Yes. You could. And then you would have to put up with the.com,.net, and.org shared registry system and all the legal bullshit that goes along with it.
Read: NSI and it's 'competitors' have no say over.au domains. Period.
I think, one of the most effective methods for a consumer-based society like we have in north america to get what the people want from business is to a) state what you want and b) voice your opinion by where you spend your money. Why do I not leave and go work in the US, where I can make twice the money, and half the taxes? Not because I dislike the US, but because I want to keep my money local. Why do I not purchase certain items at the grocery store? Why do I not shop in certain stores in the mall? Because, I don't agree with their business practices, and they don't desrve to be kept in business with my hard earned money. Sure, it's easy to say that little old me not shopping doesn't make a difference, but if more people acted as I do, the business sector would be an AWFUL lot more sensitive to what people really want.
People are going to say 'Stallman hates anyone who makes money.'. However, I must agree with him here. It's not about money.
The fact is, public companies are swayed by the bottom line. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts... Heck. Private ones too, in general, though not as severely.
Do you like what amazon is doing, suing on a VERY silly patent on a simple use of web technology? Yes, the patent system itself is partly to blame. However... The *ONLY* thing you can do to send a message to amazon that they will actually listen to is to stop doing business with them. Period. Sending them email voicing your displeasure will result in a 'So what? What does it matter to us what you think?' attitude.
Another example might be cable companies. We had a situation in Victoria, BC, where the cable company was doing some strange billing (you know, giving you extra channels and then billing everyone who didn't call to cancel.. etc...). People did NOT like this. Now, the CRTC (fcc equivalent, in these matters anyway) was taking too long. So, what did the people do? Massive cable revolt. Thousands of poeple calling up and cancelling their cable service, giving the simple reason that 'I do not approve of your billing practices' SCARED THE SHIT out of the cable company. And they changed their tune in a matter of a couple weeks.
So. The moral of this ill-written tirade is.... The consumer should show his displeasure by choosing what to consume more carefully. Period.
Anyone remember the original domain registration policies?
Let me recap, and paraphrase.
1 - domains were free. There was no registration fee. NSI was appointed to perform the administrative tasks of running the registry. Note this didn't mean 'owning' the DNS or anything, just someone to do the work.
2 - to get a.com you had to be a commercial entity. - to get a.net, you had to be a network provider, part of the overall Internet infrastructure. - to get a.org, you had to be a non-profit organization (not in the strictest sense, but generally true)
- The application states that you may not give fraudulent information on your registration (false company names are SO common nowadays)
- TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP (phrased as 'change of registrant' was *expressly* NOT POSSIBLE, except for one condition, being when one company purchases all the assetts of another (so mergers, things like that). This was in here SPECIFICALLY to prevent the type of behavior we see today.
Then.. Internic (NSI) started charging a fee for registration, claiming the US Govt did not wish to fund it anymore, as it was no longer a US-only issue (which is true) They came up with the $100/first 2 years followed by $50/year registration fee. This made sense. Domains took forever to register. It *DOES* cost money to do this.
Somewhere along the line, and I'm not clear why or what happened, or who to blame, but these rules stopped being enforced. NSI encouraged people to register.com,.net, and.org to protect their name. They encouraged people to register domains all the time, as many as possible. In short, the breakdown of the original rules caused the system to go to hell.
You're a bit off base here. there is no '.com.us' that I have ever heard of. The.us domain is broken down geographically/politically by state/county/city (or something similar, anyway). As for other countries, it is completely up to them how they further break down their country tld.
WHy do you assume NSI would be in deep pooppoo? even in.com.us DID exist, it would not be directly related to.com, AT ALL.
I agree in principle though, the whole problem is.com in the first place.. if ALL tld's were country based, it would have avoided this problem entirely.
The problem now, of course, is that these things have been sold to people, for bucketloads of money.
1) Dude PAYS someone thousands of dollars for the domain races.com. 2) NSI bungles the transfer (sucks, but they did) 3) under the new system, register.com has already sold the domain to someone. 4) NSI asks register.com (who they have NO authority over) if they can have it back, and explains what happened. 5) register.com says 'no, our cusomter has it under contract already. we can't back out' 6) NSI says 'I'm sorry, there is nothing we can do'
Now. I see 3 main points to consider. 1) If you are going to buy a domain from someone (a horrible practice), you should make it THEIR responsibility to ensure that the domain is transfered correctly, and they should receive payment once the domain is in your posession. NOT before.
2) If Internic even mentioned to him on the phone 'okay, we messed it up once, sorry, we'll put it through again correctly' or anything to that effect, then he has a case against them. A written promise is not needed. They claimed they would do something for him, then didn't follow through, and it will cost him money.
2) The whole concept of treating domain names like property is bunk. They are *NOT* property. If they *were*, it would be easy to buy and sell them, and it isn't.
I believe in most of the USA, if not all, it is legal to make a bet. It is, however, illegal to take bets. (this sounds contradictory, but I just don't know the proper terms.) Basically, you can place a bet on whatever you like, but you can't just run a casino, sportsbook, whatever..
Yes. It is very true that it is his responsibility. However, in most (all?) states, and many countries, it is ILLEGAL for VISA to extend credit for the purposes of gambling. Period. Sure, you say, you can just get a cash-advance and gamble it.. but that isn't what happened here. Yes, it sounds rediculous... but the company ay fault could be VISA, as they knowingly entered hot water by granting a merchant license to a casino.
Why do you say it's impossible for most small ISP's to support? Granted, most don't, but multicast is NOT difficult to support.
Large ISP's don't support it EITHER.. try getting it on @home.
Multicast is one of those wonderful technologies that the commercialization of internet access has almost killed. It used to be you could simply call your upstream and ask them 'Hey.. I need on MBone...' and they would get workin on it.
And they *should* make multicast available to the masses, that's what it's FOR. It's MORE efficient than any other method of moving broadcast data around, like video.
Why not turn it into a protocol? Because.. the protocol sucks. Why not just layer this on top of IRC? Use existing IRC networks & channels? That way, it's not centralized at all.
Honestly, though I think that the software is not directly responsible, I have a beef with napster...
1) No sharing between servers. Lame. 2) Okay. I agree, when I install it, to use it for legal purposes. Fine. No problem. 3) As soon as I start it up, the first time, it scours my HD and shares EVERY mp3 it finds. Now.. how am I supposed to make sure only my non-copywritten mp3's are shared when napster assumes every mp3 on my system is for sharing? Sure.. I can change it later, but how rude.
It really amazes me how someone can take a common application, and simplify the heck out of it, and it becomes popular. a-la: ICQ. WE had all those functions in IRC for a decade.. but it was more complicated than most people want. Napster: We had all these functions in IRC as well, or at least, with a few bots... but it's too obscure for the common man.
It is sad that we can't just allow technology to grow unfettered, and that we have to have our music listening preferences dicatated TO us, the consumer.
RIAA: If you can't keep up with technology, you are obsolete. Why should I go across town to search for the CD I want when I can download it immediately without leaving my chair? It's not becaues I'm cheap.. it's because I'm lazy, and don't have a credit card to buy things online with, and I will not inconvenience myself to support your archaic business.
ARTISTS: I'll pay large to see you perform live in my city.
Napster *could* have had a mixed media setting. So you can pick what media types you want to share.. that would have helped a lot.
Okay. 1) They shouldn't have called it 'FreeMWare'. That's not nice.. it's too close to the name VMWare. It could possibly be open to a (possibly deserved) trademark suit. 2) It's GOOD that this project exists, however. 3) It will be quite some time before it matches the performance of VMWare. I'm guessing a year at least, but I'm no expert. 4) VMWare is a good product. The presence of the (lagging behind) FreeMWare may give them incentive to continue to improve their product over the next few years, or else risk losing marketshare to FreeMWare. This is a good thing, and one of the good benefits of free software, it'll keep the commercial stuff GOOD. Peoples reason for buying VMWare will be, as it is today, that it is the best thing out there, period. 5) People have to chill. It's cool to start an OSS project about something, but it shouldn't be done to 'spite' a commercial product. Linux doesn't exist for the purpose of replacing window.s. that's just what's happening now...
I'm not sure you can just throw the SBC in your pci or isa slot.... most sbc's have an 'isa' type adapter.. but that's so you can attach an isa (or pci) backplane, so you can add cards..... it's simply so you don't waste real-estate on expansion slots if you don't need them. The SBC is not a standard ISA device......
Umm, how is VMWare a competitor? VMWare is *not* an emulator. It executes native x86 code natively. Also, Bochs is far too slow to be used to actualy run full X86 operating systems in a useful manner.
You are criticizing someone who is willingly GIVING his time to a cool OSS project for not giving his other baby up? Why on earth should he?
No way. Of course, VMWare still has some issues, a product of this nature will *always* have issues, but VMWare is VERY open and VERY prompt about dealing with problems. Their supports is superb, and the product is DIRT CHEAP, especially considering how well it works.
I was *AMAZED* at how well it worked, and I went into it very skeptical. And everyone I have shown it too (and I mean people who understand, not peopel who are like 'wow, that's amazing you can run windows under linux!), has been amazed at the performance as well.
It's great if we are working on an open-source project to do the same thing, but the tone of it should be 'he, let's do our own version! and make it open source!' not 'VMWare is not OSS, therefore, EVIL, and besides, it costs $$$, and it should be free... so let's make our own so we don't have to pay.'
Really, is it so bad that it is not oss, or that it is not free, when their is nobody else in their market? They built an excellent product, at a VERY fair price, with VERY fair licensing terms. (a larger company would have charged you a fee per-concurrent-VM)....
The law about ferrets, gerbils, and hamsters in california is a really pissy one. Especially for farrets. There is only one species of wild ferret in north america, and it is only distantly related to the domesetic ferret. The domestic ferret, on the other hand, has been domesticated for over 1500 years. In spite of this, the State of California views a ferret as a 'wild animal', so you may not have one as a pet. The fines are stiff.
And to anyone who has never experienced a ferrett.. they rock!
It's a big deal because, (I'm not implying they have done this already, btw), doubleclick, for example, could send out a spam and use this method to place cookies for doubleclick in everyone's computer that has that persons email addres. So.. now, without *asking* you for your email information, they have caused your browser to inform them of your email address every time they visit a site with a doubleclick ad.
Now, you say, they already had your email address.. yes, that is true. But they did *not* have a way to tie it into who was visiting what site when...
No, you miss the point. Yes, it's fairly innocent, and cookies have been given a bad rap...
The issue at hand is: 1) I can send out tons of spam that uses this 'feature' to place a cookie on everyone's machine. I can also ensure that this 'cookie' contains their email address, because I *know* their email address. 2) Now, whenever this person visits my site, it sends me their email address.
It's an underhanded way of making sure that you *do* get the email addresses of visitors to your site. Yes, you could say you already have them.. but now you know when that particular person visits your site, and it's that much easier to track them down.
As for saying that HTML can generate HTTP hits.. no.. that is patently false. HTML specifies the markup language, not the mechanism used to fetch objects. WHat the previous post said was that you can have HTML without HTTP, and he's entirely correct. What about pages that are on your HD? They dont' use *any* http to mark up a page with lots of graphics...
So what he's saying is that the security model of the html renderer for the mua should not permit access to HTTP facilities. IF there are embedded images, they should be contained as attachments, and referenced as such.
This simply says that national security officers can break into peoples computesr and do things if their reason for doing so is to protect national security. This is NOT much different from most other countries, the only difference being that in the US, there is probably no 'explicity' rule about breaking into computers. Gimme a break.. In the USA, the authorities can do *anything* in the name of national security... and get away with it.
I won't scorch you, but consider... These missions that have failed... they are VERY CHEAP compared to successes like Viking 1 & 2... and thir initial 'cheap' project, pathfinder, was an incredible success. So consider that they can either a) Try for the next 20 years to send up dozens of 100 million dollar projects, or spend 20 years making a 50 billion dollar project that still might fail. At least this way, some thigns will work, others won't, and for shit sake.. they will LEARN! The only way to learn is to make mistakes.. and believe me, they go way out of their way to make all the mistakes they can right here on earth. I think the engineering that goes into these probes, if you could see it, would make you think twice before coming down hard on nasa.,
They don't seem to say that NT is 'Certified C2'. I believe only individual installations can be certified, and there is no reason any other good OS cannot do the same.
Note they talk about how this is a guide as to how to configure NT in a way that is c2 eligible, not C2 certified. C2 certification covers many other things outside the OS (building security, etc..). So simply put, they are just telling you what configuration you should put NT into if you are trying to make it part of a systme you want to get C2 certified.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You could. .com, .net, and .org shared registry system and all the legal bullshit that goes along with it.
.au domains. Period.
And then you would have to put up with the
Read: NSI and it's 'competitors' have no say over
Use a javascript button instead. that way, it's not an html button.
I think, one of the most effective methods for a consumer-based society like we have in north america to get what the people want from business is to a) state what you want and b) voice your opinion by where you spend your money.
Why do I not leave and go work in the US, where I can make twice the money, and half the taxes? Not because I dislike the US, but because I want to keep my money local.
Why do I not purchase certain items at the grocery store? Why do I not shop in certain stores in the mall? Because, I don't agree with their business practices, and they don't desrve to be kept in business with my hard earned money.
Sure, it's easy to say that little old me not shopping doesn't make a difference, but if more people acted as I do, the business sector would be an AWFUL lot more sensitive to what people really want.
People are going to say 'Stallman hates anyone who makes money.'.
However, I must agree with him here.
It's not about money.
The fact is, public companies are swayed by the bottom line. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts...
Heck. Private ones too, in general, though not as severely.
Do you like what amazon is doing, suing on a VERY silly patent on a simple use of web technology? Yes, the patent system itself is partly to blame. However... The *ONLY* thing you can do to send a message to amazon that they will actually listen to is to stop doing business with them. Period.
Sending them email voicing your displeasure will result in a 'So what? What does it matter to us what you think?' attitude.
Another example might be cable companies. We had a situation in Victoria, BC, where the cable company was doing some strange billing (you know, giving you extra channels and then billing everyone who didn't call to cancel.. etc...). People did NOT like this. Now, the CRTC (fcc equivalent, in these matters anyway) was taking too long. So, what did the people do? Massive cable revolt.
Thousands of poeple calling up and cancelling their cable service, giving the simple reason that 'I do not approve of your billing practices' SCARED THE SHIT out of the cable company. And they changed their tune in a matter of a couple weeks.
So. The moral of this ill-written tirade is....
The consumer should show his displeasure by choosing what to consume more carefully. Period.
Anyone remember the original domain registration policies?
.com you had to be a commercial entity. .net, you had to be a network provider, part of the overall Internet infrastructure. .org, you had to be a non-profit organization (not in the strictest sense, but generally true)
.com, .net, and .org to protect their name. They encouraged people to register domains all the time, as many as possible.
Let me recap, and paraphrase.
1 - domains were free. There was no registration fee. NSI was appointed to perform the administrative tasks of running the registry. Note this didn't mean 'owning' the DNS or anything, just someone to do the work.
2 - to get a
- to get a
- to get a
- The application states that you may not give fraudulent information on your registration (false company names are SO common nowadays)
- TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP (phrased as 'change of registrant' was *expressly* NOT POSSIBLE, except for one condition, being when one company purchases all the assetts of another (so mergers, things like that).
This was in here SPECIFICALLY to prevent the type of behavior we see today.
Then.. Internic (NSI) started charging a fee for registration, claiming the US Govt did not wish to fund it anymore, as it was no longer a US-only issue (which is true)
They came up with the $100/first 2 years followed by $50/year registration fee. This made sense. Domains took forever to register. It *DOES* cost money to do this.
Somewhere along the line, and I'm not clear why or what happened, or who to blame, but these rules stopped being enforced. NSI encouraged people to register
In short, the breakdown of the original rules caused the system to go to hell.
You're a bit off base here. .us domain is broken down geographically/politically by state/county/city (or something similar, anyway).
.com.us DID exist, it would not be directly related to .com, AT ALL.
.com in the first place.. if ALL tld's were country based, it would have avoided this problem entirely.
there is no '.com.us' that I have ever heard of.
The
As for other countries, it is completely up to them how they further break down their country tld.
WHy do you assume NSI would be in deep pooppoo? even in
I agree in principle though, the whole problem is
The problem now, of course, is that these things have been sold to people, for bucketloads of money.
1) Dude PAYS someone thousands of dollars for the domain races.com.
2) NSI bungles the transfer (sucks, but they did)
3) under the new system, register.com has already sold the domain to someone.
4) NSI asks register.com (who they have NO authority over) if they can have it back, and explains what happened.
5) register.com says 'no, our cusomter has it under contract already. we can't back out'
6) NSI says 'I'm sorry, there is nothing we can do'
Now. I see 3 main points to consider.
1) If you are going to buy a domain from someone (a horrible practice), you should make it THEIR responsibility to ensure that the domain is transfered correctly, and they should receive payment once the domain is in your posession. NOT before.
2) If Internic even mentioned to him on the phone 'okay, we messed it up once, sorry, we'll put it through again correctly' or anything to that effect, then he has a case against them. A written promise is not needed. They claimed they would do something for him, then didn't follow through, and it will cost him money.
2) The whole concept of treating domain names like property is bunk. They are *NOT* property. If they *were*, it would be easy to buy and sell them, and it isn't.
This may be a bit off topic.. but what really irks me about this case is not that the guys is suing visa... but...
How the heck does someone this irresponsible get $25k in credit anyway? I'm having trouble getting
a measly $1000!
I believe in most of the USA, if not all, it is legal to make a bet.
It is, however, illegal to take bets. (this sounds contradictory, but I just don't know the proper terms.)
Basically, you can place a bet on whatever you like, but you can't just run a casino, sportsbook, whatever..
Yes, this is true of most (if not all) merchant agreements. It is not unique to casinos.
However, that aside, the fact remains that
a) the casino pays visa for the privelege of visa loaning money to people to gamble with. This is illegal.
Yes. It is very true that it is his responsibility. However, in most (all?) states, and many countries, it is ILLEGAL for VISA to extend credit for the purposes of gambling. Period.
Sure, you say, you can just get a cash-advance and gamble it.. but that isn't what happened here.
Yes, it sounds rediculous... but the company ay fault could be VISA, as they knowingly entered hot water by granting a merchant license to a casino.
Why do you say it's impossible for most small ISP's to support? Granted, most don't, but multicast is NOT difficult to support.
Large ISP's don't support it EITHER.. try getting it on @home.
Multicast is one of those wonderful technologies that the commercialization of internet access has almost killed. It used to be you could simply call your upstream and ask them 'Hey.. I need on MBone...' and they would get workin on it.
And they *should* make multicast available to the masses, that's what it's FOR.
It's MORE efficient than any other method of moving broadcast data around, like video.
Why not turn it into a protocol? Because.. the protocol sucks.
Why not just layer this on top of IRC? Use existing IRC networks & channels? That way, it's not centralized at all.
Honestly, though I think that the software is not directly responsible, I have a beef with napster...
1) No sharing between servers. Lame.
2) Okay. I agree, when I install it, to use it for legal purposes. Fine. No problem.
3) As soon as I start it up, the first time, it scours my HD and shares EVERY mp3 it finds. Now.. how am I supposed to make sure only my non-copywritten mp3's are shared when napster assumes every mp3 on my system is for sharing? Sure.. I can change it later, but how rude.
It really amazes me how someone can take a common application, and simplify the heck out of it, and it becomes popular.
a-la: ICQ. WE had all those functions in IRC for a decade.. but it was more complicated than most people want.
Napster: We had all these functions in IRC as well, or at least, with a few bots... but it's too obscure for the common man.
It is sad that we can't just allow technology to grow unfettered, and that we have to have our music listening preferences dicatated TO us, the consumer.
RIAA: If you can't keep up with technology, you are obsolete. Why should I go across town to search for the CD I want when I can download it immediately without leaving my chair? It's not becaues I'm cheap.. it's because I'm lazy, and don't have a credit card to buy things online with, and I will not inconvenience myself to support your archaic business.
ARTISTS: I'll pay large to see you perform live in my city.
Napster *could* have had a mixed media setting.
So you can pick what media types you want to share.. that would have helped a lot.
Okay.
1) They shouldn't have called it 'FreeMWare'. That's not nice.. it's too close to the name VMWare. It could possibly be open to a (possibly deserved) trademark suit.
2) It's GOOD that this project exists, however.
3) It will be quite some time before it matches the performance of VMWare. I'm guessing a year at least, but I'm no expert.
4) VMWare is a good product. The presence of the (lagging behind) FreeMWare may give them incentive to continue to improve their product over the next few years, or else risk losing marketshare to FreeMWare. This is a good thing, and one of the good benefits of free software, it'll keep the commercial stuff GOOD. Peoples reason for buying VMWare will be, as it is today, that it is the best thing out there, period.
5) People have to chill. It's cool to start an OSS project about something, but it shouldn't be done to 'spite' a commercial product. Linux doesn't exist for the purpose of replacing window.s. that's just what's happening now...
I'm not sure you can just throw the SBC in your pci or isa slot.... most sbc's have an 'isa' type adapter.. but that's so you can attach an isa (or pci) backplane, so you can add cards..... it's simply so you don't waste real-estate on expansion slots if you don't need them.
The SBC is not a standard ISA device......
Umm, how is VMWare a competitor? VMWare is *not* an emulator. It executes native x86 code natively. Also, Bochs is far too slow to be used to actualy run full X86 operating systems in a useful manner.
You are criticizing someone who is willingly GIVING his time to a cool OSS project for not giving his other baby up? Why on earth should he?
No way. Of course, VMWare still has some issues, a product of this nature will *always* have issues, but VMWare is VERY open and VERY prompt about dealing with problems. Their supports is superb, and the product is DIRT CHEAP, especially considering how well it works.
I was *AMAZED* at how well it worked, and I went into it very skeptical. And everyone I have shown it too (and I mean people who understand, not peopel who are like 'wow, that's amazing you can run windows under linux!), has been amazed at the performance as well.
It's great if we are working on an open-source project to do the same thing, but the tone of it should be 'he, let's do our own version! and make it open source!' not 'VMWare is not OSS, therefore, EVIL, and besides, it costs $$$, and it should be free... so let's make our own so we don't have to pay.'
Really, is it so bad that it is not oss, or that it is not free, when their is nobody else in their market? They built an excellent product, at a VERY fair price, with VERY fair licensing terms. (a larger company would have charged you a fee per-concurrent-VM)....
The law about ferrets, gerbils, and hamsters in california is a really pissy one. Especially for farrets.
There is only one species of wild ferret in north america, and it is only distantly related to the domesetic ferret. The domestic ferret, on the other hand, has been domesticated for over 1500 years. In spite of this, the State of California views a ferret as a 'wild animal', so you may not have one as a pet. The fines are stiff.
And to anyone who has never experienced a ferrett.. they rock!
It's a big deal because, (I'm not implying they have done this already, btw), doubleclick, for example, could send out a spam and use this method to place cookies for doubleclick in everyone's computer that has that persons email addres.
So.. now, without *asking* you for your email information, they have caused your browser to inform them of your email address every time they visit a site with a doubleclick ad.
Now, you say, they already had your email address.. yes, that is true. But they did *not* have a way to tie it into who was visiting what site when...
No, you miss the point.
Yes, it's fairly innocent, and cookies have been given a bad rap...
The issue at hand is:
1) I can send out tons of spam that uses this 'feature' to place a cookie on everyone's machine. I can also ensure that this 'cookie' contains their email address, because I *know* their email address.
2) Now, whenever this person visits my site, it sends me their email address.
It's an underhanded way of making sure that you *do* get the email addresses of visitors to your site. Yes, you could say you already have them.. but now you know when that particular person visits your site, and it's that much easier to track them down.
As for saying that HTML can generate HTTP hits.. no.. that is patently false.
HTML specifies the markup language, not the mechanism used to fetch objects. WHat the previous post said was that you can have HTML without HTTP, and he's entirely correct. What about pages that are on your HD? They dont' use *any* http to mark up a page with lots of graphics...
So what he's saying is that the security model of the html renderer for the mua should not permit access to HTTP facilities. IF there are embedded images, they should be contained as attachments, and referenced as such.
This simply says that national security officers can break into peoples computesr and do things if their reason for doing so is to protect national security. This is NOT much different from most other countries, the only difference being that in the US, there is probably no 'explicity' rule about breaking into computers. Gimme a break.. In the USA, the authorities can do *anything* in the name of national security... and get away with it.
I won't scorch you, but consider...
These missions that have failed... they are VERY CHEAP compared to successes like Viking 1 & 2... and thir initial 'cheap' project, pathfinder, was an incredible success. So consider that they can either
a) Try for the next 20 years to send up dozens of 100 million dollar projects, or spend 20 years making a 50 billion dollar project that still might fail. At least this way, some thigns will work, others won't, and for shit sake.. they will LEARN! The only way to learn is to make mistakes.. and believe me, they go way out of their way to make all the mistakes they can right here on earth.
I think the engineering that goes into these probes, if you could see it, would make you think twice before coming down hard on nasa.,
The impact probes may have worked, but don't they require the lander in order to relay information back to earth?
They don't seem to say that NT is 'Certified C2'. I believe only individual installations can be certified, and there is no reason any other good OS cannot do the same.
Note they talk about how this is a guide as to how to configure NT in a way that is c2 eligible, not C2 certified. C2 certification covers many other things outside the OS (building security, etc..). So simply put, they are just telling you what configuration you should put NT into if you are trying to make it part of a systme you want to get C2 certified.
If I had mod points today, I'd toss you some.
Very good point.
It's not the HTML that's the problem, it's the access to HTTP that is.