Thank you. I, quite seriously, did not know for sure. That's why I asked.
If anyone is still hanging out back in these threads... I wasn't going for trolling. These were honest questions. I apparently don't know enough about C# to realize those were dumb questions.
I'm going to agree with AC parent here. Although we don't necessarily know what the Taliban wanted, the act of keeping his profile low certainly didn't result in a bad ending for him. If news broke out that he had been captured, and there were a public outcry, we don't know what would have happened.
In this case, there was benevolent intent behind the censorship. I have no problem with that sort of action as long as the people are really trying to do the right thing. If they were covering it up to cover their own arses, then I'd certainly have a problem. I do find it very funny that the user in Florida who continuously tried to re-post the story thought he was being blocked because he wasn't believed. If he had some sort of user information, they could've told him, "Hey, this is really sensitive, let it go for now" a long time ago...
I guess I'm more for having people identify themselves when submitting "information" so it can be verified. But yes, I also understand the need for some info to be anonymous.
I don't know if this is overreaction. But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.
1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited." 2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."
I'm certainly hesitant to use C# in anything simply because I don't trust Microsoft. I admit it openly. It doesn't mean I won't use what they make, and I think a healthy distrust isn't always a bad thing. If I end up using anything based on C#, I'll keep it in the Windows space.
1. Devise complicated technology that's most likely vaporware. 2. Instead of ???? - change it to: Set expected date after 2012. 3. Collect venture capital (which equals... PROFIT!)
Ford does have the distinction of the Detroit 3 of being the only one to not take bailout (ahem... loan) money for the core business. In fact, Ford's done a hell of a job getting their act together and they do have 3 of the top 10 spots in new car sales in the US (including the 1 overall). So... Not quite.
449 jobs? That's got to be a lie unless they're including the entire metro area. Also - those open positions are usually listed as open because someone's trying to hold onto the position so it gets cut instead of a human. I know this because: 1) That's how my area "laid off" someone. 2) I know plenty of people who have applied for some of these and received a lovely letter saying, "This position has been 'canceled.'"
I'd also wager that many of the filings were posted before the bankruptcy filings, and were vacated because people who could move... did.
As if money were the only form of power in a democracy.
Hint: we are the government, we are the mediator. If you let the RIAA bribe the mediator, it is your own stupid fault (along with that of 200 million other citizens).
Oh ho ho ho! Now THAT's something!
If we elect someone thinking that they're "good and honest" folks, and they turn around and act like the typical asshat that we're much more familiar with, I'll point the blame at that asshat first. Now, if that asshat gets re-elected, I'm totally with you. The idiots who vote and proclaim "Thank you! May I have another!" would certainly be at fault in that case.
Point is: When electing someone, we can only take our best guess and choose from those of us who decide to run for the public office. It's kinda like a lengthened interview. I've been tricked in interviews... But I learned from those mistakes (after cleaning them out the best I can), and I've done my best to get better. Likewise, I've been tricked by my elected officials. It happens. But, that's why we're supposed to pay attention and make sure we don't repeat those mistakes.
This also (not coincidentally) happens to be a major reason I hate the political party setup in the US. People tend to get used to voting for one side or another... and they tend not to hold those they vote for accountable for the BS they pull. It's also why I beg and plead with people to vote on more than just an affiliation... But that's a battle I'm going to lose for a long time.
..it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!
Excuse me... This is Slashdot.
We barely read the summaries before hitting the comments. I doubt most of us read outside of that. Unless it has something to do with source code.
And then you get into the lovely issues involving price caps.
Even if you don't, how would something like this affect the bottom line of an ISP? Who's really charging what for bandwidth or usage? I still, to this day, don't know how ISPs get or pay for their access or if they just have to contribute something to maintain the backbone... or whatever... Does someone have a good idea how this all relates money wise?
It also seems to me that the best cure for caps and pricing issues is having some good healthy competition between ISPs, such that their services have to be well priced and provide good services.
There's also a stipulation in the US about "cruel and unusual punishment." It's buried in some document that most of the feds have been ignoring for quite some time. I don't know if this argument has been brought up in court, but I certainly feel that for most individuals $250K is certainly cruel punishment (IMHO) for $24 worth of *verifiable* infringement. That's the rub here too. The case assumes sharing of the files with no tangible evidence. So, because she downloaded these 24 songs, it's *implied* that a bunch of people also downloaded this from her and she needs to pay for that too? That seems like a terrible precedent to me.
"Sir, I saw you make a copy of that book in the library. Since you're infringing on copyright, and you likely distributed copies to other students in your school of 3,000, you are being charged with 3,000 violations. You'll also need to pay punitive damages to keep you from doing that in the future."
An earlier poster threw out the idea of making the punishment a few hundred and being F-ing done with it. I certainly favor that sort of approach. In the case of severe infringement, the dollar amount could get into the thousands.... But you'd have to do much more than the 24 that this case is involved with.
The IRS wants to simplify a code? The Obama administration is looking at reducing taxation?
/me turns around and looks up, and sees a number of strange people in wet suits, with a wheel on a stick. They keep saying "Bizzaro! Bizzaro! BIZZARO!"
Thank you for explaining that to me. I read the article, and I made a few assumptions (that this would be a new edition for their enterprise product too).
It doesn't add up to me that Microsoft would try to compete in a market for free AV to begin with. Plus, with these OEMs that bundle their own AV, how are these users going to like getting one built into the OS too? Or that they'd have to find some way to enable it or download it later too? Pushing out a consumer AV solution, that apparently hasn't been well received, doesn't really strike me as a good use of resources.
How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.
Not going to argue with Bing... but in the business market for-pay and free are not always that huge a difference. It depends on the buyer, and what the "for-pay" gets you. There are plenty of companies that absolutely require some sort of support for a given product. In addition to that, there are minimum requirements that the software must meet just to be considered. By the looks of this move, since Morro is going to use an engine from a product that absolutely flopped and died, then chances are Morro will follow. If they announced that Morro was rewritten from the ground up, then it'd be a different story.
Besides, for a company to consider changing the Anti-malware vendor, it would certainly be in their best interest to consider every option possible right? We all know our gripes about Symantec and McAfee, but there are plenty of options out there that are quite good. So, it's up to us (IT personnel) to do fair evaluations for our businesses and to identify the needs we have. I'd be more than happy to evaluate Morro... But it being free doesn't give it much credit to me. I want something that works, works well (yes, there's a difference), doesn't bog down the host, has support, and can be managed. Once the products are identified that fit those criteria, then price becomes a factor.
If Morro can't deliver in the first round (like OneCare), then it'll die too.
Really? I think it'd communicate that "to receive X, you must do Y". Isn't that how the workplace works---you do the task your boss gives you, and you get paid. Isn't allowances more like "You deserve some money, here you go"?
Not necessarily. In some workplaces, you get paid the same for doing more or less work. Reward isn't normally on a regular basis for working extra. Namely: I work extra hard so when the opportunity for a promotion comes up, I'm more likely to get it (say 2-3+ years, not months in). Yes, there's the regularly "expected" reward of your salary... but the bigger goals are irregular and require preparation and (hopefully) a better track record than everyone else.
I study now, I get paid later. How's that immediate?
Immediate in this sense is: 6 weeks. Good thing about time is that it's all relative. Big rewards come after years... not weeks, not months. I've seen a good chunk of newbs come into the workplace and get frustrated that they aren't immediately making what the folks that've been there 15+ years are making.
Furthermore - As someone who used to partake in the online casino gambling industry (as a participant):
Most online gambling might be an outright lie. But in the case of online poker, the house took a rake, just like in the real casino. In fact, I managed to even cash out a few winnings before I lost interest, and then it became illegal. It was *possible* for the online casino to have a ringer that got stacked decks... But I seriously doubt that any of the mainstream sites would use that tactic especially since there was: 1) A metric F ton of competition from other casinos. 2) The cash they raked anyway was pretty darn good. 3) No risk on their part... They just needed to provide a service.
I was absolutely shocked that all online gambling was banned... until I saw that casinos and racetracks were the primary fund^H^H^H^H beneficiaries of the law. But IIRC the real selling point was that it was treated as unreported income for most of the users. That translated directly to lost tax receipts. I personally thought that the govt could have worked with the sites to find a way to slice off some of the winnings, or to get the sites to properly report losses and gains of the members. I'll assume that the reason they didn't was because the sites were mostly offshore.
I remember, quite vividly, a story from grade school. I was 8.
Me: "Some of my friends are getting money for good grades." Mom: "And?" Me: "Can I get paid for my grades?" Mom: "No." Me: "Why?" Mom: "Because your dad and I *expect* you to get good grades."
I thought it was not particularly fair. Not necessarily that I wasn't getting paid, but that others were when I was doing (in many cases) more work and achieving more. I said such... actually, it came out as, "If I'm doing what they're doing, why do they get what I don't?" and was told that "life isn't fair, but we're not going to bribe you to do something that you should be doing anyway."
In hindsight, I'm quite glad that they didn't. I ended up much better for it. I also think I did better overall than most of the kids who were paid. My goals were sold to me as long term from the get go. I needed to do well in school, not because I'd get some reward in 3 months, but because if I wanted to do what I want for the remainder of my life, I'd have to work to get there. It forced me to look years down the road right away. Plus, when I didn't grasp that (the idea of planning 10 years in the future when I was 8 was a pretty big thing to get my head around) they were more than happy to help me with that.
This sort of program feeds into feelings of entitlement, and to the feeling that an action requires an immediate reward. Immediate success rises, but when these kids get out of school, how are they going to react when they don't immediately get what they feel like they deserve? I have a feeling that it'll be an unhappy awakening.
I happen to do a little work for a local in a town that some of us are familiar with. She happens to be involved with the local university who also uses McAfee as their supported antivirus solution. I got called in a panic by this person because her system was crazy infected. It turned out that the infection disabled the McAfee framework service (which can't be started in safe mode) and totally owned her laptop.
The reason? The updates stopped working. I opted to put AVG free on there asked her to try it out, and if she wanted to we could look into purchasing the more complete suite if she wanted.
Point of the story? I'm rather upset that CMU, or other schools would *force* a particular AV solution. I'm more upset that they force down one that has, IMHO, a critical flaw in design. Namely, you can't update, install, or uninstall the scanner in safe mode (yes, safe mode with networking). It just sets up too easily for a massive infection. Fortunately, the policy of the University I mentioned earlier did not have restrictions on AV, so this was still acceptable.
I don't know what deal McAfee has with pretty much everyone that provides AV to "non-commercial" users... but I find it terrible, resource intensive, and just too easy to knock out.
That also doesn't explain the state of Michigan which I (and some notable/.ers are from). http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm
My proud state represented the worst growth from 2000-2008, including LA... And we didn't have a hurricane. Oh, and t wasn't even close. 1.6% for MI, next to last was Connecticut at 3.8%.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually - isn't the going tax rate in Sweden 50%? Looks like you're dead on to me.
Thank you. I, quite seriously, did not know for sure. That's why I asked.
If anyone is still hanging out back in these threads... I wasn't going for trolling. These were honest questions. I apparently don't know enough about C# to realize those were dumb questions.
My bad.
I'm going to agree with AC parent here. Although we don't necessarily know what the Taliban wanted, the act of keeping his profile low certainly didn't result in a bad ending for him. If news broke out that he had been captured, and there were a public outcry, we don't know what would have happened.
In this case, there was benevolent intent behind the censorship. I have no problem with that sort of action as long as the people are really trying to do the right thing. If they were covering it up to cover their own arses, then I'd certainly have a problem. I do find it very funny that the user in Florida who continuously tried to re-post the story thought he was being blocked because he wasn't believed. If he had some sort of user information, they could've told him, "Hey, this is really sensitive, let it go for now" a long time ago...
I guess I'm more for having people identify themselves when submitting "information" so it can be verified. But yes, I also understand the need for some info to be anonymous.
Too soon?
I don't know if this is overreaction. But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.
1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."
2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."
I'm certainly hesitant to use C# in anything simply because I don't trust Microsoft. I admit it openly. It doesn't mean I won't use what they make, and I think a healthy distrust isn't always a bad thing. If I end up using anything based on C#, I'll keep it in the Windows space.
Radioactive baby bunnies! Yay!
Is it possible that this is the missing step?
1. Devise complicated technology that's most likely vaporware.
2. Instead of ???? - change it to: Set expected date after 2012.
3. Collect venture capital (which equals... PROFIT!)
True... ish. 500M is not much compared to 6B.
Ford does have the distinction of the Detroit 3 of being the only one to not take bailout (ahem... loan) money for the core business. In fact, Ford's done a hell of a job getting their act together and they do have 3 of the top 10 spots in new car sales in the US (including the 1 overall). So... Not quite.
source: A little Google-ing - http://jalopnik.com/5277118/top-ten-best-selling-cars-may-2009
Well... you can check this and then answer that yourself...
As a worker in the top worst city of them all:
449 jobs? That's got to be a lie unless they're including the entire metro area. Also - those open positions are usually listed as open because someone's trying to hold onto the position so it gets cut instead of a human. I know this because:
1) That's how my area "laid off" someone.
2) I know plenty of people who have applied for some of these and received a lovely letter saying, "This position has been 'canceled.'"
I'd also wager that many of the filings were posted before the bankruptcy filings, and were vacated because people who could move... did.
As if money were the only form of power in a democracy.
Hint: we are the government, we are the mediator. If you let the RIAA bribe the mediator, it is your own stupid fault (along with that of 200 million other citizens).
Oh ho ho ho! Now THAT's something!
If we elect someone thinking that they're "good and honest" folks, and they turn around and act like the typical asshat that we're much more familiar with, I'll point the blame at that asshat first. Now, if that asshat gets re-elected, I'm totally with you. The idiots who vote and proclaim "Thank you! May I have another!" would certainly be at fault in that case.
Point is: When electing someone, we can only take our best guess and choose from those of us who decide to run for the public office. It's kinda like a lengthened interview. I've been tricked in interviews... But I learned from those mistakes (after cleaning them out the best I can), and I've done my best to get better. Likewise, I've been tricked by my elected officials. It happens. But, that's why we're supposed to pay attention and make sure we don't repeat those mistakes.
This also (not coincidentally) happens to be a major reason I hate the political party setup in the US. People tend to get used to voting for one side or another... and they tend not to hold those they vote for accountable for the BS they pull. It's also why I beg and plead with people to vote on more than just an affiliation... But that's a battle I'm going to lose for a long time.
..it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!
Excuse me... This is Slashdot. We barely read the summaries before hitting the comments. I doubt most of us read outside of that. Unless it has something to do with source code.
EVAR.
And then you get into the lovely issues involving price caps.
Even if you don't, how would something like this affect the bottom line of an ISP? Who's really charging what for bandwidth or usage? I still, to this day, don't know how ISPs get or pay for their access or if they just have to contribute something to maintain the backbone... or whatever... Does someone have a good idea how this all relates money wise?
It also seems to me that the best cure for caps and pricing issues is having some good healthy competition between ISPs, such that their services have to be well priced and provide good services.
There's also a stipulation in the US about "cruel and unusual punishment." It's buried in some document that most of the feds have been ignoring for quite some time. I don't know if this argument has been brought up in court, but I certainly feel that for most individuals $250K is certainly cruel punishment (IMHO) for $24 worth of *verifiable* infringement. That's the rub here too. The case assumes sharing of the files with no tangible evidence. So, because she downloaded these 24 songs, it's *implied* that a bunch of people also downloaded this from her and she needs to pay for that too? That seems like a terrible precedent to me.
"Sir, I saw you make a copy of that book in the library. Since you're infringing on copyright, and you likely distributed copies to other students in your school of 3,000, you are being charged with 3,000 violations. You'll also need to pay punitive damages to keep you from doing that in the future."
An earlier poster threw out the idea of making the punishment a few hundred and being F-ing done with it. I certainly favor that sort of approach. In the case of severe infringement, the dollar amount could get into the thousands.... But you'd have to do much more than the 24 that this case is involved with.
"All suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects would they?"
This is a truly strange day.
The IRS wants to simplify a code? The Obama administration is looking at reducing taxation?
Thank you for explaining that to me. I read the article, and I made a few assumptions (that this would be a new edition for their enterprise product too).
It doesn't add up to me that Microsoft would try to compete in a market for free AV to begin with. Plus, with these OEMs that bundle their own AV, how are these users going to like getting one built into the OS too? Or that they'd have to find some way to enable it or download it later too? Pushing out a consumer AV solution, that apparently hasn't been well received, doesn't really strike me as a good use of resources.
How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.
Not going to argue with Bing... but in the business market for-pay and free are not always that huge a difference. It depends on the buyer, and what the "for-pay" gets you. There are plenty of companies that absolutely require some sort of support for a given product. In addition to that, there are minimum requirements that the software must meet just to be considered. By the looks of this move, since Morro is going to use an engine from a product that absolutely flopped and died, then chances are Morro will follow. If they announced that Morro was rewritten from the ground up, then it'd be a different story.
Besides, for a company to consider changing the Anti-malware vendor, it would certainly be in their best interest to consider every option possible right? We all know our gripes about Symantec and McAfee, but there are plenty of options out there that are quite good. So, it's up to us (IT personnel) to do fair evaluations for our businesses and to identify the needs we have. I'd be more than happy to evaluate Morro... But it being free doesn't give it much credit to me. I want something that works, works well (yes, there's a difference), doesn't bog down the host, has support, and can be managed. Once the products are identified that fit those criteria, then price becomes a factor.
If Morro can't deliver in the first round (like OneCare), then it'll die too.
Really? I think it'd communicate that "to receive X, you must do Y". Isn't that how the workplace works---you do the task your boss gives you, and you get paid. Isn't allowances more like "You deserve some money, here you go"?
Not necessarily. In some workplaces, you get paid the same for doing more or less work. Reward isn't normally on a regular basis for working extra. Namely: I work extra hard so when the opportunity for a promotion comes up, I'm more likely to get it (say 2-3+ years, not months in). Yes, there's the regularly "expected" reward of your salary... but the bigger goals are irregular and require preparation and (hopefully) a better track record than everyone else.
I study now, I get paid later. How's that immediate?
Immediate in this sense is: 6 weeks. Good thing about time is that it's all relative. Big rewards come after years... not weeks, not months. I've seen a good chunk of newbs come into the workplace and get frustrated that they aren't immediately making what the folks that've been there 15+ years are making.
Furthermore - As someone who used to partake in the online casino gambling industry (as a participant):
Most online gambling might be an outright lie. But in the case of online poker, the house took a rake, just like in the real casino. In fact, I managed to even cash out a few winnings before I lost interest, and then it became illegal. It was *possible* for the online casino to have a ringer that got stacked decks... But I seriously doubt that any of the mainstream sites would use that tactic especially since there was:
1) A metric F ton of competition from other casinos.
2) The cash they raked anyway was pretty darn good.
3) No risk on their part... They just needed to provide a service.
I was absolutely shocked that all online gambling was banned... until I saw that casinos and racetracks were the primary fund^H^H^H^H beneficiaries of the law. But IIRC the real selling point was that it was treated as unreported income for most of the users. That translated directly to lost tax receipts. I personally thought that the govt could have worked with the sites to find a way to slice off some of the winnings, or to get the sites to properly report losses and gains of the members. I'll assume that the reason they didn't was because the sites were mostly offshore.
I remember, quite vividly, a story from grade school. I was 8.
Me: "Some of my friends are getting money for good grades."
Mom: "And?"
Me: "Can I get paid for my grades?"
Mom: "No."
Me: "Why?"
Mom: "Because your dad and I *expect* you to get good grades."
I thought it was not particularly fair. Not necessarily that I wasn't getting paid, but that others were when I was doing (in many cases) more work and achieving more. I said such... actually, it came out as, "If I'm doing what they're doing, why do they get what I don't?" and was told that "life isn't fair, but we're not going to bribe you to do something that you should be doing anyway."
In hindsight, I'm quite glad that they didn't. I ended up much better for it. I also think I did better overall than most of the kids who were paid. My goals were sold to me as long term from the get go. I needed to do well in school, not because I'd get some reward in 3 months, but because if I wanted to do what I want for the remainder of my life, I'd have to work to get there. It forced me to look years down the road right away. Plus, when I didn't grasp that (the idea of planning 10 years in the future when I was 8 was a pretty big thing to get my head around) they were more than happy to help me with that.
This sort of program feeds into feelings of entitlement, and to the feeling that an action requires an immediate reward. Immediate success rises, but when these kids get out of school, how are they going to react when they don't immediately get what they feel like they deserve? I have a feeling that it'll be an unhappy awakening.
To clarify (in case someone's still browsing back here): The updates on the central server were failing. This was not a case of an isolated client.
McAfee? Wow.
I happen to do a little work for a local in a town that some of us are familiar with. She happens to be involved with the local university who also uses McAfee as their supported antivirus solution. I got called in a panic by this person because her system was crazy infected. It turned out that the infection disabled the McAfee framework service (which can't be started in safe mode) and totally owned her laptop.
The reason? The updates stopped working. I opted to put AVG free on there asked her to try it out, and if she wanted to we could look into purchasing the more complete suite if she wanted.
Point of the story? I'm rather upset that CMU, or other schools would *force* a particular AV solution. I'm more upset that they force down one that has, IMHO, a critical flaw in design. Namely, you can't update, install, or uninstall the scanner in safe mode (yes, safe mode with networking). It just sets up too easily for a massive infection. Fortunately, the policy of the University I mentioned earlier did not have restrictions on AV, so this was still acceptable.
I don't know what deal McAfee has with pretty much everyone that provides AV to "non-commercial" users... but I find it terrible, resource intensive, and just too easy to knock out.
That also doesn't explain the state of Michigan which I (and some notable /.ers are from).
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm
My proud state represented the worst growth from 2000-2008, including LA... And we didn't have a hurricane. Oh, and t wasn't even close. 1.6% for MI, next to last was Connecticut at 3.8%.
http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmap/GDPMap.aspx