Even if you run your own DNS servers, it's easy for an ISP to force you to go through theirs.
It's possible, but not as easy as you imply. Simply rewriting the packet destination doesn't work, because the client won't accept the reply -- in fact, more heavy lifting than changing outgoing packets is required to accomplish that.
On Linux it only takes a couple of iptables rules to redirect all traffic to destination port 53, TCP as well as UDP, to a specific IP address.
This is a firewall type processing; which requires retaining stateful information. This is easy to implement in software, but you will not in general find software in the forwarding path at an ISP; you will find hardware. Doing what you imply requires policy based routing, rewriting of packet next hop, and then additional components, which are expensive, and furthermore, there is a problem in that DNS failover is broken in case of a DNS server issue.
But the statefulness issue is the biggest problem; as state tables are expensive, and ISP customers will literally have hundreds of thousands of outgoing DNS requests, and IPtables has very limited possible connection tracking table capacity, before it becomes horribly unreliable.
It's the same trick used to force all HTTP traffic through a proxy, or block outbound SMTP except through the ISP's servers.
ISPs won't in general be using iptables to redirect HTTP traffic anywhere.
Because Linux certainly won't be a distribution or border router at an ISP.
The typical ISP distribution router doesn't even have sufficient resources or capabilities to perform NAT, let-alone port diversion and response rewriting.
Outbound SMTP will generally be blocked by an input ACL on the distribution router.
That long in advance does seem a little odd, because tacking ONE on the end of stuff only became popular
recently
I guarantee XBOXONE, XBOXTWO, XBOXTHREE, XBOXFOUR, etc; have been registered for years.
So have things like HURRICANE[Every Name in the English Language].COM;
as well as probably SUPERBOWL[every year number from 0 to who knows how high].COM
Basically, anything constructible you can imagine using just common names, or anticipated names and numbers has practically been registered.
It's probably a huge waste of money... a big company starting to unexpectedly use one of those names should be a windfall, in terms of advertising dollars collected (probably money going to GoDaddy in this case); however, eventually bound to result in a dispute.
Why not? Why can't I use my domain primarily as a nameserver, a mail exchanger or simply to connect to the machine it resolves to for any other activity than Web?
You are perfectly free to do so.
It's just tough noodles for you, if you also stand up a web site on that domain containing only advertising, and a trademark owner comes by claiming bad faith use; if the trademark is a famous mark and your domain is close.
I'm not saying that's fair: i'm just saying that's what the rules are.
If MS can demonstrate what the UDRP panel interprets as "bad faith registration" or "bad faith use", and the domain resembles their mark, then MS wins the dispute.
While there is a list of things that definitely constitute bad faith use.
In the past the panels have interpreted these fairly broadly.
Displaying a "domain parking page" at the base URL of the domain, may be taken as evidence that a bad faith use of the domain exists.
That's all MS needs to win; they don't need to prove that there were no uses of the domain (besides the use that was deemed to be in bad faith)
It doesn't matter whether there is other use of the domain or not.
Microsoft will be able to show this as bad faith use of the domain.
Even if there are other uses of the domain that weren't in bad faith -- if bad faith use can be proven, then MS wins.
Creating http://example.com/ as a page with just ADs has been taken by UDRP panels as evidence of bad-faith use, which is enough to grant the UDRP dispute claim to Microsoft.
That happened with mike rowe and only provoked a lawsuit from microsoft alleging bad faith scalping.
Making such as a standing offer is sure to be seen as bad faith.
Whereas putting the domain into an "open ended" arrangement, where buyers may make offers, and there is a minimum offer amount for automatic acceptance, may have better results for the squatter.
a) Creates a precedent - much better to encourage people to think there's no money in domain squatting against MS
It's a known fact that there IS money in domain squatting.
There is no new precedent to make.
The only doubt is if there is money in unsophisticated cybersquatting; where the squatter has not leveraged experts in the rules and law, UDRP processes, and lawyers, in order to assist them in structuring their squatting operation to be protected against a successful dispute.
But for it to be done effectively; the squatter has to execute it very carefully, in order to protect themselves against the UDRP rules.
For example, they may very well have to use a domain holding company, and "sell" the domain to their domain holding company at a high price capitalized into a debt.
Then they can offer to sell the domain for $10,000, in an auction setting; and successfully defend against any allegation of bad faith "Because I paid that much for the domain, and i don't want to lose all this money"
Trademark claims can be defeated, as well by owning a trademark in another industry, having a product, or other use of the domains, that excludes them from an easy take under UDRP rules.
In fact, surviving a UDRP dispute may add further value to the sophisticated squatter/speculator's domain, enabling them to auction at an even higher price.
Be careful, though. Part of what you see for a given domain name depends on your ISP.
Not at all. The contents of a DNS response are dependant upon the response from the authoritative DNS servers, and I run my own recursive DNS servers, so I can be sure there is no funny business going on from my ISP.
I'll grant you that COX users might see something different, but it's not supposed to; and it's just that COX has broken their DNS servers, probably by inserting a Paxfire/Xerocole/Glog or Infoblox unit in between their DNS servers and the router that tampers with DNS responses from the cox DNS servers, before the users see the answer.
You mean they don't have an active website. That doesn't mean the domain name isn't being used for anything. It has A and MX records.
Even if they have other hidden uses; under the anti cybersquatting rules, they will most likely lose the dispute BECAUSE of the website with just ads on it; which is treated similarly as making an offer to sell the domain for more than they paid.
The web page with only ads is likely to result in Microsoft winning the UDRP dispute.
If there was no web page with only ads, but active A records and NS records, the domain holder could have been better off -- they could be able to show legitimate use, and there would be nothing that the rules have deemed prima facie evidence of cybersquatting
considering it costs $1400 USD to file complaint, its more likely the cheapest option
They could have offered to buy the domain from the current owner for $1000, and saved 20% off the cost of the complaint fee,
and avoided the costs that will be incurred for the legal representation altogether.
Except the only content of XboxOne.com is advertising; as in domain parking, apparently.
That will give Microsoft a pretty clear victory, due to the special rules regarding cybersquatting about domains only being used to serve ads and not content.
Things would have been harder for Microsoft, if the domain was both in active use and used to serve content of commercial value, and for one reason or another was not a violation of trademark (E.g. legitimate parodies, companies in other markets businesses the field of industry their mark was granted for, etc).
OP: You can do what you want with a simple install of ubuntu and 20 minutes worth of bash to get a prototype together.
Prototypes are easy; there are a lot of problems you don't have to worry about like bad neighbors on a VM host, or proper failover and reliability considerations.
The author said secure and manageable.
It's hard to imagine something as less manageable than "You have to write your own code" just to even get a working prototype.
And it's hard to imagine something less secure from an availability perspective than... "I just cobbled together some ad-hoc failover code in bash"
Virtualization will not isolate them against each other. For example, it is quite easy to saturate I/O from the playground.
That is an architecture issue. Implement Vsphere Enterprise+ with Network I/O control, Storage I/O control.
Put the playground on different SAN LUNs from the production LUNs.
Place the playground LUNs backed by different physical disks on separate vFilers, and/or use
FlexShare to prioritize production workloads.
Leverage vShield App / vCloud networking and security, to ensure IT playgrounds don't have internet access, or the ability to export data or be used as a covert channel to escape the network; that they run on a separate vSwitch.
If you're really paranoid, use direct-mapped crypto hardware or CPU affinities to defend against academic timing attacks (at the cost of scalability and system performance)
VMware - best in class but can be hideously expensive if you start using vsphere, but support is great
I get the idea you have some issue with VMware's pricing?
Of course their per-2 CPU up front software license costs for vSphere Enterprise Plus at $6,990, and probably closer to $8k per host after SnS are higher than the cost of paying $2500 for a basic XenEnterprise license, or nothing for Hyper-V.
The Hyper-V solution is more appropriate for running a very large number of cheap servers with local storage, where VMware features VMware has a big lead over the competition such as DRS load balancing workloads, NIOC / SIOC, memory overcommitment, and many other enhancements don't provide value.
The vSphere solution is more appropriate for running very large expensive servers in many cases, where you need to get as much value out of the hardware purchase as possible.
There is also a risk component; and you could say the vSphere solutions in some cases are well more understood, so certain risk components are lower.
Which goes back to the fact, that there is no such thing as a good return.... just different risk / return choices for different kinds of companies working on different kinds of projects.
If vSphere lets you get 150 equal-sized VMs loaded onto a server, where Hyper-V could have only gotten you 100 of those, then by definition, vSphere has provided you an incremental benefit of 33% additional capacity per server.
That is, you could take the price of your physical server, say $50,000 server, and say that above and beyond what Hyper-V does, the hypervisors overcommit features saved you $16,500 in hardware cost, and approximately $1500 a year in annual electricity consumption (heat generation, administration, and operationg costs).
If it cost you $8000 in additional licensing costs over free Hyper-V; Who cares? VMware vSphere is still the better choice in that scenario.
This is the key: Management of hosts matters, Overcommitment enablement features and contention management features, and performance advantages/overhead differences matter at scale.
Stop considering license prices, and start considering Total cost of ownership
In many cases Hyper-V won't be sensible. In other cases of different details, Hyper-V or XenServer may be clear winners:)
There may be other considerations as well --- like interoperability between clouds, that may favor one or the other.
Also, vSphere Enterprise Plus is not the only license level; Standard and Essentials+ are perfectly viable solutions in some cases, and comparing them to Hyper-V plus Systemcenter the TCO advantages is not defined to lie with one vendor or the other.
I would point the best of breed solution for Tier1 production use, and getting the most out of your hardware: VMware vSphere vCloud Suite.
With other hypervisors, you get less hardware efficiency, because limited/less good overcommit options, more limited ability to efficiently mediate
contention, and greater overheads.
Products:
Virtualization hosts: VMware vSphere ESXi Enterprise Plus with Distributed vSwitch -- provides you options that you can use to run production and IT playground side-by-side
VMware vCenter Server (Your infrastructure management)
VMware vCloud Networking and Security -- provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks using VXLAN
VMware vCloud Director (To provide users their management interface to their "Virtual datacenters" inside your environment)
VMware vCenter Orchestrator -- to automate the process of configuring these users
For monitoring; I would look to VKernel's solution, because VMware's operations management framework is fairly immature and requires huge amounts of RAM and other costs last I checked.
For backup; I would look very favorably towards SAN replication solutions; specifically NetApp SnapMirror + SnapRestore + SnapManager.
Storage VMs using a storage solution that provides the required levels of backup for each workload.
Fallbacks being solutions like Dell AppAssure, Veeam Backup, unitrends, for lower Tiers especially like IT playgrounds.
For service management automation/ticketing and physical hardware level management, I would look a BMC's solutions or MS Systemcenter Service manager and Systemcenter Orchestrator.
I find myself in the unusual predicament of strongly preferring VMware's Hypervisor, but Microsoft's management solutions, especially for ITSM, because it seems like VMware does extremely well with virtualization, but not very well managing other layers; they have the whole "VMware Service Manager" offering,
but it will probably whither and die.
It's not what they did; it's what the person talking to them was allegedly doing. The Executive branch was investigating a leak from one of its own, and Fox News was on the receiving end of the information, apparently, so by wiretapping Fox News' communications, they were hoping to find the source of the leak.
This is exactly the kind of activity that is supposed to be prohibited by the 1st amendment;
attempting to force the press (covertly or not) to reveal the identity of their sources.
Actually, this is pretty serious. Most of the people who were infected became critically ill and the method of death was due to sepsis, respiratory distress, or organ failure
It is only a cause of concern -- it means that the pathogen has high virulence; it likely kills quickly, which may be resulting in the virus not spreading efficiently. There are plenty of viruses that have high virulence and kill all their victims but aren't a threat -- just a very high impact threat to the small number of people affected.
There are plenty of flu strains that emerged and had this kind of characteristic of high virulence and high proportion of deaths in the cases that do occur, but did not take a hold, or become epidemics.
The virus may take on mutations that cause it to spread more efficiently.
Virulence may decrease in the mutations, resulting in competition --- the virus will likely evolve to a form that will spread to more hosts; to do so efficiently, the host should be infectious for as long as possible (without dying).
To be a serious threat, the pathogen has to be moderately virulent (virulent enough to eventually cause deaths) AND contagious.
In other words, it has to spread efficiently, and spread before it kills, to become a pandemic.
See:
the researchers conclude that airborne H7N9 transmission is inefficient.
But the experiment was not designed to quantify the efficiency of airborne transmission and ferrets aren’t perfect representations of people, so it may be difficult to gauge a person’s risk of catching H7N9 through airborne droplets
So when all is said and done the technological solution will benefit the customer and the cab company but not the worker.
It seems like it will benefit the workers as a whole -- more fares, at the expense of the above-average workers; they will have a lot of skill and experience developed that is no longer provides any value. In other words... it will achieve "fairness" among all workers, regardless of how many years they have been working, and "unfairness" in the sense, that having worked for so many years and learned to work the system by providing dispatchers kickbacks will no longer result in greater profit for the worker.
As robotics take this all to the next logical step there will be a point where very few owners are able to have huge businesses with almost zero workers.
I don't see that happening at this point.
Society needs to be restructured so as to make sure that inequality doesn't get out of control.
It seems that technology causes equality, not inequality.
It eventually results in skill and experience being devalued.
Managers, including accountants, CFOs, and CEOs are not immune to this either.
I didn't know that. You're saying that my copyright could be revoked by statute immediately?
Yes. All they would have to do is pass a law stating that anyone may copy, redistribute, modify, republish, and perform "such and such work"; notwithstanding the copyright law.
The government can't take property (including intellectual property) pursuant to the TAKINGS clause of the US Constitution without paying just compensation.
The "intellectual property" is a government grant, not a contract.
Someone's patent or copyright can be nullified or revoked; if the right law is passed, and the executive takes the right action.
We'll do that once we adopt the Spastic System. Sign the petition now.
As long as you write 1.94E-3 km/s plus or minus a standard deviation [Sigma], in regards to
the distribution of speeds people actually travel down the road away from the mean, or plus or minus 10x the expected measurement error.
Soon motherboards will be just wiring for the I/O and CPU
And despite that, there is no price decrease to be seen in motherboards... if anything, they are getting more expensive, despite having less silicon and intelligence on them <G>
But only what you listed as the 0th law is credible and broadly accepted, as a fundamental rule. There is great doubt as to under what conditions those other 'laws' can or will continue to hold.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you run your own DNS servers, it's easy for an ISP to force you to go through theirs.
It's possible, but not as easy as you imply. Simply rewriting the packet destination doesn't work, because the client won't accept the reply -- in fact, more heavy lifting than changing outgoing packets is required to accomplish that.
On Linux it only takes a couple of iptables rules to redirect all traffic to destination port 53, TCP as well as UDP, to a specific IP address.
This is a firewall type processing; which requires retaining stateful information. This is easy to implement in software, but you will not in general find software in the forwarding path at an ISP; you will find hardware. Doing what you imply requires policy based routing, rewriting of packet next hop, and then additional components, which are expensive, and furthermore, there is a problem in that DNS failover is broken in case of a DNS server issue.
But the statefulness issue is the biggest problem; as state tables are expensive, and ISP customers will literally have hundreds of thousands of outgoing DNS requests, and IPtables has very limited possible connection tracking table capacity, before it becomes horribly unreliable.
It's the same trick used to force all HTTP traffic through a proxy, or block outbound SMTP except through the ISP's servers.
ISPs won't in general be using iptables to redirect HTTP traffic anywhere. Because Linux certainly won't be a distribution or border router at an ISP.
The typical ISP distribution router doesn't even have sufficient resources or capabilities to perform NAT, let-alone port diversion and response rewriting.
Outbound SMTP will generally be blocked by an input ACL on the distribution router.
That long in advance does seem a little odd, because tacking ONE on the end of stuff only became popular recently
I guarantee XBOXONE, XBOXTWO, XBOXTHREE, XBOXFOUR, etc; have been registered for years.
So have things like HURRICANE[Every Name in the English Language].COM; as well as probably SUPERBOWL[every year number from 0 to who knows how high].COM
Basically, anything constructible you can imagine using just common names, or anticipated names and numbers has practically been registered.
It's probably a huge waste of money... a big company starting to unexpectedly use one of those names should be a windfall, in terms of advertising dollars collected (probably money going to GoDaddy in this case); however, eventually bound to result in a dispute.
Why not? Why can't I use my domain primarily as a nameserver, a mail exchanger or simply to connect to the machine it resolves to for any other activity than Web?
You are perfectly free to do so.
It's just tough noodles for you, if you also stand up a web site on that domain containing only advertising, and a trademark owner comes by claiming bad faith use; if the trademark is a famous mark and your domain is close.
I'm not saying that's fair: i'm just saying that's what the rules are.
If MS can demonstrate what the UDRP panel interprets as "bad faith registration" or "bad faith use", and the domain resembles their mark, then MS wins the dispute.
While there is a list of things that definitely constitute bad faith use. In the past the panels have interpreted these fairly broadly.
Displaying a "domain parking page" at the base URL of the domain, may be taken as evidence that a bad faith use of the domain exists.
That's all MS needs to win; they don't need to prove that there were no uses of the domain (besides the use that was deemed to be in bad faith)
It doesn't matter whether there is other use of the domain or not. Microsoft will be able to show this as bad faith use of the domain. Even if there are other uses of the domain that weren't in bad faith -- if bad faith use can be proven, then MS wins. Creating http://example.com/ as a page with just ADs has been taken by UDRP panels as evidence of bad-faith use, which is enough to grant the UDRP dispute claim to Microsoft.
That happened with mike rowe and only provoked a lawsuit from microsoft alleging bad faith scalping.
Making such as a standing offer is sure to be seen as bad faith. Whereas putting the domain into an "open ended" arrangement, where buyers may make offers, and there is a minimum offer amount for automatic acceptance, may have better results for the squatter.
a) Creates a precedent - much better to encourage people to think there's no money in domain squatting against MS
It's a known fact that there IS money in domain squatting. There is no new precedent to make. The only doubt is if there is money in unsophisticated cybersquatting; where the squatter has not leveraged experts in the rules and law, UDRP processes, and lawyers, in order to assist them in structuring their squatting operation to be protected against a successful dispute.
But for it to be done effectively; the squatter has to execute it very carefully, in order to protect themselves against the UDRP rules.
For example, they may very well have to use a domain holding company, and "sell" the domain to their domain holding company at a high price capitalized into a debt.
Then they can offer to sell the domain for $10,000, in an auction setting; and successfully defend against any allegation of bad faith "Because I paid that much for the domain, and i don't want to lose all this money"
Trademark claims can be defeated, as well by owning a trademark in another industry, having a product, or other use of the domains, that excludes them from an easy take under UDRP rules.
In fact, surviving a UDRP dispute may add further value to the sophisticated squatter/speculator's domain, enabling them to auction at an even higher price.
Be careful, though. Part of what you see for a given domain name depends on your ISP.
Not at all. The contents of a DNS response are dependant upon the response from the authoritative DNS servers, and I run my own recursive DNS servers, so I can be sure there is no funny business going on from my ISP.
I'll grant you that COX users might see something different, but it's not supposed to; and it's just that COX has broken their DNS servers, probably by inserting a Paxfire/Xerocole/Glog or Infoblox unit in between their DNS servers and the router that tampers with DNS responses from the cox DNS servers, before the users see the answer.
You mean they don't have an active website. That doesn't mean the domain name isn't being used for anything. It has A and MX records.
Even if they have other hidden uses; under the anti cybersquatting rules, they will most likely lose the dispute BECAUSE of the website with just ads on it; which is treated similarly as making an offer to sell the domain for more than they paid.
The web page with only ads is likely to result in Microsoft winning the UDRP dispute.
If there was no web page with only ads, but active A records and NS records, the domain holder could have been better off -- they could be able to show legitimate use, and there would be nothing that the rules have deemed prima facie evidence of cybersquatting
considering it costs $1400 USD to file complaint, its more likely the cheapest option
They could have offered to buy the domain from the current owner for $1000, and saved 20% off the cost of the complaint fee, and avoided the costs that will be incurred for the legal representation altogether.
Except the only content of XboxOne.com is advertising; as in domain parking, apparently.
That will give Microsoft a pretty clear victory, due to the special rules regarding cybersquatting about domains only being used to serve ads and not content.
Things would have been harder for Microsoft, if the domain was both in active use and used to serve content of commercial value, and for one reason or another was not a violation of trademark (E.g. legitimate parodies, companies in other markets businesses the field of industry their mark was granted for, etc).
Nixon resigned though :)
OP: You can do what you want with a simple install of ubuntu and 20 minutes worth of bash to get a prototype together.
Prototypes are easy; there are a lot of problems you don't have to worry about like bad neighbors on a VM host, or proper failover and reliability considerations.
The author said secure and manageable.
It's hard to imagine something as less manageable than "You have to write your own code" just to even get a working prototype.
And it's hard to imagine something less secure from an availability perspective than... "I just cobbled together some ad-hoc failover code in bash"
Virtualization will not isolate them against each other. For example, it is quite easy to saturate I/O from the playground.
That is an architecture issue. Implement Vsphere Enterprise+ with Network I/O control, Storage I/O control.
Put the playground on different SAN LUNs from the production LUNs.
Place the playground LUNs backed by different physical disks on separate vFilers, and/or use FlexShare to prioritize production workloads.
Leverage vShield App / vCloud networking and security, to ensure IT playgrounds don't have internet access, or the ability to export data or be used as a covert channel to escape the network; that they run on a separate vSwitch.
If you're really paranoid, use direct-mapped crypto hardware or CPU affinities to defend against academic timing attacks (at the cost of scalability and system performance)
VMware - best in class but can be hideously expensive if you start using vsphere, but support is great
I get the idea you have some issue with VMware's pricing?
Of course their per-2 CPU up front software license costs for vSphere Enterprise Plus at $6,990, and probably closer to $8k per host after SnS are higher than the cost of paying $2500 for a basic XenEnterprise license, or nothing for Hyper-V.
The Hyper-V solution is more appropriate for running a very large number of cheap servers with local storage, where VMware features VMware has a big lead over the competition such as DRS load balancing workloads, NIOC / SIOC, memory overcommitment, and many other enhancements don't provide value.
The vSphere solution is more appropriate for running very large expensive servers in many cases, where you need to get as much value out of the hardware purchase as possible.
There is also a risk component; and you could say the vSphere solutions in some cases are well more understood, so certain risk components are lower. Which goes back to the fact, that there is no such thing as a good return.... just different risk / return choices for different kinds of companies working on different kinds of projects.
If vSphere lets you get 150 equal-sized VMs loaded onto a server, where Hyper-V could have only gotten you 100 of those, then by definition, vSphere has provided you an incremental benefit of 33% additional capacity per server.
That is, you could take the price of your physical server, say $50,000 server, and say that above and beyond what Hyper-V does, the hypervisors overcommit features saved you $16,500 in hardware cost, and approximately $1500 a year in annual electricity consumption (heat generation, administration, and operationg costs).
If it cost you $8000 in additional licensing costs over free Hyper-V; Who cares? VMware vSphere is still the better choice in that scenario.
This is the key: Management of hosts matters, Overcommitment enablement features and contention management features, and performance advantages/overhead differences matter at scale.
Stop considering license prices, and start considering Total cost of ownership
In many cases Hyper-V won't be sensible. In other cases of different details, Hyper-V or XenServer may be clear winners :)
There may be other considerations as well --- like interoperability between clouds, that may favor one or the other.
Also, vSphere Enterprise Plus is not the only license level; Standard and Essentials+ are perfectly viable solutions in some cases, and comparing them to Hyper-V plus Systemcenter the TCO advantages is not defined to lie with one vendor or the other.
I would point the best of breed solution for Tier1 production use, and getting the most out of your hardware: VMware vSphere vCloud Suite.
With other hypervisors, you get less hardware efficiency, because limited/less good overcommit options, more limited ability to efficiently mediate contention, and greater overheads.
Products:
Virtualization hosts: VMware vSphere ESXi Enterprise Plus with Distributed vSwitch -- provides you options that you can use to run production and IT playground side-by-side
VMware vCenter Server (Your infrastructure management)
VMware vCloud Networking and Security -- provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks using VXLAN
VMware vCloud Director (To provide users their management interface to their "Virtual datacenters" inside your environment)
VMware vCenter Orchestrator -- to automate the process of configuring these users
For monitoring; I would look to VKernel's solution, because VMware's operations management framework is fairly immature and requires huge amounts of RAM and other costs last I checked.
For backup; I would look very favorably towards SAN replication solutions; specifically NetApp SnapMirror + SnapRestore + SnapManager. Storage VMs using a storage solution that provides the required levels of backup for each workload.
Fallbacks being solutions like Dell AppAssure, Veeam Backup, unitrends, for lower Tiers especially like IT playgrounds.
For service management automation/ticketing and physical hardware level management, I would look a BMC's solutions or MS Systemcenter Service manager and Systemcenter Orchestrator.
I find myself in the unusual predicament of strongly preferring VMware's Hypervisor, but Microsoft's management solutions, especially for ITSM, because it seems like VMware does extremely well with virtualization, but not very well managing other layers; they have the whole "VMware Service Manager" offering, but it will probably whither and die.
It's not what they did; it's what the person talking to them was allegedly doing. The Executive branch was investigating a leak from one of its own, and Fox News was on the receiving end of the information, apparently, so by wiretapping Fox News' communications, they were hoping to find the source of the leak.
This is exactly the kind of activity that is supposed to be prohibited by the 1st amendment; attempting to force the press (covertly or not) to reveal the identity of their sources.
Actually, this is pretty serious. Most of the people who were infected became critically ill and the method of death was due to sepsis, respiratory distress, or organ failure
It is only a cause of concern -- it means that the pathogen has high virulence; it likely kills quickly, which may be resulting in the virus not spreading efficiently. There are plenty of viruses that have high virulence and kill all their victims but aren't a threat -- just a very high impact threat to the small number of people affected.
There are plenty of flu strains that emerged and had this kind of characteristic of high virulence and high proportion of deaths in the cases that do occur, but did not take a hold, or become epidemics.
The virus may take on mutations that cause it to spread more efficiently. Virulence may decrease in the mutations, resulting in competition --- the virus will likely evolve to a form that will spread to more hosts; to do so efficiently, the host should be infectious for as long as possible (without dying).
To be a serious threat, the pathogen has to be moderately virulent (virulent enough to eventually cause deaths) AND contagious. In other words, it has to spread efficiently, and spread before it kills, to become a pandemic.
See:
So when all is said and done the technological solution will benefit the customer and the cab company but not the worker.
It seems like it will benefit the workers as a whole -- more fares, at the expense of the above-average workers; they will have a lot of skill and experience developed that is no longer provides any value. In other words... it will achieve "fairness" among all workers, regardless of how many years they have been working, and "unfairness" in the sense, that having worked for so many years and learned to work the system by providing dispatchers kickbacks will no longer result in greater profit for the worker.
As robotics take this all to the next logical step there will be a point where very few owners are able to have huge businesses with almost zero workers.
I don't see that happening at this point.
Society needs to be restructured so as to make sure that inequality doesn't get out of control.
It seems that technology causes equality, not inequality.
It eventually results in skill and experience being devalued.
Managers, including accountants, CFOs, and CEOs are not immune to this either.
I didn't know that. You're saying that my copyright could be revoked by statute immediately?
Yes. All they would have to do is pass a law stating that anyone may copy, redistribute, modify, republish, and perform "such and such work"; notwithstanding the copyright law.
The government can't take property (including intellectual property) pursuant to the TAKINGS clause of the US Constitution without paying just compensation.
The "intellectual property" is a government grant, not a contract. Someone's patent or copyright can be nullified or revoked; if the right law is passed, and the executive takes the right action.
km/ks is the same as m/s
Err.... how about km/ms or seconds per kilometer :)
We'll do that once we adopt the Spastic System. Sign the petition now.
As long as you write 1.94E-3 km/s plus or minus a standard deviation [Sigma], in regards to the distribution of speeds people actually travel down the road away from the mean, or plus or minus 10x the expected measurement error.
Actually, it should be in km/s, as h isn't SI.
The numbers would be too big. How about km/ks
As in kilometers per kilosecond or km/ms kilometers per myriasecond.
Speaking of which... how come we haven't stopped using normal seconds and switched to decimal seconds yet?
Soon motherboards will be just wiring for the I/O and CPU
And despite that, there is no price decrease to be seen in motherboards... if anything, they are getting more expensive, despite having less silicon and intelligence on them <G>
But only what you listed as the 0th law is credible and broadly accepted, as a fundamental rule. There is great doubt as to under what conditions those other 'laws' can or will continue to hold.