Benefits website
-
That's only the first book in trilogy. Commonwealth saga and Void trilogy are recommended reading, too.
It's been a while since I did heavy reading.
-
If you're looking for new stuff, the rest of the Discworld series would be a good start.
-
Peter F. Hamilton!
The Reality Dysfunction
I prefer the series starting with Pandora's Star, as he manages the endings better there.
-
It's been a while since I did heavy reading.
Hamilton isn't heavy reading usually; he moves along at a pace that makes it easy to read lots in one sitting. A couple of his books start slow, but they're just setting up for fun later.
Of course, if you want something a bit trickier but much better, get yourself something by Iain M Banks. His works are proof that good SF can be true literature too.
-
No mention of Phillip K. Dick yet? Really?
Huge fan. Pissed at Hollywood screwing up his stories all the time.
Filed under: SPIIIIEEEELBEEEERG!
-
This is why I prefer first.last@companyname.com over flast@companyname.com >.>
We still use flast@companyname.com. We're small enough that it's worked with no issues - until about 3 months ago, when two new hires created two separate conflicts with existing staff in the same week. -_-
So the newbies get their middle initial added to the mix. What, no middle name? That's ok, You get X.
Note: in one case the first names were off by only 3 letters. Still waiting on that ultimate duplication: "Welcome aboard Ben Smith! BTW, did you know we have a Ben Smith over in Accounting?" Then no matter what you do, it's a WTF waiting to happen.
-
This is why I prefer first.last@companyname.com over flast@companyname.com >.>
Now I see this again, all I can think is "Man, that Brenda Utthead is such a whiner."
-
-
Someone needs to read Neuromancer.
-
ahh, I see now.
-
Welcome aboard Ben Smith! BTW, did you know we have a Ben Smith over in Accounting?
Where I work I'm MAAdams, and we have a MAAnderson. We're calling ourselves the Evil Email Twins. Outlook seems to be psychic enough to autocomplete my address when someone wants to email Mr. Anderson, and autocomplete his address when needing to email me. We each get about half of our emails actually belonging to the other person.
-
I'm sure there's an Agent Smith quote that would be appropriate here.
-
Everyone is wondering why Frank Uckwit hasn't been fired yet
-
Still waiting on that ultimate duplication: "Welcome aboard Ben Smith! BTW, did you know we have a Ben Smith over in Accounting?" Then no matter what you do, it's a WTF waiting to happen.
Back when a friend of mine and I were at IBM, he found that there was someone else with the exact same name (in the UK IIRC, which is a bit funnier because my friend had just moved to Australia from there), and would of course be accidentally sent quite a few of his emails (yes, in Lotus Notes shudder)
-
Everyone is wondering why Frank Uckwit hasn't been fired yet
That's original humour, mine was recycled Dilbert. Have a
-
-
That's my browser.
-
-
They have my deepest sympathies.
-
They have my deepest sympathies.
Hmm I am however tempted to mail these just to see if they are real.
-
Do let us know.
-
Yeah, we have a company with nearly 1000 employees, and still use flast. So if we hire another bsmith, they become besmith.
-
Hmm I am however tempted to mail these just to see if they are real.
http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/z0t3x/unfortunate_email_address/
-
Hmm I am however tempted to mail these just to see if they are real.
Is there no email-ping or some such kind of sort of equivalent?
-
Nope, and if there was, any sane provider would turn it off anyway.
If you can validate what email addresses exist cheaper than emailing them, you can much more quickly identify legitimate spam targets.
-
tru dat
-
tru dat
You'd be surprised how useful thinking 'well, how can I abuse this' actually is. Write everything as if you're trying to break it yourself.
-
Technically you can tell the server "I want to email so-and-so" and if the address doesn't exist the server will tell you that before you start sending the message in some cases.
-
And that can't be abused in any way or anything
-
But you can check for some simple things, like the host part existing (that's a local syntactic check), the host resolving (either to an IP address or an MX record), and the mailbox part existing (local syntax check again). You still won't know whether the mail message is deliverable — it's not a substitute for sending a message — but you'll deal cheaply with lots of dumb failures from non-malicious users.
-
thinking 'well, how can I abuse this'
Ya! Didn't we just spend about a month proving this here? Mwwwahahahaha...
-
Ya! Didn't we just spend about a month proving this here? Mwwwahahahaha...
Exactly. Spending time trying to abuse things is the fundamental concept of testing, isn't it? Or am I TRWTF for buttuming that testing is purely for cases where users are doing what they're supposed to be doing?