Well, of course you might think that how a team works on a project seems open like Open Source from within the company, but what counts is how things look from the outside. The point is to introduce to them that maybe collaboration could be extended outside the select group of people who are employees of Whatever Corp. Sharing of information with EVERYONE is what Open Source is about and is a critical point which you miss. You are not persuading them that they are already doing things the Open Source Way (tm) but they don't realize it, you are trying to pursuade them that the making the resources which are currently available exclusively to employees (ie, source coed) universally available will be beneficial.
Indeed. URLs are a subset of URIs. URIs = URLs + URNs. A URL is an indicator of where to find a resource while a URN is an unique name for a resource regardless of where or how many places it may be found. To add more confusion, sometimes URNs are also URLs.
Maybe, but the "law of supply and demand" isn't an absolute. We don't have a laissez-faire economic system in the US; things like minimum wage and the expectations of an educated American programmer pay-wise interfere with your theory. That is why it's cheaper to outsource. People in other countries are simply willing to accept less cash.
When are people going to realize that the email infrastructure is _not_ broken! If you get spam, then who's fault is that? If you are giving your email address out to anyone under the sun, then you should expect to recieve some mail which you do not want. Why not just get a hotmail address and use that for random websites which require for you address for no reason.
This technology doesn't give us anything we didn't already have. If you don't want email from people you don't know, use a whitelist. Or better, filter out messages that aren't digitally signed by someone trusted. Digital signatures are a much more foolproof way then this Sender-ID garbage. If you need to be able to recieve email from people you don't know, then even sender-ID will do very little to keep unwanted email out of your inbox.
People need to stop blaming spammers and start looking inward for the solution. Real effort (who does that these days) can do wonders to eliminate spam. Give your email only to those you want mail from or accept that you have no clue who is talking to you and that you have no way to guarantee that they actually have legitimate business with you. Heck, here's a thought: generate a PGP/GPG key for people to send to you and filter out mail that is not encrypted. That way, anyone under the sun can talk to you if they are willing to put forth a tad of effort, and spammers will have to harvest not only email addresses but also public keys, and will have to further reduce their output by wasting CPU time on encryption. If you have a mail client with decent integration with some assymetric encryption app, setting this up should be accomplishable and worth the effort.
Sender-ID _might_ cut down on spam. But so can and does ISPs filtering out SMTP from their customers, and this doesn't break _anything_ for anyone else. The whole sender-id thing smells pretty rotten. "Choose to use it or be filtered," says Microsoft. It is counterproductive because it breaks what is working fine and doesnt provide an ultimate solution to anything. Microsoft has no control over the world's email infrastructure, and personally I prefer things that way. Their attempt to force some half-cooked proprietary sender-identification garbage on people should be (and is, thankfully) met with resistance. People who don't care can/could have kept things as they are without things breaking, and people who did care could have dealt with it themselves rather than relying on Microsoft to spoon-feed them a (bad) solution.
Thanks for being one of the few who did not assume I was somehow trying to be inflammatory in my comment, and for not yourself propagating things by posting an inflammatory response.
I will have to make sure not to post (bad) jokes in the future, as it seems slashdot can't take them calmly.
Doesn't cut what? Your standards, which I am supposed to abide by? You are being extremely unreasonable. From my point of view, this excuse misinterpreting a small joke and blowing things way out of proportion by flaming me "doesn't cut it."
It might have not been funny, but thats no reason to flame unnecessarily.
Though Microsoft has been known to take forever for some fixes.
There was a contraversial study done on this: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversyste m/facts/analyses/vulnerable.mspx
Although Microsoft's description on their site is biased and laughably inaccurate.
MS: Relative Severity: Windows has the fewest vulnerabilities and the fewest "high severity" vulnerabilities of any platform measured.
STUDY: "ICAT Classified 67% of Microsoft's vulnerabilities as high security, placing Microsoft DEAD LAST among platform maintainers by this metric."
Some contreversy: http://www.computerworld.com/securit ytopics/securi ty/story/0,10801,92313,00.html
So, basically: Microsoft generally fixes fast, but their security still sucks because the bugs allow the system to be completely compromised. By the time the fix is mainstream, its too late.
Then what is experimental? Packages "so critical such that they might self-destruct at any-moment?"
Yet I have no serious problems. Yes, there are problems. Problems that normal users would not have a clue what to do with. But I do! And they add spice to my life!! Honest!
Although I would not choose those names, I do agree we Debian users need an ambitious leader who is daring enough to propose such small but important changes;)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, of course you might think that how a team works on a project seems open like Open Source from within the company, but what counts is how things look from the outside. The point is to introduce to them that maybe collaboration could be extended outside the select group of people who are employees of Whatever Corp. Sharing of information with EVERYONE is what Open Source is about and is a critical point which you miss. You are not persuading them that they are already doing things the Open Source Way (tm) but they don't realize it, you are trying to pursuade them that the making the resources which are currently available exclusively to employees (ie, source coed) universally available will be beneficial.
Indeed. URLs are a subset of URIs. URIs = URLs + URNs. A URL is an indicator of where to find a resource while a URN is an unique name for a resource regardless of where or how many places it may be found. To add more confusion, sometimes URNs are also URLs.
Got that?
Maybe, but the "law of supply and demand" isn't an absolute. We don't have a laissez-faire economic system in the US; things like minimum wage and the expectations of an educated American programmer pay-wise interfere with your theory. That is why it's cheaper to outsource. People in other countries are simply willing to accept less cash.
bzip2 may work even better..
O_O
stripped down!?
No, the odds are nowhere near that high.
5 meg file 128 bit hash
99.9% ?
it just doens't add up...
But yes, it is (by design) very difficult to generate a random file with a specific cryptographic hash, especially with size constraints.
So you are correct in saying that the only remotely easy way to do so is to use the original file, but your numbers are way off.
When are people going to realize that the email infrastructure is _not_ broken! If you get spam, then who's fault is that? If you are giving your email address out to anyone under the sun, then you should expect to recieve some mail which you do not want. Why not just get a hotmail address and use that for random websites which require for you address for no reason.
This technology doesn't give us anything we didn't already have. If you don't want email from people you don't know, use a whitelist. Or better, filter out messages that aren't digitally signed by someone trusted. Digital signatures are a much more foolproof way then this Sender-ID garbage. If you need to be able to recieve email from people you don't know, then even sender-ID will do very little to keep unwanted email out of your inbox.
People need to stop blaming spammers and start looking inward for the solution. Real effort (who does that these days) can do wonders to eliminate spam. Give your email only to those you want mail from or accept that you have no clue who is talking to you and that you have no way to guarantee that they actually have legitimate business with you. Heck, here's a thought: generate a PGP/GPG key for people to send to you and filter out mail that is not encrypted. That way, anyone under the sun can talk to you if they are willing to put forth a tad of effort, and spammers will have to harvest not only email addresses but also public keys, and will have to further reduce their output by wasting CPU time on encryption. If you have a mail client with decent integration with some assymetric encryption app, setting this up should be accomplishable and worth the effort.
Sender-ID _might_ cut down on spam. But so can and does ISPs filtering out SMTP from their customers, and this doesn't break _anything_ for anyone else. The whole sender-id thing smells pretty rotten. "Choose to use it or be filtered," says Microsoft. It is counterproductive because it breaks what is working fine and doesnt provide an ultimate solution to anything. Microsoft has no control over the world's email infrastructure, and personally I prefer things that way. Their attempt to force some half-cooked proprietary sender-identification garbage on people should be (and is, thankfully) met with resistance. People who don't care can/could have kept things as they are without things breaking, and people who did care could have dealt with it themselves rather than relying on Microsoft to spoon-feed them a (bad) solution.
Don't you mean quatrastrophy?
You're neglecting the fact that most people listen to this stuff for some reason. Else the shelves wouldn't be lined with the stuff.
Uh, since when can a newline preceed something on a line?
My phone number is
;)
911-5555
Hope their dialing computer catches that one
Possibly, but wont the screens fold out like paper into something reasonably-sized by then anyway?
lol?
sealab? o.O
Thanks for being one of the few who did not assume I was somehow trying to be inflammatory in my comment, and for not yourself propagating things by posting an inflammatory response.
I will have to make sure not to post (bad) jokes in the future, as it seems slashdot can't take them calmly.
Doesn't cut what? Your standards, which I am supposed to abide by? You are being extremely unreasonable. From my point of view, this excuse misinterpreting a small joke and blowing things way out of proportion by flaming me "doesn't cut it."
It might have not been funny, but thats no reason to flame unnecessarily.
Likewise.
You, who mock me for apparent lack of humor, would not consider that my post might also have been in jest?
This is the 'net, take it easy! No need to be cynical.
the uppercase letters A-Z are followed by a number of special symbols,
Indeed. If anyone is interested in why ASCII sticks a few characters in there, it's because it allows you to flip a bit to switch between cases.
interesting, so what secret regular expression construct matches what is nowhere in the original string?
It burns oxygen?
Probably a non-issue, but thought I'd throw it out there.
Ctrl-Click opens in new tab.
Isn't there a Mac equivalent of that? So you wouldn't have to mess with mouse settings.
neg, serious ("Release-critical") bugs are not allowed into stable.
I guess.
e m/facts /analyses/vulnerable.mspx
t ytopics/securi ty/story/0,10801,92313,00.html
Though Microsoft has been known to take forever for some fixes.
There was a contraversial study done on this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversyst
Although Microsoft's description on their site is biased and laughably inaccurate.
MS:
Relative Severity: Windows has the fewest vulnerabilities and the fewest "high severity" vulnerabilities of any platform measured.
STUDY:
"ICAT Classified 67% of Microsoft's vulnerabilities as high security, placing Microsoft DEAD LAST among platform maintainers by this metric."
Some contreversy:
http://www.computerworld.com/securi
So, basically:
Microsoft generally fixes fast, but their security still sucks because the bugs allow the system to be completely compromised. By the time the fix is mainstream, its too late.
Uh.. maybe there are no known security issues right now?
They're security updates; I'd imagine once theres a new version of the package on all the mirrors the fixes would disappear.
Then what is experimental?
Packages "so critical such that they might self-destruct at any-moment?"
Yet I have no serious problems. Yes, there are problems. Problems that normal users would not have a clue what to do with. But I do! And they add spice to my life!! Honest!
Stop making fun of me =/
Although I would not choose those names, I do agree we Debian users need an ambitious leader who is daring enough to propose such small but important changes ;)
Break with tradition