Of course he may be not guilty (everybody is innocent until proven guilty). However the conspiracy theorist had theorised he is being prosecuted for his activities related to the conference and a message was being sent to "hackers" out there. It turned out to be completely unrelated... Imagine that...
Either way, their argument is those copies of AIX/Dynix source code that were deleted off the developer's PCs might have helped them find the evidence they need. Nevermind they had access to the official code of every version released (other than a few ancient version of Dynix which even IBM doesn't have anymore) and they apparently can't produce any evidence from it.
That's like saying that they have AIX 3.1.1.1 and AIX 3.1.1.2 in which they can't find any infringements. But they're missing AIX 3.1.1.2 beta 23 - so that's why they can't prove their case! A biiiiiiiiiig stretch... Their only hope there is that a non-technical judge would not see that. Like I said, can't blame them for trying I suppose.
Here is the relevant excerpt from SCO's legal filing:
even after the Court ordered the source code to be produced, IBM failed to produce all versions of its AIX code, claiming that they cannot be located. Even more egregious was IBM's spoliation of evidence. Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed "dozens" of its Linux developers within its LTC and at least ten of its Linux developers outside the LOC to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers. (SCO Opp. Memo. (3/7/06) at 3.) One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying Dynix source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer. (Id. at 3-4.)
SCO has access to every version of AIX and Dynix released in recent and not so recent history and they can't identify any infringement in them. So now they're saying that the same code that were copied or cached on the developers' workstation must have had the smoking gun in it. That's a really really desperate argument. Clearly they're just trying hard to raise arguments - any arguments - that may lead to this devastating ruling to be reversed. I suppose I can't blame them lawyers for not leaving a stone unturned.
Well, Google is just a layer on top of the credit card companies, and they have to make a profit too. I wouldn't expect them to be cheaper overall. Although they may be cheaper than what certain merchants pay (some have higher rates than others, based on numerous factors).
When you say "us web developers" you must mean yourself. As a web developer I mourned the departure of Netscape - not because Netscape was good (by the end it was pretty bad, actually) - but because once Microsoft won the browser war they got lazy and the browser platform pretty much stagnated. Nothing new happened to IE for many many years (other than security bugs, and consequent fixes). It's not until recently, with Microsoft being challenged by Firefox (on the browser side) as well as Google and others (on the web application side) that we're finally seeing a revival of the web browser as a viable platform for "rich" applications (AJAX, etc). It's getting exciting again to be a web developer.
On one hand they wrote the thing, so they have unique expertise to make it work. One the other, if it didn't work well, you'd never know. It's not like Microsoft is going to advertise their ongoing woes with their own product.
I don't think it's quite that simple. When there are bottlenecks, everybody slow down. Not just the SUVs. (ok, enough of the highway metaphor).
I am no networking expert, I only know the broad concepts. But I think routers and web servers process packets/requests in the order they're received. I don't think they penalize lower bandwidth connections - but it also doesn't reward them. You seem to think that since you have lower bandwith to begin with, your packets should all go through. QoS probably kicks in for business customers with SLAs, but I would think home-users are all in the same pool.
To be fair, you ISP only owns parts of the highway: the on ramp (some might own a bit more than that). I bet you'd find that a bandwidth test against a server in their network would probably report numbers very close to what they're selling you. But there are quite a few bottleneck on the internet, including the bandwidth connection of the website you're trying to reach (including the bandwidth test sites I have seen).
But the thing is, like you say, US citizens are free to protest Gitmo. They're even free to toss out those politicians responsible for trampling americas reputation in the mud. Yet they do not. To me that's a mystery.
Not that mysterious to me...
First of all, the ones that DO protest those things are for the most part a very vocal minority. Most americans I know seem to be just ok with letting those "Terrist" rot in some jail in Cuba. Civil rights and liberties only apply to them, not to anybody else.
The second problem, is that in spite of all the talks about it, it's just not the issues that will get people to vote one way or another. Domestic issues do. The Iraq war may have an impact on the next election (mostly due to the domestic implications: higher deficits, loss of lives) but I doubt it. The domestic spying has some potential, and the Democrats are trying the issue for size (newly found outrage for something they knew about) - too early to call on this one. It may have an impact.
The last problem of course, is that the alternatives are not much better, if at all. And in a system with two parties, there isn't much of a choice.
Well, good for you! I know that's the way it works on Linux, and it's an artifact of the open source that anybody (like Ubuntu) can distribute and customize third party software. I am not interested to start a debate on open source versus closed source (obviously on Slashdot we all know our collective opinion on that) - just recognize it's not possible (legally or practically) in the closed source world of Microsoft.
Package management doesn't imply that you're not phoning home to dozens of different vendors. In fact on Linux you can (and often do) add lots of different repositories to pull from.
It would be nice for Windows to have a standard packages (and manager) rather than a every vendor coming up with its own installers and updaters. But it doesn't exist (and Microsoft would probably would get sued out of existence by the vendors if they tried - antitrust and all that), and wouldn't do that much I think to alleviate the fears of the paranoids out there.
Well, you've got a point there. You only have Google's word that they're only sending what they clearly state they're sending. Even if you don't explicitely trust Google (and many don't) - people inspect these network packets all the time to keep the vendor honest. It's been a while since I've seen a report of a vendor being sneaky and doing more than advertise. I think most reputable vendors have learned the lesson that the PR hit is just not worth it.
But again, what Google is doing is very common practice in Windows world (and getting quite popular in Linux world). It is by far the best way to keep software updated, and push (actually, really pull) updates and fix vulnerabilities as fast as possible.
There are those that check repositories manually on a regular basis (or never!) for updates. The repositories (in some case run by the vendor) will have similar anonymous information about you that Google logs. However this method is a potential problem - you may have a vulnerable machine/software if you don't get your patches fast enough (or not at all).
Then there are those that run tools like RHN in the background (similar to Automatic Updates in Windows) - those tools poll the repositories once a day or more often. You'll giving the repository owner (in some case the software vendors) the same info as you're giving to Google, and potentially more (like a userid) if it's a service you're paying for.
Then there are those that just download and compile everything manually. OK, if you're one of them good for you. Your tinhat is firmly implanted. Hopefully you're doing your downloads through anonymous proxies. Heaven forbid a vendor should know the real IP address of the downloaders!!!
It's not really so different in Linux world than it is in Windows world... Software (wether it's in the software itself, or through a proxy - like a package manager) check for updates. In the process of checking for updates, certain information (usually anonymous) is provided to the server.
As opposed to Firefox (and right about every modern application I've used), which doesn't? It's just checking if there is an update to download. And only in the "hosted web browser" which you don't even need to use. Jeez. Paranoid.
I am absolutely paying attention to the news - and what I am seeing has little to do with a national id card. A national id card would have little impact on the government's ability to spy on its citizen. They can do this just fine with the limited and fragmented set of Ids we have now (SS#, driver's license, etc).
But to address your general point that "governments can go wrong" - sure that's very true. But in this particular system there are "checks and balances". Congress is getting started on this, and we're just a lawsuit away before the judicary gets involved to. I am not yet concerned that the system is not going to correct itself. And if it doesn't, it can be "corrected" at the next election. Am I naive? Maybe. Time will tell.
I understand this argument, and I'll go back to my "they are elected" argument. If you don't like what your government does, then don't elect them. We don't live in Cuba or China here. But on that specific subject, the truth of the matter is that if polls are any indications, the vast majority of Americans have no problem with what the NSA is currently doing (I assume that's what you're refering to).
But regardless, that problem is not inherent to the concept of the ID card. It's what they are allowed to do with this card (or any of the existing ways to imperfectly identify you) that's the problem.
No need to give ur correct number to the cable or phone company. They don't need it.
You can always try anyway. If they don't like what they see (or don't see anything) just be prepared to give them deposits, or possibly (not sure they can do that legally) deny service.
I don't know how long ago that was, but I think things are changing in that regards. My company also used the SS# in way too many places (it's a convenient primary key on databases) but they're being stripped out of many many such programs and databases. Policies are now in place that you have to jump through some major hoops to be able to use it in your applications/databases (and will almost in all cases be told "no"). I don't know if this was driven by legal requirements, or just (belated) common sense but it's a welcomed change!
You are describing the potential abuses by a government for such a system, jumping immediately to the conclusion that if it exists, the government will abuse it. Give me a break - the US government, at last check, regardless of what you think of it, was still elected (and please don't start yet-another-debate about electoral votes).
The truth of the matter, is that the US needs a national id card (and not the de-facto national id card that the Social Security cards is). For a government entity or other institution to be able to tell you are who you say you are is a pretty fundamental need, and very poorly addressed in the USA. Right about every European country has such an ID card, and yet surprisingly enough they're not enslaved to the government and probably have the most stringent privacy laws protecting them than anywhere else in the world. Go figure.
I am in the same boat too, and I did find that strange. I wondered if it was a mistake (misunderstanding regulations or whatever) or intentional. It is probably the first time ever that I see myself excluded from something financial from being a permanent resident. None of my banks, credit cards, brokerage firms, or mortgage companies has ever treated me any differently from being a permanent resident.
Oh well. It doesn't matter much, I doubt I would participate in this anyway. Much too speculative for my taste.
Re:IPO = more reliability/quality?
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, they are completely at the mercy of YOUR isp as far as their reliability is concerned. I have been a customer with them for several years now, and I have yet to have a problem with them that wasn't related to my ISP. Thankfully I have very rarely problems with internet connection, so I am a very satisfied Vonage customer as far as reliability is concerned.
Now, their customer service people are aweful. I only had to deal with them once ever, that was this weekend. Basically after years of good service my original Cisco ATA died. It took about an hour on the phone (talking to several indian people) for them to acknowledge that very obvious fact (my router did not see any traffic coming from the ATA at all). And at the end, their "solution" was for me to go to Best Buy and get a new one at my own expenses (and I can't fill the mail-in rebate because I am not a new customer). That of course, did indeed fix the problem, but left me $60 poorer.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's not their job to be nice and wait? I am sure (at least I certainly hope!) that they have better things to do.
Of course he may be not guilty (everybody is innocent until proven guilty). However the conspiracy theorist had theorised he is being prosecuted for his activities related to the conference and a message was being sent to "hackers" out there. It turned out to be completely unrelated... Imagine that...
Either way, their argument is those copies of AIX/Dynix source code that were deleted off the developer's PCs might have helped them find the evidence they need. Nevermind they had access to the official code of every version released (other than a few ancient version of Dynix which even IBM doesn't have anymore) and they apparently can't produce any evidence from it.
That's like saying that they have AIX 3.1.1.1 and AIX 3.1.1.2 in which they can't find any infringements. But they're missing AIX 3.1.1.2 beta 23 - so that's why they can't prove their case! A biiiiiiiiiig stretch... Their only hope there is that a non-technical judge would not see that. Like I said, can't blame them for trying I suppose.
Here is the relevant excerpt from SCO's legal filing:
even after the Court ordered the source code to be produced, IBM failed to produce all versions of its AIX code, claiming that they cannot be located. Even more egregious was IBM's spoliation of evidence. Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed "dozens" of its Linux developers within its LTC and at least ten of its Linux developers outside the LOC to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers. (SCO Opp. Memo. (3/7/06) at 3.) One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying Dynix source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer. (Id. at 3-4.)
SCO has access to every version of AIX and Dynix released in recent and not so recent history and they can't identify any infringement in them. So now they're saying that the same code that were copied or cached on the developers' workstation must have had the smoking gun in it. That's a really really desperate argument. Clearly they're just trying hard to raise arguments - any arguments - that may lead to this devastating ruling to be reversed. I suppose I can't blame them lawyers for not leaving a stone unturned.
Not only that, but since it came from staff, it was probably internal. No "internets" involved.
Well, Google is just a layer on top of the credit card companies, and they have to make a profit too. I wouldn't expect them to be cheaper overall. Although they may be cheaper than what certain merchants pay (some have higher rates than others, based on numerous factors).
Babelfish is not your friend... "work" can have several translations, and you (it) picked the wrong one :)
When you say "us web developers" you must mean yourself. As a web developer I mourned the departure of Netscape - not because Netscape was good (by the end it was pretty bad, actually) - but because once Microsoft won the browser war they got lazy and the browser platform pretty much stagnated. Nothing new happened to IE for many many years (other than security bugs, and consequent fixes). It's not until recently, with Microsoft being challenged by Firefox (on the browser side) as well as Google and others (on the web application side) that we're finally seeing a revival of the web browser as a viable platform for "rich" applications (AJAX, etc). It's getting exciting again to be a web developer.
Really? I thought it'd be obvious frankly.
On one hand they wrote the thing, so they have unique expertise to make it work. One the other, if it didn't work well, you'd never know. It's not like Microsoft is going to advertise their ongoing woes with their own product.
I am sure Microsoft did an unbiased evaluation of what mail server to run internally? Lol... yeah right.
Give me another company that uses it for 60,000 employees and you'd have a point (not saying there is no such company, I have no idea.)
I don't think it's quite that simple. When there are bottlenecks, everybody slow down. Not just the SUVs. (ok, enough of the highway metaphor).
I am no networking expert, I only know the broad concepts. But I think routers and web servers process packets/requests in the order they're received. I don't think they penalize lower bandwidth connections - but it also doesn't reward them. You seem to think that since you have lower bandwith to begin with, your packets should all go through. QoS probably kicks in for business customers with SLAs, but I would think home-users are all in the same pool.
To be fair, you ISP only owns parts of the highway: the on ramp (some might own a bit more than that). I bet you'd find that a bandwidth test against a server in their network would probably report numbers very close to what they're selling you. But there are quite a few bottleneck on the internet, including the bandwidth connection of the website you're trying to reach (including the bandwidth test sites I have seen).
But the thing is, like you say, US citizens are free to protest Gitmo. They're even free to toss out those politicians responsible for trampling americas reputation in the mud. Yet they do not. To me that's a mystery.
Not that mysterious to me...
First of all, the ones that DO protest those things are for the most part a very vocal minority. Most americans I know seem to be just ok with letting those "Terrist" rot in some jail in Cuba. Civil rights and liberties only apply to them, not to anybody else.
The second problem, is that in spite of all the talks about it, it's just not the issues that will get people to vote one way or another. Domestic issues do. The Iraq war may have an impact on the next election (mostly due to the domestic implications: higher deficits, loss of lives) but I doubt it. The domestic spying has some potential, and the Democrats are trying the issue for size (newly found outrage for something they knew about) - too early to call on this one. It may have an impact.
The last problem of course, is that the alternatives are not much better, if at all. And in a system with two parties, there isn't much of a choice.
Well, good for you! I know that's the way it works on Linux, and it's an artifact of the open source that anybody (like Ubuntu) can distribute and customize third party software. I am not interested to start a debate on open source versus closed source (obviously on Slashdot we all know our collective opinion on that) - just recognize it's not possible (legally or practically) in the closed source world of Microsoft.
Package management doesn't imply that you're not phoning home to dozens of different vendors. In fact on Linux you can (and often do) add lots of different repositories to pull from.
It would be nice for Windows to have a standard packages (and manager) rather than a every vendor coming up with its own installers and updaters. But it doesn't exist (and Microsoft would probably would get sued out of existence by the vendors if they tried - antitrust and all that), and wouldn't do that much I think to alleviate the fears of the paranoids out there.
Well, you've got a point there. You only have Google's word that they're only sending what they clearly state they're sending. Even if you don't explicitely trust Google (and many don't) - people inspect these network packets all the time to keep the vendor honest. It's been a while since I've seen a report of a vendor being sneaky and doing more than advertise. I think most reputable vendors have learned the lesson that the PR hit is just not worth it.
But again, what Google is doing is very common practice in Windows world (and getting quite popular in Linux world). It is by far the best way to keep software updated, and push (actually, really pull) updates and fix vulnerabilities as fast as possible.
Well, ok - let's address the Linux world as well.
There are those that check repositories manually on a regular basis (or never!) for updates. The repositories (in some case run by the vendor) will have similar anonymous information about you that Google logs. However this method is a potential problem - you may have a vulnerable machine/software if you don't get your patches fast enough (or not at all).
Then there are those that run tools like RHN in the background (similar to Automatic Updates in Windows) - those tools poll the repositories once a day or more often. You'll giving the repository owner (in some case the software vendors) the same info as you're giving to Google, and potentially more (like a userid) if it's a service you're paying for.
Then there are those that just download and compile everything manually. OK, if you're one of them good for you. Your tinhat is firmly implanted. Hopefully you're doing your downloads through anonymous proxies. Heaven forbid a vendor should know the real IP address of the downloaders!!!
It's not really so different in Linux world than it is in Windows world... Software (wether it's in the software itself, or through a proxy - like a package manager) check for updates. In the process of checking for updates, certain information (usually anonymous) is provided to the server.
As opposed to Firefox (and right about every modern application I've used), which doesn't? It's just checking if there is an update to download. And only in the "hosted web browser" which you don't even need to use. Jeez. Paranoid.
I am absolutely paying attention to the news - and what I am seeing has little to do with a national id card. A national id card would have little impact on the government's ability to spy on its citizen. They can do this just fine with the limited and fragmented set of Ids we have now (SS#, driver's license, etc).
But to address your general point that "governments can go wrong" - sure that's very true. But in this particular system there are "checks and balances". Congress is getting started on this, and we're just a lawsuit away before the judicary gets involved to. I am not yet concerned that the system is not going to correct itself. And if it doesn't, it can be "corrected" at the next election. Am I naive? Maybe. Time will tell.
I understand this argument, and I'll go back to my "they are elected" argument. If you don't like what your government does, then don't elect them. We don't live in Cuba or China here. But on that specific subject, the truth of the matter is that if polls are any indications, the vast majority of Americans have no problem with what the NSA is currently doing (I assume that's what you're refering to).
But regardless, that problem is not inherent to the concept of the ID card. It's what they are allowed to do with this card (or any of the existing ways to imperfectly identify you) that's the problem.
No need to give ur correct number to the cable or phone company. They don't need it.
You can always try anyway. If they don't like what they see (or don't see anything) just be prepared to give them deposits, or possibly (not sure they can do that legally) deny service.
I don't know how long ago that was, but I think things are changing in that regards. My company also used the SS# in way too many places (it's a convenient primary key on databases) but they're being stripped out of many many such programs and databases. Policies are now in place that you have to jump through some major hoops to be able to use it in your applications/databases (and will almost in all cases be told "no"). I don't know if this was driven by legal requirements, or just (belated) common sense but it's a welcomed change!
How is the tinfoil hat doing? All nice and shiny?
You are describing the potential abuses by a government for such a system, jumping immediately to the conclusion that if it exists, the government will abuse it. Give me a break - the US government, at last check, regardless of what you think of it, was still elected (and please don't start yet-another-debate about electoral votes).
The truth of the matter, is that the US needs a national id card (and not the de-facto national id card that the Social Security cards is). For a government entity or other institution to be able to tell you are who you say you are is a pretty fundamental need, and very poorly addressed in the USA. Right about every European country has such an ID card, and yet surprisingly enough they're not enslaved to the government and probably have the most stringent privacy laws protecting them than anywhere else in the world. Go figure.
I am in the same boat too, and I did find that strange. I wondered if it was a mistake (misunderstanding regulations or whatever) or intentional. It is probably the first time ever that I see myself excluded from something financial from being a permanent resident. None of my banks, credit cards, brokerage firms, or mortgage companies has ever treated me any differently from being a permanent resident.
Oh well. It doesn't matter much, I doubt I would participate in this anyway. Much too speculative for my taste.
Unfortunately, they are completely at the mercy of YOUR isp as far as their reliability is concerned. I have been a customer with them for several years now, and I have yet to have a problem with them that wasn't related to my ISP. Thankfully I have very rarely problems with internet connection, so I am a very satisfied Vonage customer as far as reliability is concerned.
Now, their customer service people are aweful. I only had to deal with them once ever, that was this weekend. Basically after years of good service my original Cisco ATA died. It took about an hour on the phone (talking to several indian people) for them to acknowledge that very obvious fact (my router did not see any traffic coming from the ATA at all). And at the end, their "solution" was for me to go to Best Buy and get a new one at my own expenses (and I can't fill the mail-in rebate because I am not a new customer). That of course, did indeed fix the problem, but left me $60 poorer.