Some policies just aren't reasonable or well thought out.
Exactly. Most corporate policy lists are like U.S. laws. Excessively numerous and impossible to follow. If you tried, you might get fired not completing your work at the speed of your co-workers. When I was young and naive, a manager actually told me that I can't follow all the policies, and that I just had to do my best to obey what I could, and not get caught for the rest.
I've heard it said that corporate policy exists so that management can point blame wherever they want when something goes wrong, because everybody is breaking the rules. That would be in common with U.S. laws.
The technology itself does not add or subtract security. It all comes down to how you use the technology.
A lot of people use virtualization to combine physical machines into one. They do this for utilization, and not for security. I can see how this might make the machines less secure, since if you hack one virtual machine, and break out of the hypervisor, you now have 20 (virtual) machines hacked.
However, there is another common way to use virtualization. A desktop user might surf the web in a virtual machine. We have been told that this enhances security. It does, using the classic "layers" solution. Not only does a hacker have to exploit the user's browser, but he also has to break out of the hypervisor. The hacker doesn't know what hypervisor he needs to break into beforehand, and his time is limited to the amount of time the user spends surfing the web. Most likely, the exploit was automated, will not break out of the hypervisor, but instead die when the hypervisor is shut down, and the hacker will never even notice. Compare that to having your machine compromised as soon as a hacker exploits one of the flaws in firefox.
I wouldn't call either of those 'VOIP' by definition.
And why would that be?
I want to use the telephone, not PC based chat.
Not an applicable reason. After a minute of searching, I found this. I am sure you can find similar items that are cheaper and/or better and/or work with services other than skype.
I use txt for most stuff. If I need to get fancy, I use rtf. It has got everything: colors, centered, fonts, bold, italics, and even strikeout. What more could I possibly need in an office format?
GCC and Bash are opensource, you can get them to run on ANYTHING you bloody well want too.
True, but you miss the primary point.
So if you want to use code that only compiles under gcc then all you need to do is get gcc to work on your system.
Oh. Is that all? Sort of like how if I want to render IE-only web pages, all I have to do is get IE to work on my system under wine? That should be easy, and is not the slightest bit inconvenient. Why would I want to choose my own compiler?
Frankly if this is the best attack you can muster against GNU...
Them's fighting words. When entering a discussion, it is best to keep things civil. The GP wasn't mustering an attack against gnu. He was sharing a valid criticism.
You have a point regarding de facto standards being more relevant than voted on standards. However, your example of TCP/IP vs OSI is totally wrong. OSI is a model. TCP and IP are protocols within the OSI. TCP is a transport layer, and IP is a network layer.
pair-a-noyd's rant is seriously misdirected. Linux is whatever you want it to be. That is one of the advantages of having several hundred active distros.
The end effect is probably the same. The most cost efficient way to make a web site for seeing and blind users is to follow standards. Accessibility is more than that, but it is the first step. The alternative would be to lazily and crappily code the site for seeing users, and then lazily and crappily code an alternate site for blind users.
The problem with not following standards is narrow usability. If you can't use a site in Firefox, you probably can't use it in "Browser for the blind" either. I imagine that shoddy code and ignoring standards is what got Target into this mess in the first place.
Unless a product contains inventions by 40 different inventors, and all the inventors demand their 3 percent.
I noticed that problem too. It's why I didn't suggest that one. There are solutions to it though. However, of the ones I can think of, those solutions also have their own problems. It just shows you can't make a law in a day. It is too important, and there are too many pitfalls. But just because a solution has problems, doesn't mean the solution is bad. Just incomplete.
Compare to the mindset among the people of North American nations before the Europeans came: "We aren't talking about property. We are talking about land claims. Land belongs to everybody."
Land has always been here. Patent law was created specifically to benefit everyone. That being said, you can't own land any more than you an own ideas/patents.
The article is quite short on details. So you don't access your files by booting your computer. Then how do you access them? Does it act as external storage, so you can transfer files from your computer to another computer that is already booted? Does it provide some sort of minimal access to your files without needing a second computer?
That's a really good point. The problem comes up with who sets the price for the patented part. The court? The bad-faith infringer who has an incentive to discount its worth? The inventor set a price higher than the infringer, or else there would some agreement.
There are lots of solutions to something like this. A set %, decided by congress, of profit for all patents is one such solution. The best solution I can come up with is, "If you license the patent to one company, you must license it to anyone else at the same price." It would be a little difficult to figure out what that "same price" is, but I think the kinks could be resolved.
Taking away someone's ability to sell, or not sell, their property has some issues
We aren't talking about property. We are talking about patents. Ideas belong to everybody. The money given to an inventor is society's way of saying "Thank you for your hard work. Please continue."
Slashdot Mirror
They are working on an amendment that says that non-evil companies do not have to follow these rules.
Exactly. Most corporate policy lists are like U.S. laws. Excessively numerous and impossible to follow. If you tried, you might get fired not completing your work at the speed of your co-workers. When I was young and naive, a manager actually told me that I can't follow all the policies, and that I just had to do my best to obey what I could, and not get caught for the rest.
I've heard it said that corporate policy exists so that management can point blame wherever they want when something goes wrong, because everybody is breaking the rules. That would be in common with U.S. laws.
Finally, they will have a viable means to distribute Duke Nuke'm Forever!
"online media distribution system"
;; medium == distribution method ;; media == mediums
That is a pretty redundant term. Is not everything distributed via a medium?
media != audio/video
The technology itself does not add or subtract security. It all comes down to how you use the technology.
A lot of people use virtualization to combine physical machines into one. They do this for utilization, and not for security. I can see how this might make the machines less secure, since if you hack one virtual machine, and break out of the hypervisor, you now have 20 (virtual) machines hacked.
However, there is another common way to use virtualization. A desktop user might surf the web in a virtual machine. We have been told that this enhances security. It does, using the classic "layers" solution. Not only does a hacker have to exploit the user's browser, but he also has to break out of the hypervisor. The hacker doesn't know what hypervisor he needs to break into beforehand, and his time is limited to the amount of time the user spends surfing the web. Most likely, the exploit was automated, will not break out of the hypervisor, but instead die when the hypervisor is shut down, and the hacker will never even notice. Compare that to having your machine compromised as soon as a hacker exploits one of the flaws in firefox.
It is interesting to note that those who are most competent at IT security are least likely to reproduce.
http://packages.debian.org/bob
And why would that be?
Not an applicable reason. After a minute of searching, I found this. I am sure you can find similar items that are cheaper and/or better and/or work with services other than skype.
Define "completely horrific."
I recommend trying gizmo. The most popular VOIP solution, at least in my crowd, is skype. And there is wengo, who has a GPL'd client.
I use txt for most stuff. If I need to get fancy, I use rtf. It has got everything: colors, centered, fonts, bold, italics, and even strikeout. What more could I possibly need in an office format?
For web publishing, I use html or txt.
True, but you miss the primary point.
Oh. Is that all? Sort of like how if I want to render IE-only web pages, all I have to do is get IE to work on my system under wine? That should be easy, and is not the slightest bit inconvenient. Why would I want to choose my own compiler?
Them's fighting words. When entering a discussion, it is best to keep things civil. The GP wasn't mustering an attack against gnu. He was sharing a valid criticism.
You have a point regarding de facto standards being more relevant than voted on standards. However, your example of TCP/IP vs OSI is totally wrong. OSI is a model. TCP and IP are protocols within the OSI. TCP is a transport layer, and IP is a network layer.
Or they could tilt the reflectors, and solve nuclear winter!
Or http://www.fluxbuntu.org/
pair-a-noyd's rant is seriously misdirected. Linux is whatever you want it to be. That is one of the advantages of having several hundred active distros.
The end effect is probably the same. The most cost efficient way to make a web site for seeing and blind users is to follow standards. Accessibility is more than that, but it is the first step. The alternative would be to lazily and crappily code the site for seeing users, and then lazily and crappily code an alternate site for blind users.
The problem with not following standards is narrow usability. If you can't use a site in Firefox, you probably can't use it in "Browser for the blind" either. I imagine that shoddy code and ignoring standards is what got Target into this mess in the first place.
Exactly. It is moderately funny. It is difficult to believe that anyone found it insightful or interesting.
As badly as computers screw up, they are more consistent and reliable than people.
I noticed that problem too. It's why I didn't suggest that one. There are solutions to it though. However, of the ones I can think of, those solutions also have their own problems. It just shows you can't make a law in a day. It is too important, and there are too many pitfalls. But just because a solution has problems, doesn't mean the solution is bad. Just incomplete.
Land has always been here. Patent law was created specifically to benefit everyone. That being said, you can't own land any more than you an own ideas/patents.
Can we just apologize for banning online gambling, and promise to put it back? I would be happy to do that.
The article is quite short on details. So you don't access your files by booting your computer. Then how do you access them? Does it act as external storage, so you can transfer files from your computer to another computer that is already booted? Does it provide some sort of minimal access to your files without needing a second computer?
There are lots of solutions to something like this. A set %, decided by congress, of profit for all patents is one such solution. The best solution I can come up with is, "If you license the patent to one company, you must license it to anyone else at the same price." It would be a little difficult to figure out what that "same price" is, but I think the kinks could be resolved.
We aren't talking about property. We are talking about patents. Ideas belong to everybody. The money given to an inventor is society's way of saying "Thank you for your hard work. Please continue."
Silly Pooua. You can't take weapons on a plane.
The United States, where the internet was invented by Al Gore.
There. Fixed it.
Nothing to see here, folks. This is a new government program to prevent crime:
http://slate.com/id/2152487