First of all, anyone who would pay for a cat is a complete moron.
Second of all, people don't choose to take care of cats, cats choose who will take care of them. Yes, there are times when a cats first choice will reject them, but don't confuse this with people having the upper hand.
All this study proves that cats tend to choose people with better heart health.
After twenty years in the IT profession, I'm pretty much going to be forced to take my MCSE mainly because you just can't get a job. In our last two hires, we've all but ignored any certifications on the applicants resumes. We're a 100% Windows shop and it's been really hard to find a decent Windows admin. I've found that the admins who have at least a cursory interest in Unix-types OSs tend to be lightyears better (at everything) than their UNIX-fearing counterparts.
I'm the only person in my workplace who likes UNIX and is not afraid of it, so bringing UNIX in is a no-go until we get at least one more guy on who is not afraid if it.
Your post reminds me of an experience I had almost ten years ago while visiting my relatives in New York (I'm from California). We were in a car with one of my dad's friends and his son. They were listening to Beastie Boys new album. They asked my if I liked Beasties boys, and I replied yes. We talked a bit about music and the fact that I liked some rap music. Then my Dad's friend (a middle aged white dude) asked if my mother liked rap music. I replied with an emphatic "no way", as my mom was a listener of country music and "adult contemporary" crap like Michael Bolton. His reply was, "Why? does she not like black people?"
I was taken aback by that question (my mother today is married to a big Hawaiian dude and had dated Black and Mexican men in the past) as a racist was the last thing I would categorize my mom as.
I saw this apparent preoccupation with race with several people over there, and it was very foreign to me.
I wont argue with you that for desktop purposes, Linux does better job out of the box, but I do own a piece of hardware, the Areca ARC-1210 SATA controller, that was supported from day one in FreeBSD out of the box, and not in the two or three Linux distros I tried. Linux support existed, but you had to download the driver separately, or in one case enable the module during the install (and being a FreeBSD person, I had no idea how to do that). I bought the card for FreeBSD support, so the flaky linux support was not an issue.
So in order to prove that evolution is scientific, you must reproduce the entire chain from the beginning to the end By that logic, the theory of gravity is not scientific either.
I'll be generous and allow you to start with a single celled organism, you don't have to go find some primordial soup to start. Like so many creationists, you haven't even bothered to educate yourself on what the theory of evolution really is. The theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. It covers the development of life from the time it started. Any theories as to how life originally started are still at the hypotheses stage, because no one has ever been able to observe life starting.
However, given that it does reflect the beginning of what we call the world/universe it does have a scientific bearing in certain aspects Evolution doesn't cover the origin of the universe either.
This has been covered so many times already. It isn't market share. It is design. Can you please link me to the argument where this issue was supposedly decided?
If Linux ever achieves a large desktop market share, the repository model will inevitably break down and the reality of having to decide weather or not to trust software from third parties will come about.
Mac and Linux ARE intrinsically more secure than Windows. And you completely missed the point of his post which stated that it doesn't matter. Did the froth from your mouth get into your eyes and obscure his message?
There are no viruses in the wild for Mac or Linux. Care to qualify this? I'm always seeing hacked Linux boxes on the net poking around for more hosts to infect, and in large forums of OSX users I have seen reports of security breaches, and reports of OSX malware.
"Market share" is a meaningless term when it comes to FOSS. There is no way to count the six computers I installed Linux on last year from the same CD, all of which report to web sites that they're running IE on Windows rather than Firefox on Linux. Actually, web stats can be used to accurately measure the percentage of desktops that run Linux. Windows, and OSX. The fact that you configured your linux boxes to send fake agent strings doesn't mean that a large portion do the same.
You can, however, measure Macs. Apple shipped 1,610,000 Macintosh® computers in a single quarter last year! That's one hell of a big potential botnet It's about percentages, not numbers. 1,610,000 is a tiny fraction of the total computers sold each quarter.
(It's a joke. I use Firefox all the time and rarely see Firefox break 100MB.) My Windows Mobile based phone has 10MB of free program memory when no programs are running.
This statement leads me to believe you've never looked at a corporate firewall policy, much less an actual ruleset. I've seen a few dozen, from medium to large enterprises. And I can't count the number of times I've seen rules that would leave them wide-open were it not for their NAT to a private address space. In all cases this was accidental, as it left some number of internal hosts exposed. However, it had slipped through because of old rules or some typo. Though it's not my job, I do have access to our PIX for emergency reasons. Our ruleset is a complete mess, and on many occasions I've requested that old rules (mostly private*-*public translations) be discarded.
But I don't see this as an excuse to keep NAT around. Because we use 100% private addressing inside our network, our PIX configuration is twice as big as it normally would be, since public*-*private translations along with actual port rules have to be configured for every internet facing server.
As for routing performance, I tried to find a link to a IPv6 vs IPv4 routing comparison I read a year or so ago, but I was unable to find it. The result was that Ipv6 routing was only very slightly slower on the same hardware. Ipv6 contains some improvements like fixed header size and the elimination of checksums and fragmentation that supposedly serve to increase routing performance. As for routing table size, I think Ipv6's hierarchical addressing scheme prevents routers' routing tables from having to grow to outrageous sizes.
Here is one Cisco article I found. not sure how useful it really is, as it seems to double as a brochure for various Cisco routers.
"At least NAT forces organizations to manage their internal address space and keeps some of the routing burden off our backbone. It also provides some extra security by keeping all those soft targets (client workstations) off the big bad Internet, even when people make a mess of their firewall."
NAT is a causes more headaches than it solves. For corporate clients that you don't want on the internet, firewalls which are no less complicated to configure than any NAT setup, can be used. It would takes less configuration and less processing power to do plain SPI with public addresses than do NAT + SPI.
Now think about that fact that IPV6 bumps up the address space 2^96 times. Imagine the burden that will place on routing tables.
Current routing hardware can handle it just fine.
Without very careful consideration IPV6 could knock the Internet back a decade
You speak as if that would be a bad thing. A decade ago, the internet was made up of peers. Today it's come to the point where a select few actually participate and the rest are only allowed to consume. Everyone being able to participate in the internet again would indeed set the internet back a decade.
"product was ready rather than leaving because the project was going down the drain."
The project wasn't going down the drain - it just wasn't quite ready. Vista RTM was very buggy, but with all of the "reliability updates" that have come out, and the upcoming SP1, it's gotten to be RC worthy. I hated it a year ago, but am running it on a new laptop now and it has been pleasant to use.
My wife, who cursed me for months after moving her from Windows 2000 to XP, and scremed bloody murder when I tried to switch her over from MS office to open office has liked Vista from the get-go. I thought for sure that she, of all people, would hate it.
1) Losing keys/passwords 3) Hackers stealing your keys, deleting them, and ransoming them back to you In this case, just grab the CEO's laptop. They all store all the valuable company data in their My Documents folder unencrypted.
No need to spread BS FUD. Anyone can purchase OEM Windows versions of software, and there is no hardware purchase required. The limitations on OEM Windows purchases are that there is no support included and that you cannot move it from computer to computer.
If it doesn't spread, well, that doesn't really say much about the exploit. The vast majority of desktop exploits do not spread, so I would agree.
But I am really interested in the outcome of the contest, especially what they will consider as a 'default' install and 'default' configuration. I'm sure those two issues will inevitably invalidate the results in someone's eyes, regardless of the result.
For Linux, I need to train the user how to use chmod. Naw. Assuming it will be a functional equivalent of Windows and OS X, it should be running KDE, which means it will have support for archives (Ark) built into it. Just send 'em an archived shell script with the execute bit already set. Alternatively, you can send them your payload in some sort of package format, like RPM.
Slashdot Mirror
The "IT Guy" I'm referring to isn't the one running the FTP service.
It sounds like their "IT guy" is a moron.
Stipe says that comment about the Beatles was taken out of context.[mp3 file]
Link to RS story...
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/03/12/exclusive-audio-rem-talks-you-listen.
Then what would it be?
It certainly isn't logical.
First of all, anyone who would pay for a cat is a complete moron.
Second of all, people don't choose to take care of cats, cats choose who will take care of them. Yes, there are times when a cats first choice will reject them, but don't confuse this with people having the upper hand.
All this study proves that cats tend to choose people with better heart health.
I'm the only person in my workplace who likes UNIX and is not afraid of it, so bringing UNIX in is a no-go until we get at least one more guy on who is not afraid if it.
Your post reminds me of an experience I had almost ten years ago while visiting my relatives in New York (I'm from California). We were in a car with one of my dad's friends and his son. They were listening to Beastie Boys new album. They asked my if I liked Beasties boys, and I replied yes. We talked a bit about music and the fact that I liked some rap music. Then my Dad's friend (a middle aged white dude) asked if my mother liked rap music. I replied with an emphatic "no way", as my mom was a listener of country music and "adult contemporary" crap like Michael Bolton. His reply was, "Why? does she not like black people?"
I was taken aback by that question (my mother today is married to a big Hawaiian dude and had dated Black and Mexican men in the past) as a racist was the last thing I would categorize my mom as.
I saw this apparent preoccupation with race with several people over there, and it was very foreign to me.
You misspelled pearl!!
Ha! hA!
I wont argue with you that for desktop purposes, Linux does better job out of the box, but I do own a piece of hardware, the Areca ARC-1210 SATA controller, that was supported from day one in FreeBSD out of the box, and not in the two or three Linux distros I tried. Linux support existed, but you had to download the driver separately, or in one case enable the module during the install (and being a FreeBSD person, I had no idea how to do that). I bought the card for FreeBSD support, so the flaky linux support was not an issue.
If Linux ever achieves a large desktop market share, the repository model will inevitably break down and the reality of having to decide weather or not to trust software from third parties will come about.
And hilarity will ensue.
It's a T-Mobile wing (HTC HERA110)). I had a feeling it was underpowered.
Now, thanks to your post, I see that it is!
But I don't see this as an excuse to keep NAT around. Because we use 100% private addressing inside our network, our PIX configuration is twice as big as it normally would be, since public*-*private translations along with actual port rules have to be configured for every internet facing server.
As for routing performance, I tried to find a link to a IPv6 vs IPv4 routing comparison I read a year or so ago, but I was unable to find it. The result was that Ipv6 routing was only very slightly slower on the same hardware. Ipv6 contains some improvements like fixed header size and the elimination of checksums and fragmentation that supposedly serve to increase routing performance. As for routing table size, I think Ipv6's hierarchical addressing scheme prevents routers' routing tables from having to grow to outrageous sizes.
Here is one Cisco article I found. not sure how useful it really is, as it seems to double as a brochure for various Cisco routers.
"At least NAT forces organizations to manage their internal address space and keeps some of the routing burden off our backbone. It also provides some extra security by keeping all those soft targets (client workstations) off the big bad Internet, even when people make a mess of their firewall."
NAT is a causes more headaches than it solves. For corporate clients that you don't want on the internet, firewalls which are no less complicated to configure than any NAT setup, can be used. It would takes less configuration and less processing power to do plain SPI with public addresses than do NAT + SPI.
Now think about that fact that IPV6 bumps up the address space 2^96 times. Imagine the burden that will place on routing tables.
Current routing hardware can handle it just fine.
Without very careful consideration IPV6 could knock the Internet back a decade
You speak as if that would be a bad thing. A decade ago, the internet was made up of peers. Today it's come to the point where a select few actually participate and the rest are only allowed to consume. Everyone being able to participate in the internet again would indeed set the internet back a decade.
"product was ready rather than leaving because the project was going down the drain."
The project wasn't going down the drain - it just wasn't quite ready. Vista RTM was very buggy, but with all of the "reliability updates" that have come out, and the upcoming SP1, it's gotten to be RC worthy. I hated it a year ago, but am running it on a new laptop now and it has been pleasant to use.
My wife, who cursed me for months after moving her from Windows 2000 to XP, and scremed bloody murder when I tried to switch her over from MS office to open office has liked Vista from the get-go. I thought for sure that she, of all people, would hate it.
The first letter in white, 'w', is next to the 'e'.
3) Hackers stealing your keys, deleting them, and ransoming them back to you In this case, just grab the CEO's laptop. They all store all the valuable company data in their My Documents folder unencrypted.
No need to spread BS FUD. Anyone can purchase OEM Windows versions of software, and there is no hardware purchase required. The limitations on OEM Windows purchases are that there is no support included and that you cannot move it from computer to computer.