Thank god I'm Canadian, and as long as I'm a non-resident for tax purposes, none of my income is taxable by Canada whatsoever (unless that income comes from Canadian sources)
Except offshore gambling is *already* illegal according to current interpretation of US law, and the offshore gambling operations are operating largely legally and licensed in their various jurisdictions.
Does the same hold true for drugs? If someone drops off a kilo of cocaine at my house, and I drive it right to the police station and turn it in, will I be arrested for posession of cocaine?
But he wasn't charged with destroying evidence.. he was charged under the computer fraud and abuse act, a law designed to prosecute those who break into computers and do things they don't have the authority to do.
Using it against a fired employee who happened to wipe his laptop because you didn't have the foresight to get it back from him before firing him is a bit of a stretch, even if it does make some sense according to the letter of the law.
"With point 1, I get a chuckle when I walk by someone on a computer, typing up an email, and when they see someone approaching from behind they flip to another window or hit screensaver etc. I want to say to them "you DO realize that's not private in any way shape or form and I or any of your managers could easily read it?" but I usually just walk away smiling at their ignorance."
Do you have an ego problem or something? Just because someone minimizes something and doesn't want your nosy ass reading over their shoulder, or seeing what they are doing doesn't mean they are stupid. Perhaps what they are doing is none of your business?
Just because you are a sysadmin, and can technically do these things does not make them right, or even legal, depending on your jurisdiction. Depending on the company, even a mighty sysadmin can be fired for doing this without the proper authorization.
Do you think telephone technicians sit there and laugh saying "Man people are so stupid, they think their phone calls are private!"... no, they don't. It's understood that yes, they can and do listen to calls on occasion, and they have the integrity and ethics not to blab about it or let it leave the equipment room.
"Man people are so stupid, they think that their personal conversations at home are private, but I have this parabolic microphone!"... man, what ingorant people.
That's just it.. it wouldn't. VMM type virtualization, with almost complete on-chip support, is almost undetectable.
ie: it's extremely unlikely you would notice much difference betwen redhat running native, and one instance of redhat running under the XEN vmm, as far as performance goes. You would need careful benchmarks to notice the subtle difference.
This isn't like vmware.. it's lower level than that, and a much thinner layer.
One would think you could detect the change in system hardware in some way.. it's unlikely that the VMM implementation is 100% identlcal when compared to the pre-VMM rootkit system. Something has to be differnet, somewhere.
First one to publish a detector for this gets good press.
The only reason to get a faster connection is because you are already using all the bandwidth. Simple QoS on your home router can deal with prioritizing your own traffic, but only as far as your router. This works great, and lets you download like mad and still use voip or play counterstrike effectively.. . provided your isp's network is not saturated.
Shaw operates a cable network; segments get saturated easily, especially upstream. All they are offering you is the same QoS you do yourself at home, but across their entire network. They are not suggesting reducing everone elses bandwidth.
One could guess that if this isn't implemented right, people could sign up for VOIP QoS and then route all their protocols masqueraded as VOIP, hogging the network, but generally when you set latency guarnatess, you do it for only a certain amount of bandwidth... say 24kbps low latency queue, and the rest queued normally. (so up to 24kbps of matching traffic gets priority, the rest goes normally)
I think you are misunderstanding QoS and how it works.
VOIP does not take up significant bandwidth; usuallly only 8kbps per call (yes,.008 mbps) The main factor affecting VIOP quality is latency... high latency, or worse, fluctuating latency realy screws things up.
With QoS, you can still use your full 6mbps connection, it's just that the few voip packets you send out get priority, so the call sounds good.
Similarly, if I set up my network so that even when the internet connection is pegged, my SSH sessions get priority, I can leave my connection slammed with downloads, and still comfortably work on remote terminal sessions as if the pipe is clean.
Simply buying a bigger pipe to increase latency for a small fraction of your packets is like killing a mosquito with a cannon, it's wasteful and clumsy.
A game of Counterstrike takes a heck of a lot more bandwidth than a VOIP call.
An internet provider is an independent network that wants to provide you with transit services between your network and other people's networks; tehy should be free to offer you any package they want, as long as they are straightforward about it.
You make good points, and as long as Shaw isn't intentionally making their service VOIP-unfriendly, this is fine.
As to why tehy would charge more, $10/mo is a bit steep, but implementing QoS for specific customers for vonage service is an added feature, and it does cost them extra administrative overhead.
This seems to me like a good move by Shaw that's being misinterpreted by everyone else.
I've often felt that ISPs like Shaw SHOULD offer several diffent types of QoS:
1) A basic package where you get to play with everyone else at the whim of the standard tcp/ip stack, with no protocol specific QoS controls. 2) The option of paying for different basic QoS types.
- latency QoS for voip.
- A connection that offers no bandwidth restrictions, but no latency guarantees. You can use as much as you want, as long as it's available.
- A connection of medium speed, but with a guaranteed overall latency of no more than 150ms for any traffic.
And so on... why not? There is no problem in this.
The only problem, and the only time the CRTC should get inolved, is when they start arbitrarily REDUCING the quality of service for specific protocols. I'm more concerned wiht throttling of bittorrent arbitrarily than I am with offering optional QoS for voip.
Gold standard? Gold is just as worthless. Yes, it has industrial uses.. but it's value is not set by industrial use. It's set by scarcity, and percieved value, just like dollars, or yen, or most other major currencies.;
If you feel your dollars are worthless, please, send them my way.
That analogy doens't hold up; Running your AP in open mode is a choice you make; if it's open, you know it's going to advertise it's presence to everyone around and let them easily connect. They have no way of knowing it's coming from your house, even.
It's not just like you left your front door open, it's like you left it upen and put up a sign saying "Come on in and make yourself a sandwich!".
Even Excel on both system is oranges to apples...it's not simply a port. Office for OS X is a native OS X app, through and through, and works very well. It in no way feels like a clunky windows app that has been hastily ported. For that matter, Office on OS X is actually NICER than Office on Windows.
The end user, whether it's google or you at home, should always be able to pay THEIR ISP for a certain type of service (quality of service, speed, bandwidht, volume, latency guarantees, whatever). That's who your deal is with, your ISP.
The deal between the backbone ISP's are just that... between them. If one starts prioritizing another's traffic based on their customers, it may violate their peering agreement.
Agreed, pay should be commensurate with usage... however, plans that average things out are a valid business model, and have served us pretty well so far.
As for owning a house, not sure what you mean there... how do you write off the cost of operating your home? The guy purchasing that million dollar home already paid more sales tax on the deal than you pay in several years of income tax.. how is that unfair?
IT's just mixing words. Yes, you are locked out of certain system level things if you don't have the admin password.... even if it's logged in. Yes it's technically not "root", but you can still earse every document, all your email, wipe out and/or modify all your applications, and so on. You may not be able to format the disks, but you could do enough damage for it not to matter. After all, the system level stuff can be generally restored from the original CDs in the first place.
You should not expect to work the same job for your entire career. You should push your employer to provide training if you feel that training will help you get the job done. Training does not necessarily mean certification; certification is largely useless. Learn on the job. That's training, too.
Strange.. I played quite a number of games with xeroxed cards back in my Magic days. Things were getting boring, so I borrowed some killer cards, went to office depot, and spent a couple hours with a razor and some glue and some old lands. Ended up with a very cool deck.
The guys were so amazed with the exotic deck I was playing with, it never occurred to them to check if they were fake or not (I did tell them at the end of the night, and it was a FUN night of gaming, for everyone).
I *think* I had a way to get out an infinite number of dopplegangers... not quite sure on that though... at least the number grew every turn. Ahh.. the memories.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank god I'm Canadian, and as long as I'm a non-resident for tax purposes, none of my income is taxable by Canada whatsoever (unless that income comes from Canadian sources)
Except offshore gambling is *already* illegal according to current interpretation of US law, and the offshore gambling operations are operating largely legally and licensed in their various jurisdictions.
Does the same hold true for drugs?
If someone drops off a kilo of cocaine at my house, and I drive it right to the police station and turn it in, will I be arrested for posession of cocaine?
But he wasn't charged with destroying evidence.. he was charged under the computer fraud and abuse act, a law designed to prosecute those who break into computers and do things they don't have the authority to do.
Using it against a fired employee who happened to wipe his laptop because you didn't have the foresight to get it back from him before firing him is a bit of a stretch, even if it does make some sense according to the letter of the law.
"With point 1, I get a chuckle when I walk by someone on a computer, typing up an email, and when they see someone approaching from behind they flip to another window or hit screensaver etc. I want to say to them "you DO realize that's not private in any way shape or form and I or any of your managers could easily read it?" but I usually just walk away smiling at their ignorance."
Do you have an ego problem or something? Just because someone minimizes something and doesn't want your nosy ass reading over their shoulder, or seeing what they are doing doesn't mean they are stupid. Perhaps what they are doing is none of your business?
Just because you are a sysadmin, and can technically do these things does not make them right, or even legal, depending on your jurisdiction. Depending on the company, even a mighty sysadmin can be fired for doing this without the proper authorization.
Do you think telephone technicians sit there and laugh saying "Man people are so stupid, they think their phone calls are private!"... no, they don't. It's understood that yes, they can and do listen to calls on occasion, and they have the integrity and ethics not to blab about it or let it leave the equipment room.
"Man people are so stupid, they think that their personal conversations at home are private, but I have this parabolic microphone!"... man, what ingorant people.
That's just it.. it wouldn't. VMM type virtualization, with almost complete on-chip support, is almost undetectable.
ie: it's extremely unlikely you would notice much difference betwen redhat running native, and one instance of redhat running under the XEN vmm, as far as performance goes. You would need careful benchmarks to notice the subtle difference.
This isn't like vmware.. it's lower level than that, and a much thinner layer.
That's actually interesting.
One would think you could detect the change in system hardware in some way.. it's unlikely that the VMM implementation is 100% identlcal when compared to the pre-VMM rootkit system. Something has to be differnet, somewhere.
First one to publish a detector for this gets good press.
- Yeah, quicktime sucks as a general-purpose video player.
"Firstly VLC does things certain ways, and has some various failings of its own that I'm not going to bother going into in detail."
What are it's serious failings? This is an interesting statement.
Another point.
The only reason to get a faster connection is because you are already using all the bandwidth. Simple QoS on your home router can deal with prioritizing your own traffic, but only as far as your router. This works great, and lets you download like mad and still use voip or play counterstrike effectively.. . provided your isp's network is not saturated.
Shaw operates a cable network; segments get saturated easily, especially upstream. All they are offering you is the same QoS you do yourself at home, but across their entire network. They are not suggesting reducing everone elses bandwidth.
One could guess that if this isn't implemented right, people could sign up for VOIP QoS and then route all their protocols masqueraded as VOIP, hogging the network, but generally when you set latency guarnatess, you do it for only a certain amount of bandwidth... say 24kbps low latency queue, and the rest queued normally. (so up to 24kbps of matching traffic gets priority, the rest goes normally)
I think you are misunderstanding QoS and how it works.
.008 mbps)
VOIP does not take up significant bandwidth; usuallly only 8kbps per call (yes,
The main factor affecting VIOP quality is latency... high latency, or worse, fluctuating latency realy screws things up.
With QoS, you can still use your full 6mbps connection, it's just that the few voip packets you send out get priority, so the call sounds good.
Similarly, if I set up my network so that even when the internet connection is pegged, my SSH sessions get priority, I can leave my connection slammed with downloads, and still comfortably work on remote terminal sessions as if the pipe is clean.
Simply buying a bigger pipe to increase latency for a small fraction of your packets is like killing a mosquito with a cannon, it's wasteful and clumsy.
A game of Counterstrike takes a heck of a lot more bandwidth than a VOIP call.
An internet provider is an independent network that wants to provide you with transit services between your network and other people's networks; tehy should be free to offer you any package they want, as long as they are straightforward about it.
You make good points, and as long as Shaw isn't intentionally making their service VOIP-unfriendly, this is fine.
As to why tehy would charge more, $10/mo is a bit steep, but implementing QoS for specific customers for vonage service is an added feature, and it does cost them extra administrative overhead.
This seems to me like a good move by Shaw that's being misinterpreted by everyone else.
I've often felt that ISPs like Shaw SHOULD offer several diffent types of QoS:
1) A basic package where you get to play with everyone else at the whim of the standard tcp/ip stack, with no protocol specific QoS controls.
2) The option of paying for different basic QoS types.
- latency QoS for voip.
- A connection that offers no bandwidth restrictions, but no latency guarantees. You can use as much as you want, as long as it's available.
- A connection of medium speed, but with a guaranteed overall latency of no more than 150ms for any traffic.
And so on... why not? There is no problem in this.
The only problem, and the only time the CRTC should get inolved, is when they start arbitrarily REDUCING the quality of service for specific protocols. I'm more concerned wiht throttling of bittorrent arbitrarily than I am with offering optional QoS for voip.
Is Shaw charing this as soon as they detect vonage service, or is it an optionatl QoS fee you can pay to get guaranteed QoS with vonage?
What do you recommend as a solution then?
Gold standard? Gold is just as worthless. Yes, it has industrial uses.. but it's value is not set by industrial use. It's set by scarcity, and percieved value, just like dollars, or yen, or most other major currencies.;
If you feel your dollars are worthless, please, send them my way.
I'm curious why you think all these applications, all of which run as the user, would somehow let you escalate priveleges?
That analogy doens't hold up; Running your AP in open mode is a choice you make; if it's open, you know it's going to advertise it's presence to everyone around and let them easily connect. They have no way of knowing it's coming from your house, even.
It's not just like you left your front door open, it's like you left it upen and put up a sign saying "Come on in and make yourself a sandwich!".
Even Excel on both system is oranges to apples.. .it's not simply a port. Office for OS X is a native OS X app, through and through, and works very well. It in no way feels like a clunky windows app that has been hastily ported.
For that matter, Office on OS X is actually NICER than Office on Windows.
The end user, whether it's google or you at home, should always be able to pay THEIR ISP for a certain type of service (quality of service, speed, bandwidht, volume, latency guarantees, whatever). That's who your deal is with, your ISP.
The deal between the backbone ISP's are just that... between them. If one starts prioritizing another's traffic based on their customers, it may violate their peering agreement.
Agreed, pay should be commensurate with usage... however, plans that average things out are a valid business model, and have served us pretty well so far.
As for owning a house, not sure what you mean there... how do you write off the cost of operating your home? The guy purchasing that million dollar home already paid more sales tax on the deal than you pay in several years of income tax.. how is that unfair?
Perfectly safe in what sense?
IT's just mixing words. Yes, you are locked out of certain system level things if you don't have the admin password.... even if it's logged in. Yes it's technically not "root", but you can still earse every document, all your email, wipe out and/or modify all your applications, and so on. You may not be able to format the disks, but you could do enough damage for it not to matter. After all, the system level stuff can be generally restored from the original CDs in the first place.
Can anyone cite any information on these alleged mac worms?
All this is sensible.. but so far nobody has shown an actual worm or virus in the wild that targets OS X.
So far this sounds like pure conjecture.
- Macrovision is easily defeated with an image stabilizing circuit. Cheaply, too.
- People don't copy VHS very often nowadays, and when VHS was really popular, macrovision wasn't.
VHS is now irrelevant.
Which is morally correct, no google, or a censored google?
In a country where everyone knows the government censors everything already?
But you knew what you were getting when you downloaded the tracks from iTMS, right?
The terms were made loud and clear.
You should not expect to work the same job for your entire career.
You should push your employer to provide training if you feel that training will help you get the job done.
Training does not necessarily mean certification; certification is largely useless.
Learn on the job. That's training, too.
Strange.. I played quite a number of games with xeroxed cards back in my Magic days.
Things were getting boring, so I borrowed some killer cards, went to office depot, and spent a couple hours with a razor and some glue and some old lands. Ended up with a very cool deck.
The guys were so amazed with the exotic deck I was playing with, it never occurred to them to check if they were fake or not (I did tell them at the end of the night, and it was a FUN night of gaming, for everyone).
I *think* I had a way to get out an infinite number of dopplegangers... not quite sure on that though... at least the number grew every turn. Ahh.. the memories.