We would see the corruption on databases that weren't being shut down, just one day it was fine, the next it was corrupt.
Online archive requires *either* that users be proactive in doing so, or that as administrators you're just (by policy) ripping messages out of their mailbox and putting them somewhere else on an automated basis. The former is pretty difficult to convince folks to do, the latter would not be acceptable at pretty much any place I've ever worked (folks want to organize their mail "their way so they can find things easily") and automated tools changing that goes against how they use mail.
- Individual Mailboxes getting "too big" (FSVO "big") and Exchange performing badly with them - Frequent corruption of the mailstore requiring repairs and usually resulting in the loss of n>0 messages
Those are two complaints I remember being most common from folks who've dealt with it.
We care so much about you that we're not going to cave in like our competitors whose phones you can buy.
Where it would become interesting is in how the carrier-stores (Verizon Store, Sprint Store, etc.) would choose to deal with it, since Apple would be unwilling to ship them product to sell in NY.
Having been through a similar rodeo, it's just a matter of showing a different set of paperwork that shows "when orgA dissolved, all of its assets were transferred legally to orgB", at which point any representative of orgB has the same power over it because it's a transferred asset which just hasn't had some paperwork corrected at the registrar.
I agree with the other commenter with regards to "expect pushback from the agencies saddled with it."
Absolutely.
But the only chance gun-owners are going to even come close to accepting this is if the kinks are so worked out of them that the people most at risk of going mano a mano with a perp who wants to take their gun are trusting their lives to a given tech. And that means agencies working those kinks out in the field and proving the validity of the tech under real world conditions.
The question is was the statement credible. Ie. Was it.
{solemn voice}"Yes. I have a bomb."
Or was it:
{Laughter}"Yeah, dude. I totalllly have a bomb in there. Of course I do."
Considering that the TSA considers the second to be a reason to deny you air travel, even though no court in the world would consider it a credible admission of such, we have no way of knowing which of these two scenarios played out in the principal's office.
I'm an adult, and I rarely answer any number I don't recognize immediately. If it's important, they'll leave a voicemail and I'll call them right back at the number they provide.
But since 99.99% of the calls I receive from un-recognized numbers are horseshit robo-calls, no, I agree with commenter above: Why on earth would someone answer the phone any more?
But they didn't "contact them from an offshore number". They contacted them from a number in Ohio. It says so right there on their Caller ID.
That's the trick, right? If the call-center is off-shore, the Caller ID can say whatever they want it to say, because they're not bound by the CNID spoofing rules.
That's not what I said. But you've constructed a wonderful strawman for yourself to knock down.
I said, let's recap:
- The domain servers they're using are not their normal domain servers and look nothing like them - The domain registrar used for the MDM is not their normal registrar (and corporations don't generally have a bunch of parallel accounts for such things, they centralize) - The service isn't hosted in their copious capacity but in a pair of anonymous AWS instances
As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, the tech support people in question are low-paid script-monkeys and probably don't even fully understand what the person is talking about.
$ host leon.wabaw.net leon.wabaw.net is an alias for awseb-e-a-awsebloa-saeaoerx3v7z-1299207820.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com. awseb-e-a-awsebloa-saeaoerx3v7z-1299207820.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com has address 54.213.59.154 awseb-e-a-awsebloa-saeaoerx3v7z-1299207820.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com has address 54.191.121.98
Bets on if the account info for that AWS account is fake?
I'm going to go ahead and throw up a red flag. I don't think this is a Sprint owned domain. I think it's meant to LOOK like one, but I don't think it IS one.
I'm going to propose a theory that the WHOIS data shows Sprint so that - if someone gets caught and folks go looking for someone to vilify, Sprint is the unwitting victim. But - in reality - it's sitting in some domain-registration that nobody official at Sprint has ever heard of, and someone's been building a network of phones that they control via MDM.
In the Michelin Man though, the trademarked character is "original".
For Mickey Mouse, the trademarked character is a derivative work (of the copyrighted work, yes a work they own, but still, it was created first and foremost as a character, not as a branding mark).
Ultimately, I think Disney is 'right' in their defense because I don't think trademarked characters, without the original copyright to back them up, will actually survive.
It's not something that's been really tested (although actually this case might, because if Buck Rogers is ruled to be in the public domain, there are Buck Rogers related character trademarks in play, theoretically), but my gut tells me that courts will throw those out.
Slashdot Mirror
We would see the corruption on databases that weren't being shut down, just one day it was fine, the next it was corrupt.
Online archive requires *either* that users be proactive in doing so, or that as administrators you're just (by policy) ripping messages out of their mailbox and putting them somewhere else on an automated basis. The former is pretty difficult to convince folks to do, the latter would not be acceptable at pretty much any place I've ever worked (folks want to organize their mail "their way so they can find things easily") and automated tools changing that goes against how they use mail.
- Individual Mailboxes getting "too big" (FSVO "big") and Exchange performing badly with them
- Frequent corruption of the mailstore requiring repairs and usually resulting in the loss of n>0 messages
Those are two complaints I remember being most common from folks who've dealt with it.
Environments, plural. I've yet to see an employer where their exchange wasn't a giant raging nightmare.
From a user standpoint, absolutely, it's awesome. From an admin side, it's rampant chaos.
YMMV
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Thanks for the mid-afternoon laugh.
At scale, Exchange is a right PITA to run.
Lots of those Very Large Companies are just outsourcing their e-mail because it's a major-league-bitch to run it themselves.
And then it's discovered, and they find themselves in a very actionable position.
It would, in fact, be a selling point.
We care so much about you that we're not going to cave in like our competitors whose phones you can buy.
Where it would become interesting is in how the carrier-stores (Verizon Store, Sprint Store, etc.) would choose to deal with it, since Apple would be unwilling to ship them product to sell in NY.
Having been through a similar rodeo, it's just a matter of showing a different set of paperwork that shows "when orgA dissolved, all of its assets were transferred legally to orgB", at which point any representative of orgB has the same power over it because it's a transferred asset which just hasn't had some paperwork corrected at the registrar.
I agree with the other commenter with regards to "expect pushback from the agencies saddled with it."
Absolutely.
But the only chance gun-owners are going to even come close to accepting this is if the kinks are so worked out of them that the people most at risk of going mano a mano with a perp who wants to take their gun are trusting their lives to a given tech. And that means agencies working those kinks out in the field and proving the validity of the tech under real world conditions.
The question is was the statement credible. Ie. Was it.
{solemn voice}"Yes. I have a bomb."
Or was it:
{Laughter}"Yeah, dude. I totalllly have a bomb in there. Of course I do."
Considering that the TSA considers the second to be a reason to deny you air travel, even though no court in the world would consider it a credible admission of such, we have no way of knowing which of these two scenarios played out in the principal's office.
And since you:
[a] cost them resources, and
[b] deny them revenue
They:
[c] are actively trying to *encourage* you to go elsewhere and be a drain on someone else's resources.
Been there. Done that.
What you want is "git blame" for bills.
I'm an adult, and I rarely answer any number I don't recognize immediately. If it's important, they'll leave a voicemail and I'll call them right back at the number they provide.
But since 99.99% of the calls I receive from un-recognized numbers are horseshit robo-calls, no, I agree with commenter above: Why on earth would someone answer the phone any more?
But they didn't "contact them from an offshore number". They contacted them from a number in Ohio. It says so right there on their Caller ID.
That's the trick, right? If the call-center is off-shore, the Caller ID can say whatever they want it to say, because they're not bound by the CNID spoofing rules.
That's not what I said. But you've constructed a wonderful strawman for yourself to knock down.
I said, let's recap:
- The domain servers they're using are not their normal domain servers and look nothing like them
- The domain registrar used for the MDM is not their normal registrar (and corporations don't generally have a bunch of parallel accounts for such things, they centralize)
- The service isn't hosted in their copious capacity but in a pair of anonymous AWS instances
As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, the tech support people in question are low-paid script-monkeys and probably don't even fully understand what the person is talking about.
even worse. It's just a bunch of AWS servers....
$ host leon.wabaw.net
leon.wabaw.net is an alias for awseb-e-a-awsebloa-saeaoerx3v7z-1299207820.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com.
awseb-e-a-awsebloa-saeaoerx3v7z-1299207820.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com has address 54.213.59.154
awseb-e-a-awsebloa-saeaoerx3v7z-1299207820.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com has address 54.191.121.98
Bets on if the account info for that AWS account is fake?
I'm going to go ahead and throw up a red flag. I don't think this is a Sprint owned domain. I think it's meant to LOOK like one, but I don't think it IS one.
$ dig +short sprint.net ns
ns1-auth.sprintlink.net.
ns2-auth.sprintlink.net.
ns3-auth.sprintlink.net.
$ dig +short sprint.com ns
reston-ns1.telemail.net.
ns2-auth.sprintlink.net.
reston-ns3.telemail.net.
reston-ns2.telemail.net.
ns1-auth.sprintlink.net.
ns3-auth.sprintlink.net.
The places Sprint hosts their "well-known" domains looks remarkably like it's a legitimate place. "wabaw.net", however?
$ dig +short wabaw.net ns
ns6.domainmonger.com.
ns5.domainmonger.com.
ns7.domainmonger.com.
ns8.domainmonger.com.
I'm going to propose a theory that the WHOIS data shows Sprint so that - if someone gets caught and folks go looking for someone to vilify, Sprint is the unwitting victim. But - in reality - it's sitting in some domain-registration that nobody official at Sprint has ever heard of, and someone's been building a network of phones that they control via MDM.
FreeBSD on AMD is "a niche market of a niche market".... you can't fault someone for ignoring it.
Also, nVidia has drivers "up-to-date" as of about three weeks ago.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/f...
So, not sure what your issues are. Can you perhaps restate them?
So, uh, what specific version of FreeBSD do you need. Checking the compatibility matrix for the last three FreeBSD major releases...
http://www.megacity.org/scrap/...
Yeah, but Jordan's already implied that FreeBSD will be going down a very similar path....
"logging messages just aren't important"?!
I guess you've never worked anywhere that had regulatory compliance requirements. Or ever wanted to debug something.
In the Michelin Man though, the trademarked character is "original".
For Mickey Mouse, the trademarked character is a derivative work (of the copyrighted work, yes a work they own, but still, it was created first and foremost as a character, not as a branding mark).
I think that'll make a difference.
Ultimately, I think Disney is 'right' in their defense because I don't think trademarked characters, without the original copyright to back them up, will actually survive.
It's not something that's been really tested (although actually this case might, because if Buck Rogers is ruled to be in the public domain, there are Buck Rogers related character trademarks in play, theoretically), but my gut tells me that courts will throw those out.