This whole thing though, this particular stuff isn't about terrorists at all, it directly comes from John Kerry's anti money-laundering legislation (aka "Know your customer" legislation) for catching drug kingpins in 98. It probably does help in some limited degree, but it was pretty sad to see how he was talking it up that he personally was responsible for that stuff in the patriot act.
I assume that you actively sue the: city, state, federal gov, architect, construction company and blue collar construction workers when you step in an elevator inside a government building. You also must go after mother nature during certain weather storms, or for allowing trees to grow too tall. Let me make it very, very clear to you: YOU CAN NOT RELY ON A WIRELESS DEVICE (INCLUDING A PAGER), and you should be smacked up side the head in a court room if you try to bring something in this frivilous.
It would probably something for you to note that the wiretaps that occured with a person sitting on foreign soil (so even under your improper interpretation of an incomplete quote it would OK), if you actually read the report you'll see that it's from prior to Bush even being put into office, thirdly it would also be good to read what you quote because you are *WRONG*.
Let me provide you the proper quote of his 94 testimony that you wrongly interpreted, first two paragraphs complete with a link so you can look at the rest: http://thinkprogress.org/gorelick-testimony/
JAMIE S. GORELICK JULY 14, 1994
You have asked for my views on the provision of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's counterintelligence bill that establishes a procedure for court orders approving physical searches conducted in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
Whistles... sure made it easy by making that argument that it was legal for him to do so at any time. We don't know if he did it or not (as it would probably be illegal for someone to talk about it) but there is little doubt that him and Bush were of the same mind on it's legality.
The unfortunate thing is that for most PC's out there, they really only use one account; and from my small exposure to Mac users they tend to use even fewer system accounts. So in that sense they can't take over the entire box, but if all the stuff you cared about in your system now gone, having an OS still there doesn't really give one any relief. In the grand scheme of things there is no difference, if all my docs are gone and I've got to reinstall the entire OS, or I've got an OS but all my docs are still gone.
All of the success spyware has had shows the stupidity level of the majority of users; for the most part you had to give permission to install an app.
In the end, I think everybody's up for a bumby ride and it's market penetration that drives # of security breaches for the desktop, as Windows/OSX/Linux/Solaris architecture aren't the weakest link but the guy behind the keyboard and changing the OS doesn't change the guy behind the wheel.
Not sure it's about providing "choice" to the consumer, nor do i believe that it's about marketing and price control; I believe it's probably more along the lines of what the EU forced them to do. Instead of giving one rolled up package with all the bells and whistles, they've now got to separate all the bells & whistles out into different purchasable products.
The support is there, it's just that the technology licensing for the bits and pieces will have to be additional. HD DVD licenses will be included in the OS so OEM's prviding a bundled solution won't have to pay extra per system (already in the OS); while for blu-ray they are saying that if you want to bundle blu-ray with a system the OEM will have to pay for the licensing of blu-ray (but it will still be supported in the OS).
There's no doubt in there's speculative money to be made in google for a little while, but after a year or two there's going to be a bunch of layman investors holding a massive bag that all the disiplined investors have left them with laughing and pointing fingers at them. I would like to see google succeed, but I don't see how they can have more of a household name than they do now, or find a brand new unexploited niche that has growth as big as the one they have had over the years in the next 12-24 months. Eventually they might find that very rare magic potion again, but I have doubts they can by the time the street decides they need to get the hell out of that stock and leaves a bunch of bag holders in their wake.
70 perfectly reasonable??? What are you smoking because you really need to put it down.
The PE ratio comes from the dividing the current stock price by the earnings per share (ammount of profit per share). So if they were as massively profitable as you say the PE ratio should be significantly lower. They are not massively profitable compared to their stock price, they have a internet bubble PE ratio and have to have *massive* continued growth to sustain this; growth more massive than they have had over the past 4 years and I have serious doubts whether they can continue to grow at even 25% of their previous rate. We are talking growth from very small niche to being big dog everybody knows, they've got to be multiple times bigger dog than they are now and I don't see how they can get even close to simply double the ammount of people using their products as they do now let alone 5-10-20 times.
Yes and???? HD-DVD has the same broad support, I'd say even broader as it's the only one supported by the dvd forum group which has a couple hundred supporters on it, and the major pusher up front is not Microsoft but Toshiba.
I'd say that HD-DVD actually is technically superior, the only the Blu-Ray has going for it being able to support more space on it. It has momre DRM, it has a significantly thinner surface (worried about disk life now on a thick DVD wait till it's much less), and is going to have ~$30/drive licensing costs for all the bits and pieces.
I also find it hilarious that you are using Sony as an argument about holding back technology, a company that holds back everything: much more aggressive on DRM, intentionally installs malware on your box, and is a suing machine.
You didn't seriously go there did you??? Taking a rotten tomato throwing it at a wall and calling it a media player would have been better than real media player. The world yelled out in praise when media player came out compared to real and quicktime players that were out.
Blu-ray??? How are they holding back that technology. Not only does it belong to someone else who is having problems putting it out for their own flagship product, if anything blu-ray has much more DRM, etc built into it that makes it much more unlikable. In fact Microsoft's push for HD-DVD actually forced blu-ray to adopt more consumer friendly DRM options (but still unfortunate).
Traditionally that has not been the case, and still is not the case for most things. Sun has deffinetly pushed down their traditional massive margins, but for Sparc I'd say too little to late. 4 years ago we found that a x86 cpu had 2-3 times performance of a Sparc system, at a fourth the cost ($20k vs $5k). So even if they make the cost on par, I could still as a rule get twice as much performance out of the box, and today I find that rule still applies.
I'm currently involved on testing Oracle on Opteron, to compare against the Sun v1280's we bought 8 months ago (capacity growth exceeded expectations). What we found is that for CPU bound system, a 4x DC system (8 logical cores) outperformed our 8x physical CPU v1280 by a factor of 3, couple that with hardware/maintenance it cost less than a third of the v1280 (not to mention much less Oracle costs which are much more than either hardware).
Or you can just run with those options turned off, so you can have the snazzy newness without a heafty system. As long as you don't care about an additional... let's say 500mb in disk space used on disk but not accessed. Just because it's installed doesn't mean you must use it.
From what I can tell from the article the offered to give him access to the list, but that we was not allowed to electronically copy it (only had write). One might argue that they did not give him an easy(or possibly reasonably feasible) way to compare the article, but I can see the point the city was making. If he had visible access to the list I think he should be able to take a representative sample and compare it without having to write down every single one.
He expressed concern the mayor might be using the newsletter subscriber list as a target audience for his political mailings, a charge the mayor has denied.
City officials turned down Nees, saying the teen could come in and hand-copy the list. Officials said giving out copies of address lists would leave the newsletter subscribers open to spam and computer viruses.
Correct, VMware doesn't virtualize the cpu hardware; it presents the CPU up directly as is to the guest virtual machine, if you only have a 32bit cpu you can only run 32bit. Which when you get to esx server and doing hot moves between physical boxes, means that all the capabilities (mmx, sse, etc) need to be supported on the target cpu as well.
I think when he says "double standard" he means that everybody jumped up and down about Kama Sutra worm, people here were calling for massive lawsuits, and that Microsoft must be legally required do something about this. When the Kama Sutra worm, also required someone to go and click and go through the motions just like this one. If a MS gets held to a one standard of it being their fault, than Apple should logically have the same fault. I'd venture a statement that neither are at fault, you just can't out program end user stupidity and for both it's stupidity that's at fault.
And no, "if the consumers don't like the trust they can just buy from someone else" isn't a valid reply. For it to be a monopoly convicted of antitrust violations, the holder of the monopoly must be using their leverage to actively prevent competition, depriving consumers of the opportunity to purchase alternative products.
Under that specific definition I'd say Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, all they did was have IE on the workstation already, it didn't deprive the consumer an opportunity to purchase an alternate product (technically it enabled users to purchase an alternate product); same thing with media player.
There's got to be a better definition (that doesn't contain laywer-ese) of a monopoly out there.
*And no, "if the consumers don't like the trust they can just buy from someone else" isn't a valid reply. For it to be a monopoly convicted of antitrust violations, the holder of the monopoly must be using their leverage to actively prevent competition, depriving consumers of the opportunity to purchase alternative products.
And that difference doesn't mean much of anything in regards to what the grandparent was talking about. Google searches are not anonymous, and they will give over that non-anonymous information at will; any belief otherwise is foolish.
#1 is defintely *not* anonymous, your IP is recorded and they've got you at your ISP, cookies can tie you across sessions.
The only anonymous thing google is doing is not giving out combined results results to the gov for basically a survey request (i.e. how many people searched for "big boobs" in the past 3 months). They resisted giving that government the anonymous information, but I can tell you that when the gov has a subpoena with specific request for the searches from IP at Time on day they comply and hand over your private information without much of a problem.
Well what about the converse? That public library refuses to carry certain religious books because they are about religion and unless they can carry every single possible religion out there, with every single book; than technically they can't carry any of them.
When I went to a Sans conference years ago (think it was maybe 02??) for their forensic track they had the guys from the honeynet project present. They had a Redhat box found and rooted not in 5 min, but around 15-20 (that was the fastest time for Linux). Really all that is required is finding an older one, rooting is really easy with all the point and drool rootkit out there.
I think you'd be really amazed at the sweep scans going toward your box all the time; majority of them are targetted towards greatest probability (i.e. Windows) but I've seen it personally happen where a guy (who should have known better) started a Linux install in the DMZ went for a long vendor lunch and when he was back someone had found it and gotten into it.
Nvidia was hooked up a bunch of SGI guys in the late 90's, about the time their consumer level cards started kicking into gear. SGI won a patent infringment against Nvidia in 98, they made some agreements and they then played nicey/nicey with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing though, this particular stuff isn't about terrorists at all, it directly comes from John Kerry's anti money-laundering legislation (aka "Know your customer" legislation) for catching drug kingpins in 98. It probably does help in some limited degree, but it was pretty sad to see how he was talking it up that he personally was responsible for that stuff in the patriot act.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/EM693.cfm
I assume that you actively sue the: city, state, federal gov, architect, construction company and blue collar construction workers when you step in an elevator inside a government building. You also must go after mother nature during certain weather storms, or for allowing trees to grow too tall. Let me make it very, very clear to you: YOU CAN NOT RELY ON A WIRELESS DEVICE (INCLUDING A PAGER), and you should be smacked up side the head in a court room if you try to bring something in this frivilous.
It would probably something for you to note that the wiretaps that occured with a person sitting on foreign soil (so even under your improper interpretation of an incomplete quote it would OK), if you actually read the report you'll see that it's from prior to Bush even being put into office, thirdly it would also be good to read what you quote because you are *WRONG*.
Let me provide you the proper quote of his 94 testimony that you wrongly interpreted, first two paragraphs complete with a link so you can look at the rest: http://thinkprogress.org/gorelick-testimony/
JAMIE S. GORELICK
JULY 14, 1994
You have asked for my views on the provision of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's counterintelligence bill that establishes a procedure for court orders approving physical searches conducted in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
Whistles... sure made it easy by making that argument that it was legal for him to do so at any time. We don't know if he did it or not (as it would probably be illegal for someone to talk about it) but there is little doubt that him and Bush were of the same mind on it's legality.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
The unfortunate thing is that for most PC's out there, they really only use one account; and from my small exposure to Mac users they tend to use even fewer system accounts. So in that sense they can't take over the entire box, but if all the stuff you cared about in your system now gone, having an OS still there doesn't really give one any relief. In the grand scheme of things there is no difference, if all my docs are gone and I've got to reinstall the entire OS, or I've got an OS but all my docs are still gone.
All of the success spyware has had shows the stupidity level of the majority of users; for the most part you had to give permission to install an app.
In the end, I think everybody's up for a bumby ride and it's market penetration that drives # of security breaches for the desktop, as Windows/OSX/Linux/Solaris architecture aren't the weakest link but the guy behind the keyboard and changing the OS doesn't change the guy behind the wheel.
No cost to them, unless the cost is payment to the EU for having a included a media player in their OS.
Not sure it's about providing "choice" to the consumer, nor do i believe that it's about marketing and price control; I believe it's probably more along the lines of what the EU forced them to do. Instead of giving one rolled up package with all the bells and whistles, they've now got to separate all the bells & whistles out into different purchasable products.
The support is there, it's just that the technology licensing for the bits and pieces will have to be additional. HD DVD licenses will be included in the OS so OEM's prviding a bundled solution won't have to pay extra per system (already in the OS); while for blu-ray they are saying that if you want to bundle blu-ray with a system the OEM will have to pay for the licensing of blu-ray (but it will still be supported in the OS).
a rticleID=175004773
http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?
There's no doubt in there's speculative money to be made in google for a little while, but after a year or two there's going to be a bunch of layman investors holding a massive bag that all the disiplined investors have left them with laughing and pointing fingers at them. I would like to see google succeed, but I don't see how they can have more of a household name than they do now, or find a brand new unexploited niche that has growth as big as the one they have had over the years in the next 12-24 months. Eventually they might find that very rare magic potion again, but I have doubts they can by the time the street decides they need to get the hell out of that stock and leaves a bunch of bag holders in their wake.
70 perfectly reasonable??? What are you smoking because you really need to put it down.
The PE ratio comes from the dividing the current stock price by the earnings per share (ammount of profit per share). So if they were as massively profitable as you say the PE ratio should be significantly lower. They are not massively profitable compared to their stock price, they have a internet bubble PE ratio and have to have *massive* continued growth to sustain this; growth more massive than they have had over the past 4 years and I have serious doubts whether they can continue to grow at even 25% of their previous rate. We are talking growth from very small niche to being big dog everybody knows, they've got to be multiple times bigger dog than they are now and I don't see how they can get even close to simply double the ammount of people using their products as they do now let alone 5-10-20 times.
Yes and???? HD-DVD has the same broad support, I'd say even broader as it's the only one supported by the dvd forum group which has a couple hundred supporters on it, and the major pusher up front is not Microsoft but Toshiba.
I'd say that HD-DVD actually is technically superior, the only the Blu-Ray has going for it being able to support more space on it. It has momre DRM, it has a significantly thinner surface (worried about disk life now on a thick DVD wait till it's much less), and is going to have ~$30/drive licensing costs for all the bits and pieces.
I also find it hilarious that you are using Sony as an argument about holding back technology, a company that holds back everything: much more aggressive on DRM, intentionally installs malware on your box, and is a suing machine.
You didn't seriously go there did you??? Taking a rotten tomato throwing it at a wall and calling it a media player would have been better than real media player. The world yelled out in praise when media player came out compared to real and quicktime players that were out.
Blu-ray??? How are they holding back that technology. Not only does it belong to someone else who is having problems putting it out for their own flagship product, if anything blu-ray has much more DRM, etc built into it that makes it much more unlikable. In fact Microsoft's push for HD-DVD actually forced blu-ray to adopt more consumer friendly DRM options (but still unfortunate).
Traditionally that has not been the case, and still is not the case for most things. Sun has deffinetly pushed down their traditional massive margins, but for Sparc I'd say too little to late. 4 years ago we found that a x86 cpu had 2-3 times performance of a Sparc system, at a fourth the cost ($20k vs $5k). So even if they make the cost on par, I could still as a rule get twice as much performance out of the box, and today I find that rule still applies.
I'm currently involved on testing Oracle on Opteron, to compare against the Sun v1280's we bought 8 months ago (capacity growth exceeded expectations). What we found is that for CPU bound system, a 4x DC system (8 logical cores) outperformed our 8x physical CPU v1280 by a factor of 3, couple that with hardware/maintenance it cost less than a third of the v1280 (not to mention much less Oracle costs which are much more than either hardware).
Or you can just run with those options turned off, so you can have the snazzy newness without a heafty system. As long as you don't care about an additional... let's say 500mb in disk space used on disk but not accessed. Just because it's installed doesn't mean you must use it.
Correct, VMware doesn't virtualize the cpu hardware; it presents the CPU up directly as is to the guest virtual machine, if you only have a 32bit cpu you can only run 32bit. Which when you get to esx server and doing hot moves between physical boxes, means that all the capabilities (mmx, sse, etc) need to be supported on the target cpu as well.
I think when he says "double standard" he means that everybody jumped up and down about Kama Sutra worm, people here were calling for massive lawsuits, and that Microsoft must be legally required do something about this. When the Kama Sutra worm, also required someone to go and click and go through the motions just like this one. If a MS gets held to a one standard of it being their fault, than Apple should logically have the same fault. I'd venture a statement that neither are at fault, you just can't out program end user stupidity and for both it's stupidity that's at fault.
Son of monkey bitches... that was supposed to be
And no, "if the consumers don't like the trust they can just buy from someone else" isn't a valid reply. For it to be a monopoly convicted of antitrust violations, the holder of the monopoly must be using their leverage to actively prevent competition, depriving consumers of the opportunity to purchase alternative products.
Under that specific definition I'd say Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, all they did was have IE on the workstation already, it didn't deprive the consumer an opportunity to purchase an alternate product (technically it enabled users to purchase an alternate product); same thing with media player.
There's got to be a better definition (that doesn't contain laywer-ese) of a monopoly out there.
*And no, "if the consumers don't like the trust they can just buy from someone else" isn't a valid reply. For it to be a monopoly convicted of antitrust violations, the holder of the monopoly must be using their leverage to actively prevent competition, depriving consumers of the opportunity to purchase alternative products.
And that difference doesn't mean much of anything in regards to what the grandparent was talking about. Google searches are not anonymous, and they will give over that non-anonymous information at will; any belief otherwise is foolish.
#1 is defintely *not* anonymous, your IP is recorded and they've got you at your ISP, cookies can tie you across sessions.
The only anonymous thing google is doing is not giving out combined results results to the gov for basically a survey request (i.e. how many people searched for "big boobs" in the past 3 months). They resisted giving that government the anonymous information, but I can tell you that when the gov has a subpoena with specific request for the searches from IP at Time on day they comply and hand over your private information without much of a problem.
Well what about the converse? That public library refuses to carry certain religious books because they are about religion and unless they can carry every single possible religion out there, with every single book; than technically they can't carry any of them.
When I went to a Sans conference years ago (think it was maybe 02??) for their forensic track they had the guys from the honeynet project present. They had a Redhat box found and rooted not in 5 min, but around 15-20 (that was the fastest time for Linux). Really all that is required is finding an older one, rooting is really easy with all the point and drool rootkit out there.
I think you'd be really amazed at the sweep scans going toward your box all the time; majority of them are targetted towards greatest probability (i.e. Windows) but I've seen it personally happen where a guy (who should have known better) started a Linux install in the DMZ went for a long vendor lunch and when he was back someone had found it and gotten into it.
Nvidia was hooked up a bunch of SGI guys in the late 90's, about the time their consumer level cards started kicking into gear. SGI won a patent infringment against Nvidia in 98, they made some agreements and they then played nicey/nicey with each other.