KDE 4.2 still isn't really ready for primetime rollout - you just need to fiddle with it too much to get some things to work and with slackware you'll be spending enough time fiddling with the core OS as it is. Why didn't patrick stick with 3.5 and leave 4.2 as an option?
If I dug deep to the attitude of my Slackware days, I'd probably come out with some snide remark about why would anyone who uses Slackware want KDE anyway? Of course, we didn't have the same system resources we have now, and KDE wasn't as polished as 3.5 (or 4.2). As it stands, the adoption of KDE 4.2 is likely tied into at least one of a few reasons.
1) The Slackware team wants to make the official jump to the newer release to avoid the appearance of being behind others. 2) It was decided that KDE 3.5 no longer receives enough official support. 3) They all use Fluxbox anyway and don't really care. 4) They genuinely think 4.2 has reached a point where it's better than 3.5.
I was actually just thinking about this. Slackware is *just like* LFS in its simplicity. This is a good thing for those who desire it. Slackware is an LFS system that has been tested for stability and provides a simple, easy for an admin to takeover package management system. Slapt-get provides higher level package management for those who desire it--including support for dependency resolution.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be met with GUI greeters, setup wizards, beginner-oriented defaults, and enabled-by-default automatic updates.
But what makes Slackware a better choice than other, similar options? How does it compare to Linux and BSD distros that you think are similar to Slackware, rather than the ones that are obviously different?
Please explain your comment on Gentoo. I've been running Gentoo for a while and find that once it is setup I don't have to touch it. In fact I just upgraded my home system after not touching it for over 1.5 years. It took about a day to upgrade (please save the "Gentoo sucks" comments) but I went from kde 3.5 to 4.3 with little hassle.
Gentoo is easier to break through user error than many distros, at least in my experience. I seem to recall doing just that a couple of times, but all I remember is that I was wondering well off the stable release arena in a specific area. Gentoo is easy enough to set up (and entertains with hours of compiler output), and I agree it will run fine without touching it. However, Gentoo begs to be touched, refining build flags, optimizing the system, and trying out experimental projects simple to enjoy the innovation. These things can mess the system up though, and screwing something up can easily turn into biting off more than one can chew.
I don't count this as a downside to Gentoo, however, as it's part of the draw of the system. When I want a quick and easy stable set up that I won't have to (or want to) mess around with, I'll just install Debian or Ubuntu. Returning to the original point, however, I am not saying Gentoo isn't stable or a good choice. Aside from those one or two times I messed things up (when I was new to Gentoo), it did everything I could ask from a Linux distro, including the more complicated / unstable aspects. In fact, I think it did MORE as a desktop for me, because I was interested and willing to put the time in to fine tune things I haven't bothered doing in Ubuntu installs.
what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
More hands on experience with the guts of a running Linux system instead of hands on experience with a package manager? That may or may not be an advantage for your particular application but it's a nice option to have.
A better question (for my purposes anyway), is what are the advantages of using this version of Slackware? I think the last version I bought and used was 8, and since then I've used Gentoo and various Debian/*buntu distros. Gentoo by far was the best for furthering my knowledge of Linux (through brutal necessity), and Ubuntu the most convenient in getting everything up, configured, and running quickly. When I think CentOS and Fedora, I think gaining experience with a slightly different style of a common enterprise distro.
What does the Slackware experience bring to the table that distinguishes it from other distros, beyond a certain level of nostalgia?
(I'm not meaning to troll or be flamebait, I'm genuinely curious as to whether it's worth playing around with again.)
UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant,
They're not showing any probable cause, either. Routine searches with no grounds for suspicion are unreasonable, QED.
-jcr
Good point, but "QED" should read "IMHO", as your opinion regarding what's reasonable is hardly demonstrative proof. Everyone who goes through airport security undergoes some level of search by the government without a warrant or showing probably cause, much more the case with going through customs. Clearly this is something that will have to be determined in the courts.
Well... I'd have to say maybe, but it's certainly not limited to T-Mobile.
Scroll down to 'Operating frequency' * Quad-band GSM EDGE 850/900/1800/1900 * WCDMA 900/1700/2100 MHz
My guess is it will be sold unlocked in the US, much like many of their high end phones.
This is what history seems to have shown. For some reason the great Nokia phones don't get pushed by the major US carriers, unfortunately leaving consumers to face the price of a new computer.
1. Stay with 10.5 and CS3 2. Move to 10.6, use CS3 (which presumably works just fine, but if it doesn't, it's not Adobe's problem) 3. Move to 10.6 and CS4
It seems to me this is a non-issue, other than it's good to be aware of it so you can make the right choice for you. For most people (pros and amateurs alike), option 2 is probably the best.
Option 2 hs a major advantage over 3: it's only $30 and you can move back to 10.5 if things don't work out. I really don't see ANY reason to worry about this until you've determined that there's actually a problem with 10.6 and CS3.
BUT, other companies are still pedaling their hardware that infringes on Tivo's (still valid) hardware patents. Tivo enabled certain things that everyone was chasing after for years. should they be able to profit by copying? this is what the patent system was supposed to do, reward innovators with a temporary monopoly, and grant legal leverage to support that temporary monopoly.
this is the patent system working as it should, for hardware inventions that have been reduced to practice.
My initial thoughts are along this line, too. I definitely don't know the history, so I may be missing something, but if Tivo was the innovator of the hardware, should they not be entitled to protection? Assuming the patents are valid within a reasonable time period, Tivo should be entitled against rip offs. Again, I'm not on top of all the information, but it seems they're not going after MythTV or Windows Media Center type set ups, just cable/satellite companies that seem to have just taken the Tivo innovation and produced their own versions merely to keep the business to themselves.
Someone below notes:
TIVO didn't invent any of the stuff that made a PVR possible. They didn't invent big drives, they didn't invent MPEG, they didn't invent hardware MPEG encoder/decoders. They didn't invent the Internet or putting TV schedules on a computer. They certainly didn't invent software to schedule or resolve conflicts.
These are valid points, but as I mentioned above, I don't see Tivo suing for patent infringements in all such cases. I can set up my own DVR without ANY personal concern that Tivo will sue me. As for Tivo suing major corporations like Dish Networks / AT&T / Verizon for producing and distributing a product that duplicates a Tivo DVR over a huge customer base, I don't see the makings of a patent troll. I don't think the infringing corporations are doing so for the benefit of the consumer, so I'm not sure what the concern is here. The consumer still has the freedom to configure their own DVR using the technologies available, and giant corporations are being asked to be held accountable for trying to bypass Tivo and keep the profits to themselves.
If Tivo didn't have protection against this, then third party innovators would have no chance at success, since the content providers could just rip off any technology and incorporate it into their existing user base.
I'd happily give Facebook my name, address, social security number, and checking account information if they would only introduce a "HIDE ALL QUIZZES" feature.
God, I am so sick of logging into Facebook only to find the feed populated with stupid quizzes like "What type of garden tool are you?" The quizzes are far more annoying than the apps.
Check out Facebook Purity. It works with the vast majority of such things, and even tells you how many it's hidden and lets you toggle them back. I think the author page has an email address where you can send your social and checking account info if you dig it. Paired with Facebook Highlights Remove, you end up with a pretty tidy home page.
1) Set up router A as an open access point and have it connect to your ISP 2) Set up router B as a private, secure access point 3) Hook up the rest of your network to router B 4) Set up router A to give traffic from B priority over any other traffic 5) Have router B connect to router A.
Secure for you and free for anybody that wants to use it.
Sony has had over 3 years to "trounce" them. This hasn't happened yet. Why would the stronger hardware aspect of the PS3 all of the sudden start attracting gamers away from the 360?
I agree with your general sentiment, but this concept still seems valid. It's not that the stronger hardware will kick in "all of a sudden", but rather than over 3 years, gaming companies have been producing games for each platform, and every game release faces the pressure to be better than the last. If the big video game studios start to find themselves more limited by 360 hardware than PS3 hardware through their own natural process of bigger, more impressive games, then Sony could possibly gain advantage by nature of having the hardware to support the absolute best. I don't think this will be such a big deal, since the gap isn't *that* big, and it seems the 360 still has a lot of advantages over the PS3 to retain game developers.
Certainly, I don't see a lot of gamers going out and buying a PS3 who already have a 360 with a game library unless a sense of major superiority in games spreads. Since game developers want a large user base to be enticed, and gamers want a large (and superior) game library to switch, I don't think we can assume how things will go.
Citations, please. This seems totally wrong and fraught with potential licensing issues for a company who would claim such. Without legal documentation of a transfer of ownership, in compliance with all the OEM software licenses, this just sounds like a wild assumption.
recently replaced my old laptop. The owner of my company heard about this and offered to reimburse me for it, since he knows I have and will continue to do company work on my own hardware. I'd like the extra $1,250, but I think if I accept his offer that legally he has the right to any data on it (personal emails, files, blog posts, etc.)
If you total or wear out your personal car because of your work, and your employer offers to pay for the replacement, he doesn't magically get title to it. He *replaced* YOUR hardware which wore out due to company use.
Same as if the company replaces a customer's cell phone that gets broken due to, for example, it getting run over by the company's delivery truck. They don't suddenly p0wn the customer's cell.
When they reimburse you for on-the-road meals, do they suddenly have a right, like Shylock in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice", to claim their pound of flesh? Nope. When they pay for your new pants because you ruined your old ones on a service call, do they suddenly have the right to say "only wear them while you're on the job?" Didn't think so. When they give you gas and mileage money, do they get a lease-hold or any further rights to your car? Nah.
When the laptop gets stolen, whose insurance is going to cover it, or who is going to eat the loss? You. Take the money, and make it clear that the laptop is YOUR responsibility, and your liabity. Worse comes to worse, get it in writing, get it in writing, and get it in writing.
Additionally, say you have a Dell, Lenovo, HP, Apple, or whatever. Who do THEY assert owns the laptop. Who will Microsoft assert is the sole user licensed for the OS? All this speculation about the company gaining ownership of the actual machine is indeed nonsense.
Your company owner sounds like a good person, offering to reimburse your purchase. It sounds like he surprised you and now you're trying to decide whether you want to retain ownership of the laptop or sign it over to the company.
It sounds more like he is wondering how much if any ownership he will be giving up. There is no assumption that he will give up any ownership. He may actually be legally unable to give up ownership, depending on the software licenses already involved. His laptop's version of Windows (assumed, but OSX applies also), might not be transferable in this situation.
If you're truly worried about your company sending lawyers after you, you shouldn't even consider signing over your equipment to the company.
I see no indication that he is considering signing anything over. He's just wondering whether to accept money from the company after buying a personal item that will benefit his productivity. He is not signing anything over, but wondering about how much claim to data the company will have.
Bottom line, their IP is their IP. If he competently deletes everything company-related at any time, there's nothing to which the company has claim. It remains his equipment at all time.
You need to ask a lawyer. His answer will depend, at least in part, on documents you have signed as part of your employment, and on state law.
Personally, I know my company is too confused to ever go after me, my data, and my ideas after I leave, so long as I don't compete directly with them. I don't worry about their supposed ownership of my every thought and dream, despite signing those rights over to them.
1) Ask lawyer.
2) Accept money regardless of advice to pay lawyer bills.
Hmm, unless you phone in to one of those talk shows where lawyers give advice to callers. This guy comes to mind, in the Bay Area but with internet streaming.
On the contrary, reimbursement != transfer of ownership. Company IP is company IP, but that will be the case if you accept the money or not. The choice makes you $1,250 richer or not, and that's all it changes.
Presumably, he would prefer having an extra $1,250.00 of discretionary money rather than having two laptops. It's not a cut-and-dry scenario.
It is cut-and-dry. You don't tell the boss about laptop number 2 because it's none of his business. It's like buying any other item for your personal use, like a box of condoms. Must that nosy boss know about everything I do outside of work?
It isn't cut-and-dry. Accepting the money doesn't mean he's given up ownership. The sale of the machine, the license of the OS and software all belongs to the employee. The company can't claim the $1250 automatically transferred the licenses; AFAIK Microsoft certainly doesn't work that way.
Besides, the whole reason he was offered reimbursement is because he will end up doing company work on his laptop. Such is the nature of things. Suggesting he have two laptops and keep one secret seems to miss the point of the scenario he's given, which doesn't involve a second personal laptop (they would both be his, rather than one being company and one being personal).
Yes, it is. However, I'd offer that the solution is different than what you suggest. The simplest thing to do would be, have your employer buy you ANOTHER $1250 laptop expressly for work. Problem solved. Now you have an "air gap" between your life, and work life.
Why complicate things?
Because they are not complicated already. Why spend the money now, when money will appreciate (in a bank), and hardware will depreciate?
if the courts find out that you do company work on your personal laptop, you are a subpoena away from having to produce it, with or without the $1,250 bonus.
If that is the case, the only reasonable choice seems to be to accept the money.
Essentially if you get sued by your employer, it looks better if you just spread em wide and hope for the vaseline. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty' in civil courts, it's all about the 'preponderance of evidence' which means that if you can't say more about your innocence than they can about you're guilt, you're guilty.
If you do work on your personal computer and then leave that company, then they can subpoena it. It seems like the responsible thing for a departing employee to do is to not take company IP with them. This can be accomplished by deleting all company-related info, and doing a secure wipe on the free space (or better yet a complete wipe and reinstall). Surely there's nothing guilty about NOT having company data on your machine. If you present the forensics expert with a totally clean system, does that put the employee into some sort of twisted-logic situation that would be a big problem?
Take the check for $1,250 and use it to buy a new laptop. You get a free laptop that you use for work-only, and keep the other one for personal stuff. I call that the best of both worlds.
DON'T go out and buy a new laptop. Make sure you have backup space at home and backup your personal files regularly. Put the $1,250 in the bank, collect some meager interest, and if the company somehow seizes your laptop THEN buy a new one (the next model, perhaps). You will have all your personal data in your backups, and if you don't like the idea of your company having it, then find an encryption solution that fits.
The company would be in no way responsible for tracking your licenses nor removing software once you left.
It is also arguable if you install software on a system you don't own you are violating licensing of the software itself, and that you are gifting it by doing so.
Any company I have worked for either had already or had shortly after I got there a policy against it simply because it makes license auditing a nightmare. I don't know how many of you have been through a BSA audit but I assure you they do NOT have your interests at heart.
Fortunately there are a couple easy things to address this issue.
1) The company is an obvious place to request licenses for software you absolutely need to do your job (the whole point of them issuing a company laptop).
2) A huge amount of software with licensing that clearly permits such a use, including, but not limited to, FOSS alternatives.
My advice to OP: don't do it, even if you get it in writing. Even if you trust your boss. Even if it feels safe. The tide can shift in a snap, and you don't want to have to share ownership of all of your stuff when Sprint or Microsoft buy your company.
I disagree completely here; it makes little sense to turn down the money. It's your laptop, and you have the documentation to prove it. As a responsible computer user, you can backup all the personal data / media / software you care about on a home computer. If the very unlikely happens and you find the company has somehow superseded your clear ownership rights, the worst case scenario is that you lose a laptop for which you have already been reimbursed.
That seems extremely unlikely to happen, considering it's your laptop (they will have documentation of the reimbursement, but not the serial numbers, etc, which point to the exact machine, that you have). If it does, you have your personal data backed up, and can spend $1,250 on a (newer, faster, better) replacement and be better off than if you turned down the money and were 100% secure with your older hardware.
There isn't a lot of information but unless there are strings specifically attatched to the reimbursement, it is just that--a reimbursement.
I imagine this is quite similar to employers who do mobile phone or internet reimbursements in that they are offering it as a benefit and there is no transfer in ownership (though there may be some assumption of increased availability to work outside the office). When an employer reimburses you for personal vehicle use, they aren't claiming ownership on anything in your car...
This really seems to sum up the reality of the situation over the nightmare scenarios, but my point is the nightmare scenario is hardly that, so long as you do the backups you should be doing anyway.
I agree with the above post. Joomla is terrible. It's not only that it has been full of security issues, but also it's very difficult to use, and slow. Here's what I think in more details.
Terrible code has also been a common issue with Joomla (although often one can group that in with it being slow). Being contracted to set up a Joomla site for an organization falls into two categories:
1) It's explicitly clear that the base install is what they get, with a template applied as it comes. Project over, the rest is up to the client. Verdict: EASY MONEY
2) The client requires multiple extensions installed and integrated into a cohesive website and design, with customizations required to polish off rough edges and eliminate slowdowns and poor functionality integration. Verdict: TURN IT DOWN
With #2, the client might as well contract a custom site. They'll get just what they want, in a much more reliable and expandable package. (Rather than relying on upgrades from Joomla and each extension required to keep coming and not break the customizations).
Each template has a number of positions that modules can go in
I'm surprised there is enough material to make a book on Joomla.
You left out extensions. In my experience every one who commissions or sets up a Joomla site wants to customize it with non-core extensions. Then they frequently want to customize the extensions themselves, to deal with things such as broken design continuity brought on by incorporating the new modules. Using Joomla as it arrives "out of the box" is easy, but that neglects to cover a huge range of actual Joomla use, which can become quite complicated.
Rather than a lack of book worth material, it's almost like multiple books are called for, depending on what type of end set up you are going for. Want to integrate front end users with a forum, calendar, gallery, etc, each without messing up the design feel in your base template? Things become much more complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE 4.2 still isn't really ready for primetime rollout - you just need to fiddle with it too much to get some things to work and with slackware you'll be spending enough time fiddling with the core OS as it is. Why didn't patrick stick with 3.5 and leave 4.2 as an option?
If I dug deep to the attitude of my Slackware days, I'd probably come out with some snide remark about why would anyone who uses Slackware want KDE anyway? Of course, we didn't have the same system resources we have now, and KDE wasn't as polished as 3.5 (or 4.2). As it stands, the adoption of KDE 4.2 is likely tied into at least one of a few reasons.
1) The Slackware team wants to make the official jump to the newer release to avoid the appearance of being behind others.
2) It was decided that KDE 3.5 no longer receives enough official support.
3) They all use Fluxbox anyway and don't really care.
4) They genuinely think 4.2 has reached a point where it's better than 3.5.
Who knows?
Okay, I'll bite, Mr. Troll.
I was actually just thinking about this. Slackware is *just like* LFS in its simplicity. This is a good thing for those who desire it. Slackware is an LFS system that has been tested for stability and provides a simple, easy for an admin to takeover package management system. Slapt-get provides higher level package management for those who desire it--including support for dependency resolution.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be met with GUI greeters, setup wizards, beginner-oriented defaults, and enabled-by-default automatic updates.
But what makes Slackware a better choice than other, similar options? How does it compare to Linux and BSD distros that you think are similar to Slackware, rather than the ones that are obviously different?
Please explain your comment on Gentoo. I've been running Gentoo for a while and find that once it is setup I don't have to touch it. In fact I just upgraded my home system after not touching it for over 1.5 years. It took about a day to upgrade (please save the "Gentoo sucks" comments) but I went from kde 3.5 to 4.3 with little hassle.
Gentoo is easier to break through user error than many distros, at least in my experience. I seem to recall doing just that a couple of times, but all I remember is that I was wondering well off the stable release arena in a specific area. Gentoo is easy enough to set up (and entertains with hours of compiler output), and I agree it will run fine without touching it. However, Gentoo begs to be touched, refining build flags, optimizing the system, and trying out experimental projects simple to enjoy the innovation. These things can mess the system up though, and screwing something up can easily turn into biting off more than one can chew.
I don't count this as a downside to Gentoo, however, as it's part of the draw of the system. When I want a quick and easy stable set up that I won't have to (or want to) mess around with, I'll just install Debian or Ubuntu. Returning to the original point, however, I am not saying Gentoo isn't stable or a good choice. Aside from those one or two times I messed things up (when I was new to Gentoo), it did everything I could ask from a Linux distro, including the more complicated / unstable aspects. In fact, I think it did MORE as a desktop for me, because I was interested and willing to put the time in to fine tune things I haven't bothered doing in Ubuntu installs.
what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
More hands on experience with the guts of a running Linux system instead of hands on experience with a package manager? That may or may not be an advantage for your particular application but it's a nice option to have.
A better question (for my purposes anyway), is what are the advantages of using this version of Slackware? I think the last version I bought and used was 8, and since then I've used Gentoo and various Debian/*buntu distros. Gentoo by far was the best for furthering my knowledge of Linux (through brutal necessity), and Ubuntu the most convenient in getting everything up, configured, and running quickly. When I think CentOS and Fedora, I think gaining experience with a slightly different style of a common enterprise distro.
What does the Slackware experience bring to the table that distinguishes it from other distros, beyond a certain level of nostalgia?
(I'm not meaning to troll or be flamebait, I'm genuinely curious as to whether it's worth playing around with again.)
UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant,
They're not showing any probable cause, either. Routine searches with no grounds for suspicion are unreasonable, QED.
-jcr
Good point, but "QED" should read "IMHO", as your opinion regarding what's reasonable is hardly demonstrative proof. Everyone who goes through airport security undergoes some level of search by the government without a warrant or showing probably cause, much more the case with going through customs. Clearly this is something that will have to be determined in the courts.
Well... I'd have to say maybe, but it's certainly not limited to T-Mobile.
Scroll down to 'Operating frequency'
* Quad-band GSM EDGE 850/900/1800/1900
* WCDMA 900/1700/2100 MHz
My guess is it will be sold unlocked in the US, much like many of their high end phones.
This is what history seems to have shown. For some reason the great Nokia phones don't get pushed by the major US carriers, unfortunately leaving consumers to face the price of a new computer.
Solutions:
1. Stay with 10.5 and CS3
2. Move to 10.6, use CS3 (which presumably works just fine, but if it doesn't, it's not Adobe's problem)
3. Move to 10.6 and CS4
It seems to me this is a non-issue, other than it's good to be aware of it so you can make the right choice for you. For most people (pros and amateurs alike), option 2 is probably the best.
Option 2 hs a major advantage over 3: it's only $30 and you can move back to 10.5 if things don't work out. I really don't see ANY reason to worry about this until you've determined that there's actually a problem with 10.6 and CS3.
BUT, other companies are still pedaling their hardware that infringes on Tivo's (still valid) hardware patents. Tivo enabled certain things that everyone was chasing after for years. should they be able to profit by copying? this is what the patent system was supposed to do, reward innovators with a temporary monopoly, and grant legal leverage to support that temporary monopoly.
this is the patent system working as it should, for hardware inventions that have been reduced to practice.
My initial thoughts are along this line, too. I definitely don't know the history, so I may be missing something, but if Tivo was the innovator of the hardware, should they not be entitled to protection? Assuming the patents are valid within a reasonable time period, Tivo should be entitled against rip offs. Again, I'm not on top of all the information, but it seems they're not going after MythTV or Windows Media Center type set ups, just cable/satellite companies that seem to have just taken the Tivo innovation and produced their own versions merely to keep the business to themselves.
Someone below notes:
TIVO didn't invent any of the stuff that made a PVR possible. They didn't invent big drives, they didn't invent MPEG, they didn't invent hardware MPEG encoder/decoders. They didn't invent the Internet or putting TV schedules on a computer. They certainly didn't invent software to schedule or resolve conflicts.
These are valid points, but as I mentioned above, I don't see Tivo suing for patent infringements in all such cases. I can set up my own DVR without ANY personal concern that Tivo will sue me. As for Tivo suing major corporations like Dish Networks / AT&T / Verizon for producing and distributing a product that duplicates a Tivo DVR over a huge customer base, I don't see the makings of a patent troll. I don't think the infringing corporations are doing so for the benefit of the consumer, so I'm not sure what the concern is here. The consumer still has the freedom to configure their own DVR using the technologies available, and giant corporations are being asked to be held accountable for trying to bypass Tivo and keep the profits to themselves.
If Tivo didn't have protection against this, then third party innovators would have no chance at success, since the content providers could just rip off any technology and incorporate it into their existing user base.
I'd happily give Facebook my name, address, social security number, and checking account information if they would only introduce a "HIDE ALL QUIZZES" feature.
God, I am so sick of logging into Facebook only to find the feed populated with stupid quizzes like "What type of garden tool are you?" The quizzes are far more annoying than the apps.
Check out Facebook Purity. It works with the vast majority of such things, and even tells you how many it's hidden and lets you toggle them back. I think the author page has an email address where you can send your social and checking account info if you dig it. Paired with Facebook Highlights Remove, you end up with a pretty tidy home page.
Wired ethernet. Not only is it vastly more secure, it's also an order of magnitude or two faster than wireless.
Quite inconvenient to set up with my *INSERT WIFI ENABLED SMART PHONE HERE*.
You only really need two...
1) Set up router A as an open access point and have it connect to your ISP
2) Set up router B as a private, secure access point
3) Hook up the rest of your network to router B
4) Set up router A to give traffic from B priority over any other traffic
5) Have router B connect to router A.
Secure for you and free for anybody that wants to use it.
Probably implied, but whitelist on router B.
Sony has had over 3 years to "trounce" them. This hasn't happened yet. Why would the stronger hardware aspect of the PS3 all of the sudden start attracting gamers away from the 360?
I agree with your general sentiment, but this concept still seems valid. It's not that the stronger hardware will kick in "all of a sudden", but rather than over 3 years, gaming companies have been producing games for each platform, and every game release faces the pressure to be better than the last. If the big video game studios start to find themselves more limited by 360 hardware than PS3 hardware through their own natural process of bigger, more impressive games, then Sony could possibly gain advantage by nature of having the hardware to support the absolute best. I don't think this will be such a big deal, since the gap isn't *that* big, and it seems the 360 still has a lot of advantages over the PS3 to retain game developers.
Certainly, I don't see a lot of gamers going out and buying a PS3 who already have a 360 with a game library unless a sense of major superiority in games spreads. Since game developers want a large user base to be enticed, and gamers want a large (and superior) game library to switch, I don't think we can assume how things will go.
Take the $1250, the company now owns the laptop.
Citations, please. This seems totally wrong and fraught with potential licensing issues for a company who would claim such. Without legal documentation of a transfer of ownership, in compliance with all the OEM software licenses, this just sounds like a wild assumption.
If you total or wear out your personal car because of your work, and your employer offers to pay for the replacement, he doesn't magically get title to it. He *replaced* YOUR hardware which wore out due to company use.
Same as if the company replaces a customer's cell phone that gets broken due to, for example, it getting run over by the company's delivery truck. They don't suddenly p0wn the customer's cell.
When they reimburse you for on-the-road meals, do they suddenly have a right, like Shylock in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice", to claim their pound of flesh? Nope. When they pay for your new pants because you ruined your old ones on a service call, do they suddenly have the right to say "only wear them while you're on the job?" Didn't think so. When they give you gas and mileage money, do they get a lease-hold or any further rights to your car? Nah.
When the laptop gets stolen, whose insurance is going to cover it, or who is going to eat the loss? You. Take the money, and make it clear that the laptop is YOUR responsibility, and your liabity. Worse comes to worse, get it in writing, get it in writing, and get it in writing.
Additionally, say you have a Dell, Lenovo, HP, Apple, or whatever. Who do THEY assert owns the laptop. Who will Microsoft assert is the sole user licensed for the OS? All this speculation about the company gaining ownership of the actual machine is indeed nonsense.
Your company owner sounds like a good person, offering to reimburse your purchase. It sounds like he surprised you and now you're trying to decide whether you want to retain ownership of the laptop or sign it over to the company.
It sounds more like he is wondering how much if any ownership he will be giving up. There is no assumption that he will give up any ownership. He may actually be legally unable to give up ownership, depending on the software licenses already involved. His laptop's version of Windows (assumed, but OSX applies also), might not be transferable in this situation.
If you're truly worried about your company sending lawyers after you, you shouldn't even consider signing over your equipment to the company.
I see no indication that he is considering signing anything over. He's just wondering whether to accept money from the company after buying a personal item that will benefit his productivity. He is not signing anything over, but wondering about how much claim to data the company will have.
Bottom line, their IP is their IP. If he competently deletes everything company-related at any time, there's nothing to which the company has claim. It remains his equipment at all time.
You need to ask a lawyer. His answer will depend, at least in part, on documents you have signed as part of your employment, and on state law.
Personally, I know my company is too confused to ever go after me, my data, and my ideas after I leave, so long as I don't compete directly with them. I don't worry about their supposed ownership of my every thought and dream, despite signing those rights over to them.
1) Ask lawyer.
2) Accept money regardless of advice to pay lawyer bills.
Hmm, unless you phone in to one of those talk shows where lawyers give advice to callers. This guy comes to mind, in the Bay Area but with internet streaming.
Don't do it.
On the contrary, reimbursement != transfer of ownership. Company IP is company IP, but that will be the case if you accept the money or not. The choice makes you $1,250 richer or not, and that's all it changes.
Presumably, he would prefer having an extra $1,250.00 of discretionary money rather than having two laptops. It's not a cut-and-dry scenario.
It is cut-and-dry. You don't tell the boss about laptop number 2 because it's none of his business. It's like buying any other item for your personal use, like a box of condoms. Must that nosy boss know about everything I do outside of work?
It isn't cut-and-dry. Accepting the money doesn't mean he's given up ownership. The sale of the machine, the license of the OS and software all belongs to the employee. The company can't claim the $1250 automatically transferred the licenses; AFAIK Microsoft certainly doesn't work that way.
Besides, the whole reason he was offered reimbursement is because he will end up doing company work on his laptop. Such is the nature of things. Suggesting he have two laptops and keep one secret seems to miss the point of the scenario he's given, which doesn't involve a second personal laptop (they would both be his, rather than one being company and one being personal).
So your solution is simple:
Yes, it is. However, I'd offer that the solution is different than what you suggest. The simplest thing to do would be, have your employer buy you ANOTHER $1250 laptop expressly for work. Problem solved. Now you have an "air gap" between your life, and work life.
Why complicate things?
Because they are not complicated already. Why spend the money now, when money will appreciate (in a bank), and hardware will depreciate?
if the courts find out that you do company work on your personal laptop, you are a subpoena away from having to produce it, with or without the $1,250 bonus.
If that is the case, the only reasonable choice seems to be to accept the money.
Essentially if you get sued by your employer, it looks better if you just spread em wide and hope for the vaseline. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty' in civil courts, it's all about the 'preponderance of evidence' which means that if you can't say more about your innocence than they can about you're guilt, you're guilty.
If you do work on your personal computer and then leave that company, then they can subpoena it. It seems like the responsible thing for a departing employee to do is to not take company IP with them. This can be accomplished by deleting all company-related info, and doing a secure wipe on the free space (or better yet a complete wipe and reinstall). Surely there's nothing guilty about NOT having company data on your machine. If you present the forensics expert with a totally clean system, does that put the employee into some sort of twisted-logic situation that would be a big problem?
Take the check for $1,250 and use it to buy a new laptop. You get a free laptop that you use for work-only, and keep the other one for personal stuff. I call that the best of both worlds.
DON'T go out and buy a new laptop. Make sure you have backup space at home and backup your personal files regularly. Put the $1,250 in the bank, collect some meager interest, and if the company somehow seizes your laptop THEN buy a new one (the next model, perhaps). You will have all your personal data in your backups, and if you don't like the idea of your company having it, then find an encryption solution that fits.
The company would be in no way responsible for tracking your licenses nor removing software once you left.
It is also arguable if you install software on a system you don't own you are violating licensing of the software itself, and that you are gifting it by doing so.
Any company I have worked for either had already or had shortly after I got there a policy against it simply because it makes license auditing a nightmare. I don't know how many of you have been through a BSA audit but I assure you they do NOT have your interests at heart.
Fortunately there are a couple easy things to address this issue.
1) The company is an obvious place to request licenses for software you absolutely need to do your job (the whole point of them issuing a company laptop).
2) A huge amount of software with licensing that clearly permits such a use, including, but not limited to, FOSS alternatives.
My advice to OP: don't do it, even if you get it in writing. Even if you trust your boss. Even if it feels safe. The tide can shift in a snap, and you don't want to have to share ownership of all of your stuff when Sprint or Microsoft buy your company.
I disagree completely here; it makes little sense to turn down the money. It's your laptop, and you have the documentation to prove it. As a responsible computer user, you can backup all the personal data / media / software you care about on a home computer. If the very unlikely happens and you find the company has somehow superseded your clear ownership rights, the worst case scenario is that you lose a laptop for which you have already been reimbursed.
That seems extremely unlikely to happen, considering it's your laptop (they will have documentation of the reimbursement, but not the serial numbers, etc, which point to the exact machine, that you have). If it does, you have your personal data backed up, and can spend $1,250 on a (newer, faster, better) replacement and be better off than if you turned down the money and were 100% secure with your older hardware.
There isn't a lot of information but unless there are strings specifically attatched to the reimbursement, it is just that--a reimbursement.
I imagine this is quite similar to employers who do mobile phone or internet reimbursements in that they are offering it as a benefit and there is no transfer in ownership (though there may be some assumption of increased availability to work outside the office). When an employer reimburses you for personal vehicle use, they aren't claiming ownership on anything in your car...
This really seems to sum up the reality of the situation over the nightmare scenarios, but my point is the nightmare scenario is hardly that, so long as you do the backups you should be doing anyway.
I agree with the above post. Joomla is terrible. It's not only that it has been full of security issues, but also it's very difficult to use, and slow. Here's what I think in more details.
Terrible code has also been a common issue with Joomla (although often one can group that in with it being slow). Being contracted to set up a Joomla site for an organization falls into two categories:
1) It's explicitly clear that the base install is what they get, with a template applied as it comes. Project over, the rest is up to the client. Verdict: EASY MONEY
2) The client requires multiple extensions installed and integrated into a cohesive website and design, with customizations required to polish off rough edges and eliminate slowdowns and poor functionality integration. Verdict: TURN IT DOWN
With #2, the client might as well contract a custom site. They'll get just what they want, in a much more reliable and expandable package. (Rather than relying on upgrades from Joomla and each extension required to keep coming and not break the customizations).
Joomla is very simple software to use.
All you need to know about Joomla is:
I'm surprised there is enough material to make a book on Joomla.
You left out extensions. In my experience every one who commissions or sets up a Joomla site wants to customize it with non-core extensions. Then they frequently want to customize the extensions themselves, to deal with things such as broken design continuity brought on by incorporating the new modules. Using Joomla as it arrives "out of the box" is easy, but that neglects to cover a huge range of actual Joomla use, which can become quite complicated.
Rather than a lack of book worth material, it's almost like multiple books are called for, depending on what type of end set up you are going for. Want to integrate front end users with a forum, calendar, gallery, etc, each without messing up the design feel in your base template? Things become much more complicated.