It also should be noted that we are nearly 100% certain that people running anti-spyware programs want to be running them. To run something like Adaware, you have to download, install it, hopefully update it, and then explicitly schedule it to run. All these steps clearly should trump any spyware that gets in the backdoor along with another application and a license file that requires one keypress to acknowledge. If someone is running anti-spyware programs, then no, he doesn't want spyware on his machine.
There is at least one very valid reason to procrastinate (apart from staying sane). By procrastinating, you allow yourself time to figure out whether there may be a much easier or faster way to accomplish your task. If you do it immediately, you don't give as much thought or do as much planning towards making the task easier, which can end up making the task actually take longer or its outcome less successful than if you had procrastinated.
I don't know if "usually lots of old baggage in families" is accurate or not, but I know that there is absolutely no baggage between me and my brothers and I would trust them completely. If there is actually baggage between family members then the mistake would be not recognizing said baggage before deciding whether to enter into a business relationship with family.
This is FUNNY! the letter sent to HardOCP is really, really amusing... it's written as if by a primary school child.
In other words, it's written like a forum post instead of a letter from lawyers, except you can see more intelligent posts than that letter on almost any forum on the internet.
Further, deterrence is a significant element in criminal sentencing not just in IP crimes, but in all crimes. Until recently, many people believed that piracy was a consequence-free activity and that it did not harm anyone. The sentences that have been handed down in recent prosecutions have begun to change that impression, and will deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
This paragraph clearly implies that the only actual significant consequences that come from piracy are the punishments for breaking the law, not those directly caused by the act of piracy. If that is indeed the case then the laws should definitely be changed. While I don't think he actually believes this, it is telling on what the actual consequences of piracy are when apart from those consequences imposed by our legal system.
It's not the users that will have the problem, it's the admins. But since they're tech people, they should be able to retrain themselves or you can bring in new people if they don't already know anything besides Windows. The users will have relatively few problems once they're shown where to point and click.
Amirshahi said that while Cox doesn't "actively scan" its network to detect the ports used by VPN clients, it does scan the network for excessive bandwidth usage.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but most cable companies' ToS have nothing in them about total bandwidth, do they? How can they determine what is excessive in a way that is not arbitrary if they don't spell it out in the ToS? I don't think any ToS I've read for U.S. cable internet providers includes any definition of excessive bandwidth usage.
And they really shouldn't be checking for excessive bandwidth usage at all if there is no clear rule against it. I'm wondering why they don't check for VPNs when they clearly state it as being against the rules (regardless of whether it makes sense for VPNs to be against the rules), but they do check for excessive bandwidth usage even though there is no download cap for a lot of cable internet services. If they want to limit bandwidth, it's pretty simple to institute a download cap or charge extra beyond a certain amount, like they do with cell phone minutes.
I hope this clause is just in there to ensure against getting sued if they cause a business disruption with downtime. I think they would have to be a lot clearer about what they allow and don't allow, and try to actually enforce it, for a the law to side with them if some kind of suit came out of something like this.
Also, VPNs have been disallowed on residential cable service for quite a while as far as I know. When I was looking at cable before getting dsl about a year and a half ago, Comcast (actually, it may have been before Comcast bought the local cable company) already was saying in their terms that VPNs were not allowed.
I know there was one recently on ArsTechnica's forum about this. It links to a couple articles 12 discussing some of the ways people see this and why they see it as good or bad.
Why is Tom comparing the cost for four cable runs to the cost of one run with the wallplate? It seems like he's pushing this device. I wonder how many he gets for free if he writes a favorable review?
This wallplate will not be competing with four cable runs as much as it will with one cable run going to a regular 4 or 8 port switch, will it? I mean, in the performance test he wasn't that specific in what I saw, but it appears he is comparing a single run of cable to the wallplate and a single run to a regular switch. Why the hell is he comparing the price to four runs of cable, then? Seems to me that he's trying to make it look like a better deal than it actually is.
If you want to do a proper cost comparison, all you need to do is compare the price of a regular 4 port switch with that of the 3com wallplate. Running four cables is more expensive, but it also provides a dedicate 100Mb/sec connection to each jack, rather than all four sharing 100Mb/sec from the 3com to whatever switch or device is on the other end.
Wolf uses the same cdkey generation technology as Q3A. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE SINGLE HACK on this system. Many so-called cdkey generators are in fact virus attacks that steal your own good cdkey, or worse, corrupt your files.
So, I don't have a CDKey and download a CDKey generator to get one, and it is actually a virus attack to steal my good cdkey? Does this seem like a stupid statement to anybody else, or if it is true, don't the CDKey authors seem stupid? Who would write CDKey generators to steal CDKeys, when most of the people who try to use them want them because they don't want a CDKey? Am I missing something?
Here at NOAA, I know the line office I work in uses Suns and HPs extensively for servers, as well as some VAX and DECAlphas, and we do a lot of cool things with them. We also happen to do a lot of cool things with Windows 2000, but more on the workstation level. I can't really speak for all of NOAA, or the Department of Commerce, of which NOAA is a part, but I'm sure there are plenty of government agencies that use Unix and Linux.
I'm also familiar with several labs at NIH that use Linux almost exclusively. The few exceptions in these labs are things like some SGI and Solaris machines, and a very small number of laptops which dual boot Windows and Linux. If you look, you can find many government job opportunities that require Unix and/or Linux knowledge, and a lot of them are challenging.
I think The Filthy Critic does not read slashdot. Otherwise, slashdot editors would have gotten Filthy's "Quote Whore of the Week" at least once by now. Could we kiss up to some crappy movies a little more?
This is why Cisco is on top. Their hardware is not necessarily the best, but it is good and their support is excellent. Try to find any other company competing in the same arena that has the same combination of hardware, software, and support. It does not exist.
I agree that the technology will get smaller and smaller. After all, look how much more info you can now pack on one platter of a hard drive compared to not long ago. I think it would be very difficult to make something like an eyepiece that most people would like better than a screen, even if the screen is a small one.
If you look at all the newer camcorders, they are going in a slightly different direction. All camcorders started with an eyepiece, but now most of them come with a 2.5 inch or 3 inch LCD screen that folds out. This is most likely because people like them better than the eyepiece and the companies can sell more camcorders (and charge more) with the LCD screen.
Granted, a camcorder has different applications than the uses described for a "finger", but I think you could learn something from it. I definitely prefer using the LCD screen most of the time when using a camcorder, mainly because it is easier than using the eyepiece. I think a good, usable eyepiece would be the hardest feature, out of the ones mentioned, to implement well.
They're trying to make servers behave like kitchen appliances. What a great idea! We'll be able to have the Sears guy fix our servers once this gets implemented.
Meanwhile, I'll be moving into a new field, since kitchen appliances, game consoles, and other household items will soon become computers.
Please. If this happens, it will be great, and it will certainly not mean fewer jobs for tech workers or fewer problems for the people using the servers. It will just cause different problems, resulting in different solutions. When has making things more complicated made them less costly to maintain?
And that is the issue. The article mentions the unavailability of skilled tech workers and cost as the two main reasons for this. There is no shortage of tech workers, though. There is a a shortage of low cost tech workers, and most of these people obviously could not be expected to have high end skills. That is why the big companies wanted the raise in the H1B limit.
If IBM succeeds at this, I don't see their customers saving much, if any, money on it. Customers will just end up paying IBM a larger share of the money they spend on technology than customers have previously. I also don't see any problems for technology workers. More technology means more jobs. Sure, we have to adapt, but you shouldn't be in the technology field if you can't learn new things. Technology will continue to proliferate, as will the need for people to help keep it all working.
No, you can keep wireless access from happening -- it's just a pain in the ass. Most switches these days support secure ports. With the Cisco switches I use at work, you can set port security so it not only allows just one specific MAC to use the port, but if anybody unplugs the cable to plug something else in, the port is automatically disabled (although there are other settings to choose from besides automatically disabling the port). This keeps people from spoofing the MAC, because nothing will work until an admin resets the port. For more information, check out this article.
Like a lot of security, it's a pain in the ass, but you can prevent people from plugging in unauthorized devices, wireless or otherwise. Of course, no security is unbeatable.
Slashdot Mirror
It also should be noted that we are nearly 100% certain that people running anti-spyware programs want to be running them. To run something like Adaware, you have to download, install it, hopefully update it, and then explicitly schedule it to run. All these steps clearly should trump any spyware that gets in the backdoor along with another application and a license file that requires one keypress to acknowledge. If someone is running anti-spyware programs, then no, he doesn't want spyware on his machine.
Kerry pledges more money, while Bush spends it.
There is at least one very valid reason to procrastinate (apart from staying sane). By procrastinating, you allow yourself time to figure out whether there may be a much easier or faster way to accomplish your task. If you do it immediately, you don't give as much thought or do as much planning towards making the task easier, which can end up making the task actually take longer or its outcome less successful than if you had procrastinated.
I don't know if "usually lots of old baggage in families" is accurate or not, but I know that there is absolutely no baggage between me and my brothers and I would trust them completely. If there is actually baggage between family members then the mistake would be not recognizing said baggage before deciding whether to enter into a business relationship with family.
This is FUNNY! the letter sent to HardOCP is really, really amusing... it's written as if by a primary school child.
In other words, it's written like a forum post instead of a letter from lawyers, except you can see more intelligent posts than that letter on almost any forum on the internet.
It's Cheap Complex Devices, not Cheap Computer Devices.
pls fix k thnx
Ummm, there is a large insert near the beginning of the article stating that the Post's website uses Doubleclick to serve ads.
It's not the users that will have the problem, it's the admins. But since they're tech people, they should be able to retrain themselves or you can bring in new people if they don't already know anything besides Windows. The users will have relatively few problems once they're shown where to point and click.
The Washington Post's website is free. Why not link to the original article?
I don't read slashdot. ;)
And slashdot is normally not a huge waste of time and actually posts stories that are well written, interesting, original, and that matter.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but most cable companies' ToS have nothing in them about total bandwidth, do they? How can they determine what is excessive in a way that is not arbitrary if they don't spell it out in the ToS? I don't think any ToS I've read for U.S. cable internet providers includes any definition of excessive bandwidth usage.
And they really shouldn't be checking for excessive bandwidth usage at all if there is no clear rule against it. I'm wondering why they don't check for VPNs when they clearly state it as being against the rules (regardless of whether it makes sense for VPNs to be against the rules), but they do check for excessive bandwidth usage even though there is no download cap for a lot of cable internet services. If they want to limit bandwidth, it's pretty simple to institute a download cap or charge extra beyond a certain amount, like they do with cell phone minutes.
I hope this clause is just in there to ensure against getting sued if they cause a business disruption with downtime. I think they would have to be a lot clearer about what they allow and don't allow, and try to actually enforce it, for a the law to side with them if some kind of suit came out of something like this.
Also, VPNs have been disallowed on residential cable service for quite a while as far as I know. When I was looking at cable before getting dsl about a year and a half ago, Comcast (actually, it may have been before Comcast bought the local cable company) already was saying in their terms that VPNs were not allowed.
I know there was one recently on ArsTechnica's forum about this. It links to a couple articles 1 2 discussing some of the ways people see this and why they see it as good or bad.
Why is Tom comparing the cost for four cable runs to the cost of one run with the wallplate? It seems like he's pushing this device. I wonder how many he gets for free if he writes a favorable review?
This wallplate will not be competing with four cable runs as much as it will with one cable run going to a regular 4 or 8 port switch, will it? I mean, in the performance test he wasn't that specific in what I saw, but it appears he is comparing a single run of cable to the wallplate and a single run to a regular switch. Why the hell is he comparing the price to four runs of cable, then? Seems to me that he's trying to make it look like a better deal than it actually is.
If you want to do a proper cost comparison, all you need to do is compare the price of a regular 4 port switch with that of the 3com wallplate. Running four cables is more expensive, but it also provides a dedicate 100Mb/sec connection to each jack, rather than all four sharing 100Mb/sec from the 3com to whatever switch or device is on the other end.
From the link about CDkeys:
So, I don't have a CDKey and download a CDKey generator to get one, and it is actually a virus attack to steal my good cdkey? Does this seem like a stupid statement to anybody else, or if it is true, don't the CDKey authors seem stupid? Who would write CDKey generators to steal CDKeys, when most of the people who try to use them want them because they don't want a CDKey? Am I missing something?
Here at NOAA, I know the line office I work in uses Suns and HPs extensively for servers, as well as some VAX and DECAlphas, and we do a lot of cool things with them. We also happen to do a lot of cool things with Windows 2000, but more on the workstation level. I can't really speak for all of NOAA, or the Department of Commerce, of which NOAA is a part, but I'm sure there are plenty of government agencies that use Unix and Linux.
I'm also familiar with several labs at NIH that use Linux almost exclusively. The few exceptions in these labs are things like some SGI and Solaris machines, and a very small number of laptops which dual boot Windows and Linux. If you look, you can find many government job opportunities that require Unix and/or Linux knowledge, and a lot of them are challenging.
I think The Filthy Critic does not read slashdot. Otherwise, slashdot editors would have gotten Filthy's "Quote Whore of the Week" at least once by now. Could we kiss up to some crappy movies a little more?
This is why Cisco is on top. Their hardware is not necessarily the best, but it is good and their support is excellent. Try to find any other company competing in the same arena that has the same combination of hardware, software, and support. It does not exist.
I agree that the technology will get smaller and smaller. After all, look how much more info you can now pack on one platter of a hard drive compared to not long ago. I think it would be very difficult to make something like an eyepiece that most people would like better than a screen, even if the screen is a small one.
If you look at all the newer camcorders, they are going in a slightly different direction. All camcorders started with an eyepiece, but now most of them come with a 2.5 inch or 3 inch LCD screen that folds out. This is most likely because people like them better than the eyepiece and the companies can sell more camcorders (and charge more) with the LCD screen.
Granted, a camcorder has different applications than the uses described for a "finger", but I think you could learn something from it. I definitely prefer using the LCD screen most of the time when using a camcorder, mainly because it is easier than using the eyepiece. I think a good, usable eyepiece would be the hardest feature, out of the ones mentioned, to implement well.
If the license allows it, it's not all Apple's fault.
They're trying to make servers behave like kitchen appliances. What a great idea! We'll be able to have the Sears guy fix our servers once this gets implemented.
Meanwhile, I'll be moving into a new field, since kitchen appliances, game consoles, and other household items will soon become computers.
Please. If this happens, it will be great, and it will certainly not mean fewer jobs for tech workers or fewer problems for the people using the servers. It will just cause different problems, resulting in different solutions. When has making things more complicated made them less costly to maintain?
And that is the issue. The article mentions the unavailability of skilled tech workers and cost as the two main reasons for this. There is no shortage of tech workers, though. There is a a shortage of low cost tech workers, and most of these people obviously could not be expected to have high end skills. That is why the big companies wanted the raise in the H1B limit.
If IBM succeeds at this, I don't see their customers saving much, if any, money on it. Customers will just end up paying IBM a larger share of the money they spend on technology than customers have previously. I also don't see any problems for technology workers. More technology means more jobs. Sure, we have to adapt, but you shouldn't be in the technology field if you can't learn new things. Technology will continue to proliferate, as will the need for people to help keep it all working.
No, you can keep wireless access from happening -- it's just a pain in the ass. Most switches these days support secure ports. With the Cisco switches I use at work, you can set port security so it not only allows just one specific MAC to use the port, but if anybody unplugs the cable to plug something else in, the port is automatically disabled (although there are other settings to choose from besides automatically disabling the port). This keeps people from spoofing the MAC, because nothing will work until an admin resets the port. For more information, check out this article.
Like a lot of security, it's a pain in the ass, but you can prevent people from plugging in unauthorized devices, wireless or otherwise. Of course, no security is unbeatable.
Although not all that original. (If you haven't seen it, like technology, and need a laugh, check out the rest of routergod)
What idiot moderator rated this Offtopic? Since when is someone quoting the article and directly responding Offtopic?