My 19 month old son loves the Wii. Unfortunately he's also 19 months old and destroys everything he touches, and being that the actual wii controllers cost an arm-and-a leg it may be worth buying if it is cheap enough just so that he feels like he's involved.
I'm curious, did Apple improve how they do threading in the finder? Finder may hang when mounting network volumes, or working with slow media, which is really quite annoying.
As another thread states, emergency calls are not affected, so it's sort of a moot point.
That being said,
Hypothetically speaking... if Apple were to turn a phone that is able to make E-911 calls into one that is not able to make E-911 calls via a software update they would be liable. That's the cost for being a phone vendor in the US. Moreover, because such reports were on the nightly news, they would have communicated intent to made a phone "entirely unusable". Regardless of what the end-user had done to the phone, it's a matter of intent at that point, and because they fully disclosed to the public their intent it would be an open and shut case.
I see you and I disagree, but we're talking about hypothetical situations, and as it's already been mentioned in a related thread that this is not the case, I don't really see that this problem has in any way affected reality. -b
The FCC thinks much differently about emergency services and telephony than they do about radio leases. You simply cannot under any circumstance prevent someone from making an emergency call, it's illegal.If (and that's a big if) someone was unable to make an emergency services call after applying this update then Apple would certainly be legally liable as they intentionally made software that would prevent prevent a user from placing an E-911 call. Furthermore they publicly stated that they made software to 'brick' phones.
Apple would still be liable regardless of whether or not the user had modified the firmware, broken their warranty, or possibly even voided some of Apple's business contracts. A company simply cannot prevent a user from making an E-911 call and then say "they made me do it"
First off I'm not a lawyer... but... A long time ago I worked in E-911, and if I recall it is not legal to utterly render a wireless phone useless all calls, as it will violate the 'emergency use only' clause that the FCC requires. Does anyone have an iBrick that can test this out?
My stupid Samsung phone eats batteries, I hate it. The replacement battery costs 40 bucks, and the "extended" battery is something like 50... and Sprint doesn't warrant it. IMHO The $80 price tag is steep -- but probably not awful if the battery lasts a long time.
I found that over the past year Intel released some funky motherboards (i.e. the i965) and installing Gentoo on them was not really easy. I rather like 2007.0 if only because the installer has a more recent kernel that has added hardware support.
When I read this I thought to myself "boy that's a good one", thinking that perhaps it was linked off to theonion or some other site, but abcnews is more or less reliable... I would however like to read the full quote, anyone?
I disagree with the metaphor, because you aren't really hanging out with "drug dealers" in this case. Instead it's more like you are crossing the street where drugs have been traded, which is sadly how many city streets are from time to time. Although perspective would have to be applied and this would probably be like some distopyan Neotokyo Gotham, but that's another argument altogether.
I'll pause for a moment and admit that yes, I'm an evangelical Christian, so here is how I view the statement:
In short, I don't agree with Gonzales' assessment because, from what I understand the constitution is a legal and historical document that is predicated upon the earlier work of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration contains the famous central truth statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This central truth statement does a number of things but here are a few bullet points: 1. Individual people and their governments are both under the authority of the Creator.
2. This creator has endowed people with "certain unalienable Rights", the use of the word certain is curious because it bolsters the central truth statement (i.e. "I'm certain that this is true") and it limits the number of rights (i.e. "I get paid on a certain day"). The latter is necessary so that we have rule of law, and not rule of might, or money, or power, or intelligence, or whatever is popular at the time.
3. Being unalienable, it is impossible for these rights to be transferred to another either willingly or unwillingly.
4. The undertone to the sentence is confidently foreboding that "if you attempt to take away these rights you are not messing with just men, but with God".
I'm curious what everyone else's take is on these events.
That's not necessarily true, the common definition of e-mail and the legal definition of e-mail may be very different, but I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know what it is.
In our postmodern touchy-feely sort of world everyone tries to condone each other in the name of perspective, but I can't do that now.
After 3 years tenure Brad Garlinghouse is calling for 15-20% layoffs for what reason? I read the memo and from what I can tell his goal is to have a streamlined company with clear vision that stands out in the market as #1. This is a fine goal to have, provided that it's realistic. (Anyone work in corporate America - hello?) Unfortunately, from what I can tell what he wants is to have bragging rights about how great it is to be #1. He basically accuses the employees of not trying hard enough when the problem is not with the employees, but leaders. It's not the bulk of employees who are supposed to have clear vision, make acquisitions, or claim 'ownership', but the leaders! This memo bleeds arrogance and condescendence directed at the employees when (I'll reiterate) the problem is a lack of leadership rather than a lack of willing workforce.
In short: Brad, don't take this out on your employees. Make it work with what you have, figure it out! If you lay off 20 percent of your company a good 5-20 percent will follow. The rest of the employees that you have will be proud or bitter - and then you will have a real problem.
The first question that comes to mind when considering Microsoft is "alright, is this a bad thing?" and in short I'm not convinced that it is. As far as a commercial product, the Linux market is pretty flat. Regardless of which distributor you choose I always see the same sort of service and support for the product. I think this is seen the most in the medium-sized enterprise, where having a fleet of specialists is less realistic and thus the business needs to hire generalists, which in turn falls-back on vendor support when they need to do something outside of their subject matter. What the distributor will almost always do in turn is provides mediocre support by deferring to a developer or community website. Which is normally unusually difficult for a non-developer or administrator to be effective with because administrators and 'operations centric' guys definitely speak a different language then developers do.
If Microsoft and Novell think they can change this, and allow for some basic Linux / Windows inter-operation, I say go for it. I doubt this will affect the kernel or base distribution so much that it's unrecognizable. Mostly because I expect Windows will have to change just as much as Linux does and so any changes will be glacial in coming, if they actually come at all. I would liken this to POSIX which, although it was standards oriented - it had a similarly expressed goal. At least from what I can tell, didn't change VMS or Windows NT all that much.
You're right. I've noticed that a lot of time opens source software that sells enterprise level support ends up costing more because the software vendor prefers the direct model to VAR model. Almost everything in the enterprise is actually done through a var, very rarely do you directly engage the vendor. Additionally the volume done by open source enterprises tends to be lower than normal, so the cost is doubly high. Novell actually does it's licensing through a VAR, and SLES 10 easily costs more than Windows 2003 Enterprise in this model.
I think this sort of stuff is great because the old practical advice of "getting an extra set of eyes" holds true, especially in technology. The tone of the report is professional instead of condesending, as so often I've seen on mailing lists when someone 'reviews' another's code. I imagine that this report will be well received by the Mozilla community at large. Even though the types of errors referenced in the report are common, it is still a great example of free software / open source philosophy working.
We switched to ldap authentication on our UNIX systems about a year ago, and basically it rocks. Providing single-sign-on between all of your device of varying operating systems and utility (i.e. servers, routers, switches, terminal/console servers, a lot of applications, and even kvm's) is great when you have a multi-teared support organization, and even if you don't you can still save yourself a lot of useradd / usermod/userdel commands if you centralize.
Why does it rock so much? LDAP seems unique that, unlike almost every other authentication method under the sun (NIS, NIS+ radius) it can be used on a number of devices. Additionally LDAP tends to be a great back-end for other authentication protocols (i.e. radius) can use an LDAP backend.
Practically speaking, often times all someone needs to do is have read access to a device to find out if an interface is up but many system admins give up if they don't have the ability to centralize and allow the company to become altogether too dependent on them. LDAP basically gets rid of this hassle and the administration is minimal. This means that the system admin gets paged less and more people can get work done with better efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
My 19 month old son loves the Wii. Unfortunately he's also 19 months old and destroys everything he touches, and being that the actual wii controllers cost an arm-and-a leg it may be worth buying if it is cheap enough just so that he feels like he's involved.
I'm curious, did Apple improve how they do threading in the finder? Finder may hang when mounting network volumes, or working with slow media, which is really quite annoying.
It was on ABC Nightly news "Apple confirms" was the verbiage, it's probably not a direct quote, but the intent was made known.
As another thread states, emergency calls are not affected, so it's sort of a moot point.
That being said,
Hypothetically speaking... if Apple were to turn a phone that is able to make E-911 calls into one that is not able to make E-911 calls via a software update they would be liable. That's the cost for being a phone vendor in the US. Moreover, because such reports were on the nightly news, they would have communicated intent to made a phone "entirely unusable". Regardless of what the end-user had done to the phone, it's a matter of intent at that point, and because they fully disclosed to the public their intent it would be an open and shut case.
I see you and I disagree, but we're talking about hypothetical situations, and as it's already been mentioned in a related thread that this is not the case, I don't really see that this problem has in any way affected reality.
-b
good info, that really addresses my concern. Thanks!
-b
The FCC thinks much differently about emergency services and telephony than they do about radio leases. You simply cannot under any circumstance prevent someone from making an emergency call, it's illegal.If (and that's a big if) someone was unable to make an emergency services call after applying this update then Apple would certainly be legally liable as they intentionally made software that would prevent prevent a user from placing an E-911 call. Furthermore they publicly stated that they made software to 'brick' phones.
Apple would still be liable regardless of whether or not the user had modified the firmware, broken their warranty, or possibly even voided some of Apple's business contracts. A company simply cannot prevent a user from making an E-911 call and then say "they made me do it"
First off I'm not a lawyer ... but ... A long time ago I worked in E-911, and if I recall it is not legal to utterly render a wireless phone useless all calls, as it will violate the 'emergency use only' clause that the FCC requires. Does anyone have an iBrick that can test this out?
-b
My stupid Samsung phone eats batteries, I hate it. The replacement battery costs 40 bucks, and the "extended" battery is something like 50... and Sprint doesn't warrant it. IMHO The $80 price tag is steep -- but probably not awful if the battery lasts a long time.
I'm not being a critic, I'm offering information.
I found that over the past year Intel released some funky motherboards (i.e. the i965) and installing Gentoo on them was not really easy. I rather like 2007.0 if only because the installer has a more recent kernel that has added hardware support.
This study was done by someone in marketing.
This is a disgrace, child porn is no more free speech than murder.
When I read this I thought to myself "boy that's a good one", thinking that perhaps it was linked off to theonion or some other site, but abcnews is more or less reliable... I would however like to read the full quote, anyone?
I disagree with the metaphor, because you aren't really hanging out with "drug dealers" in this case. Instead it's more like you are crossing the street where drugs have been traded, which is sadly how many city streets are from time to time. Although perspective would have to be applied and this would probably be like some distopyan Neotokyo Gotham, but that's another argument altogether.
Good synopsis! Thanks for the input.
-Brian
Outside of rebellion, I'm afraid that I can't think of a single instance when a right would be granted without an authority authority giving it.
I'll pause for a moment and admit that yes, I'm an evangelical Christian, so here is how I view the statement:
In short, I don't agree with Gonzales' assessment because, from what I understand the constitution is a legal and historical document that is predicated upon the earlier work of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration contains the famous central truth statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This central truth statement does a number of things but here are a few bullet points:
1. Individual people and their governments are both under the authority of the Creator.
2. This creator has endowed people with "certain unalienable Rights", the use of the word certain is curious because it bolsters the central truth statement (i.e. "I'm certain that this is true") and it limits the number of rights (i.e. "I get paid on a certain day"). The latter is necessary so that we have rule of law, and not rule of might, or money, or power, or intelligence, or whatever is popular at the time.
3. Being unalienable, it is impossible for these rights to be transferred to another either willingly or unwillingly.
4. The undertone to the sentence is confidently foreboding that "if you attempt to take away these rights you are not messing with just men, but with God".
I'm curious what everyone else's take is on these events.
does anyone have a mirror of the newpaper handy?
That's not necessarily true, the common definition of e-mail and the legal definition of e-mail may be very different, but I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know what it is.
The judge ruled in the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law - fine by me. Pedophiles are not a protected class.
In our postmodern touchy-feely sort of world everyone tries to condone each other in the name of perspective, but I can't do that now.
After 3 years tenure Brad Garlinghouse is calling for 15-20% layoffs for what reason? I read the memo and from what I can tell his goal is to have a streamlined company with clear vision that stands out in the market as #1. This is a fine goal to have, provided that it's realistic. (Anyone work in corporate America - hello?) Unfortunately, from what I can tell what he wants is to have bragging rights about how great it is to be #1. He basically accuses the employees of not trying hard enough when the problem is not with the employees, but leaders. It's not the bulk of employees who are supposed to have clear vision, make acquisitions, or claim 'ownership', but the leaders! This memo bleeds arrogance and condescendence directed at the employees when (I'll reiterate) the problem is a lack of leadership rather than a lack of willing workforce.
In short: Brad, don't take this out on your employees. Make it work with what you have, figure it out! If you lay off 20 percent of your company a good 5-20 percent will follow. The rest of the employees that you have will be proud or bitter - and then you will have a real problem.
The first question that comes to mind when considering Microsoft is "alright, is this a bad thing?" and in short I'm not convinced that it is. As far as a commercial product, the Linux market is pretty flat. Regardless of which distributor you choose I always see the same sort of service and support for the product. I think this is seen the most in the medium-sized enterprise, where having a fleet of specialists is less realistic and thus the business needs to hire generalists, which in turn falls-back on vendor support when they need to do something outside of their subject matter. What the distributor will almost always do in turn is provides mediocre support by deferring to a developer or community website. Which is normally unusually difficult for a non-developer or administrator to be effective with because administrators and 'operations centric' guys definitely speak a different language then developers do.
If Microsoft and Novell think they can change this, and allow for some basic Linux / Windows inter-operation, I say go for it. I doubt this will affect the kernel or base distribution so much that it's unrecognizable. Mostly because I expect Windows will have to change just as much as Linux does and so any changes will be glacial in coming, if they actually come at all. I would liken this to POSIX which, although it was standards oriented - it had a similarly expressed goal. At least from what I can tell, didn't change VMS or Windows NT all that much.
At any rate... just my 2 cents worth.
You're right. I've noticed that a lot of time opens source software that sells enterprise level support ends up costing more because the software vendor prefers the direct model to VAR model. Almost everything in the enterprise is actually done through a var, very rarely do you directly engage the vendor. Additionally the volume done by open source enterprises tends to be lower than normal, so the cost is doubly high. Novell actually does it's licensing through a VAR, and SLES 10 easily costs more than Windows 2003 Enterprise in this model.
I think this sort of stuff is great because the old practical advice of "getting an extra set of eyes" holds true, especially in technology. The tone of the report is professional instead of condesending, as so often I've seen on mailing lists when someone 'reviews' another's code. I imagine that this report will be well received by the Mozilla community at large. Even though the types of errors referenced in the report are common, it is still a great example of free software / open source philosophy working.
We switched to ldap authentication on our UNIX systems about a year ago, and basically it rocks. Providing single-sign-on between all of your device of varying operating systems and utility (i.e. servers, routers, switches, terminal/console servers, a lot of applications, and even kvm's) is great when you have a multi-teared support organization, and even if you don't you can still save yourself a lot of useradd / usermod /userdel commands if you centralize.
Why does it rock so much? LDAP seems unique that, unlike almost every other authentication method under the sun (NIS, NIS+ radius) it can be used on a number of devices. Additionally LDAP tends to be a great back-end for other authentication protocols (i.e. radius) can use an LDAP backend.
Practically speaking, often times all someone needs to do is have read access to a device to find out if an interface is up but many system admins give up if they don't have the ability to centralize and allow the company to become altogether too dependent on them. LDAP basically gets rid of this hassle and the administration is minimal. This means that the system admin gets paged less and more people can get work done with better efficiency.