I was intrigued by the note at the bottom: Oracle having a security flaw, taking six months to fix it, and charging for the patch. I did two or three quick searches of "Older Stuff," and couldn't find an allusion to it.
In contrast, I know SQL Slammer was reported day-of. In this case, a free patch was available six months prior to the worm. And let's face it: if the patch is available but not applied, it's not Microsoft's, Oracle's, Linus's, or any other vendor's fault--only the SysAdmin in question.
One major difference was that SQL Slammer took out several networks, where Oracle did not have such impact.
To \.'s credit (and I'm going mostly off memory), but big critique was on the DB admins, not on Microsoft.
Depends on the nature of the law, and the nature of the call.
As I understand how it will be written, it will be related to unsolicited calls with the intent to solicit business (probably written in such a fashion as "just a courtesy call" would be included).
In this scenario, if you were to pull my name out of the phone book as a private citizen, and just annoy me (say, singing "Fishheads," or talking about "Survivor"), it is an inconvience to me, rude, and in poor taste, but not illegal
If, on the other hand, you tried to sell me goods or services, then (depending on the wording of the law), you would be in violation if you didn't check the "do not call" list. That is the difference.
As an aside: the first ammendment means that you can say what you want, however, it does not guarantee you an audience. Also, as someone noted, it doesn't give you a right to someone else's property (my phone, land or computer) without their permission (i.e. if I say "stop it," you have to stop).
I would like to see us start with reviving the X-38 program. It was far enough along that a manned vehical doesn't seem too difficult. Though a earth-to-space version would be dependant on expendable boosters, it would give us capability in addition too the shuttle. Shuttle will still need to be used to delivery some of the components for the space station.
The X-38 provides a blend of some proven methods, along with newer technologies. It takes advantages of the materials science, aviation, and computer imporvements over the last thirty years. It can act as a real-world demonstrator for these technologies, that can later be rolled into the next vehical. Plus, some of the burden could be taken off the shuttle for crew transfers and basic science.
Speaking of science, the ISS should be expanded to allow a full crew of seven. One common critique of the station is that there is not enough crew to do meaningful science. This seams plausible: if a diverse skill set is required for some of the experiements, a larger crew would be the logical fix. By having the crew and capability to perform experiments, launching shuttles, with large cargo bays for space labaratories, will not be required for pure science.
Gradually, as the station is built, the dependence on the older shuttle is reduced, the newer vehicals (starting with the X-38) can take up most of the work of transfering crews and experiments. Progress can do the initial work for providing supplies. As other demonstration systems (X-43, other runway-to-space type of sytems) become more viable, unmanned versions can take on supply delivery roles. Grandually, as experience with these grows, manned versions can take over for the X-38.
Truethfully, this is the way it should have been all along. An evolution of systems is how both technological improvments and economical capabilities are realized. Unfortunately, the entire history of manned has been one of fits and starts. Since the first shuttle launch, it's replacement has been proposed, funded for a while, then cut. A year or two later, we start again. A commitment is going to have to be realized.
A historical note: it has always been this way. Way back when, we were going to create a spaceplane known as the X-20 DynaSoar. It would have launched on a conventional rocket, and landed like an airplane. However, the space race forced us to use Mercury capsles first. Then, JFK decided we should go to the moon. Rather than creating a sustainable space capability, we created Apollo. What if we had stuck with the X-20?
Several Linux vendors band together to make a consortium to make Linux viable on the desktop strikes me as having limited added value. Though it may result in greater standardization, reduced duplication of effort, and improvements in UI, it's still companies that deal exclusively in Linux.
What would impress me, and truthfully, what I think would make a difference, would be for other vendors to join this consortium. Without application, game, and hardware vendors onboard, it is simply trying to sell some "fringe" applications ("fringe" being used for lack of a better word). Without it, it just seems quite incestuous.
The repost makes me wonder: are there any legitimate updates to the story? Is he still recieving tons of s-mail? How's his legal action going? Has he had an insight, and sworn off spamming? Anyone? Anyone?
I was explainning this to my wife, and she said that, if he wins, then a precident is sent: you can't be signed up by other people for junk mail. To that end, he could, in theory, be sued, using HIS OWN CASE as precident.
There are a few nuances (virtual vs. physical, 3rd party signing someone up vs. the catalog company, etc.), but it is an interesting thought.
This is basically an "open vs. closed" point you are making. Certainly a worthy discussion, but not necessarily the rational behind my comment.
It also ignores some practical issues (having the capability to write the patch, etc.). Again, a different topic of conversation.
"Patch bad" came from a very pejorative statement in the original artical: "Too bad it takes 3 Service Packs..." Saying that there is a philisophical difference between patch release approaches (as you are offering) is certainly valid, and you offer a well thought out point. However, the original post points a finger at the patches themselves, and ignores the three going the opposit direction.
Quite common on this board. If a patch, service pack, or fix is put out for a Microsoft product, it is a sign of weakness. At best, it is said to come out on too slow a cycle, and it is "closed."
As you note, if Linux releases a new patch, bug fix, etc, it is a triumph of the platform! See how they fix the problem? See how they respond?
It is, at best, frustrating. It is also, IMHO, a bit hypocritial. There are tons of rationalizations (timing, the fact that it is closed, the fact there was the bug in the first place), but, at the end of the day, patching is part of any software product.
Ultimately, I think that the "MS patch bad" propoganda lowers the overall credibility if it comes from the same source as "we produce fast patches, and you can even write the patches yourself!" Decide: either patches are bad, or they are good!
(The relative merits of closed vs. open source cna be debated at length--I personnally don't feel that one method is inherently better than the other.)
The other gotcha about the IO (and, Anoto thus far in general) is that it is ballpoint-based. there really is nothing in the technology that makes is particularlly suited to ballpoints. So, you get a very expensive crappy pen.
Why not multimode? Have modules to support a rollerball, fountain pen, or even a mechanical pencil?
Most cooking shows don't nearly go as much into the science of cooking as your show does. I dare say I've learned more chemestery and physics in your show then in college or high school. Do you feel it is because the chefs don't know/understnad the science, don't want to diminish the "art" with the science, or don't think their audience is interested/capable of understanding the underlying science?
I'm a manager of a SysAdmin team, coming up the ranks from desktop support to server support to here. I know everyone has thoughts of "chucking it all" and doing something different Perhaps its the notion of getting out of a rut, and into the groove.
My parents, neither one a techy, keep talking about opening up a B&B. Every so often they go and look at B&Bs, attend a seminar, etc. They don't, for one reason or another. Perhaps after retirement...
Still, there is something to be said for delivering something that has permanence. I took a stained glass course a few years ago I finished my project a bit ahead of everyone, so one of the guys took me in the back and showed me this door he finished. Absolutely beautiful work! I looked at it and imagined this door on a house a century later, the family moving in talking about how fine the door was.
(Yes, all you cynics out there, I know the door could be broken in that time. Bite me!)
In contrast, most of the systems I support will likely not be around five years from now, much less fifty!
Why don't I chuck it all? I'm OK but not great at stained glass. My other hobbies (dancing, biking, cooking) are things that, though I enjoy and am pretty good at, but not good enough to make a living at. Besides, I think that, if I were to do some of these things professionally, I wouldn't enjoy them as much--it would be my new rut.
So, I have a job that I'm good at, make a good living at, and kinda enjoy. I accept that there ar parts I don't. And, I enjoy my life outside work.
The key is to have multiple sources of self-actualization. This means that, should one thing be sour at a moment (sucky time at work, stretch of bad weather that keeps me off the bike, etc.), my whole sense of worth doesn't go down the tubes.
I think there is more than a little merit to the point you are mocking.
Consider an application has a vulnerability. After an interval elapses, a patch is released, and peace and order is returned to the world.
If it is an Open Source product, it is lauded as a benefit of the methodology. With "millions of eyes on the code," a problem, once identified, can be resolved. The system works!
If it is Microsoft, the problem is the closed source. If it was open source, either the problem wouldn't be there in the first place, or the fix would come out faster. It is just another show of how it lacks.
This artical, IMHO, is proof that just because it is Open Source does not mean it is bug (or vulernability) free.
As for the time-to-fix, the examples I am used to hearing from the Open Source community is that the patch can be out in a number of hours. I question how much testing went on in the fix in terms of bredth of hardware and software integration, etc. The impression I left with is someone went out and whipped up something that appears to fix the problem. The initial fix plugs the hole, then others come behind them and make it better integrated (i.e. fewer bugs, etc.).
What is the problem with this? None, I suppose. However, I fail to understand how this is really better, other than the fact that some "beta" code was released "in hours". Certainly not so much better than it merits all the looking-down-the-nose at other platforms.
I also have a pet theory, which I often state. One of the reasons all crackers et al. go after Microsoft product is that they are widely used, and that showing their failings through breaking them gains them esteme on boards such as this one. Typcially, someone breaking in to an IIS site is condemed, but rather the SysAdmins for using IIS (regardless of application, corporate, or other requirements). This comes accross as condoning this behavior, and causes more people to do more damange.
No, I don't think that doing otherwise will minimize the number of vulnerabilities or attacks, nor do I feel vulnerabilities shouldn't be fixed.
The advice a friend gave me once is that money is just a band-aid: it can make a situation more tolerable for a while, but it may not solve a fundamental problem. Conventional wisdom is that if you are offered a counter offer, why weren't you worth that before?
So, the question is, why are you looking? Are you unhappy with the sort of work you are doing, the manager you have, the commute? Or, is it simply that company B is offering more money?
If it is just money, then take the counter offer--I did once. I had a position for a contracting company I didn't like, and not being paid well for it. I did, however, have a good boss. A friend mentioned the gap between what I was doing and what I was capable of (and how it was disappointing me), so better engagements were thrown my way.
However, I had already started looking for a new position. There was more money, and more interesting work (relative to what I was doing when I started my job hunt).
When I went to talk to my boss, he indicated that, as he had been doing so far, I would be moving up in the ranks. The extra money put the positions on par. I took the counter-offer, and stayed. I was being offered more because I would be doing work that was worth more (i.e. my bill rate would be higher).
The best advice my father gave me is "run to something, not from something." I keep that in mind, along with "money is a band-aid." I won't go for less than I'm making now in terms of money, but it will have to provide an advantage over what I have (better work, better managment, better career path).
During the Vietnam War, drones were launched from C-130s, flown both manually and by program, and then recovered in mid-air by a CH-3. Primarily, they were tasked to reconnaissance, though they dropped propoganda leaflets on 28 occasions (and known as "Bulls*** Bombers).
Through a variety of means, drones took down five MiGs.
It amazes me when people talk about how amazing this new technology is, when, in reality, it is simply a refinement of something that dates back quite some time. I suppose it helps pad defence budgets.
(How was I exposed to this? This web page helped., though I know a man who flew the CH-3 part of the equation.
I presently pay about $5/month for text messaging, and I can send up to 500/month free ($0.10/each thereafter). It can go phone-to-phone, as well as e-mail-to-phone (and phone-to-email).
Other than receiving headlines e-mailed to me, I honestly don't use it everyday. However, it has helped me on a few occasions:
We were on vacation, and were supposed to meet someone in Chicago. We wanted to find out something about our meeting, but wasn't sure what number she would be at, but knew she was checking a HotMail-type account. So, we e-mailed her, and got our answer.
My team has pagers with alpha capaiblity (yes, the phone could fill in, but there are other requirements for the pager). I frequently send a text-page from my phone this way, regardless of where I might be.
When I'm out of town on business, my wife and I exchanged a series of e-mails. Nice to be in touch on the road randomly.
I admit that I probably could cancel it and only occasionally notice, however, it is providing enough value to be worth it to me.
My provider has indicated that they are likely to provide chatting with AOL IM users. Bridging the phone-to-IM gap will be nice.
I think that the "12-cups" they are referring to are measuring cups.
There is no true standard coffee cup: I have "standard" coffee mugs that range in size by 2-3 ounces.
Think of it this way: if you are making a loaf of bread, and it calls for 3/4 cup of buttermilk, you wouldn't grab a coffee mug to measure it, but a measuring cup.
(Oh! And as my wife and sister (two different people!) pointed out to me (that I did, of course, check) liquid cup is slightly larger than a solid cup--you can't use the same vessel to measure the flour for that bread)
Now that there is one company that owns up to it, the following exercise can be undertaken:
Gather many people who have a usage limit (time online, amount downloaded, etc.)
Calculate how many pop-under ads these folks download.
Associate a dollar value with that amount
Sue the patent holder for theft of services.
I admit that there are probably a ton of problems (why not sue the advertiser? How are pop-unders more harmful than bannner ads (which might be tolerated in order to pay for the site)? etc.). However, now there is a name to the pain, and we can go after it the American way.
I'm the PHB of my department. Two folks had scheduled a half day off, though one did come back to finish some work.
Another team took off for a "long lunch." It was cleared with me, and they left behind someone to mind the store. I did, however, set a "no spoiler" expectation.
Perhaps we really need to place the blame on teh people who are truely at fault: the people who write the worms and viruses in the first place.
Blaming Microsoft is fashionable here, and, IMHO, encourages people who write viruses that attack MS products (one of many factors, but I suspect it is a major one). However, just because someone leaves there car unlocked does not mean they are at fault should they get robbed.
I'm not saying that better security should not be implemented. However, by simply saying it's MS's fault is simply condoning the virus-writers. Let's make them the pariahs.
With respect to the Enterprise market, HP is really making a push in the Linux market. They regard it as one of the three primary OSes for their high-end Itanium systems (Win64 and HP-UX are the other two), and are integrating it into their managemnet and partitioning tools. Further, APIs and other software has been created to improve interoperitability between HP-UX and Linux, so that software for one will work on both with minimal effort. Finally, the new "Blade" currently only support Linux (though they are planning to support Windows in the future).
The pastor dude is an idiot--'Nuff said. Anyone who can't see past a word or a name, and sees "communism" and "godlessness" behind every corner probably doesn't know his a** from his elbow. It saddens me to think of how many people are so closed- and literally-minded.
That said, I feel strongly that reprisals of the sort that are described here should not be tolerated. I worry that if a DoS is tolerated in this instance, replicating it will be regarded as socially acceptable. So, someone else will write a DoS attack, or a worm, or whatever.
And, whoever writes it will feel he will be held up by his peers here on \. because, after all, they speak about how bad the target of the day (today the document in question, in another Microsoft, in another--who knows?!?).
Win people with your minds and your ideas, not random acts of terrorism. IF they listen, then you truelly have one. If they don't, then you move on.
It's sad that handwriting is is such low esteme. One of my other hobbies is collecting fountain pens, and it is often discussed. Part of the problem is that teachers aren't really trained in handwriting instruction as they once were.
Still, for a "thank you," birthday, or other special, personal event, I will almost always hold the handwriten note in higher regard than the quick e-mail. One conveys some effort and care; the other, an afterthought (though I do get a kick out of it).
As for this technology, a company called Anoto is developing a similar technology. The pen is about the size of my larger founts, but a ballpoint (the bid downside). Under the point is a small camera. You write on paper with a special grid patern. The camera records the strokes, and transmits them to another device using bluetooth.
One of their main applciations would be to capture information on filling out a form, then uploading it to an device.
I haven't seen anyone selling it, though some big names are involved: Cross, Pilot, Sanford (who owns rotring, Parker, and Waterman) are providing the pen know-how. Others for the tehcnology, Logitech being one of them.
Dispite what some have posted, running a web site does cost non-trivial money:
Bandwidth
Hardware Purchase, Maintence, and Upgrades
Backups (especially on a site as dynamic as \.)
Support
Facilities (Air Conditioning, Power, etc.)
Plus, quite frankly, if the owners of the site want to make a little money on it, I can't really begrudge them that.
Recently, I've seen signs that the free-as-in-free-speech software community also expect things to be free-as-in-free-beer. The whole thread about StarOffice started to make y'all come off as a bunch of cheapscapes. Add to that a recent editorial on ZDnet that basically called out the open source community as such, and I think a PR effort is lacking.
Now, one of the major resource of the Open Source community realizes that need a better financial footing. So, they exercise a two-step process: greater ad support, plus the option to opt out by directly contributing. There are basically four responses that can be taken:
Politely deal with the ads, and accept that it is a payment for the service you enjoy.
Pay the money.
Start your own site elsewhere
Use an ad filter.
Option #1 shows that there is an understanding of the real world that, by and large, is usually lacking here. Option #2 is a step beyond that--that the Open Source community is willing to support what they value. Perhaps if enough sponsorship from readers exists, the ads will die off.
Option #3, on the other hand, basically says that, now that you've stopped giving us a handout, we'll take our ball elsewhere. Sorta the attitude that has been taken with Sun. Until someone asks for money, you are the hero of the Open Source Movement, standing shoulder to shoulder with Stallman and Raymond in their battle agains Redmond. Ask for a few bucks for the product you value, and all of the sudden they are evil evil evil!
(A practical problem with option #3 is that you wind up being locust. Fly in and use the resources of a site until they are gone, and then move on, leaving an empty shell behind. Specifically, move from slashdot to, say, dotslash, and eventually, dotslash will need to find funding.)
Option #4 basically says that you are absolutely a cheapscape. You want the service, but don't want to give anything back to support the practical matters (servers, electricity, bandwidth). Perhaps you rationalize it by saying that because you post, you make \. what it is, and therefore shouldn't have to pay, but, lets face it, without the servers, electricity, and bandwidth, there is no \. to post to.
Why should you care about being perceived as cheapscapes? Because it limits the credibility of free-as-in-free-speech. It turns off people who might want to develop for your platform. It basically is a perspective you don't want to be associated with you.
I don't know which way I go, though it will likely be option #1 or 2.
Slashdot Mirror
In contrast, I know SQL Slammer was reported day-of. In this case, a free patch was available six months prior to the worm. And let's face it: if the patch is available but not applied, it's not Microsoft's, Oracle's, Linus's, or any other vendor's fault--only the SysAdmin in question.
One major difference was that SQL Slammer took out several networks, where Oracle did not have such impact.
To \.'s credit (and I'm going mostly off memory), but big critique was on the DB admins, not on Microsoft.
As I understand how it will be written, it will be related to unsolicited calls with the intent to solicit business (probably written in such a fashion as "just a courtesy call" would be included).
In this scenario, if you were to pull my name out of the phone book as a private citizen, and just annoy me (say, singing "Fishheads," or talking about "Survivor"), it is an inconvience to me, rude, and in poor taste, but not illegal
If, on the other hand, you tried to sell me goods or services, then (depending on the wording of the law), you would be in violation if you didn't check the "do not call" list. That is the difference.
As an aside: the first ammendment means that you can say what you want, however, it does not guarantee you an audience. Also, as someone noted, it doesn't give you a right to someone else's property (my phone, land or computer) without their permission (i.e. if I say "stop it," you have to stop).
The X-38 provides a blend of some proven methods, along with newer technologies. It takes advantages of the materials science, aviation, and computer imporvements over the last thirty years. It can act as a real-world demonstrator for these technologies, that can later be rolled into the next vehical. Plus, some of the burden could be taken off the shuttle for crew transfers and basic science.
Speaking of science, the ISS should be expanded to allow a full crew of seven. One common critique of the station is that there is not enough crew to do meaningful science. This seams plausible: if a diverse skill set is required for some of the experiements, a larger crew would be the logical fix. By having the crew and capability to perform experiments, launching shuttles, with large cargo bays for space labaratories, will not be required for pure science.
Gradually, as the station is built, the dependence on the older shuttle is reduced, the newer vehicals (starting with the X-38) can take up most of the work of transfering crews and experiments. Progress can do the initial work for providing supplies. As other demonstration systems (X-43, other runway-to-space type of sytems) become more viable, unmanned versions can take on supply delivery roles. Grandually, as experience with these grows, manned versions can take over for the X-38.
Truethfully, this is the way it should have been all along. An evolution of systems is how both technological improvments and economical capabilities are realized. Unfortunately, the entire history of manned has been one of fits and starts. Since the first shuttle launch, it's replacement has been proposed, funded for a while, then cut. A year or two later, we start again. A commitment is going to have to be realized.
A historical note: it has always been this way. Way back when, we were going to create a spaceplane known as the X-20 DynaSoar. It would have launched on a conventional rocket, and landed like an airplane. However, the space race forced us to use Mercury capsles first. Then, JFK decided we should go to the moon. Rather than creating a sustainable space capability, we created Apollo. What if we had stuck with the X-20?
Several Linux vendors band together to make a consortium to make Linux viable on the desktop strikes me as having limited added value. Though it may result in greater standardization, reduced duplication of effort, and improvements in UI, it's still companies that deal exclusively in Linux.
What would impress me, and truthfully, what I think would make a difference, would be for other vendors to join this consortium. Without application, game, and hardware vendors onboard, it is simply trying to sell some "fringe" applications ("fringe" being used for lack of a better word). Without it, it just seems quite incestuous.
Is this such a bad thing? After all, it might cut down on the amount of Spam I get that trying to sell me toner and ink! :)
The repost makes me wonder: are there any legitimate updates to the story? Is he still recieving tons of s-mail? How's his legal action going? Has he had an insight, and sworn off spamming? Anyone? Anyone?
There are a few nuances (virtual vs. physical, 3rd party signing someone up vs. the catalog company, etc.), but it is an interesting thought.
It also ignores some practical issues (having the capability to write the patch, etc.). Again, a different topic of conversation.
"Patch bad" came from a very pejorative statement in the original artical: "Too bad it takes 3 Service Packs..." Saying that there is a philisophical difference between patch release approaches (as you are offering) is certainly valid, and you offer a well thought out point. However, the original post points a finger at the patches themselves, and ignores the three going the opposit direction.
As you note, if Linux releases a new patch, bug fix, etc, it is a triumph of the platform! See how they fix the problem? See how they respond?
It is, at best, frustrating. It is also, IMHO, a bit hypocritial. There are tons of rationalizations (timing, the fact that it is closed, the fact there was the bug in the first place), but, at the end of the day, patching is part of any software product.
Ultimately, I think that the "MS patch bad" propoganda lowers the overall credibility if it comes from the same source as "we produce fast patches, and you can even write the patches yourself!" Decide: either patches are bad, or they are good!
(The relative merits of closed vs. open source cna be debated at length--I personnally don't feel that one method is inherently better than the other.)
Why not multimode? Have modules to support a rollerball, fountain pen, or even a mechanical pencil?
Most cooking shows don't nearly go as much into the science of cooking as your show does. I dare say I've learned more chemestery and physics in your show then in college or high school. Do you feel it is because the chefs don't know/understnad the science, don't want to diminish the "art" with the science, or don't think their audience is interested/capable of understanding the underlying science?
I'm a manager of a SysAdmin team, coming up the ranks from desktop support to server support to here. I know everyone has thoughts of "chucking it all" and doing something different Perhaps its the notion of getting out of a rut, and into the groove.
My parents, neither one a techy, keep talking about opening up a B&B. Every so often they go and look at B&Bs, attend a seminar, etc. They don't, for one reason or another. Perhaps after retirement...
Still, there is something to be said for delivering something that has permanence. I took a stained glass course a few years ago I finished my project a bit ahead of everyone, so one of the guys took me in the back and showed me this door he finished. Absolutely beautiful work! I looked at it and imagined this door on a house a century later, the family moving in talking about how fine the door was.
(Yes, all you cynics out there, I know the door could be broken in that time. Bite me!)
In contrast, most of the systems I support will likely not be around five years from now, much less fifty!
Why don't I chuck it all? I'm OK but not great at stained glass. My other hobbies (dancing, biking, cooking) are things that, though I enjoy and am pretty good at, but not good enough to make a living at. Besides, I think that, if I were to do some of these things professionally, I wouldn't enjoy them as much--it would be my new rut.
So, I have a job that I'm good at, make a good living at, and kinda enjoy. I accept that there ar parts I don't. And, I enjoy my life outside work.
The key is to have multiple sources of self-actualization. This means that, should one thing be sour at a moment (sucky time at work, stretch of bad weather that keeps me off the bike, etc.), my whole sense of worth doesn't go down the tubes.
Consider an application has a vulnerability. After an interval elapses, a patch is released, and peace and order is returned to the world.
If it is an Open Source product, it is lauded as a benefit of the methodology. With "millions of eyes on the code," a problem, once identified, can be resolved. The system works!
If it is Microsoft, the problem is the closed source. If it was open source, either the problem wouldn't be there in the first place, or the fix would come out faster. It is just another show of how it lacks.
This artical, IMHO, is proof that just because it is Open Source does not mean it is bug (or vulernability) free.
As for the time-to-fix, the examples I am used to hearing from the Open Source community is that the patch can be out in a number of hours. I question how much testing went on in the fix in terms of bredth of hardware and software integration, etc. The impression I left with is someone went out and whipped up something that appears to fix the problem. The initial fix plugs the hole, then others come behind them and make it better integrated (i.e. fewer bugs, etc.).
What is the problem with this? None, I suppose. However, I fail to understand how this is really better, other than the fact that some "beta" code was released "in hours". Certainly not so much better than it merits all the looking-down-the-nose at other platforms.
I also have a pet theory, which I often state. One of the reasons all crackers et al. go after Microsoft product is that they are widely used, and that showing their failings through breaking them gains them esteme on boards such as this one. Typcially, someone breaking in to an IIS site is condemed, but rather the SysAdmins for using IIS (regardless of application, corporate, or other requirements). This comes accross as condoning this behavior, and causes more people to do more damange.
No, I don't think that doing otherwise will minimize the number of vulnerabilities or attacks, nor do I feel vulnerabilities shouldn't be fixed.
So, the question is, why are you looking? Are you unhappy with the sort of work you are doing, the manager you have, the commute? Or, is it simply that company B is offering more money?
If it is just money, then take the counter offer--I did once. I had a position for a contracting company I didn't like, and not being paid well for it. I did, however, have a good boss. A friend mentioned the gap between what I was doing and what I was capable of (and how it was disappointing me), so better engagements were thrown my way.
However, I had already started looking for a new position. There was more money, and more interesting work (relative to what I was doing when I started my job hunt).
When I went to talk to my boss, he indicated that, as he had been doing so far, I would be moving up in the ranks. The extra money put the positions on par. I took the counter-offer, and stayed. I was being offered more because I would be doing work that was worth more (i.e. my bill rate would be higher).
The best advice my father gave me is "run to something, not from something." I keep that in mind, along with "money is a band-aid." I won't go for less than I'm making now in terms of money, but it will have to provide an advantage over what I have (better work, better managment, better career path).
Through a variety of means, drones took down five MiGs.
It amazes me when people talk about how amazing this new technology is, when, in reality, it is simply a refinement of something that dates back quite some time. I suppose it helps pad defence budgets.
(How was I exposed to this? This web page helped., though I know a man who flew the CH-3 part of the equation.
Other than receiving headlines e-mailed to me, I honestly don't use it everyday. However, it has helped me on a few occasions:
- We were on vacation, and were supposed to meet someone in Chicago. We wanted to find out something about our meeting, but wasn't sure what number she would be at, but knew she was checking a HotMail-type account. So, we e-mailed her, and got our answer.
- My team has pagers with alpha capaiblity (yes, the phone could fill in, but there are other requirements for the pager). I frequently send a text-page from my phone this way, regardless of where I might be.
- When I'm out of town on business, my wife and I exchanged a series of e-mails. Nice to be in touch on the road randomly.
I admit that I probably could cancel it and only occasionally notice, however, it is providing enough value to be worth it to me.My provider has indicated that they are likely to provide chatting with AOL IM users. Bridging the phone-to-IM gap will be nice.
I think that the "12-cups" they are referring to are measuring cups.
There is no true standard coffee cup: I have "standard" coffee mugs that range in size by 2-3 ounces.
Think of it this way: if you are making a loaf of bread, and it calls for 3/4 cup of buttermilk, you wouldn't grab a coffee mug to measure it, but a measuring cup.
(Oh! And as my wife and sister (two different people!) pointed out to me (that I did, of course, check) liquid cup is slightly larger than a solid cup--you can't use the same vessel to measure the flour for that bread)
- Gather many people who have a usage limit (time online, amount downloaded, etc.)
- Calculate how many pop-under ads these folks download.
- Associate a dollar value with that amount
- Sue the patent holder for theft of services.
I admit that there are probably a ton of problems (why not sue the advertiser? How are pop-unders more harmful than bannner ads (which might be tolerated in order to pay for the site)? etc.). However, now there is a name to the pain, and we can go after it the American way.Another team took off for a "long lunch." It was cleared with me, and they left behind someone to mind the store. I did, however, set a "no spoiler" expectation.
I don't get to see it until tomorrow.
Blaming Microsoft is fashionable here, and, IMHO, encourages people who write viruses that attack MS products (one of many factors, but I suspect it is a major one). However, just because someone leaves there car unlocked does not mean they are at fault should they get robbed.
I'm not saying that better security should not be implemented. However, by simply saying it's MS's fault is simply condoning the virus-writers. Let's make them the pariahs.
With respect to the Enterprise market, HP is really making a push in the Linux market. They regard it as one of the three primary OSes for their high-end Itanium systems (Win64 and HP-UX are the other two), and are integrating it into their managemnet and partitioning tools. Further, APIs and other software has been created to improve interoperitability between HP-UX and Linux, so that software for one will work on both with minimal effort. Finally, the new "Blade" currently only support Linux (though they are planning to support Windows in the future).
The pastor dude is an idiot--'Nuff said. Anyone who can't see past a word or a name, and sees "communism" and "godlessness" behind every corner probably doesn't know his a** from his elbow. It saddens me to think of how many people are so closed- and literally-minded.
That said, I feel strongly that reprisals of the sort that are described here should not be tolerated. I worry that if a DoS is tolerated in this instance, replicating it will be regarded as socially acceptable. So, someone else will write a DoS attack, or a worm, or whatever.
And, whoever writes it will feel he will be held up by his peers here on \. because, after all, they speak about how bad the target of the day (today the document in question, in another Microsoft, in another--who knows?!?).
Win people with your minds and your ideas, not random acts of terrorism. IF they listen, then you truelly have one. If they don't, then you move on.
Still, for a "thank you," birthday, or other special, personal event, I will almost always hold the handwriten note in higher regard than the quick e-mail. One conveys some effort and care; the other, an afterthought (though I do get a kick out of it).
As for this technology, a company called Anoto is developing a similar technology. The pen is about the size of my larger founts, but a ballpoint (the bid downside). Under the point is a small camera. You write on paper with a special grid patern. The camera records the strokes, and transmits them to another device using bluetooth.
One of their main applciations would be to capture information on filling out a form, then uploading it to an device.
I haven't seen anyone selling it, though some big names are involved: Cross, Pilot, Sanford (who owns rotring, Parker, and Waterman) are providing the pen know-how. Others for the tehcnology, Logitech being one of them.
- Bandwidth
- Hardware Purchase, Maintence, and Upgrades
- Backups (especially on a site as dynamic as \.)
- Support
- Facilities (Air Conditioning, Power, etc.)
Plus, quite frankly, if the owners of the site want to make a little money on it, I can't really begrudge them that.Recently, I've seen signs that the free-as-in-free-speech software community also expect things to be free-as-in-free-beer. The whole thread about StarOffice started to make y'all come off as a bunch of cheapscapes. Add to that a recent editorial on ZDnet that basically called out the open source community as such, and I think a PR effort is lacking.
Now, one of the major resource of the Open Source community realizes that need a better financial footing. So, they exercise a two-step process: greater ad support, plus the option to opt out by directly contributing. There are basically four responses that can be taken:
- Politely deal with the ads, and accept that it is a payment for the service you enjoy.
- Pay the money.
- Start your own site elsewhere
- Use an ad filter.
Option #1 shows that there is an understanding of the real world that, by and large, is usually lacking here. Option #2 is a step beyond that--that the Open Source community is willing to support what they value. Perhaps if enough sponsorship from readers exists, the ads will die off.Option #3, on the other hand, basically says that, now that you've stopped giving us a handout, we'll take our ball elsewhere. Sorta the attitude that has been taken with Sun. Until someone asks for money, you are the hero of the Open Source Movement, standing shoulder to shoulder with Stallman and Raymond in their battle agains Redmond. Ask for a few bucks for the product you value, and all of the sudden they are evil evil evil!
(A practical problem with option #3 is that you wind up being locust. Fly in and use the resources of a site until they are gone, and then move on, leaving an empty shell behind. Specifically, move from slashdot to, say, dotslash, and eventually, dotslash will need to find funding.)
Option #4 basically says that you are absolutely a cheapscape. You want the service, but don't want to give anything back to support the practical matters (servers, electricity, bandwidth). Perhaps you rationalize it by saying that because you post, you make \. what it is, and therefore shouldn't have to pay, but, lets face it, without the servers, electricity, and bandwidth, there is no \. to post to.
Why should you care about being perceived as cheapscapes? Because it limits the credibility of free-as-in-free-speech. It turns off people who might want to develop for your platform. It basically is a perspective you don't want to be associated with you.
I don't know which way I go, though it will likely be option #1 or 2.