Many ended up doing what he did, and got the XP one even though it wasn't really what they wanted.
Part of the reason for lack of stock was thought to be that the Linux version was supposed to have a larger SSD (to make up for the cost of the XP license). But they were allegedly in short supply.
No, I don't remember that. Pauline Hanson was kicked out of the Liberal party before even standing for her first election as an MP.
That's sort of correct, but not completely. She was nominated as a Liberal and was still noted as such on the ballot paper as she was only disendorsed just before the election.
Just prior to the election, Hanson made comments to The Queensland Times - a daily newspaper in Ipswich - advocating the abolition of special government assistance for Aborigines above what was available for other Australians. These comments led to her disendorsement by the Liberal Party during the campaign. However, ballot papers had already been printed listing Hanson as the Liberal candidate, and the Australian Electoral Commission had closed nominations for the seat. As a result, Hanson was still listed as the Liberal candidate when votes were cast.
Hanson subsequently won the election easily, with 54 percent of preferences going to the coalition.[2]
Whilst I agree that the whole concept of the government secretly censoring what we access on line is abhorrent, the technical issues regarding performance and accuracy are also real issues to be considered.
Filtering websites with this material is easy. You just force the ISPs to blacklist certain addresses from their DNS, and hire some puritans to maintain the blacklist. No, it isn't perfect, but neither are Customs officers. And it won't even result in much of a slow down.
So to circumvent that system, you could just run your own DNS server.
Also, if the blocking were to be that coarse it would most certainly block many legitimate web sites, just because one section of them was considered undesirable. eg, if one of the 'puritans' took a dislike to a particular video on youtube, we'd loose the entire site. Some may say that's no great loss...
Not sure it undermines democracy. If by democracy you mean "get the counts right".
No it not only has to be accurate, but visibly so.
Paper ballots have to be counted by people. Lots of people. People are error-prone. And people could have agendas. Even if the risk that 1 person is making a mistake is 0.005% the risk is increased a if you have 5000 people counting votes. (It's not linear, but I can't remember enough of the statistics course to tell). This is the reason you want machines to do the counting. It's what computers do best. At least properly configured.
In many places it's actually the representatives of each of the candidates that do the counting. That virtually eliminates any form of bias, as the "other side" would never stand for it.
Using e-voting has nothing to do with "instant results", except that it's a bonus. It's to remove the uncertain, and boring, task of vote counting. I.e. people.
Yes but manual counts give us the significant advantage of a number of peoeple who can verify that the count (for their counting station) was actually accurate.
Any 'valid' electronic system must have a verifiable paper trail that would have to be checked before the election is declared. It's that lack that concerns many people.
The Eee ships without a wireless stack that can do WPA, or at least did. I worked on one for someone, and that was their issue. This may have changed by now, but it sure was a stupid move at the time.
I have a 701 and it connects to my WPA secured access point just fine, and always has (using the default Xandros installation). The setup was an extremely trivial point and click exercise. The hardest bit was correctly entering the passphrase, as it puts it into a password type field (hashed out as you type). That's not a bad security feature, but it doesn't help usability. I ended up copying and pasting it.
If it ever couldn't do that it was *very* early in the piece. I bought one of the first ones in Australia. I believe it had been available in other places a little while before getting here.
I don't know what the problem was for the person you helped, but it wasn't that the OS was incapable of running WPA on that hardware.
When I bought my first laptop, it had PS/2 connectors. The people I bought it off went to great lengths to tell me NOT to hot swap as it *could* blow up the mother board. They alleged they had had multiple experiences of this happening.
I didn't really believe them, as I had (as most of us have) swapped out *lots* of keyboards with no problems.
Anyway, one day I had done something dumb on my headless / keyboardless server and locked myself out of ssh (note to self: don't run/etc/init.d/network stop when your only access is via the network, use/etc/init.d/network restart instead)
To fix the problem, I plugged in a monitor and keyboard. When I plugged in the keyboard it "let the magic smoke out" of the motherboard. A couple of surface mounted devices in the keyboard plugin area had blown (including scorch marks).
Now I believe them. The odds are pretty small though.
it's around 2,400-- but then you also require 25 outlook licenses.
once again, the price of the software is negligable compared to the cost of 25 employee's salaries...
go ahead, waste a week of each one's time teaching them whats different about the new program.
This is server software we are talking about here. The end users don't change their software (that's the entire point). So there is no cost for retraining end users.
You would obviously have to train the server administration staff, but even if you did put in a "Genuine Microsoft" Exchange server, you would probably still have to do this.
Besides, even if the front end did change, a week of training is a LOT. As it would be replacement software, the concepts are the same, it's only which button you push to do it that changes. So if you can't train them in a matter of hours, if not minutes, you really do need new employees.
Where I work, we use a non-MS stand alone calendaring solution. Our end user training takes a couple of hours.
How long do you think it would take to train users to use the new version of MS Office?
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
Not necessarily. There was a very similar situation with Malcolm McBratney, who's nickname is McBrat. He sponsored a Rugby team an put his nickname on the shorts. McDonalds tried to sue him, partially based on their plans for a childrens clothing range. Although their planned name was McKids, NOT McBrats.
Anyway, they lost. It probably didn't help them that Malcom is an IP lawyer.
a spokesman for Chicago 2016, a moniker protected by trademark.
Awww, isn't it too bad that trademarks don't give you retroactive ownership of whatever you like?
Also, trademarks ONLY give your mark (in this case the name Chicago and year 2016) protection in a particular category (I guess sporting events).
That DOES NOT give you any protection against someone using the same mark in another category.
Now this guy may be sailing a little close to the wind by hosting a discussion about the Chicago 2016 olympic bid, but I *thought* there was some ability to use others trademarks in discussion etc as long as they were properly attributed.
Raise your hand if you're completely fed up with the Olympics. Raise your hand if you think it's time that the IOC/USOC-bought legislation "protecting" the Olympic "trademark" was repealed.
BTW in Australia there is a brand of tyres named Olympic (now part of / or was originally Olympic Tyre and Rubber before becoming Beaurepairs). It was founded in 1933, see http://www.beaurepaires.com.au/centric/about/history.jsp for more info. I'd like to see them try to take that name from them.
I use a Windows VPC in my Windows Vista for doing specific test cases for my work (I have still to figure out vmware with Suse 11) but other than that I am Linux all there way...
There (normally) isn't much to figure out with VMWare. Just run the installer and follow your nose.
You do need to have the kernel source and development tools installed to compile the kernel module (but that's pretty trivial using YaST)
Once you have VMWare installed, I believe you can convert your VPC machines over.
Email != a document repository. If you need to keep something, print as a PDF or store it somewhere more appropriate.
I disagree.
Once you remove email from the mail server, you loose quite a bit of it's (informational) value.
* the header information is lost.
That includes information like:
* when
* from who
* who else got the email
* the text and attachments tend to get separated
* you tend to loose the ability to view the emails in various useful ways.
eg: threaded view, so you can view an entire 'conversation' Any system that doesn't loose this information is effectively a mail server (probably without the ability to send / receive emails), so why bother with another system?
In my opinion, an email server is the appropriate place to store emails. Anything else is a very poor second best.
NB. A lot of document management software can search / index you mail server, so it is logically part of your document system. You can sometimes 'import' emails directly into these systems, but that tends to be slow and clunky (last time I tried it, it was), and really doesn't achieve anything useful.
Sounds like user error to me. I applied the recent update to BIND and still have the same named.conf I had before the update on both my primary and backup machines.
So did I, and got the same result.
I *think* the problem is that as well as the BIND package, there is the CACHING-NAMESERVER package (which according to the package documentation is actually bind, but with a caching.conf file)
If you have caching-nameserver installed and then make it into a *real* nameserver, then you could have problems when you update. But if you have bind installed it works fine.
I've yet to see anything that stopped running if you quit paying for annual support. You'll get cut off from support and new patches, etc, but, certainly not stopped working.
Can you give some examples of enterprise software that is truly 'rented' by a license fee like you're describing above?
SAS (Statistics software), used to at least, require an annual update of the license file, otherwise it stopped working.
It wasn't cheap either. From memory we used to pay ~$5k per year for a 5 user license. We changed over to another package (Splus). We bought a 3 user (network) package for less than half of that. There was of course, the option of an annual maintenance fee that gave you updates and support.
Greylisting does a very good job of blocking it. But I have found that many legit email servers won't retry, which is causing legit email to be blocked. So with greylisting enabled I can no longer claim zero false positives. I have to keep scanning the logs watching for things (domains and addresses) that could be legit that didn't retry and add them to a whitelist. I have not had an issue with Greylisting causing legitimate email not to be delivered. I did mitigate the chance of this by adding the mail servers of many (Australian) ISPs and companies I may have contact with to my whitelists.
At work, I am aware of only one instance of a dodgy mail server failing to deliver the mail. That was fixed (for future emails) by whitelisting the offending server.
But no matter what the rate of failure with Greylisting it is many orders of magnitude better than without it. When the end users are being flooded with hundreds of spam messages a day, they end up "throwing out the wheat with the chaff". At work we had many people junking so many emails that in the end virtually everything was marked as junk.
A successful delivery is really only when the end user actually gets to read the email, not having it land in their Inbox.
You're proud of 95% efficacy? I work for one of the well-known anti-spam companies, and if our efficacy *fell* to 95% that would be considered an emergency. Our overall efficacy is >99% and the spam categories I manage are closing in on five nines. I have to agree that only 95% is totally unacceptable. My home email server gets >99.5% of the spam with the combination of Greylisting and SpamAssassin (that is over > 5,000 spams per week on a 2 person domain)
I thought the exact same thing. I'm no expert on power grids and how they're managed, but I think there are two possible reasons why their control systems were hooked up to the Internet:
1. There may be situations where the systems need to be remotely administered, and using the Internet is a much, much cheaper way to facilitate this than deploying a completely private network infrastructure just for this purpose, which probably isn't very practical (for both physical and financial reasons).
2. pr0n browsing. Actually here in Australia, the power generation company (at least in my state) does have it's own control network. It used to be Copper, but a while back they replaced it with fibre. They ended up with so much excess bandwidth that they wholesale it to companies. I assume they have their fibres separated from everyone else's.
Option 2 may cut into their profits a bit though:P
I haven't read TFA yet, but an attack from the Internet should *never* happen to something as important as this.
Where I work, we have an In-Confidence network and some Protected stuff. Each level is ONLY allowed to connect to ONE level lower and then only via approved security mechanisms. So the In-Confidence can access the (Unclassified) Internet, but the Protected stuff can't talk to the Internet at all. Actually in our case we don't bother connecting the Protected stuff even to our In-Confidence network.
I would assume a power control system would be much higher security than In-Confidence (that's pretty low - any decent business should be at least that level in reality), and thus not allowed to talk to the Unclassified Internet.
This of course is for Government networks. The US power companies (as are most in Australia) are privately owned, so they don't have to worry about such trivial things as security rules.
On a side note, I'm constantly amazed at the expectation of vendors and PHBs that we will automatically open up our network so that some stray vendor can remotely debug their dodgy application. Yea sure, we'll let you in from your totally unknown network that has only knows what security holes and stuff going on inside it to access our server(s) with elevated privileges. Especially when everyone working in our IT department has gone through a security clearance, and they have whoever they snagged off the street.
Actually I've just had a look at TFA, and it doesn't have any sort of details on what / where (not USA) / when (well vaguely - recently) / why (profit ???) / how these attacks occurred.
By 2038, no major consumer cpu manufacturer will be producing anything but 64 bit chips. While this is probably true for new machines, but nowdays people / companies are increasingly using virtual machines to extend the life of "essential software" long after the original hardware has given up the ghost and it is not easy or convenient to move to new hardware.
Where I work, we have one such machine that now runs some software that no one is game enough to touch.
In theory the software that runs today can be made to run indefinitely by putting it in a virtual machine (within a virtual machine host - within a virtual machine host - ad infinitum).
Ever hear of "conspiracy to [commit some crime]"? You can be held responsible for actions that would have led to a more serious crime. Just because no one downloads the files does not mean his intent was to illegally distribute intellectual property for which he did not have the rights to do so. I think what you meant to say was Intent to commit a crime. That is quite different to conspiracy to commit a crime.
According to the "irrefutable source" wikepedia, conspiracy to commit a crime requires *literally* a conspiracy. ie 2 or more people planning to commit the crime. There is no suggestion (that I can see), that there was any conspiracy in this case.
Remember, this case is actually a CIVIL case, NOT a criminal one, so the word CRIME doesn't apply at all.
Again, according to wikepedia, there is such a thing as INTENT to commit a crime, but as far as I can see there is not such thing for a civil case, unless of course there is specific precedent / legislation to say so)
Civil cases are generally about *actual* losses because the infringing action DID happen, not potential losses when no actual infringement occurred. NB. "actual" losses can include potential (future) losses in some cases.
He did more than just plan to break the law. He attempted to. He put the files up for everyone to grab. Subsequent to that, he had to do absolutely nothing to actually break the law except wait for someone to download one of those files. If you read TF-PDF from TFA ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080111AmicusBriefOpposSumJudgMot ), you will see that they argue that there are a number of precedents that confirm that you must actually distribute the item to infringe, not just "make available".
Apparently there are other IP areas (eg Semi-conductor mask copyright and patents) where there is explicit infringement for "making available", but this is NOT the case for general copyright.
They point out that there has been some discussion to amend the copyright legislation to include making available as an infringement, but this has not yet happened.
How their arguments eventually fly in court is yet to be seen, but they do seem reasonably well researched and argued.
Others in this discussion seem to be arguing that this is intent to commit a CRIME. However, as this is a CIVIL proceeding, this is NOT a CRIME (ie criminal proceeding), and I don't think there is such a thing as intent to commit a civil infringement (except where explicitly stated in appropriate legislation / precedent etc, which it is not in this case)
Last time I checked, there are more gas cars on the road then diesel cars. So looks like ethanol from switchgrass is still top for gas based engines. While that is currently true in the USA, in many other parts of the world it isn't. I believe in Europe, diesel cars account for 40-50%. Here in Australia it seems to be taking off as well. In the last year or so, many manufacturers have added diesel as an option to their range.
If bio-diesel were to become large scale commercially viable, you could easily use the existing diesel technologies to gradually switch over (as you purchase new cars). It's not like it has to happen over night.
I do agree that there could well be a demand for ethanol from things like switchgrass as well.
I personally don't see that there will be a "one size fits all" solution to our future energy needs. I believe it will be a combination of all of the available technologies, depending on local needs and conditions.
NB. We recently purchased a European diesel car for my wife. I am very impressed with the technology. It isn't anything like the old diesel technology most people think of.
It gets good fuel consumption, 8.2 l/100 km around town and 6.0 l/100 km on the highway. With the 60l tank, that gives a range of 1,000km.
You don't have to use glow plugs to start it. You jut turn the key like normal (yes, I realise there are actually glow plugs working, but they do it so quick). It sounds quite good too, not like the old tak-tak-tak diesels.
There is NO black smoke (ever). They have done a lot of work on the particulate filtering / elimination systems.
It has excellent torque and very adequate power, it is very driveable. In fact we took it to visit my family at Christmas time (~900 km away) in preference to my family-sized 6 cylinder car (NB. On the highway my car still gets around 6.6 l/100 km anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
The smaller screen really has no advantages at all - any cost saving is more than outweighed by those missing 224 pixels across
Actually, the 9" and 10" netbooks (virtually) all run the same resolution (1024x600), so there's not difference in the number of pixels across.
The only version that was a lower resolution was the original 70x series which are 800x480 on a 7" screen.
The only 10" netbook that I'm aware of that runs anything different is the HP (2133) which runs at 1280x768
For me, the 10" screens don't offer anything over the 9" screen. If your eyesight isn't that great you may want to have your pixels bigger.
He wasn't alone.
There was a large number of people trying to find Linux 901's on Whirlpool. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1011353
Many ended up doing what he did, and got the XP one even though it wasn't really what they wanted.
Part of the reason for lack of stock was thought to be that the Linux version was supposed to have a larger SSD (to make up for the cost of the XP license). But they were allegedly in short supply.
No, I don't remember that. Pauline Hanson was kicked out of the Liberal party before even standing for her first election as an MP.
That's sort of correct, but not completely. She was nominated as a Liberal and was still noted as such on the ballot paper as she was only disendorsed just before the election.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson
Whilst I agree that the whole concept of the government secretly censoring what we access on line is abhorrent, the technical issues regarding performance and accuracy are also real issues to be considered.
Filtering websites with this material is easy. You just force the ISPs to blacklist certain addresses from their DNS, and hire some puritans to maintain the blacklist. No, it isn't perfect, but neither are Customs officers. And it won't even result in much of a slow down.
So to circumvent that system, you could just run your own DNS server.
Also, if the blocking were to be that coarse it would most certainly block many legitimate web sites, just because one section of them was considered undesirable. eg, if one of the 'puritans' took a dislike to a particular video on youtube, we'd loose the entire site. Some may say that's no great loss ...
Not sure it undermines democracy. If by democracy you mean "get the counts right".
No it not only has to be accurate, but visibly so.
Paper ballots have to be counted by people. Lots of people. People are error-prone. And people could have agendas. Even if the risk that 1 person is making a mistake is 0.005% the risk is increased a if you have 5000 people counting votes. (It's not linear, but I can't remember enough of the statistics course to tell). This is the reason you want machines to do the counting. It's what computers do best. At least properly configured.
In many places it's actually the representatives of each of the candidates that do the counting. That virtually eliminates any form of bias, as the "other side" would never stand for it.
Using e-voting has nothing to do with "instant results", except that it's a bonus. It's to remove the uncertain, and boring, task of vote counting. I.e. people.
Yes but manual counts give us the significant advantage of a number of peoeple who can verify that the count (for their counting station) was actually accurate.
Any 'valid' electronic system must have a verifiable paper trail that would have to be checked before the election is declared. It's that lack that concerns many people.
I waited for rectangular cut and paste for about 3 years.
Version 3.2 isn't far away.
It will happen.
Do you mean block selection mode?
In OO 2.4 you can find it under Edit -> Selection Mode -> Block Area
Or you can use Alt + Shift + F8
The Eee ships without a wireless stack that can do WPA, or at least did. I worked on one for someone, and that was their issue. This may have changed by now, but it sure was a stupid move at the time.
I have a 701 and it connects to my WPA secured access point just fine, and always has (using the default Xandros installation). The setup was an extremely trivial point and click exercise. The hardest bit was correctly entering the passphrase, as it puts it into a password type field (hashed out as you type). That's not a bad security feature, but it doesn't help usability. I ended up copying and pasting it.
If it ever couldn't do that it was *very* early in the piece. I bought one of the first ones in Australia. I believe it had been available in other places a little while before getting here.
I don't know what the problem was for the person you helped, but it wasn't that the OS was incapable of running WPA on that hardware.
When I bought my first laptop, it had PS/2 connectors. The people I bought it off went to great lengths to tell me NOT to hot swap as it *could* blow up the mother board. They alleged they had had multiple experiences of this happening.
I didn't really believe them, as I had (as most of us have) swapped out *lots* of keyboards with no problems.
Anyway, one day I had done something dumb on my headless / keyboardless server and locked myself out of ssh (note to self: don't run /etc/init.d/network stop when your only access is via the network, use /etc/init.d/network restart instead)
To fix the problem, I plugged in a monitor and keyboard. When I plugged in the keyboard it "let the magic smoke out" of the motherboard. A couple of surface mounted devices in the keyboard plugin area had blown (including scorch marks).
Now I believe them. The odds are pretty small though.
it's around 2,400-- but then you also require 25 outlook licenses.
once again, the price of the software is negligable compared to the cost of 25 employee's salaries...
go ahead, waste a week of each one's time teaching them whats different about the new program.
This is server software we are talking about here. The end users don't change their software (that's the entire point). So there is no cost for retraining end users.
You would obviously have to train the server administration staff, but even if you did put in a "Genuine Microsoft" Exchange server, you would probably still have to do this.
Besides, even if the front end did change, a week of training is a LOT. As it would be replacement software, the concepts are the same, it's only which button you push to do it that changes. So if you can't train them in a matter of hours, if not minutes, you really do need new employees.
Where I work, we use a non-MS stand alone calendaring solution. Our end user training takes a couple of hours.
How long do you think it would take to train users to use the new version of MS Office?
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
Not necessarily.
There was a very similar situation with Malcolm McBratney, who's nickname is McBrat. He sponsored a Rugby team an put his nickname on the shorts. McDonalds tried to sue him, partially based on their plans for a childrens clothing range. Although their planned name was McKids, NOT McBrats.
Anyway, they lost. It probably didn't help them that Malcom is an IP lawyer.
You can read more at: http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/McBrats-wins-in-IP-lawyer-vs-Maccas-case_z68530.htm
a spokesman for Chicago 2016, a moniker protected by trademark.
Awww, isn't it too bad that trademarks don't give you retroactive ownership of whatever you like?
Also, trademarks ONLY give your mark (in this case the name Chicago and year 2016) protection in a particular category (I guess sporting events).
That DOES NOT give you any protection against someone using the same mark in another category.
Now this guy may be sailing a little close to the wind by hosting a discussion about the Chicago 2016 olympic bid, but I *thought* there was some ability to use others trademarks in discussion etc as long as they were properly attributed.
Raise your hand if you're completely fed up with the Olympics. Raise your hand if you think it's time that the IOC/USOC-bought legislation "protecting" the Olympic "trademark" was repealed.
BTW in Australia there is a brand of tyres named Olympic (now part of / or was originally Olympic Tyre and Rubber before becoming Beaurepairs). It was founded in 1933, see http://www.beaurepaires.com.au/centric/about/history.jsp for more info. I'd like to see them try to take that name from them.
I use a Windows VPC in my Windows Vista for doing specific test cases for my work (I have still to figure out vmware with Suse 11) but other than that I am Linux all there way...
There (normally) isn't much to figure out with VMWare.
Just run the installer and follow your nose.
You do need to have the kernel source and development tools installed to compile the kernel module (but that's pretty trivial using YaST)
Once you have VMWare installed, I believe you can convert your VPC machines over.
How long do these machines stay running Linux?
Probably not as many that start out running Windows and have been converted to Linux.
Email != a document repository. If you need to keep something, print as a PDF or store it somewhere more appropriate.
I disagree.
Once you remove email from the mail server, you loose quite a bit of it's (informational) value.
* the header information is lost.
That includes information like:
* when
* from who
* who else got the email
* the text and attachments tend to get separated
* you tend to loose the ability to view the emails in various useful ways.
eg: threaded view, so you can view an entire 'conversation'
Any system that doesn't loose this information is effectively a mail server (probably without the ability to send / receive emails), so why bother with another system?
In my opinion, an email server is the appropriate place to store emails. Anything else is a very poor second best.
NB. A lot of document management software can search / index you mail server, so it is logically part of your document system. You can sometimes 'import' emails directly into these systems, but that tends to be slow and clunky (last time I tried it, it was), and really doesn't achieve anything useful.
Sounds like user error to me. I applied the recent update to BIND and still have the same named.conf I had before the update on both my primary and backup machines.
So did I, and got the same result.
I *think* the problem is that as well as the BIND package, there is the CACHING-NAMESERVER package (which according to the package documentation is actually bind, but with a caching .conf file)
If you have caching-nameserver installed and then make it into a *real* nameserver, then you could have problems when you update. But if you have bind installed it works fine.
YMMV
David
SAS (Statistics software), used to at least, require an annual update of the license file, otherwise it stopped working.Can you give some examples of enterprise software that is truly 'rented' by a license fee like you're describing above?
It wasn't cheap either. From memory we used to pay ~$5k per year for a 5 user license. We changed over to another package (Splus). We bought a 3 user (network) package for less than half of that. There was of course, the option of an annual maintenance fee that gave you updates and support.
At work, I am aware of only one instance of a dodgy mail server failing to deliver the mail. That was fixed (for future emails) by whitelisting the offending server.
But no matter what the rate of failure with Greylisting it is many orders of magnitude better than without it. When the end users are being flooded with hundreds of spam messages a day, they end up "throwing out the wheat with the chaff". At work we had many people junking so many emails that in the end virtually everything was marked as junk.
A successful delivery is really only when the end user actually gets to read the email, not having it land in their Inbox.
Or you could call it Hydrogen Hydroxide, or even Caustic Hydride
1. There may be situations where the systems need to be remotely administered, and using the Internet is a much, much cheaper way to facilitate this than deploying a completely private network infrastructure just for this purpose, which probably isn't very practical (for both physical and financial reasons).
2. pr0n browsing. Actually here in Australia, the power generation company (at least in my state) does have it's own control network. It used to be Copper, but a while back they replaced it with fibre. They ended up with so much excess bandwidth that they wholesale it to companies. I assume they have their fibres separated from everyone else's.
Option 2 may cut into their profits a bit though
I haven't read TFA yet, but an attack from the Internet should *never* happen to something as important as this.
Where I work, we have an In-Confidence network and some Protected stuff. Each level is ONLY allowed to connect to ONE level lower and then only via approved security mechanisms. So the In-Confidence can access the (Unclassified) Internet, but the Protected stuff can't talk to the Internet at all. Actually in our case we don't bother connecting the Protected stuff even to our In-Confidence network.
I would assume a power control system would be much higher security than In-Confidence (that's pretty low - any decent business should be at least that level in reality), and thus not allowed to talk to the Unclassified Internet.
This of course is for Government networks. The US power companies (as are most in Australia) are privately owned, so they don't have to worry about such trivial things as security rules.
On a side note, I'm constantly amazed at the expectation of vendors and PHBs that we will automatically open up our network so that some stray vendor can remotely debug their dodgy application. Yea sure, we'll let you in from your totally unknown network that has only knows what security holes and stuff going on inside it to access our server(s) with elevated privileges. Especially when everyone working in our IT department has gone through a security clearance, and they have whoever they snagged off the street.
Actually I've just had a look at TFA, and it doesn't have any sort of details on what / where (not USA) / when (well vaguely - recently) / why (profit ???) / how these attacks occurred.
Where I work, we have one such machine that now runs some software that no one is game enough to touch.
In theory the software that runs today can be made to run indefinitely by putting it in a virtual machine (within a virtual machine host - within a virtual machine host - ad infinitum).
For them the world is still very much 32 bit.
According to the "irrefutable source" wikepedia, conspiracy to commit a crime requires *literally* a conspiracy. ie 2 or more people planning to commit the crime. There is no suggestion (that I can see), that there was any conspiracy in this case.
Remember, this case is actually a CIVIL case, NOT a criminal one, so the word CRIME doesn't apply at all.
Again, according to wikepedia, there is such a thing as INTENT to commit a crime, but as far as I can see there is not such thing for a civil case, unless of course there is specific precedent / legislation to say so)
Civil cases are generally about *actual* losses because the infringing action DID happen, not potential losses when no actual infringement occurred. NB. "actual" losses can include potential (future) losses in some cases.
Apparently there are other IP areas (eg Semi-conductor mask copyright and patents) where there is explicit infringement for "making available", but this is NOT the case for general copyright.
They point out that there has been some discussion to amend the copyright legislation to include making available as an infringement, but this has not yet happened.
How their arguments eventually fly in court is yet to be seen, but they do seem reasonably well researched and argued.
Others in this discussion seem to be arguing that this is intent to commit a CRIME. However, as this is a CIVIL proceeding, this is NOT a CRIME (ie criminal proceeding), and I don't think there is such a thing as intent to commit a civil infringement (except where explicitly stated in appropriate legislation / precedent etc, which it is not in this case)
If bio-diesel were to become large scale commercially viable, you could easily use the existing diesel technologies to gradually switch over (as you purchase new cars). It's not like it has to happen over night.
I do agree that there could well be a demand for ethanol from things like switchgrass as well.
I personally don't see that there will be a "one size fits all" solution to our future energy needs. I believe it will be a combination of all of the available technologies, depending on local needs and conditions.
NB. We recently purchased a European diesel car for my wife. I am very impressed with the technology. It isn't anything like the old diesel technology most people think of.
It gets good fuel consumption, 8.2 l/100 km around town and 6.0 l/100 km on the highway. With the 60l tank, that gives a range of 1,000km.
You don't have to use glow plugs to start it. You jut turn the key like normal (yes, I realise there are actually glow plugs working, but they do it so quick). It sounds quite good too, not like the old tak-tak-tak diesels.
There is NO black smoke (ever). They have done a lot of work on the particulate filtering / elimination systems.
It has excellent torque and very adequate power, it is very driveable. In fact we took it to visit my family at Christmas time (~900 km away) in preference to my family-sized 6 cylinder car (NB. On the highway my car still gets around 6.6 l/100 km anyway).
Yes, we did have a cold winter this year (here in North Queensland, and many other places as well), but overall, 2007 was one of the hottest years on record. See: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112 (this graph shows annual mean temperature anomaly (base 1961-1990))
According to my "optical integrator", it appears to be about 4th or 5th hottest