I don't request email from addresses, but from companies, mailing lists, and personal correspondents (the latter by replying to them). It shouldn't be up to me to maintain and update an "allow" list based on email addresses, so that the tiny minority of email users who do want to receive spam, can do so.
Lego is obviously good for prototyping these sorts of products, but it would be cool if there was a Lego compiler that would scan the completed model and produce parts by eliminating all but the minimum number of inter-connections required for efficient assembly, and replacing the Lego connectors with more permanent ones.
The definition of spam is unsolicited bulk email. If I didn't request it, it's spam. I don't care about verifiable senders, guaranteed content, or genuine remove methods: I JUST DON'T WANT IT AT ALL.
'"By definition a standard drm is less secure than a proprietary one," says Gregg Makuch, senior product manager for mobile product and services at Seattle-based Realnetworks.' I find this hard to accept. Certainly a standards-based drm is verifiably more secure than a proprietary one, and all too often proprietary standards rely on obscurity or a smug belief in the superiority of the technology, without it having stood up to peer review by experts (remember GSM encryption?).
It's not "if the parents don't do it, the government should", it's if the government says it will do it, the unmotivated parents will be even less motivated ("the government'll handle it, I don't need to care"). Action needs to be taken to enforce parental responsibility, not absolve its lack.
With ISPs folding left right and centre, the failure of the business is not surprising. As for the reason given, it's obviously a lot easier to blame a faceless enemy than admit that you failed. I agree that no competent ISP should be taken down by a DOS: Steve Gibson managed to survive a sustained attack, and he's just one guy!
Actually, it seems the attorneys who took out the injunction were acting without the authority of the trademark holder, who was then found to be indifferent to the issue and not interested in pursuing it. It seems to be a quirk of German law that attorneys can do this (act first and get authorisation later).
Comments like "it's already been done" remind me of the politician in the 19th century who wanted to close the patent office because "everything worthwhile has already been invented" or words to that effect. Just because *you* can't think of anything new doesn't mean there *can't be* anything new.
I had a nice Asus, can't remember the exact model number, but it was cool-looking (all white), very light, very upgradeable, ran Linux via the framebuffer driver, no problems. (Actually I didn't own it, it belonged to the firm I worked for, and I had to leave it behind when I left, but I would have bought it if I needed one).
Get a Unix shell account and ssh to it- no proof that you're writing stuff on the other computer. ('course, if they're paranoid, the ssh port through the firewall will be closed...)
Bandwidth is UNlimited on the air interface
on
Telecosm
·
· Score: 1
Forget fiber. Bandwidth on the air interface is essentially infinite, because (to take an example) if you are using CDMA, the only limit on the number of calls on one frequency is the ability of the signal processor to separate out the desired call from the noise of the undesired calls; ie it's a function of processor power, which obeys Moore's Law, which is therefore theoretically infinite, and increasing all the time. Thus bandwidth grows continuously. And that's just for technologies like CDMA which essentially filter the entire user space. Add in technologies that pinpoint particular users in the 3D space surrounding the antenna, (whose differentiating abilities are also a function of computing power) and you have bandwidth tending to infinity over time. Gilder makes a sly little dig at Negroponte, whose book "Being Digital" contained a plea to conserve wireless bandwidth by expanding fibre etc
I haven't read the book either, but I have read a number of long articles by Gilder in Forbes' ASAP tech supplement, all supposedly extracts of the book, and in those Gilder did address exactly your point. His take? Bandwidth on the air interface is essentially infinite, because (to take an example) if you are using CDMA, the only limit on the number of calls on one frequency is the ability of the signal processor to separate out the desired call from the noise of the undesired calls; ie it's a function of processor power, which obeys Moore's Law, which is therefore theoretically infinite, and increasing all the time. Thus bandwidth grows continuously. And that's just for technologies like CDMA which essentially filter the entire user space. Add in technologies that pinpoint particular users in the 3D space surrounding the antenna, (whose differentiating abilities are also a function of computing power) and you have bandwidth tending to infinity over time. Gilder makes a sly little dig at Negroponte, whose book "Being Digital" contained a plea to conserve wireless bandwidth by expanding fibre etc.
It's really worrying that schools in Western democratic societies are becoming the last haven for little demagogues and dictators who delight in wielding their power over helpless students and parents. Why are these people unaccountable to the rules of natural justice that control the behaviour of every other administrative authority? Where is the right of appeal, the requirement to hear both sides, the rule against bias?
Re:Banks is Wonderful but Awful
on
Look to Windward
·
· Score: 1
WARNING: Use Of Weapons Plot Spoiler Ahead!
Reread it carefully: you are not told who the bone fragment landed in: the only identifier is "he", ie the protagonist (since the protagonist's point of view is the one that is seemingly consistently portrayed through the flashback). Since at that stage you have been carefully led to believe that Zakalwe is the protagonist, you naturally assume that it landed in Zakalwe. If you got the opposite impression, your careless reading inadvertently spoiled the plot for you. As for the issues around character: the explicit references to Zakalwe and Elethiomel are flashbacks to when they are children; it is entirely believable that Zakalwe would have been so twisted by his hatred of Elethiomel that he would have become something like him in order to beat him.
As to how Skaffen-Amtiskaw and Sma reacted? The reaction of the drone is so obvious (vindication of his hatred) that it would have been pointless to include it. Sma's reaction was illustrated in the epilogue: the new recruit was someone who had sacrificed his own bodily integrity to save another, suggesting Sma saw the flaw of focusing on performance and ignoring character. Reactions are more powerfully illustrated by actions than by words. The basic rule of writing: show, don't tell.
Re:Banks is Wonderful but Awful
on
Look to Windward
·
· Score: 1
No question the twist was cleverly done: I went back through the book after I got over the shock and had worked out just why I was so angry with Banks, to see if he had slipped up anywhere. Although there is severe ambiguity at several points, he never actually flat out says what you think he is saying- very skilled indeed. I also felt the book a bit overrated: some sections were flimsy, almost a parody. I also enjoyed "Excession" the most- I think it's the most "geeky" book. "Feersum Endjinn" isn't bad, either (permanent, on-demand full-immersion connection to a hyper-Internet, anyone?).
Re:Banks is Wonderful but Awful
on
Look to Windward
·
· Score: 2
Banks is a stunningly talented writer, with incredible imagination and descriptive skills, but his fascination with the edges of human behaviour are nausea-inducing. Almost every book contains its equivalent of the wood-chipper scene in "Fargo"- and makes that little episode look like something from Disney. I sometimes wonder if the good stuff is worth the price he makes you pay. "Use of Weapons" was particularly bad, not only because of the sickening fate of one of the characters, but also because Banks skated so close to violating the rule against having a point-of-view character lie to the reader, as makes no difference: the reversal at the end is a cheap trick that engenders anger, not admiration.
It always amuses me to see people earnestly analysing the English translations of the Tanach. How do you know the translation is accurate? Learn Hebrew, then you can do some analysis. Also, Tehillim (Psalms) are not "hymns"! No choirs standing around in white robes in the time of David the King!
Oh, come on, what's a few hundred million dollars between friends? It's not as though Congress doesn't give NASA as much money as it asks for, and John Q Public is so happy that his tax dollars are used in space that the odd accident isn't worth worrying about. Right? Anyway, didn't Congress adopt the metric system in the nineteenth century? Just taking the Americans a little while to get it sorted out. Don't be so hard on them.
When I first read the article I, too, was hurt. But then I realised that I had a hidden assumption as I started reading: that Ken Thompson, as a father of Unix, MUST love/defend/etc Linux. But this assumption is false. What someone did twenty years ago only has bearing on today if he has consistently pursued that path all along. If Thompson were interested in developing Unix as an open-source PC operating system, he undoubtedly would have done so, and none of us would have heard of Linus. But he wasn't. He has involved himself in other things. Now we come along, with Linux central to our computing lives, ready to seize on his pearls of wisdom... Thompson probably hasn't given much thought to Linux at all. He is very unlikely to have given it a thorough stability test. He's heard of it, he's heard some comments, it's not central to his life, why should he exert himself to give an objective opinion? The only reason we attach a lot of importance to his comments is because of work he did twenty years ago. Now, if a highly experienced sysadmin, using Unix and Linux and NT on a daily basis, were to say Linux is less stable than NT, then I would worry. But, on this topic, who is Ken Thompson? Might as well ask Al Gore.
I hear ya- been a few years since I started, with no end in sight. It's a hard slog at one level, but some of the ideas are beautiful, and I find them popping into my head at odd moments. Maybe the problem is that reading it is a bit too much like studying- without an exam you know you won't finish! Maybe when I'm finished studying it will be easier to read, because I will need the challenge. Now I need to read to escape the hard stuff I'm studying. (Pratchett, anyone?)
There is a slight difference between being denied a bail hearing for a primary offence, and being denied bail when you have already skipped bail! Flight risk mostly pertains to gangsters and such who could easily skip the country even if passports were confiscated, hard to see Mitnick fitting this bill.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't request email from addresses, but from companies, mailing lists, and personal correspondents (the latter by replying to them). It shouldn't be up to me to maintain and update an "allow" list based on email addresses, so that the tiny minority of email users who do want to receive spam, can do so.
Lego is obviously good for prototyping these sorts of products, but it would be cool if there was a Lego compiler that would scan the completed model and produce parts by eliminating all but the minimum number of inter-connections required for efficient assembly, and replacing the Lego connectors with more permanent ones.
The definition of spam is unsolicited bulk email. If I didn't request it, it's spam. I don't care about verifiable senders, guaranteed content, or genuine remove methods: I JUST DON'T WANT IT AT ALL.
'"By definition a standard drm is less secure than a proprietary one," says Gregg Makuch, senior product manager for mobile product and services at Seattle-based Realnetworks.' I find this hard to accept. Certainly a standards-based drm is verifiably more secure than a proprietary one, and all too often proprietary standards rely on obscurity or a smug belief in the superiority of the technology, without it having stood up to peer review by experts (remember GSM encryption?).
It's not "if the parents don't do it, the government should", it's if the government says it will do it, the unmotivated parents will be even less motivated ("the government'll handle it, I don't need to care"). Action needs to be taken to enforce parental responsibility, not absolve its lack.
With ISPs folding left right and centre, the failure of the business is not surprising. As for the reason given, it's obviously a lot easier to blame a faceless enemy than admit that you failed. I agree that no competent ISP should be taken down by a DOS: Steve Gibson managed to survive a sustained attack, and he's just one guy!
only outlaws jfhk3.lk2;=dql1,ded@
Actually, it seems the attorneys who took out the injunction were acting without the authority of the trademark holder, who was then found to be indifferent to the issue and not interested in pursuing it. It seems to be a quirk of German law that attorneys can do this (act first and get authorisation later).
Comments like "it's already been done" remind me of the politician in the 19th century who wanted to close the patent office because "everything worthwhile has already been invented" or words to that effect. Just because *you* can't think of anything new doesn't mean there *can't be* anything new.
I had a nice Asus, can't remember the exact model number, but it was cool-looking (all white), very light, very upgradeable, ran Linux via the framebuffer driver, no problems. (Actually I didn't own it, it belonged to the firm I worked for, and I had to leave it behind when I left, but I would have bought it if I needed one).
From the story:
[H]andwriting recognition (using former newton-technology so it's a lot better than current palm os recognition)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Newton's handwriting recognition suck big time? (Even made an episode of the Simpsons, as I recall)
Get a Unix shell account and ssh to it- no proof that you're writing stuff on the other computer. ('course, if they're paranoid, the ssh port through the firewall will be closed...)
Forget fiber. Bandwidth on the air interface is essentially infinite, because (to take an example) if you are using CDMA, the only limit on the number of calls on one frequency is the ability of the signal processor to separate out the desired call from the noise of the undesired calls; ie it's a function of processor power, which obeys Moore's Law, which is therefore theoretically infinite, and increasing all the time. Thus bandwidth grows continuously. And that's just for technologies like CDMA which essentially filter the entire user space. Add in technologies that pinpoint particular users in the 3D space surrounding the antenna, (whose differentiating abilities are also a function of computing power) and you have bandwidth tending to infinity over time. Gilder makes a sly little dig at Negroponte, whose book "Being Digital" contained a plea to conserve wireless bandwidth by expanding fibre etc
I haven't read the book either, but I have read a number of long articles by Gilder in Forbes' ASAP tech supplement, all supposedly extracts of the book, and in those Gilder did address exactly your point. His take? Bandwidth on the air interface is essentially infinite, because (to take an example) if you are using CDMA, the only limit on the number of calls on one frequency is the ability of the signal processor to separate out the desired call from the noise of the undesired calls; ie it's a function of processor power, which obeys Moore's Law, which is therefore theoretically infinite, and increasing all the time. Thus bandwidth grows continuously. And that's just for technologies like CDMA which essentially filter the entire user space. Add in technologies that pinpoint particular users in the 3D space surrounding the antenna, (whose differentiating abilities are also a function of computing power) and you have bandwidth tending to infinity over time. Gilder makes a sly little dig at Negroponte, whose book "Being Digital" contained a plea to conserve wireless bandwidth by expanding fibre etc.
It's really worrying that schools in Western democratic societies are becoming the last haven for little demagogues and dictators who delight in wielding their power over helpless students and parents. Why are these people unaccountable to the rules of natural justice that control the behaviour of every other administrative authority? Where is the right of appeal, the requirement to hear both sides, the rule against bias?
Correct.
WARNING: Use Of Weapons Plot Spoiler Ahead!
Reread it carefully: you are not told who the bone fragment landed in: the only identifier is "he", ie the protagonist (since the protagonist's point of view is the one that is seemingly consistently portrayed through the flashback). Since at that stage you have been carefully led to believe that Zakalwe is the protagonist, you naturally assume that it landed in Zakalwe. If you got the opposite impression, your careless reading inadvertently spoiled the plot for you. As for the issues around character: the explicit references to Zakalwe and Elethiomel are flashbacks to when they are children; it is entirely believable that Zakalwe would have been so twisted by his hatred of Elethiomel that he would have become something like him in order to beat him.
As to how Skaffen-Amtiskaw and Sma reacted? The reaction of the drone is so obvious (vindication of his hatred) that it would have been pointless to include it. Sma's reaction was illustrated in the epilogue: the new recruit was someone who had sacrificed his own bodily integrity to save another, suggesting Sma saw the flaw of focusing on performance and ignoring character. Reactions are more powerfully illustrated by actions than by words. The basic rule of writing: show, don't tell.
No question the twist was cleverly done: I went back through the book after I got over the shock and had worked out just why I was so angry with Banks, to see if he had slipped up anywhere. Although there is severe ambiguity at several points, he never actually flat out says what you think he is saying- very skilled indeed. I also felt the book a bit overrated: some sections were flimsy, almost a parody. I also enjoyed "Excession" the most- I think it's the most "geeky" book. "Feersum Endjinn" isn't bad, either (permanent, on-demand full-immersion connection to a hyper-Internet, anyone?).
Banks is a stunningly talented writer, with incredible imagination and descriptive skills, but his fascination with the edges of human behaviour are nausea-inducing. Almost every book contains its equivalent of the wood-chipper scene in "Fargo"- and makes that little episode look like something from Disney. I sometimes wonder if the good stuff is worth the price he makes you pay. "Use of Weapons" was particularly bad, not only because of the sickening fate of one of the characters, but also because Banks skated so close to violating the rule against having a point-of-view character lie to the reader, as makes no difference: the reversal at the end is a cheap trick that engenders anger, not admiration.
Try Netscape.com:
C KAOL.ORG
NETSCAPE.COM.SHOULD.SHAKE.OFF.ITS.CHAINS.AND.FU
NETSCAPE.COM
I am adding in this extra lc text to beat the lameness filter.
It always amuses me to see people earnestly analysing the English translations of the Tanach. How do you know the translation is accurate? Learn Hebrew, then you can do some analysis. Also, Tehillim (Psalms) are not "hymns"! No choirs standing around in white robes in the time of David the King!
Oh, come on, what's a few hundred million dollars between friends? It's not as though Congress doesn't give NASA as much money as it asks for, and John Q Public is so happy that his tax dollars are used in space that the odd accident isn't worth worrying about. Right? Anyway, didn't Congress adopt the metric system in the nineteenth century? Just taking the Americans a little while to get it sorted out. Don't be so hard on them.
When I first read the article I, too, was hurt. But then I realised that I had a hidden assumption as I started reading: that Ken Thompson, as a father of Unix, MUST love/defend/etc Linux. But this assumption is false. What someone did twenty years ago only has bearing on today if he has consistently pursued that path all along. If Thompson were interested in developing Unix as an open-source PC operating system, he undoubtedly would have done so, and none of us would have heard of Linus. But he wasn't. He has involved himself in other things. Now we come along, with Linux central to our computing lives, ready to seize on his pearls of wisdom... Thompson probably hasn't given much thought to Linux at all. He is very unlikely to have given it a thorough stability test. He's heard of it, he's heard some comments, it's not central to his life, why should he exert himself to give an objective opinion? The only reason we attach a lot of importance to his comments is because of work he did twenty years ago. Now, if a highly experienced sysadmin, using Unix and Linux and NT on a daily basis, were to say Linux is less stable than NT, then I would worry. But, on this topic, who is Ken Thompson? Might as well ask Al Gore.
I hear ya- been a few years since I started, with no end in sight. It's a hard slog at one level, but some of the ideas are beautiful, and I find them popping into my head at odd moments. Maybe the problem is that reading it is a bit too much like studying- without an exam you know you won't finish! Maybe when I'm finished studying it will be easier to read, because I will need the challenge. Now I need to read to escape the hard stuff I'm studying. (Pratchett, anyone?)
There is a slight difference between being denied a bail hearing for a primary offence, and being denied bail when you have already skipped bail! Flight risk mostly pertains to gangsters and such who could easily skip the country even if passports were confiscated, hard to see Mitnick fitting this bill.