What the EU doesn't comprehend is that turning over the so called "secret" documents only serves to show how you can't connect to Microsoft servers because the protocols and technology behind them has been invented and or bought by and the patents owned by Microsoft. IE you could force GM to give up the blueprints to the corvette but the minute you built one you'd be violating any number of copyright and trademark laws.
If I were Microsoft I'd publish it all and get the lawyers ready to bury anyone foolish enough to even think about using it.
For the record Microsoft has had Posix compliance since NT4. The Posix documentation is so crappy you can't get any app of moderate complexity to run on any 2 out of 3 unix kernels with posix compliance, let alone the windows version. That why SFU was invented and ultimately included with R2.
Of course the ACLU forgets to mention that without such a bill these people get have no status. The supreme court said we couldn't treat them like POWs (nor should we). Of course if people with large guns come to get you and you can't figure out why they are interested in you, the fact that you're a prisoner is the least of your problems.
As a point of fact, neither the information nor the method by which the information the NSA has obtained is illegal. What would be illegal would be to try to use that information in any sort of legal proceding. So if the NSA recorded your conversation with your drug dealer and passed that along to your local police to arrest you, the judge would be forced to immediately let you go since their probable cause warrant would be invalid.
Nonsense- that's like saying since a Ferrari is a better car, you should only be able to buy it in parts. Outlook was (and still is ) available seperately. Act! is still available. Even if it wasn't, it's not up to any regulatory body to determine which features are included with any product. If including products that don't sell is a problem then most of the free software movement is in deep trouble- cause they don't want to charge anything.
I think the intelligent design folks would be happy if Darwin would be taught as a theory and exactly what theory meant was also explained. Many science teachers simply refuse to admit that because it is a theory it cannot be proven true, but it is the best scientific explanation we have, and would be changed should it be proven false. They instead expect that should accept it as true.
The shortage is in high tech workers that can actually do high tech work. Having just interviewed about 50 recent grads in the new england area (many from ivy league schools) I can see why the larger companies are unsatisfied. I ended up getting a high school kid that has been doing odd jobs on the side for me because he knew far more about windows/linux than the CS grads.
College is not a requirement for IT employment- experience is. Drop out- get an entry level IT job and go back if you want an education- while you are working. You'll learn more on the job than you will at school- but, if you want the paper, you'll at least be usefull to someone after graduation.
close but # 2 should read "Most other web companies thought they had value to be sold in control of their user data more than the savings of easy of development."
While on contract to large company over (8K employees)that has to be HIPIAA compliant AND SarbOx complaint, I saw 2 projects , one with j2ee and one with.net. The.net project is completed and the j2ee project is still going. Both projects were similar in targets and scope ( generating XML reports from 2 different financial systems and claims systems). Java is more difficult to do audit systems on, and is more complex when trying to design role based security..Net is obviously nor portable, but has all that functionality built in to any number of languages. Since your target is physicians offices and hospitals (where the primary OS of choice is M$); I would work on the.Net version first and perhaps a j2ee version if you see any demand for it. C# and java are similar in syntax (more so than some of the other.net langs) and wouldn't be to difficult to get he core logic recoded. The difficult part (which would be the challenge anyway) would be to develop the security model.
"you given an undoiable assignment, thats the problem"
Nonsense- I took a security class that had a similar assignment. We just didn't publish any exploits. The point of the class is to show that *nix doesn't offer much in the way of program security. (not that I am advocating that it either should or shouldn't)
College and University is supposed to be about learning for learning's sake. If you want to learn for vocational purposes, go to the right place to do that.
That may have been true at one point but I've not met a contemporary CS student, taking classes, so he can graduate to become a researcher. All the ones I've met think they will get jobs outside the EDU system. However, that would explain why there is so little actual information passed along to the students.
Mod parent Up!! When we tried hiring CS grads a while back, they all wanted us to pay for classes to learn this stuff. Isn't that what college was supposed to be for? Since it's not, is it any wonder why we outsouce so much in the US?
Nonsense- My firm won't hire anyone with a degree UNLESS they have equivalent experience. Degrees nowadays aren't worth the paper they are written on. It's too easy to find an experienced un-degreed person (maybe with a cert), than it is to weed through the degreed inexperienced people. I admit that all other things being equal, the degree would be a deciding factor, but I haven't seen any like that. Most folks that don't have degrees, have more experience than the folks that do have the degree. My advice would be to get a job then get the employer to pay for college should you choose to go.
It also cost Amex 2 years and around 100G just to get folks to write some apps that used the java on the amex card to do anything remotely useful. The relativly new thing is that because it's on the.net platform, the changes (if any, and I can't stress the, if any, portion enough), you have to make to your code are just a few lines.
Runas should work 100% of the time unless you have not given your account the correct privs, which is usually the problem. Folks run as Admin because it's easy, and becuase they don't understand security.
As a consultant I spend a bulk of my time re-educating "IT Staff" that a reboot of a windows OS is not the proper way to troubleshoot or resolve a problem. IT folks reboot windows systems because they can and it's reletively harmless compared to powercycling a Unix system.
If his superiors are the ones ordering them, he has the option of disobeying orders (which, if it's an unjust order, he can do) or performing a war crime. If the former, he faces definite imprisonment and a courts-martial, during which he might be exonerated. However, during war time, that might take a year to come to trial, and he's imprisoned the whole time.
Did you see A Few Good Men? They followed orders and committed a murder, and thought they were doing right because they followed orders. Can we, as armchair quarterbacks, claim that we would be nobler, and stand up to our commanding officer? I think not.
In case you were unaware, a few good men was made up. It doesn't work that way. In a nutshell if you disobeyed an unjust order it would be reviewed by the superior to the one that gave the order. You might be confined but since Kerry was an officer, it is unlikely. In any event in a few good men they were convicted because they DID follow an illegal order.
Oh, come on... Who was torturing the soldiers? The Viet Cong. Let's not even pretend to compare being tortured by the enemy to going to the press, congress, or the CO. I'm ashamed you even brought that up.
Yes the Viet Cong were torturing soldiers. I am not comparing torture to going to the press, what I am saying is that going to the press while stating things that the enemy is torturing soldiers to say, is turning your back on those soldiers.
And I still don't see where he 'turned his back on his fellow soldiers'. Is it because he told the truth about what was going on? Should he have stayed tight-lipped? Don't cross the thin blue line, etc.? By the same token, any Police Department Internal Affairs division is "turning it's back on their fellow officers", any ethics committe is "turning it's back on their colleagues", etc. If you believe it's preferable to stay silent when there are crimes being committed, rather than step forward to protect the innocent, then that's just sad.
I am not saying anything of the sort. Kerry didn't report anyone; he didn't charge anyone with a crime (as was his duty). He went to the press. While that's not keeping silent, it's also not the way to report crimes. It's the same as if one police officer saw another officer beating someone in the streets, watched him for a while, walked over, kicked the guy a few times, and then called a reporter lamenting the brutality of the police.
That's the problem with these war crimes, you cannot (at least in the US military) be ordered to commit crimes. If Kerry decided that they were crimes, then he shouldn't have done them or he should have reported them to his superiors. Instead, at a time when other soldiers were being tortured in order to get them to admit to crimes they didn't commit, John Kerry went to the media and the public rather than the chain of command. This is how he turned his back on his fellow soldiers, if he actually told the truth (which is a whole separate debate). There is a reason that Kerry's got a place in the Vietnam war museum, and it's not because of his "war crimes".
So when Kerry states (in the link you provide)..."the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out" he was using the "royal" we? Are you saying that Kerry was simply relaying what he was told with no knowledge of whether it was true? If he did know that this was going on, then he himself, as an officer, is responsible.
I know who I want in a foxhole with me, and it certainly isn't the guy that brought a camera along to film his "exploits". Pity he forgot to film all the atrocities.
He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'."
Here is the excerpt from what Kerry said on Meet the Press April 18, 1971.
"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
He didn't say that he was told, or he saw, he said he did it.
If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something?
The only reason that we don't know what he threw is becasue he has stated at one point or another that he has thrown all of the above!
Isn't leading your target audience to a specific conclusion by not presenting all the pertinient facts about a topic the very definition of propaganda? Where others fit into the defnition of propaganda is irrelevent because they are not claiming to be creating a "documentary" from dictionary.com:
propaganda n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
No Kerry did not come back begging for an end to the war. Kerry came back testifying how horrible it was for him and his shipmates to have had to become war criminals, knowing full well that they weren't. He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today. Kerry actions are about as noble as having the guy next to you in a foxhole, before you are supposed to get out to take over an enemy position, saying "by all means my good man, you first"
I like Star Trek but I'm not a huge fan. I've never been to a convention, and I've only read a few novels. Oddly though, when someone mentioned to me that "Scotty" was really sick, I started to get that feeling that something was going to be lost. I'm extremely glad to hear that James got a star. I think that if more folks had known that he wanted it and it was just a matter of money, all us engineers inspired by his portrayal would have ponied up the cash to get it (and we'd a made it self cleaning). I think that more than any actor I can think of, James Doohan did more to actually further the progress of man than anyone else I can think of. He didn't just play a role, he Inspired.
If the only thing the UN is mandating is how you work with the UN then I say no big loss. From the mandate of the group Microsoft quit, they want a say in how software interoperates around the world, a very different segment.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly right. The part of the quote left off in the OP is "without having to pay Microsoft significantly more for every other OEM license they ship."
What the EU doesn't comprehend is that turning over the so called "secret" documents only serves to show how you can't connect to Microsoft servers because the protocols and technology behind them has been invented and or bought by and the patents owned by Microsoft. IE you could force GM to give up the blueprints to the corvette but the minute you built one you'd be violating any number of copyright and trademark laws.
If I were Microsoft I'd publish it all and get the lawyers ready to bury anyone foolish enough to even think about using it.
For the record Microsoft has had Posix compliance since NT4. The Posix documentation is so crappy you can't get any app of moderate complexity to run on any 2 out of 3 unix kernels with posix compliance, let alone the windows version. That why SFU was invented and ultimately included with R2.
Of course the ACLU forgets to mention that without such a bill these people get have no status. The supreme court said we couldn't treat them like POWs (nor should we). Of course if people with large guns come to get you and you can't figure out why they are interested in you, the fact that you're a prisoner is the least of your problems.
As a point of fact, neither the information nor the method by which the information the NSA has obtained is illegal. What would be illegal would be to try to use that information in any sort of legal proceding. So if the NSA recorded your conversation with your drug dealer and passed that along to your local police to arrest you, the judge would be forced to immediately let you go since their probable cause warrant would be invalid.
Nonsense- that's like saying since a Ferrari is a better car, you should only be able to buy it in parts. Outlook was (and still is ) available seperately. Act! is still available. Even if it wasn't, it's not up to any regulatory body to determine which features are included with any product. If including products that don't sell is a problem then most of the free software movement is in deep trouble- cause they don't want to charge anything.
I think the intelligent design folks would be happy if Darwin would be taught as a theory and exactly what theory meant was also explained. Many science teachers simply refuse to admit that because it is a theory it cannot be proven true, but it is the best scientific explanation we have, and would be changed should it be proven false. They instead expect that should accept it as true.
The shortage is in high tech workers that can actually do high tech work. Having just interviewed about 50 recent grads in the new england area (many from ivy league schools) I can see why the larger companies are unsatisfied. I ended up getting a high school kid that has been doing odd jobs on the side for me because he knew far more about windows/linux than the CS grads.
College is not a requirement for IT employment- experience is. Drop out- get an entry level IT job and go back if you want an education- while you are working. You'll learn more on the job than you will at school- but, if you want the paper, you'll at least be usefull to someone after graduation.
close but # 2 should read "Most other web companies thought they had value to be sold in control of their user data more than the savings of easy of development."
While on contract to large company over (8K employees)that has to be HIPIAA compliant AND SarbOx complaint, I saw 2 projects , one with j2ee and one with .net. The .net project is completed and the j2ee project is still going. Both projects were similar in targets and scope ( generating XML reports from 2 different financial systems and claims systems). Java is more difficult to do audit systems on, and is more complex when trying to design role based security. .Net is obviously nor portable, but has all that functionality built in to any number of languages. Since your target is physicians offices and hospitals (where the primary OS of choice is M$); I would work on the .Net version first and perhaps a j2ee version if you see any demand for it. C# and java are similar in syntax (more so than some of the other .net langs) and wouldn't be to difficult to get he core logic recoded. The difficult part (which would be the challenge anyway) would be to develop the security model.
"you given an undoiable assignment, thats the problem"
Nonsense- I took a security class that had a similar assignment. We just didn't publish any exploits. The point of the class is to show that *nix doesn't offer much in the way of program security. (not that I am advocating that it either should or shouldn't)
College and University is supposed to be about learning for learning's sake. If you want to learn for vocational purposes, go to the right place to do that.
That may have been true at one point but I've not met a contemporary CS student, taking classes, so he can graduate to become a researcher. All the ones I've met think they will get jobs outside the EDU system. However, that would explain why there is so little actual information passed along to the students.
Mod parent Up!! When we tried hiring CS grads a while back, they all wanted us to pay for classes to learn this stuff. Isn't that what college was supposed to be for? Since it's not, is it any wonder why we outsouce so much in the US?
Nonsense- My firm won't hire anyone with a degree UNLESS they have equivalent experience. Degrees nowadays aren't worth the paper they are written on. It's too easy to find an experienced un-degreed person (maybe with a cert), than it is to weed through the degreed inexperienced people. I admit that all other things being equal, the degree would be a deciding factor, but I haven't seen any like that. Most folks that don't have degrees, have more experience than the folks that do have the degree. My advice would be to get a job then get the employer to pay for college should you choose to go.
It also cost Amex 2 years and around 100G just to get folks to write some apps that used the java on the amex card to do anything remotely useful. The relativly new thing is that because it's on the .net platform, the changes (if any, and I can't stress the, if any, portion enough), you have to make to your code are just a few lines.
Runas should work 100% of the time unless you have not given your account the correct privs, which is usually the problem. Folks run as Admin because it's easy, and becuase they don't understand security.
As a consultant I spend a bulk of my time re-educating "IT Staff" that a reboot of a windows OS is not the proper way to troubleshoot or resolve a problem. IT folks reboot windows systems because they can and it's reletively harmless compared to powercycling a Unix system.
If his superiors are the ones ordering them, he has the option of disobeying orders (which, if it's an unjust order, he can do) or performing a war crime. If the former, he faces definite imprisonment and a courts-martial, during which he might be exonerated. However, during war time, that might take a year to come to trial, and he's imprisoned the whole time. Did you see A Few Good Men? They followed orders and committed a murder, and thought they were doing right because they followed orders. Can we, as armchair quarterbacks, claim that we would be nobler, and stand up to our commanding officer? I think not.
In case you were unaware, a few good men was made up. It doesn't work that way. In a nutshell if you disobeyed an unjust order it would be reviewed by the superior to the one that gave the order. You might be confined but since Kerry was an officer, it is unlikely. In any event in a few good men they were convicted because they DID follow an illegal order.
Oh, come on... Who was torturing the soldiers? The Viet Cong. Let's not even pretend to compare being tortured by the enemy to going to the press, congress, or the CO. I'm ashamed you even brought that up.
Yes the Viet Cong were torturing soldiers. I am not comparing torture to going to the press, what I am saying is that going to the press while stating things that the enemy is torturing soldiers to say, is turning your back on those soldiers.
And I still don't see where he 'turned his back on his fellow soldiers'. Is it because he told the truth about what was going on? Should he have stayed tight-lipped? Don't cross the thin blue line, etc.? By the same token, any Police Department Internal Affairs division is "turning it's back on their fellow officers", any ethics committe is "turning it's back on their colleagues", etc. If you believe it's preferable to stay silent when there are crimes being committed, rather than step forward to protect the innocent, then that's just sad.
I am not saying anything of the sort. Kerry didn't report anyone; he didn't charge anyone with a crime (as was his duty). He went to the press. While that's not keeping silent, it's also not the way to report crimes. It's the same as if one police officer saw another officer beating someone in the streets, watched him for a while, walked over, kicked the guy a few times, and then called a reporter lamenting the brutality of the police.
That's the problem with these war crimes, you cannot (at least in the US military) be ordered to commit crimes. If Kerry decided that they were crimes, then he shouldn't have done them or he should have reported them to his superiors. Instead, at a time when other soldiers were being tortured in order to get them to admit to crimes they didn't commit, John Kerry went to the media and the public rather than the chain of command. This is how he turned his back on his fellow soldiers, if he actually told the truth (which is a whole separate debate). There is a reason that Kerry's got a place in the Vietnam war museum, and it's not because of his "war crimes".
So when Kerry states (in the link you provide)..."the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out" he was using the "royal" we? Are you saying that Kerry was simply relaying what he was told with no knowledge of whether it was true? If he did know that this was going on, then he himself, as an officer, is responsible.
I know who I want in a foxhole with me, and it certainly isn't the guy that brought a camera along to film his "exploits". Pity he forgot to film all the atrocities.
He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'."
Here is the excerpt from what Kerry said on Meet the Press April 18, 1971.
"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
He didn't say that he was told, or he saw, he said he did it.
If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something?
The only reason that we don't know what he threw is becasue he has stated at one point or another that he has thrown all of the above!
Isn't leading your target audience to a specific conclusion by not presenting all the pertinient facts about a topic the very definition of propaganda? Where others fit into the defnition of propaganda is irrelevent because they are not claiming to be creating a "documentary" from dictionary.com:
propaganda
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
No Kerry did not come back begging for an end to the war. Kerry came back testifying how horrible it was for him and his shipmates to have had to become war criminals, knowing full well that they weren't. He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today. Kerry actions are about as noble as having the guy next to you in a foxhole, before you are supposed to get out to take over an enemy position, saying "by all means my good man, you first"
I like Star Trek but I'm not a huge fan. I've never been to a convention, and I've only read a few novels. Oddly though, when someone mentioned to me that "Scotty" was really sick, I started to get that feeling that something was going to be lost. I'm extremely glad to hear that James got a star. I think that if more folks had known that he wanted it and it was just a matter of money, all us engineers inspired by his portrayal would have ponied up the cash to get it (and we'd a made it self cleaning). I think that more than any actor I can think of, James Doohan did more to actually further the progress of man than anyone else I can think of. He didn't just play a role, he Inspired.
If the only thing the UN is mandating is how you work with the UN then I say no big loss. From the mandate of the group Microsoft quit, they want a say in how software interoperates around the world, a very different segment.