As with people, machines should have a unique name, all the rest of the information about the machine should be in a database of some kind (a list in a text file would do).
Then when you move the machine, assuming that your DHCP, DNS and WIntel servers are up to scratch, yo have to do precious little but relocate the machine (and update your database).
With your naming scheme you have to rename the machine in addition to updating any database you may have.
Computers are just frigging machines, tools, just like a hammer or screwdriver (do you give names to those?) only immensely more complex.
As soon as you have more than 10 machines under your responsibility, silly names become actually unproductive (you waste more time naming a new machine than actually needed).
Movies are a visual medium, so if you can't be bothered about taking care of the visuals, then you should not be making movies.
Rule number one of making movies is that you only move the camera only if you really have to. There are many good reasons for this, one of which is that you can actually make many members of your audience sick ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaky_camera ).
Note how the reviving movie of this fashion, The Blair Witch Project, was aiming to make the movie look amateur. That is the effect that you achieve if you overuse this, and given the age and experience of the director it seems that the effect may be completely unintended, because he is, for all practical purposes, a novice in the craft of making films.
All the fanbois of the Net Generation, who can't stand still and wear their short attention spans as badges of honour will be rabidly supportive of this movie, after all they have trained themselves not to puke by playing video games with similar aesthetic values, the art of good film making be damned.
Nowadays one of the resources of directors that do not know how to move along a plot is to use shaky cameras.
Shaky cameras have been done ad nauseam since Blair Witch Project, it was an interesting device, I am sure it can be used as an expressive tool, but nowadays is just a refuge for the lazy film maker.
The only thing stoping Microsoft from having a complete monopoly is the closest we have to subverting copyright: the GPL.
Pretty much all OSes and major software that can compete against MS are GPL or BSD licensed software, that is software that is license with the specific intent to go around copyright. If copyright didn't exist there is no reason to believe people would have not tinkered with software and hardware to make things more useful than what big, abusive corporations would have provided otherwise.
It would be a similar situation with patents, even more so, since the abolition of patents would not automatically imply the abolition of copyright, meaning that you could come up with ideas, but the implementation would be rewarded by the market, which is closer to how the system should work (with copyright seriously scaled down from the current abusive terms).
Then, please, stop your ignorant, uninformed and idiotic opinionating on matters of which you clearly know nothing about.
I will not waste my time refuting your lame assertions, I just wish to flag to others that people that actually know about this topic would address the matter properly, such points of view are easy to find in order to balance the nonsense the parent poster just ejaculated.
Many of us are using OpenOffice and exchange files with MS only shops without any issues.
Audio support in Linux is quite good for most people. Amarok and Audacity cover most bases.
Video support is patchy, but each release of every video product gets better (there was a time WMV files were not supported, not you can play them out of the box).
"Trust your Systems Administrator" is the mantra. This is so pathetic that the only thing missing is the violin music.
You should trust no one, it is that simple.
Yes, it is harsh, it is difficult to implement, but it is the only sane approach to handling your and your client's data.
You can have a person administering services (DNS, DHCP, LDAP, whatever) that actually has no root password to the machines where the services run (if you ask me how, then you are out of your depth regarding security).
There are tools out there that ensure that when somebody needs administrative privileges (root password) the access is logged and reported and the password is reset after the work is completed.
You can segregate functions so the person that needs to administer a database or run backups is not the same person that administers user accounts, and tell your systems about this so it is not a matter of trust, but of security policies and software configuration (sorry, forgot to say this is all doable in decent OSes, if it is not doable on yours then that should give you pause for thought).
Any company that actually trusts people just because they are internally hired, are fooling themselves, the business world is littered with histories of people that betrayed that trust, it is simply irresponsible to keep this stupid mentality going.
I can almost see the answers coming: "but it is a PITA!". Well, yes, it is. So what is your point? That is why you get paid more than the average person: because you are providing solutions to problems that are difficult to address. Just advising blind trust is a complete dereliction of duty.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets listen to them when they tell us things we want to hear.
Lets condemn the numbers when they spell out the ugly malfeasances that could not be possibly true.
..... that machines in other countries are not as contaminated? (assuming your theory is correct).
... bank notes elsewhere don't have the same percentage of microscopic amounts of drugs.
Why don't you accept the logical conclusions of such an study instead of making lame excuses?
The Chinese and Japanese bank notes are covered with Teflon[tm]....
That has nothing to do with feminism.
Breastfeeding is a natural thing, there is nothing feminist about wanting to do it in public when needed.
For me a lot of machines means 500+...
You have to rename it.
Which is silly.
As with people, machines should have a unique name, all the rest of the information about the machine should be in a database of some kind (a list in a text file would do).
Then when you move the machine, assuming that your DHCP, DNS and WIntel servers are up to scratch, yo have to do precious little but relocate the machine (and update your database).
With your naming scheme you have to rename the machine in addition to updating any database you may have.
Do you also give names to your phones?
Your photocopiers?
Your water coolers?
Computers are just frigging machines, tools, just like a hammer or screwdriver (do you give names to those?) only immensely more complex.
As soon as you have more than 10 machines under your responsibility, silly names become actually unproductive (you waste more time naming a new machine than actually needed).
Movies are a visual medium, so if you can't be bothered about taking care of the visuals, then you should not be making movies.
Rule number one of making movies is that you only move the camera only if you really have to. There are many good reasons for this, one of which is that you can actually make many members of your audience sick ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaky_camera ).
Note how the reviving movie of this fashion, The Blair Witch Project, was aiming to make the movie look amateur. That is the effect that you achieve if you overuse this, and given the age and experience of the director it seems that the effect may be completely unintended, because he is, for all practical purposes, a novice in the craft of making films.
All the fanbois of the Net Generation, who can't stand still and wear their short attention spans as badges of honour will be rabidly supportive of this movie, after all they have trained themselves not to puke by playing video games with similar aesthetic values, the art of good film making be damned.
Moon is real SciFi.
The Hollywood studios have hijacked the term and many people are sheepishly obliging with gusto.
Nowadays one of the resources of directors that do not know how to move along a plot is to use shaky cameras.
Shaky cameras have been done ad nauseam since Blair Witch Project, it was an interesting device, I am sure it can be used as an expressive tool, but nowadays is just a refuge for the lazy film maker.
Because the attention span of US cinema goers is about 10 minutes. Tops...
The only thing stoping Microsoft from having a complete monopoly is the closest we have to subverting copyright: the GPL.
Pretty much all OSes and major software that can compete against MS are GPL or BSD licensed software, that is software that is license with the specific intent to go around copyright. If copyright didn't exist there is no reason to believe people would have not tinkered with software and hardware to make things more useful than what big, abusive corporations would have provided otherwise.
It would be a similar situation with patents, even more so, since the abolition of patents would not automatically imply the abolition of copyright, meaning that you could come up with ideas, but the implementation would be rewarded by the market, which is closer to how the system should work (with copyright seriously scaled down from the current abusive terms).
What are
PCI
AWS
QSA
EC2
S3
Why editors don't ask for this to be clarified or reject outright something making so many assumptions about the field of expertise of the reader?
You say cheated like if it was a little peccadillo....
In which US state is that?
Companies that actually pay dividends.
Most other people "invest" in share appreciation, which is speculative in nature.
Then, please, stop your ignorant, uninformed and idiotic opinionating on matters of which you clearly know nothing about.
I will not waste my time refuting your lame assertions, I just wish to flag to others that people that actually know about this topic would address the matter properly, such points of view are easy to find in order to balance the nonsense the parent poster just ejaculated.
The underlying political and economical issues at play are widely explained by proponents of the FOSS movement.
What is at play is the access to your own frigging data.
If you don't understand why this transcends the purely utilitarian nature of a computer and its software, then I can't help you....
To say that Firefox sucks is frankly pure spite.
Many of us are using OpenOffice and exchange files with MS only shops without any issues.
Audio support in Linux is quite good for most people. Amarok and Audacity cover most bases.
Video support is patchy, but each release of every video product gets better (there was a time WMV files were not supported, not you can play them out of the box).
.. at your own peril: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/13/the-zune-hd-september-15-apple-ipod-event-likely-september-8/
That is what capitalism is all about.
Why insist on this same point every time Linux makes some progress?
This has been a non issue for a while for companies with enough know how...
Being grabbed and screaming to the cold reality that many people out there hate to be constrained to Windows.
People keep trying to explain what has become now pretty obvious: Linux is mainstream.
It is high time companies and people interested in computing wake up to this simple reality.
"Trust your Systems Administrator" is the mantra. This is so pathetic that the only thing missing is the violin music.
You should trust no one, it is that simple.
Yes, it is harsh, it is difficult to implement, but it is the only sane approach to handling your and your client's data.
You can have a person administering services (DNS, DHCP, LDAP, whatever) that actually has no root password to the machines where the services run (if you ask me how, then you are out of your depth regarding security).
There are tools out there that ensure that when somebody needs administrative privileges (root password) the access is logged and reported and the password is reset after the work is completed.
You can segregate functions so the person that needs to administer a database or run backups is not the same person that administers user accounts, and tell your systems about this so it is not a matter of trust, but of security policies and software configuration (sorry, forgot to say this is all doable in decent OSes, if it is not doable on yours then that should give you pause for thought).
Any company that actually trusts people just because they are internally hired, are fooling themselves, the business world is littered with histories of people that betrayed that trust, it is simply irresponsible to keep this stupid mentality going.
I can almost see the answers coming: "but it is a PITA!". Well, yes, it is. So what is your point? That is why you get paid more than the average person: because you are providing solutions to problems that are difficult to address. Just advising blind trust is a complete dereliction of duty.