Personally, I don't understand the case for CentOS.
I get the case for Red Hat. If you install Red Hat, it *exactly* matches what the third party developer for the paid software you're using had when he developed and tested his software. When you need a bug fix, or you need him to examine a problem, your system will match his. And if you're doing any sort of government work, they have a process in place for accrediting your Red Hat system. Not so for CentOS even though it's so very similar.
If you're not buying third party software, a distribution like Debian or Ubuntu has so vastly much more open source software under package management (and integrated into their security updates process) that I can't imagine why you'd want to use either Red Hat or a clone like CentOS.
It seems to me the only real value case for CentOS is that I can use it at home for free and it's very close to the comparable version of Red Hat I use at work.
Advice to the poster: if you're buying any other commercial software to install on top of the OS, get the $350 "self-support" Red Hat option and pitch that to your boss on the basis that it will facilitate debugging of any issues which arise with the other commercial software. Otherwise, go Debian.
I do not, but I would venture to guess that most devices sold by Verizon at their stores can be purchased as unlocked phones ready to be hooked up to a carrier via other channels.
The requirement doesn't mean they have to hook up only unlocked phones. Just like the requirement decades ago wasn't that AT&T stop renting hardwired phones. The requirement is that if I buy any random device capable of talking on their network, they must allow me to use it on their network... even if that device does things with their network they'd rather it not.
The value of a currency is tied to the goods and services you can buy with it at a price independent of its relation to other currencies. Monopoly money is worthless because the only thing I can buy with it is squares on a game board.
Trying to find out what I could buy with bitcoins, I went to a site called "bitcoincyberstore." None of the products quoted prices in bitcoins... they quoted prices in U.S. Dollars. This does not bode well for Bitcoin's viability.
I'd rather have the data so that after doing the emergency minimum to be delisted, I can go back, scrutinize it and figure out how tighten my process so I don't get listed again.
the end result is that [Spamhaus'] opinion carries a lot of weight, mostly because many many people just blindly apply it.
Mostly because Spamhaus rarely lists address ranges that aren't involved in spamming and network abuse, and even more rarely for long. Spamhaus EARNED its reputation for cautious listing at the same time others like SORBS earned reputations for over-zealousness.
That's why I'm surprised to see Slashdot folks taking these accusations seriously without any posted evidence. When Spamhaus lists an IP block, they document it publicly including their reasons. Sometimes it's because an organization has been caught moving spammers around inside their IP block. Sometimes there are other reasons. Usually they're pretty good reasons.
Where's the copy of that posting?
I know back when I ran an ISP, Spamhaus was the one I -didn't- have problems with.
I love learning. But I despised school. And to my detriment, the endless busywork led me to hate the subjects taught there. It proved a real disability in college with several subjects that I wanted to understand but couldn't emotionally invest myself in the process that would lead to success.
Trying to force a bright kid to slow down for the average kids is more evil than trying to force a slow kid to keep up. Either way you hurt the child, but the bright kid might have been the next Einstein if you hadn't ruined him.
Your main challenge will be finding folks close to him in age with home he can interact on a peer level. Not other super-smart kids who may act as sycophants to his uber-super-smartness and not an environment where non-super-smart kids are going to resent him.
Find him a sport, even if it's something obscure like bowling. Or a biking club. Or a boating club. Or the Scouts. Something he can find enjoyable without his smarts either giving him too undue an advantage or engendering hostility in his peers. Specifically, something where he can spend time interacting with other kids his age as peers without his brain getting in the way.
Other than that, he's an obvious candidate for home schooling. Give him the study guides, periodically administer the tests and as long as he aces them let him guide his own education.
You don't go to McDonalds for Fried Chicken. McNuggets are a sideline, for the person in the group who doesn't want a sandwich so he doesn't fight as hard for going to another restaurant.
Netflix has a tension between two competing primary products: DVDs and Streaming. This has resulted and will continue to result in compromises made between the two which are detrimental to them both. Distinct companies wouldn't have needed to make such compromises, even to the point of competing with each other.
Remember: compromise is a synonym for congenial agreement, but it's also a synonym for catastrophic loss. That's not an accident.
Their DVD and Instant businesses conflict with each other, as witnessed by the decline in availability of new DVDs and the web site rearrangements that make some sense for instant but make it much harder to find DVDs. Splitting them gave the two businesses a chance to thrive separately.
If you want to "discourage" DRM's use, you simply make it illegal. My idea is to try to rebalance it the same way trade secrets are balanced against copyrights. You still have copyrights on material covered by trade secret but since the copyright isn't filed you're not eligible for statutory damages should the secret be revealed.
To put it another way: DRM is nothing but vigilantism. Vigilantism is not outlawed, but the law does and should frown on people taking the law into their own hands as we invariably trample on others' rights when we do.
Was it ARIN-assigned addresses or legacy addresses which predated ARIN? If the former, did you report it as fraud and supply your evidence that led you to believe that the entity in question was not using addresses according to ARIN's standards? (for legacy addresses, ARIN's rules only really apply when there's a transfer)
In that situation, they're not renting addresses. They're purchasing colo service, for which some number of addresses is appropriate. Same as they have done for nearly two decades using so-called "bulletproof hosting" companies. It's not by any means an IPv4 run-out phenomenon as the article proclaims and they're no renting bare IP addresses from you regardless.
IMO, the law on DRM should be this: you can protect your property with DRM or you can protect your property with copyright law but not both. If you elect to protect your property with DRM, you can still seek injunctions or collect real damages but you are no longer eligible for statutory damages under copyright law.
I call BS. Hackers don't rent or buy IP addresses for botnets. The bots run on machines each of which has an IP address already. And when they do need IP addresses, they steal them: find an address assignment not currently routed on the Internet and forge papers they present to the ISP claiming to be the actual registrant.
There are a number of protections in place at ARIN and the other Internet Registries which do a reasonably good job preventing hackers from taking actual "ownership" of blocks of IP addresses.
While there is such a thing as a "legitimate trading and auction sites," there are also a lot of snake oil salesman out there right now claiming legitimacy. Here's a hint: the legitimate ones don't cater to the hacker crowd because they know perfectly well they can't effect a registry transfer without meeting the registry's criteria for "legitimate need."
Have you ever accessed www.whitehouse.gov from your home computer? Congratulations, you've accessed an unclassified government system and the sentence now applies to that computer.
Oh wait, you don't want to pick nits about the exact verbiage? You want to do what a judge would do and pay attention to the entirety of the guidance? Which repeatedly instructs the employee not access classified documents they are not authorized to access regardless of method? Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too.
-IF- you're right then they can't throw him in jail for accessing wikilieaks on his home computer. That's all well and good.
They can, however, revoke his clearance. And they will revoke it if they believe his behavior indicates a willingness to intentionally mishandle classified information. Have no doubt of it. Classification isn't like a trade secret. As the linked document reminds, classified information remains classified until declassified, even if the content becomes public knowledge.
More, a lost clearance is grounds for termination from any post that requires a clearance, even for a nigh-unfirable federal employee.
Slashdot Mirror
You're comparing vaporware to a real shipping product. What's YOUR excuse?
Personally, I don't understand the case for CentOS.
I get the case for Red Hat. If you install Red Hat, it *exactly* matches what the third party developer for the paid software you're using had when he developed and tested his software. When you need a bug fix, or you need him to examine a problem, your system will match his. And if you're doing any sort of government work, they have a process in place for accrediting your Red Hat system. Not so for CentOS even though it's so very similar.
If you're not buying third party software, a distribution like Debian or Ubuntu has so vastly much more open source software under package management (and integrated into their security updates process) that I can't imagine why you'd want to use either Red Hat or a clone like CentOS.
It seems to me the only real value case for CentOS is that I can use it at home for free and it's very close to the comparable version of Red Hat I use at work.
Advice to the poster: if you're buying any other commercial software to install on top of the OS, get the $350 "self-support" Red Hat option and pitch that to your boss on the basis that it will facilitate debugging of any issues which arise with the other commercial software. Otherwise, go Debian.
I don't want Acrobat to be a browser either, but that's Acrobat's problem not Firefox's.
If I was an Adobe person I'd want Acrobat to open in the browser window. No. No. No. A thousand times No. Get this crap out of my browser!
I don't want PDFs to open in the web browser. I want to open them in Acrobat in another window. Let the browser be a browser and Acrobat be Acrobat!
I do not, but I would venture to guess that most devices sold by Verizon at their stores can be purchased as unlocked phones ready to be hooked up to a carrier via other channels.
The requirement doesn't mean they have to hook up only unlocked phones. Just like the requirement decades ago wasn't that AT&T stop renting hardwired phones. The requirement is that if I buy any random device capable of talking on their network, they must allow me to use it on their network... even if that device does things with their network they'd rather it not.
The value of a currency is tied to the goods and services you can buy with it at a price independent of its relation to other currencies. Monopoly money is worthless because the only thing I can buy with it is squares on a game board.
Trying to find out what I could buy with bitcoins, I went to a site called "bitcoincyberstore." None of the products quoted prices in bitcoins... they quoted prices in U.S. Dollars. This does not bode well for Bitcoin's viability.
I'd rather have the data so that after doing the emergency minimum to be delisted, I can go back, scrutinize it and figure out how tighten my process so I don't get listed again.
I'd always rather have the data.
I seem to recall it being a little tricky to get to the data after it's delisted. I'll grant you that Spamhaus should do better there.
the end result is that [Spamhaus'] opinion carries a lot of weight, mostly because many many people just blindly apply it.
Mostly because Spamhaus rarely lists address ranges that aren't involved in spamming and network abuse, and even more rarely for long. Spamhaus EARNED its reputation for cautious listing at the same time others like SORBS earned reputations for over-zealousness.
That's why I'm surprised to see Slashdot folks taking these accusations seriously without any posted evidence. When Spamhaus lists an IP block, they document it publicly including their reasons. Sometimes it's because an organization has been caught moving spammers around inside their IP block. Sometimes there are other reasons. Usually they're pretty good reasons.
Where's the copy of that posting?
I know back when I ran an ISP, Spamhaus was the one I -didn't- have problems with.
I love learning. But I despised school. And to my detriment, the endless busywork led me to hate the subjects taught there. It proved a real disability in college with several subjects that I wanted to understand but couldn't emotionally invest myself in the process that would lead to success.
Trying to force a bright kid to slow down for the average kids is more evil than trying to force a slow kid to keep up. Either way you hurt the child, but the bright kid might have been the next Einstein if you hadn't ruined him.
Your main challenge will be finding folks close to him in age with home he can interact on a peer level. Not other super-smart kids who may act as sycophants to his uber-super-smartness and not an environment where non-super-smart kids are going to resent him.
Find him a sport, even if it's something obscure like bowling. Or a biking club. Or a boating club. Or the Scouts. Something he can find enjoyable without his smarts either giving him too undue an advantage or engendering hostility in his peers. Specifically, something where he can spend time interacting with other kids his age as peers without his brain getting in the way.
Other than that, he's an obvious candidate for home schooling. Give him the study guides, periodically administer the tests and as long as he aces them let him guide his own education.
You don't go to McDonalds for Fried Chicken. McNuggets are a sideline, for the person in the group who doesn't want a sandwich so he doesn't fight as hard for going to another restaurant.
Netflix has a tension between two competing primary products: DVDs and Streaming. This has resulted and will continue to result in compromises made between the two which are detrimental to them both. Distinct companies wouldn't have needed to make such compromises, even to the point of competing with each other.
Remember: compromise is a synonym for congenial agreement, but it's also a synonym for catastrophic loss. That's not an accident.
The protests started when the weather changed from Hot to Pleasant. They'll end when the weather changes from Pleasant to Cold.
Their DVD and Instant businesses conflict with each other, as witnessed by the decline in availability of new DVDs and the web site rearrangements that make some sense for instant but make it much harder to find DVDs. Splitting them gave the two businesses a chance to thrive separately.
If you want the law to change, it starts with a coherent statement of what you want it to become.
If you want to "discourage" DRM's use, you simply make it illegal. My idea is to try to rebalance it the same way trade secrets are balanced against copyrights. You still have copyrights on material covered by trade secret but since the copyright isn't filed you're not eligible for statutory damages should the secret be revealed.
To put it another way: DRM is nothing but vigilantism. Vigilantism is not outlawed, but the law does and should frown on people taking the law into their own hands as we invariably trample on others' rights when we do.
Was it ARIN-assigned addresses or legacy addresses which predated ARIN? If the former, did you report it as fraud and supply your evidence that led you to believe that the entity in question was not using addresses according to ARIN's standards? (for legacy addresses, ARIN's rules only really apply when there's a transfer)
In that situation, they're not renting addresses. They're purchasing colo service, for which some number of addresses is appropriate. Same as they have done for nearly two decades using so-called "bulletproof hosting" companies. It's not by any means an IPv4 run-out phenomenon as the article proclaims and they're no renting bare IP addresses from you regardless.
IMO, the law on DRM should be this: you can protect your property with DRM or you can protect your property with copyright law but not both. If you elect to protect your property with DRM, you can still seek injunctions or collect real damages but you are no longer eligible for statutory damages under copyright law.
I call BS. Hackers don't rent or buy IP addresses for botnets. The bots run on machines each of which has an IP address already. And when they do need IP addresses, they steal them: find an address assignment not currently routed on the Internet and forge papers they present to the ISP claiming to be the actual registrant.
There are a number of protections in place at ARIN and the other Internet Registries which do a reasonably good job preventing hackers from taking actual "ownership" of blocks of IP addresses.
While there is such a thing as a "legitimate trading and auction sites," there are also a lot of snake oil salesman out there right now claiming legitimacy. Here's a hint: the legitimate ones don't cater to the hacker crowd because they know perfectly well they can't effect a registry transfer without meeting the registry's criteria for "legitimate need."
Have you ever accessed www.whitehouse.gov from your home computer? Congratulations, you've accessed an unclassified government system and the sentence now applies to that computer.
Oh wait, you don't want to pick nits about the exact verbiage? You want to do what a judge would do and pay attention to the entirety of the guidance? Which repeatedly instructs the employee not access classified documents they are not authorized to access regardless of method? Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too.
-IF- you're right then they can't throw him in jail for accessing wikilieaks on his home computer. That's all well and good.
They can, however, revoke his clearance. And they will revoke it if they believe his behavior indicates a willingness to intentionally mishandle classified information. Have no doubt of it. Classification isn't like a trade secret. As the linked document reminds, classified information remains classified until declassified, even if the content becomes public knowledge.
More, a lost clearance is grounds for termination from any post that requires a clearance, even for a nigh-unfirable federal employee.