The majority of security related incidents are not due to the infamous and dreaded "determined cracker". They are due to "script kiddies" - people who don't have the skills required. Security is not an absolute, it is a relative scale. Most of the people dropping shots on MS OSes are those who ony do it because it is easy. They then go brag to their equally skill-free friends about their supposed 'leetness.
Thus the intent of security is to raise the bar, the barrier to entry if you will, on what it takes to "get in". If an OS makes it more difficult to break in, more tedious to do it, then you will decrease your risk by driving off the lesser "skilled", regardless of the size of the target.
Consider transporting large amounts of cash and other valuables. Armored cars can be "cracked" by sufficiently determined theives. Yet we don't see banks transporting their cash by unescorted, unarmored car. Again, it is a matter of raising the bar. Do you lock your car or house? Why? A sufficiently determined thief will easily bypass your lock. But just as with OS level security, bank security, etc. you weed out the "petty" or "lesser" thieves/crackers. This reduces your risk and reduces your response work.
So IF OSX raises the bar, then it is a good thing regardless of the size of the target on it's back. Anything short of recognizing this is short sighted and missing the picture.
So GundamFan, do tell: Do you lock your vehicle? Do you lock the doors of your house? Do you store your money in a bank? Do you hide your valuale or use a safe? Why bother, since "where there is a will, there is a way"?
You make a very good argument that in a human environment entities will seek to fulfill needs in order to gain from the transaction. It was well stated and one I entirely agree with. Indeed I argue that case myself. As long as people have wants, others will try to fulfill them for some gain. This is true without regard to the government type and economic conditions these people are in.
However, you unfortunately used your argument against a strawman. I in no way said or implied that the non-existence of corporations would prevent the development of a "credit" system. The posts and complaints have been about *abuse* by them, not their existence. Therefore my position and argument is regarding the abuse of decency, privacy, and many other ills being perpetuated by virtue of the protections afforded by the corporation by government.
A few years ago I was fired due to utter ineptness by a so-called background check company. I had no recourse because those that perpetrated the false information were immune to action as they were shielded by the corporate entity.
A corporation is itself neither good nor evil. It simply is. It is the people which run and manage the corporation that decide it's behavior. This is a critical point in the issue of corruptness and abuse. If you read carefully you'll find that most people don't have a problem with the existence of the bureaus - the problem is their abuse of their position. Therefore, your brilliant (yes I'll admit a likely bias toward your argument) is aimed in the wrong direction and thus falls flat. A key component to absolute power is immunity and privilege. Is it no small wonder that those who have the most of those two elements commit the most abuses?
if they would let the loan processors here do that too, then we could close half of the office and save the company on rental costs energy costs and much much more. Plus not to mention the gas saved for the peopele that could work from home. I think with the gas the way it is, more companies should encourage their employees to stay at home.
It goes deeper than this. Less traffic == less congestion = less road expansion. Less congestion == better fuel economy for those who are on the road. less congestion == an opportunity for faster emergency servives response. Less traffic == less need for more spending == less need for taxes.
The result: I have no known alergies, and she suffers from multiple alergies. It doesn't make much sense unless a bored immune system becomes hypersensitive.
Actually there is another explanation. Blood type differences. Myself, my wife and daughters are all the same blood type. My son is a differing type. I've found that when my son is sick, the rest of us rarely get it, and when the rest of us do he rarely gets it. Blood type has been correlated to cancer risk and recovery. Allergies is a minor and logical connection. Various foods also have blood-type markers (the research says) and there is an interaction between your immune system and the markers in various foods.
Of course, I still agree that an overly clean environment is bad. Seems to me a possible explanation is rather simple and well known elsewhere. Cleaning excessively can kill off "good" germs and bacteria leaving the "bad" ones. In the absence of a natural limit on the "bad" ones they multiply without bounds and thus increase your exposure leves. This is much like, say introducing a frog species to kill off another pest only to find you now have too many toxic toads.
Actually, this is a misguided comment. And while I enjoyed the Libertarian parody above, it too missed reality.
The reality is that this is the result of government and a form of socialism; not capitalism.Specifically the creation of corporations. The reality is that corporations have been granted a charter of immunities that we the people do not have. Through this immunity the natural limits placed by responsible behaviour are eliminated and/or vastly reduced. It is a corrollary to absolute power. When accountability and responsibility are a non-issue behaviours get downright awful on the general scale.
Say you're a big-time exec in a corporation. you have the option of doing the right thing and taking care of your hazardous wastte responsibly, or having it cheaply dumped in the river across the county. What do you do? If you have a good sense of personal responsibilty you do the right thing. If you don't you consider the consequences. Oh, there are none other than you might lose your job and go to another one? Heck, go for the cheap option. If instead the consequence was "your butt goes to prison" or "your personal assets are subject to lawsuits by the affected party" - oh and you lose your job, then odds are you only do it if you really think you can get away with it. In the majority of cases you don't go for it because the risks are too high.
The corporation was born out of a socialistic desire. The argument boiled down to "Oh the risks are too high for people to invest time and money in! We NEED some protection here to encourage the investment!". And who foots the bill for this effect? Everyone else. You share the "risk" among the country as opposed to the individuals involved.
It used to be that recovation of corporate charter was a punishment used for corporations breaking the law. Sadly, this has not been used for years.
For all of you complaining about these corporations "getting away with it", and they are, ask yourself why they can? Because they have all these protections and immunities. The risk and consequences of bad behaviour have been all but eliminated. If the head of the credit bureau and all the people in between were personally liable for their bad decisions and abusive proctices, most of it would be cease to be in a short time. Corproations are effectively arms of the government.
Keep blaming capitalism and you get nowhere but deeper and deeper into the quagmire. When you fully understand that the source of the problem with corporations is the government protection and immunities granted to them by government, you'll see the way out.
People have been dealing with that just fine since pagers first started coming out. When you go to the theater, you leave your pager with an attendant, and he records where you're sitting..... if something happens, they come in to get you, you LEAVE, and use the phone. All without disturbing anybody else.
That's some fancy movie theater you must go to. Attendants and seating charts, wow. News flash: that is rare in the world. I've never seen a theater have seating charts - not even in Germany twenty-plus years ago, or even in miltary movie theaters. Attendants went the way of the Dodo ages ago. Besides, why should I trust some snot-nosed kid with my cell phone??
And lets' face it - it's s SHITLOAD more likely that you're gonna get called by some wanker who wants to know if you've picked up the cheese dip for friday's big game thatn to get a call that a close relative just died in a car crash. And a partially aborted rant..... what the bloody hell is people's obsession, with being in touch with the entire world 24/7? What the hell is wrong with NOT being wired for an hour or two?
Again, maybe for you. But for those of us that use our cell phones for emergency situations such as babysitters (you've seen children, right?;) ) the point of them *is* to be available for problems. I and every parent I know do this. You set the thing to silent and only answer if it is from the sitter. If you do get "the call", you can keep your voice down to a whisper w/o disturbing the people around you any more than having an attendent come and get you, then you get up and get out, then get back if you don't need to leave (or get other members of your party).
Furtehrmore, it need not be children. Some of us work in very tightly regulated industries with insane SLAs that require our availability.
[semi-sarcasm] Now what is *really* annoying is people using their cell phones in the public restrooms. Sheesh. Do they need a captive audience or something?
Interestingly, I have often found that explaining that Einstein was not born in America, and only took American citizenship when he was no longer producing any useful physics often produces a sudden re-evaluation of his scientific importance to a more appropriate level.
So you prefer a misleading of your own regarding Einstein, eh? I seriously doubt that Einstein sat down one day and thought or said "I am no longer producing any useful physics, it is finally time to become an American citizen." yet the way you paint it above that is what he did.
From wikipedia:
Einstein was born a German citizen. At the age of 17, on January 28, 1896, he was released from his German citizenship by his own request and with the approval of his father. He remained stateless for five years. On February 21, 1901 he gained Swiss citizenship, which he never revoked. Einstein obtained Prussian citizenship in April 1914 when he entered the Prussian civil service, but due to the political situation and the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany, he left civil service in March 1933 and thus also lost the Prussian citizenship. On October 1, 1940, Einstein became an American citizen. He remained both an American and a Swiss citizen until his death on April 18, 1955.
Anyone who values the intellectual capability or physics ability of someone based on their citizenship (or lack thereof) is a buffoon in my book.
The problem with OSS, as has been stated, is that it does not prepare students for what the vast majority of them are going to see in the real world.
No, the problem here is that you don't understand what educating children is supposed to be about. Educating children is supposed to mean teaching them how to think, not what to think.
Do NOT teach them MS Office, or even OpenOffice.org. How about we "get back to basics". Basics like how to spell, how to calculate, and how to write. Writing "Great job!" at the top of a math assignment that had 3 out of 10 correct is asinine. If the so-called teachers are unable to master something so basic as to teach simple math how do you expect them to teach the complexities of word processing, spread sheet use, and so on? When a teacher sends you a letter on how she grades students, when you grade it exactly as she describes she gets a 62%, what good is an office suite? Nothing but an excuse to slough it off on something else. Technical-specific adult training is far more effective and focused than workplace training in public schools. Besides, if a company wants workers trained to what they use, let them pay for it instead of mooching from the rest of us.
I used to think we should have more computers in schools. Now, as a parent, I think we need to take the computers out and put teachers in. Arguing for workplace training in a sitution when basic ability to learn and think is avoided is compromising the ideal of teaching. No, I don't work at a school district. I actually teach.
Seriously. Who cares about parked domains and what they are on. Parked domains are nothing more than a PR tool. A parked domain coudl be served from a dead simple serve-only-the-parked-page custom binary/script. Anybody relying or relishing how many domains are parked on their software has issues. Particularly since it wouldn't take much for a registrar to "park" a very high number of domains on whatever combo they wished. About the only interesting stat in the Netcraft report is that a little more than half of all "domains" are "parked". Half the domains on the web are nothing more than "for sale" signs by domain name speculators and entities who couldn't buy real webspace.
For those who actually care or might need to know which software serves up the most active domains, a report on just those is more beneficial.
Even then, why does anyone care how many domains are on what software? After all, a domain could be served up by multiple machines running different OS/Software combinations. So those numbers wouldn't be accurate either. Further, for those who may need to know "what server is best" these numbers only add confusion due to irrelevance. If you are setting up a truly large site, you'd better already know your stuff and don't need this kind of 'data'. The only data of this type that would be useful to you would be what the really busy sites run. Even then it also depends on active vs. dynamic.
As far as hostnames running a given OS, this too is not valuable due to key factor assumptions. The assumption underlying this statistic is that more is better. This is beyond mere OS capability. All hosts are not equal. A Linux box running a website(s) on 400MHz Pentium is not comparable to a Windows box on say a DL580, or vica versa. Regardless of OS in this case the DL580 will be capable of serving "more" of whatever it is serving.
The Netcraft web server report is a curious statistic and should be taken as nothing more.
People trust "media" to the extent they don't have expertise in some subject matter. What other result would you expect? There are too many topics, too many reports, and too many things demanding attention, general consumers and lay people, appropiately (though naively), rely on integrity of reporting bodies to filter that part of their world not their specialty(ies).
What should we expect? We should expect that if something is important to you, you at least do some research into it. It isn't like the information you'd need isn't out there.
It's easy to admit you did something bad after the first few large paychecks for compromising your beliefs. I'm sure that pile of cash will soothe their guilt over the decision.
This cynicism feels good and sounds good. But doesn't reflect the world of publically held companies. To admit that a decision was less than ideal or even bad, but still made money opens you up for problems. Investors and shareholders are a finnicky bunch. If you start giving them an indication that you might reverse a positive financial situation they get skittish. Particularly if it means you might not make those same decisions in the future. Shareholder lawsuits at least seem to be less uncommon these days.
For years the Linux mantra was that Windows cannot do enterprise, wasn't secure, and on and on... however with a good, well trained administrator behind the console of ANY operating system, it can be made secure, it can do enterprise.
If we allow the box to be powered off and buried in concrete we could agree to that. However, short of that, this statement is legend and nothing more. If core OS pieces are insecure, the OS is insecure period - the admin can only make it worse.
Furthermore, no Windows can not currently do Enterprise edge SMTP relaying securely and reliably. I've handled mail for several Fortune 50 and at least one Fortune 10 global enterprises. Windows is not used on the bastion layer. The reasons are security, reliability, and performance. We have the best in terms of Windows/Exchange gurus. We have direct access to core engineers for this at Microsoft (even I've been in discussions with them) and use this on a regular (almost daily) basis. So the argument that "a good, well trained administrator behind the console" would enable this is thus a non-starter.
Further, as to support costs, it is clear that you did not go to Microsoft and get a three year direct support contract. I happen to know that these costs are much higher than IBM's. It is intellectually dishonest to compare what may the largest Linux support company to... well nothing more than your licensing cost for MS. That seems to be what you did.
And a general comment on uptime... a box that is heavilly used and/or business critical in a company that requires security can have that kind of uptime. However, in such businesses as financials, it is impossible to have a secure, robust Windows server with less than 5 hours of annual downtime. And that is from the Windows gurus here.
Finally, different organizations calculate downtime differently. Two ways I've seen used are: 1. System unexpected down/unavailable. (Unplanned downtime only counted) 2. System down/unavailable period. All time counted.
Generally, Linux administrators consider all downtime as downtime. It's been 50/50 IME with Windows Admins as to which constitutes downtime.
Re:PS2 will likely be Sony's "Next-Gen" console
on
How the PS3 Hit $600
·
· Score: 1
even if said toy has no games available for it.
But of course the PS3 already has thousands of games available for it. Too many people understimate backward compatibility. I've been in many a store and seen non-techie consumer choose PS2 simply because their existing PS1 games ran on it. Alone it may not "justify" the price of the PS3 (though it will for some), but added to the other features, it very likely will play a significant role.
The way consoles are sold is quite a clever exercise in capturing the consumer surplus; that is, segmenting your market according to their willingness to pay. You launch at a price that is very high to start with and you capture the relatively small segment of the market that thinks your product is really worth that much. You then slowly lower your price so you hoover up more and more of the people who are willing to part with their cash when the price is more reasonable. Eventually, as you near the end of production, you cut your prices further to get it off the shelves and get the people who want something for nothing.
Surely you don't think that's unique to consoles, do you? Anything in consumer electronics is that way. DVD players are twenty bucks. If they could fit in cereal boxes we'd probably see them there in a few years. How much were they when they came out? A helluva lot more! This is the way the market works. Volume production brings lower pricing due to economy of scale.
This exists in other markets. Look at "standard" and "base" model new automobiles 5, 10, 15 years ago. What was once a high-priced option is now standard - and at a lower differential than the initial option offering. I can name several other markets in which this sequencing exists.
Another factor here is BluRay. I'd estimate that 80% of Playstation 2s are hooked up to a small TV in some teenageers bedroom. They're not going to go out and buy a High-Definition set for their Playstation 3. They will get no benefit from the enhanced resolution of BluRay and therefore see no reason to buy it.
Why, because that is your experience? Mine is the opposite. Of the several dozen people and families I know who have PS2 in the house, the only ones that are not hooked directly to the main TV (which in most cases is HD) are the second or third console socked away in the respective bedrooms. That figure you gave is about as relevant as the number of dogs whizzing in central park. You made it up to suit your bias or reflect your limited and insignificant experience. Yes, my experience on this is in the same boat.
I wodl hazard a supposition that a significant portion of those who will want the PS3 and do not hook it to an HD set are doing so not for the HD factor but for it's other redeeming qualities. The fact that it will (to them) be "forward compatible" is a very nice bonus.
For myself, I will hook it to the HD bigscreen in the main room. And the current PS2 that is connected (and running HD) will move to the bedroom where I do not yet have an HD set. Yet.
Here's the problem you miss in your comparison, and thus the source of your confusion. You assume taht the disciplinary tree is the same. It isn't. At least it wasn't, and likely has diverged (mutated) even further sicne I was in. I went to schools in Germany and the US.
In the US, it has been successfully inculcated that you have a right to government schooling. Not I did not say education. It has already been established that the schools are not required to actually *teach* you.
By this expectation of "right of schooling", it has further been inculcated that you can't be punished or removed for extreme behaviour. That becomes merely another "section" of school. After all, the argument goes, those kids have the same right, n'est ce pas?[1]
Add to this that it is not merely a "right", but a requirement to be there. In most places in the US school attendance is mandatory[2]. So this throws a seriously large monkey wrench into the machinery.
Add to this suspension. Suspension is a notoriously bad punishment. When the students *want* to be there, suspension carries a real penalty. But how is suspending a student who clearly does not want to be there a punishment? And of course any other penalty is prevented because it might get labelled racist/sexist/unfair/whatever. So we are left with suspension and expulsion. Suspension, as mentioned, does not work. Thus we are left with expulsion.
Yet it is still not so simple. Expulsion for extreme cases is not only warranted it is duty-bound in my opinion, and likely in a majority of people's opinion. However, we have to further add in the notion of "zero tolerance". ZT is an excuse, and a pathetic one at that. Zero Tolerance is why we see six year olds getting suspended and expelled because they drew a picture that had a gun in it. Was this the case here? Possibly. I expect that ZT was a factor whether it was the excuse or the direct cause.
You see, the US school system has been set up for failure. We all know you can't please all of the people all of the time. Yet this is precisely what the US School system is mandated to do. We force people who do not want to be there to be there, which leads to behavioural problems and serve as a massive distraction of funds and learning time. We say that "no child must be left behind"[3] so they all have to be served by bending over backward as far as we can possibly do and then some to "accomodate" them. Some people find certain things "offensive" or "objectionable", and others find opposite things in that category. Essentially it becomes little more than a race for the bottom, as all large scale socialist systems do.
1. Run to the lowest common denominator and meet that need. 2. Claim objectives met: Declare victory. 3. Demand higher pay for actually meetign these "onerous" requirements. (Profit)
Meanwhile the rest of us pay the price, as do the children who are so wrongly "served" by this system. We pay not only in terms of tax dollars, but in economic loss and intellectual accomplishment devaluation. Each generation it gets worse, since the bar is lower and lower for each generation. The same goes for punishment and discipline. The US School System pretty much serves two purposes and does that increbibly poorly:
A) Provide "babysitting" while parents are at work. B) Provide pork barrel projects and a means to siphon economic value away for personal gain (polticians, so-called teacher unions, school administration)
Some may say this is all intentional, made to dumb down Americans so they can be more easily controlled. I say it is irrelevant. The net effect is precisely that. Thus it matters not in the big picture if that was the intent. Even worse, the cycle creates a positive feedback loop. Unless there is enough intervention, it will eventually explode.
Slashdot Mirror
That is because everyone is waiting for it instead of working for it. Even the smallest discovery is the product of effort.
where there is a will there is a way.
The majority of security related incidents are not due to the infamous and dreaded "determined cracker". They are due to "script kiddies" - people who don't have the skills required. Security is not an absolute, it is a relative scale. Most of the people dropping shots on MS OSes are those who ony do it because it is easy. They then go brag to their equally skill-free friends about their supposed 'leetness.
Thus the intent of security is to raise the bar, the barrier to entry if you will, on what it takes to "get in". If an OS makes it more difficult to break in, more tedious to do it, then you will decrease your risk by driving off the lesser "skilled", regardless of the size of the target.
Consider transporting large amounts of cash and other valuables. Armored cars can be "cracked" by sufficiently determined theives. Yet we don't see banks transporting their cash by unescorted, unarmored car. Again, it is a matter of raising the bar. Do you lock your car or house? Why? A sufficiently determined thief will easily bypass your lock. But just as with OS level security, bank security, etc. you weed out the "petty" or "lesser" thieves/crackers. This reduces your risk and reduces your response work.
So IF OSX raises the bar, then it is a good thing regardless of the size of the target on it's back. Anything short of recognizing this is short sighted and missing the picture.
So GundamFan, do tell: Do you lock your vehicle? Do you lock the doors of your house? Do you store your money in a bank? Do you hide your valuale or use a safe? Why bother, since "where there is a will, there is a way"?
I thought they were going to carpet bomb the telcos from the Google plane
Nope, planes are vulnerable to anti-aircraft batteries. Now you begin to understand the wisdom of the Google moon base.
You make a very good argument that in a human environment entities will seek to fulfill needs in order to gain from the transaction. It was well stated and one I entirely agree with. Indeed I argue that case myself. As long as people have wants, others will try to fulfill them for some gain. This is true without regard to the government type and economic conditions these people are in.
However, you unfortunately used your argument against a strawman. I in no way said or implied that the non-existence of corporations would prevent the development of a "credit" system. The posts and complaints have been about *abuse* by them, not their existence. Therefore my position and argument is regarding the abuse of decency, privacy, and many other ills being perpetuated by virtue of the protections afforded by the corporation by government.
A few years ago I was fired due to utter ineptness by a so-called background check company. I had no recourse because those that perpetrated the false information were immune to action as they were shielded by the corporate entity.
A corporation is itself neither good nor evil. It simply is. It is the people which run and manage the corporation that decide it's behavior. This is a critical point in the issue of corruptness and abuse. If you read carefully you'll find that most people don't have a problem with the existence of the bureaus - the problem is their abuse of their position. Therefore, your brilliant (yes I'll admit a likely bias toward your argument) is aimed in the wrong direction and thus falls flat. A key component to absolute power is immunity and privilege. Is it no small wonder that those who have the most of those two elements commit the most abuses?
How about making that little e launch firefox?
Because telecommuting means using technology, and that would be eeeeevil.
It goes deeper than this. Less traffic == less congestion = less road expansion. Less congestion == better fuel economy for those who are on the road. less congestion == an opportunity for faster emergency servives response. Less traffic == less need for more spending == less need for taxes.
Actually there is another explanation. Blood type differences. Myself, my wife and daughters are all the same blood type. My son is a differing type. I've found that when my son is sick, the rest of us rarely get it, and when the rest of us do he rarely gets it. Blood type has been correlated to cancer risk and recovery. Allergies is a minor and logical connection. Various foods also have blood-type markers (the research says) and there is an interaction between your immune system and the markers in various foods.
Of course, I still agree that an overly clean environment is bad. Seems to me a possible explanation is rather simple and well known elsewhere. Cleaning excessively can kill off "good" germs and bacteria leaving the "bad" ones. In the absence of a natural limit on the "bad" ones they multiply without bounds and thus increase your exposure leves. This is much like, say introducing a frog species to kill off another pest only to find you now have too many toxic toads.
Actually, this is a misguided comment. And while I enjoyed the Libertarian parody above, it too missed reality.
The reality is that this is the result of government and a form of socialism; not capitalism.Specifically the creation of corporations. The reality is that corporations have been granted a charter of immunities that we the people do not have. Through this immunity the natural limits placed by responsible behaviour are eliminated and/or vastly reduced. It is a corrollary to absolute power. When accountability and responsibility are a non-issue behaviours get downright awful on the general scale.
Say you're a big-time exec in a corporation. you have the option of doing the right thing and taking care of your hazardous wastte responsibly, or having it cheaply dumped in the river across the county. What do you do? If you have a good sense of personal responsibilty you do the right thing. If you don't you consider the consequences. Oh, there are none other than you might lose your job and go to another one? Heck, go for the cheap option. If instead the consequence was "your butt goes to prison" or "your personal assets are subject to lawsuits by the affected party" - oh and you lose your job, then odds are you only do it if you really think you can get away with it. In the majority of cases you don't go for it because the risks are too high.
The corporation was born out of a socialistic desire. The argument boiled down to "Oh the risks are too high for people to invest time and money in! We NEED some protection here to encourage the investment!". And who foots the bill for this effect? Everyone else. You share the "risk" among the country as opposed to the individuals involved.
It used to be that recovation of corporate charter was a punishment used for corporations breaking the law. Sadly, this has not been used for years.
For all of you complaining about these corporations "getting away with it", and they are, ask yourself why they can? Because they have all these protections and immunities. The risk and consequences of bad behaviour have been all but eliminated. If the head of the credit bureau and all the people in between were personally liable for their bad decisions and abusive proctices, most of it would be cease to be in a short time. Corproations are effectively arms of the government.
Keep blaming capitalism and you get nowhere but deeper and deeper into the quagmire. When you fully understand that the source of the problem with corporations is the government protection and immunities granted to them by government, you'll see the way out.
Can you show where it is made illegal?
People have been dealing with that just fine since pagers first started coming out. ..... if something happens, they come in to get you, you LEAVE, and use the phone. All without disturbing anybody else.
..... what the bloody hell is people's obsession, with being in touch with the entire world 24/7? What the hell is wrong with NOT being wired for an hour or two?
;) ) the point of them *is* to be available for problems. I and every parent I know do this. You set the thing to silent and only answer if it is from the sitter. If you do get "the call", you can keep your voice down to a whisper w/o disturbing the people around you any more than having an attendent come and get you, then you get up and get out, then get back if you don't need to leave (or get other members of your party).
When you go to the theater, you leave your pager with an attendant, and he records where you're sitting
That's some fancy movie theater you must go to. Attendants and seating charts, wow. News flash: that is rare in the world. I've never seen a theater have seating charts - not even in Germany twenty-plus years ago, or even in miltary movie theaters. Attendants went the way of the Dodo ages ago. Besides, why should I trust some snot-nosed kid with my cell phone??
And lets' face it - it's s SHITLOAD more likely that you're gonna get called by some wanker who wants to know if you've picked up the cheese dip for friday's big game thatn to get a call that a close relative just died in a car crash. And a partially aborted rant
Again, maybe for you. But for those of us that use our cell phones for emergency situations such as babysitters (you've seen children, right?
Furtehrmore, it need not be children. Some of us work in very tightly regulated industries with insane SLAs that require our availability.
[semi-sarcasm]
Now what is *really* annoying is people using their cell phones in the public restrooms. Sheesh. Do they need a captive audience or something?
So you prefer a misleading of your own regarding Einstein, eh?
I seriously doubt that Einstein sat down one day and thought or said "I am no longer producing any useful physics, it is finally time to become an American citizen." yet the way you paint it above that is what he did.
From wikipedia:
Anyone who values the intellectual capability or physics ability of someone based on their citizenship (or lack thereof) is a buffoon in my book.
because one tenant is dealing drugs.
That should be: because one tenant is allegedly dealing drugs., should it not?
I bet someone was sold on an idea that moving jobs to India...
...
How about a slight change in punctuation
"I bet someone was sold on an idea that moving Jobs to India..."
The problem with OSS, as has been stated, is that it does not prepare students for what the vast majority of them are going to see in the real world.
No, the problem here is that you don't understand what educating children is supposed to be about. Educating children is supposed to mean teaching them how to think, not what to think.
Do NOT teach them MS Office, or even OpenOffice.org. How about we "get back to basics". Basics like how to spell, how to calculate, and how to write. Writing "Great job!" at the top of a math assignment that had 3 out of 10 correct is asinine. If the so-called teachers are unable to master something so basic as to teach simple math how do you expect them to teach the complexities of word processing, spread sheet use, and so on? When a teacher sends you a letter on how she grades students, when you grade it exactly as she describes she gets a 62%, what good is an office suite? Nothing but an excuse to slough it off on something else. Technical-specific adult training is far more effective and focused than workplace training in public schools. Besides, if a company wants workers trained to what they use, let them pay for it instead of mooching from the rest of us.
I used to think we should have more computers in schools. Now, as a parent, I think we need to take the computers out and put teachers in. Arguing for workplace training in a sitution when basic ability to learn and think is avoided is compromising the ideal of teaching. No, I don't work at a school district. I actually teach.
You took the "No evil" bite, and now it's too late.
.... "live on".
No, it's like old rock songs. You have to reverse the motto to see what is really going on here
Seriously. Who cares about parked domains and what they are on. Parked domains are nothing more than a PR tool. A parked domain coudl be served from a dead simple serve-only-the-parked-page custom binary/script. Anybody relying or relishing how many domains are parked on their software has issues. Particularly since it wouldn't take much for a registrar to "park" a very high number of domains on whatever combo they wished. About the only interesting stat in the Netcraft report is that a little more than half of all "domains" are "parked". Half the domains on the web are nothing more than "for sale" signs by domain name speculators and entities who couldn't buy real webspace.
For those who actually care or might need to know which software serves up the most active domains, a report on just those is more beneficial.
Even then, why does anyone care how many domains are on what software? After all, a domain could be served up by multiple machines running different OS/Software combinations. So those numbers wouldn't be accurate either. Further, for those who may need to know "what server is best" these numbers only add confusion due to irrelevance. If you are setting up a truly large site, you'd better already know your stuff and don't need this kind of 'data'. The only data of this type that would be useful to you would be what the really busy sites run. Even then it also depends on active vs. dynamic.
As far as hostnames running a given OS, this too is not valuable due to key factor assumptions. The assumption underlying this statistic is that more is better. This is beyond mere OS capability. All hosts are not equal. A Linux box running a website(s) on 400MHz Pentium is not comparable to a Windows box on say a DL580, or vica versa. Regardless of OS in this case the DL580 will be capable of serving "more" of whatever it is serving.
The Netcraft web server report is a curious statistic and should be taken as nothing more.
People trust "media" to the extent they don't have expertise in some subject matter. What other result would you expect? There are too many topics, too many reports, and too many things demanding attention, general consumers and lay people, appropiately (though naively), rely on integrity of reporting bodies to filter that part of their world not their specialty(ies).
What should we expect? We should expect that if something is important to you, you at least do some research into it. It isn't like the information you'd need isn't out there.
It's easy to admit you did something bad after the first few large paychecks for compromising your beliefs. I'm sure that pile of cash will soothe their guilt over the decision.
This cynicism feels good and sounds good. But doesn't reflect the world of publically held companies. To admit that a decision was less than ideal or even bad, but still made money opens you up for problems. Investors and shareholders are a finnicky bunch. If you start giving them an indication that you might reverse a positive financial situation they get skittish. Particularly if it means you might not make those same decisions in the future. Shareholder lawsuits at least seem to be less uncommon these days.
For years the Linux mantra was that Windows cannot do enterprise, wasn't secure, and on and on... however with a good, well trained administrator behind the console of ANY operating system, it can be made secure, it can do enterprise.
... well nothing more than your licensing cost for MS. That seems to be what you did.
... a box that is heavilly used and/or business critical in a company that requires security can have that kind of uptime. However, in such businesses as financials, it is impossible to have a secure, robust Windows server with less than 5 hours of annual downtime. And that is from the Windows gurus here.
If we allow the box to be powered off and buried in concrete we could agree to that. However, short of that, this statement is legend and nothing more. If core OS pieces are insecure, the OS is insecure period - the admin can only make it worse.
Furthermore, no Windows can not currently do Enterprise edge SMTP relaying securely and reliably. I've handled mail for several Fortune 50 and at least one Fortune 10 global enterprises. Windows is not used on the bastion layer. The reasons are security, reliability, and performance. We have the best in terms of Windows/Exchange gurus. We have direct access to core engineers for this at Microsoft (even I've been in discussions with them) and use this on a regular (almost daily) basis. So the argument that "a good, well trained administrator behind the console" would enable this is thus a non-starter.
Further, as to support costs, it is clear that you did not go to Microsoft and get a three year direct support contract. I happen to know that these costs are much higher than IBM's. It is intellectually dishonest to compare what may the largest Linux support company to
And a general comment on uptime
Finally, different organizations calculate downtime differently. Two ways I've seen used are:
1. System unexpected down/unavailable. (Unplanned downtime only counted)
2. System down/unavailable period. All time counted.
Generally, Linux administrators consider all downtime as downtime. It's been 50/50 IME with Windows Admins as to which constitutes downtime.
even if said toy has no games available for it.
But of course the PS3 already has thousands of games available for it. Too many people understimate backward compatibility. I've been in many a store and seen non-techie consumer choose PS2 simply because their existing PS1 games ran on it. Alone it may not "justify" the price of the PS3 (though it will for some), but added to the other features, it very likely will play a significant role.
welcome our new, government-inconveniencing-case-dismissing overlords.
And they thank you for that since they are already here. "New" in this case only means you just learned about it.
Surely you don't think that's unique to consoles, do you? Anything in consumer electronics is that way. DVD players are twenty bucks. If they could fit in cereal boxes we'd probably see them there in a few years. How much were they when they came out? A helluva lot more! This is the way the market works. Volume production brings lower pricing due to economy of scale.
This exists in other markets. Look at "standard" and "base" model new automobiles 5, 10, 15 years ago. What was once a high-priced option is now standard - and at a lower differential than the initial option offering. I can name several other markets in which this sequencing exists.
Why, because that is your experience? Mine is the opposite. Of the several dozen people and families I know who have PS2 in the house, the only ones that are not hooked directly to the main TV (which in most cases is HD) are the second or third console socked away in the respective bedrooms. That figure you gave is about as relevant as the number of dogs whizzing in central park. You made it up to suit your bias or reflect your limited and insignificant experience. Yes, my experience on this is in the same boat.
I wodl hazard a supposition that a significant portion of those who will want the PS3 and do not hook it to an HD set are doing so not for the HD factor but for it's other redeeming qualities. The fact that it will (to them) be "forward compatible" is a very nice bonus.
For myself, I will hook it to the HD bigscreen in the main room. And the current PS2 that is connected (and running HD) will move to the bedroom where I do not yet have an HD set. Yet.
I could steal old people's medicine
More importantly you could finally get that candy from the baby!
Here's the problem you miss in your comparison, and thus the source of your confusion. You assume taht the disciplinary tree is the same. It isn't. At least it wasn't, and likely has diverged (mutated) even further sicne I was in. I went to schools in Germany and the US.
In the US, it has been successfully inculcated that you have a right to government schooling. Not I did not say education. It has already been established that the schools are not required to actually *teach* you.
By this expectation of "right of schooling", it has further been inculcated that you can't be punished or removed for extreme behaviour. That becomes merely another "section" of school. After all, the argument goes, those kids have the same right, n'est ce pas?[1]
Add to this that it is not merely a "right", but a requirement to be there. In most places in the US school attendance is mandatory[2]. So this throws a seriously large monkey wrench into the machinery.
Add to this suspension. Suspension is a notoriously bad punishment. When the students *want* to be there, suspension carries a real penalty. But how is suspending a student who clearly does not want to be there a punishment? And of course any other penalty is prevented because it might get labelled racist/sexist/unfair/whatever. So we are left with suspension and expulsion. Suspension, as mentioned, does not work. Thus we are left with expulsion.
Yet it is still not so simple. Expulsion for extreme cases is not only warranted it is duty-bound in my opinion, and likely in a majority of people's opinion. However, we have to further add in the notion of "zero tolerance". ZT is an excuse, and a pathetic one at that. Zero Tolerance is why we see six year olds getting suspended and expelled because they drew a picture that had a gun in it. Was this the case here? Possibly. I expect that ZT was a factor whether it was the excuse or the direct cause.
You see, the US school system has been set up for failure. We all know you can't please all of the people all of the time. Yet this is precisely what the US School system is mandated to do. We force people who do not want to be there to be there, which leads to behavioural problems and serve as a massive distraction of funds and learning time. We say that "no child must be left behind"[3] so they all have to be served by bending over backward as far as we can possibly do and then some to "accomodate" them. Some people find certain things "offensive" or "objectionable", and others find opposite things in that category. Essentially it becomes little more than a race for the bottom, as all large scale socialist systems do.
1. Run to the lowest common denominator and meet that need.
2. Claim objectives met: Declare victory.
3. Demand higher pay for actually meetign these "onerous" requirements. (Profit)
Meanwhile the rest of us pay the price, as do the children who are so wrongly "served" by this system. We pay not only in terms of tax dollars, but in economic loss and intellectual accomplishment devaluation. Each generation it gets worse, since the bar is lower and lower for each generation. The same goes for punishment and discipline. The US School System pretty much serves two purposes and does that increbibly poorly:
A) Provide "babysitting" while parents are at work.
B) Provide pork barrel projects and a means to siphon economic value away for personal gain (polticians, so-called teacher unions, school administration)
Some may say this is all intentional, made to dumb down Americans so they can be more easily controlled. I say it is irrelevant. The net effect is precisely that. Thus it matters not in the big picture if that was the intent. Even worse, the cycle creates a positive feedback loop. Unless there is enough intervention, it will eventually explode.
1. Funding, really.
2. Funding, really.
3. Funding, really.