Your proposed law, that government employees shouldn't be able to use privately-generated information is just ridiculous. A) It wouldn't affect this, because this is a compilation of primarily government lists, and B) most books, web sites, etc are privately generated. You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books.
Your suggested law doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, and does create a lot of problems. Exactly like the people who want to ban "assualt weapons" and don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.
You can make sales taxes as progressive as you want them to be. I'm sure you've seen this before, it's as simple as a rebate of $X.
Suppose you want people who spend $10,000 or less to pay zero tax, and you want people who spend a lot to pay about 15%, with the people who spend the most paying a higher percentage than those who spend a medium amount.
You tax transactions at 15%, then refund $1,500. Simple. The person who spends $10,000 ends up paying zero taxes. Someone spending less than $10K ends up paying negative taxes (their refund is more than they paid). Someone spending $200K pays 15% of the $200K = $30,000, minus $1,500 = $28,500 = 14.25%.
Even without a rebate, a simple 10% sales tax IS progressive in the sense that people who earn more pay more. Because basic necessities like groceries are exempt, it's also already progressive in a percentage sense. For people who earn less, groceries etc are (or should be) a larger percentage of their income. Therefore a larger percentage of their income is exempt from taxes. If lower income people are spending all their money on Starbucks and Air Jordan shoes, well you can't fix stupid.
That's a lot of DMCA notices, more than I would expect. But perhaps this explains why:
"In all, fewer than twenty individual notice senders requested removal of over 90% of the content GitHub took down in 2015."
Seems my prediction didn't count on those ten people who sent most of them. The "90% by 10 people" figure is similar to patent law suits. About four or five "companies" file over half the patent law suits in the US.
I wonder, though. Other commenters who looked at the DMCA notices say most of them seem legit. I wonder if the large numbers of notices filed by those ten people were legit, or if they are DMCA trolls.
> private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.
I understand your concern. Your suggestion is:
It "should be unlawful" for public institutions to "use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced".
The list discussed in the article is compiled from open, public sources, so it wouldn't be covered by your proposal, but we'll stick with your suggestion now.
Closed source information sources include: Google Encyclopedia Britannica TV news
So there should be a law public institutions, including police, state college employees, etc., cannot use information they found in Google, the encyclopedia, or the news when making decisions.
You've made a proposal which would have zero applicability to the event which caused your concern, while banning good and useful things. I'm going to try out my psychic powers and hazard a guess. My guess is you want to to ban guns too.
I'm surprised anywhere in the US is starting kids at just $9 / hour to work in a gas station since it's twice that in Texas. Hopefully those kids will show up on time and get a raise after a bit. Maybe go to school and get a job other than "gas station cashier".
How would you like to be in the top 5% richest people in the world?
To be in the top 5% of income, you have to make $9 / hour. From the way you write, I'm guessing you have a bit of an education and make considerably more than than that. You're probably in the top 3%. You are better off than 97% of everyone. I understand that some kids kids in Orange county whine because they only have a Lexus while some of their neighbors have BMWs. Spoiled brats to the max.
I don't know if you're grateful for being in the US, where you earn more than 97% of the world does, or if you're a spoiled brat.
> Good thing nobody ever has trouble finding a job that pays the same or more with equivalent benefits.
The same as what? How about a job that pays more than what 95% of people make? Is being in the top 5% good enough for a spoiled brat? To be in the top 5% richest people in the world, you need to make $9 / hour.
You can show up STONED and make $9 / hour in the US, you just have to show up.
Your theory isn't illogical. It could happen that way.
> People with the right skills never need worry about being out of work, but Joe who's been told by his parole officer to get a job isn't going to have much luck here.
Again, my experience with plenty of Joes on parole is that as soon as they hear "get a job or go to jail", they always get a job. Within hours. These are the facts of my experience.
Again, you theoretical thought experiment could certainly happen in some universe.
It's not about "virtue" and "vice". It's cause and effect. Unless of course you want to define "vice" as "error" and "virtue" as "stuff that works". That's not too far off - when many people think of vice and virtue, they think of things the Old Testament/Torah/Koran says to do and not do. That text uses uses the Greek words "hamartema" and "sophia". What in English we call "sin" is hamartema, which literally means "to miss" (the target or goal). "Virtue" in the Greek is sophia, which means wisdom or knowledge. One can miss their target, or one can have knowledge of what works well.
As a very simple example, sending out resumes to a dozen of relevant companies each week, then following up, works a lot better than sending one, waiting three weeks to hear hear back, sending one more, etc. One approach is effective, it is wise. The other approach is foolish if you're unemployed, it misses the mark.
> But if the rules of the game require there to be a loser, that's irrational - if there's less jobs than applicants then someone is going to be left
There are two million who have been unemployed for a short time. Simple arithmetic shows there are enough jobs not only for the four million unemployed, but there would still be 1.8 million jobs leftover. Therefore your proposition "if there's less jobs than applicants" is false. There are almost 6 million open jobs and 4 million unemployed people.
I'm pretty thrifty, but I have hard time imagining what your budget must look like. Unless perhaps you live in a country with very low cost of living, are single, and have your home paid off.
I did just pull up MY old budget from when I brought home 40% less money. I'm working out where I WANT to be putting the "extra" money, which doesn't line up with where I am spending it, I don't think. (I don't -think- because I haven't done a written budget recently).
I find it interesting that the Microsoft announcement says "This includes content youâ(TM)ve purchased." Not "subscribed to", "purchased". I wonder where else they used the word "purchased". I'm sure they have some BS in the tiny print, but if the bold print says "purchase" in multiple places...
> Nobody ever said Government was smart and foreword thinking about what it does. In fact, most thinking people understand that it's quite the opposite, government is usually stupid, slow, costly and inefficient, a set of traist that gets worse as government gets bigger.
I HOPE my government remains slow and inefficient. Holding public hearings, referendums, etc. is slow and inefficient. Giving the minority opinion a chance to speak their mind is slow and inefficient. It's much more faster and more efficient for a dictator to just declare government policy. Publishing proposed laws before for several days before they are voted on slows things down.
It took from 1993 to 2010, seventeen years, to pass HillaryCare. I like that way much better than the alternative, which can be seen in North Korea, Cuba, and Syria. They don't bother with transparency laws, public bidding on government contracts, etc. That stuff is inefficient.
I've been working full time for 24 years. I've never been out of a job for more than two hours.
I've noticed something. I talk to a lot of people who on are probation or parole, and young people 16-22. Often, they look for a job for a long time; it's hard to get a job when you have convictions, they tell me. Eventually, their probation or parole officer gets fed up and tells them "if you don't have a job by the time of our appointment tomorrow, you're going to jail." Just like that, they go get a job that very day. The young kids tell me "I can't get a job without experience." Until the last relative gets tired of them sitting on the couch and tosses them out. Then, its either get a job or be hungry. Wow, again they go get a job that very day.
If you sit at home thinking about maybe you'd like a job, what some people call "looking for a job", you very likely won't find one. When you get off your ass and go get a job, you get a job.
You can have yourself an income and someone paying for your health care right now, today. Or tomorrow, depending*. Walk on over to the nearest business and get a job. The employer will both provide an income for you and separately pay for your health care.
* If you're REALLY stoned right now, you can go get the job tomorrow. You'll need to do so BEFORE smoking your fourth bowl of the day.
I started writing code that writes code ten years ago. Then I started taking a very long lunch break on my jet ski.
A year ago, as one of my first projects at my new job, I was assigned to the team plodding through a bunch of legacy code, rewriting it to support some new technology. There was hundreds of hours of tedious work to do. I wrote some code that did half of it for me. It read in the old code and spit out replacement code.:)
With the disclaimer, the parking lot operator is responsible for providing a space suitable for parking. If you show that cars parked there were burglarized 46 times in the past six months, the place isn't suitable for parking and the operator may be liable.
Without the disclaimer, a customer may say "when I pulled in, there was an attendant who pointed to an open spot. I reasonably expected the attendant to keep on eye on the cars, so the operator is liable for any burglarly". The attendant may have been off duty later that night, when there were fewer customers. The sign, and the back of ticket, inform you that the attendant is not a 24/7 security guard.
That's exactly how I read it. "We're not using your location, at this moment. We were using it yesterday and we'll be using it tomorrow, but we turned that off for today, for you (not for everyone else).
Perhaps even more likely they are internally using the same defense that recently SCOTUS allowed for racial discrimination in college admissions. SCOTUS bought the argument "we're not using race to decide admission; we're using combined race and SAT score". Race A, SAT score 1500: admitted Race B, SAT score 1600: denied
That's not using race to decide admissions, according to SCOTUS, because if the Race B lady had scored 2000 she would have been admitted. They aren't using race - they are using a combination of race and SAT score. Facebook probably isn't using location, they're using a combination of location, friends-of-friends, blah blah blah.
Just to nip some replies in the bud, let me get this out of the way first - yes, developing the F35 was really expensive. That's not the topic of this post, though.
> The F35 and the A10, while both are "fighter" jets, have completely different roles. The F35 is for establishing air dominance so that the A10 can ground n pound.
That is certainly true. Also, that may very well change.
The A-10 flies low and slow for a reason - so it can precisely hit small targets, repeatedly. A lot like precision bombers of late WWI and early WWII. If you wanted to hit a specific building, or even a campus, you had to fly low. In early WWII, low enough to fly under enemy radar. Then the Norden bombsight and its improved derivatives were created. Planes could then bomb more accurately from high altitude. (Though not as well as the hype at the time.) Later, smart bombs allowed us to hit individual rooms within a building, from altitude. So for bombing, precision no longer requires low and slow today.
The A10 has worked very well for 40 years. When the F35 is as old as the A10, it'll be 2056. It is entirely possible that 20, 30, or 40 years from now we'll have the same precision of the A10, at a distance. Gun sights with high power magnification and such. Of course it'll need flechette type rounds or something, or small explosive charges.
> the DMCA does not cover (and which more would likely fall under copyright
What does the author think the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act covers, if not copyright?
If the DMCA notice is wrong, the respondent should simply send a counter-notice and the game will go back online. Then Activision can decide if they want to sue in federal court. Reddit commentors who have looked into the facts say Activision is right.
> That means absolutely nothing for Cisco's ability or inability to innovate.
Cisco wasn't just the first to create an instant ethernet spanning protocol, or the first with load-balancing routing. There's a list of about 30 significant "firsts" for Cisco - one for every year of their existence. They don't just get lucky over and over and over again, they innovate, big time. Then they price accordingly.:)
I don't have an unlimited budget, so I don't buy new Cisco gear. I buy either "other" brand or used Cisco. While I'm buying other, I know why Cisco sells five times as much as their closest competitor, and why the brand choices are a) Cisco or b) Other.
You have a point. Certainly many CIOs and also a previous generation of security people have thought of security only in terms of confidentiality. These people have been educated in general IT or computer science, or in some cases have less relevant degrees like electrical engineering, but very rarely do they have a degree in Information Security. So many of them make very bad security decisions, and their decisions focused on confidentiality, which is only one of the three legs of security.
Now companies are STARTING to hire dedicated CSOs and career security people. The first class of information security graduates are getting their degrees right now. These people should understand that availabilty (you can do your work) and integrity (you can trust the results) are just as important. Here's my definition of Information Security, which I think nicely sums up current thinking by this new generation of specialists:
A secure system is one which continues to function correctly, even while under attack.
The comma is important - it suggests that systems which funftion correctly while under attack ALSO function correctly while not under attack. Security implies no blue screen, no error #84c73a2946de93. "A bad guy can't break the system" means that a good guy can't accidentally break it either, the system keeps working correctly for you.
The reply about EIGRP made me think of a clearer way of saying it. Cisco sets the standard. Other vendors follow the standards. Most of the open protocols are copies of what Cisco did 5 or 10 years earlier.
As I said before, where there is a choice, I tend to prefer the ooen standard. I also give credit where credit is due, acknowledging that the open standard I use is based on Cisco's innovation.
> I'm one of those evil people who left school and used some of the things I had learned for personal enrichment. > So are you.
Did your school pay you $430,000 / year for you to help manage projects creating patented new technology, and in exchange you signed an NDA? Me neither.
> since networking is about published standards and not trade secrets.
Some prefer open standards. I do. A few Cisco proprietary protocols which are/were better than the open standards of the time: HSRP, GLBP, PaGP, CDP,VTP, PVST/PVST+, RPVST+, IGRP,EIGRP, CGMP, and many more. CISCO networking isn't "about published standards", it's about always being two steps ahead of the standards.
Slashdot Mirror
> so you find there is nothing disturbing in
This situation is a bit icky, sure.
Your proposed law, that government employees shouldn't be able to use privately-generated information is just ridiculous. A) It wouldn't affect this, because this is a compilation of primarily government lists, and B) most books, web sites, etc are privately generated. You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books.
Your suggested law doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, and does create a lot of problems. Exactly like the people who want to ban "assualt weapons" and don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.
You can make sales taxes as progressive as you want them to be. I'm sure you've seen this before, it's as simple as a rebate of $X.
Suppose you want people who spend $10,000 or less to pay zero tax, and you want people who spend a lot to pay about 15%, with the people who spend the most paying a higher percentage than those who spend a medium amount.
You tax transactions at 15%, then refund $1,500. Simple.
The person who spends $10,000 ends up paying zero taxes.
Someone spending less than $10K ends up paying negative taxes (their refund is more than they paid).
Someone spending $200K pays 15% of the $200K = $30,000, minus $1,500 = $28,500 = 14.25%.
Even without a rebate, a simple 10% sales tax IS progressive in the sense that people who earn more pay more.
Because basic necessities like groceries are exempt, it's also already progressive in a percentage sense. For people who earn less, groceries etc are (or should be) a larger percentage of their income. Therefore a larger percentage of their income is exempt from taxes. If lower income people are spending all their money on Starbucks and Air Jordan shoes, well you can't fix stupid.
That's a lot of DMCA notices, more than I would expect. But perhaps this explains why:
"In all, fewer than twenty individual notice senders requested removal of over 90% of the content GitHub took down in 2015."
Seems my prediction didn't count on those ten people who sent most of them. The "90% by 10 people" figure is similar to patent law suits. About four or five "companies" file over half the patent law suits in the US.
I wonder, though. Other commenters who looked at the DMCA notices say most of them seem legit. I wonder if the large numbers of notices filed by those ten people were legit, or if they are DMCA trolls.
> private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.
I understand your concern. Your suggestion is:
It "should be unlawful" for public institutions to "use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced".
The list discussed in the article is compiled from open, public sources, so it wouldn't be covered by your proposal, but we'll stick with your suggestion now.
Closed source information sources include:
Google
Encyclopedia Britannica
TV news
So there should be a law public institutions, including police, state college employees, etc., cannot use information they found in Google, the encyclopedia, or the news when making decisions.
You've made a proposal which would have zero applicability to the event which caused your concern, while banning good and useful things. I'm going to try out my psychic powers and hazard a guess. My guess is you want to to ban guns too.
I'm surprised anywhere in the US is starting kids at just $9 / hour to work in a gas station since it's twice that in Texas. Hopefully those kids will show up on time and get a raise after a bit. Maybe go to school and get a job other than "gas station cashier".
How would you like to be in the top 5% richest people in the world?
To be in the top 5% of income, you have to make $9 / hour. From the way you write, I'm guessing you have a bit of an education and make considerably more than than that. You're probably in the top 3%. You are better off than 97% of everyone. I understand that some kids kids in Orange county whine because they only have a Lexus while some of their neighbors have BMWs. Spoiled brats to the max.
I don't know if you're grateful for being in the US, where you earn more than 97% of the world does, or if you're a spoiled brat.
> Good thing nobody ever has trouble finding a job that pays the same or more with equivalent benefits.
The same as what? How about a job that pays more than what 95% of people make? Is being in the top 5% good enough for a spoiled brat? To be in the top 5% richest people in the world, you need to make $9 / hour.
You can show up STONED and make $9 / hour in the US, you just have to show up.
Your theory isn't illogical. It could happen that way.
> People with the right skills never need worry about being out of work, but Joe who's been told by his parole officer to get a job isn't going to have much luck here.
Again, my experience with plenty of Joes on parole is that as soon as they hear "get a job or go to jail", they always get a job. Within hours. These are the facts of my experience.
Again, you theoretical thought experiment could certainly happen in some universe.
It's not about "virtue" and "vice". It's cause and effect. Unless of course you want to define "vice" as "error" and "virtue" as "stuff that works". That's not too far off - when many people think of vice and virtue, they think of things the Old Testament/Torah/Koran says to do and not do. That text uses uses the Greek words "hamartema" and "sophia". What in English we call "sin" is hamartema, which literally means "to miss" (the target or goal). "Virtue" in the Greek is sophia, which means wisdom or knowledge. One can miss their target, or one can have knowledge of what works well.
As a very simple example, sending out resumes to a dozen of relevant companies each week, then following up, works a lot better than sending one, waiting three weeks to hear hear back, sending one more, etc. One approach is effective, it is wise. The other approach is foolish if you're unemployed, it misses the mark.
> But if the rules of the game require there to be a loser, that's irrational - if there's less jobs than applicants then someone is going to be left
There are 5.8 million job opening in the US right now, and less than 2 million people who have been unemployed for a long time:
http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...
http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...
There are two million who have been unemployed for a short time. Simple arithmetic shows there are enough jobs not only for the four million unemployed, but there would still be 1.8 million jobs leftover. Therefore your proposition "if there's less jobs than applicants" is false. There are almost 6 million open jobs and 4 million unemployed people.
I'm pretty thrifty, but I have hard time imagining what your budget must look like. Unless perhaps you live in a country with very low cost of living, are single, and have your home paid off.
I did just pull up MY old budget from when I brought home 40% less money. I'm working out where I WANT to be putting the "extra" money, which doesn't line up with where I am spending it, I don't think. (I don't -think- because I haven't done a written budget recently).
I find it interesting that the Microsoft announcement says "This includes content youâ(TM)ve purchased." Not "subscribed to", "purchased". I wonder where else they used the word "purchased". I'm sure they have some BS in the tiny print, but if the bold print says "purchase" in multiple places ...
> Nobody ever said Government was smart and foreword thinking about what it does. In fact, most thinking people understand that it's quite the opposite, government is usually stupid, slow, costly and inefficient, a set of traist that gets worse as government gets bigger.
I HOPE my government remains slow and inefficient. Holding public hearings, referendums, etc. is slow and inefficient. Giving the minority opinion a chance to speak their mind is slow and inefficient. It's much more faster and more efficient for a dictator to just declare government policy. Publishing proposed laws before for several days before they are voted on slows things down.
It took from 1993 to 2010, seventeen years, to pass HillaryCare. I like that way much better than the alternative, which can be seen in North Korea, Cuba, and Syria. They don't bother with transparency laws, public bidding on government contracts, etc. That stuff is inefficient.
Gas stations in my area start new kids at $14-$15 per hour. That's pretty basic if you ask me.
I've been working full time for 24 years. I've never been out of a job for more than two hours.
I've noticed something. I talk to a lot of people who on are probation or parole, and young people 16-22. Often, they look for a job for a long time; it's hard to get a job when you have convictions, they tell me. Eventually, their probation or parole officer gets fed up and tells them "if you don't have a job by the time of our appointment tomorrow, you're going to jail." Just like that, they go get a job that very day. The young kids tell me "I can't get a job without experience." Until the last relative gets tired of them sitting on the couch and tosses them out. Then, its either get a job or be hungry. Wow, again they go get a job that very day.
If you sit at home thinking about maybe you'd like a job, what some people call "looking for a job", you very likely won't find one. When you get off your ass and go get a job, you get a job.
You can have yourself an income and someone paying for your health care right now, today. Or tomorrow, depending*. Walk on over to the nearest business and get a job. The employer will both provide an income for you and separately pay for your health care.
* If you're REALLY stoned right now, you can go get the job tomorrow. You'll need to do so BEFORE smoking your fourth bowl of the day.
I started writing code that writes code ten years ago. Then I started taking a very long lunch break on my jet ski.
A year ago, as one of my first projects at my new job, I was assigned to the team plodding through a bunch of legacy code, rewriting it to support some new technology. There was hundreds of hours of tedious work to do. I wrote some code that did half of it for me. It read in the old code and spit out replacement code. :)
So some guy from Google named is opining about AI.n What the hell does Sebastian Thrun know about AI anyway?
Oh. Never mind. Carry on.
With the disclaimer, the parking lot operator is responsible for providing a space suitable for parking. If you show that cars parked there were burglarized 46 times in the past six months, the place isn't suitable for parking and the operator may be liable.
Without the disclaimer, a customer may say "when I pulled in, there was an attendant who pointed to an open spot. I reasonably expected the attendant to keep on eye on the cars, so the operator is liable for any burglarly". The attendant may have been off duty later that night, when there were fewer customers. The sign, and the back of ticket, inform you that the attendant is not a 24/7 security guard.
That's exactly how I read it. "We're not using your location, at this moment. We were using it yesterday and we'll be using it tomorrow, but we turned that off for today, for you (not for everyone else).
Perhaps even more likely they are internally using the same defense that recently SCOTUS allowed for racial discrimination in college admissions. SCOTUS bought the argument "we're not using race to decide admission; we're using combined race and SAT score".
Race A, SAT score 1500: admitted
Race B, SAT score 1600: denied
That's not using race to decide admissions, according to SCOTUS, because if the Race B lady had scored 2000 she would have been admitted. They aren't using race - they are using a combination of race and SAT score. Facebook probably isn't using location, they're using a combination of location, friends-of-friends, blah blah blah.
Just to nip some replies in the bud, let me get this out of the way first - yes, developing the F35 was really expensive. That's not the topic of this post, though.
> The F35 and the A10, while both are "fighter" jets, have completely different roles. The F35 is for establishing air dominance so that the A10 can ground n pound.
That is certainly true. Also, that may very well change.
The A-10 flies low and slow for a reason - so it can precisely hit small targets, repeatedly. A lot like precision bombers of late WWI and early WWII. If you wanted to hit a specific building, or even a campus, you had to fly low. In early WWII, low enough to fly under enemy radar. Then the Norden bombsight and its improved derivatives were created. Planes could then bomb more accurately from high altitude. (Though not as well as the hype at the time.) Later, smart bombs allowed us to hit individual rooms within a building, from altitude. So for bombing, precision no longer requires low and slow today.
The A10 has worked very well for 40 years. When the F35 is as old as the A10, it'll be 2056. It is entirely possible that 20, 30, or 40 years from now we'll have the same precision of the A10, at a distance. Gun sights with high power magnification and such. Of course it'll need flechette type rounds or something, or small explosive charges.
> the DMCA does not cover (and which more would likely fall under copyright
What does the author think the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act covers, if not copyright?
If the DMCA notice is wrong, the respondent should simply send a counter-notice and the game will go back online. Then Activision can decide if they want to sue in federal court. Reddit commentors who have looked into the facts say Activision is right.
> That means absolutely nothing for Cisco's ability or inability to innovate.
Cisco wasn't just the first to create an instant ethernet spanning protocol, or the first with load-balancing routing. There's a list of about 30 significant "firsts" for Cisco - one for every year of their existence. They don't just get lucky over and over and over again, they innovate, big time. Then they price accordingly. :)
I don't have an unlimited budget, so I don't buy new Cisco gear. I buy either "other" brand or used Cisco. While I'm buying other, I know why Cisco sells five times as much as their closest competitor, and why the brand choices are a) Cisco or b) Other.
You have a point. Certainly many CIOs and also a previous generation of security people have thought of security only in terms of confidentiality. These people have been educated in general IT or computer science, or in some cases have less relevant degrees like electrical engineering, but very rarely do they have a degree in Information Security. So many of them make very bad security decisions, and their decisions focused on confidentiality, which is only one of the three legs of security.
Now companies are STARTING to hire dedicated CSOs and career security people. The first class of information security graduates are getting their degrees right now. These people should understand that availabilty (you can do your work) and integrity (you can trust the results) are just as important. Here's my definition of Information Security, which I think nicely sums up current thinking by this new generation of specialists:
A secure system is one which continues to function correctly, even while under attack.
The comma is important - it suggests that systems which funftion correctly while under attack ALSO function correctly while not under attack. Security implies no blue screen, no error #84c73a2946de93. "A bad guy can't break the system" means that a good guy can't accidentally break it either, the system keeps working correctly for you.
The reply about EIGRP made me think of a clearer way of saying it. Cisco sets the standard. Other vendors follow the standards. Most of the open protocols are copies of what Cisco did 5 or 10 years earlier.
As I said before, where there is a choice, I tend to prefer the ooen standard. I also give credit where credit is due, acknowledging that the open standard I use is based on Cisco's innovation.
Yes, 23 years after Cisco introduced EIGRP, part of it is an open standard.
Still, it remains on the list of it "Cisco sets the standard, other vendors follow".
> I'm one of those evil people who left school and used some of the things I had learned for personal enrichment.
> So are you.
Did your school pay you $430,000 / year for you to help manage projects creating patented new technology, and in exchange you signed an NDA?
Me neither.
> since networking is about published standards and not trade secrets.
Some prefer open standards. I do. A few Cisco proprietary protocols which are/were better than the open standards of the time: HSRP, GLBP, PaGP, CDP,VTP, PVST/PVST+, RPVST+, IGRP,EIGRP, CGMP, and many more. CISCO networking isn't "about published standards", it's about always being two steps ahead of the standards.