Last time I traveled it did... things may have changed, I suppose, but that seems unlikely. If it doesn't, I'm sure other countries have similar internet search engines, right?
At any rate, a 15-second google search turned up a table matching grades to age ranges in the US and British school systems.
HTH.
Apple reserves blocks of CVE numbers in advance, without necessarily having a problem report that matches up. They were told about this on 01 December.
will we fall in along the common mantra that "obsucrity is not protection" (though most snipers would disagree).
The common mantra is not "obscurity is not protection". The common mantra is "Security through obscurity is really not security." You're repeating a common misunderstanding. If instead you read "Security that relies on obscurity is bad" then you have a better understanding of the criticism of security through obscurity.
In other words, obscurity may help, but it should not be the primary feature of your security plan. In fact, you should not rely on obscurity for anything important at all. Just consider yourself lucky if you benefit from it for a little while.
The Escalade and the Suburban follow the pattern, though. The Escalade costs more to make and is priced higher. A Suburban with comparable features (but lacking those that are exclusively available on an Escalade) costs $51k here. An Escalade costs $55k. I happen to have just priced these out for a friend:). Dunno how significant $4k is on a $50k vehicle or how that proportionately lines up with cost.
But it's extremely rare to find a product that costs a seller less to provide selling for more money than one that costs a seller more to provide. You certainly don't find that in the car market. The reason that's rare is because it's a gap where someone else could jump in and grab profits. That's doubly true in a market like hosting where it's so easy for someone to jump in.
Cost doesn't necessarily dictate price, but relative costs of two items will generally order their prices, provided sellers are behaving rationally.
Then hosting companies are behaving irrationally, including the one that is the subject of the study. If it costs less to operate a Windows platform than a Linux platform, then the hosting companies would rather have their customers use Windows platforms. This would lead them to price the Windows packages lower than the Linux packages; after all, if windows were cheaper, they could do that and still be more profitable.
Looking at other hosts, this seems to hold up. interhost wants 19 GBP/month for Linux versus 25 GBP/month for Windows. Over at New York Internet accepting all the defaults for their BSD plan nets a quote of about $42/month; a similar Windows-based plan is $64/month. And over at hosting.com their managed hosting plans for Windows servers start at $230/month while the same plans for Linux start at $195/month. I was able to find, over at 1and1, shared Linux hosting and shared Windows hosting that cost the same.
I was not able to find any provider that offered cheaper Windows hosting than Linux hosting.
So, assuming that everyone behaves rationally, if the numbers in this study were accurate at all, the hosting provider that is the subject of the study would offer cheaper Windows hosting than Linux hosting. They don't. If the numbers in this study were generally applicable, you'd find that most hosting providers who offer both would offer cheaper Windows hosting than *Nix hosting. They don't. I can only conclude that the study is bogus in some way and shouldn't be trusted, since it fails to predict rational behavior in a very open marketplace (i.e. one with very low barriers to entry). Businesses are very good at thinking with their wallets, and if this study were true then there's a huge money making opportunity that everyone is letting go.
Since you don't need any of the music-specific features, look for a package that helps you sell software. It's the same problem you're trying to solve and there are many options. This one was near the top of my google search results, and looks to meet your needs. There appeared to be numerous similar apps.
Last time I tried it, that wasn't possible. It may well be now, but that seems unlikely. Since emulated hardware is different than real hardware, what you want is a tall order.
You've activated a lot. Microsoft makes you call them every time you install after you've used a specific key a certain number of times (something like 3). Whatever, it's not that big a deal.
I had activated twice prior to moving the key to a VM. Once when I installed initially, and once when I reinstalled because my system was crapped up from having added and removed so many software packages that the registry had grown to 2GB and I felt (correctly) that a reinstall would improve performance. And I suppose 20 minutes on hold is not that big a deal. I was just watching a baseball game while sitting on hold anyway. I did feel punished by having to sit on hold to use software I had legitimately paid for, though. If I had just used a crack I wouldn't have had to call at all.
It can only be installed one place at a time. If it's a retail license, they'll let you move the license, though you will likely have to call to activate. If it's an OEM license, I'm not sure. They may or may not let you move it; I don't remember the terms of that license well enough to say.
So the upshot is, if you have a retail license and want to install it in a VM on Linux and will uninstall the standalone install, then no, you don't need two copies. If you want to have it installed in a VM and on bare hardware at the same time then you definitely do need two copies.
If you have an OEM copy and want to move it to a VM, contact Microsoft or reread your license agreement carefully to see if it can be moved.
I removed it from the first machine and installed Linux there prior to installing it under the VM, so I was abiding by the terms of the (retail) license. But I still had to call to get activated.
I wonder what the difference is between your license key and mine then. I had to sit on hold for 20 minutes waiting for someone at the MS phone support center before mine could be activated.
So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?
Windows Activation. When you install a Windows XP or later OS on a new machine, you have to activate it. The activation will fail, and you'll have to call MS and ask them real nice to let you activate it anyway.
Furthermore, if your windows license is OEM, MS may not let you move it to a different machine. So you need to purchase a new Windows license for your new virtual machines.
Ouch. I didn't think I'd been out of school for that long 'till I read your comment. 7 years ago, my most expensive textbook was about $90 new. And we felt like we were being gouged:-(
I've solved this in the past by making sure that none of my ideas are ever owned by anybody but me. I produce software and routinely borrow code and ideas from past projects. It's called "experience" and it's a big part of what I bring to the table. In exchange, I don't do work unless I get ownership of the resulting code. Then, I grant whatever license is appropriate for the use of the resulting code.
That's a nice approach. But if you can do that, you're talking about a different kind of consulting business than OP is. Anyone who's facing clauses like he describes is being engaged to produce "work for hire", not selling software licenses.
There are tradeoffs between the two, naturally. It really (IMO) depends on the nature of the project as to which I'd rather do. For code that's so specific to a particular client that I'm unlikely to be able to use it for others anyway, I prefer to do it as work for hire. You can charge more that way. It's also worth noting that there's a lot of interesting work where you'll only be able to do it on a work for hire basis. Just don't sign anything that prevents you from being able to do other work...
It sounds like you've built yourself a nice business. A million a year in license sales is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Can you plug it here with a link?
Like this guy says, I don't see how I could sign this, especially if I'm working with other customers at the time.
Yeah. If he's up against one that bad, the only options are arguing him down or walking away. You'd think with a clause like that particular one, though, that the company just couldn't get anyone to do work for them:-).
Spot on. I was only thinking about time cost and not really considering storage cost. The paper you reference, for those interested in trading some of the storage cost I cite for some additioinal time cost, is available here.
It's tough to say without seeing the clause whether you really have the problem you imagine. And, ob. disclaimer, IANAL. TINLA.
I've solved this in the past by making sure that their ownership of my ideas is restricted to items produced in the course of (as opposed to during the term of) working for them. This gives them ownership of IP created as a result of executing their project and no more. In terms of the "Prior Inventions" clause, I'd attempt to rename it "Prior published inventions" and give them a good list if they won't strike it. If they really want a list of unpublished inventions as well, maybe you could extend the term of their NDA to something insane like 10 years?
If your ideas are valuable, they won't strike the prior inventions clause and won't amend it as I describe, and they won't restrict the IP transfer clause to items produced in the course of your contract, you may be dealing with a client that you should turn down. Those exist, and, though it's painful to turn away business, sometimes it's good sense to do so.
The Handbook of Applied Cryptography is an excellent book and is now available online for free. If you passed a couple college calculus courses, the material should be very accessible to you. In general, it's an excellent source of facts and analysis to debunk incorrect statements about cryptography.
In particular, the part that answers you question is found in Chapter 7 (block ciphers). The justification for fact 7.33 explains why, if you can store 2^64 blocks of ciphertext, you can break double 64-bit encryption in 2^64 operations.
If your coworker is not capable of understanding the math behind this reasoning, he really should not be making decisions about encryption:-).
(Note: I'm not witholding the justification in this post simply to be obtuse. It's too much of a pain to format it reasonably in this input box... you'll just have to refer to the PDF.)
No. It draws 6W in sleep mode, which is pretty typical. It has "standby" mode which draws 75W, but it only stays like that for a few minutes after you power it up or print something, then it goes to sleep mode.
This one is automatic. It prints the first side, you see the paper start to appear, then the paper disappears back into the printer and it prints the second side. It isn't especially speedy, but is very handy and I use it for most print jobs.
Two years ago, it was harder to install for Ubuntu, so I'm not quite sure if Ubuntu improved in this respect, or if the driver got better.
I'm not sure either, but the only "hoop" I jumped through for Ubuntu (about a year ago) was copying the.ppd file from the brother CD over and pointing CUPS at it. Maybe it's just been too long, but IIRC it was easy and the whole setup process took about 5 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
bah. That's not free if you own your place of employment :-P
I was hoping you were referring to some promotional program I didn't know about.
And I didn't pay for it either. I got it through MSDN.
Where can one get this free MSDN of which you speak?
GWT would still be prior art. Google used it to build gmail, which launched in early 2004.
Last time I traveled it did... things may have changed, I suppose, but that seems unlikely. If it doesn't, I'm sure other countries have similar internet search engines, right? At any rate, a 15-second google search turned up a table matching grades to age ranges in the US and British school systems. HTH.
Apple reserves blocks of CVE numbers in advance, without necessarily having a problem report that matches up. They were told about this on 01 December.
The common mantra is not "obscurity is not protection". The common mantra is "Security through obscurity is really not security." You're repeating a common misunderstanding. If instead you read "Security that relies on obscurity is bad" then you have a better understanding of the criticism of security through obscurity.
In other words, obscurity may help, but it should not be the primary feature of your security plan. In fact, you should not rely on obscurity for anything important at all. Just consider yourself lucky if you benefit from it for a little while.
The Escalade and the Suburban follow the pattern, though. The Escalade costs more to make and is priced higher. A Suburban with comparable features (but lacking those that are exclusively available on an Escalade) costs $51k here. An Escalade costs $55k. I happen to have just priced these out for a friend :). Dunno how significant $4k is on a $50k vehicle or how that proportionately lines up with cost.
But it's extremely rare to find a product that costs a seller less to provide selling for more money than one that costs a seller more to provide. You certainly don't find that in the car market. The reason that's rare is because it's a gap where someone else could jump in and grab profits. That's doubly true in a market like hosting where it's so easy for someone to jump in.
Cost doesn't necessarily dictate price, but relative costs of two items will generally order their prices, provided sellers are behaving rationally.
Then hosting companies are behaving irrationally, including the one that is the subject of the study. If it costs less to operate a Windows platform than a Linux platform, then the hosting companies would rather have their customers use Windows platforms. This would lead them to price the Windows packages lower than the Linux packages; after all, if windows were cheaper, they could do that and still be more profitable.
Hostbasket, the subject of this study, is not doing that:
Their basic Linux package is 8 Euros/month and their basic Windows package is 10 Euros/month. So if the results of the study were true, this pricing scheme would be quite irrational.
Looking at other hosts, this seems to hold up. interhost wants 19 GBP/month for Linux versus 25 GBP/month for Windows. Over at New York Internet accepting all the defaults for their BSD plan nets a quote of about $42/month; a similar Windows-based plan is $64/month. And over at hosting.com their managed hosting plans for Windows servers start at $230/month while the same plans for Linux start at $195/month. I was able to find, over at 1and1, shared Linux hosting and shared Windows hosting that cost the same.
I was not able to find any provider that offered cheaper Windows hosting than Linux hosting.
So, assuming that everyone behaves rationally, if the numbers in this study were accurate at all, the hosting provider that is the subject of the study would offer cheaper Windows hosting than Linux hosting. They don't. If the numbers in this study were generally applicable, you'd find that most hosting providers who offer both would offer cheaper Windows hosting than *Nix hosting. They don't. I can only conclude that the study is bogus in some way and shouldn't be trusted, since it fails to predict rational behavior in a very open marketplace (i.e. one with very low barriers to entry). Businesses are very good at thinking with their wallets, and if this study were true then there's a huge money making opportunity that everyone is letting go.
You mean like this, available in C++ and Python for Windows, Mac and Linux?
Since you don't need any of the music-specific features, look for a package that helps you sell software. It's the same problem you're trying to solve and there are many options. This one was near the top of my google search results, and looks to meet your needs. There appeared to be numerous similar apps.
Last time I tried it, that wasn't possible. It may well be now, but that seems unlikely. Since emulated hardware is different than real hardware, what you want is a tall order.
You've activated a lot. Microsoft makes you call them every time you install after you've used a specific key a certain number of times (something like 3). Whatever, it's not that big a deal.
I had activated twice prior to moving the key to a VM. Once when I installed initially, and once when I reinstalled because my system was crapped up from having added and removed so many software packages that the registry had grown to 2GB and I felt (correctly) that a reinstall would improve performance. And I suppose 20 minutes on hold is not that big a deal. I was just watching a baseball game while sitting on hold anyway. I did feel punished by having to sit on hold to use software I had legitimately paid for, though. If I had just used a crack I wouldn't have had to call at all.
It can only be installed one place at a time. If it's a retail license, they'll let you move the license, though you will likely have to call to activate. If it's an OEM license, I'm not sure. They may or may not let you move it; I don't remember the terms of that license well enough to say.
So the upshot is, if you have a retail license and want to install it in a VM on Linux and will uninstall the standalone install, then no, you don't need two copies. If you want to have it installed in a VM and on bare hardware at the same time then you definitely do need two copies.
If you have an OEM copy and want to move it to a VM, contact Microsoft or reread your license agreement carefully to see if it can be moved.
I removed it from the first machine and installed Linux there prior to installing it under the VM, so I was abiding by the terms of the (retail) license. But I still had to call to get activated.
I wonder what the difference is between your license key and mine then. I had to sit on hold for 20 minutes waiting for someone at the MS phone support center before mine could be activated.
So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?
Windows Activation. When you install a Windows XP or later OS on a new machine, you have to activate it. The activation will fail, and you'll have to call MS and ask them real nice to let you activate it anyway.
Furthermore, if your windows license is OEM, MS may not let you move it to a different machine. So you need to purchase a new Windows license for your new virtual machines.
Ouch. I didn't think I'd been out of school for that long 'till I read your comment. 7 years ago, my most expensive textbook was about $90 new. And we felt like we were being gouged :-(
That's a nice approach. But if you can do that, you're talking about a different kind of consulting business than OP is. Anyone who's facing clauses like he describes is being engaged to produce "work for hire", not selling software licenses.
There are tradeoffs between the two, naturally. It really (IMO) depends on the nature of the project as to which I'd rather do. For code that's so specific to a particular client that I'm unlikely to be able to use it for others anyway, I prefer to do it as work for hire. You can charge more that way. It's also worth noting that there's a lot of interesting work where you'll only be able to do it on a work for hire basis. Just don't sign anything that prevents you from being able to do other work...
It sounds like you've built yourself a nice business. A million a year in license sales is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Can you plug it here with a link?
Spot on. I was only thinking about time cost and not really considering storage cost. The paper you reference, for those interested in trading some of the storage cost I cite for some additioinal time cost, is available here.
It's tough to say without seeing the clause whether you really have the problem you imagine. And, ob. disclaimer, IANAL. TINLA.
I've solved this in the past by making sure that their ownership of my ideas is restricted to items produced in the course of (as opposed to during the term of) working for them. This gives them ownership of IP created as a result of executing their project and no more. In terms of the "Prior Inventions" clause, I'd attempt to rename it "Prior published inventions" and give them a good list if they won't strike it. If they really want a list of unpublished inventions as well, maybe you could extend the term of their NDA to something insane like 10 years?
If your ideas are valuable, they won't strike the prior inventions clause and won't amend it as I describe, and they won't restrict the IP transfer clause to items produced in the course of your contract, you may be dealing with a client that you should turn down. Those exist, and, though it's painful to turn away business, sometimes it's good sense to do so.
The Handbook of Applied Cryptography is an excellent book and is now available online for free. If you passed a couple college calculus courses, the material should be very accessible to you. In general, it's an excellent source of facts and analysis to debunk incorrect statements about cryptography.
:-).
In particular, the part that answers you question is found in Chapter 7 (block ciphers). The justification for fact 7.33 explains why, if you can store 2^64 blocks of ciphertext, you can break double 64-bit encryption in 2^64 operations.
If your coworker is not capable of understanding the math behind this reasoning, he really should not be making decisions about encryption
(Note: I'm not witholding the justification in this post simply to be obtuse. It's too much of a pain to format it reasonably in this input box... you'll just have to refer to the PDF.)
No. It draws 6W in sleep mode, which is pretty typical. It has "standby" mode which draws 75W, but it only stays like that for a few minutes after you power it up or print something, then it goes to sleep mode.
This one is automatic. It prints the first side, you see the paper start to appear, then the paper disappears back into the printer and it prints the second side. It isn't especially speedy, but is very handy and I use it for most print jobs.
I'm not sure either, but the only "hoop" I jumped through for Ubuntu (about a year ago) was copying the