[NTLK] SimpleMail Error 530

Sat Apr 3 07:33:22 EDT 2010

> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:27 -0700
> From: "R A Parker" <RAParker at Newted.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] SimpleMail Error 530
> To: "NewtonTalk" <newtontalk at newtontalk.net>
> Message-ID: <226874.84881.qm at smtp101.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>
> Got it!
I switched to a Gmx account, and everything is fine now.
Thanks

>
> Have you turned off 04/01 Authentication?
>
> Just kidding...
>
> > Sending out an email returns "Unknown
> > Newton Error 530"
>
> This error number indicates an authentication error to your POP server.
>
> GMail? You can't use SSL Authentication to log on with your Newton. The
> Newton doesn't do SSL.
>
> There are ways to solve this... just not with GMail.
>
> --
> Sent using Mail V and a Wireless Newton 2100.
> --
> RAParker
>   |\/|\ @ Newted.ORG
>   |/-|/ @ Quadzilla.NET
>   |\ |  @ TahoeSunsets.COM
> --
> My name is R A Parker. I own a Newton and a Mac.
> --
>

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:55:40 -0600
> From: Grant Hutchinson <grant at splorp.com>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] Screenshot failure
> To: newtontalk at newtontalk.net
> Message-ID: <43F83410-A8EB-4F13-9C75-DF4425C458DD at splorp.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
>
> You are right. I went a bit overboard with games, and it messed up
everything...
Now me Newton feels lighter, and Screenshooter works.
Funny nothing was going my way a couple of days ago, and today it's all
fine! Is my Newton alive ? :D

Merci

>
> It could be a memory issue. Try freezing a few packages and try again.
> I've run into the same issue when trying to use ScreenShooter and
> sending images using Mail V. I had too many other packages activated
> and there apparently wasn't enough heap available for properly
> processing the screenshot.
>
> g.
>
> ......................................................................
>
>
> Grant Hutchinson
>
> Interface Considerations. Feature Deprecation. Typography. Rawk.
>
> http://splorp.com
> http://mtile.us/splorp
> http://flickr.com/splorp
> http://twitter.com/splorp
> http://delicious.com/splorp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 01:46:47 -0500
> From: Robert Zimmerman <bob_zimmerman at myrealbox.com>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] OT: A Future That is a Singularity - Evolution
> To: newtontalk at newtontalk.net
> Message-ID: <7264E6AD-AFAB-4476-99F8-68F04ADF9FDE at myrealbox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Mathematics is most certainly not a human invention.  Sure, our
> representations of mathematical concepts are invented, but the concepts
> themselves are discovered.  Arithmetic wasn't invented.  Trigonometry,
> geometry, the calculus of functions; none of them were invented, just
> described.  It's just like how the laws of physics are not invented, but are
> instead discovered and given names and approximate written form.
>
> All of this brings up another huge misconception.  People think that order
> and patterns represent complexity.  They do not, at least not in the
> scientific or mathematical sense.  In information theory (the basis of the
> scientific and mathematical use of the word "complexity"), it is determined
> by how easily information can be summarized.  Truly random information is
> the most complex information around because it cannot be summarized or
> compressed.  Intricate order such as is found in an airplane is less
> complex.  Simple order as is found in organisms and cells is even less
> complex.  The human body is vastly less complex than a 747, largely because
> it is self-organizing from a single starting cell.  The 747 takes vastly
> more manual intervention to build.  Evolution targets low complexity
> solutions, because better summarizability means less likelihood of something
> going wrong.  If something goes wrong enough, the organism is not viable and
> is not able to reproduce, thereby ending that development.
>
> When reading Ray Kurzweil's books, I always interpreted the Singularity,
> capital 'S', as the event described earlier.  The idea is that computers
> will eventually become slightly better at designing other computers than the
> humans that designed them.  When that happens, the computers will design
> better computers, which will then design better computers, and so on.  Since
> a new silicon spin doesn't take much time when you have the design, this
> could produce rapid increases in computing power.  That much is feasible and
> the logic is sound.  Whether it would produce thinking machines depends on
> how you define consciousness and is really beyond the scope of science.
>  That is religion's domain.
>
> He is working with a cryptographer's mindset, just accelerated.  This goes
> back to information theory, and specifically linear algebra and algorithmic
> complexity.  Cryptographers are the kind of people who declare an encryption
> scheme worthless if it would "only" take a billion years to crack a key
> rather than ten trillion.  We don't deal with infinities, just very,
> mind-bogglingly-large numbers.  For example, did you know that an ideal
> conventional computer would take more energy than is estimated to exist in
> the galaxy to crack a 256-bit AES key by brute force?  There are faster
> attacks, but they require massive resources to execute.
>
> There was also a concept of a singularity, lowercase 's'.  It implied a
> discovery that changes the foundations of our technology so profoundly that
> future advancement cannot possible be predicted.  An example is the
> transistor.  It was not simply a faster, smaller, more-efficient vacuum
> tube.  Instead, it was a leap onto a different path of development.  A
> machine better able to design future versions of itself than its own
> designers would be a discovery or invention of this magnitude, but there are
> others.  Some kind of compact, high-output generator or power store would be
> another.  The largest limit to our current mobile technologies is the power
> source.  With a substantially more space-efficient source of power, whole
> new possibilities would open.  There are doubtless hundreds of others that
> we would never even consider until we look back on them and ask why nobody
> ever thought of that before.
>
> --
>
>  Robert Zimmerman
>
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Jon Glass wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 29, 2010, Ryan <newtontalk at me.com> wrote:
> >> Doing some research, I came across an interesting article about a
> >> future that is a singularity through mathematical recursion.
> >
> > You know if you look down railroad track, they also look like they
> > reach a singularity. But they don't. U wouldn't put too much faith in
> > mathematics fo predicting future. Math is descriptive not
> > prescriptive. And what is possible I'm math may not be physically
> > possible. Lastly it is worth pondering that mathematics is 100% a
> > human invention. U think that sometimes it seems the perfect science
> > for that reason alone--it is solely the product of the human mind. And
> > yes I'm more the philosophical type (intuitive vs analytical) so take
> > what I say with a huge block of salt. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > -Jon Glass
> > Krakow, Poland
> > <jonglass at usa.net>
> >
> > "I don't believe in philosophies. I believe in fundamentals." --Jack
> Nicklaus
> >
> > ====================================================================
> > The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> > The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> > The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> > WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> > ====================================================================
> > ---- Content & Policy Scan by M+ Guardian ----
> > Millions of safe & clean messages delivered daily
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---AV & Spam Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM)---
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:47:42 -0400
> From: "L.W. Brown" <lwb at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] OT: A Future That is a Singularity - Evolution
> To: "newtontalk at newtontalk.net" <newtontalk at newtontalk.net>
> Message-ID: <54F2162A-DAB5-40C2-BD84-904559E58201 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Nicely summarized (no pun intended).
>
> Sent from my ?Brick...
> ;-]
>
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:46, Robert Zimmerman
> <bob_zimmerman at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> > Mathematics is most certainly not a human invention.  Sure, our
> > representations of mathematical concepts are invented, but the
> > concepts themselves are discovered.  Arithmetic wasn't invented.
> > Trigonometry, geometry, the calculus of functions; none of them were
> > invented, just described.  It's just like how the laws of physics
> > are not invented, but are instead discovered and given names and
> > approximate written form.
> >
> > All of this brings up another huge misconception.  People think that
> > order and patterns represent complexity.  They do not, at least not
> > in the scientific or mathematical sense.  In information theory (the
> > basis of the scientific and mathematical use of the word
> > "complexity"), it is determined by how easily information can be
> > summarized.  Truly random information is the most complex
> > information around because it cannot be summarized or compressed.
> > Intricate order such as is found in an airplane is less complex.
> > Simple order as is found in organisms and cells is even less
> > complex.  The human body is vastly less complex than a 747, largely
> > because it is self-organizing from a single starting cell.  The 747
> > takes vastly more manual intervention to build.  Evolution targets
> > low complexity solutions, because better summarizability means less
> > likelihood of something going wrong.  If something goes wrong
> > enough, the organism is not viable and is not able to reproduce,
> > thereby ending that
> > development.
> >
> > When reading Ray Kurzweil's books, I always interpreted the
> > Singularity, capital 'S', as the event described earlier.  The idea
> > is that computers will eventually become slightly better at
> > designing other computers than the humans that designed them.  When
> > that happens, the computers will design better computers, which will
> > then design better computers, and so on.  Since a new silicon spin
> > doesn't take much time when you have the design, this could produce
> > rapid increases in computing power.  That much is feasible and the
> > logic is sound.  Whether it would produce thinking machines depends
> > on how you define consciousness and is really beyond the scope of
> > science.  That is religion's domain.
> >
> > He is working with a cryptographer's mindset, just accelerated.
> > This goes back to information theory, and specifically linear
> > algebra and algorithmic complexity.  Cryptographers are the kind of
> > people who declare an encryption scheme worthless if it would "only"
> > take a billion years to crack a key rather than ten trillion.  We
> > don't deal with infinities, just very, mind-bogglingly-large
> > numbers.  For example, did you know that an ideal conventional
> > computer would take more energy than is estimated to exist in the
> > galaxy to crack a 256-bit AES key by brute force?  There are faster
> > attacks, but they require massive resources to execute.
> >
> > There was also a concept of a singularity, lowercase 's'.  It
> > implied a discovery that changes the foundations of our technology
> > so profoundly that future advancement cannot possible be predicted.
> > An example is the transistor.  It was not simply a faster, smaller,
> > more-efficient vacuum tube.  Instead, it was a leap onto a different
> > path of development.  A machine better able to design future
> > versions of itself than its own designers would be a discovery or
> > invention of this magnitude, but there are others.  Some kind of
> > compact, high-output generator or power store would be another.  The
> > largest limit to our current mobile technologies is the power
> > source.  With a substantially more space-efficient source of power,
> > whole new possibilities would open.  There are doubtless hundreds of
> > others that we would never even consider until we look back on them
> > and ask why nobody ever thought of that before.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robert Zimmerman
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Jon Glass wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, March 29, 2010, Ryan <newtontalk at me.com> wrote:
> >>> Doing some research, I came across an interesting article about a
> >>> future that is a singularity through mathematical recursion.
> >>
> >> You know if you look down railroad track, they also look like they
> >> reach a singularity. But they don't. U wouldn't put too much faith in
> >> mathematics fo predicting future. Math is descriptive not
> >> prescriptive. And what is possible I'm math may not be physically
> >> possible. Lastly it is worth pondering that mathematics is 100% a
> >> human invention. U think that sometimes it seems the perfect science
> >> for that reason alone--it is solely the product of the human mind.
> >> And
> >> yes I'm more the philosophical type (intuitive vs analytical) so take
> >> what I say with a huge block of salt. ;-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Jon Glass
> >> Krakow, Poland
> >> <jonglass at usa.net>
> >>
> >> "I don't believe in philosophies. I believe in fundamentals." --
> >> Jack Nicklaus
> >>
> >> ====================================================================
> >> The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> >> The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> >> The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> >> WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> >> ====================================================================
> >> ---- Content & Policy Scan by M+ Guardian ----
> >> Millions of safe & clean messages delivered daily
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---AV & Spam Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM)---
> >
> >
> > ====================================================================
> > The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> > The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> > The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> > WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> > ====================================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:17:27 -0700
> From: Forrest Buffenmyer <anasazi4st at me.com>
> Subject: [NTLK] OT: Mossberg gives thumbs up to iPad
> To: NewtonTalk <newtontalk at newtontalk.net>
> Message-ID: <80608786571098739630171500901554200468-Webmail at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Has anyone else watched this video, and wondered--Is that a Newton back on
> Walt's desk, to the left? Looks awfully close....
>
> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20100331/apple-ipad-review/
>
> Also...he mentions no USB ports. Why not just send what you want to the
> iDisk (photos, music, files, etc.) from your source and then download it to
> the iPad from there? Maybe someone else has already mentioned this....
>
> Reaaalllly tempted to fight the crowds tomorrow and go to the Apple Store
> for a closer look.
>
> Thanks,
> --Forrest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:24:37 -0400
> From: "L.W. Brown" <lwb at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] OT: Mossberg gives thumbs up to iPad
> To: "newtontalk at newtontalk.net" <newtontalk at newtontalk.net>
> Message-ID: <EEC9B9D8-D4EA-439E-9F1A-0E889897A2A8 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> I'd bet on it.
>
> Sent from my ?Brick...
> ;-]
>
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 14:17, Forrest Buffenmyer <anasazi4st at me.com> wrote:
>
> > Is that a Newton back on Walt's desk, to the left? Looks awfully
> > close....
> >
> > http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20100331/apple-ipad-review/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ====================================================================
> The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> ====================================================================
>
> End of NewtonTalk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 2
> ****************************************
>