I don't use all of the inputs on my TV. I am glad they are there if I need them, but not using them when I don't need them is not a failing.
Sounds like a lost opportunity for the manufacturer to remove inputs, and charge more for people that need them.
That's exactly what the TV manufacturer would do if there weren't so many competitors around who would take the opportunity at the drop of a hat to advertise how their unit was more capable than the brand X unit that only has 2 inputs.
All they have to do is prove that the cost of making
the accommodation is unreasonably excessive,
or fiscally irresponsible to their business, and the ADA won't require
they do that.
However, maybe Netflix's selection of streaming content
is not massive enough, that it would hurt their business,
in that case the ADA would be working as designed, and
shame on Netflix, for taking steps to make reasonable accomadations
for members of the public who are disabled.
Sure, but what about other critical (non-library) files? Firefox always seems to fail badly when the package gets updated underneath it. It would be good if it just said "Firefox got updated and needs to restart" but no, instead the renderer just fails with odd messages about missing layout files etc.
You know... it's better to have to restart of Firefox than to require a system reboot.
The package manager can suggest as much.
A Firefox client is a low-importance process, especially on a server.
It's a perfect example of a program that it would be annoying and idiotic to be forced into doing a system reboot in order to update.
Actually the pernicious full system restart requirement just to up Firefox would strongly discourage people against updating their system, resulting in more vulnerable systems, and therefore,
more risks and exploits of systems.
Also what about security fixes in libraries? The old running process will still be linked to the insecure library until it gets restarted,
The package manager should recommend a reboot on an updated library, or a restart of all server processes. The user can decide to do it later.
There is no valid reason to enforce a reboot for such an update.
It's also possible for a daily security scan to list the binaries associated with running processes, and check what libraries those binaries are linked against, and if any of them
have been updated after the startup timestamp for the process, and produce a warning about daemons that are running against a potentially vulnerable library version.
Not all running processes matter.
Just because a library had a security bug, doesn't mean it is a risk in every running process; some processes only interact with trusted data.
It would be nice if, for non-kernel updates, the updater could switch runlevel, install the updates, then start everything back up again without actually terminating the kernel.
That's not an adequate solution, seeing as killing all processes also cuts off remote management access to monitor the process, and
correct it if there is a problem.
The solution in that case is to replace the flaky hardware. It is not financially effective to run systems on hardware that is known to fail on reboot.
Huh? It is fine to run such systems. As long as the software is stable.
It is not financially effective to purchase new hardware components, especially system critical components such as RAID controllers that will require a full
system rebuild to change the type of component, requiring expensive man-hours, (seeing as a replacement with the same type of component will not fix),
just to work around a defective OS that arbitrarily wants full reboots for software and library updates.
It is also not financially effective to buy additional servers and build a cluster, for the sole purpose of working around an OS requiring unnecessary reboots; versus simply using an old Version of the OS that does not impose the capricious behavior of occassionally demanding reboots for updates.
Well, yes they can get away with patching on the fly for a lot of things, but really the system needs a reboot or it might be unstable. Some things may segfault if libraries get yanked out from underfoot
Library changes don't effect running programs that have already loaded the libraries.
The file on disk is updated; the program won't be linked against new libraries until it is restarted.
Ever see what happens when a glibc upgrade goes awry? You can't even so much as run "ls". Many times have I had to boot with other media and finish a glibc install by hand.
This is why you need a package manager.
GLIBC is a critical system library.
Requiring a reboot for a GLIBC update makes it scarier, not safer.
Hardware doesn't always come back up when you issue 'reboot'; you know, especially when
you are doing the update remotely, to systems several hundred miles away, and don't have the luxury
of a computer monitor and power switch.
Sometimes the reboot takes a long time; sometimes you have a component such
as a RAID card that hates warm boots, and will fail to come up properly after a reset until you cold boot.
But really, Erlang is one of the better functional languages, as they go. It may be tough to learn, but it has enough software written in it to prove its wirth.
It has a "killer feature" that other functional languages lack; distributed nodes.... a clustering capability built into the language.
The point again is that you're putting the decision about personal safety (in the form of pressure for people to stay and evacuate insured material objects) into the hands of a company that cares only about money.
No you're not. Only their opinion about whether they have to pay you anything after the fact is in their hands. As long as you are truthful about it, you can make the decision that maximizes safety every time, at risk of the damage not being covered, you always have that option.
Again you use a non-quantifiable word 'appropriate' which is too subjective to negate the risk to human life in the current discussion, and you are still leaving that decision not in the hands of people who care about the people in question
I am not leaving it in their hands. The fact of the matter is the decision is in their hands,
whether I like it or not. It is subjective, and the definitions are between you, your insurance company, and ultimately the courts, but the insurance company's contract language usually wins.
So if you have to walk out and you decide not to carry your desk computer with you they wouldn't insure it?
It depends. Ultimately that is up to you and your insurer, and whatever compromise they are able to reach to avoid you suing them, but you must be honest about it when they ask, that is, not hiding information or making false statements in regards to the claim is what is legally required of you.
shouldn't be a justification to not pay out for something that the company has charged and received money to insure.
Sure it should be. Cars are not unconditionally insured against all possible things that can cause damage. They are insured by a policy against damage that occurs to them as a result of certain kinds of events under certain circumstances spelled out in a policy.
Intentional damage, or damage that arose as a result of negligence by the owner or failure to exercise reasonable care is almost always excluded. If such damage were covered, the insurance policy would be much more expensive, because the risk would be much higher to the insurer.
Maybe, and maybe not. Depends on the availability of the 'help', the transportation method (ie if there's a u-haul left to rent) and how much 'stuff' we're talking about. These values are never going to be constant and thus cannot be clearly stipulated.
Sure. However, if you make the effort to find/hire the help needed and cannot, the effort counts as attempts to mitigate damage, provided you maintain appropriate documentation.
These objects are located at a specific place, and that place has an estimated risk of a fire coming and wiping it out. If the insurance company doesn't want to pay then they shouldn't be collecting the money to insure it.
If the policy says that negligence by the owner is excluded, then you are required to be non-negligent,
which includes taking the available precautions.
If you do not, then you increase the risk, which means higher cost on average to the insurance company.
If such were to be covered by the policy, the premium would be much higher.
How much risk should people have to incur with their lives or their health to save money for corporations?
They are only able to expect options for mitigating the damage that would not require putting someone's life
or property in immediate danger; some of the options available such as fireproofing could actually reduce the hazards to human life in the present or in the future. If you are in a PRE-evacuation zone, then by definition, evacuation of humans is not yet critical, it is still safe for humans to be in the area: it would be an opportune period of time to take advise of the cautionary note and evacuate valuable assets in anticipation of a later necessity to completely evacuate humans and pets.
Who decides what is sufficient and what is reasonable? The insurance company that values shareholder value (ie money) over lives that they're not insuring?
The insurance adjuster will make a decision on the matter, ACCEPT or DENY the claim.
If you disagree, you have legal arbitration options. They will consider things like... how much warning did you have... and what did you do with that advance warning time?
If you did not take the appropriate prepratory or mitigation actions: it's something you have to justify at that time.
What is the limit of what is reasonable? One week? One day? One hour? One minute?
Sufficient time to act, with sufficiently strong evidence that action is required. One hour is probably not sufficient time to mitigate much damage. If you left your car in the driveway, and evacuated on foot, for no good reason, and the car was destroyed in the blaze, they might exclude the damage to your car, because a reasonable person would have driven the car out of harm's way.
A day or two's advance notice is sufficient time to hire a bunch of help to haul lots of stuff out of harms way.
Hauling stuff may not actually be necessary -- taking actions to "fireproof" the place as sufficiently as possible may be preferred. Buildings are often more valuable than their contents, even when there is expensive equipment.
You should be able to show you didn't just take no action, for the sake of taking no action, expecting the insurance company to pay the extra money in damage you would have caused by not making efforts to reduce damage.
no investigation required, you know where your stuff is. It's a problem of recovery. That you can do yourself.
No, you suspect your stuff is somewhere, but that doesn't give you the right to cause criminal damage
to someone else's property or to trespass upon it. Even if they had broken into your property, your course of action may now mean that they won't be charged with the crime, but that you will instead, or that you two would share a jail cell.
Just because their truck was taken by someone without permission and used to haul your stolen stuff.
It's still criminal to break in, even if your supposed rationale for doing it is recovery.
Your insurance company will pay to replace anything that's damaged by the fire.
Insurance does not cover any damage that should have been prevented or was caused as a result of culpable negligence, when the org intentionally passed up a reasonable opportunity to mitigate or prevent the damage.
If you had an opportunity to mitigate or prevent the fire damage because there was sufficient warning,
and you intentionally avoided mitigating the damage, that a reasonable person would have taken actions
to prevent, then your reckless inaction likely means that the insurance company is not obligated to pay
for the fire damage that resulted from your inaction.
Equal to "If someone breaks into your home, you should be able to break into their home."
It's more like "If someone breaks into your home, you catch their license plate number. You should be able to break
into whatever house the license plate is registered to, and see if you can find your stuff."
No you don't. Investigating the crime is law enforcement's job.
False. That happens occasionally, but the vast majority of antibiotic resistance is because bacteria that cause human diseases are really, really good at developing resistance to antibiotics.
It only has to happen once for every useful antibiotic effective against that kind of bacteria.
For antibiotics to guarantee no new future plague caused by a kind of bacteria, they have to work every time.
Or new kinds of antibiotics have to be developed at a rate no slower than the development of new resistance.
Vaccination improves resistance in the aggregate over the entire population
that receives vaccination; in other words there is less likelihood of an epidemic,
but it is still very possible for normal individuals to catch the disease if exposed.
So you are at less risk, in case an outbreak of the most common strains the vaccine was designed
against, but you would still be at significantly high risk in case of an epidemic,
unless the rest of the population of people and animals you interact with (or rather, that fleas
in your area interact with) were vaccinated as well.
neither antibiotic treatment nor effective prevention were known in europe during the middle ages.
Neither were there pervasive antibiotic resistant bacteria. Today it is "treatable with antibiotics";
but we cannot rely on there not being new strains that are resistant to antibiotics.
If some operating systems are not affected, doesn't that make this a software issue?
If your hard disk randomly garbles odd numbered sectors in a certain address range near the end of the disk,
you won't lose any data if you have an OS that only writes to even numbered sectors, and only partitions
the first half of the disk.
Other OSes will experience data corruption.
It's still a hardware issue. This does not mean that operating systems that fully utilize all disk sectors
presented by the hardware are defective.
Anyhow, these days the internal speed of the CPU isn't as important as the interface to the outside world, including both RAM and bus access speeds.
Huh? Of course speed of the CPU is important. IO capacity and memory speed matter.
On modern CPUs there is no FSB directly relating CPU clock rate to IO system clock rate; this is a function of separate memory controllers and memory speed which have their own GHz rating and for PCIe IO, CPU GT/s rating, and a quantity of banks per CPU.
Now speed does not equal clock rate, except in processors of the same type.
A 1.8 GHz CPU core that accomplishes twice as much work per clock cycle is faster than a 3GHz core.
For example, a Quad core 1.8Ghz Intel Sandybridge faster than a 3GHz Quad core Intel Core 2 CPU.
I would have never considered an unpaid internship. It's amusing that people want to make them illegal, I'd flat out refuse to take one.
However, there are people that do take them. And in some cases unpaid interns do constitute competition against paid entry-level applicants, resulting in smaller supply of entry-level jobs available, and therefore, lower wages / less-advantageous hiring terms for professional entry-level applicants who want to be paid.
you can bet that any company that wants to exploit unpaid interns will easily be able to "prove" that they got nothing of value.
Hang on... if the unpaid intern provided nothing of value;
it would be irrational for the company to have brought them on in the first place.
Obviously companies do get something value.
Free contributions to anything that the company does, or free contribution to development of anything the company will use is a benefit.
It makes perfect sense for the governmetn prohibit not paying interns at least a minimum wage for any time during which they are requested to provide a service to the company or doing any kind of work for the company.
If they are receiving instruction, then it makes sense anything they were paid would not include time
they were receiving instruction or demonstration but not doing any work or executing the performance of any task.
The data mining query at some spy agency has probably now been updated to search for people who meet new constraints:
(
generate_other_constraints( scan_for_other_posts_by(lightknight) ),
generate_other_constraints( would_use_a_signature_like("If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it.") ),....,
were detected active by any ISP in north america on 20120614,
know what an IP address is,
who use the ";-)" emoticon
who know what 127.0.0.1 is, who make jokes about 127.0.0.1,
who likely type a "period" at the end of an IP address instead of a run-on sentence,
have interests that make them likely to post on Slashdot.org inside a thread "Employees Admit They'd Walk Out With Stolen Data If Fired" on the subject of comment poster identification,
who are likely to post phrases such as "Come and get me",
who use an exclamation point after such a phrase )
They, unlike you, think their accounts can't be tied to their real identities.
Any account can potentially be tied to its real identity, even Anonymous cowards can be tied to real identities,
it's only a question of time and effort.
If anything, the things I can see IT employees walking out with are software licenses
I assume you mean copies of serial numbers / license keys.
The actual license/right to use software still belongs to the company in that case;
the employee that makes unauthorized use of a serial number to reuse software for production purposes
elsewhere would just be pirating software, plain and simple, they don't actually get a license just because
they misappropriated a copy of the key; they might have done that at any time for "educational purposes",
but they lose their rights to the sw at the time of termination.
The software vendor might have even encouraged that at times by issuing companies demo
keys to be used for test labs and staff training purposes.
A sysadmin may have actually needed such a copy of the software licensed to learn the product,
before deploying software in the organization.
IT staff definitely need access to software license keys to maintain, install, update software,
so while they are at risk of being used improperly, there's really no fix to that.
If there were a fix, it would be the very sort of IT staff you are trying to regulate/monitor who would have to be
very diligent in the implementation of any key protection scheme.
Remember how all of a sudden all those small local ISPs just up and disappeared? We once had tons of choices for Internet connectivity, now we've got a choice of maybe three corporations, all of whom hate us.
It's mostly about access to inexpensive pipes into subscribers homes.
Before DSL/Cable technologies were developed, access was with dial-up modem,
access to the subscribers was easy and inexpensive through POTS service,
which is available at a flat rate, thanks to government regulations.
Cable and telephone services are natural monopolies, due to the high cost of infrastructure buildout.
In most areas, there is a local Franchising agreement between cable companies, utilities, and the government,
so competitors are not even legally allowed to build a plant, let-alone offer service.
Neither cable nor DSL are conducive to competitive providers.
Because there are no regulations requiring Cable companies to provide access
to provide network service over their system; internet service over the Cable is only
going to be available from the Cable company, period.
As for DSL... well.l... ILECs were required to provide unbundled access by CLECs.
The telcos charge the provider a cost so high, that they can't competitively offer
a DSL-based Internet service through the telco's lines.
In some areas, Naked DSL is offered by the ILEC.
Several of them charge more for the Naked DSL line than it would cost
to buy Telephone AND DSL service from the telco on the same line.
So what's happened here, is the telcos have priced their product so that there
is not sufficient profit in competing with them to sustain a business.
You can't offer a competing option if there's no way to sustain a business that does it.
Content providers will have to subsidize, and fees/limits for accessing non-subsidizing content providers will be to the customer's disadvantage.
High speed subscription rates will be increased "Because see, we have better connectivity to Google, we're providing you a better service, you should pay more"
Slashdot Mirror
If you press and hold "shift" while logging in, then any auto-run items won't run.
IgnoreShiftOverride can be enforced via a registry change from a Group Policy object, then holding shift while logging in will have no effect.
I don't use all of the inputs on my TV. I am glad they are there if I need them, but not using them when I don't need them is not a failing.
Sounds like a lost opportunity for the manufacturer to remove inputs, and charge more for people that need them.
That's exactly what the TV manufacturer would do if there weren't so many competitors around who would take the opportunity at the drop of a hat to advertise how their unit was more capable than the brand X unit that only has 2 inputs.
All they have to do is prove that the cost of making the accommodation is unreasonably excessive, or fiscally irresponsible to their business, and the ADA won't require they do that.
However, maybe Netflix's selection of streaming content is not massive enough, that it would hurt their business, in that case the ADA would be working as designed, and shame on Netflix, for taking steps to make reasonable accomadations for members of the public who are disabled.
Sure, but what about other critical (non-library) files? Firefox always seems to fail badly when the package gets updated underneath it. It would be good if it just said "Firefox got updated and needs to restart" but no, instead the renderer just fails with odd messages about missing layout files etc.
You know... it's better to have to restart of Firefox than to require a system reboot. The package manager can suggest as much.
A Firefox client is a low-importance process, especially on a server. It's a perfect example of a program that it would be annoying and idiotic to be forced into doing a system reboot in order to update.
Actually the pernicious full system restart requirement just to up Firefox would strongly discourage people against updating their system, resulting in more vulnerable systems, and therefore, more risks and exploits of systems.
Also what about security fixes in libraries? The old running process will still be linked to the insecure library until it gets restarted,
The package manager should recommend a reboot on an updated library, or a restart of all server processes. The user can decide to do it later. There is no valid reason to enforce a reboot for such an update.
It's also possible for a daily security scan to list the binaries associated with running processes, and check what libraries those binaries are linked against, and if any of them have been updated after the startup timestamp for the process, and produce a warning about daemons that are running against a potentially vulnerable library version.
Not all running processes matter. Just because a library had a security bug, doesn't mean it is a risk in every running process; some processes only interact with trusted data.
It would be nice if, for non-kernel updates, the updater could switch runlevel, install the updates, then start everything back up again without actually terminating the kernel.
That's not an adequate solution, seeing as killing all processes also cuts off remote management access to monitor the process, and correct it if there is a problem.
The solution in that case is to replace the flaky hardware. It is not financially effective to run systems on hardware that is known to fail on reboot.
Huh? It is fine to run such systems. As long as the software is stable.
It is not financially effective to purchase new hardware components, especially system critical components such as RAID controllers that will require a full system rebuild to change the type of component, requiring expensive man-hours, (seeing as a replacement with the same type of component will not fix), just to work around a defective OS that arbitrarily wants full reboots for software and library updates.
It is also not financially effective to buy additional servers and build a cluster, for the sole purpose of working around an OS requiring unnecessary reboots; versus simply using an old Version of the OS that does not impose the capricious behavior of occassionally demanding reboots for updates.
Well, yes they can get away with patching on the fly for a lot of things, but really the system needs a reboot or it might be unstable. Some things may segfault if libraries get yanked out from underfoot
Library changes don't effect running programs that have already loaded the libraries. The file on disk is updated; the program won't be linked against new libraries until it is restarted.
Ever see what happens when a glibc upgrade goes awry? You can't even so much as run "ls". Many times have I had to boot with other media and finish a glibc install by hand.
This is why you need a package manager. GLIBC is a critical system library.
Requiring a reboot for a GLIBC update makes it scarier, not safer.
Hardware doesn't always come back up when you issue 'reboot'; you know, especially when you are doing the update remotely, to systems several hundred miles away, and don't have the luxury of a computer monitor and power switch.
Sometimes the reboot takes a long time; sometimes you have a component such as a RAID card that hates warm boots, and will fail to come up properly after a reset until you cold boot.
But really, Erlang is one of the better functional languages, as they go. It may be tough to learn, but it has enough software written in it to prove its wirth.
It has a "killer feature" that other functional languages lack; distributed nodes.... a clustering capability built into the language.
The point again is that you're putting the decision about personal safety (in the form of pressure for people to stay and evacuate insured material objects) into the hands of a company that cares only about money.
No you're not. Only their opinion about whether they have to pay you anything after the fact is in their hands. As long as you are truthful about it, you can make the decision that maximizes safety every time, at risk of the damage not being covered, you always have that option.
Again you use a non-quantifiable word 'appropriate' which is too subjective to negate the risk to human life in the current discussion, and you are still leaving that decision not in the hands of people who care about the people in question
I am not leaving it in their hands. The fact of the matter is the decision is in their hands, whether I like it or not. It is subjective, and the definitions are between you, your insurance company, and ultimately the courts, but the insurance company's contract language usually wins.
So if you have to walk out and you decide not to carry your desk computer with you they wouldn't insure it?
It depends. Ultimately that is up to you and your insurer, and whatever compromise they are able to reach to avoid you suing them, but you must be honest about it when they ask, that is, not hiding information or making false statements in regards to the claim is what is legally required of you.
shouldn't be a justification to not pay out for something that the company has charged and received money to insure.
Sure it should be. Cars are not unconditionally insured against all possible things that can cause damage. They are insured by a policy against damage that occurs to them as a result of certain kinds of events under certain circumstances spelled out in a policy.
Intentional damage, or damage that arose as a result of negligence by the owner or failure to exercise reasonable care is almost always excluded. If such damage were covered, the insurance policy would be much more expensive, because the risk would be much higher to the insurer.
Maybe, and maybe not. Depends on the availability of the 'help', the transportation method (ie if there's a u-haul left to rent) and how much 'stuff' we're talking about. These values are never going to be constant and thus cannot be clearly stipulated.
Sure. However, if you make the effort to find/hire the help needed and cannot, the effort counts as attempts to mitigate damage, provided you maintain appropriate documentation.
These objects are located at a specific place, and that place has an estimated risk of a fire coming and wiping it out. If the insurance company doesn't want to pay then they shouldn't be collecting the money to insure it.
If the policy says that negligence by the owner is excluded, then you are required to be non-negligent, which includes taking the available precautions.
If you do not, then you increase the risk, which means higher cost on average to the insurance company. If such were to be covered by the policy, the premium would be much higher.
How much risk should people have to incur with their lives or their health to save money for corporations?
They are only able to expect options for mitigating the damage that would not require putting someone's life or property in immediate danger; some of the options available such as fireproofing could actually reduce the hazards to human life in the present or in the future. If you are in a PRE-evacuation zone, then by definition, evacuation of humans is not yet critical, it is still safe for humans to be in the area: it would be an opportune period of time to take advise of the cautionary note and evacuate valuable assets in anticipation of a later necessity to completely evacuate humans and pets.
Who decides what is sufficient and what is reasonable? The insurance company that values shareholder value (ie money) over lives that they're not insuring?
The insurance adjuster will make a decision on the matter, ACCEPT or DENY the claim. If you disagree, you have legal arbitration options. They will consider things like... how much warning did you have... and what did you do with that advance warning time?
If you did not take the appropriate prepratory or mitigation actions: it's something you have to justify at that time.
What is the limit of what is reasonable? One week? One day? One hour? One minute?
Sufficient time to act, with sufficiently strong evidence that action is required. One hour is probably not sufficient time to mitigate much damage. If you left your car in the driveway, and evacuated on foot, for no good reason, and the car was destroyed in the blaze, they might exclude the damage to your car, because a reasonable person would have driven the car out of harm's way.
A day or two's advance notice is sufficient time to hire a bunch of help to haul lots of stuff out of harms way.
Hauling stuff may not actually be necessary -- taking actions to "fireproof" the place as sufficiently as possible may be preferred. Buildings are often more valuable than their contents, even when there is expensive equipment.
You should be able to show you didn't just take no action, for the sake of taking no action, expecting the insurance company to pay the extra money in damage you would have caused by not making efforts to reduce damage.
no investigation required, you know where your stuff is. It's a problem of recovery. That you can do yourself.
No, you suspect your stuff is somewhere, but that doesn't give you the right to cause criminal damage to someone else's property or to trespass upon it. Even if they had broken into your property, your course of action may now mean that they won't be charged with the crime, but that you will instead, or that you two would share a jail cell.
Just because their truck was taken by someone without permission and used to haul your stolen stuff.
It's still criminal to break in, even if your supposed rationale for doing it is recovery.
Your insurance company will pay to replace anything that's damaged by the fire.
Insurance does not cover any damage that should have been prevented or was caused as a result of culpable negligence, when the org intentionally passed up a reasonable opportunity to mitigate or prevent the damage.
If you had an opportunity to mitigate or prevent the fire damage because there was sufficient warning, and you intentionally avoided mitigating the damage, that a reasonable person would have taken actions to prevent, then your reckless inaction likely means that the insurance company is not obligated to pay for the fire damage that resulted from your inaction.
Equal to "If someone breaks into your home, you should be able to break into their home."
It's more like "If someone breaks into your home, you catch their license plate number. You should be able to break into whatever house the license plate is registered to, and see if you can find your stuff."
No you don't. Investigating the crime is law enforcement's job.
False. That happens occasionally, but the vast majority of antibiotic resistance is because bacteria that cause human diseases are really, really good at developing resistance to antibiotics.
It only has to happen once for every useful antibiotic effective against that kind of bacteria.
For antibiotics to guarantee no new future plague caused by a kind of bacteria, they have to work every time.
Or new kinds of antibiotics have to be developed at a rate no slower than the development of new resistance.
Ive had mine in the army. I'm not worried
Vaccination improves resistance in the aggregate over the entire population that receives vaccination; in other words there is less likelihood of an epidemic, but it is still very possible for normal individuals to catch the disease if exposed.
So you are at less risk, in case an outbreak of the most common strains the vaccine was designed against, but you would still be at significantly high risk in case of an epidemic, unless the rest of the population of people and animals you interact with (or rather, that fleas in your area interact with) were vaccinated as well.
neither antibiotic treatment nor effective prevention were known in europe during the middle ages.
Neither were there pervasive antibiotic resistant bacteria. Today it is "treatable with antibiotics"; but we cannot rely on there not being new strains that are resistant to antibiotics.
If some operating systems are not affected, doesn't that make this a software issue?
If your hard disk randomly garbles odd numbered sectors in a certain address range near the end of the disk, you won't lose any data if you have an OS that only writes to even numbered sectors, and only partitions the first half of the disk.
Other OSes will experience data corruption.
It's still a hardware issue. This does not mean that operating systems that fully utilize all disk sectors presented by the hardware are defective.
By default hypervisors do not attempt to hide their existence.
Hypervisors do have options to hide the fact that a machine is running in a VM, but then you can't use paravirtualized drivers or VM guest tools.
Anyhow, these days the internal speed of the CPU isn't as important as the interface to the outside world, including both RAM and bus access speeds.
Huh? Of course speed of the CPU is important. IO capacity and memory speed matter. On modern CPUs there is no FSB directly relating CPU clock rate to IO system clock rate; this is a function of separate memory controllers and memory speed which have their own GHz rating and for PCIe IO, CPU GT/s rating, and a quantity of banks per CPU.
Now speed does not equal clock rate, except in processors of the same type.
A 1.8 GHz CPU core that accomplishes twice as much work per clock cycle is faster than a 3GHz core.
For example, a Quad core 1.8Ghz Intel Sandybridge faster than a 3GHz Quad core Intel Core 2 CPU.
I would have never considered an unpaid internship. It's amusing that people want to make them illegal, I'd flat out refuse to take one.
However, there are people that do take them. And in some cases unpaid interns do constitute competition against paid entry-level applicants, resulting in smaller supply of entry-level jobs available, and therefore, lower wages / less-advantageous hiring terms for professional entry-level applicants who want to be paid.
you can bet that any company that wants to exploit unpaid interns will easily be able to "prove" that they got nothing of value.
Hang on... if the unpaid intern provided nothing of value; it would be irrational for the company to have brought them on in the first place.
Obviously companies do get something value. Free contributions to anything that the company does, or free contribution to development of anything the company will use is a benefit.
It makes perfect sense for the governmetn prohibit not paying interns at least a minimum wage for any time during which they are requested to provide a service to the company or doing any kind of work for the company.
If they are receiving instruction, then it makes sense anything they were paid would not include time they were receiving instruction or demonstration but not doing any work or executing the performance of any task.
The data mining query at some spy agency has probably now been updated to search for people who meet new constraints: ( generate_other_constraints( scan_for_other_posts_by(lightknight) ), generate_other_constraints( would_use_a_signature_like("If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it.") ), ....,
were detected active by any ISP in north america on 20120614,
know what an IP address is,
who use the ";-)" emoticon
who know what 127.0.0.1 is, who make jokes about 127.0.0.1,
who likely type a "period" at the end of an IP address instead of a run-on sentence,
have interests that make them likely to post on Slashdot.org inside a thread "Employees Admit They'd Walk Out With Stolen Data If Fired" on the subject of comment poster identification,
who are likely to post phrases such as "Come and get me",
who use an exclamation point after such a phrase )
They, unlike you, think their accounts can't be tied to their real identities.
Any account can potentially be tied to its real identity, even Anonymous cowards can be tied to real identities, it's only a question of time and effort.
If anything, the things I can see IT employees walking out with are software licenses
I assume you mean copies of serial numbers / license keys. The actual license/right to use software still belongs to the company in that case; the employee that makes unauthorized use of a serial number to reuse software for production purposes elsewhere would just be pirating software, plain and simple, they don't actually get a license just because they misappropriated a copy of the key; they might have done that at any time for "educational purposes", but they lose their rights to the sw at the time of termination.
The software vendor might have even encouraged that at times by issuing companies demo keys to be used for test labs and staff training purposes.
A sysadmin may have actually needed such a copy of the software licensed to learn the product, before deploying software in the organization.
IT staff definitely need access to software license keys to maintain, install, update software, so while they are at risk of being used improperly, there's really no fix to that.
If there were a fix, it would be the very sort of IT staff you are trying to regulate/monitor who would have to be very diligent in the implementation of any key protection scheme.
ILECs have been disappearing at a pretty high rate. AT&T does not generally negotiate in good faith with them
Huh? ATT is the ILEC at many exchanges.
Remember how all of a sudden all those small local ISPs just up and disappeared? We once had tons of choices for Internet connectivity, now we've got a choice of maybe three corporations, all of whom hate us.
It's mostly about access to inexpensive pipes into subscribers homes. Before DSL/Cable technologies were developed, access was with dial-up modem, access to the subscribers was easy and inexpensive through POTS service, which is available at a flat rate, thanks to government regulations.
Cable and telephone services are natural monopolies, due to the high cost of infrastructure buildout. In most areas, there is a local Franchising agreement between cable companies, utilities, and the government, so competitors are not even legally allowed to build a plant, let-alone offer service.
Neither cable nor DSL are conducive to competitive providers.
Because there are no regulations requiring Cable companies to provide access to provide network service over their system; internet service over the Cable is only going to be available from the Cable company, period.
As for DSL... well.l... ILECs were required to provide unbundled access by CLECs. The telcos charge the provider a cost so high, that they can't competitively offer a DSL-based Internet service through the telco's lines.
In some areas, Naked DSL is offered by the ILEC. Several of them charge more for the Naked DSL line than it would cost to buy Telephone AND DSL service from the telco on the same line.
So what's happened here, is the telcos have priced their product so that there is not sufficient profit in competing with them to sustain a business.
You can't offer a competing option if there's no way to sustain a business that does it.
I would like to visit his planet. It sounds nice.
Content providers will have to subsidize, and fees/limits for accessing non-subsidizing content providers will be to the customer's disadvantage.
High speed subscription rates will be increased "Because see, we have better connectivity to Google, we're providing you a better service, you should pay more"