If you're like many, and haven't enabled
pop3 access until now, you are probably discovering that they aren't
making it obvious how to enable pop3 forwarding for you. Makes it kind
of hard to get your email off their system before it becomes fee based,
doesn't it?
What they aren't telling you is that until April 24th, the flag they
are using to control whether you have pop3 access is still changable by you!
Here's what you do:
Log into your Yahoo! account and go here. This should be the Marketing Preferences page.
Enable the last option ONLY, the one that says "Special offers from selected Yahoo! partners brought to you by Yahoo! Delivers."
Optionally, instead of items 1 and 2, you can just click this link.
Now, you can log into the pop server pop.mail.yahoo.com with your yahoo ID and password and get all your mail off!
The only problem is that every one of their players is sold out.
They sell them via a Yahoo storefront, and if you click on any of the players you'll see the following text:
All sold Out. Orders received before 7 Jan will be shipped on 9 Jan . All orders will be back-ordered and will only be processed at the date of shipment. Expected delivery date is March 1, 2002
Darn. And that $109 one with no memory looked like a deal!
Oh, and don't forget, you've attached that information to the outside of your luggage, so that any disgruntled baggage handler with a score to settle because he dropped your 80 pound suitcase on his toe can come find you and settle the score.
Face it, your name, address, and phone number are in the public domain now. Nothing you can do will stop it.
That article, however, was three years old, and I have to wonder if that statistic has changed with the proliferation of script kiddies and root kits. Perhaps "successful attacks" are that high, but in our company, we see attacks almost constantly from the outside, generally automated I grant you, but they are still attacks, whereas I doubt there have been very many inside attacks in our company of 6 people, two of whom are accountants.
It gets all the parts of the install ISO cd image, from disparate sources, stitches them together, and then uses rsync to patch it to exactly make a duplicate of the original install image.
i never liked the big bang theory. it stinks of creationism.... i'm no cosmologist. but the big bang stinks of creationism to me...
So, let me get this straight. You are rejecting a reasonable theory which fits the observed behaviours simply because it conflicts with your religious (or anti-religious) beliefs?
Isn't that what people accuse religious folks of daily?
You aren't being logically consistant. You rail against anything with any hint of taint from our human experience, but at the same moment your rejection is based in how you feel about the existing theories. Stinks of creationism is a very visceral reaction to what you insist should be a completely rational debate.
Face it. You have a philosophy guiding your argument as well. That philosophy is Nihilism
and your post stinks of it.
No, actually, unlike Winzip, which only nags you each time you start the program, CrossOver nags you about every 15 seconds, and places the nag right over the top of what you are watching. So, there is an incentive to pay for the thing.
Personally, I applaud the creators. While the nag is annoying, I'm rooting hard for anyone who can release good, useful, commercial software for Linux and make a buck or two off it.
What people won't pay for are the trivial little programs you see announced on freshmeat.net hundreds of times a day.
This is already a fairly common practice, known as "war driving".
Marius Milner has written an incredible tool for Windows very similar to this called "Network Stumbler" which will scan for 802.11 networks, log them, and log the access point lattitude and longitude to disc for you.
I had my doubts about driving around being able to pick up anything without an external antenna, but here in little podunk Valdosta, GA, I managed to pick up the local university dorm network with ease.
It is a nice overview of the technologies, and gives you a good sense of how things fit together, but I really recommend getting the two O'Reilly books Java Servlet Programming and JavaServer Pages if you need a more in-depth coverage.
Be warned, though, the Servlet book talks some about specific versions of the various servlet engines, and so it is getting a little long in the tooth in those sections.
There are over 3,000,000 businesses in the USA which are members of the United States Chamber of Commerce (a href=http://www.uschamber.com/_About+Us/Who+We+Are /default.htm>source). Now, assume that spam becomes an accepted business practice, and 10% of these small businesses decide to send out 1 spam a month. Assume you are only on 10% of these companies spam lists (a generous estimate, since once you get on one, you tend to get on them all).
3,000,000 small businesses
* 10% spammers
---------
300,000 spamming small businesses
* 10% of lists you are on
---------
30,000 spams you get a month
30 days per month (avg)
---------
1,000 spams per day.
Now, if you received 1,000 spams per day because spam was legitimized, just how useful is email to you anymore? I'd say not very.
Lets hear your solution to that without taxes or other penalties for the people destroying the commons.
Liberty comes with a cost: responsibility. If a behaviour has a detrious effect on the commons, then that behaviour should be criminalized. The issue of drunken driving has come up as a reason to tax alcohol. But, drunk driving is already a crime, with fairly stiff penalties for violators as well as restitution provisions. Those who chose to violate that law should bear the full weight and responsibility of their actions, and not have their recklessness subsidised by those who chose to consume alcohol within the law.
The notion of spreading the responsibility for the criminal behaviour of some to those guiltless of crimes against the rights of others is an attempt to avoid direct consequences, and dilute accountability, of an individual act among everyone else.
When I destroy private or common property, I am violating the rights of others and that should be criminal. When I make a personal choice which doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, that should be a private decision not regulated or influenced by social engineers. But until I cross that line, I should be free to chose my own path, and responsible for my own missteps along the way.
Of course it's been going on for years. That doesn't make it right.
You mentioned porn being an unethical/unpleasent activity. What happens when someone desides that Philip Greenspun is a pornographer because of these photos (which I definately consider art) in the photo.net gallery? Don't give me the line that nobody would consider those porn. I know people who would be livid at them.
This isn't about vice. It isn't about taxation. It isn't even about the redistribution of wealth. It's about personal liberty... the freedom to be soverign of myself. The right to make decisions, and yes, even mistakes without coersion from the majority.
Thank you for your reasoned response, free of ad hominem attacks. It's a gift that you have, really.
</sarcasm>
At one point, the majority in this country thought it right to enslave another race. At one point, a majority in this country thought women shouldn't vote. At one point, a majority thought seperate but equal really was...
I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
First, the tax system was not intended as a carrot and stick system to punish behaviour the government doesn't like, and reward behavious it does. It's purpose was, and should be, revenue generation. If a behaviour is so bad that you want to stop it, criminalize it. But, that won't work, because outright criminalization of certain activities, like tobacco use or alcohol consumption would cause an uproar in the populous, not to mention raise serious constitutional challanges. So, they instead play games with the "cost" of these activities. It's a way of controlling your behaviour without getting you all hot and bothered about it.
Secondly, it is all to easy for the "we" to start to include only those who think like we do. We are a society which was built by those who feared tyrany, be it tyrany of a king, or tyrany of the majority.
It's a slippery slope, deciding which behaviours "we" approve of, and which we don't. Govenrment should be kept out of my daily life as much as possible. Let me make decisions for myself, as long as I'm not depriving anyone else of their rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just because you don't like my choices doesn't mean you have to take them away from me. You don't always know what is best for me!
"I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage
you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And,
second, we should tax things we don't like.
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
Just another quest for power. Who is he to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't like?
So the different pieces of the government are constantly battling each other over power, which leaves them to little time to actually do something useful.
"That government is best which governs least."
Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
Personally, I want it harder for government to affect my daily life.
There are many ways to reinvent the system. One of the more interesting which receives very little attention is the Madisonian model of government. In it power is more closely held by the people, and each higher level of government is diminished in importance.
Under the Madisonian model, it is difficult for special interests and political parties to gain control the apparatus of government, which is exactly the problem we are facing today. The special interests with undue influence are the corporations wishing to trample on the rights of consumers. See the DMCA and the UCITA for perfect examples of how the centralization of power and the propogation of that power upwards in the political strata have corrupted a system once based on protecting the rights of the individual.
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man. Faith in that very corruptability is what has made our free market economy a success, and the Madisonian model exploits that same weakness. It gives the lower rungs of government a built in incentive to want to hold on to as much power as they can, and not allow the centralized leaders to take over too much of it. So, power is decentralized and diffused so that the energy and resources needed to exert undue influence on the system becomes unreasonably large.
Slashdot Mirror
It exists as an Xscreensaver module called xsublim.
man 1 xsublim
We used it to program a friend to randomly lick their keyboard.
This is a real program, written by Greg Knauss, of Suck.com fame.
If you're like many, and haven't enabled pop3 access until now, you are probably discovering that they aren't making it obvious how to enable pop3 forwarding for you. Makes it kind of hard to get your email off their system before it becomes fee based, doesn't it?
What they aren't telling you is that until April 24th, the flag they are using to control whether you have pop3 access is still changable by you!
Here's what you do:
Hope that helps some of you.
Now that's just cynical!
Besides, I checked already...
Nice review, Chris.
The only problem is that every one of their players is sold out.
They sell them via a Yahoo storefront, and if you click on any of the players you'll see the following text:
Darn. And that $109 one with no memory looked like a deal!
my name address and phone number are flying through the air for anyone to pluck out
You mean like this ?
Oh, and don't forget, you've attached that information to the outside of your luggage, so that any disgruntled baggage handler with a score to settle because he dropped your 80 pound suitcase on his toe can come find you and settle the score.
Face it, your name, address, and phone number are in the public domain now. Nothing you can do will stop it.
At least try to confirm them. :P
A Google search returns this article first that claims 70%, and carried some credibility.
That article, however, was three years old, and I have to wonder if that statistic has changed with the proliferation of script kiddies and root kits. Perhaps "successful attacks" are that high, but in our company, we see attacks almost constantly from the outside, generally automated I grant you, but they are still attacks, whereas I doubt there have been very many inside attacks in our company of 6 people, two of whom are accountants.
Debian does something similar with the Pseudo Image Kit.
It gets all the parts of the install ISO cd image, from disparate sources, stitches them together, and then uses rsync to patch it to exactly make a duplicate of the original install image.
Very nifty.
i never liked the big bang theory. it stinks of creationism. ... i'm no cosmologist. but the big bang stinks of creationism to me ...
So, let me get this straight. You are rejecting a reasonable theory which fits the observed behaviours simply because it conflicts with your religious (or anti-religious) beliefs?
Isn't that what people accuse religious folks of daily?
You aren't being logically consistant. You rail against anything with any hint of taint from our human experience, but at the same moment your rejection is based in how you feel about the existing theories. Stinks of creationism is a very visceral reaction to what you insist should be a completely rational debate.
Face it. You have a philosophy guiding your argument as well. That philosophy is Nihilism and your post stinks of it.
No, actually, unlike Winzip, which only nags you each time you start the program, CrossOver nags you about every 15 seconds, and places the nag right over the top of what you are watching. So, there is an incentive to pay for the thing.
Personally, I applaud the creators. While the nag is annoying, I'm rooting hard for anyone who can release good, useful, commercial software for Linux and make a buck or two off it.
What people won't pay for are the trivial little programs you see announced on freshmeat.net hundreds of times a day.
This is already a fairly common practice, known as "war driving".
Marius Milner has written an incredible tool for Windows very similar to this called "Network Stumbler" which will scan for 802.11 networks, log them, and log the access point lattitude and longitude to disc for you.
I had my doubts about driving around being able to pick up anything without an external antenna, but here in little podunk Valdosta, GA, I managed to pick up the local university dorm network with ease.
It's groovy.
but I wish they would use slug throwers
Lets see, bullets flying in a pressurized tin can, completely surrounded by a vacuum.
It would certainly make for the shortest lived Star Trak series....
;)
Actually, the greatest dangers, in order of dangerosity are:
It is a nice overview of the technologies, and gives you a good sense of how things fit together, but I really recommend getting the two O'Reilly books Java Servlet Programming and JavaServer Pages if you need a more in-depth coverage.
Be warned, though, the Servlet book talks some about specific versions of the various servlet engines, and so it is getting a little long in the tooth in those sections.
There are over 3,000,000 businesses in the USA which are members of the United States Chamber of Commerce (a href=http://www.uschamber.com/_About+Us/Who+We+Are /default.htm>source). Now, assume that spam becomes an accepted business practice, and 10% of these small businesses decide to send out 1 spam a month. Assume you are only on 10% of these companies spam lists (a generous estimate, since once you get on one, you tend to get on them all).
Now, if you received 1,000 spams per day because spam was legitimized, just how useful is email to you anymore? I'd say not very.
Liberty comes with a cost: responsibility. If a behaviour has a detrious effect on the commons, then that behaviour should be criminalized. The issue of drunken driving has come up as a reason to tax alcohol. But, drunk driving is already a crime, with fairly stiff penalties for violators as well as restitution provisions. Those who chose to violate that law should bear the full weight and responsibility of their actions, and not have their recklessness subsidised by those who chose to consume alcohol within the law.
The notion of spreading the responsibility for the criminal behaviour of some to those guiltless of crimes against the rights of others is an attempt to avoid direct consequences, and dilute accountability, of an individual act among everyone else.
When I destroy private or common property, I am violating the rights of others and that should be criminal. When I make a personal choice which doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, that should be a private decision not regulated or influenced by social engineers. But until I cross that line, I should be free to chose my own path, and responsible for my own missteps along the way.
Of course it's been going on for years. That doesn't make it right.
You mentioned porn being an unethical/unpleasent activity. What happens when someone desides that Philip Greenspun is a pornographer because of these photos (which I definately consider art) in the photo.net gallery? Don't give me the line that nobody would consider those porn. I know people who would be livid at them.
This isn't about vice. It isn't about taxation. It isn't even about the redistribution of wealth. It's about personal liberty... the freedom to be soverign of myself. The right to make decisions, and yes, even mistakes without coersion from the majority.
"Last Day of Exclusively Terrestrial Humans"?
Or is there a big asteroid I just don't know about?
Fine. Pollution is a problem. Criminalize it. Impose huge financial penalties to those who violate the law. Use that for cleanup.
But don't use the tax code to make me be a good little boy. I'm not a child.
<sarcasm>
Thank you for your reasoned response, free of ad hominem attacks. It's a gift that you have, really.
</sarcasm>
At one point, the majority in this country thought it right to enslave another race. At one point, a majority in this country thought women shouldn't vote. At one point, a majority thought seperate but equal really was...
I agree... I quoted it from the article.
I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
First, the tax system was not intended as a carrot and stick system to punish behaviour the government doesn't like, and reward behavious it does. It's purpose was, and should be, revenue generation. If a behaviour is so bad that you want to stop it, criminalize it. But, that won't work, because outright criminalization of certain activities, like tobacco use or alcohol consumption would cause an uproar in the populous, not to mention raise serious constitutional challanges. So, they instead play games with the "cost" of these activities. It's a way of controlling your behaviour without getting you all hot and bothered about it.
Secondly, it is all to easy for the "we" to start to include only those who think like we do. We are a society which was built by those who feared tyrany, be it tyrany of a king, or tyrany of the majority.
It's a slippery slope, deciding which behaviours "we" approve of, and which we don't. Govenrment should be kept out of my daily life as much as possible. Let me make decisions for myself, as long as I'm not depriving anyone else of their rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just because you don't like my choices doesn't mean you have to take them away from me. You don't always know what is best for me!
</rant>
"I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And, second, we should tax things we don't like.
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
Just another quest for power. Who is he to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't like?
"That government is best which governs least."
Personally, I want it harder for government to affect my daily life.
There are many ways to reinvent the system. One of the more interesting which receives very little attention is the Madisonian model of government. In it power is more closely held by the people, and each higher level of government is diminished in importance.
Under the Madisonian model, it is difficult for special interests and political parties to gain control the apparatus of government, which is exactly the problem we are facing today. The special interests with undue influence are the corporations wishing to trample on the rights of consumers. See the DMCA and the UCITA for perfect examples of how the centralization of power and the propogation of that power upwards in the political strata have corrupted a system once based on protecting the rights of the individual.
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man. Faith in that very corruptability is what has made our free market economy a success, and the Madisonian model exploits that same weakness. It gives the lower rungs of government a built in incentive to want to hold on to as much power as they can, and not allow the centralized leaders to take over too much of it. So, power is decentralized and diffused so that the energy and resources needed to exert undue influence on the system becomes unreasonably large.
Read up on it. It's good.
I was looking forward to a "Mario vs. Sonic" game so I could watch Mario get his wimpy little red butt kicked.