So far, my experience with 2.6 has shown that older hardware and 2.6 are a potentially dangerous combination. 2.6 appears to work fine on newer hardware. [Note: I am specifically referring to generic x86 systems.] On older hardware, it can be hit or miss.
There are some great features in 2.6, however for a production environment where it just has to work, the safer bet is 2.4.
For me, it's really pretty annoying. Used to, you could generally count on "released" kernels to be pretty stable (1.2, 2.0), but that no longer seems to be true (again, based on my first hand experience, other people have had different results). 2.4 was the first "released" kernel I felt was not quite ready, but 2.6 especially seems to have been "rushed" out the door.
I've not been following the kernel development as closely as I used to, so perhaps there is a slight redefinition of "released" that I missed. I don't know. What I do know is that I've only seen 2.6 stable on hardware that is newer than 18 months old. My dev servers have finally been upgraded to 2.6, but my personal production servers are still 2.4. I have not decided yet if I will upgrade to 2.6 in production or not.
[2.6 distros tried: Fedora, SuSE, Trustix, Knoppix, {something else, but I forget. 2.6 distros used: SuSE, Trustix.]
There was at least one city the relocated after the flood. Yup, I said CITY.
The only way to stop this from happening again is to rebuild on higher ground. If they rebuild where they are, it will be a matter of when it happens again, not if.
Same thing applies to a lot of people around the coast, intentionally building in flood planes (and I'm not talking about 500 year flood plains, I'm talking less than 100). Not to mention, in many cases the construction itself makes the problem worse.
Perhaps, New Orleans should look to Venice for a solution.
(IANAL) Typically, these provisions are in contracts you are forced to sign under duress. The duress comes from the fact that if you do not sign it, you lose the job. The fun happens when you leave one job, take another, relocate a couple thousand miles, and then are given this to sign. I have had one place not provide it until after I arrived on-location, despite my request for documents prior to relocation (they provided other documents to be signed).
Another thing to watch for is the $1, $10, or $100 "compensation" for signing and agreeing to be bound by the agreement.
In general terms, non-compete agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. Non-disclosures, on the other hand, are typically much more likely to be valid.
If this is what they are going to try and force down our throats, then the solution is very simple for me.
I'll keep Windows XP for the few times I need to do something in Windows. I won't pay them to cripple my computer. Why should I?
All of this reminds of the security versus usability relationship. The more secure something gets, typically, the less user-friendly and more annoying it becomes to use.
These more invasive DRM attempts seem, to me, like they are really beginning to hit that downward slope of diminishing usability. Hopefully, at least. Once they do, and once it becomes unfriendly enough, then maybe, just maybe, the backlash against it will be big enough to drive changes in a positive direction.
Not that I think it will happen, but wouldn't it be something if the thing that finally topples the Microsoft-Intel duopoly (maybe throw in Apple, now) is the forcing of DRM on people, followed by the backlash when these regular people finally get a clue about the so-called DRM bill of goods?
I wonder if we'll ever have anti-competitive, or other class action style lawsuits against companies for preventing people from exercising fair-use rights, or right to shift time and/or media for personal use. As much money as class action lawsuits make for lawyers, seems like at least a few of them would smell this as an opportunity.
Could this direction be to deal with the performance issues of Java on little endian systems like x86? Seems I recall reading that Java performance is generally better (or much better) on big endian systems such as Sparc (and, PPC970/G5). Given the migration to Intel, could it be the little endian performance issue (penalty?) is prompting them to make a preemptive move away from some of the Java support, so the Intel based Macs don't look like they perform badly for Java apps that are integrated tightly with Cocoa?
If memory serves, the performance penalty was related to numeric processing, including GUI interfaces.
I'm just speculating out loud, but that's the first thing I thought when I ready about this yesterday.
The difference is that a book is typically published as a commercial product, for a profit. I think this is related to using pictures of recognizable people or property in commercial works.
Fair use only allows for limited, non-commercial uses (i.e. criticisms, news oriented, etc.).
In other words, a How-To book would probably be considered commercial, while a review showing the current look of the application would probably fall under fair-use.
Considering the article says she tried to get them to take it down for 3 months and Yahoo appears to have done absolutely nothing about it, then I think they should pay!
Assuming, of course, that she took serious steps to provide Yahoo with information proving her identity and not just a simple email message to some address at Yahoo.
IF Yahoo was appropriately notified AND they did nothing, then they deserve to get sued and they should lose, and pay.
IMO, the amount is only partially related to her "emotional distress." It should also be an amount that will be noticeable to Yahoo. They are the ones that appear to have failed here.
No. But I've been dealing with carriers providing T1s (or faster) for the better part of 15 years.
The 'No problem found' but your problem mysteriously getting fixed is a common tactic. At one point (I'm out of that biz now, and haven't kept up to date) the carriers have to report the quality of their network and other details to various state and federal authorities. If they admitted a problem, then it would have to show up in that report, so they tend to try and minimize it.
The point of the SLA is to have leverage. It is truly a sad state of affairs now days that a contract for service is all but worthless without an SLA. It used to be that a contract for service meant you would get that service. Now, if it doesn't include an SLA, then that plain contract for service moves to the bottom of the ladder. The SLA is not an end-all be-all solution. But, it can help make the hammer you wield a little bigger, and have a little more punch.
The problem is not just SBC. And I will not disagree that they have the problems you mention. However, most Bell carriers seem to be falling into that same trap, and providing lackluster service.
Does your contract have an SLA?
on
Alternatives to SBC?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Does your contract with SBC include any kind of SLA?
Do your problems repeat on the same T1 or migrate from T1 to T1?
Do you experience new and different problems?
Do you have a documented history of the problems?
How many POPs or COs do your P-to-P T1s cover? I'm assuming you have a star pattern, with the center hub being one end point for each of the T1s.
Of course, a lot of this is speculative, without any solid information to go on, this is pure guesswork.
Look to see if you have an SLA in your contract. If you do, are they honoring it? If not, rattle the sabres. It may or may not make any difference. You might also start complaining to your state's regulatory office that oversees SBC.
Do they ever give you a satisfactory explanation of the problems? If the same problem keeps happening repeatedly, then you may need to escalate to higher levels of management (SBC) to address the problem. Again, it may or may not help.
If you do not have SLA, look at other carriers in the area for P-to-P T1s. MCI/Worldcom (whatever they call themselves now), Sprint, not to mention other regional carriers are likely available in that area. Get a tough SLA on that deal. Even if SBC provides the copper, if you get a deal with another "name brand" carrier that includes a tough SLA, sometimes your new provider will be more influential in getting SBC to honor their obligations.
While it certainly isn't fun, you can sometimes gain more traction with this method since SBC's failure to fix the problem is now affecting another common carrier, and not a private individual, which means the other carrier can cause SBC some serious problems. Of course, you'll often need a though SLA to "motivate" the new provider to aggressively deal with SBC.
How close are your locations? Have you considered a ds3 or fiber ring instead of point to point? Depending on what kinds of problems you are having, and if they are located at the end points, the center of the hub, or in between within SBC transport facilities, a ring approach may or may not help.
Have you contacted your sales rep? Those guys are typically on commission. Don't know if they get recurring commissions for keeping you happy, but if they do, he could be another person you can motivate to work on your behalf. If you were to jump to another carrier, even if SBC provided the copper, he'd lose his commission from your circuits.
Just a few ideas. If you want to provide more information, I'm sure myself or others would be able to provide even better suggestions.
I read the article and came away thinking I trust Nokia even less now. The news *seems* good on the surface, but several key sentences gave me pause.
For instance, it seems very clearly to me that Nokia is saying that the Linux kernel is currently violating one or more of their patents. I did not search deeper, but I, for one, would like to know what patents they claim are being infringed?
Sure, it seems nice of them to say it is OK to use those items, but something about this smells fishy. I think I'll wait for the other shoe to drop.
Another though occurred to me. Has anyone done an analysis to see if any of the 500 IBM patents are used in the kernel? Could this be in response to that usage (if it exists)? I mean, if they are going to rely on Linux (see the new 770 web tablet), and they think they found patent infringement, then they would be precluded from going after it, because to do so would rescind IBM's permission for Nokia to use IBM's patent(s) that may be in Linux as well. This could just be PR spin to try and make Nokia smell better.
Like I said, I'll wait for the other shoe(s) to drop. I think there is more to this story, and before I am willing to pat Nokia on the back, I want more details.
Imagine if GM's OnStar worked a deal with VoIP companies. Using an IP address to rough geographical location, and customer records, 911 could be routed to GM's OnStar office. The GM OnStar service already has live operators able to look at information and then call the appropriate 911 facility.
Now, imagine setting this up yourself. You'll need a call center, a data tie in to the VoIP provider, a few good databases (geographic IP address, 911/emergency contact #s around the country, etc.), bandwidth, and phone lines (or better yet, VoIP lines, w/some backup trunks).
There's a great opportunity for someone to step up and place themselves in between VoIP and 911, and charge a small service fee for the service.
You made an excellent point that makes me think the age information may be mostly accurate. And, it goes along with my point, that it ADDS credibility. I hate to say this, but older generations (and I say this as a fairly "young-un" in my mid-30s) are more civil and better mannered. I'm often embarrased by what people around my age (both younger and a little older) consider acceptable. It's not -- it's often just plain rude! There are always exceptions, and the poor person identified may not be the real PJ, but it would not surprise me.
Now that the iPod and iTunes is an unquestionable success, could it be that the RIAA sees Apple as what they used to be? A primary controller of music distribution. And, we know RIAA knows how powerful that can be. I think they are afraid iTunes/Apple has a little much perceived power.
Afterall, it is easier for RIAA to "control" online music if there aren't any individually strong serious players. With a couple of really strong players in that field, it could become more difficult for RIAA to stay the master of their domain.
Just a thought, opinion really. No facts to back it up.
When PJ runs across personal information or information that was supposed to be sealed but intentionally disclosed in an open forum, what does PJ do?
Does she run and print everything, just because she has the information? Or does she recognize the other person's (or people's) privacy, or the confidential nature of the information? [Remember SCO reading a confidential email (I think) in open court?]
She didn't print that information, even though she might have had it thanks to the eyewitnesses that were there in court and reported back what they heard or saw.
Again, which person would seem to have real integrity?
OK, for the moment let's assume it is true, that PJ is a 61 year old Jehovah's Witness.
This is bad why?
First, let's look at age. 61 years old. Generally speaking, most people in that age group are pretty stable emotionally and mentally (health issues aside). These are the people that generally do not make knee-jerk reactions just because, they will usually try to think things through. Obviously, there are exceptions to every case, but I'm speaking in generalities here. So, if PJ really is 61 years old, her life experience and age would lend credibility to her. She would not be someone who took a stand or side of an issue lightly. And, she would clearly represent a new (and growing? hopefully) segment of people recognizing the benefits of and adopting tools such as Linux and other FOSS.
Many people, even those that disagree with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, recognize them to be an honest group of people. If that is the case, then when PJs speaks for herself, she is saying what she believes to be true. So, when you think about it, who would you rather believe? Someone that is supposed to be Jehovah's Witness? Or someone that is known to be a shill for the right price? Which person would seem to have integrity?
I know my choice.
If anything, MOGs attempt at trashing PJ has done the exact opposite for me. I am now more inclined to believe PJ. Besides, PJ isn't afraid to post links to the sources of information she uses when she writes, so people are left to read the sources directly themselves, and form their own opinion. Again, which would seem to have integrity?
Parroting a comment from the article's feedback section -- if this guy is a security consultant, then the last thing he can afford to happen is to be lax about his personal network security, otherwise were his network to be compromised, his credibility would be totally lost, potentially costing him his income.
Things like 3 firewalls -- that's easy to end up with. I have a VoIP telephone adapter that has a firewall, then a wireless AP that also provides a firewall, and last there is the software firewall on the box. Without even seriously trying, there's three firewalls right there.
As for password length, smart cards, and other issues -- at least he practices what he preaches. Is it a bit extreme? I don't know. Maybe. It works for him in his environment, and really that's all that matters.
It's not if you're paranoid, it's if you're paranoid enough.
OpenH323 is an open source project that was acquired by a company in CA, Quicknet. For a while, the lead developers from Australia also worked for Quicknet. Quicknet also open sourced their telephony driver, getting it into the Linux kernel. Though, they are not the shining example they started out as; however, this forum is not the place for that discussion.
One thing to be wary of -- when a corporate entity takes over an open source project, the health of the project may become linked with the health of the corporate entity. One of the reasons I feel these entities also hire the primary project developer or developers is to keep them from forking the project (depending on the terms of the sale and the license of the project). However, for most open source projects, I would say it is possible for the community to fork the project, should they desire. My personal opinion is that regular code snap shots of the acquired project should be archived (assuming the license doesn't change to a proprietary one after acquisition) by someone in the project's or open source community should things not work out with the new "owner" of the project. That way, should something happen to the company, there would be "offsite" backups to allow the project to continue (or be easily forked).
Generally speaking, I've been pleased with LinkSys products. That is, until I got the callvantage WRT54GP2A-AT wireless router.
First, the wireless side of this has practically no signal. Replacing a WRT54G (stock, no custom firmwares or hacks) with the VoIP version resulted in a fraction of the coverage area. I would sit less than 10 feet away from the router and have "Very Low" signal strength in XP (vs. Excellent or Very Good with the other).
The biggest problem is that it would frequently lock up the network connection, requiring a reboot to restore connectivity. I confirmed the problem by replacing everything (cable modem and voip router, as well as moving to another location to use a different cable modem connection). I now have a stable connection again, since I removed the TA from my network. It went back to the store tonight. I'm going to order a wired TA from AT&T and see if that works better than the wireless one. We'll see.
I didn't want the wireless adapter, but if you decide to use CallVantage, and want the LinkSys adapter instead of the DLink one, the wireless is about the only thing you will find on the shelf. Supposedly Fry's has the wired version, but I haven't been able to get to a Fry's to confirm this.
Other than that, I've been pleased with the CallVantage service. While I'm having problems with my TA, I just configured my phone to ring our cell phones simultaneously. Whoever answers their phone first gets the call. Pretty handy.
Symantec quality has been going down hill for years. When Peter Norton's name (and picture) were associated with the tools, they were lean, efficient, useful tools. Then they became Symantec (or did Symantec buy Norton?) and the more they did to distance their image from Norton, the worse they seem to have gotten. Their changes to WinFax, PCAnywhere, and a few other tools they've acquired that I used to use, made me long for the older versions.
It has gotten to the point that I will try to find any way at all to use a tool from someone else, or not need their tool at all. Only as a last resort do I use their stuff now.
This is hardly "becoming" MO for Microsoft -- this HAS BEEN SOP for Microsoft for years. It's a practice that is, and has been, repeated numerous times by Microsoft, and reported on as well.
The problem, is that it is cheaper for MS to continue with this practice, as well as paying off the settlements they end up having to pay, and to keep making money by selling these products.
Just like it was (a while back) cheaper for MS to pay fines and keep violating a ruling or law (and pocketing money from sales) than complying.
Using the car analogy, MS Windows are like power windows. You can buy the car with or without power windows. The car works just fine either way. With manual windows, you are going to do the work yourself. If you don't want power windows, you don't buy a car with power windows, and you don't pay for power windows. He is unable to buy the laptop he wants without windows, thus he is seeking to return (for refund) the unused windows.
Those devices may not be directly in the sights, but they could become victims of collateral damage.
Right now the analog output is a way around virtually any restriction on digital items. Once the analog outputs are eliminated, or greatly hindered, then the digital control would be virtually complete.
Perhaps the D/A items won't become totally illegal, but they could be greatly restricted until the ordinary citizen would (could) be outlawed for having such a device, as it could be considered a DRM circumvention device.
Since the article seems to imply that the search was considered valid only because they found something illegal and therefore since it was illegal they had no legitimate right to privacy.
So, if they do the full search and find nothing, does that mean you can sue for unlawful search????
Actually, the implications of this is really scary. It, to me, seems that this eliminates any right to privacy anyone has, because any search that finds anything illegal (however big or small) can be considered legal now. Given all the laws on the books, it is quite likely they can find _something_ to "justify" their search.
Slashdot Mirror
So far, my experience with 2.6 has shown that older hardware and 2.6 are a potentially dangerous combination. 2.6 appears to work fine on newer hardware. [Note: I am specifically referring to generic x86 systems.] On older hardware, it can be hit or miss.
There are some great features in 2.6, however for a production environment where it just has to work, the safer bet is 2.4.
For me, it's really pretty annoying. Used to, you could generally count on "released" kernels to be pretty stable (1.2, 2.0), but that no longer seems to be true (again, based on my first hand experience, other people have had different results). 2.4 was the first "released" kernel I felt was not quite ready, but 2.6 especially seems to have been "rushed" out the door.
I've not been following the kernel development as closely as I used to, so perhaps there is a slight redefinition of "released" that I missed. I don't know. What I do know is that I've only seen 2.6 stable on hardware that is newer than 18 months old. My dev servers have finally been upgraded to 2.6, but my personal production servers are still 2.4. I have not decided yet if I will upgrade to 2.6 in production or not.
[2.6 distros tried: Fedora, SuSE, Trustix, Knoppix, {something else, but I forget. 2.6 distros used: SuSE, Trustix.]
There was at least one city the relocated after the flood. Yup, I said CITY.
The only way to stop this from happening again is to rebuild on higher ground. If they rebuild where they are, it will be a matter of when it happens again, not if.
Same thing applies to a lot of people around the coast, intentionally building in flood planes (and I'm not talking about 500 year flood plains, I'm talking less than 100). Not to mention, in many cases the construction itself makes the problem worse.
Perhaps, New Orleans should look to Venice for a solution.
Different situations for different people.
(IANAL) Typically, these provisions are in contracts you are forced to sign under duress. The duress comes from the fact that if you do not sign it, you lose the job. The fun happens when you leave one job, take another, relocate a couple thousand miles, and then are given this to sign. I have had one place not provide it until after I arrived on-location, despite my request for documents prior to relocation (they provided other documents to be signed).
Another thing to watch for is the $1, $10, or $100 "compensation" for signing and agreeing to be bound by the agreement.
In general terms, non-compete agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. Non-disclosures, on the other hand, are typically much more likely to be valid.
If this is what they are going to try and force down our throats, then the solution is very simple for me.
I'll keep Windows XP for the few times I need to do something in Windows. I won't pay them to cripple my computer. Why should I?
All of this reminds of the security versus usability relationship. The more secure something gets, typically, the less user-friendly and more annoying it becomes to use.
These more invasive DRM attempts seem, to me, like they are really beginning to hit that downward slope of diminishing usability. Hopefully, at least. Once they do, and once it becomes unfriendly enough, then maybe, just maybe, the backlash against it will be big enough to drive changes in a positive direction.
Not that I think it will happen, but wouldn't it be something if the thing that finally topples the Microsoft-Intel duopoly (maybe throw in Apple, now) is the forcing of DRM on people, followed by the backlash when these regular people finally get a clue about the so-called DRM bill of goods?
I wonder if we'll ever have anti-competitive, or other class action style lawsuits against companies for preventing people from exercising fair-use rights, or right to shift time and/or media for personal use. As much money as class action lawsuits make for lawyers, seems like at least a few of them would smell this as an opportunity.
Could this direction be to deal with the performance issues of Java on little endian systems like x86? Seems I recall reading that Java performance is generally better (or much better) on big endian systems such as Sparc (and, PPC970/G5). Given the migration to Intel, could it be the little endian performance issue (penalty?) is prompting them to make a preemptive move away from some of the Java support, so the Intel based Macs don't look like they perform badly for Java apps that are integrated tightly with Cocoa?
If memory serves, the performance penalty was related to numeric processing, including GUI interfaces.
I'm just speculating out loud, but that's the first thing I thought when I ready about this yesterday.
The difference is that a book is typically published as a commercial product, for a profit. I think this is related to using pictures of recognizable people or property in commercial works.
Fair use only allows for limited, non-commercial uses (i.e. criticisms, news oriented, etc.).
In other words, a How-To book would probably be considered commercial, while a review showing the current look of the application would probably fall under fair-use.
Considering the article says she tried to get them to take it down for 3 months and Yahoo appears to have done absolutely nothing about it, then I think they should pay!
Assuming, of course, that she took serious steps to provide Yahoo with information proving her identity and not just a simple email message to some address at Yahoo.
IF Yahoo was appropriately notified AND they did nothing, then they deserve to get sued and they should lose, and pay.
IMO, the amount is only partially related to her "emotional distress." It should also be an amount that will be noticeable to Yahoo. They are the ones that appear to have failed here.
No. But I've been dealing with carriers providing T1s (or faster) for the better part of 15 years.
The 'No problem found' but your problem mysteriously getting fixed is a common tactic. At one point (I'm out of that biz now, and haven't kept up to date) the carriers have to report the quality of their network and other details to various state and federal authorities. If they admitted a problem, then it would have to show up in that report, so they tend to try and minimize it.
The point of the SLA is to have leverage. It is truly a sad state of affairs now days that a contract for service is all but worthless without an SLA. It used to be that a contract for service meant you would get that service. Now, if it doesn't include an SLA, then that plain contract for service moves to the bottom of the ladder. The SLA is not an end-all be-all solution. But, it can help make the hammer you wield a little bigger, and have a little more punch.
The problem is not just SBC. And I will not disagree that they have the problems you mention. However, most Bell carriers seem to be falling into that same trap, and providing lackluster service.
Does your contract with SBC include any kind of SLA?
Do your problems repeat on the same T1 or migrate from T1 to T1?
Do you experience new and different problems?
Do you have a documented history of the problems?
How many POPs or COs do your P-to-P T1s cover? I'm assuming you have a star pattern, with the center hub being one end point for each of the T1s.
Of course, a lot of this is speculative, without any solid information to go on, this is pure guesswork.
Look to see if you have an SLA in your contract. If you do, are they honoring it? If not, rattle the sabres. It may or may not make any difference. You might also start complaining to your state's regulatory office that oversees SBC.
Do they ever give you a satisfactory explanation of the problems? If the same problem keeps happening repeatedly, then you may need to escalate to higher levels of management (SBC) to address the problem. Again, it may or may not help.
If you do not have SLA, look at other carriers in the area for P-to-P T1s. MCI/Worldcom (whatever they call themselves now), Sprint, not to mention other regional carriers are likely available in that area. Get a tough SLA on that deal. Even if SBC provides the copper, if you get a deal with another "name brand" carrier that includes a tough SLA, sometimes your new provider will be more influential in getting SBC to honor their obligations.
While it certainly isn't fun, you can sometimes gain more traction with this method since SBC's failure to fix the problem is now affecting another common carrier, and not a private individual, which means the other carrier can cause SBC some serious problems. Of course, you'll often need a though SLA to "motivate" the new provider to aggressively deal with SBC.
How close are your locations? Have you considered a ds3 or fiber ring instead of point to point? Depending on what kinds of problems you are having, and if they are located at the end points, the center of the hub, or in between within SBC transport facilities, a ring approach may or may not help.
Have you contacted your sales rep? Those guys are typically on commission. Don't know if they get recurring commissions for keeping you happy, but if they do, he could be another person you can motivate to work on your behalf. If you were to jump to another carrier, even if SBC provided the copper, he'd lose his commission from your circuits.
Just a few ideas. If you want to provide more information, I'm sure myself or others would be able to provide even better suggestions.
I read the article and came away thinking I trust Nokia even less now. The news *seems* good on the surface, but several key sentences gave me pause.
For instance, it seems very clearly to me that Nokia is saying that the Linux kernel is currently violating one or more of their patents. I did not search deeper, but I, for one, would like to know what patents they claim are being infringed?
Sure, it seems nice of them to say it is OK to use those items, but something about this smells fishy. I think I'll wait for the other shoe to drop.
Another though occurred to me. Has anyone done an analysis to see if any of the 500 IBM patents are used in the kernel? Could this be in response to that usage (if it exists)? I mean, if they are going to rely on Linux (see the new 770 web tablet), and they think they found patent infringement, then they would be precluded from going after it, because to do so would rescind IBM's permission for Nokia to use IBM's patent(s) that may be in Linux as well. This could just be PR spin to try and make Nokia smell better.
Like I said, I'll wait for the other shoe(s) to drop. I think there is more to this story, and before I am willing to pat Nokia on the back, I want more details.
There's a great opportunity here people.
Imagine if GM's OnStar worked a deal with VoIP companies. Using an IP address to rough geographical location, and customer records, 911 could be routed to GM's OnStar office. The GM OnStar service already has live operators able to look at information and then call the appropriate 911 facility.
Now, imagine setting this up yourself. You'll need a call center, a data tie in to the VoIP provider, a few good databases (geographic IP address, 911/emergency contact #s around the country, etc.), bandwidth, and phone lines (or better yet, VoIP lines, w/some backup trunks).
There's a great opportunity for someone to step up and place themselves in between VoIP and 911, and charge a small service fee for the service.
You made an excellent point that makes me think the age information may be mostly accurate. And, it goes along with my point, that it ADDS credibility. I hate to say this, but older generations (and I say this as a fairly "young-un" in my mid-30s) are more civil and better mannered. I'm often embarrased by what people around my age (both younger and a little older) consider acceptable. It's not -- it's often just plain rude! There are always exceptions, and the poor person identified may not be the real PJ, but it would not surprise me.
Now that the iPod and iTunes is an unquestionable success, could it be that the RIAA sees Apple as what they used to be? A primary controller of music distribution. And, we know RIAA knows how powerful that can be. I think they are afraid iTunes/Apple has a little much perceived power.
Afterall, it is easier for RIAA to "control" online music if there aren't any individually strong serious players. With a couple of really strong players in that field, it could become more difficult for RIAA to stay the master of their domain.
Just a thought, opinion really. No facts to back it up.
It is my understanding that PJ came to Linux w/o being a "techy". I would be willing to bet that your background was more technical in nature.
When I referred to new segment, I meant (though I did not type it) older (55+) non-technical, "average" people. I was not intending to cause offense.
And one more thing.
When PJ runs across personal information or information that was supposed to be sealed but intentionally disclosed in an open forum, what does PJ do?
Does she run and print everything, just because she has the information? Or does she recognize the other person's (or people's) privacy, or the confidential nature of the information? [Remember SCO reading a confidential email (I think) in open court?]
She didn't print that information, even though she might have had it thanks to the eyewitnesses that were there in court and reported back what they heard or saw.
Again, which person would seem to have real integrity?
OK, for the moment let's assume it is true, that PJ is a 61 year old Jehovah's Witness.
This is bad why?
First, let's look at age. 61 years old. Generally speaking, most people in that age group are pretty stable emotionally and mentally (health issues aside). These are the people that generally do not make knee-jerk reactions just because, they will usually try to think things through. Obviously, there are exceptions to every case, but I'm speaking in generalities here. So, if PJ really is 61 years old, her life experience and age would lend credibility to her. She would not be someone who took a stand or side of an issue lightly. And, she would clearly represent a new (and growing? hopefully) segment of people recognizing the benefits of and adopting tools such as Linux and other FOSS.
Many people, even those that disagree with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, recognize them to be an honest group of people. If that is the case, then when PJs speaks for herself, she is saying what she believes to be true. So, when you think about it, who would you rather believe? Someone that is supposed to be Jehovah's Witness? Or someone that is known to be a shill for the right price? Which person would seem to have integrity?
I know my choice.
If anything, MOGs attempt at trashing PJ has done the exact opposite for me. I am now more inclined to believe PJ. Besides, PJ isn't afraid to post links to the sources of information she uses when she writes, so people are left to read the sources directly themselves, and form their own opinion. Again, which would seem to have integrity?
Parroting a comment from the article's feedback section -- if this guy is a security consultant, then the last thing he can afford to happen is to be lax about his personal network security, otherwise were his network to be compromised, his credibility would be totally lost, potentially costing him his income.
Things like 3 firewalls -- that's easy to end up with. I have a VoIP telephone adapter that has a firewall, then a wireless AP that also provides a firewall, and last there is the software firewall on the box. Without even seriously trying, there's three firewalls right there.
As for password length, smart cards, and other issues -- at least he practices what he preaches. Is it a bit extreme? I don't know. Maybe. It works for him in his environment, and really that's all that matters.
It's not if you're paranoid, it's if you're paranoid enough.
OpenH323 is an open source project that was acquired by a company in CA, Quicknet. For a while, the lead developers from Australia also worked for Quicknet. Quicknet also open sourced their telephony driver, getting it into the Linux kernel. Though, they are not the shining example they started out as; however, this forum is not the place for that discussion.
One thing to be wary of -- when a corporate entity takes over an open source project, the health of the project may become linked with the health of the corporate entity. One of the reasons I feel these entities also hire the primary project developer or developers is to keep them from forking the project (depending on the terms of the sale and the license of the project). However, for most open source projects, I would say it is possible for the community to fork the project, should they desire. My personal opinion is that regular code snap shots of the acquired project should be archived (assuming the license doesn't change to a proprietary one after acquisition) by someone in the project's or open source community should things not work out with the new "owner" of the project. That way, should something happen to the company, there would be "offsite" backups to allow the project to continue (or be easily forked).
Generally speaking, I've been pleased with LinkSys products. That is, until I got the callvantage WRT54GP2A-AT wireless router.
First, the wireless side of this has practically no signal. Replacing a WRT54G (stock, no custom firmwares or hacks) with the VoIP version resulted in a fraction of the coverage area. I would sit less than 10 feet away from the router and have "Very Low" signal strength in XP (vs. Excellent or Very Good with the other).
The biggest problem is that it would frequently lock up the network connection, requiring a reboot to restore connectivity. I confirmed the problem by replacing everything (cable modem and voip router, as well as moving to another location to use a different cable modem connection). I now have a stable connection again, since I removed the TA from my network. It went back to the store tonight. I'm going to order a wired TA from AT&T and see if that works better than the wireless one. We'll see.
I didn't want the wireless adapter, but if you decide to use CallVantage, and want the LinkSys adapter instead of the DLink one, the wireless is about the only thing you will find on the shelf. Supposedly Fry's has the wired version, but I haven't been able to get to a Fry's to confirm this.
Other than that, I've been pleased with the CallVantage service. While I'm having problems with my TA, I just configured my phone to ring our cell phones simultaneously. Whoever answers their phone first gets the call. Pretty handy.
Symantec quality has been going down hill for years. When Peter Norton's name (and picture) were associated with the tools, they were lean, efficient, useful tools. Then they became Symantec (or did Symantec buy Norton?) and the more they did to distance their image from Norton, the worse they seem to have gotten. Their changes to WinFax, PCAnywhere, and a few other tools they've acquired that I used to use, made me long for the older versions.
It has gotten to the point that I will try to find any way at all to use a tool from someone else, or not need their tool at all. Only as a last resort do I use their stuff now.
This is hardly "becoming" MO for Microsoft -- this HAS BEEN SOP for Microsoft for years. It's a practice that is, and has been, repeated numerous times by Microsoft, and reported on as well.
The problem, is that it is cheaper for MS to continue with this practice, as well as paying off the settlements they end up having to pay, and to keep making money by selling these products.
Just like it was (a while back) cheaper for MS to pay fines and keep violating a ruling or law (and pocketing money from sales) than complying.
I whole heartedly agree.
This is the one thing in the GPL that I think could cause serious problems in the future, and could seriously undermine the GPL license as a whole.
Using the car analogy, MS Windows are like power windows. You can buy the car with or without power windows. The car works just fine either way. With manual windows, you are going to do the work yourself. If you don't want power windows, you don't buy a car with power windows, and you don't pay for power windows. He is unable to buy the laptop he wants without windows, thus he is seeking to return (for refund) the unused windows.
Those devices may not be directly in the sights, but they could become victims of collateral damage.
Right now the analog output is a way around virtually any restriction on digital items. Once the analog outputs are eliminated, or greatly hindered, then the digital control would be virtually complete.
Perhaps the D/A items won't become totally illegal, but they could be greatly restricted until the ordinary citizen would (could) be outlawed for having such a device, as it could be considered a DRM circumvention device.
I think that's the point EFF is trying to make.
Since the article seems to imply that the search was considered valid only because they found something illegal and therefore since it was illegal they had no legitimate right to privacy.
So, if they do the full search and find nothing, does that mean you can sue for unlawful search????
Actually, the implications of this is really scary. It, to me, seems that this eliminates any right to privacy anyone has, because any search that finds anything illegal (however big or small) can be considered legal now. Given all the laws on the books, it is quite likely they can find _something_ to "justify" their search.