To my mind, you cannot possibly have a person who meets both requirements. Anyone who's qualified enough to understand everything at issue is likely to reach their own conclusions.
To have a opinion is certain, but to be qualified for the job you have be able to handle things without your own opinions getting in the way. When chairman states his own personal opinion about things that should be under neutral inspections, you can be sure that he isn't qualified to give fair change to all participants of current issue.
In this case, MS can always state that they didn't get fair handling because of the chairman had own opinions.
But in order to get smart people with knowledge of electronics/explosives to do that job, they would have to pay a hell of a lot more than they currently do.
And then you would still have the problem that people who are intelligent and inquisitive quickly become bored with repetitive, mind-numbing work like staring at an endless parade of luggage on an x-ray machine for 8 hours a day. Boredom leads to complacency, exactly what you DON'T want in an explosives screener.
The thing is that you don't need everybody to be expert screening everything. Hundreds of X-ray machine operators goes trought those thousends of packages during their shift and flag what needs special knowledge. If they can't really tell that if somethings is bombs, drugs, pirated Cuggi handbag..., they red flag it to proper excpert.
You don't have your helpdesk full of network admins/sysadmins,installation experts... to tell that customers internet is not working due the local power blackouts, but to the second/third line of expercy to handle routing problems screened to them by the first line.
The ONLY real terrorist bombs have all been constructed in such a way so as not to draw ANY attention to themselves. They might make them look like trash, they might hide them in something, but they sure as hell won't have wires and blinking lights.
If you'd had, say, a cell phone with wires coming out of it attached to a package, I'd be more inclined to believe it, but I have to say: I would definitely not have mistaken this for a bomb.
This would make sence if you'd be sure that everybody is sane. Blowing things up don't make people terrorists, it just makes them insane people that have some personal agenda. Most of the insane people are not explosive experts, normally they prefer guns and shooting around before taken down. Any security personel in public area cannot be sure why somebody wants attack some place and how they would do it.
You can easily have a divorcing dad that has lost a job opportunity because they missed a connecting flight and herefore the job and kids to blame the airport of his situation. They are not terrorist, but they threat the safety of people around with their crazy ideas as terrorist would do.
If you did, I'm sorry, but you're part of the problem. You're one of those people who has surrendered to the terrorists.
Shit happens, it just doens't get that much press time if it wasn't terrorist that did it. Insane people go shooting around, blow up their former workplaces, burn down places and harm otherwise people they don't like. They are not terrorist and reporting that somebody does something weird isn't surrendering to terrosrist, it's just keeping up with world. There are people that are insane and unfortunatelly it makes them even more dangerous than terrorist because you just don't know what is their personal agenda.
Why was she charged with carrying a "hoax explosive device", when it clearly wasn't?
If your actions get security people to think that your suspicious devices are bombs and you refuse to clear facts, you have made them to assume that you are carrying a bomb. After that, if is not a "hoax explosive device" then it is the real thing.
I sometimes carry desktop machines on my handluggage and those will raise some questions. When showing them and explaining what it is and why do I take it to plane will(so far have) allways get me out of trouble. If I'd refuse to tell security people what it was and turned away walking, I'd expect nothing else but trouble. Getting charged in situations like this would be just plain stupidity from my part. Even if wouldn't be anything dangerous than my testmachine, I would expect to get charged of fooling security with a hoax device.
Clearing things early, like when she was asked about the device would have got her out of the trouble, but no, if you want to create havoc by faking that you have something dangerous, you will be arrested of having dangferous devices, hoax or not. Likewise if you shout 'BOMB' in airport, you will be arrested and quostioned and usually charged, even if it was just a joke.
Haven't been on airports that have currently bombthreat going on after 9/11, but even before that it wasn't that relaxing situation when you put huge amount of tired people in small area when they searching bombs.
read/write to a microsoft file server? Can be done, but there are performance issues.
use your own email client to work with exchange? My home machines Evolution works better than my laptops Outlook with our exchange server in most cases. But there several small things that are missing. And exchange is not just a mail server. Exchange handles the mail, calender, appointments, to-do task, an so on. If I'd just work with one desktop machine it would be OK, but I have several desktop machines, laptops, a phone, just a OWA access from field, ans so on. It's the syncronation of all those required tools that I require. And thats just for one account.
Use your own system to read and write to AD? Now that would be something. AD is pretty much the heart of a corporate MS enviroment. AD is my day job and it makes my day decent. There are so many possibilities that you can use it for. Unfortunatelly, it is just so many that it allows.
seriously, I want to know what people are looking for. I keep on seeing specifications and protocols but for what purpose? I am not trolling (even though I'll be modded a such) I do not see examples of what people are looking for, lots of complaints but not examples.
Microsoft is a monopoly, fine we get that, give me an example of what you cannot do without pulling the monopoly card.
I don't give a shit about something being monopoly in certain field, it is the integration with all the rest of systems that matters. You just can't allways select all your system to be MS-only or *nix-based. Networks tend to interact with other systems in some level.
If AD would could be configured to handle everything that I want from user authentication, that's just fine. All the others systems would get their credentials from there and thats it. Unfortunatelly it's not working that way. You end up eith several user databases that rewuire their own administration and there is no synchronasiation between them. Add priviledges in one and you have to be sure that same things are done in others.
I can't think of any administrator that I know that wouldn't want to have a single point of access to maintaining everything.
There are small tools that can d othese integration, but there is no way that I would allow any smalltime-players 'hobby' players software to be fully integrated in corporate systems. There are certain big players that we have selected for required specified tasks, unapproves players don't get the change of being middleman doing conversions of formats.
wouldn't the enforcement folks be better off making him use a router First of all, there is the cost of router that needs to be build. Copying a software to as many computers that are moniteter currently doesn't cost anything.
Router for what kind of internet connection? Modem, cable, ADSL, HomePNA, WLAN... Goverment would have to have a lot of different boxes to keep everybody with same sentence supplied.
No, you first. Tell me why we need software on this man's computer when it's so easy to monitor him at the ISP level. Why would the ISP do the monitoring for govermental survaillence? What have the ISP done wrong that they have to pay for their staff members doing the monitoring.
Your objection was that it's too expensive to develope monitoring software for gnu/linux, as if it did not already exist. Why should the goverment spend money on developing systems just because somebody is given a change to have some rights under his sentance? It would cost a lot more to put people in jail than keeping them home with their survaillance software. I doubt that this person is not the only one having to install monitoring software to get out of jail, in this case it is the required operating system change that made it news(in/.)
Sentencing somebody to use survaillance software for minor 'cyber' crimes is the easiast and cheapest way to handle these on possible future cases. Keep bullying on myspace -> install software for said period of time
I say that it's too expensive to develop the software for any platform. Not if you convict some botnet coders to that.
Get caught coding something minor bad stuff -> sentenced to writing software. Why would goverment waste resources on somebodys community sentence of some keylogger writer to keep cleaning public places when they can use their talents to create said govermental approved keyloggers
It's an expensive but useless show of force. There a laws that standardize our moral consepts of what is right and wrong. I might think that it is not OK to steal, but somebody else thinks that there is nothing wrong when stealing from faceless corporations. I'd like to drive faster on streets, somebody else thinks that speeding is dangerous and therefore there are laws that restrict my freedom to drive fast.
Sentence must fit the crime. Some sentences and their costs have to be paid by all of us by paing taxes, some come from pockets of the convicted criminal as fines. It is the judges job to find out the best way to sentence people with proper fines, community service, house arrest or jail, depending on the crime. All of those sentences have their costs. It will cost for the tax-payers to keep killers behind bars, but that is the price of having basics security.
Cost of maintaining software and monitoring logs of hundreds(don't have any numbers) of people that have been convicted should be a lot less than paying for their housing and food in jails.
If you take a liter of water and freeze it or heat it up, it changes size (a bit), but weighs the same. If the size changes(even a bit), why would that still be a liter? This get out of my understanding. Why different sizes of liter can be considered as same amount(in volyme)? If this how physics work, then how can we really measure something in planeter sizes?
Where did it say that we would heat or freeze the same liter, we've being talking about one liter in different temperaturs. Not using the same original test sample, but using one liter of water in different temperaturs. If you heat up or freeze one liter, of course they will change the volume(a bit, in my understanding).
Your understanding of weights, measures and calibration is quite shallow. It would be difficult to correct this without a much more extensive conversation than could be achieved in a web forum.
Considering the crowd of/., I can assure you that to comparing to experts on those fields, I'll admit that my understanding is very shallow. This will mean that I wouldn't have any knowledge about these subjects and I wouldn't easily admit that points I've tryed to make haven't any reasoning behind. In my gp, I stated that this water excample was a bad one, and should really have thought a better one before making the post. Replys tend to gasp on this excample.
The point that I have tryed to make has been all the time that we really cannot be sure about all the universal forces that are behind our physical reasoning.
Because of my history with bad examples, I'll give you one mayby describing my reasoning behind my bad examples:
Lets say that you live in microwave owen. In your universe, water molecyles tend to heat up, without any measurable reasons, everything is like it is normally(microwave is allways on, sending it's radiation). When you start to build up things to measure what is happening, you logic is based on fact that this is the normal state of universe(microwave-owen).We have radioactive stuff like uranium that has certain halftimes and things that it does. What if it does these things because of microwave-like backround radiotion that is happening here constantly in same leve lall the time. How can we measure something that we have nothing to compare?
I'm not saying that there would be any sudden significant changes to create F4-like mutations, but there is evulution to describe some certain longtime changes that have created sudden(don't hold your breath) small time mutation on species.
It would be incorrect to suggest that we have only measured the weight of objects on the earth. Or even in the solar system.
I'm not a member of any NASA organizations, but when have we been doing longterm fulltime studies on other galaxies. I'm currently in impression that we are at the moment studying Mars, but to my knowledge, there are no laboratories in there.
These are just my bad examples and propably all discussion on web forums will not get us any closer to getting my point to be understood by somebody with not so shallow understanding.
Again, wrong. Water doesn't change weight or mass with temperature. So if you fill a bottle with 1 liter of water, it will have the same weight/mass regardless of temperature.
So it's time for me to check out my pyhics books and sue the publishers for false data. How could they get so simple excamples wrong with so easy formulas.
Or my math teachers: The only way your example would make sense is saying that measuring the volume of 1 kg of water changes with temperature.
If one liter(volyme) doesn't change its weight depending on the temperature, why one weight (one kg) can change its volyme(in liters)? Shouldn't those formulas be basicly same, you just adjust those to make what part of result you are looking for.
If we are measuring the weight of one liter in different temperatures, to make correct conclusions about it's weight to my understanding we would have to change the amount of the water included in test (to be allways one liter,regardles of the tempreture). Now you are saying that the amount(volyme) doesn't really matter, it is the weight that matters what volume is required to give weight of one kilo.
Really bad example, not even illustrative. Bad excample, I'll admit, mayby illustrative if I would have used all the terms correctly. I doubt that I could use them any better at the moment to describe the point that I was after.
If we weight the 1 liter of water on different temperatures, we will get different weights(?)in Kg. This requering that we keep the measured object allways as 1 liter.
My point being, we rely on defined constants to figure out astrophysics and then wonder why something doesn't fit to rules defined by getting hit by apple.
The gravity 'constant' is not constant everywhere in the universe.
All constants are bad in physics. If all tests are made in here and they allways give you same constant to describe the event with other variables, it still doesn't rule out the possibility of certain calculation that has to be taken in consideration to make formula.
Given a very bad example, we could give a constant value to mass of water by measuring its weight in same enviroment(temperature) and decide that 1 liter of water allways weights 1kg. Making the measurents in next room in same centrally heated building would give same result, therefore it must be constant.
All our physical expiriements have been made next to sun, how can we be sure that it doesn't send some radiotion that effects the movements of atoms? Oh yeah, we tested it radiotion levels and everything, unfortunatelly those instruments have been calibrated next to the sun.
Just my 2 cents, debending if you want US or euros.
However, if Microsoft started selling legit copies of Windows in China for very cheap (I'm talking as cheap as the counterfeits), they'd probably start making more money on the Chinese market.
This is very complicated issue. If I'd fly to China and bought hundred copies of legimate copies of Vista for very cheap, why couldn't I use them in western countries. After all, MS sold them and licensed them, so those must be legal.
As for being able to sell as cheap as for counterfeits, legimite copies would need to have some holograms and other printed stuff on them and that would make them much more excpencive. It's also controll AND support issue. By buing a legimite copy of software you expect to get some sort of support(even with MS). At the moment they donät have to provide that much support on those regions becouse of the piracy ratio, nut if all copies would be legal, they would have extend their support to apply for all of them.
And as for dropping the price for legimite copy to almost zero, you would also lose the sales of current highly prized legal copies currently sold. Making nothing against making something isn't worth of it, at the moment.
DVD's are sold on different prices around the world, but becouse the region codes, you cannot easily transfer cheaper products from another side of world to your local neighbourhood. At the moment I can buy legally a cheaper version of DVD from anywhere, if it has been published in EU. If some movie is waiting for its release date here, it is illegal for me to import it to my country from some other region. Comparing this for selling software dirtcheap in Chine/India, there wouldn't really be any laws that would prohibit me from buying cheap software from Chine legally if those prices would be lowered to match prices of counterfeits.
The main reason is that once people use Windows, they get locked in.
Once anything gets to be the local standard, people will get locked in. To do business with your neihgbour, you have to have same standards. If everybody else on your business area uses some format, you have to be compatible with them to keep your business alive. If Red Flag Linux(?) would get to be the standard, you wouldn't see that many windows stores around. In earlier days when there was Word Perfect and MS word compiting on wordprosessing market, it depended on your key contacts what format you used.
Since piracy is so rampant in those parts of the world, they will switch to Linux last. They keep using pirated version of MS software as long as it will be profitable. By being profitable you have to consider charges like not being compatible with others and what you would have to pay to be. And what would be the changes of being busted using pirated software.
So MSFT will protest and go through all the motions of fighting piracy but in reality it knows it is the piracy of windows that is keeping Linux at bay.
As far as I know, China as strong attemps to adobt their own Red Flag Linux(?) systems on govermental side. That would mean that business would have to adobt open formats for documentation. I doubt that that many people in China has that much belief in openess of govermental supperted OSS, but being frigheted by the change of MS busting their shop for using pirated software or being busted by goverment by using govermental controlled software, will favour govermental OSS. I mean, goverment can bust you anyway they want if it will please them(or cousin of competing corporation).
I would say that it has been a bad business decision from MS to start doing major busts in developing software enviroments. Personatelly I would have waited a bit longer to be certain that MS standards are really THE local standards. Once everybody has fully integreted their systems on pirated MS products, they won't have any other choices than paying MS tax. Now their systems aren't that evolved, it will only take short time to rewrite some excel-sheets to mySQL databases.
On those markets you can go to harden some foreing(US or EU based companies) to check their licensing schema to mach their total MOL-contracts. Not by making it big headlines, just enough to make local branch-managers to fix things to look like everythings is OK on MS perspective. Just to keep rumours flying around about MS busts. MS has nothing to gain on some local small business to go belly-up by licensing fees, multinational corporations might want to reconsider their actions before their next bidding with MS come around in their moire western countries come up.
Banks warn you not to write your PIN on the card (duh), so why print the verification number on it?
PIN is there to stop somebody to use your card right after it goes missing. It is a lot easier to know that if your physical card has disappeared than knowing if some online shop has had your creaditcard info stolen. Verifications number shouldn't be stored anywhere else than in the back of the card, online payment methdos can't store this info on their database. Card numbers are stored for various tracking reasons.
If you lose your card and somebody uses it online, they won't be reveiving that much stuf right away as they would get by using ATM with your card. Once the money is withdrawn, there is no way to get it back. For most online purchases you have to wait several days to receive the goods you wanted. Those purcahes can be canceled once the information about card being missing goes to issuer.
I do show the scar though which is almost unnoticeable.
With safety lessons it is really hard to find the correct way to show most dangerous situations that could happen. If you keep preaching that this and this is dangerous, with teenagers everything goes in from one year and out from other. Showing the fun and good times that they are expecting from dangerous activities on safe circumtatios and then showing the bad things that have happened to you will give you more respect. When they think that something is fun and cool, old farts dont's doesn't get that much attention. Showing that it is safe to have fun in certain way and then being able to show what happens when you do stupid stuff will get you more hearing ears.
Problem is that because of the lagal issues you cannot really show the real bad stuf and how those are done. If you show how to destroy something in safe way, you might end up in court when somebody of our 'class' gets cought doing the same stuff. it is safer to you to let kids learn things on bad way from books and net, you will get the responsibility of their doingd after showing them the safe way.
I know this is way too much thinkofthechildren, but as a kid, I nearly blew my hands of several times, and I dont want my kids to do what I did.
Can't really think any of friends at kids didn't nearly blow of fingers or eyes. You end up getting yourself injured with stuff like explosives when you have no idea what you are doing. Blowing things up teaches you how things blow up and how to set the fuse. I'd rather teach my kids the knowledge that I learned while doing bad stuff than have them getting same scars and keep them in one piece.
Getting the information how to do things is pretty easy from books and net, learning how to do it safely has to be learned from the hard way, hopefully by somebody else, or to be teached. I'd rather by teaching my kids how to handle napalm than taking them to hospital after "ooops, it does burn, thow some water on it".
If I were Google I would simply shut down Google.de and the German GMail and give the whole country the big old middle finger. I bet it would only take months for local public pressure to force g-mail to get out of the way of the real Google GMail.
Why would anybody want to get back to provider that screwed them earlier. If my search and mail provider would cut me out of my services, I would need to build a new one, mayby from their competition. Same with their marketing, how could I rely on such provider with my ads that have caps on their service.
You don't stop offering your services to customers over some little things.
I've loved all Civ's and improvments that have come with new versions. I've played a some Age of Empires, but mostly I'm for strategy genre games. When thinking about action packed CIV, I get this mental image of Defender of the Crown + Risk + CIV. A lot of large scale micromanagements task done to your cities, but once on war with neighbouring region, of you got with your catapult blasting defending cities walls(or castles).
it would propably take something out of the management side of CIV, but honestly, I'd like to command my armies to battle field taking world piece by piece RISK style.
I'll just have to wait what they will produce and hopefully be a happy camper.
So what happens when plastics are recycled off of gold/copper wiring and sparks are among the by-products
from article:"Not only does the process produce fuel in the form of oil and gas, it also makes it easier to extract the copper wire for recycling."
So I think that they had this in their mind when designing this. You het the copper and the oil. If the process would produce sparks, it is propable safe by design. I mean: sparks, combusting gas + oil = law suit, not much of a business plan.
getting this to work on oil shales and resid oil (basically the useless part of the oil).
How would this work with tanker accidents? You line up these on the beach and start pouring the spilled crude oil/water/dead animals/sand mixture into it and get something useafull back. Watcing people cleaning up rocks for weeks with toothbrushes doesn't really sound like very efficient way to clean up things.
So, you're saying we can't even figure out how to irrigate the desert without causing a major disaster elsewhere. Well, you're right. Now, if our understanding of the environment is so poor that we can't even redirect a bit of water to irrigate, what makes you think that humans have anywhere near the necessary skill to terraform a planet successfully?
I apologise my misuse of certain terms with their full meaning of things. English isn't my native language. By terraforming areas I understand things to include changing the atmosphere of area, like raining and seasons, not just adding some water.
Sahara was once blooming when golf stream wasn't going to it's current direction and certain seasonal rains used to land there. To terraform Sahara in my understanding would mean to change the enviroment in such matter that those rains would fall in there again. This is no exact science and we wouldn't know the results on these required actions. we can be certain on some level that if we heat up the antarctis, it will change how ocean streams act with each other. To know for certain that it would help Sahara to become fertile, we cannot be sure.
Building a pumping station and running pipes to Sahara isn't that much of terraforming, it's just irrigation.
You don't get a do over on terraforming; once the CO2 and water has been released, you can't put them back again where they were. You may end up with a frigid and useless atmosphere and useless puddles of dirty, poisonous water, when in their current, solid form, these materials could have supported thriving Martian colonies.
At the moment, we are pretty much starting with situation of frigid and useless atmosphere. Depending on the means that we use to start the planetar terraforming, we just end up with situation where things have just changed their location. Earth is full of places that are by nature frigid and useless, but only for humans, nature and enviroment have their own needs for these to keep the palance. I doubt anybody would buy a location for some paradise island in mars (at location X,Y) once terraform would take place, nature will take its own shape when required to survive. It might take us several tries to get terraforming started, first ones ending up with huge earthquakes and landslides building up the mass of contenents. How many years did it take for earth to have it's current shape?
It won't be a short time period to terraform a planet. If we decide to start it, there might not be humans around to see Mars with nature of any sort
It because of the women are from Venus and men are from Mars thing. Feminists are trying to get rid of men and came up with this perfect plan, they make mars habitable with huge football stadiums, people drive there with those huge moon/mars rovers and besides, why do you think mars is called the red planet, its all those red light districts to attract men.
Slashdot Mirror
To my mind, you cannot possibly have a person who meets both requirements. Anyone who's qualified enough to understand everything at issue is likely to reach their own conclusions.
To have a opinion is certain, but to be qualified for the job you have be able to handle things without your own opinions getting in the way. When chairman states his own personal opinion about things that should be under neutral inspections, you can be sure that he isn't qualified to give fair change to all participants of current issue.
In this case, MS can always state that they didn't get fair handling because of the chairman had own opinions.
But in order to get smart people with knowledge of electronics/explosives to do that job, they would have to pay a hell of a lot more than they currently do.
And then you would still have the problem that people who are intelligent and inquisitive quickly become bored with repetitive, mind-numbing work like staring at an endless parade of luggage on an x-ray machine for 8 hours a day. Boredom leads to complacency, exactly what you DON'T want in an explosives screener.
The thing is that you don't need everybody to be expert screening everything. Hundreds of X-ray machine operators goes trought those thousends of packages during their shift and flag what needs special knowledge. If they can't really tell that if somethings is bombs, drugs, pirated Cuggi handbag..., they red flag it to proper excpert.
You don't have your helpdesk full of network admins/sysadmins,installation experts... to tell that customers internet is not working due the local power blackouts, but to the second/third line of expercy to handle routing problems screened to them by the first line.
The ONLY real terrorist bombs have all been constructed in such a way so as not to draw ANY attention to themselves. They might make them look like trash, they might hide them in something, but they sure as hell won't have wires and blinking lights.
If you'd had, say, a cell phone with wires coming out of it attached to a package, I'd be more inclined to believe it, but I have to say: I would definitely not have mistaken this for a bomb.
This would make sence if you'd be sure that everybody is sane. Blowing things up don't make people terrorists, it just makes them insane people that have some personal agenda. Most of the insane people are not explosive experts, normally they prefer guns and shooting around before taken down. Any security personel in public area cannot be sure why somebody wants attack some place and how they would do it.
You can easily have a divorcing dad that has lost a job opportunity because they missed a connecting flight and herefore the job and kids to blame the airport of his situation. They are not terrorist, but they threat the safety of people around with their crazy ideas as terrorist would do.
If you did, I'm sorry, but you're part of the problem. You're one of those people who has surrendered to the terrorists.
Shit happens, it just doens't get that much press time if it wasn't terrorist that did it. Insane people go shooting around, blow up their former workplaces, burn down places and harm otherwise people they don't like. They are not terrorist and reporting that somebody does something weird isn't surrendering to terrosrist, it's just keeping up with world. There are people that are insane and unfortunatelly it makes them even more dangerous than terrorist because you just don't know what is their personal agenda.
Why was she charged with carrying a "hoax explosive device", when it clearly wasn't?
If your actions get security people to think that your suspicious devices are bombs and you refuse to clear facts, you have made them to assume that you are carrying a bomb. After that, if is not a "hoax explosive device" then it is the real thing.
I sometimes carry desktop machines on my handluggage and those will raise some questions. When showing them and explaining what it is and why do I take it to plane will(so far have) allways get me out of trouble. If I'd refuse to tell security people what it was and turned away walking, I'd expect nothing else but trouble. Getting charged in situations like this would be just plain stupidity from my part. Even if wouldn't be anything dangerous than my testmachine, I would expect to get charged of fooling security with a hoax device.
Clearing things early, like when she was asked about the device would have got her out of the trouble, but no, if you want to create havoc by faking that you have something dangerous, you will be arrested of having dangferous devices, hoax or not. Likewise if you shout 'BOMB' in airport, you will be arrested and quostioned and usually charged, even if it was just a joke.
Haven't been on airports that have currently bombthreat going on after 9/11, but even before that it wasn't that relaxing situation when you put huge amount of tired people in small area when they searching bombs.
specifications to do what?
Whatever is required at that moment.
read/write to a microsoft file server?
Can be done, but there are performance issues.
use your own email client to work with exchange?
My home machines Evolution works better than my laptops Outlook with our exchange server in most cases. But there several small things that are missing. And exchange is not just a mail server. Exchange handles the mail, calender, appointments, to-do task, an so on. If I'd just work with one desktop machine it would be OK, but I have several desktop machines, laptops, a phone, just a OWA access from field, ans so on. It's the syncronation of all those required tools that I require. And thats just for one account.
Use your own system to read and write to AD?
Now that would be something. AD is pretty much the heart of a corporate MS enviroment. AD is my day job and it makes my day decent. There are so many possibilities that you can use it for. Unfortunatelly, it is just so many that it allows.
seriously, I want to know what people are looking for. I keep on seeing specifications and protocols but for what purpose? I am not trolling (even though I'll be modded a such) I do not see examples of what people are looking for, lots of complaints but not examples.
Microsoft is a monopoly, fine we get that, give me an example of what you cannot do without pulling the monopoly card.
I don't give a shit about something being monopoly in certain field, it is the integration with all the rest of systems that matters. You just can't allways select all your system to be MS-only or *nix-based. Networks tend to interact with other systems in some level.
If AD would could be configured to handle everything that I want from user authentication, that's just fine. All the others systems would get their credentials from there and thats it. Unfortunatelly it's not working that way. You end up eith several user databases that rewuire their own administration and there is no synchronasiation between them. Add priviledges in one and you have to be sure that same things are done in others.
I can't think of any administrator that I know that wouldn't want to have a single point of access to maintaining everything.
There are small tools that can d othese integration, but there is no way that I would allow any smalltime-players 'hobby' players software to be fully integrated in corporate systems. There are certain big players that we have selected for required specified tasks, unapproves players don't get the change of being middleman doing conversions of formats.
wouldn't the enforcement folks be better off making him use a router
First of all, there is the cost of router that needs to be build. Copying a software to as many computers that are moniteter currently doesn't cost anything.
Router for what kind of internet connection? Modem, cable, ADSL, HomePNA, WLAN... Goverment would have to have a lot of different boxes to keep everybody with same sentence supplied.
No, you first. Tell me why we need software on this man's computer when it's so easy to monitor him at the ISP level.
/.)
Why would the ISP do the monitoring for govermental survaillence? What have the ISP done wrong that they have to pay for their staff members doing the monitoring.
Your objection was that it's too expensive to develope monitoring software for gnu/linux, as if it did not already exist.
Why should the goverment spend money on developing systems just because somebody is given a change to have some rights under his sentance? It would cost a lot more to put people in jail than keeping them home with their survaillance software. I doubt that this person is not the only one having to install monitoring software to get out of jail, in this case it is the required operating system change that made it news(in
Sentencing somebody to use survaillance software for minor 'cyber' crimes is the easiast and cheapest way to handle these on possible future cases.
Keep bullying on myspace -> install software for said period of time
I say that it's too expensive to develop the software for any platform.
Not if you convict some botnet coders to that.
Get caught coding something minor bad stuff -> sentenced to writing software.
Why would goverment waste resources on somebodys community sentence of some keylogger writer to keep cleaning public places when they can use their talents to create said govermental approved keyloggers
It's an expensive but useless show of force.
There a laws that standardize our moral consepts of what is right and wrong. I might think that it is not OK to steal, but somebody else thinks that there is nothing wrong when stealing from faceless corporations. I'd like to drive faster on streets, somebody else thinks that speeding is dangerous and therefore there are laws that restrict my freedom to drive fast.
Sentence must fit the crime. Some sentences and their costs have to be paid by all of us by paing taxes, some come from pockets of the convicted criminal as fines. It is the judges job to find out the best way to sentence people with proper fines, community service, house arrest or jail, depending on the crime. All of those sentences have their costs. It will cost for the tax-payers to keep killers behind bars, but that is the price of having basics security.
Cost of maintaining software and monitoring logs of hundreds(don't have any numbers) of people that have been convicted should be a lot less than paying for their housing and food in jails.
Eden is in Finland? Who knew!
Most of the locals. Eden is a spa in Nokia.
And besides, wouldn't you rather say that Linux came from land of paradise than from hell.
If you take a liter of water and freeze it or heat it up, it changes size (a bit), but weighs the same.
If the size changes(even a bit), why would that still be a liter? This get out of my understanding. Why different sizes of liter can be considered as same amount(in volyme)? If this how physics work, then how can we really measure something in planeter sizes?
Where did it say that we would heat or freeze the same liter, we've being talking about one liter in different temperaturs. Not using the same original test sample, but using one liter of water in different temperaturs. If you heat up or freeze one liter, of course they will change the volume(a bit, in my understanding).
Your understanding of weights, measures and calibration is quite shallow. It would be difficult to correct this without a much more extensive conversation than could be achieved in a web forum.
/., I can assure you that to comparing to experts on those fields, I'll admit that my understanding is very shallow. This will mean that I wouldn't have any knowledge about these subjects and I wouldn't easily admit that points I've tryed to make haven't any reasoning behind. In my gp, I stated that this water excample was a bad one, and should really have thought a better one before making the post. Replys tend to gasp on this excample.
Considering the crowd of
The point that I have tryed to make has been all the time that we really cannot be sure about all the universal forces that are behind our physical reasoning.
Because of my history with bad examples, I'll give you one mayby describing my reasoning behind my bad examples:
Lets say that you live in microwave owen. In your universe, water molecyles tend to heat up, without any measurable reasons, everything is like it is normally(microwave is allways on, sending it's radiation). When you start to build up things to measure what is happening, you logic is based on fact that this is the normal state of universe(microwave-owen).We have radioactive stuff like uranium that has certain halftimes and things that it does. What if it does these things because of microwave-like backround radiotion that is happening here constantly in same leve lall the time. How can we measure something that we have nothing to compare?
I'm not saying that there would be any sudden significant changes to create F4-like mutations, but there is evulution to describe some certain longtime changes that have created sudden(don't hold your breath) small time mutation on species.
It would be incorrect to suggest that we have only measured the weight of objects on the earth. Or even in the solar system.
I'm not a member of any NASA organizations, but when have we been doing longterm fulltime studies on other galaxies. I'm currently in impression that we are at the moment studying Mars, but to my knowledge, there are no laboratories in there.
These are just my bad examples and propably all discussion on web forums will not get us any closer to getting my point to be understood by somebody with not so shallow understanding.
Again, wrong. Water doesn't change weight or mass with temperature. So if you fill a bottle with 1 liter of water, it will have the same weight/mass regardless of temperature.
So it's time for me to check out my pyhics books and sue the publishers for false data. How could they get so simple excamples wrong with so easy formulas.
Or my math teachers: The only way your example would make sense is saying that measuring the volume of 1 kg of water changes with temperature.
If one liter(volyme) doesn't change its weight depending on the temperature, why one weight (one kg) can change its volyme(in liters)? Shouldn't those formulas be basicly same, you just adjust those to make what part of result you are looking for.
If we are measuring the weight of one liter in different temperatures, to make correct conclusions about it's weight to my understanding we would have to change the amount of the water included in test (to be allways one liter,regardles of the tempreture). Now you are saying that the amount(volyme) doesn't really matter, it is the weight that matters what volume is required to give weight of one kilo.
How can you type, if you were turned into a newt?
I thought that Newt Ginrich had stuff to do typing.
Really bad example, not even illustrative.
Bad excample, I'll admit, mayby illustrative if I would have used all the terms correctly. I doubt that I could use them any better at the moment to describe the point that I was after.
If we weight the 1 liter of water on different temperatures, we will get different weights(?)in Kg. This requering that we keep the measured object allways as 1 liter.
My point being, we rely on defined constants to figure out astrophysics and then wonder why something doesn't fit to rules defined by getting hit by apple.
The gravity 'constant' is not constant everywhere in the universe.
All constants are bad in physics. If all tests are made in here and they allways give you same constant to describe the event with other variables, it still doesn't rule out the possibility of certain calculation that has to be taken in consideration to make formula.
Given a very bad example, we could give a constant value to mass of water by measuring its weight in same enviroment(temperature) and decide that 1 liter of water allways weights 1kg. Making the measurents in next room in same centrally heated building would give same result, therefore it must be constant.
All our physical expiriements have been made next to sun, how can we be sure that it doesn't send some radiotion that effects the movements of atoms? Oh yeah, we tested it radiotion levels and everything, unfortunatelly those instruments have been calibrated next to the sun.
Just my 2 cents, debending if you want US or euros.
However, if Microsoft started selling legit copies of Windows in China for very cheap (I'm talking as cheap as the counterfeits), they'd probably start making more money on the Chinese market.
This is very complicated issue. If I'd fly to China and bought hundred copies of legimate copies of Vista for very cheap, why couldn't I use them in western countries. After all, MS sold them and licensed them, so those must be legal.
As for being able to sell as cheap as for counterfeits, legimite copies would need to have some holograms and other printed stuff on them and that would make them much more excpencive. It's also controll AND support issue. By buing a legimite copy of software you expect to get some sort of support(even with MS). At the moment they donät have to provide that much support on those regions becouse of the piracy ratio, nut if all copies would be legal, they would have extend their support to apply for all of them.
And as for dropping the price for legimite copy to almost zero, you would also lose the sales of current highly prized legal copies currently sold. Making nothing against making something isn't worth of it, at the moment.
DVD's are sold on different prices around the world, but becouse the region codes, you cannot easily transfer cheaper products from another side of world to your local neighbourhood. At the moment I can buy legally a cheaper version of DVD from anywhere, if it has been published in EU. If some movie is waiting for its release date here, it is illegal for me to import it to my country from some other region. Comparing this for selling software dirtcheap in Chine/India, there wouldn't really be any laws that would prohibit me from buying cheap software from Chine legally if those prices would be lowered to match prices of counterfeits.
The main reason is that once people use Windows, they get locked in.
Once anything gets to be the local standard, people will get locked in. To do business with your neihgbour, you have to have same standards. If everybody else on your business area uses some format, you have to be compatible with them to keep your business alive. If Red Flag Linux(?) would get to be the standard, you wouldn't see that many windows stores around. In earlier days when there was Word Perfect and MS word compiting on wordprosessing market, it depended on your key contacts what format you used.
Since piracy is so rampant in those parts of the world, they will switch to Linux last.
They keep using pirated version of MS software as long as it will be profitable. By being profitable you have to consider charges like not being compatible with others and what you would have to pay to be. And what would be the changes of being busted using pirated software.
So MSFT will protest and go through all the motions of fighting piracy but in reality it knows it is the piracy of windows that is keeping Linux at bay.
As far as I know, China as strong attemps to adobt their own Red Flag Linux(?) systems on govermental side. That would mean that business would have to adobt open formats for documentation. I doubt that that many people in China has that much belief in openess of govermental supperted OSS, but being frigheted by the change of MS busting their shop for using pirated software or being busted by goverment by using govermental controlled software, will favour govermental OSS. I mean, goverment can bust you anyway they want if it will please them(or cousin of competing corporation).
I would say that it has been a bad business decision from MS to start doing major busts in developing software enviroments. Personatelly I would have waited a bit longer to be certain that MS standards are really THE local standards. Once everybody has fully integreted their systems on pirated MS products, they won't have any other choices than paying MS tax. Now their systems aren't that evolved, it will only take short time to rewrite some excel-sheets to mySQL databases.
On those markets you can go to harden some foreing(US or EU based companies) to check their licensing schema to mach their total MOL-contracts. Not by making it big headlines, just enough to make local branch-managers to fix things to look like everythings is OK on MS perspective. Just to keep rumours flying around about MS busts. MS has nothing to gain on some local small business to go belly-up by licensing fees, multinational corporations might want to reconsider their actions before their next bidding with MS come around in their moire western countries come up.
Banks warn you not to write your PIN on the card (duh), so why print the verification number on it?
PIN is there to stop somebody to use your card right after it goes missing. It is a lot easier to know that if your physical card has disappeared than knowing if some online shop has had your creaditcard info stolen. Verifications number shouldn't be stored anywhere else than in the back of the card, online payment methdos can't store this info on their database. Card numbers are stored for various tracking reasons.
If you lose your card and somebody uses it online, they won't be reveiving that much stuf right away as they would get by using ATM with your card. Once the money is withdrawn, there is no way to get it back. For most online purchases you have to wait several days to receive the goods you wanted. Those purcahes can be canceled once the information about card being missing goes to issuer.
I do show the scar though which is almost unnoticeable.
With safety lessons it is really hard to find the correct way to show most dangerous situations that could happen. If you keep preaching that this and this is dangerous, with teenagers everything goes in from one year and out from other. Showing the fun and good times that they are expecting from dangerous activities on safe circumtatios and then showing the bad things that have happened to you will give you more respect. When they think that something is fun and cool, old farts dont's doesn't get that much attention. Showing that it is safe to have fun in certain way and then being able to show what happens when you do stupid stuff will get you more hearing ears.
Problem is that because of the lagal issues you cannot really show the real bad stuf and how those are done. If you show how to destroy something in safe way, you might end up in court when somebody of our 'class' gets cought doing the same stuff. it is safer to you to let kids learn things on bad way from books and net, you will get the responsibility of their doingd after showing them the safe way.
I know this is way too much thinkofthechildren, but as a kid, I nearly blew my hands of several times, and I dont want my kids to do what I did.
Can't really think any of friends at kids didn't nearly blow of fingers or eyes. You end up getting yourself injured with stuff like explosives when you have no idea what you are doing. Blowing things up teaches you how things blow up and how to set the fuse. I'd rather teach my kids the knowledge that I learned while doing bad stuff than have them getting same scars and keep them in one piece.
Getting the information how to do things is pretty easy from books and net, learning how to do it safely has to be learned from the hard way, hopefully by somebody else, or to be teached. I'd rather by teaching my kids how to handle napalm than taking them to hospital after "ooops, it does burn, thow some water on it".
If I were Google I would simply shut down Google.de and the German GMail and give the whole country the big old middle finger. I bet it would only take months for local public pressure to force g-mail to get out of the way of the real Google GMail.
Why would anybody want to get back to provider that screwed them earlier. If my search and mail provider would cut me out of my services, I would need to build a new one, mayby from their competition. Same with their marketing, how could I rely on such provider with my ads that have caps on their service.
You don't stop offering your services to customers over some little things.
I've loved all Civ's and improvments that have come with new versions. I've played a some Age of Empires, but mostly I'm for strategy genre games. When thinking about action packed CIV, I get this mental image of Defender of the Crown + Risk + CIV. A lot of large scale micromanagements task done to your cities, but once on war with neighbouring region, of you got with your catapult blasting defending cities walls(or castles).
it would propably take something out of the management side of CIV, but honestly, I'd like to command my armies to battle field taking world piece by piece RISK style.
I'll just have to wait what they will produce and hopefully be a happy camper.
So what happens when plastics are recycled off of gold/copper wiring and sparks are among the by-products
from article:"Not only does the process produce fuel in the form of oil and gas, it also makes it easier to extract the copper wire for recycling."
So I think that they had this in their mind when designing this. You het the copper and the oil. If the process would produce sparks, it is propable safe by design. I mean: sparks, combusting gas + oil = law suit, not much of a business plan.
Might be interesting to watch.
getting this to work on oil shales and resid oil (basically the useless part of the oil).
How would this work with tanker accidents? You line up these on the beach and start pouring the spilled crude oil/water/dead animals/sand mixture into it and get something useafull back. Watcing people cleaning up rocks for weeks with toothbrushes doesn't really sound like very efficient way to clean up things.
So, you're saying we can't even figure out how to irrigate the desert without causing a major disaster elsewhere. Well, you're right. Now, if our understanding of the environment is so poor that we can't even redirect a bit of water to irrigate, what makes you think that humans have anywhere near the necessary skill to terraform a planet successfully?
I apologise my misuse of certain terms with their full meaning of things. English isn't my native language. By terraforming areas I understand things to include changing the atmosphere of area, like raining and seasons, not just adding some water.
Sahara was once blooming when golf stream wasn't going to it's current direction and certain seasonal rains used to land there. To terraform Sahara in my understanding would mean to change the enviroment in such matter that those rains would fall in there again. This is no exact science and we wouldn't know the results on these required actions. we can be certain on some level that if we heat up the antarctis, it will change how ocean streams act with each other. To know for certain that it would help Sahara to become fertile, we cannot be sure.
Building a pumping station and running pipes to Sahara isn't that much of terraforming, it's just irrigation.
You don't get a do over on terraforming; once the CO2 and water has been released, you can't put them back again where they were. You may end up with a frigid and useless atmosphere and useless puddles of dirty, poisonous water, when in their current, solid form, these materials could have supported thriving Martian colonies.
At the moment, we are pretty much starting with situation of frigid and useless atmosphere. Depending on the means that we use to start the planetar terraforming, we just end up with situation where things have just changed their location. Earth is full of places that are by nature frigid and useless, but only for humans, nature and enviroment have their own needs for these to keep the palance. I doubt anybody would buy a location for some paradise island in mars (at location X,Y) once terraform would take place, nature will take its own shape when required to survive. It might take us several tries to get terraforming started, first ones ending up with huge earthquakes and landslides building up the mass of contenents. How many years did it take for earth to have it's current shape?
It won't be a short time period to terraform a planet. If we decide to start it, there might not be humans around to see Mars with nature of any sort
It because of the women are from Venus and men are from Mars thing. Feminists are trying to get rid of men and came up with this perfect plan, they make mars habitable with huge football stadiums, people drive there with those huge moon/mars rovers and besides, why do you think mars is called the red planet, its all those red light districts to attract men.