No, the solution is to only check SPF and DKIM at your external borders (ie incoming mail on servers listed in your MX records). Internal servers should not be checking SPF or DKIM,
By the time DST starts, it is already light past the time for getting home for work, and when DST ends it is starting to get dark at go-home time. During the summer it would be light during both morning and evening commute, and in winter it would be dark irrespective of DST. It is only during the few weeks around the clock changes that it affects whether the commutes are in daylight or darkness. Also as others have pointed out, the clock changes are at the time of year when it is getting light/dark during the morning/evening commute which leads to having to two periods each years of suffering the sun just over the horizon during each commute.
No. Most of (Western) Europe should be on GMT/UTC. The timezone system is based on the sun being at its highest point within 30 minutes of noon local time, with it being at exactly noon at the 15N degree longitude lines. So it is continental Europe that should change to the 'natural' timezone rather than the UK changing to CET.
So just have 2 sets of doors and arrange so that they cannot both be open simultaneously - ie an airlock type system. The first set of doors is open and the second closed. People pass through the 1st door, the door closes and the 2nd door opens to allow the people to exit. The second door will not close (and the first remains closed) while there is anyone in the area between the doors. This means that if someone does try to go the wrong way, they will have to turn back and exit through the door they entered by.
If VPN use impedes the enforcement of geo-blocking then the answer is very simple - do not try and use geo-blocking. Restricting where content may be viewed is a concept which should have passed its 'sell by date'.
Once Office is gone, Linux on the desktop is in. Office is the reason why businesses need windows on client, and exchange servers on the back end. Game over man, game over.
Why do you need Exchange Server on the back end to handle office? Office works fine on a standalone PC, SOHO users just have it running on a single PC or use windows shares (without a domain controller) to share documents. Office documents can be stored on any shared file system and sent/received by any email system. So exchange server is not needed to support office.
If BBC iPlayer were to have the old episodes available, rather than its usual habit of removing programmes N days after broadcast, then there would be no incentive for fan and torrent sites to 'pirate' them.
True,. If you distribute a Linux binary then as long as the user is running the same library.so versions as it was linked with, chances are that it will run with no problems irrespective of the distribution.
Where there are allocated seats (which is not the case in this story), why would anyone want to pay extra to board first? In many other situations, the more important, or higher ranked, the person the later they have take their seat. For example in the Navy, the most senior officer is the last to board a transport and the first to disembark. When there are state occasions (such as a Royal marriage), the "ordinary" people have to arrive first and sometimes be in their seats hours in advance, whereas the VIPs arrive at the last moment.
As a business, or first class, traveller, which would you prefer - staying longer in the first/business class lounge and boarding last or boarding first and having to sit on the plane for longer before it departs?
I get the impression that you have about equal chances of getting a rude gate agent no matter what airlines you fly with.
Probably because the gate agents are not employed by the airline but by a third party contractor who provides the agents for all gates irrespective of the airline.
And those doing so should be also charged with perjury, as allowed for by DMCA. Claiming to own the rights to something to which you do not own the rights should be treated as being far more serious that copying (or distributing) something without permission (so called 'piracy').
Why not? Here the OTA terrestrial TV is a mixture of 'free to view' and encrypted 'subscription or pay-per-view' channels all using the same spectrum. The encrypted and unencrypted channels not only use the same spectrum but also share the same MUX..
Yes, you turn over they keys to the safe and inside they find sheets of paper with what appears to be random letters and numbers written on them. Can the court compel you to disclose the "meaning" of what is written on those documents?
As do territorial rights/restrictions - you cannot access this information because of where you are (or where geolocation of your IP address thinks you are). Or "we do not support the browser/OS you are using.
Why should ISPs not be regulated the same as phones? They both do basically the same thing - provide the infrastructure for party A to connect to party B and exchange information. The only real difference is that a phone line only (normally) allows communication with a single peer at one time but communication to multiple peers can be multiplexed over the connection to an ISP.
The agreement protects google against legal action arising from hosting copywriter content.
Do not forget that someone owns the copyright on every video posted on YouTube, whether it is a private individual posting a video of their cat playing with a ball of string or a TV company posting a complete TV show.
Yes, but we can do that without restricting them from providing other services.
Why not? It seems to work for the landline and mobile telecom companies. Basically you can dial any number from any phone, including one which connects to a competitors service. The way they handle it is in the charging structure. If they provide service X then access to this is included in the basic charge. If you want to connect to service X provided by a competitor then you will have to pay the call charges. Translating this to ISPs would mean that access to the service provided by the ISP would either not be metered or would not count towards any data caps or allowances.
So maybe there needs to be legislation which requires these ISPs to operate a "Chinese Wall" between their content provider and customer connectivity operations.
What is the purpose of restricting it to US only? Do they think that people outside the US would not be interested in seeing what could be mined about them from Facebook?
So they would ban the use of Perfect Forward Secrecy. Using PFS it is impossible to decrypt the intercepted content even with the Certificate's private key.
Chrome 33 was in Beta for a while before being released as stable. So these issues should have been picked up/highlighted then. How much negative feedback on the new 'new tab' page was there during the beta cycle? I am using Chromium beta cycle and soon got used to the new 'new tags' page.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the solution is to only check SPF and DKIM at your external borders (ie incoming mail on servers listed in your MX records). Internal servers should not be checking SPF or DKIM,
By the time DST starts, it is already light past the time for getting home for work, and when DST ends it is starting to get dark at go-home time. During the summer it would be light during both morning and evening commute, and in winter it would be dark irrespective of DST. It is only during the few weeks around the clock changes that it affects whether the commutes are in daylight or darkness. Also as others have pointed out, the clock changes are at the time of year when it is getting light/dark during the morning/evening commute which leads to having to two periods each years of suffering the sun just over the horizon during each commute.
No. Most of (Western) Europe should be on GMT/UTC. The timezone system is based on the sun being at its highest point within 30 minutes of noon local time, with it being at exactly noon at the 15N degree longitude lines. So it is continental Europe that should change to the 'natural' timezone rather than the UK changing to CET.
So just have 2 sets of doors and arrange so that they cannot both be open simultaneously - ie an airlock type system. The first set of doors is open and the second closed. People pass through the 1st door, the door closes and the 2nd door opens to allow the people to exit. The second door will not close (and the first remains closed) while there is anyone in the area between the doors. This means that if someone does try to go the wrong way, they will have to turn back and exit through the door they entered by.
If VPN use impedes the enforcement of geo-blocking then the answer is very simple - do not try and use geo-blocking. Restricting where content may be viewed is a concept which should have passed its 'sell by date'.
Once Office is gone, Linux on the desktop is in. Office is the reason why businesses need windows on client, and exchange servers on the back end. Game over man, game over.
Why do you need Exchange Server on the back end to handle office? Office works fine on a standalone PC, SOHO users just have it running on a single PC or use windows shares (without a domain controller) to share documents. Office documents can be stored on any shared file system and sent/received by any email system. So exchange server is not needed to support office.
But could they order that the unopened box be shipped to the USA, where it will be forced open by US law enforcement and the contents examined?
If BBC iPlayer were to have the old episodes available, rather than its usual habit of removing programmes N days after broadcast, then there would be no incentive for fan and torrent sites to 'pirate' them.
True,. If you distribute a Linux binary then as long as the user is running the same library .so versions as it was linked with, chances are that it will run with no problems irrespective of the distribution.
The article suggests that Arch will be the first distribution to have 3.16, but Gentoo got there before it,
Where there are allocated seats (which is not the case in this story), why would anyone want to pay extra to board first? In many other situations, the more important, or higher ranked, the person the later they have take their seat. For example in the Navy, the most senior officer is the last to board a transport and the first to disembark. When there are state occasions (such as a Royal marriage), the "ordinary" people have to arrive first and sometimes be in their seats hours in advance, whereas the VIPs arrive at the last moment.
As a business, or first class, traveller, which would you prefer - staying longer in the first/business class lounge and boarding last or boarding first and having to sit on the plane for longer before it departs?
I get the impression that you have about equal chances of getting a rude gate agent no matter what airlines you fly with.
Probably because the gate agents are not employed by the airline but by a third party contractor who provides the agents for all gates irrespective of the airline.
Maybe apply the 'three strikes' doctrine and make it that after N false take-downs all of the copyrights they do own revert to the public domain.
And those doing so should be also charged with perjury, as allowed for by DMCA. Claiming to own the rights to something to which you do not own the rights should be treated as being far more serious that copying (or distributing) something without permission (so called 'piracy').
Why not? Here the OTA terrestrial TV is a mixture of 'free to view' and encrypted 'subscription or pay-per-view' channels all using the same spectrum. The encrypted and unencrypted channels not only use the same spectrum but also share the same MUX..
Or they could encrypt the OTA transmissions and require viewers to use a CAM to decode them.
Yes, you turn over they keys to the safe and inside they find sheets of paper with what appears to be random letters and numbers written on them. Can the court compel you to disclose the "meaning" of what is written on those documents?
As do territorial rights/restrictions - you cannot access this information because of where you are (or where geolocation of your IP address thinks you are). Or "we do not support the browser/OS you are using.
Why should ISPs not be regulated the same as phones? They both do basically the same thing - provide the infrastructure for party A to connect to party B and exchange information. The only real difference is that a phone line only (normally) allows communication with a single peer at one time but communication to multiple peers can be multiplexed over the connection to an ISP.
The agreement protects google against legal action arising from hosting copywriter content.
Do not forget that someone owns the copyright on every video posted on YouTube, whether it is a private individual posting a video of their cat playing with a ball of string or a TV company posting a complete TV show.
Yes, but we can do that without restricting them from providing other services.
Why not? It seems to work for the landline and mobile telecom companies. Basically you can dial any number from any phone, including one which connects to a competitors service. The way they handle it is in the charging structure. If they provide service X then access to this is included in the basic charge. If you want to connect to service X provided by a competitor then you will have to pay the call charges. Translating this to ISPs would mean that access to the service provided by the ISP would either not be metered or would not count towards any data caps or allowances.
So maybe there needs to be legislation which requires these ISPs to operate a "Chinese Wall" between their content provider and customer connectivity operations.
What is the purpose of restricting it to US only? Do they think that people outside the US would not be interested in seeing what could be mined about them from Facebook?
So they would ban the use of Perfect Forward Secrecy. Using PFS it is impossible to decrypt the intercepted content even with the Certificate's private key.
Chrome 33 was in Beta for a while before being released as stable. So these issues should have been picked up/highlighted then. How much negative feedback on the new 'new tab' page was there during the beta cycle? I am using Chromium beta cycle and soon got used to the new 'new tags' page.