... if the wonderful laws introduced in the UK (and to a worst extent in the US) do not allow even the indicted to know about the charges brought against them?
You are realling misdirecting your anger, due process is being severely damaged and people like you don't challenge the spoon feed assumptions of the authorities.
But they don't understand the value of money, this understanding comes with having to pay your own bills, and for some not even then (but I digress:-) ).
Children in consummerist societies (and maybe in all societies) are easily influenced by fashion. IN rich countries like the US and others where talking about iPods is a leisure activity (I am telling you, in ZImbabwe, East TImor or Haiti they could not care less) this manifests in expensive clothes and gadgetry (shoes, clothes, game consoles, music gadgets).
I am amazed that there is somebody that has not realized all children, if possible, will drool after expensive gadgetry, it is an status symbol, mightly important in you teens.
As for valuing the drivel on the radio, well, that is your personal opinion. I am sure that what you heard when you were in your teens would have been derided as drivel by you elders, so making such a comment says more about you and your age than about the children, which in any case have the right to decide if a radio is a desirable feature or not in a portable music player, subjective musical or aesthetic judgments aside.
Your definition of "behind" must be a very interesting one.
There are plenty of players out there that do what the iPod does and more, from a technical point of view they are superior (easy access to songs, playlists, adecuate controls, and obvious add ons like voice recording, radio, and recording from radio).
The stroke of genius from Mr Jobs was to tie in iTunes to the iPod. Now, if you think it is to be behind the times not to accept a DMRed store as your main source of music, well, all the power to you, may you enjoy your pink Koolaid, in the mean tiem we, backwards people will drown our sorrows in emusic or similiar costumer friendly stablishments.
It flabergasts me why we are not seeing more countries questioning the legality of Apple's bussiness model. Conditional sales (to get iTunes music in a portable device you *must* buy an iPod) is ilegal in all the places I have lived (not the US, so I can't comment). I remember a couple of countries have touched some points of how the unholly duo iTunes-iPod works but nobody has addressed the forced conditionality of this (France seemed set to do it, but obvioulsy Apple have got quite good lobbyists in Paris).
The people responsible for inspecting Iraq's military capabilities said unequivocally they did not find WMD. They said this at the time Bush and Co. were peddling their lies (and if they feel I am being libelous I invite them to sue me).
The team inspecting Iraq requested several more months to complete their work but the war was rushed well before that.
There were only two sides in this situation, the ones liying out of malice (Bush) or ignorance (Clinton) and the ones that stuck to the facts.
Any other accomodations are irrelvant, specially if it comes to US politics, where almost eevry single politician drank Bush's Kool Aid ans suspended critical thinking.
MS has an image problem when it comes to security, it is a problem of their own making, acknoledged by Mr Gates himself and experienced day in day out with their prodcuts by IT professionals.
Dig a bit deeper and you realize that security is still not properly realized in MS products. AD is a mess waiting to get worst for example.
I don't care how wonderful SP2 was, that is a drop in an ocean of incompetence and procastination.
I don't know what the Mozilla organization was thinking. Sometimes you have to take care of the PR situation as well as the technical side of things. Anybody that has worked recently around security in MS products will carry a credibility problem, specially in a highly visible position.
I am sure that this lady is bright, intelligent and all what his pals say lovingly about her, but she brings with her a credibility problem which becomes all too evident when one reads all the comments on this thread (which are mostly bad jokes, but that drive the same point home: we can't believe it).
Lets hope that this is a good move, but I think people should be excused for the healthy doses of skepticism.
You truly believe this tripe that the US is an innocent party targetted for no reason whatsoever.
Your country has been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations for the best part of the XXth century. That was bound to cause a lot of unkind people predisposed against anything smelling USian.
Wake up and smell the coffe guys, you are ignoring all the actions taken in your name and behalf and then appearing all surprised when somebody else takes murderous issue with you.
You are spending insane amounts of money in a military industry that needs to be used, otherwise your economy would collapse.
You, as a country, are engaged in a spiral of death and self destruction because are making of death a national industry.
If anything you are lucky that so far you have gotten off so lightly. Lets hope it continues to be the case, but I wish you guys stopped your simplistic approach to things and would start thinking about the reasons for the current climate of fear we are all experiencing.
Most likely he is referring to Israel in a context where they are invading or occupying a piece of land.
Under that context, no negotiation at all is not as extreme as you want to make it appear (would you negotiate with a foreign invader killing your people in your own country?)
I am not condoning this organization, since they clearly are preapered to kill innocent people using the most tenous of justifications, but descontextualization is a dirty trick in the arsenal of people that want to dehumanize a party which they don't agree with.
These guys are mad, but their madness is targetted to a party that is clearly playing a part in creating a greivance.
The terrorists are killing a few thousends at most.
You are advocating mass murder of millions, most of whom don't agree with the tactics of a tiny minority of extremists.
Any sane person can see that in a moral balance it is not advisable to persue what I can only refer to as your "final solution" (I am chosing these words very carefuly to fully imply how I regards your portrayed "solution").
You are pretending to understand the Muslim world like if it was continuum and indivisible.
The Muslim world is a diverse set of countries encompasing many culutres and practices, from the permissive Turkey, where you can find scantly dressed women in magazines and nobody pays a second thought to that, to conservative wahabis in Saudi Arabia.
If you claim to understand Muslims, that would mean that you know about many different cultures and countries, which, given your previous comments, I very much doubt you do.
Thankfully neofascists like you will not attain power anytime sson, you are far too transparent for the general populace to allow you to raise again.
If you think that Russia and China would allow you to "deal" with the situation in the way you are implying, you have nno understanding of geopolitical issues.
People are employed by companies to do a work in accordance with the needs of those companies.
As long as it is nothing ilegal the employee is legaly bound to do that work.
What you are advocating is a kind of vigilantism that punishes people by close association based in your narrow view of the world, pretty much in the same vein as extrimist antiabortionists or extreme folks against testing of products in animals.
If you don't agree with the behaviour of a company the correct action is to take your costum elsewhere and if you are really angry, then spread your truth as you see it. But targetting employees that the only thing they are doing is a legal jog, is frankly as immoral and unethic as anything you can ascribe to the corporations you are obviously not vey fond of.
Targetting one's anger to somebody that has absolutely no power to address the reasons you may be angry is completely improductive (no, idiotic, but I am very polite and will not say that to you).
Even if that person wanted to help, he is legaly bound not to do so, he is paid to do a job and to upheld his companie's policies which he can't change on the fly.
Caching is a convenience to increase speed and diminish load in the servers.
Caching is not intended as a backup mechanism.
YOur root passwrod should *always* be in the local machine.
Also if you fail to secure access to your name service servers, and then proceed to put your root passwords in the name service, you could as well hand over the root password to a hacker...
Slashdot Mirror
... if the wonderful laws introduced in the UK (and to a worst extent in the US) do not allow even the indicted to know about the charges brought against them?
You are realling misdirecting your anger, due process is being severely damaged and people like you don't challenge the spoon feed assumptions of the authorities.
But they don't understand the value of money, this understanding comes with having to pay your own bills, and for some not even then (but I digress :-) ).
Children in consummerist societies (and maybe in all societies) are easily influenced by fashion. IN rich countries like the US and others where talking about iPods is a leisure activity (I am telling you, in ZImbabwe, East TImor or Haiti they could not care less) this manifests in expensive clothes and gadgetry (shoes, clothes, game consoles, music gadgets).
I am amazed that there is somebody that has not realized all children, if possible, will drool after expensive gadgetry, it is an status symbol, mightly important in you teens.
As for valuing the drivel on the radio, well, that is your personal opinion. I am sure that what you heard when you were in your teens would have been derided as drivel by you elders, so making such a comment says more about you and your age than about the children, which in any case have the right to decide if a radio is a desirable feature or not in a portable music player, subjective musical or aesthetic judgments aside.
Your definition of "behind" must be a very interesting one.
There are plenty of players out there that do what the iPod does and more, from a technical point of view they are superior (easy access to songs, playlists, adecuate controls, and obvious add ons like voice recording, radio, and recording from radio).
The stroke of genius from Mr Jobs was to tie in iTunes to the iPod. Now, if you think it is to be behind the times not to accept a DMRed store as your main source of music, well, all the power to you, may you enjoy your pink Koolaid, in the mean tiem we, backwards people will drown our sorrows in emusic or similiar costumer friendly stablishments.
It flabergasts me why we are not seeing more countries questioning the legality of Apple's bussiness model. Conditional sales (to get iTunes music in a portable device you *must* buy an iPod) is ilegal in all the places I have lived (not the US, so I can't comment). I remember a couple of countries have touched some points of how the unholly duo iTunes-iPod works but nobody has addressed the forced conditionality of this (France seemed set to do it, but obvioulsy Apple have got quite good lobbyists in Paris).
www.newamericancentury.org
The people responsible for inspecting Iraq's military capabilities said unequivocally they did not find WMD. They said this at the time Bush and Co. were peddling their lies (and if they feel I am being libelous I invite them to sue me).
The team inspecting Iraq requested several more months to complete their work but the war was rushed well before that.
There were only two sides in this situation, the ones liying out of malice (Bush) or ignorance (Clinton) and the ones that stuck to the facts.
Any other accomodations are irrelvant, specially if it comes to US politics, where almost eevry single politician drank Bush's Kool Aid ans suspended critical thinking.
Nanotechnology implies a deliberate manipulation of matter at the molecular or atomic level.
The poster and the editor should be smacked.
Lets not beat around the bushes.
MS has an image problem when it comes to security, it is a problem of their own making, acknoledged by Mr Gates himself and experienced day in day out with their prodcuts by IT professionals.
Dig a bit deeper and you realize that security is still not properly realized in MS products. AD is a mess waiting to get worst for example.
I don't care how wonderful SP2 was, that is a drop in an ocean of incompetence and procastination.
I don't know what the Mozilla organization was thinking. Sometimes you have to take care of the PR situation as well as the technical side of things. Anybody that has worked recently around security in MS products will carry a credibility problem, specially in a highly visible position.
I am sure that this lady is bright, intelligent and all what his pals say lovingly about her, but she brings with her a credibility problem which becomes all too evident when one reads all the comments on this thread (which are mostly bad jokes, but that drive the same point home: we can't believe it).
Lets hope that this is a good move, but I think people should be excused for the healthy doses of skepticism.
It was the more feared Communist Guerilla in the Western Hemisphere.
You should easily find references to them using any search engine.
30 years without targetting civilians.
Now that is progress. I will let the families of the thousend of dead Iraquis know about your kindness.
.... that fought the British were described as terrorists (we are talking first half 20th century here).
They went to become respected statesmen...
Civilians killed by civilized countries are usually unintended targets.
... etc.
You truly believe this tripe that the US is an innocent party targetted for no reason whatsoever.
Your country has been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations for the best part of the XXth century. That was bound to cause a lot of unkind people predisposed against anything smelling USian.
Wake up and smell the coffe guys, you are ignoring all the actions taken in your name and behalf and then appearing all surprised when somebody else takes murderous issue with you.
You are spending insane amounts of money in a military industry that needs to be used, otherwise your economy would collapse.
You, as a country, are engaged in a spiral of death and self destruction because are making of death a national industry.
If anything you are lucky that so far you have gotten off so lightly. Lets hope it continues to be the case, but I wish you guys stopped your simplistic approach to things and would start thinking about the reasons for the current climate of fear we are all experiencing.
Most likely he is referring to Israel in a context where they are invading or occupying a piece of land.
Under that context, no negotiation at all is not as extreme as you want to make it appear (would you negotiate with a foreign invader killing your people in your own country?)
I am not condoning this organization, since they clearly are preapered to kill innocent people using the most tenous of justifications, but descontextualization is a dirty trick in the arsenal of people that want to dehumanize a party which they don't agree with.
These guys are mad, but their madness is targetted to a party that is clearly playing a part in creating a greivance.
The terrorists are killing a few thousends at most.
You are advocating mass murder of millions, most of whom don't agree with the tactics of a tiny minority of extremists.
Any sane person can see that in a moral balance it is not advisable to persue what I can only refer to as your "final solution" (I am chosing these words very carefuly to fully imply how I regards your portrayed "solution").
You are pretending to understand the Muslim world like if it was continuum and indivisible.
The Muslim world is a diverse set of countries encompasing many culutres and practices, from the permissive Turkey, where you can find scantly dressed women in magazines and nobody pays a second thought to that, to conservative wahabis in Saudi Arabia.
If you claim to understand Muslims, that would mean that you know about many different cultures and countries, which, given your previous comments, I very much doubt you do.
Thankfully neofascists like you will not attain power anytime sson, you are far too transparent for the general populace to allow you to raise again.
That worked wonders in Vietnam.
Thus you should not use them interchangeably.
If you think that Russia and China would allow you to "deal" with the situation in the way you are implying, you have nno understanding of geopolitical issues.
In companies worth their salt there are very specific situations and proceudres to deal with these incidents.
If you HR department is not familiar with them you should really ask them to get a clue.
Even trying to "score" as you put it should not be a problem.
"Hi, would you like to have a coffee" or something of the sort, in a respectful way is not, and can;t be, construed as harrasment.
Now, if you get a parnaoid-schizophrenic coworker, nothing you do will prevent her imagining that she's being harrassed.
For bunnies sakes, enjoy life, be human and trust the good judgment of others.
People are employed by companies to do a work in accordance with the needs of those companies.
As long as it is nothing ilegal the employee is legaly bound to do that work.
What you are advocating is a kind of vigilantism that punishes people by close association based in your narrow view of the world, pretty much in the same vein as extrimist antiabortionists or extreme folks against testing of products in animals.
If you don't agree with the behaviour of a company the correct action is to take your costum elsewhere and if you are really angry, then spread your truth as you see it. But targetting employees that the only thing they are doing is a legal jog, is frankly as immoral and unethic as anything you can ascribe to the corporations you are obviously not vey fond of.
... but if I have a policy that says you will not get a service for x,y or z reasons you simply will not be provided the service.
I don't understand why such a simple concept is so difficult to understand.
You don't like it? Then move your custom elsewhere or request to be put in touch with somebody that actually can address your concerns...
Targetting one's anger to somebody that has absolutely no power to address the reasons you may be angry is completely improductive (no, idiotic, but I am very polite and will not say that to you).
Even if that person wanted to help, he is legaly bound not to do so, he is paid to do a job and to upheld his companie's policies which he can't change on the fly.
.... al data is transfered in clear text.
I believe LDAP+ Kerberos that is not the case, but I am not familiar with it so I can't comment.
Caching is a convenience to increase speed and diminish load in the servers.
Caching is not intended as a backup mechanism.
YOur root passwrod should *always* be in the local machine.
Also if you fail to secure access to your name service servers, and then proceed to put your root passwords in the name service, you could as well hand over the root password to a hacker...
This is a wild wet dream of the poster.
I wish I could give -1 "Editor with too much free time" to this "article"....