Firstly, there is the question to how much effort a company would want to put into making a version of their game that gets better with age. Using current models of "create a game, sell a couple hundred thousand copies, then make another game" it doesn't really make sense. The key is that the graphics can improve as hardware improves, and the only sorts of games that really come close to fitting that sort of lifecycle today are the MMOGs. Like I wish Ultima Online had graphics that had improved over time. The game is almost 10 years old and is largely unchanged. Other games (like the soon to be serialized Half-Life 2 and SIN series) might also benefit from improvements, though HL2 is already incorporating improved graphics with each new episode (according to the developers commentary).
Secondly, the procedural systhesis method is much more compute intensive. They use as a prime example the forest scenery in Oblivion. As we all know, Oblivion is a performance-killing game on the PC, and the Great Forest part of it is the slowest part by far. So if you go too far with procedureal synthesis today, your game can turn out to be a real pig. So there's a definite balance that you have to strike between performance today and upgraded visuals tomorrow.
But it does change how the games look on a nice 1080i or 1080p TV with DVI/HDMI.
DVI was out well before the 360. There was no time excuse for not having DVI even HDMI in the more expensive Xbox360 model.
Welcome to the "bleeding edge". They call it that for a reason.
I waited almost a year and a half to buy an Xbox. By then the price had come down considerably, the early kinks/bugs had been worked out, there were a lot more (and better looking) games available for it, and it had already established itself in the market as not being a total flop. I'll probably wait another 9 months or so before buying an Xbox 360 as well, for all of the same reasons. Of course, now there will also be more features added to the system as well. The prices have already started coming down...
Of course, you're sacraficing quality. But you hit the nail on the head when you said that. It just wouldn't be worth it. Firstly, it would probably take a week. Secondly, Sound synchronization would prove to be hard to say the least, and finally, NOONE would want to do this. The 'time-spent: money-gained ratio' would be horrible.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but computers are very good at doing extremely dull, repetitive, and time consuming tasks that would take humans weeks to accomplish with little or no user intervention. In reality, the most complicated part of pirating a movie this way would be synchronizing the audio track with the images, and that is already done on a daily basis by thousands of people who work in video production. You can probably do it with off-the-shelf consumer-level video production software. In other words, the entire process of grabbing the image and audio data, synchronizing it, and producing a DVD with it is trivial. Especially if you could sell a couple thousand pirated copies.
If you're running raid5 it's probably in an enterprise setup. If so, why aren't you running a dedicated controller? The CPU should have little to no impact on the raid subsystem...
The first of the two referenced articles talks about them using Woodcrest CPUs (the Conroe-based replacement for the Xeon server CPUs) on IBM systems that used IBM ServeRAID controllers. They obviously aren't talking about the Intel RAID controller integrated into the chipset. And while I agree that the CPU should have little to no impact on the RAID subsystem, especially if they are using third-party controllers, apparently that's not the case here. As to whether the problem lies in the CPU or in the mainboard chipset itself isn't mentioned, but it's certainly possible that there is a chipset bug related to high-bandwidth operations. The FSB architecture is relatively starved for memory bandwidth to begin with. Generally speaking, for a given number of hard disks a RAID 5 array will have the highest level of read throughput of the commonly deployed RAID versions. Could so much data be flooding the bus?
Most onboard (intel) RAID controllers are only setup for 0,1,0+1, or 10. And not RAID 5. I don't see how it could possibly be correlated to the CPU.
That's because you can do RAID 0, 1 or any combination of 0 and 1 without needing parity data. The performance killer on RAID 5 (and any other form of RAID that requires parity) is in the XOR operations used to compute and verify the parity information. In order for RAID 5 to perform at a satisfactory rate and not totally bog down your CPU, the XOR calculations should be handled on a dedicated hardware controller, not in software.
However, for non-parity RAID setups the amount of CPU overhead is almost trivial, so referring to "fake RAID" or "software RAID" with the integrated RAID controllers on most motherboards is a misnomer. That being said, at least one of these articles is talking about servers using third-party RAID controllers.
Let's not get stupid here. A "front-line tech-support drone" who gets paid $12 an hour to read the support script is somehow going to know what sort of top-secret plans Microsoft has for the next six months? I highly doubt it. It sounds more like the sort of thing that a helpdesk drone would say to try to persuade a clueless computer user to do things their way.
Then, of course, there's the fact that if you install WGA today on a pirated copy of Windows, all you get is the notification message that pops up. You don't get shut down, and you don't even get cut off from Windows security updates (which are truly the only updates that matter, and even they aren't that good). I find it very difficult to believe that Microsoft is going to go from "Hey, your copy of Windows doesn't look genuine, but you can still install our security updates" to "I don't know if your system is pirated or not because you haven't installed WGA, but even if it is a legitimate copy I'm just going to shut you down simply because I have no way of verifying it." Especially not in the span of 6 months.
Let's think about this for just a second. If this shutdown is a function of WGA, and you don't install WGA, then how are they going to a) know that you don't have WGA and b) shut down your PC? Assuming that you only install security updates to your copy of Windows (legitimiate or pirated), then it seems that the only way they can get this "remote killswitch" functionality is to hide it in a security update. You know, kinda like a Trojan horse. Which would of course be unethical at the very least, and most likely illegal. Especially if they killswitched a legally licensed copy of Windows who just didn't have WGA installed.
But hey, it's Microsoft. So let the FUDslinging begin.
Never do this. Forging the return address is one of the few things that actually is illegal.
Regardless of the legality of it, most people with spam filters have them configured to block email that comes from an external source using an internal address, so I doubt that would help any. I know that everywhere I have ever worked had such messages blocked.
No, because SOE has yet to actually kill one. EA had Earth and Beyond, was testing Motor City Online, and for a brief while had a Battletech: 3025 game in widespread beta. In addition to those being killed or canceled, they also canceled Ultima Online 2, another Ultima Online spinoff and fucked the Sims Online hard enough to make Maxis walk funny for years afterward.
The sad thing about that is that Ultima X: Oddessy (the "another Ultima Online spinoff) visually, and in feature sets, looked a lot like World of Warcraft. But they were afraid that UX:O would cannibalize the sales of Ultima Online, which is now almost ten years old, graphically and technically outdated, and only has a couple hundred thousand subscribers at best. That was the same excuse that they used previously for killing Ultima Online 2, which makes you wonder why they even began development on UX:O in the first place.
For whoever said it earlier, I think that this demonstrates pretty clearly that EA is stupid. If the game franchise doesn't involve releasing a new version every year (like most of their sports games, racing games, etc) then they don't know how to do it. Even Ultima Online has gone that route, where they're trying to release a major new for-pay upgrade every year.
Does myspace have a history of sexual predators meeting others online? I think so. Does this make them culpable? Not necessarily. But just remember, it is not like this is a once-in-a-blue moon case that has never happened before on MySpace, and it is not like myspace is a happy, fun loving site full of real people (which is the image they like to project.)
So basically, you're saying that a handful of sexual assault-type cases have arisen from people who met on MySpace (out of a userbase of 80 million people), and that fact might mean that MySpace might somehow have some measure of responsibility there. I live near Ohio State University, and I would wager a load of money that the rate of incidence of sexual-assault type cases among people who have met on campus is numerically and proportionately several times higher than the MySpace incidents. Does that mean that OSU might somehow be share some responsibility for people who met in their classes or on their property?
I think that because the media (in it's usual fashion) has focused so much attention on those few cases that are MySpace related that the general public has a severely distorted notion about what MySpace is like.
So... just how was she responsible for getting raped? What action did she take that caused her warrant some dipshit(understatement of the year) forcibly taking her virginity(I can only assume because of her age.) That (assumed) fact makes this all the more disgusting. Doing one stupid thing does not make you responsible for some elses disgusting perversions. You are blaming the victim and she had made no decision worthy of being sexually assaulted by this animal. I sense that you too have never been the victim of a crime. Yes, the lawsuit is rediculous but all this, "she's a stupid cunt who deserved to get raped" bullshit is the true, "absolute rejection of reality."
You obviously didn't read my post at all. Either that, or you aren't capable of comprehending simple english. I didn't say that the was "responsible for getting raped". I didn't blame the victim. I never called the victim any names, least of all "a stupid cunt". I never claimed that she deserved to get raped.
And while I'm correcting you anyway, let's just try stick to the facts here. The perp isn't being charged with rape. They are being charged with sexual assault. That can mean any number of things, but to claim that she was raped (unless you have some inside info on the case) is plainly fabricating information to reinforce your viewpoint.
Nothing in the article claims that the "assault" was forcible. In many states, even consensual sex with someone who is underage is considered sexual assault, even if they lied about their age. So again, unless you have some inside info on the case you are simply fabricating information.
Nothign in the article claims that the victim was a virgin either. Again, unless you are privy to some inside information here you are again simply making up "facts" to support your argument. And there's nothing that says that just because a girl is 14 that she is, or is likely to be, a virgin. There are plenty of teenage girls in that age group who are sexually active to various degrees ranging from simple petting to full-on intercourse. I have several friends who teach in middle and high school, and I suspect that you would be STUNNED to her about the sorts of things that go on between schoolkids these days. Technically speaking, it's possible that this victim could have been sexually assaulted and still be a virgin. So let's not jump to conclusions.
And speaking of jumping to conclusions, yes, I have been a victim of a crime. I've been beaten for just walking down the street in the wrong neighborhood, not to mention pettier crimes like theft. So turn off your "spidey sense" here, it's plain wrong.
Now, on to what I actually did say. I said "Yes, raping someone is a crime." and "The fact that the victim made a bad decision that resulted in her being assaulted does not in any way mitigate the guilt of the perpetrator. For the purposes of determining criminal responsibility it can be 100% the perpetrator's fault because they are the one who committed the crime."
The point that I was trying to get across is that all people, whether they are rapists, high school students, parents, or whatever, are responsible for their own decisions. They bear the responsibility for the results of their good choices and their bad choices, whatever the outcome. In this case, the girl has to live with the knowledge that her bad decisions (in all contradiction to common sense) to run around with someone much older than her that she didn't know very well resulted in her sexual assault. The perp will have to live with the knowledge that his decision to have sexual relations of some sort with a minor (whether consensual or otherwise) was a crime and that he will likely go to prison and be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life for it. The victim's parents are going to have to live with the knowledge that they did not properly prepare their child for dealing with strangers, and because of that she was assaulted. See how it works? Each person has
This is where you lose all credibility. She may have been naive and done something stupid but she is in no way shape or form at fault for what happened to her.
This is one of the problems with American society today. Nobody wants to be responsible for their actions anymore. The notion of personal responsibility is dead in America, which is why we're such litigious morons.
To put it simply, everyone is responsible for their own actions and their own decisions. Sometimes you make good choices, sometimes you make bad choices. If you make a bad choice that results in you sufferring some sort of injury, assault, molestation, etc, then you are at least in part responsible for what happens to you.
Yes, raping someone is a crime. Yes, we all know that "no" means "no", and that most times "yes" can also mean "maybe", and the perpetrator should be punished. The fact that the victim made a bad decision that resulted in her being assaulted does not in any way mitigate the guilt of the perpetrator. For the purposes of determining criminal responsibility it can be 100% the perpetrator's fault because they are the one who committed the crime. But to claim that she is in no way, shape, or form responsible for what happened to her is ridiculous. It is an absolute rejection of reality. The only claim more laughable is that MySpace, who had no control over any of the decisions made or actions taken, should somehow be held more responsible for the crime than the perpetrator, the victim, or the victim's family.
Yes, if you assume that the mall gives you the opportunity to lie about your age, your sex, your face... I don't know if the guy lied in this case, but if he did, then MySpace has a responsability.
You obviously didn't understand the article. It's not about whether or not MySpace gave someone the opportunity to lie about their age or whatever. You always have an opportunity to lie about yourself whether it is online, at the mall, wherever. It's about MySpace not forcing you to be honest. The plaintiff believes that MySpace should be required to verify that people are who they say they are. IMHO, MySpace should be in the clear. MySpace has no control over or responsibility for what people do in the real world. Had the plaintiff restricted her activities with the perpetrator to only those that could be conducted via and controlled by MySpace, then none of this would have happened.
Let's look at this from a different angle. What if the victim and perpetrator had both been 14 years old, or both of them had been 25 years old, and the assault had still happened? Is MySpace responsible for the assault to the tune of $30 million then? Obviously not. Most people would say that you need to be wary of who you meet online when going off with them in the real world. So why is it any different if the victim is a minor? Because it tugs at your heartstrings more? How is MySpace any more responsible than the parent, who already has a legal obligation to watch over their kids?
If MAPI was well understood or sufficient there would be a jillion email clients that work with exchange. Alas not even the MS products for the mac work well with exchange. Entourage for a long time scraped outlook web access. Then went to imap. Is it using MAPI yet?
I'm sorry, are you actually complaining because Apple hasn't written their operating system with support for Microsoft's Messaging API?
Really? Why abuse HTTPS like that when IMAPS is designed for it from the start?
Are SSL VPNs an abuse of HTTPS as well? Because frankly, I can't see much difference between using SSL to create a VPN tunnel so that I can access Outlook via MAPI versus using RPC over HTTPS (which uses HTTPS to create a tunnel for only the Outlook MAPI requests). I mean, technically RPC over HTTPS only connects to the OWA server, whereas the SSL VPN would connect to your firewall or VPN concentrator and coule give you access to the entire network.
Once you take that pill you become pw0ned by MS. YOu can never migrate, you can never switch to another platform, you will be forced to upgrade every couple of years. Don't even get me started on maintaining exchange. Quite possible the worst email server on the planet.
Nonesense.
Is Outlook + Exchange a proprietary system? Yes. But you can migrate to another platform. You can switch to/from Exchange with no problems. Will that other platform have the same functionality? Maybe. I personally have done a number of Notes -> Exchange and Exchange -> Notes migrations. It can be done.
You arent' forced to upgrade every couple of years. At my current employer they have been running Exchange 2000 since 2002. That's 4 years without an upgrade, and there is no plan to upgrade until MS EOLs Exchange 2000. And if you think that any other email/groupware vendor doesn't EOL their products when they get to be 7 or 8 years old, you're either crazy or have never worked in IT.
Maintaining Exchange isn't hard at all. Our biggest issue with Exchange "maintenance" is database size. If your users are in the habit of deleting or archiving their old messages, then database size shouldn't be an issue. If they aren't, then it doesn't matter what application you are using for email/groupware, you will run into database size issues. The next biggest issue that I have from a maintenance perspective are the size of log files. You can adjust how much logging you want if your log files are getting to big. In my case we have lots of logging. So once a month I un-mount the Exchange store, back up the log files, and then delete them. It takes about 10 minutes. The third biggest maintenance issue that I have with Exchange is whitespace in the database. Again, just dismount the database and run a defrag on it. It takes a couple of hours to complete, but I only have to do it every few months and it happens during a regular maintenance cycle.
If you're having problems managing Exchange then it's probably because you don't know what you're doing. There is a temptation in the Windows-based world to think that simply because you can install an application via the GUI and get basic functionality (create mailboxes and send-receive mail in this case) that you know how to administer the application. Most people who consider themselves "Exchange Admins" probably couldn't even tell you what a routing group or global catalog is, let alone connecters to other email/groupware systems, how to use non-smtp protocols, etc.
There wasn't any confusion on the third point. The new outlook 2003 OWA is so close to outlook that I have a few clients that use it and never open their outlook interface. The RPC over HTTPS stuff is very convenient for my mobile laptop users that want to continue using outlook, syncing their folders, without having to rely on VPN connections. OWA has existed earlier than 2000, 5.5 had a really clunky version and the as far as I know, the new rpc over https support on exchange is only in 2003 (and much loved by my sbs based clients).
That matches up with what I recalled. Your original post seemed to be a little ambiguous on the OWA/RPC issue, but I agree that many people would prefer the Exchange 2003 OWA to Outlook 2003.
I'm sure much of the problem is the legalities behind reverse engineering the proprietary protocols MS uses, but with Evolution, can I:
Go into public folders to make posts?
Manage security on inboxes so that say George Smith can also access my mailbox?
Do RPC over HTTPS to connect to my exchange server via the web (OWA)?
Regarding public folders, they say that you can. I haven't tested it yet, but that's mainly because at my company (400+ users) we don't use public folders. I suspect that we are not the only ones.
Regarding delegate rights on inboxes, I haven't seen that. In some places that I have worked that is a pretty critical ability. But not where I work, and I suspect that we aren't the only ones.
On the third point, I think that you are confusing RPC over HTTPS (a feature that is new in Exchange 2003) with Outlook Web Access (OWA) which has been around since at least Exchange 2000 (not sure if we had it in 5.5). If you are using OWA, then you don't need RPC over HTTPS (which is only supported on Outlook 2003 accessing Exchange 2003). If you need RPC over HTTPS, then I suspect that Evolution won't fit the bill. But since HTTPS and RPC are fairly well known, I suspect that they could manage it eventually.
Would Linux users running this still need to pay for the CALs to connect to the Exchange server?
Yes. Microsoft licenses Exchange servers on a per-server basis. Client access licenses are licensed on a per-user or per-device basis. They are "access licenses", not software application licenses. There is no requirement to actually use Microsoft software to access the Exchange server, but the access itself is licensed. Even if you use Outlook Web Access you still have to have a device or user CAL for Exchange.
The question of licensing Outlook or Office is completely separate.
To the person who claims that "just because it's in the EULA doesn't make it so", they are only half correct. This isn't an issue of what is in the EULA though. What is at issue is how the software licenses are sold. And if it should come to pass that MS can't legally require you to buy a CAL to access Exchange if you use Evolution, then you wouldn't legally be required to buy a CAL if you use Outlook either. In that sense it is a question of whether CAL-based licensing is legal, not whether or not the use of Evolution circumvents the need for a CAL, and it is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
A lot of Windows software that claims to be agentless really just remotely installs a small stub using a domain account behind the scenes to do the task. Microsoft is actually making a decent stab at the problem with WMI, a sort of big brother to SNMP. Unfortunately the implementation is complex, non-standard, and up until now nobody has really used it for the type of remote instrumentation that this article talks about. Even Microsoft's own software has not really been instrumented properly.
Which makes you wonder what the difference is between a really big, complex agent welded into your OS and WMI.
But seriously, I use both agents and agentless monitoring with WMI. I use Insight Manager running on my servers to warn me of hardware issues, and use a VBScript that I wrote to connect to WMI on my servers to measure things that IM doesn't get. It also pings the servers at regular intervals. Between the two I think that we've got it pretty well covered.
The interesting thing is that IM basically plugs into WMI itself, though it does have new WMI classes that are HP/Compaq specific. If you have a decent engineering with good scripting skills (VBS, Perl, Jscript, Python, whatever) then it's really easy to use WMI to monitor and manage just about evrything related to Windows servers.
that the genuine windows advantage checker thing is going to be making a lot of people mad when they find out their copy of windows won't update. Prepare ass for violent kicking by viruses!
That's not the biggest problem that I have with WGA. My problem is that it phones home every morning, using the connection settings from IE, but it doesn't support Integrated Windows Authentication like IE does. That means that proxy users (like all of mine) get "mysterious" proxy authentication requests every morning when they log in (those few who have WGA already installed).
Well, that, and the fact that no matter what you can't uninstall it. Sound like someone needs to file a lawsuit to get MS to take notice.
So if you're figuring on 1 AP per 15 users, you're going to be needing 7 APs to start with, and possibly up to 14 eventually. But if those 15 users have to share the bandwidth on that one AP, they're getting (on a really good day) about 3 Mbps of bandwidth if you go 802.11G. If you're wired for only Fast Ethernet they're going to be getting more than 20 times that.
The second question is the physical layout of the place. If it's a big empty warehouse type of place, there will be very little physical interference in the form of walls and such. If you are setting up a cube farm there will be even less, and the people will be packed fairly tightly into that space. If the APs are that close together, you're going to have lots of coverage area overlap, and with only three non-overlapping frequency ranges you will undoubtedly have roaming and AP association issues. You may plan on 15 users per AP, but that's just an average. If 30 of your users associate with one particular AP because it has the strongest signal, you will get lots of complaints very quickly.
Then there's the numerous security and cost issues which have been covered in other posts.
I think this is typical style Microsoft FUD to make it look like Adobe wants them to drop PDF, when actually, it's MS that wants rid of PDF in order to promote its XPS format. Despite PDF's strong foothold, integration of XPS within the widest used operating system and widest used office suite could change things. I reckon this is MS saying "sorry, not our fault you have to use our format!".
I don't see that making all that much of a difference. Office 2003 has had an Office Document Image format for years, and the software to create it is installed by default. But I have yet to see anyone who actually uses it, let alone chooses it over PDF. I can't see how adding "XPS" format capabilities to Office 2007 is going to somehow replace PDF as the de facto standard.
First, determine your needs. Are you backing data up for disaster recovery purposes, data protection purposes, or archiving purposes to meet regulatory requirements? Or maybe some combination of the three? How long does this data need to be stored?
The most common technique is a weekly full backup with daily incremental backups. Depending upon your file retention requirements, you may be able to re-use the incremental tapes or you may have to append to them and then cycle them out when they are full. Most companies with any sense will send them to off-site storage, which can be records storage company or another company-owned site a good distance away.
As far as hardware goes, again, most companies will have several servers running backups simultaneously to multiple drives or libraries in order to reduce their backup window. The hardware varies depending upon the amount of data that needs to be backed up.
An often overlooked part of DR planning is to store a copy of the backup software and a spare media device with the backup media offsite. If you have a disaster and lose your backup devices and software, you may not be able to get the same hardware/software versions that can read your backup media in the future.
Also, you must do regular DR testing. You would be suprised how many companies use a backup strategy for years, and then when disaster strikes they discover that their strategy was inadequate. Once you have done a couple of DR drills you will undoubetedly discover ways to tweak your procedures to improve performance and reliability.
It *is* made of glass. If their lives had really been in danger there is a fairly straightforward way to get them out in a hurry.
Probably not. Glass would be too fragile to make an elevator out of it. Not only that, but when it breaks it tends to break into heavy sheets that could slice off an arm or leg quite easily. More likely it is some sort of lexan, plexiglass, or polycarbonate substance.
I already downloaded it, I just need to pre-order and unlock. I doubt that you would have to have downloaded before the release to get the price, as long as you paid for it before the release.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, there is the question to how much effort a company would want to put into making a version of their game that gets better with age. Using current models of "create a game, sell a couple hundred thousand copies, then make another game" it doesn't really make sense. The key is that the graphics can improve as hardware improves, and the only sorts of games that really come close to fitting that sort of lifecycle today are the MMOGs. Like I wish Ultima Online had graphics that had improved over time. The game is almost 10 years old and is largely unchanged. Other games (like the soon to be serialized Half-Life 2 and SIN series) might also benefit from improvements, though HL2 is already incorporating improved graphics with each new episode (according to the developers commentary). Secondly, the procedural systhesis method is much more compute intensive. They use as a prime example the forest scenery in Oblivion. As we all know, Oblivion is a performance-killing game on the PC, and the Great Forest part of it is the slowest part by far. So if you go too far with procedureal synthesis today, your game can turn out to be a real pig. So there's a definite balance that you have to strike between performance today and upgraded visuals tomorrow.
But it does change how the games look on a nice 1080i or 1080p TV with DVI/HDMI.
DVI was out well before the 360. There was no time excuse for not having DVI even HDMI in the more expensive Xbox360 model.
Welcome to the "bleeding edge". They call it that for a reason.
I waited almost a year and a half to buy an Xbox. By then the price had come down considerably, the early kinks/bugs had been worked out, there were a lot more (and better looking) games available for it, and it had already established itself in the market as not being a total flop. I'll probably wait another 9 months or so before buying an Xbox 360 as well, for all of the same reasons. Of course, now there will also be more features added to the system as well. The prices have already started coming down...
Of course, you're sacraficing quality. But you hit the nail on the head when you said that. It just wouldn't be worth it. Firstly, it would probably take a week. Secondly, Sound synchronization would prove to be hard to say the least, and finally, NOONE would want to do this. The 'time-spent: money-gained ratio' would be horrible.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but computers are very good at doing extremely dull, repetitive, and time consuming tasks that would take humans weeks to accomplish with little or no user intervention. In reality, the most complicated part of pirating a movie this way would be synchronizing the audio track with the images, and that is already done on a daily basis by thousands of people who work in video production. You can probably do it with off-the-shelf consumer-level video production software. In other words, the entire process of grabbing the image and audio data, synchronizing it, and producing a DVD with it is trivial. Especially if you could sell a couple thousand pirated copies.
If you're running raid5 it's probably in an enterprise setup. If so, why aren't you running a dedicated controller? The CPU should have little to no impact on the raid subsystem...
The first of the two referenced articles talks about them using Woodcrest CPUs (the Conroe-based replacement for the Xeon server CPUs) on IBM systems that used IBM ServeRAID controllers. They obviously aren't talking about the Intel RAID controller integrated into the chipset. And while I agree that the CPU should have little to no impact on the RAID subsystem, especially if they are using third-party controllers, apparently that's not the case here. As to whether the problem lies in the CPU or in the mainboard chipset itself isn't mentioned, but it's certainly possible that there is a chipset bug related to high-bandwidth operations. The FSB architecture is relatively starved for memory bandwidth to begin with. Generally speaking, for a given number of hard disks a RAID 5 array will have the highest level of read throughput of the commonly deployed RAID versions. Could so much data be flooding the bus?
Most onboard (intel) RAID controllers are only setup for 0,1,0+1, or 10. And not RAID 5. I don't see how it could possibly be correlated to the CPU.
That's because you can do RAID 0, 1 or any combination of 0 and 1 without needing parity data. The performance killer on RAID 5 (and any other form of RAID that requires parity) is in the XOR operations used to compute and verify the parity information. In order for RAID 5 to perform at a satisfactory rate and not totally bog down your CPU, the XOR calculations should be handled on a dedicated hardware controller, not in software.
However, for non-parity RAID setups the amount of CPU overhead is almost trivial, so referring to "fake RAID" or "software RAID" with the integrated RAID controllers on most motherboards is a misnomer. That being said, at least one of these articles is talking about servers using third-party RAID controllers.
Let's not get stupid here. A "front-line tech-support drone" who gets paid $12 an hour to read the support script is somehow going to know what sort of top-secret plans Microsoft has for the next six months? I highly doubt it. It sounds more like the sort of thing that a helpdesk drone would say to try to persuade a clueless computer user to do things their way.
Then, of course, there's the fact that if you install WGA today on a pirated copy of Windows, all you get is the notification message that pops up. You don't get shut down, and you don't even get cut off from Windows security updates (which are truly the only updates that matter, and even they aren't that good). I find it very difficult to believe that Microsoft is going to go from "Hey, your copy of Windows doesn't look genuine, but you can still install our security updates" to "I don't know if your system is pirated or not because you haven't installed WGA, but even if it is a legitimate copy I'm just going to shut you down simply because I have no way of verifying it." Especially not in the span of 6 months.
Let's think about this for just a second. If this shutdown is a function of WGA, and you don't install WGA, then how are they going to a) know that you don't have WGA and b) shut down your PC? Assuming that you only install security updates to your copy of Windows (legitimiate or pirated), then it seems that the only way they can get this "remote killswitch" functionality is to hide it in a security update. You know, kinda like a Trojan horse. Which would of course be unethical at the very least, and most likely illegal. Especially if they killswitched a legally licensed copy of Windows who just didn't have WGA installed.
But hey, it's Microsoft. So let the FUDslinging begin.
Never do this. Forging the return address is one of the few things that actually is illegal.
Regardless of the legality of it, most people with spam filters have them configured to block email that comes from an external source using an internal address, so I doubt that would help any. I know that everywhere I have ever worked had such messages blocked.
No, because SOE has yet to actually kill one. EA had Earth and Beyond, was testing Motor City Online, and for a brief while had a Battletech: 3025 game in widespread beta. In addition to those being killed or canceled, they also canceled Ultima Online 2, another Ultima Online spinoff and fucked the Sims Online hard enough to make Maxis walk funny for years afterward.
The sad thing about that is that Ultima X: Oddessy (the "another Ultima Online spinoff) visually, and in feature sets, looked a lot like World of Warcraft. But they were afraid that UX:O would cannibalize the sales of Ultima Online, which is now almost ten years old, graphically and technically outdated, and only has a couple hundred thousand subscribers at best. That was the same excuse that they used previously for killing Ultima Online 2, which makes you wonder why they even began development on UX:O in the first place.
For whoever said it earlier, I think that this demonstrates pretty clearly that EA is stupid. If the game franchise doesn't involve releasing a new version every year (like most of their sports games, racing games, etc) then they don't know how to do it. Even Ultima Online has gone that route, where they're trying to release a major new for-pay upgrade every year.
Does myspace have a history of sexual predators meeting others online? I think so. Does this make them culpable? Not necessarily. But just remember, it is not like this is a once-in-a-blue moon case that has never happened before on MySpace, and it is not like myspace is a happy, fun loving site full of real people (which is the image they like to project.)
So basically, you're saying that a handful of sexual assault-type cases have arisen from people who met on MySpace (out of a userbase of 80 million people), and that fact might mean that MySpace might somehow have some measure of responsibility there. I live near Ohio State University, and I would wager a load of money that the rate of incidence of sexual-assault type cases among people who have met on campus is numerically and proportionately several times higher than the MySpace incidents. Does that mean that OSU might somehow be share some responsibility for people who met in their classes or on their property?
I think that because the media (in it's usual fashion) has focused so much attention on those few cases that are MySpace related that the general public has a severely distorted notion about what MySpace is like.
So... just how was she responsible for getting raped? What action did she take that caused her warrant some dipshit(understatement of the year) forcibly taking her virginity(I can only assume because of her age.) That (assumed) fact makes this all the more disgusting. Doing one stupid thing does not make you responsible for some elses disgusting perversions. You are blaming the victim and she had made no decision worthy of being sexually assaulted by this animal. I sense that you too have never been the victim of a crime. Yes, the lawsuit is rediculous but all this, "she's a stupid cunt who deserved to get raped" bullshit is the true, "absolute rejection of reality."
You obviously didn't read my post at all. Either that, or you aren't capable of comprehending simple english. I didn't say that the was "responsible for getting raped". I didn't blame the victim. I never called the victim any names, least of all "a stupid cunt". I never claimed that she deserved to get raped.
And while I'm correcting you anyway, let's just try stick to the facts here. The perp isn't being charged with rape. They are being charged with sexual assault. That can mean any number of things, but to claim that she was raped (unless you have some inside info on the case) is plainly fabricating information to reinforce your viewpoint.
Nothing in the article claims that the "assault" was forcible. In many states, even consensual sex with someone who is underage is considered sexual assault, even if they lied about their age. So again, unless you have some inside info on the case you are simply fabricating information.
Nothign in the article claims that the victim was a virgin either. Again, unless you are privy to some inside information here you are again simply making up "facts" to support your argument. And there's nothing that says that just because a girl is 14 that she is, or is likely to be, a virgin. There are plenty of teenage girls in that age group who are sexually active to various degrees ranging from simple petting to full-on intercourse. I have several friends who teach in middle and high school, and I suspect that you would be STUNNED to her about the sorts of things that go on between schoolkids these days. Technically speaking, it's possible that this victim could have been sexually assaulted and still be a virgin. So let's not jump to conclusions.
And speaking of jumping to conclusions, yes, I have been a victim of a crime. I've been beaten for just walking down the street in the wrong neighborhood, not to mention pettier crimes like theft. So turn off your "spidey sense" here, it's plain wrong.
Now, on to what I actually did say. I said "Yes, raping someone is a crime." and "The fact that the victim made a bad decision that resulted in her being assaulted does not in any way mitigate the guilt of the perpetrator. For the purposes of determining criminal responsibility it can be 100% the perpetrator's fault because they are the one who committed the crime."
The point that I was trying to get across is that all people, whether they are rapists, high school students, parents, or whatever, are responsible for their own decisions. They bear the responsibility for the results of their good choices and their bad choices, whatever the outcome. In this case, the girl has to live with the knowledge that her bad decisions (in all contradiction to common sense) to run around with someone much older than her that she didn't know very well resulted in her sexual assault. The perp will have to live with the knowledge that his decision to have sexual relations of some sort with a minor (whether consensual or otherwise) was a crime and that he will likely go to prison and be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life for it. The victim's parents are going to have to live with the knowledge that they did not properly prepare their child for dealing with strangers, and because of that she was assaulted. See how it works? Each person has
This is where you lose all credibility. She may have been naive and done something stupid but she is in no way shape or form at fault for what happened to her.
This is one of the problems with American society today. Nobody wants to be responsible for their actions anymore. The notion of personal responsibility is dead in America, which is why we're such litigious morons.
To put it simply, everyone is responsible for their own actions and their own decisions. Sometimes you make good choices, sometimes you make bad choices. If you make a bad choice that results in you sufferring some sort of injury, assault, molestation, etc, then you are at least in part responsible for what happens to you.
Yes, raping someone is a crime. Yes, we all know that "no" means "no", and that most times "yes" can also mean "maybe", and the perpetrator should be punished. The fact that the victim made a bad decision that resulted in her being assaulted does not in any way mitigate the guilt of the perpetrator. For the purposes of determining criminal responsibility it can be 100% the perpetrator's fault because they are the one who committed the crime. But to claim that she is in no way, shape, or form responsible for what happened to her is ridiculous. It is an absolute rejection of reality. The only claim more laughable is that MySpace, who had no control over any of the decisions made or actions taken, should somehow be held more responsible for the crime than the perpetrator, the victim, or the victim's family.
Yes, if you assume that the mall gives you the opportunity to lie about your age, your sex, your face... I don't know if the guy lied in this case, but if he did, then MySpace has a responsability.
You obviously didn't understand the article. It's not about whether or not MySpace gave someone the opportunity to lie about their age or whatever. You always have an opportunity to lie about yourself whether it is online, at the mall, wherever. It's about MySpace not forcing you to be honest. The plaintiff believes that MySpace should be required to verify that people are who they say they are. IMHO, MySpace should be in the clear. MySpace has no control over or responsibility for what people do in the real world. Had the plaintiff restricted her activities with the perpetrator to only those that could be conducted via and controlled by MySpace, then none of this would have happened.
Let's look at this from a different angle. What if the victim and perpetrator had both been 14 years old, or both of them had been 25 years old, and the assault had still happened? Is MySpace responsible for the assault to the tune of $30 million then? Obviously not. Most people would say that you need to be wary of who you meet online when going off with them in the real world. So why is it any different if the victim is a minor? Because it tugs at your heartstrings more? How is MySpace any more responsible than the parent, who already has a legal obligation to watch over their kids?
If MAPI was well understood or sufficient there would be a jillion email clients that work with exchange. Alas not even the MS products for the mac work well with exchange. Entourage for a long time scraped outlook web access. Then went to imap. Is it using MAPI yet?
I'm sorry, are you actually complaining because Apple hasn't written their operating system with support for Microsoft's Messaging API?
Really? Why abuse HTTPS like that when IMAPS is designed for it from the start?
Are SSL VPNs an abuse of HTTPS as well? Because frankly, I can't see much difference between using SSL to create a VPN tunnel so that I can access Outlook via MAPI versus using RPC over HTTPS (which uses HTTPS to create a tunnel for only the Outlook MAPI requests). I mean, technically RPC over HTTPS only connects to the OWA server, whereas the SSL VPN would connect to your firewall or VPN concentrator and coule give you access to the entire network.
Once you take that pill you become pw0ned by MS. YOu can never migrate, you can never switch to another platform, you will be forced to upgrade every couple of years. Don't even get me started on maintaining exchange. Quite possible the worst email server on the planet.
Nonesense.
Is Outlook + Exchange a proprietary system? Yes. But you can migrate to another platform. You can switch to/from Exchange with no problems. Will that other platform have the same functionality? Maybe. I personally have done a number of Notes -> Exchange and Exchange -> Notes migrations. It can be done.
You arent' forced to upgrade every couple of years. At my current employer they have been running Exchange 2000 since 2002. That's 4 years without an upgrade, and there is no plan to upgrade until MS EOLs Exchange 2000. And if you think that any other email/groupware vendor doesn't EOL their products when they get to be 7 or 8 years old, you're either crazy or have never worked in IT.
Maintaining Exchange isn't hard at all. Our biggest issue with Exchange "maintenance" is database size. If your users are in the habit of deleting or archiving their old messages, then database size shouldn't be an issue. If they aren't, then it doesn't matter what application you are using for email/groupware, you will run into database size issues. The next biggest issue that I have from a maintenance perspective are the size of log files. You can adjust how much logging you want if your log files are getting to big. In my case we have lots of logging. So once a month I un-mount the Exchange store, back up the log files, and then delete them. It takes about 10 minutes. The third biggest maintenance issue that I have with Exchange is whitespace in the database. Again, just dismount the database and run a defrag on it. It takes a couple of hours to complete, but I only have to do it every few months and it happens during a regular maintenance cycle.
If you're having problems managing Exchange then it's probably because you don't know what you're doing. There is a temptation in the Windows-based world to think that simply because you can install an application via the GUI and get basic functionality (create mailboxes and send-receive mail in this case) that you know how to administer the application. Most people who consider themselves "Exchange Admins" probably couldn't even tell you what a routing group or global catalog is, let alone connecters to other email/groupware systems, how to use non-smtp protocols, etc.
There wasn't any confusion on the third point. The new outlook 2003 OWA is so close to outlook that I have a few clients that use it and never open their outlook interface. The RPC over HTTPS stuff is very convenient for my mobile laptop users that want to continue using outlook, syncing their folders, without having to rely on VPN connections. OWA has existed earlier than 2000, 5.5 had a really clunky version and the as far as I know, the new rpc over https support on exchange is only in 2003 (and much loved by my sbs based clients).
That matches up with what I recalled. Your original post seemed to be a little ambiguous on the OWA/RPC issue, but I agree that many people would prefer the Exchange 2003 OWA to Outlook 2003.
I'm sure much of the problem is the legalities behind reverse engineering the proprietary protocols MS uses, but with Evolution, can I: Go into public folders to make posts? Manage security on inboxes so that say George Smith can also access my mailbox? Do RPC over HTTPS to connect to my exchange server via the web (OWA)?
Regarding public folders, they say that you can. I haven't tested it yet, but that's mainly because at my company (400+ users) we don't use public folders. I suspect that we are not the only ones.
Regarding delegate rights on inboxes, I haven't seen that. In some places that I have worked that is a pretty critical ability. But not where I work, and I suspect that we aren't the only ones.
On the third point, I think that you are confusing RPC over HTTPS (a feature that is new in Exchange 2003) with Outlook Web Access (OWA) which has been around since at least Exchange 2000 (not sure if we had it in 5.5). If you are using OWA, then you don't need RPC over HTTPS (which is only supported on Outlook 2003 accessing Exchange 2003). If you need RPC over HTTPS, then I suspect that Evolution won't fit the bill. But since HTTPS and RPC are fairly well known, I suspect that they could manage it eventually.
Would Linux users running this still need to pay for the CALs to connect to the Exchange server?
Yes. Microsoft licenses Exchange servers on a per-server basis. Client access licenses are licensed on a per-user or per-device basis. They are "access licenses", not software application licenses. There is no requirement to actually use Microsoft software to access the Exchange server, but the access itself is licensed. Even if you use Outlook Web Access you still have to have a device or user CAL for Exchange.
The question of licensing Outlook or Office is completely separate.
To the person who claims that "just because it's in the EULA doesn't make it so", they are only half correct. This isn't an issue of what is in the EULA though. What is at issue is how the software licenses are sold. And if it should come to pass that MS can't legally require you to buy a CAL to access Exchange if you use Evolution, then you wouldn't legally be required to buy a CAL if you use Outlook either. In that sense it is a question of whether CAL-based licensing is legal, not whether or not the use of Evolution circumvents the need for a CAL, and it is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
A lot of Windows software that claims to be agentless really just remotely installs a small stub using a domain account behind the scenes to do the task. Microsoft is actually making a decent stab at the problem with WMI, a sort of big brother to SNMP. Unfortunately the implementation is complex, non-standard, and up until now nobody has really used it for the type of remote instrumentation that this article talks about. Even Microsoft's own software has not really been instrumented properly.
Which makes you wonder what the difference is between a really big, complex agent welded into your OS and WMI.
But seriously, I use both agents and agentless monitoring with WMI. I use Insight Manager running on my servers to warn me of hardware issues, and use a VBScript that I wrote to connect to WMI on my servers to measure things that IM doesn't get. It also pings the servers at regular intervals. Between the two I think that we've got it pretty well covered.
The interesting thing is that IM basically plugs into WMI itself, though it does have new WMI classes that are HP/Compaq specific. If you have a decent engineering with good scripting skills (VBS, Perl, Jscript, Python, whatever) then it's really easy to use WMI to monitor and manage just about evrything related to Windows servers.
that the genuine windows advantage checker thing is going to be making a lot of people mad when they find out their copy of windows won't update. Prepare ass for violent kicking by viruses!
That's not the biggest problem that I have with WGA. My problem is that it phones home every morning, using the connection settings from IE, but it doesn't support Integrated Windows Authentication like IE does. That means that proxy users (like all of mine) get "mysterious" proxy authentication requests every morning when they log in (those few who have WGA already installed).
Well, that, and the fact that no matter what you can't uninstall it. Sound like someone needs to file a lawsuit to get MS to take notice.
So if you're figuring on 1 AP per 15 users, you're going to be needing 7 APs to start with, and possibly up to 14 eventually. But if those 15 users have to share the bandwidth on that one AP, they're getting (on a really good day) about 3 Mbps of bandwidth if you go 802.11G. If you're wired for only Fast Ethernet they're going to be getting more than 20 times that.
The second question is the physical layout of the place. If it's a big empty warehouse type of place, there will be very little physical interference in the form of walls and such. If you are setting up a cube farm there will be even less, and the people will be packed fairly tightly into that space. If the APs are that close together, you're going to have lots of coverage area overlap, and with only three non-overlapping frequency ranges you will undoubtedly have roaming and AP association issues. You may plan on 15 users per AP, but that's just an average. If 30 of your users associate with one particular AP because it has the strongest signal, you will get lots of complaints very quickly.
Then there's the numerous security and cost issues which have been covered in other posts.
I think this is typical style Microsoft FUD to make it look like Adobe wants them to drop PDF, when actually, it's MS that wants rid of PDF in order to promote its XPS format. Despite PDF's strong foothold, integration of XPS within the widest used operating system and widest used office suite could change things. I reckon this is MS saying "sorry, not our fault you have to use our format!".
I don't see that making all that much of a difference. Office 2003 has had an Office Document Image format for years, and the software to create it is installed by default. But I have yet to see anyone who actually uses it, let alone chooses it over PDF. I can't see how adding "XPS" format capabilities to Office 2007 is going to somehow replace PDF as the de facto standard.
First, determine your needs. Are you backing data up for disaster recovery purposes, data protection purposes, or archiving purposes to meet regulatory requirements? Or maybe some combination of the three? How long does this data need to be stored?
The most common technique is a weekly full backup with daily incremental backups. Depending upon your file retention requirements, you may be able to re-use the incremental tapes or you may have to append to them and then cycle them out when they are full. Most companies with any sense will send them to off-site storage, which can be records storage company or another company-owned site a good distance away.
As far as hardware goes, again, most companies will have several servers running backups simultaneously to multiple drives or libraries in order to reduce their backup window. The hardware varies depending upon the amount of data that needs to be backed up.
An often overlooked part of DR planning is to store a copy of the backup software and a spare media device with the backup media offsite. If you have a disaster and lose your backup devices and software, you may not be able to get the same hardware/software versions that can read your backup media in the future.
Also, you must do regular DR testing. You would be suprised how many companies use a backup strategy for years, and then when disaster strikes they discover that their strategy was inadequate. Once you have done a couple of DR drills you will undoubetedly discover ways to tweak your procedures to improve performance and reliability.
It *is* made of glass. If their lives had really been in danger there is a fairly straightforward way to get them out in a hurry.
Probably not. Glass would be too fragile to make an elevator out of it. Not only that, but when it breaks it tends to break into heavy sheets that could slice off an arm or leg quite easily. More likely it is some sort of lexan, plexiglass, or polycarbonate substance.
I already downloaded it, I just need to pre-order and unlock. I doubt that you would have to have downloaded before the release to get the price, as long as you paid for it before the release.