they just paid some people in India to trace over the roads on some photos they took from a plane or satellite.
It's because having to reboot your Windows box every day means that it never gets the chance to use more than 640K of the installed memory.
Your "fact" doesn't disprove your "fallacy". Since when did the people who know anything about computers get to make the purchasing decisions? That's the job of the ignorant managers!
Because in any normal market, retailers sell goods from a variety of manufacturers: that way they reach as many customers as possible. If you see a retailer only selling one brand, you have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes to influence that decision: maybe the manufacturer is distorting the market, to the detriment of the customers, by threatening the retailer.
Well, the "open" one is left over from 2002, and all the subsequent ones have been fixed. Looks to me like they never went back to check whether the old bug was fixed or not.
Until laptop Linux becomes more popular, the manufacturers will continue to save money by only supplying drivers for Windows.
And until the manufacturers start making the investment in Linux driver development, the Linux market will remain small.
Mind you, piracy in the UK had the death penalty as recently as 1998, although it was abolished for murder in 1969. See History of Capital Punishment
So your idea for security is that everyone in the world should strictly follow this rule all the time, with no exceptions, and should never forget it? That isn't going to happen.
What could happen is that the phone manufacturers could make the effort to install a secure operating system. Then I could accept files from other users all the time, without worrying about how much I trusted them to follow such rules. You know, just like I do with my email.
No. It means that the software company doesn't have to put so much effort into security, because they can go back and fix problems afterwards with an update. .. patch .. new virus .. new patch ... and many people have viruses all the time. Look at Windows for an example of this.
So they get into a cycle of virus
Of course you need an update system, because you can't guarantee to find every possible security hole before you issue your code, but it's no substitute for good quality code.
If the law said you should help to gas the Jews, I'm sure you would work hard to get it changed. But would you obey it while waiting for that to happen?
OK, that's an extreme example. But once you've said "no" to that, you've accepted the principle that you should break some laws because you don't like them. So the only remaining questions is: where do you draw the line?
And if the blank media tax compensates the copyright owners for downloading, then it must also be compensating them for uploading, because you can't have one without the other. So if a country has such a tax, it should make uploading legal too.
If I understand it correctly, the big problem is that the X86 architecture was designed without this sort of thing in mind, so it is difficult to get it to work well without making changes to the operating system. The new 64-bit architecture addresses this limitation.
I think he means "hanging" mode.
In English, you can find examples of good literature that do all sorts of weird things. The "rules" are often just arbitrary, and are "enforced" by anal retentives who want to post to Slashdot, but have got nothing interesting to say on the topic under discussion.