If the files were supposed to be confidential, shouldn't they have been protected?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
You are probably trying to be funny, but what is not funny about this is if these computers were cracked by one of us and not a Republican staffer, these same Republicans would be howling for blood and nailing asses to walls. This is complete and total bullshit. There was a security problem that could be fixed and the Dems did not fix it. But the Republicans cracked their computers and shared confidential information. They broke the DMCA and several other anti-cracker laws in the process. Someone pointed out that the Dems have pulled this kind of thing as well, but two wrongs do not make a right. The staffers should be treated just as any other civilian would be in this case. And the Dem admin who refused to patch the machine should be fired and investigated to see if s/he is not part of this on the sly.
Some choice points from this article:
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
Other staffers, however, denied that the Democrats were told anything about it before November 2003.
He said, she said. Regardless of the truth, the Republicans had no right to crack computers just because the potential for exploitation was there. Republican prosecutors and judges would never accept this as a defense for a cracking case, in fact they would laugh as they sent Mr. Cracker off to Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison and have done so repeatedly in similar cases. A cracker who informs his/her target of the potential exploit before using it to break into a computer is never afforded any kind of legal protection.
Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave; Frist's office said he is on leave "pending the results of the investigation" -- he denied that any of the handwritten comments on the memos were by his hand and said he did not distribute the memos to the media. He also argued that the only wrongdoing was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos, and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Again, bollocks. These were confidential memos which were clearly meant only for their recipients, just like all office memos and business emails are. And I love the blame-the-victim here, where they try to put the blame on the Dems for having an exploitable computer. So by placing their confidential memos on a machine that can be cracked, they are in fact releasing this info to the public with no intellectual property rights (like copyright) asserted? Really? So if I crack the TIA computers that means the Republicans released the information for free into the public domain? The Microsoft Source that was stolen is actually legal, free, and clear? Can I get an affidavit from John Ashcroft to this effect?
All this adds up to prove that the Republicans' vaunted belief in the rule of law is complete bullshit. The party has been taken over by outlaws who seem to think the law does not apply to them. The fact that this kind of cracking can occur at the highest levels of government with NO investigation into prosecution leads directly to a determination of gross negligence on the part of Bush, since he is teh top cop in the country and it is his job to make sure the laws are enforced and obeyed, especially by the staff of his party members.
Re:Would it surprise anyone...
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nowadays, the US seems to think that the only important thing is military power.
Perhaps, but our military power comes from high technology. The US does not have a huge population or a very large military force in terms of troops on the ground, but we do have technological superiority which allows those troops to be more effective. Some of this superiority includes communication technology. Remember that the internet started as a military project, as were some of the earliest computers.
It therefore makes perfect sense that a more militaristic US should still lead the way in terms of tech. The Cold War and the World War preceding it spawned technological booms. The current move towad Mars and Moon exploration are reactions to fears that China will overtake us in space technology. All of this leads to a confluence of the drives toward both technological and military superiority.
The FTC should be all over this and create a Do Not Fax registry.
Since signing the Do Not Call registry I get almost 0 telemarketing calls. The difference has been night and day.
Anybody home at the FTC???
They don't need that. It is illegal to do what Fax.com does, which is to send unsolicited faxes. It is too bad they don't just forget the damn Do Not Call List (which they allowed AT&T to administer and which predictably led to AT&T using it as their new calling list) and just make it illegal to call people unsolicited. It should be the same with email as well.
GMC is now offering four-wheel steering on some of their trucks and they use parallel parking as an example in their commercial. When I was a kid I saw a cartoon that had a car that turned all four wheels perpendicular to the road and drove the car straight into the parking space. I can't remember which studio but I think it was meant as a gag on the "products of the future"-type shows. I still think that would be a neat idea.
Microsoft Security. What's it all about? Is it good, or it is whack?
I'd have to say whack. As is this report. Crowing about the lack of reported vulnerabilities means nothing when you have paid security firms not to report vulnerabilities! Of COURSE the vulnerabilities reported have decreased. But have the real vulnerabilities decreased? Thanks to Microsoft, we will never know.
Without subjecting themselves to the same review other operating systems undergo, they have no cause to crow about a perceived dearth of vulnerabilities, especially since many previously reported vulnerabilities persist and will not be patched (but are not included in this report since they are not newly reported).
"If the management team is payed a flat salary, they have no incentive to make, say, 15% instead of 8% profit."
I've read this in MBA books. This is what managers tell each other to feel like good persons. But there is nowhere written the bonuses should be in the milions range. What about 'Raise our profit by 5%, get a hefty 50k bonus'.
This is what I really don't understand. Management types, especially CEOs like Fiorina, crow constantly about their "drive to succeed" and "commitment to excellence." They write books about it that we are supposed to read and by which we are to be inspired. Yet these same people apparently have NO INCENTIVE TO SUCCEED? This does not compute at all!
Why does the lowly programmer struggling on his/her "working stiff" ~$75k (give or take $30k) seem to have no trouble at all doing a good job simply because they think that this is what they should do (this is more important and oddly more prominent with programmers making $0 for OSS) but the "excellent" MBAs will have no incentive at all without hundreds of millions in stock options? Or what about the ditch-digger who makes straight ditches because that is the job s/he was hired to do and they would be embarrassed to do otherwise?
Besides, this theory definitely has NO basis in fact. History shows that overpaid CEOs will happily sink the company into the ground by destroying the product line and emaciating the workforce in an effort to create phantom profits without actually DOING anything with the business, then sail away with their golden parachutes with nary a worry. This is even worse for professional CEOs who go from one carcass to the next. The major exception seems to be founding CEOs for whom the company is itself like their own child / pet project. Those people work their tails off as a rule and actually care about building the business rather than bullshitting their way through or sailing on with inertia.
Honestly, I think that there need to be more metrics involved in determining these bonuses so that we curb some of this abuse. And CEO salaries are definitely piracy, ditto upper execs. It is waste at the top with little return, pure and simple. A very poor business decision even Joe Sixpack is smart enough not to make.
Ultimately if the incentives are not tied to long term goals then the CEO will be more inclined not to care about the company's long term goals and will indeed get ready for some slash and burn CEO action. This is essentially what happened with Fiorina. She was hired to ruin HP and is doing an excellent job of it. She has never displayed any interest in running the company in the long term; in fact I am surprised she is still around after the merger she engineered.
When Darth Vader rounds up all the remaining Jedi and goes on a hack-n-slash lightsaber fest!
Actually Speilerg could do a really good job with an evil "Darth Vader" as a "villian hero". I've always wanted to see a movie where Darth gets to be "big, bad, and evil"...just so we can hate him more...he's not really evil enough in the lucas version.
The Jedi killing certainly was a holocaust. But as for Darth Vader not being evil, what the hell? We are talking about Darth Vader, right? I mean, the Darth Vader that slaughtered the Jawas and Sand People (twice now at least!)? The Darth Vader that tortured Leia, Chewbacca, and Han Solo several times and then froze Solo alive, not caring how painful that was or whether it killed him? The Darth Vader that moved through the galaxy like a pestilence, destroying everything in his path? Darth Vader the shatterer of worlds? Darth Vader who tried to kill his own son several times before killing his master? (Ok, granted he gave the son the chance to join him in killing his master twice, but still...)
(Disclaimer: SCO is smoking crack. I believe none of what I am about to say...)
Actually, SCO has a point. They claim ownership of the code in UNIX derivatives, of which AIX and the rest are examples. The fact that SCO has never seen or handled that code in any way is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible that IBM has infringed on SCO's property by copying code that IBM wrote for AIX/others into Linux. In which case, the only copy that SCO currently has access to is the Linux copy. After all SCO didn't write the code. IBM did. SCO just owns the rights.
The BASIS for SCO's claim is a code comparison between the code they already have and the code in Linux. They therefore have no standing to pursue new IBM code if they really had examples that they found before wasting everyone's time. They can simply produce what they have already! If they get that far they can get more from IBM, but the whole point of this was that the judge had set disclosure of all evidence SCO currently has as a prerequisite to getting any code from IBM. SCO is really treading on thin ice with these shenanighans.
It always amuses me to see "oh, by blind, senile grandmother coulda done this" comments. The point is, they didn't.
If all these things are as obvious as people like to claim, why don't they patent them? Is it that maybe they were only obvious after someone stated them?
Ahh, which brings us to the point of the patent system. Protecting something that is duplicatable for a period of time.
Sliced bread! pffft. My dog coulda come up with that one!
Actually, they did. This is not a patentable technology because it describes normal use of DNS as it has always existed and is used every day. Maybe there aren't patents on this (though the patent in question references several other patents which I have not read yet) but there sure as hell is prior art. WTF are they talking about patenting using an @ in an email address and addressing people at the domain rather than at hosts within the domain? Who granted a patent like that?
This might be the lamest excuse for a patent ever granted; a 2-year old could have come up with this idea.
Actually, this has been around for a damn long time. I mean, really this is basic DNS stuff here. Pretty much always the email address for all users at a company whose website is at something.company.com will be whoever@company.com. In fact this becomes even more obvious when you realize that "something" could be www for the purposes of the patent, and that only the name immediately following the tld describes the base domain anyhow. So this is an incredibly stupid patent.
It is older than Nirvana. The Nirvana version goes "Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you." But it was a common saying long before that (usually sans Cobain's purposeful grammatical error); I think the first time I saw it was in Garfield, but there were also buttons, t-shirts, etc. Maybe that guy from Forrest Gump thought it up... nyah..:)
In the interests of political correctness I wish to formally protest this device.
It doesn't take into account the needs of miners, subway operators and sewer workers. I dream of a world in which these forgotten peoples and we surface dwellers can join hands in peace and rejoice in equal-opportunity recharging.
Thank you.
They aren't going to win a lot of points with Tesla fans, either;)...
Since power cannot be transferred wirelessly, ICP and TEC designers were faced with different power-connector protocols for mobile devices. Consequently, the jacket will be sold with a small assortment of adapters to accommodate all major lines of phones, PDAs, cameras and other mobile devices.
I'm right there with you. I actually have taken a Pentium 200MHz with 64 MB Ram and turned it into a Debian Webserver with PHP, Postgresql, Postfix, Apache, etc. And it runs great!
So long as I don't put X on it, it should handle whatever I need.
My one buddy has a Pentium 90 at his work as the only machine running Linux on the network and it's doing half the load cause he can't stand the Windows clients.
Actually, the problem is not X it is Gnome and KDE. It used to be that a 32MB 486 could run Gnome reliably and decently. This is no longer true. But you *can* use fvwm or something similar and that box you mention would be damn snappy. In fact, for a little while due to various accidents a very similar box (64MBRAM, Cyrix MII333 (250mhz) was my primary machine. I was running slackware and used fvwm2 and was able to do everything I needed to do.
In fact the only thing that was kind of slow was OpenOffice. Then I found out that one of my DIMMs had been bad and I was only really running 32MB! Throwing in some more RAM fixed that right up.
Ah, your post explains why the script that prompted this story was written in the first place. Any system can be very easily converted to Debian/Redhat/Mandrake/whatever. It's the keeping the personal files without doing a backup that is new.
Erm, no it's not. If you have a seperate/home you can install whatever distro you want and have all your personal files, settings, etc intact.
if mp3.com was so fantastic, why isnt it still up and running?
It is no longer running precisely BECAUSE it was so good. In other words, its wild success brought the attention of the RIAA who sued it into oblivion and made it essentially illegal to distribute music digitally even if you are the original artist and copyright holder. Then P2P got bigger, and the RIAA sued some more. Then the Government finally realized that the RIAA was stifling all competition and started an antitrust suit. So the RIAA got wise and started working with vendors like Apple to create digital music distribution channels like iTunes which only distribute RIAA music, continued to suppress all non-RIAA music, but somehow this was enough to satisfy the antitrust hounddogs and the case was closed.
That should roughly catch you up so far. By the way, have you heard of this cool new technology? IT's called the internet, there's all these files and information on there that you can access mostly for free.. and porn.. yeah... oh I have to go now, sorry;).
I've asked this before but never received a very good answer.
Why doesn't the FSF and other free software advocates attempt to corner the tech patent market? I know software patents are considered evil and against the basic philosophy of the FSF. I just wonder if the GPL could be modified to allow certain patents held in a FSF trust of some sort. Then there would be incentive to apply for patents and use them in free software with the ultimate goal being the elimination of software patents all together. Right now the big corporate players are locking free software out of certain areas while free software does nothing to lock out non-free software. I just don't see any incentive for the powers that be to reform. However, if the FSF or some other body held a patent portfolio strong enough to lock out one or more of the big guys from a market then maybe one or more of the big guys might begin to understand the benefits of patent reform.
If this has already been discussed over and over then please forgive me. I just haven't stumbled upon it yet.
The GPL would not have to be modified for this to happen. Specifically:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
So the idea is that if GPL software contains patented code, the holder of the patent must grant a royalty-free, GPL-compatable license of that patent to all recipients of the software.
As for the idea of a patent pool, I had thought several people had advocated it and even that there were some pools in existence, but I was unable to find any real examples. There were some people who had declared on their websites that their patents were available royalty-free and there was the w3c effort, but nothing like what you describe. I guess it has not gottn off the ground yet, but I think it is probably the only answer now, so we can fight fire with fire.
Someone should tell Microsoft that, since their latest products indeed run everything as admin by default. And the services cannot be made to do otherwise!
Thats surprising to me. Im a network architect with microsoft products, and nothing I work with runs admin by default.
Maybe you should work with something more tech-savy than XP Home, since that seems to be the extent of your IT experience.
Riiiight. So tell me what user the RPC service runs as? IIS? MSSQL? EVERY service on windows runs as system or administrator by default and AFAIK this cannot be changed. Also, by default the only user you have is administrator. Granted most normal people create new users. But in the case of desktop windows, especially with the XP Home you would mention, it is more likely the user will just sally forth with Administrator.
In fact with the XP it is not immediately obvious to a non-sysadmin what user is the administrator or that that is indeed what is happening. Perhaps that is why you missed it.
Perhaps you should go back to MCSE school or learn to use a real operating system so you understand what the rest of us are on about.
This solution is not cheap, but it is easy. (IMHO it is a reasonable price for the ease of use and what you are getting). However, it would be spiffier to have 5 drives and a RAID-5 array rather than the 4 with RAID 0 which means you buy two boxes of 4 just to get redundancy. I am currently thinking out how this could be done as a modification of the project recently mentioned in a slashdot article which was linked to this one where you build your own external terrabyte array.
Wheel mouse buttons work in OS X by default. Just plug in nearly any USB wheel mouse, and you're scrolling away.
Middle-button text editing, a popular staple of Linux geeks, is not present, but the drag & drop features are powerful enough that you will never miss it, once you get used to the new OS.
Actually, that is not entirely true. Since you can map the keys of a multibutton mouse to any keystroke and/or key-click combination in most Mac mouse drivers, you can get the middle button to work. I usually configure the right mouse button to ctrl-click and the middle button to ctrl-v. Now middle button pastes and right mouse button does context menus. Now you still don't get the X11 "selecting is copying" functionality, IIRC unless you are using X11 apps, but it still is useful.
As opposed to Windows which just runs all of your thoughts as admin by default?
Get with the program. This isn't 1998 anymore. If you are going to bash windows find a real reason to bash it.
Someone should tell Microsoft that, since their latest products indeed run everything as admin by default. And the services cannot be made to do otherwise!
Actually, I thought it was cute that XP was finally able to switch users without logging out. I thought "Welcome to 1967 Microsoft!":)
I agree with the above post as far as the system librairies, but must just mention that msconfig is certainly in xp, and is certainly always installed with 98 or xp, somewhere down in the windows folder. Just run-->msconfig, it's there.
In Vanilla win98 msconfig was a seperate power tools install. I think it might have come with 98SE though...
This has 4 250 GB drives in it. There is no redundancy. This is an AID.
Oh and BTW RAID 0, a stripe, is indeed considered RAID and is what they are no doubt doing in this setup. Yes, this means one disk failure and you lose all your data, but still...
This has 4 250 GB drives in it. There is no redundancy. This is an AID.
But take two, they're small. Now you have a mirror. As the poster below pointed out, raid over firewire is possible. Also you can chain many of these together to form all kinds of configurations, and FireWire is hotswappable.
Slashdot Mirror
If the files were supposed to be confidential, shouldn't they have been protected?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
You are probably trying to be funny, but what is not funny about this is if these computers were cracked by one of us and not a Republican staffer, these same Republicans would be howling for blood and nailing asses to walls. This is complete and total bullshit. There was a security problem that could be fixed and the Dems did not fix it. But the Republicans cracked their computers and shared confidential information. They broke the DMCA and several other anti-cracker laws in the process. Someone pointed out that the Dems have pulled this kind of thing as well, but two wrongs do not make a right. The staffers should be treated just as any other civilian would be in this case. And the Dem admin who refused to patch the machine should be fired and investigated to see if s/he is not part of this on the sly.
Some choice points from this article:
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
Other staffers, however, denied that the Democrats were told anything about it before November 2003.
He said, she said. Regardless of the truth, the Republicans had no right to crack computers just because the potential for exploitation was there. Republican prosecutors and judges would never accept this as a defense for a cracking case, in fact they would laugh as they sent Mr. Cracker off to Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison and have done so repeatedly in similar cases. A cracker who informs his/her target of the potential exploit before using it to break into a computer is never afforded any kind of legal protection.
Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave; Frist's office said he is on leave "pending the results of the investigation" -- he denied that any of the handwritten comments on the memos were by his hand and said he did not distribute the memos to the media. He also argued that the only wrongdoing was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos, and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Again, bollocks. These were confidential memos which were clearly meant only for their recipients, just like all office memos and business emails are. And I love the blame-the-victim here, where they try to put the blame on the Dems for having an exploitable computer. So by placing their confidential memos on a machine that can be cracked, they are in fact releasing this info to the public with no intellectual property rights (like copyright) asserted? Really? So if I crack the TIA computers that means the Republicans released the information for free into the public domain? The Microsoft Source that was stolen is actually legal, free, and clear? Can I get an affidavit from John Ashcroft to this effect?
All this adds up to prove that the Republicans' vaunted belief in the rule of law is complete bullshit. The party has been taken over by outlaws who seem to think the law does not apply to them. The fact that this kind of cracking can occur at the highest levels of government with NO investigation into prosecution leads directly to a determination of gross negligence on the part of Bush, since he is teh top cop in the country and it is his job to make sure the laws are enforced and obeyed, especially by the staff of his party members.
Nowadays, the US seems to think that the only important thing is military power.
Perhaps, but our military power comes from high technology. The US does not have a huge population or a very large military force in terms of troops on the ground, but we do have technological superiority which allows those troops to be more effective. Some of this superiority includes communication technology. Remember that the internet started as a military project, as were some of the earliest computers.
It therefore makes perfect sense that a more militaristic US should still lead the way in terms of tech. The Cold War and the World War preceding it spawned technological booms. The current move towad Mars and Moon exploration are reactions to fears that China will overtake us in space technology. All of this leads to a confluence of the drives toward both technological and military superiority.
The FTC should be all over this and create a Do Not Fax registry.
Since signing the Do Not Call registry I get almost 0 telemarketing calls. The difference has been night and day.
Anybody home at the FTC???
They don't need that. It is illegal to do what Fax.com does, which is to send unsolicited faxes. It is too bad they don't just forget the damn Do Not Call List (which they allowed AT&T to administer and which predictably led to AT&T using it as their new calling list) and just make it illegal to call people unsolicited. It should be the same with email as well.
GMC is now offering four-wheel steering on some of their trucks and they use parallel parking as an example in their commercial. When I was a kid I saw a cartoon that had a car that turned all four wheels perpendicular to the road and drove the car straight into the parking space. I can't remember which studio but I think it was meant as a gag on the "products of the future"-type shows. I still think that would be a neat idea.
It was one of Tex Avery's famous futurist cartoons, "The Car of Tomorrow." Other cartoons he did in this genre include "The Farm of Tomorrow" and "The House of Tomorrow." IIRC these cartoons were meant to spoof actual futurist publications.
Microsoft Security. What's it all about? Is it good, or it is whack?
I'd have to say whack. As is this report. Crowing about the lack of reported vulnerabilities means nothing when you have paid security firms not to report vulnerabilities! Of COURSE the vulnerabilities reported have decreased. But have the real vulnerabilities decreased? Thanks to Microsoft, we will never know.
Without subjecting themselves to the same review other operating systems undergo, they have no cause to crow about a perceived dearth of vulnerabilities, especially since many previously reported vulnerabilities persist and will not be patched (but are not included in this report since they are not newly reported).
"If the management team is payed a flat salary, they have no incentive to make, say, 15% instead of 8% profit."
I've read this in MBA books. This is what managers tell each other to feel like good persons. But there is nowhere written the bonuses should be in the milions range. What about 'Raise our profit by 5%, get a hefty 50k bonus'.
This is what I really don't understand. Management types, especially CEOs like Fiorina, crow constantly about their "drive to succeed" and "commitment to excellence." They write books about it that we are supposed to read and by which we are to be inspired. Yet these same people apparently have NO INCENTIVE TO SUCCEED? This does not compute at all!
Why does the lowly programmer struggling on his/her "working stiff" ~$75k (give or take $30k) seem to have no trouble at all doing a good job simply because they think that this is what they should do (this is more important and oddly more prominent with programmers making $0 for OSS) but the "excellent" MBAs will have no incentive at all without hundreds of millions in stock options? Or what about the ditch-digger who makes straight ditches because that is the job s/he was hired to do and they would be embarrassed to do otherwise?
Besides, this theory definitely has NO basis in fact. History shows that overpaid CEOs will happily sink the company into the ground by destroying the product line and emaciating the workforce in an effort to create phantom profits without actually DOING anything with the business, then sail away with their golden parachutes with nary a worry. This is even worse for professional CEOs who go from one carcass to the next. The major exception seems to be founding CEOs for whom the company is itself like their own child / pet project. Those people work their tails off as a rule and actually care about building the business rather than bullshitting their way through or sailing on with inertia.
Honestly, I think that there need to be more metrics involved in determining these bonuses so that we curb some of this abuse. And CEO salaries are definitely piracy, ditto upper execs. It is waste at the top with little return, pure and simple. A very poor business decision even Joe Sixpack is smart enough not to make.
Ultimately if the incentives are not tied to long term goals then the CEO will be more inclined not to care about the company's long term goals and will indeed get ready for some slash and burn CEO action. This is essentially what happened with Fiorina. She was hired to ruin HP and is doing an excellent job of it. She has never displayed any interest in running the company in the long term; in fact I am surprised she is still around after the merger she engineered.
When Darth Vader rounds up all the remaining Jedi and goes on a hack-n-slash lightsaber fest!
Actually Speilerg could do a really good job with an evil "Darth Vader" as a "villian hero". I've always wanted to see a movie where Darth gets to be "big, bad, and evil"...just so we can hate him more...he's not really evil enough in the lucas version.
The Jedi killing certainly was a holocaust. But as for Darth Vader not being evil, what the hell? We are talking about Darth Vader, right? I mean, the Darth Vader that slaughtered the Jawas and Sand People (twice now at least!)? The Darth Vader that tortured Leia, Chewbacca, and Han Solo several times and then froze Solo alive, not caring how painful that was or whether it killed him? The Darth Vader that moved through the galaxy like a pestilence, destroying everything in his path? Darth Vader the shatterer of worlds? Darth Vader who tried to kill his own son several times before killing his master? (Ok, granted he gave the son the chance to join him in killing his master twice, but still...)
What more do you want?
(Disclaimer: SCO is smoking crack. I believe none of what I am about to say...)
Actually, SCO has a point. They claim ownership of the code in UNIX derivatives, of which AIX and the rest are examples. The fact that SCO has never seen or handled that code in any way is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible that IBM has infringed on SCO's property by copying code that IBM wrote for AIX/others into Linux. In which case, the only copy that SCO currently has access to is the Linux copy. After all SCO didn't write the code. IBM did. SCO just owns the rights.
The BASIS for SCO's claim is a code comparison between the code they already have and the code in Linux. They therefore have no standing to pursue new IBM code if they really had examples that they found before wasting everyone's time. They can simply produce what they have already! If they get that far they can get more from IBM, but the whole point of this was that the judge had set disclosure of all evidence SCO currently has as a prerequisite to getting any code from IBM. SCO is really treading on thin ice with these shenanighans.
It always amuses me to see "oh, by blind, senile grandmother coulda done this" comments. The point is, they didn't.
If all these things are as obvious as people like to claim, why don't they patent them? Is it that maybe they were only obvious after someone stated them?
Ahh, which brings us to the point of the patent system. Protecting something that is duplicatable for a period of time.
Sliced bread! pffft. My dog coulda come up with that one!
Actually, they did. This is not a patentable technology because it describes normal use of DNS as it has always existed and is used every day. Maybe there aren't patents on this (though the patent in question references several other patents which I have not read yet) but there sure as hell is prior art. WTF are they talking about patenting using an @ in an email address and addressing people at the domain rather than at hosts within the domain? Who granted a patent like that?
This might be the lamest excuse for a patent ever granted; a 2-year old could have come up with this idea.
Actually, this has been around for a damn long time. I mean, really this is basic DNS stuff here. Pretty much always the email address for all users at a company whose website is at something.company.com will be whoever@company.com. In fact this becomes even more obvious when you realize that "something" could be www for the purposes of the patent, and that only the name immediately following the tld describes the base domain anyhow. So this is an incredibly stupid patent.
That is also a line in a Nirvana song.
It is older than Nirvana. The Nirvana version goes "Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you." But it was a common saying long before that (usually sans Cobain's purposeful grammatical error); I think the first time I saw it was in Garfield, but there were also buttons, t-shirts, etc. Maybe that guy from Forrest Gump thought it up... nyah.. :)
Unless the guy is a complete rube they generally look it through discretely without telling the whole concourse about it.
You do realize you are talking about airport security guards, right? Sheesh DMV robots are more savvy!
In the interests of political correctness I wish to formally protest this device.
It doesn't take into account the needs of miners, subway operators and sewer workers. I dream of a world in which these forgotten peoples and we surface dwellers can join hands in peace and rejoice in equal-opportunity recharging.
Thank you.
They aren't going to win a lot of points with Tesla fans, either ;)...
Since power cannot be transferred wirelessly, ICP and TEC designers were faced with different power-connector protocols for mobile devices. Consequently, the jacket will be sold with a small assortment of adapters to accommodate all major lines of phones, PDAs, cameras and other mobile devices.
I'm right there with you. I actually have taken a Pentium 200MHz with 64 MB Ram and turned it into a Debian Webserver with PHP, Postgresql, Postfix, Apache, etc. And it runs great!
So long as I don't put X on it, it should handle whatever I need.
My one buddy has a Pentium 90 at his work as the only machine running Linux on the network and it's doing half the load cause he can't stand the Windows clients.
Actually, the problem is not X it is Gnome and KDE. It used to be that a 32MB 486 could run Gnome reliably and decently. This is no longer true. But you *can* use fvwm or something similar and that box you mention would be damn snappy. In fact, for a little while due to various accidents a very similar box (64MBRAM, Cyrix MII333 (250mhz) was my primary machine. I was running slackware and used fvwm2 and was able to do everything I needed to do.
In fact the only thing that was kind of slow was OpenOffice. Then I found out that one of my DIMMs had been bad and I was only really running 32MB! Throwing in some more RAM fixed that right up.
Ah, your post explains why the script that prompted this story was written in the first place. Any system can be very easily converted to Debian/Redhat/Mandrake/whatever. It's the keeping the personal files without doing a backup that is new.
Erm, no it's not. If you have a seperate /home you can install whatever distro you want and have all your personal files, settings, etc intact.
if mp3.com was so fantastic, why isnt it still up and running?
It is no longer running precisely BECAUSE it was so good. In other words, its wild success brought the attention of the RIAA who sued it into oblivion and made it essentially illegal to distribute music digitally even if you are the original artist and copyright holder. Then P2P got bigger, and the RIAA sued some more. Then the Government finally realized that the RIAA was stifling all competition and started an antitrust suit. So the RIAA got wise and started working with vendors like Apple to create digital music distribution channels like iTunes which only distribute RIAA music, continued to suppress all non-RIAA music, but somehow this was enough to satisfy the antitrust hounddogs and the case was closed.
That should roughly catch you up so far. By the way, have you heard of this cool new technology? IT's called the internet, there's all these files and information on there that you can access mostly for free.. and porn.. yeah... oh I have to go now, sorry ;).
I've asked this before but never received a very good answer.
Why doesn't the FSF and other free software advocates attempt to corner the tech patent market? I know software patents are considered evil and against the basic philosophy of the FSF. I just wonder if the GPL could be modified to allow certain patents held in a FSF trust of some sort. Then there would be incentive to apply for patents and use them in free software with the ultimate goal being the elimination of software patents all together. Right now the big corporate players are locking free software out of certain areas while free software does nothing to lock out non-free software. I just don't see any incentive for the powers that be to reform. However, if the FSF or some other body held a patent portfolio strong enough to lock out one or more of the big guys from a market then maybe one or more of the big guys might begin to understand the benefits of patent reform.
If this has already been discussed over and over then please forgive me. I just haven't stumbled upon it yet.
The GPL would not have to be modified for this to happen. Specifically:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
So the idea is that if GPL software contains patented code, the holder of the patent must grant a royalty-free, GPL-compatable license of that patent to all recipients of the software.
As for the idea of a patent pool, I had thought several people had advocated it and even that there were some pools in existence, but I was unable to find any real examples. There were some people who had declared on their websites that their patents were available royalty-free and there was the w3c effort, but nothing like what you describe. I guess it has not gottn off the ground yet, but I think it is probably the only answer now, so we can fight fire with fire.
Someone should tell Microsoft that, since their latest products indeed run everything as admin by default. And the services cannot be made to do otherwise!
Thats surprising to me. Im a network architect with microsoft products, and nothing I work with runs admin by default.
Maybe you should work with something more tech-savy than XP Home, since that seems to be the extent of your IT experience.
Riiiight. So tell me what user the RPC service runs as? IIS? MSSQL? EVERY service on windows runs as system or administrator by default and AFAIK this cannot be changed. Also, by default the only user you have is administrator. Granted most normal people create new users. But in the case of desktop windows, especially with the XP Home you would mention, it is more likely the user will just sally forth with Administrator.
In fact with the XP it is not immediately obvious to a non-sysadmin what user is the administrator or that that is indeed what is happening. Perhaps that is why you missed it.
Perhaps you should go back to MCSE school or learn to use a real operating system so you understand what the rest of us are on about.
buy two? AND mirror them????
*checks the price of the drive*
Let me just pull out my big sack of cash...
This solution is not cheap, but it is easy. (IMHO it is a reasonable price for the ease of use and what you are getting). However, it would be spiffier to have 5 drives and a RAID-5 array rather than the 4 with RAID 0 which means you buy two boxes of 4 just to get redundancy. I am currently thinking out how this could be done as a modification of the project recently mentioned in a slashdot article which was linked to this one where you build your own external terrabyte array.
Wheel mouse buttons work in OS X by default. Just plug in nearly any USB wheel mouse, and you're scrolling away.
Middle-button text editing, a popular staple of Linux geeks, is not present, but the drag & drop features are powerful enough that you will never miss it, once you get used to the new OS.
Actually, that is not entirely true. Since you can map the keys of a multibutton mouse to any keystroke and/or key-click combination in most Mac mouse drivers, you can get the middle button to work. I usually configure the right mouse button to ctrl-click and the middle button to ctrl-v. Now middle button pastes and right mouse button does context menus. Now you still don't get the X11 "selecting is copying" functionality, IIRC unless you are using X11 apps, but it still is useful.
As opposed to Windows which just runs all of your thoughts as admin by default?
Get with the program. This isn't 1998 anymore. If you are going to bash windows find a real reason to bash it.
Someone should tell Microsoft that, since their latest products indeed run everything as admin by default. And the services cannot be made to do otherwise!
Actually, I thought it was cute that XP was finally able to switch users without logging out. I thought "Welcome to 1967 Microsoft!" :)
I agree with the above post as far as the system librairies, but must just mention that msconfig is certainly in xp, and is certainly always installed with 98 or xp, somewhere down in the windows folder. Just run-->msconfig, it's there.
In Vanilla win98 msconfig was a seperate power tools install. I think it might have come with 98SE though...
What can I say, I can't afford MS office and I could't get a spell check compiled on my Linux box.
If you haven't learnt to spell simple words, read a dictionary, and construct a basic sentence by now then 12+ years of education were wasted on you.
This has 4 250 GB drives in it. There is no redundancy. This is an AID.
Oh and BTW RAID 0, a stripe, is indeed considered RAID and is what they are no doubt doing in this setup. Yes, this means one disk failure and you lose all your data, but still...
This has 4 250 GB drives in it. There is no redundancy. This is an AID.
But take two, they're small. Now you have a mirror. As the poster below pointed out, raid over firewire is possible. Also you can chain many of these together to form all kinds of configurations, and FireWire is hotswappable.