The problem is that SCOTUS has overruled states on issues before.
Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Please v. Ferguson.
Listen people, the Constitution makes it clear that States rights are key. By god I support those but they have always come back to the fact that certain rights cannot be oer'trumped by the states. As mentioned above, the 14th amendment applied the 5th and others to the states.
I read the entire decision last night after it was available. I printed it out and sat down in my living room and read it.
I UNDERSTAND what the 5 who voted for are saying and on some level I could fall for it at face value. The majority opinion is VERY shortsighted and really does open a can of worms.
I think the most telling fact of the matter is that O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in the primary precendence that the majority relyed upon. She was in disent on this ruling! She understood the subtle difference in Berman v. Parker compared to Kelo v New London.
I would suggest EVERYONE read the actual decision.
Especially read what Thomas wrote in his disent. No matter how you feel about the man, you have to admit that his understanding of Constitutional Law and Intent is amazing.
He goes back to not only previous case law but English Common Law and the definition of the word "use" at the time of the Framers. He makes a stunning remark as follows:
The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a "`[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 910 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This defer- ential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use." I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as JUSTICE O'CONNOR powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 12, 813. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion.
He brings up a previous ruling from early in our Nation's history that says:
see also Marbury v. Madi- son, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803) ("It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be with- out effect");
By changing the meaning of "public use" to "public benifit", the Taking clause is rendered null! Everything can be defined as "public benefit" in the same way that "common Welfare" has been redifined (personal opinion).
My personal plan of action on the matter is this:
- Contact my state government officials including each individual member of my city council (Roswell, GA if interested) and let them know if they vote in favor of any such law, resolution or just try anything like New London, I will make it my personal crusade to see them never elected again. Not even as a city dog catcher.
- I will contact my Congress critters in Washington with the same message. I understand that the Federal burden is much greater than the State burden but it's still a possibility.
- I will petition my city and state government for recall laws so that if something like this happens, I don't have to WAIT for them to
I'm a strong supporter of state's rights but this is a strictly eminent domain issue even though the city tried to couch it as state's rights.
The interesting thing is the actual wording.
It says "public use". Not public good or public interest.
A road has public use. A park has a public use. If they wanted to tear down the area to build a huge city park, I wouldn't like it but it's legit.
The other issue is that the government is taking the land to pass on to a PRIVATE developer. If city were taking the land to build a road and a private developer were building the road I would STILL consider it okay. But this to build a private office park and a private condo farm.
Oddly enough I usually tell others this. SCOTUS judges are more often than not, unaligned to party lines. They are not accountable to the person who put them in office after they are elected. I personally argue that Supremes should be neither republican, democrat nor libertarian but those who have a history of interpreting the constitution as narrowly as possible. Those will be the ones who demand the most evidence and take the job most seriously.
Out of my parent's basement? I love how that's a nice solid comeback when people have nothing else to say.
I swear to god the day that someone tries this on my house (yes the one the bank owns for another 25 years or so) I will sit on my porch with my 12 guage and let the bulldozers run me over.
This is how people defended property rights before it was codified and we may yet have to go back to that.
I wouldn't vote Republican if my life depended on it. Nor would I vote Democrat. In the last three elections I've voted Libertarian and will continue to do so because I know the process that the candidates have to go through. I know that anyone willing to get involved with a third party has less on his mind than political power and more along the lines of making a change for the better.
The only reason I spend time in my basement is because that's where my office is.
They've expanded the definition of "public use" the same way politicians have been expanding the federal governments role for "the public welfare".
It's a crock of shit. Pure and simple.
What gets me is that the relationship of increased tax base and job creation to public use is teneous at best. A public firehouse has an immediate and demonstratable public use. A fucking walmart that will be moved 30 miles outside of the existing tax base to build a super walmart 5 months down the road does NOT. I expect a greater proof of burden since we are talking about people's homes for chrissakes. The whole thing in New London depends on EXPECTED tourist revenue and business relocation. They are HOPING that a planned Pfizer plant in the area will attract business as well.
And I don't want the SCOTUS to be in the business of judging zoning plans anymore than I want a fucking idiot deciding technical value. Since there is no safe way around the rule, I'd err on the side of the people getting moved.
I'm tempted to take my shotguns and drive up to New London and wait for the bulldozers.
Four of the most conservative judges on the bench ruled AGAINST this trash issue.
All of the Democrats on the bench ruled in favor of it.
Don't spout off shit you don't understand as an attempt to play a little political game.
And people need to stop fucking voting republican OR democrat. Put someone who actually values personal property rights and personal liberty as a whole.
If you hadn't noticed I'm furious as hell about this ruling.
we paid a bit extra to get the release from the photographer for our pictures. We have a letter that we keep in the safe in case anyone gives us grief. Funny thing is that I could just as easily type up a fake release and take it with me.
It's just like checking signatures on the back of credit cards. It's a CYA thing for the vendor.
It's a good system and it came with CentOS4 for x86_64 which I gave a few days before wiping and installing x86_64 gentoo.
I've since bought an additional GB of memory to dedicate to various vmware machines for envrionment testing and some work-specific windows stuff.
The only issues I've had with an all x86_64 system has been related to codeweavers and transgaming stuff. Oh and some issues with Flash. I spend most of time browsing with a native compiled firefox version and switching to firefox-bin under multilib when I need the non-64bit plugins.
I even did my first stage one install in a LONG time (I normally do a stage 2 on installs for obvious time reasons) just to see how it would perform and even with just the 1GB of ram at the time, I was done in a couple of hours and running X. The system really does scream. FYI, PCI-Express in SLI mode is non-existant under linux right now but dual-head works fine.
Micronux is a solid company and I plan on buying again from them in the future.
Actually we have a few production gentoo boxes at our company. The majority are RHEL (with a few slackware) but our webservers, Enterprise CUPS servers, hylafax servers and samba servers are all running Gentoo.
And to answer the question, we've only had ONE problem with them. That was a libtiff upgrade that borked hylafax. Luckily we test all of our upgrades on imaged servers or dev boxes ( in the case of CUPS) before we push to production.
And in our company, the AUP says that we can and will do these things.
Flat out the machine is not yours to use as you will. As long as you're doing work on it and not fucking around, we won't care but if performance slips and there is reason to suspect that you are fucking around instead of working then we'll do what is needed to determine what you ARE doing as part of the dismisal package.
Look, I fucking HATE playing big brother. We log all traffic on our network and keep the last three months. I don't have information emailed to me and only a few trusted people have access to that system but when management comes to me and says "We have a possible liablity here. Susan says she saw Timmy looking at adult material, can you verify?" I will pull up what logs we have and if they do point to something, I turn the information over.
I have a feeling if you check that nice stack of documents you signed when you took the job, you'll see similar language to that effect.
That policy doesn't work anymore. All it takes is ONE person getting one of these nifty viruses that has your email and it's all down hill.
Example, We had no spam to our any of our company addresses for the longest time. Then after a small virus problem on one of our area manager's laptops, we now get phishing emails and other spam non stop sent to one of our support emails. The viruses not only spam but also harvest. It takes one person to have the company inbox used as part of a spam virus and the war is over.
One of the interesting points that each book I mentioned makes is that appointees almost never tow the presidential party line.
They cite a few reasons:
1) Rule of Law and the Constitution defies party lines. Or at least it should. It's the difference between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, majority rules but in a republic, the law rules. I'm sure there are plenty of judges out there who don't and won't ever get this difference and will use SCOTUS as an attempt to make laws but they soon learn that it won't fly with SCOTUS. I get worried when I hear the Supreme Court mentioning public opinion as a basis for a ruling because it means that we inch closer to a doomed democracy.
2) SCOTUS justices are beholden to no man and they will long outlive the president who appointed them. W.H.R. cites several examples of this in his book and makes a grand point about it. He himself was appointed by Nixon and has long outlived that man's career.
I would suggest that everyone pick up a copy of Sandra Day O'Connor's book "The Majesty of the Law" as well as William H. Rehnquist's "The Supreme Court". These are some really amazing insights into the opertation of SCOTUS.
The W.H.R. book especially covers the process and how cases actually get before the court. He also covers some of the background of the cases he was involved in. Amazingly enough both books are fairly non-partisan and Rehnquist makes the point that many a president has made the mistake of thinking an appointee would be a backdoor into the Supreme Court when it has rarely turned out that way. He discusses court packing attempts as well which seems pretty relevant.
Interestingly enough there was a big thread on this very subject on the ADSM mailing list.
People were making statements that a TSM backup tape was useless if you didn't have the volhist and db to go along with it. While this may be true, someone did a test and was able to dump the data raw from the tape and recover part of the data on a box with just a tape drive without TSM installed.
I'm not sure the actual specifics of TSM encryption of the top of my head (i.e. method used) but I think the companies that are going to make it big are the ones that are currently offering inline hardware encryption. Basically a hardware device that sits between the backup server and the tape library and does the encryption of the stream before it gets written to tape. This leads to other distaster recovery costs and it's yet another point of failure and complication but it's an interesting idea none the less.
1) They're using a non-secure courier like UPS to ship data. Iron Mountain or better only. They specialize in this type of business.
2) Who the hell is the other company that they're sending raw unencrypted backups to? Talk about not knowing who has your data!
I predict that all of these "lost tapes" and "compromised data" are going to lead to the following:
1) Laws will be passed that make this shit a crime. I hope that the fines for this are big enough that the cost benefit of lost tapes vs. doing the fucking job right is too high to budget away.
2) Consumers will get rights to all information that any company contains about them. This means:
a) What data is kept and for how long? b) Who has access to that data? "Business partners" or "credit agencies"? c) Access to that data on demand within a reasonable time period. d) Legal recourse in federal civil court for compromised data IN THE EVENT OF identity theft. Reimbursement for fees associated with validating that the data has not been used illegally (Think credit report fees, lost wages) and maintaining that process. e) The ability to actually restrict the distribution of that data where appropriate.
Let's face it, we all want that instant credit at times. Technology has made it easy for information to move at the pace we've grown accustomed to. How amazing is it that I can take out a loan online and have a check waiting in a few days to go buy that car I wanted? Not withstanding the irresponsibility of the consumer and too much available credit of course.
I keep thinking about how this type of bullshit will lead to anarchy on the swiss banks (read Earth by David Brin) which I DON'T want. I would rather the companies step up to the plate but they seem to be showing they are unwilling to do so.
and the first thing he said is "Do we have any StorageTek equipment?"
We don't but if we did, we might consider phasing it out now. He had lunch with McNeely at some CIO luncheon a few weeks back and came back thinking the man was a total idiot. He spent all the time railing against Linux and his competitors instead of talking up things that might make us consider Sun equipment.
yeah but the problem with tape is SOX. It's currently driving us nuts. We're not a public company so SOX doesn't apply to us but we're trying our damndest to be SOX compliant.
If anything tape may actually simply level out in the end. Alot of people are moving to a model like so:
disk->virtual tape disk->tape
TSM actually has the ability built in with file dev classes. You start using virtual tape drives and the tape library itself becomes alot less of an issue. You don't need a 3584 or a 3494 full of drives. I can't count how many people post to the ADSM mailing list about how they're implementing virtual tape libraries and how excellent it's been for them.
The only reason Netscape is faster is because they cache the whole fucking btree in memory and operates on that. I'm not sure how often it flushes to disk though.
I'm still trying to sus the AJAX thing out but it seems like a horrible idea from a security perspective. I know the js is href'd from the server but there better be some serious validation server side.
I know I wouldn't want to try and hack at this for any nefarious reason but it could be done.
While that may be a smaller portion of the lobbying, you can bet your ass the bigger lobby is local liquor distributors who don't want to loose the monopoly they have in each state.
I think in Georgia there are two or maybe three distributors that control the entire state.
There's a newer post in here on this thread about a law in texas that's similar to Georgia's.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that SCOTUS has overruled states on issues before.
Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Please v. Ferguson.
Listen people, the Constitution makes it clear that States rights are key. By god I support those but they have always come back to the fact that certain rights cannot be oer'trumped by the states. As mentioned above, the 14th amendment applied the 5th and others to the states.
I read the entire decision last night after it was available. I printed it out and sat down in my living room and read it.
I UNDERSTAND what the 5 who voted for are saying and on some level I could fall for it at face value. The majority opinion is VERY shortsighted and really does open a can of worms.
I think the most telling fact of the matter is that O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in the primary precendence that the majority relyed upon. She was in disent on this ruling! She understood the subtle difference in Berman v. Parker compared to Kelo v New London.
I would suggest EVERYONE read the actual decision.
You can view it HERE
Especially read what Thomas wrote in his disent. No matter how you feel about the man, you have to admit that his understanding of Constitutional Law and Intent is amazing.
He goes back to not only previous case law but English Common Law and the definition of the word "use" at the time of the Framers. He makes a stunning remark as follows:
The Framers embodied that principle in the
Constitution, allowing the government to take property
not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use."
Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces
the Public Use Clause with a "`[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause,
ante, at 910 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving
Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a
restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as
the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational,"
ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This defer-
ential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against
all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose
stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased
tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the
Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."
I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings
are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has
erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as
JUSTICE O'CONNOR powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 12, 813. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate
liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and
therefore join her dissenting opinion.
He brings up a previous ruling from early in our Nation's history that says:
see also Marbury v. Madi-
son, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803) ("It cannot be presumed
that any clause in the constitution is intended to be with-
out effect");
By changing the meaning of "public use" to "public benifit", the Taking clause is rendered null! Everything can be defined as "public benefit" in the same way that "common Welfare" has been redifined (personal opinion).
My personal plan of action on the matter is this:
- Contact my state government officials including each individual member of my city council (Roswell, GA if interested) and let them know if they vote in favor of any such law, resolution or just try anything like New London, I will make it my personal crusade to see them never elected again. Not even as a city dog catcher.
- I will contact my Congress critters in Washington with the same message. I understand that the Federal burden is much greater than the State burden but it's still a possibility.
- I will petition my city and state government for recall laws so that if something like this happens, I don't have to WAIT for them to
I'm a strong supporter of state's rights but this is a strictly eminent domain issue even though the city tried to couch it as state's rights.
The interesting thing is the actual wording.
It says "public use". Not public good or public interest.
A road has public use. A park has a public use. If they wanted to tear down the area to build a huge city park, I wouldn't like it but it's legit.
The other issue is that the government is taking the land to pass on to a PRIVATE developer. If city were taking the land to build a road and a private developer were building the road I would STILL consider it okay. But this to build a private office park and a private condo farm.
THAT'S where my problem is with the whole thing.
Oddly enough I usually tell others this. SCOTUS judges are more often than not, unaligned to party lines. They are not accountable to the person who put them in office after they are elected. I personally argue that Supremes should be neither republican, democrat nor libertarian but those who have a history of interpreting the constitution as narrowly as possible. Those will be the ones who demand the most evidence and take the job most seriously.
Out of my parent's basement? I love how that's a nice solid comeback when people have nothing else to say.
I swear to god the day that someone tries this on my house (yes the one the bank owns for another 25 years or so) I will sit on my porch with my 12 guage and let the bulldozers run me over.
This is how people defended property rights before it was codified and we may yet have to go back to that.
I wouldn't vote Republican if my life depended on it. Nor would I vote Democrat. In the last three elections I've voted Libertarian and will continue to do so because I know the process that the candidates have to go through. I know that anyone willing to get involved with a third party has less on his mind than political power and more along the lines of making a change for the better.
The only reason I spend time in my basement is because that's where my office is.
The Courts have also ruled in the past that state's rights STOP at the point they violate the Constitution. Think about segregation.
State's can pass laws all they want but when the run afoul of the Constitution they typically get struck down.
Of course that didn't happen here today.
OF course they have.
They've expanded the definition of "public use" the same way politicians have been expanding the federal governments role for "the public welfare".
It's a crock of shit. Pure and simple.
What gets me is that the relationship of increased tax base and job creation to public use is teneous at best. A public firehouse has an immediate and demonstratable public use. A fucking walmart that will be moved 30 miles outside of the existing tax base to build a super walmart 5 months down the road does NOT. I expect a greater proof of burden since we are talking about people's homes for chrissakes. The whole thing in New London depends on EXPECTED tourist revenue and business relocation. They are HOPING that a planned Pfizer plant in the area will attract business as well.
And I don't want the SCOTUS to be in the business of judging zoning plans anymore than I want a fucking idiot deciding technical value. Since there is no safe way around the rule, I'd err on the side of the people getting moved.
I'm tempted to take my shotguns and drive up to New London and wait for the bulldozers.
I'll say to you the same thing I said to the other idiot.
You fucking idiot.
Thomas, Rehnquist, O' Connor and Scalia dissented. O'Connor wrote a fucking brilliant dissent.
You fucking idiot.
Four of the most conservative judges on the bench ruled AGAINST this trash issue.
All of the Democrats on the bench ruled in favor of it.
Don't spout off shit you don't understand as an attempt to play a little political game.
And people need to stop fucking voting republican OR democrat. Put someone who actually values personal property rights and personal liberty as a whole.
If you hadn't noticed I'm furious as hell about this ruling.
we paid a bit extra to get the release from the photographer for our pictures. We have a letter that we keep in the safe in case anyone gives us grief. Funny thing is that I could just as easily type up a fake release and take it with me.
It's just like checking signatures on the back of credit cards. It's a CYA thing for the vendor.
I bought my beast from Micronux:
http://www.micronux.com/
This model:
here
It's a good system and it came with CentOS4 for x86_64 which I gave a few days before wiping and installing x86_64 gentoo.
I've since bought an additional GB of memory to dedicate to various vmware machines for envrionment testing and some work-specific windows stuff.
The only issues I've had with an all x86_64 system has been related to codeweavers and transgaming stuff. Oh and some issues with Flash. I spend most of time browsing with a native compiled firefox version and switching to firefox-bin under multilib when I need the non-64bit plugins.
I even did my first stage one install in a LONG time (I normally do a stage 2 on installs for obvious time reasons) just to see how it would perform and even with just the 1GB of ram at the time, I was done in a couple of hours and running X. The system really does scream. FYI, PCI-Express in SLI mode is non-existant under linux right now but dual-head works fine.
Micronux is a solid company and I plan on buying again from them in the future.
Actually we have a few production gentoo boxes at our company. The majority are RHEL (with a few slackware) but our webservers, Enterprise CUPS servers, hylafax servers and samba servers are all running Gentoo.
And to answer the question, we've only had ONE problem with them. That was a libtiff upgrade that borked hylafax. Luckily we test all of our upgrades on imaged servers or dev boxes ( in the case of CUPS) before we push to production.
And in our company, the AUP says that we can and will do these things.
Flat out the machine is not yours to use as you will. As long as you're doing work on it and not fucking around, we won't care but if performance slips and there is reason to suspect that you are fucking around instead of working then we'll do what is needed to determine what you ARE doing as part of the dismisal package.
Look, I fucking HATE playing big brother. We log all traffic on our network and keep the last three months. I don't have information emailed to me and only a few trusted people have access to that system but when management comes to me and says "We have a possible liablity here. Susan says she saw Timmy looking at adult material, can you verify?" I will pull up what logs we have and if they do point to something, I turn the information over.
I have a feeling if you check that nice stack of documents you signed when you took the job, you'll see similar language to that effect.
That policy doesn't work anymore. All it takes is ONE person getting one of these nifty viruses that has your email and it's all down hill.
Example,
We had no spam to our any of our company addresses for the longest time. Then after a small virus problem on one of our area manager's laptops, we now get phishing emails and other spam non stop sent to one of our support emails. The viruses not only spam but also harvest. It takes one person to have the company inbox used as part of a spam virus and the war is over.
One of the interesting points that each book I mentioned makes is that appointees almost never tow the presidential party line.
They cite a few reasons:
1) Rule of Law and the Constitution defies party lines. Or at least it should. It's the difference between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, majority rules but in a republic, the law rules. I'm sure there are plenty of judges out there who don't and won't ever get this difference and will use SCOTUS as an attempt to make laws but they soon learn that it won't fly with SCOTUS. I get worried when I hear the Supreme Court mentioning public opinion as a basis for a ruling because it means that we inch closer to a doomed democracy.
2) SCOTUS justices are beholden to no man and they will long outlive the president who appointed them. W.H.R. cites several examples of this in his book and makes a grand point about it. He himself was appointed by Nixon and has long outlived that man's career.
I would suggest that everyone pick up a copy of Sandra Day O'Connor's book "The Majesty of the Law" as well as William H. Rehnquist's "The Supreme Court". These are some really amazing insights into the opertation of SCOTUS.
The W.H.R. book especially covers the process and how cases actually get before the court. He also covers some of the background of the cases he was involved in. Amazingly enough both books are fairly non-partisan and Rehnquist makes the point that many a president has made the mistake of thinking an appointee would be a backdoor into the Supreme Court when it has rarely turned out that way. He discusses court packing attempts as well which seems pretty relevant.
TSM does encryption as well.
Interestingly enough there was a big thread on this very subject on the ADSM mailing list.
People were making statements that a TSM backup tape was useless if you didn't have the volhist and db to go along with it. While this may be true, someone did a test and was able to dump the data raw from the tape and recover part of the data on a box with just a tape drive without TSM installed.
I'm not sure the actual specifics of TSM encryption of the top of my head (i.e. method used) but I think the companies that are going to make it big are the ones that are currently offering inline hardware encryption. Basically a hardware device that sits between the backup server and the tape library and does the encryption of the stream before it gets written to tape. This leads to other distaster recovery costs and it's yet another point of failure and complication but it's an interesting idea none the less.
I'm concerned by two things:
1) They're using a non-secure courier like UPS to ship data. Iron Mountain or better only. They specialize in this type of business.
2) Who the hell is the other company that they're sending raw unencrypted backups to? Talk about not knowing who has your data!
I predict that all of these "lost tapes" and "compromised data" are going to lead to the following:
1) Laws will be passed that make this shit a crime. I hope that the fines for this are big enough that the cost benefit of lost tapes vs. doing the fucking job right is too high to budget away.
2) Consumers will get rights to all information that any company contains about them. This means:
a) What data is kept and for how long?
b) Who has access to that data? "Business partners" or "credit agencies"?
c) Access to that data on demand within a reasonable time period.
d) Legal recourse in federal civil court for compromised data IN THE EVENT OF identity theft. Reimbursement for fees associated with validating that the data has not been used illegally (Think credit report fees, lost wages) and maintaining that process.
e) The ability to actually restrict the distribution of that data where appropriate.
Let's face it, we all want that instant credit at times. Technology has made it easy for information to move at the pace we've grown accustomed to. How amazing is it that I can take out a loan online and have a check waiting in a few days to go buy that car I wanted? Not withstanding the irresponsibility of the consumer and too much available credit of course.
I keep thinking about how this type of bullshit will lead to anarchy on the swiss banks (read Earth by David Brin) which I DON'T want. I would rather the companies step up to the plate but they seem to be showing they are unwilling to do so.
and the first thing he said is "Do we have any StorageTek equipment?"
We don't but if we did, we might consider phasing it out now. He had lunch with McNeely at some CIO luncheon a few weeks back and came back thinking the man was a total idiot. He spent all the time railing against Linux and his competitors instead of talking up things that might make us consider Sun equipment.
yeah but the problem with tape is SOX. It's currently driving us nuts. We're not a public company so SOX doesn't apply to us but we're trying our damndest to be SOX compliant.
If anything tape may actually simply level out in the end. Alot of people are moving to a model like so:
disk->virtual tape disk->tape
TSM actually has the ability built in with file dev classes. You start using virtual tape drives and the tape library itself becomes alot less of an issue. You don't need a 3584 or a 3494 full of drives. I can't count how many people post to the ADSM mailing list about how they're implementing virtual tape libraries and how excellent it's been for them.
SHIT! The first thing I did when loading the comments page was search for Eastern Standard Tribe.
I'm not sure which came first but damn I thought it was a cool idea.
NoCatAuth
http://nocat.net/
Nice captive portal and highly configurable.
The only reason Netscape is faster is because they cache the whole fucking btree in memory and operates on that. I'm not sure how often it flushes to disk though.
"Don't trust the client?"
I'm still trying to sus the AJAX thing out but it seems like a horrible idea from a security perspective. I know the js is href'd from the server but there better be some serious validation server side.
I know I wouldn't want to try and hack at this for any nefarious reason but it could be done.
Don't confuse ethics and morals and don't bother applying them to a publically traded company.
A pulbic company was one legal obligation, make money for the shareholders and do it legally. Anything else is fair game.
While that may be a smaller portion of the lobbying, you can bet your ass the bigger lobby is local liquor distributors who don't want to loose the monopoly they have in each state.
I think in Georgia there are two or maybe three distributors that control the entire state.
There's a newer post in here on this thread about a law in texas that's similar to Georgia's.