Backbone operators are unlikely to block encrypted data. That would bring down things like VPN and HTTPS which their corporate clients need. Even if they were selective in which encrypted data they block, there will be mistakes and workarounds. Encryption is still a good way to go, even if we had large mesh networks.
or there's something newer, more stealthier and more secretive coming around Isn't there always? We, of course, just haven't heard about it yet. Maybe in about 20 years...
China is one of the few countries today with many fast growing industries. Microsoft needs a solid base of customers there right now if they want to have many more in the future.
In recent years Microsoft has been trying to cut piracy in China. For example, they've been working with the government to close down factories that produce illegal copies of boxed software. But Microsoft quite blatantly ignored the problem for many years. One theory is Microsoft was letting China get hooked on its software for free, and now that so much of their business depends on it they squeeze them for cash. I think this is just the natural next step to make sure the Chinese keep using their software and have the larger corporations there pay for it.
But unlike most large companies, IBM isn't only a software customer. They're a vendor and consulting firm. This isn't news just because they're trying it in-house. The implications down the road are more IBM apps working natively on Macs and significant influence in migrating other companies to Mac desktops.
Companies with as much copyright materials as Time Warner have to watch for and investigate copyright infringement. They're protecting their intellectual property by hiring an experienced police officer.
Would you buy stock in a public company that didn't protect its own property and a significant source of revenue?
One day, I hope to have a full accounting of exactly how intentionally bullshitty the case for war really was... There are already plenty of books on the subject, so some of the information is out there. Congress, of course, has simply chosen to do nothing about it.
When asked about investigating actions by the current administration, Obama said if he takes office he'll have the DOJ investigate and prosecute if they find anything. But I will also not be holding my breath.
It strives to be the most free. Sometimes that causes problems with proprietary systems. I don't think it strives to be the most free. At least I don't see it that way. I think it strives to propagate freedom. And that's what sometimes conflicts with proprietary systems.
Courts really do frown upon lopsided unsigned pre-purchase contracts. Sources, please? The only case I know of on the subject decided that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable.
I have to admit there is no good answer. And my temporary solution was not ideal, by any means. Developers (power users) get very frustrated by certain restrictions that limit their productivity, while administrators can't manage an unlimited set of systems and variables. Unfortunately I think there will always be a power struggle between IT admins and users.
That may be true for your case... I'd love to be able to trust end-users, but if you've ever worked in corporate IT you know that it's very rare that you can. Totally agreed. I think rare exceptions should be made on a careful case-by-case basis.
Even with that said... you know you violated company policy and still see nothing wrong with that. So why sould the person who isn't as tech savy as you may be care any more than you do? I definitely see what I did as wrong. And I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, especially these days with increased regulations.
Instead I think IT departments should listen harder to what their users are saying and make every reasonable effort to relieve frustrations. If they simply let us set up an internal Jabber network, with full logging and no connections outside the intranet, my team would have been very happy.
You're right. I couldn't prove it. But this was started before SOX was passed and taken down before the company decided what they would consider to be compliant.
Except that in most cases YOU just hindered the technoplogy of the whole company because you took it upon yourself to work outside of what the IT department had planned and now they are wasting their time cleaning up what you did instead of working on what they are supposed to be working on. What cleanup? What hinderance? The administrators never found out about it. It was safe, encrypted, and used a very tiny amount of bandwidth. I agree it was "wrong" but it relieved a lot of frustration at zero expense to anyone.
How 'bout putting in a request and maybe getting the real story from one of your IT guys about why IM isn't their highest priority? Why do you assume I didn't officially request IM? I did and was flat denied. My boss and his boss asked that we get IM and were also denied. We were told the risk of getting a virus over IM was too great. They even refused to let us set up and administer our own internal Jabber server. Even though it wouldn't be open to the internet they still refused.
Where I work we are requied to STRICTLY adhere to a large set of FCC, FTC, SEC and PCI rules... but you go ahead and take it upon yourself to get the company sued and in trouble with the federal government. This was a company registered and monitored by the SEC. I was trained in SOX compliance. Since at no time did any of us use IM to communicate with a client, and our messages were encrypted, we remained in full compliance.
But you go ahead and take it upon yourself to criticize people without knowing all of the details.
My last employer had firewalls that only allowed traffic through ports 80, 443, and an unusual port for VPN. I heard they also sniffed unencrypted packets, mostly to watch for viruses and breakins. Some of my coworkers wanted to use IM, although it was banned on the network. So I set up an encrypted squid proxy through my work desktop and home server. My whole team had IM and was able to communicate more efficiently.
One day I got called into the boss's office. He says, "I hear you've installed IM on everyone's desktop." So immediately I think I'm in trouble. Then he says, "Would you mind setting it up for me? How did you get it on the network?" He realized it increased productivity and any personal use wasn't seriously inhibiting work.
The point is don't hinder technology for a whole company only because you're afraid one ignorant user will bring in a virus. If power users want something, it's typically because it'll make them better at their job. Figure out a way to let them have it.
The first two sentences of the 3rd link: "The music biz can't stem the bleeding, but for now, digital tracks are proving to be a secure Band-aid. Album sales dropped for a seventh consecutive year."
That helps prove his point that fewer people are consuming music "the old-fashioned way." Their sales are compensated by newer forms of distribution.
Your first link is broken, but the second only refers to revenue being up. That revenue for a cable company can increase by more ways than just new TV customers. And has the number of new customer grown faster than the number of new homes? I'm sure many of those sales were directly and indirectly related to getting high-speed broadband, also not "old-fashioned."
Microsoft has been punished already. Time to move on. If Microsoft can prove that their products are objectively better for an administration, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be used. Why should any government, or any organization for that matter, do business with a company convicted of illegally influencing their industries? And add to that the fact that Microsoft has not significantly adjusted their business practices, which demonstrates that they have not been adequately punished.
But this shouldn't be about punishment. It's about who you want to do business with. I don't think any government should buy licenses from a software company that's been found guilty of manipulating the software industry. If you can't play by the rules you shouldn't be allowed to play at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Backbone operators are unlikely to block encrypted data. That would bring down things like VPN and HTTPS which their corporate clients need. Even if they were selective in which encrypted data they block, there will be mistakes and workarounds. Encryption is still a good way to go, even if we had large mesh networks.
China is one of the few countries today with many fast growing industries. Microsoft needs a solid base of customers there right now if they want to have many more in the future.
In recent years Microsoft has been trying to cut piracy in China. For example, they've been working with the government to close down factories that produce illegal copies of boxed software. But Microsoft quite blatantly ignored the problem for many years. One theory is Microsoft was letting China get hooked on its software for free, and now that so much of their business depends on it they squeeze them for cash. I think this is just the natural next step to make sure the Chinese keep using their software and have the larger corporations there pay for it.
Couldn't this be useful for gaming? Typically lots of small images, textures, audio, etc. get loaded throughout gameplay.
I'm not a game developer, so I'm just speculating.
Sorry, that should be desktops and laptops. Which is also interesting since they only left the laptop business 3 years ago.
But unlike most large companies, IBM isn't only a software customer. They're a vendor and consulting firm. This isn't news just because they're trying it in-house. The implications down the road are more IBM apps working natively on Macs and significant influence in migrating other companies to Mac desktops.
If he's useful to the prosecuting lawyers in an IP case why can't he be useful to the plaintiffs in another IP case?
Companies with as much copyright materials as Time Warner have to watch for and investigate copyright infringement. They're protecting their intellectual property by hiring an experienced police officer.
Would you buy stock in a public company that didn't protect its own property and a significant source of revenue?
When asked about investigating actions by the current administration, Obama said if he takes office he'll have the DOJ investigate and prosecute if they find anything. But I will also not be holding my breath.
The French also had a strong economic interest in keeping the region stable as a larger percentage of their oil comes from the middle east.
The IM sessions were encrypted end-to-end by the client software. I may have been stupid for doing it, but I'm not that stupid.
I have to admit there is no good answer. And my temporary solution was not ideal, by any means. Developers (power users) get very frustrated by certain restrictions that limit their productivity, while administrators can't manage an unlimited set of systems and variables. Unfortunately I think there will always be a power struggle between IT admins and users.
Which is why there are IM clients like Trillian that give the option to encrypt messages end-to-end.
Instead I think IT departments should listen harder to what their users are saying and make every reasonable effort to relieve frustrations. If they simply let us set up an internal Jabber network, with full logging and no connections outside the intranet, my team would have been very happy.
You're right. I couldn't prove it. But this was started before SOX was passed and taken down before the company decided what they would consider to be compliant.
But you go ahead and take it upon yourself to criticize people without knowing all of the details.
My last employer had firewalls that only allowed traffic through ports 80, 443, and an unusual port for VPN. I heard they also sniffed unencrypted packets, mostly to watch for viruses and breakins. Some of my coworkers wanted to use IM, although it was banned on the network. So I set up an encrypted squid proxy through my work desktop and home server. My whole team had IM and was able to communicate more efficiently.
One day I got called into the boss's office. He says, "I hear you've installed IM on everyone's desktop." So immediately I think I'm in trouble. Then he says, "Would you mind setting it up for me? How did you get it on the network?" He realized it increased productivity and any personal use wasn't seriously inhibiting work.
The point is don't hinder technology for a whole company only because you're afraid one ignorant user will bring in a virus. If power users want something, it's typically because it'll make them better at their job. Figure out a way to let them have it.
WXGA = Wide XGA
But I very much prefer people say the numeric resolution these days. I'm not interested in keeping up with the acronyms.
No, but apparently you do now have your flying rats... oh, wait...
The first two sentences of the 3rd link: "The music biz can't stem the bleeding, but for now, digital tracks are proving to be a secure Band-aid. Album sales dropped for a seventh consecutive year."
That helps prove his point that fewer people are consuming music "the old-fashioned way." Their sales are compensated by newer forms of distribution.
Your first link is broken, but the second only refers to revenue being up. That revenue for a cable company can increase by more ways than just new TV customers. And has the number of new customer grown faster than the number of new homes? I'm sure many of those sales were directly and indirectly related to getting high-speed broadband, also not "old-fashioned."
But this shouldn't be about punishment. It's about who you want to do business with. I don't think any government should buy licenses from a software company that's been found guilty of manipulating the software industry. If you can't play by the rules you shouldn't be allowed to play at all.