The federal government cannot regulate interstate commerce???? That power is EXPLICITLY granted to them, in those exact words, in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you mean inTRAstate commerce?
The federal government can be seen regulating interstate commerce every day. For instance, ever notice that long distance calls made to another location WITHIN your home state tend to cost more than those made across state lines? That is federal regulation of interstate commerce in action.
In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of the federal government "meddling", from gun control and supporting education to the building of the interstate highway system, is legal on the dubious basis of regulating interstate commerce.
I had an idea regarding "frivolous" lawsuits and payment of court costs. When a jury sides with the defendant, they have could THEN have a vote on whether the suit was frivolous and the plaintiff should have to pay court costs and a fine, or to say that the decision was a fairly close one, and the plaintiff made a reasonable suit and should owe nothing.
It's not too difficult... the OFX specifications that MS Money, Quicken, and almost all brokers and banks use can be downloaded for free at www.ofx.net. The certification is only needed for a server (i.e. the bank). I'm writing a similar financial app... it's really not difficult to add.
If you paid attention, the affinity offers came out of RESERVED shares. so they didn't go to any institutional investors. This just means that "members of the open source community" were able to get 400 shares instead of maybe 300.
Actually, you still have a DATABASE to crack. So the point is moot. And they in all likeliness use the same encryption schemes. At least every solution that I've seen does.
And actually, it is a much simpler setup when installing a box, because you dont have to do passwd/shadow/group mirroring, which can be quite a bitch and can open up security holes...
Caldera and TurboLinux forked from Red Hat some time ago, although they maintain it themselves nowadays. They ARE based on older code of Red Hat however. Mandrake just straight up leeches off of Red Hat's work. Perhaps they should give Red Hat some royalties to compensate for the free development they make money off of. While not required by the GPL or anything, it would certainly be a good gesture....
But the majority of the population would never invest for their future, because so many barely make enough to live on, nonetheless invest for retirement. Employer-matched 401k's, however, should be perhaps more widespead as they do encourage investment.....
I should perhaps note that John Locke wrote a treatise called "On Liberty" expressing those exact concerns, and constructing a similar argument as to what people should have rights to do. It is definitely worth reading.
And just because they are the rules don't make them right either. Respecting rules merely because they are rules doesn't make the world a better place.
Rules should constantly be re-evaluated on whether they achieve their objective and whether their objective is a desirable one.
The E*TRADE eligibility form's objective seems as if it is to ensure that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I, for one, am curious as to how much the NASD specifies in their eligibility requirements. Somehow I doubt that NASD would set the exact qualifications for participating in an IPO.
That said, I think the person who started this thread speaks for most of us who are angered by E*TRADE. We do not want to sell quickly (some of us may want to sell some if it skyrockets, but not most or all). I think that most of the people who got "the letter" are like me and the other poster, who buy Official Red Hat CD's as basically charity to support the future development of Linux. We have been following this company for years and believe in it, and are willing to lose all of money, since it would mean that it would be better for Linux, if not better for us.
I, for one, want to invest in Red Hat. Not just any "hot" IPO, and not just any "open source company". Red Hat is in a unique position to change things. They symbolize a change in not only software, but in ideas about intellectual property. Investing in them is indirectly supporting the idea that ideas should be free.
Many of the other "open source" companies that plan initial public offerings do not have the same commitment. Most of the Linux hardware companies (with the possible exception of VA Research, and maybe others that I am ignorant of) have little to do with the development of Linux. They merely use Linux as a gimmick to get people to buy their hardware rather than their competitors. Yes, they may believe in Linux too, but they do not do anything CLOSE to what Red Hat does to forward these ideals.
Of course, investing at the IPO is a great opportunity because, while we would still want to buy the stock regardless, it gives us a chance to have a great investment at the same time.
They've decided against going NT before the first year of its release. That's to be expected. That doesn't mean they've rejected W2K, just that they want to wait for it to stabilize, or that they are happy with NT4 and dont see a need to upgrade.
The past of Red Hat's security measures? eh? They always seemed fairly fast to me. They beat any commercial vendors, and as far as I can see any Linux distributions except debian.
If you take large amounts of backup and need to store it off site, you need tape. Tape is much cheaper than harddisks. Only maintaining one backup is also foolish. Media fails. So you need tow harddisks anyway. And are you going to have 20 of those 22GB harddisks for backups? When you transport the harddisk for offsite storage, the heads might fail. Tape has not been superceded.
If Red Hat was a flavor of the month distrbution, why would they attract the investments of Intel? Why would Dell preinstall Red Hat?
Regardless of whether they got to be the flavor of the month or not, they've exploited their status of being the right flavor at the right time to lock themselves in as the leader.
Because Microsoft has a particularly bad record on security??
Re:SECONDS as a transaction unit? Why not BYTES?!
on
Bandwidth as Commodity
·
· Score: 1
Because it's guaranteed service. If they're going to reserve an entire T1 for you that noone else can use, why should you only pay for a small portion of that? It's more like going to a restaurant and buying dinner. You're charged for what you order, not what you actually eat, because the restaurant can't give the leftovers to anyone else.
No one is forcing you to use the search engines, and they're not the ones who are collecting your money, so why should you ask them for your money back?
If it's that easy, can't you just write one yourself? Then what happens when your customers want their money back from your free service?
Slashdot Mirror
The federal government cannot regulate interstate commerce???? That power is EXPLICITLY granted to them, in those exact words, in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you mean inTRAstate commerce?
The federal government can be seen regulating interstate commerce every day. For instance, ever notice that long distance calls made to another location WITHIN your home state tend to cost more than those made across state lines? That is federal regulation of interstate commerce in action.
In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of the federal government "meddling", from gun control and supporting education to the building of the interstate highway system, is legal on the dubious basis of regulating interstate commerce.
I had an idea regarding "frivolous" lawsuits and payment of court costs. When a jury sides with the defendant, they have could THEN have a vote on whether the suit was frivolous and the plaintiff should have to pay court costs and a fine, or to say that the decision was a fairly close one, and the plaintiff made a reasonable suit and should owe nothing.
It's not too difficult... the OFX specifications that MS Money, Quicken, and almost all brokers and banks use can be downloaded for free at www.ofx.net. The certification is only needed for a server (i.e. the bank). I'm writing a similar financial app... it's really not difficult to add.
If you paid attention, the affinity offers came out of RESERVED shares. so they didn't go to any institutional investors. This just means that "members of the open source community" were able to get 400 shares instead of maybe 300.
Just one question.... have you ever tried to read a lot of the Linux source code? :)
You can do the same on a libc6 system w/ nsswitch.conf
Actually, you still have a DATABASE to crack. So the point is moot. And they in all likeliness use the same encryption schemes. At least every solution that I've seen does.
And actually, it is a much simpler setup when installing a box, because you dont have to do passwd/shadow/group mirroring, which can be quite a bitch and can open up security holes...
Caldera and TurboLinux forked from Red Hat some time ago, although they maintain it themselves nowadays. They ARE based on older code of Red Hat however. Mandrake just straight up leeches off of Red Hat's work. Perhaps they should give Red Hat some royalties to compensate for the free development they make money off of. While not required by the GPL or anything, it would certainly be a good gesture....
But the majority of the population would never invest for their future, because so many barely make enough to live on, nonetheless invest for retirement. Employer-matched 401k's, however, should be perhaps more widespead as they do encourage investment.....
I should perhaps note that John Locke wrote a treatise called "On Liberty" expressing those exact concerns, and constructing a similar argument as to what people should have rights to do. It is definitely worth reading.
And just because they are the rules don't make them right either. Respecting rules merely because they are rules doesn't make the world a better place.
Rules should constantly be re-evaluated on whether they achieve their objective and whether their objective is a desirable one.
The E*TRADE eligibility form's objective seems as if it is to ensure that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I, for one, am curious as to how much the NASD specifies in their eligibility requirements. Somehow I doubt that NASD would set the exact qualifications for participating in an IPO.
That said, I think the person who started this thread speaks for most of us who are angered by E*TRADE. We do not want to sell quickly (some of us may want to sell some if it skyrockets, but not most or all). I think that most of the people who got "the letter" are like me and the other poster, who buy Official Red Hat CD's as basically charity to support the future development of Linux. We have been following this company for years and believe in it, and are willing to lose all of money, since it would mean that it would be better for Linux, if not better for us.
I, for one, want to invest in Red Hat. Not just any "hot" IPO, and not just any "open source company". Red Hat is in a unique position to change things. They symbolize a change in not only software, but in ideas about intellectual property. Investing in them is indirectly supporting the idea that ideas should be free.
Many of the other "open source" companies that plan initial public offerings do not have the same commitment. Most of the Linux hardware companies (with the possible exception of VA Research, and maybe others that I am ignorant of) have little to do with the development of Linux. They merely use Linux as a gimmick to get people to buy their hardware rather than their competitors. Yes, they may believe in Linux too, but they do not do anything CLOSE to what Red Hat does to forward these ideals.
Of course, investing at the IPO is a great opportunity because, while we would still want to buy the stock regardless, it gives us a chance to have a great investment at the same time.
Nonetheless, a kernel panic is more stability IMO, because the reboot is less downtime than waiting for it to become happily responsive again.
Well 0.60 certainly isn't ready for primetime :) It has its share of bugs for now. But maybe by 0.61 :)
Use the TrueType font patches, and install some TrueType fonts. it doesn't do anti-aliasing, but the scalability works well, try it.
They've decided against going NT before the first year of its release. That's to be expected. That doesn't mean they've rejected W2K, just that they want to wait for it to stabilize, or that they are happy with NT4 and dont see a need to upgrade.
The past of Red Hat's security measures? eh? They always seemed fairly fast to me. They beat any commercial vendors, and as far as I can see any Linux distributions except debian.
You can do that with rpfilter in the 2.2 kernels, you don't need ipchains.
If you take large amounts of backup and need to store it off site, you need tape. Tape is much cheaper than harddisks. Only maintaining one backup is also foolish. Media fails. So you need tow harddisks anyway. And are you going to have 20 of those 22GB harddisks for backups? When you transport the harddisk for offsite storage, the heads might fail. Tape has not been superceded.
If Red Hat was a flavor of the month distrbution, why would they attract the investments of Intel? Why would Dell preinstall Red Hat?
Regardless of whether they got to be the flavor of the month or not, they've exploited their status of being the right flavor at the right time to lock themselves in as the leader.
What if it were encrypted with that key??
Because Microsoft has a particularly bad record on security??
Because it's guaranteed service. If they're going to reserve an entire T1 for you that noone else can use, why should you only pay for a small portion of that? It's more like going to a restaurant and buying dinner. You're charged for what you order, not what you actually eat, because the restaurant can't give the leftovers to anyone else.
No one is forcing you to use the search engines, and they're not the ones who are collecting your money, so why should you ask them for your money back?
If it's that easy, can't you just write one yourself? Then what happens when your customers want their money back from your free service?
Except it would look for signs of intelligent life in the packet, NOT try to decrypt it :).
Through intelligent lifeforms from outerspace trying to hide themselves :)