True; I think of communication by light waves or lasers being better than radio waves. A properly aimed laser would not be detectable by any other outside party (especially at our distance). I think a significantly advanced alien civilization would quickly discover that as well -- meaning we could not possibly detect that communication assuming it exists, it exists long enough, and it exists when we are looking for it.
And you're right, I would argue that for any next communication tech.
And you're also right that it's not a waste of time to listen to the universe; but you must admit it could be done possibly more effectively.
I feel that using SETI to look for alien life is like using a metal detector from earth to look for lost watches on the moon. You might find something, but not likely. Certainly your chances are infinitely higher than if you never looked at all, but the effort seems comparably minuscule to the potential technologies an alien life form might actually use.
I sound like I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm not. I actually hope SETI would find something genuine (despite the odds against it ever doing so).
I think what you say is true. However, perhaps radio waves are only easy for *us* to detect simply because of our set of circumstances.
How do we know that another civilization with a different set of minerals, or position in their solar system, or some other circumstance -- makes detection and creation of gravitational waves easy for them?
Then their communication devices would be based on grav waves.
Or perhaps they once used radio waves and realized that it was inefficient and used something else.
Or what about some Star Trekesque kind of subspace communication that we have no way of knowing about.
IMHO that is why SETI is really just a waste of time; radio waves are just one possible way alien life might communicate; but it is likely to be irrelevant by the time we discover it.
Well I create web forms for databases, and my Javascript is there for a reason: To help validate data or modify the form in real-time before data is posted. Then when it is posted it is validated again (in case Javascript is off). But the Javascript, is a performance enhancement aimed at a group of people with a certain set of assumptions.
So your argument doesn't really work because I *do* have to do things special to even get it to work with the seeing.
I agree Flash is generally bad, but there are some valid reasons to use it, even for making a whole site. A banking institution web site is not one of them.
The big problem designers have with plain old HTML is that it does not allow unfettered management of layout, such as that of a magazine. Yes, I know about CSS. But for example, I still only have a few fonts to choose from and have no say-so over how big the font scales in relation to my graphics. This is a stupid oversight in HTML, IMHO.
It is fine to scale up a page when you change the font size, but scale EVERYTHING up dammit!
Why is layout so important? Because my boss or my customer says it is and they write the checks. I can argue all day long about utility vs. presentability, but in the end? Presentability seems to be the winning factor.
Well, what medium other than HTML do you have control over those choices? Flash. I can include any fonts I want, and I can scale the entire site up and down if I want.
Another reason is that Flash makes it very difficult for the visitor to steal the content from the web site and keep it as their own. Ever tried to download and keep those nifty little hentai Flash games? Or streaming video in a Flash player? Next to impossible.
I don't dispute that there are not ways of detecting.
What I am saying is that most companies I've worked for 100 employees or less had no detection capability that I ever heard of, even though it was readily available.
Perhaps these companies feel that they should be able to trust anyone inside their own walls so why should they need such a thing in the first place? I don't know why not. I would have it if I were the IT king.
But detection only works if you have physical access to that network. In a later post, I came up with the idea of having a 2nd private network (with its own wiring), but having corporate computers connected to both the corporate network and the private network by using two independent interfaces. Now you cannot detect the anomolous traffic because it isn't on your network, yet it's a security threat because secure data could inadvertently end up on the private network.
My point is that I don't have to know everything about everything to get what I want. I just have to be smarter than the IT guy in charge. And usually, from my experience, it hasn't been that difficult.
Could not a machine exist on both networks at the same time using dual interfaces? I've done that before.
Yes, so I have set up a private network; but unless you have software to keep stuff that belongs on your network from moving off your network, how could you possibly know data wandered over to my private network?
You can't. There is no detection tool for that other than the inevitable "Hmm... that's peculiar, why are there two ethernet cables leading to this machine?"
But any equipment that I had installed like that I assume will be discovered and confiscated, so it isn't really a loss to me.
Personally, if I wanted an MP3 repository that my fellow workmates had access to at work (aside from the fact that I personally wouldn't) -- but remained invisible to you, --this might be how I would do it to avoid any network detection. Yeah, you might see a wireless USB card hanging out the back of the machine (assuming it isn't too locked down to install one or I can't trick you into letting me install it), but otherwise you might never know.
The same number of posts that you demonstrate your arrogance.
Never thought I would dream of running my own ethernet cable? Or hiding a wi-fi router in a wall somewhere and spackle over it? Maybe even bringing a rogue machine covertly? Create a whole shadow network that is off your visibility entirely?
Sure, you'll just say that you'll lock down USB ports so they don't recognize network interfaces from them. Or walk around with a wi-fi detector.
Fine, you've demonstrated you're worth your salt (as well as your suffocating grip on technology).
Good for you. Most IT folks would never consider the possibility of those things. But your shop is not the kind I'd volunteer to be around anyway, so you have no worries with the likes of me.
Though I might be swayed to challenge someone like you just for the sheer hell of it, come what may.
This conversation seems too dependent on me having knowledge of YOUR network, not networks in general. It isn't really possible for me to win this argument because you will simply pull out a "Well, I have an anti-anti-anti-missile!"
Fine, I could make the same type of arguments. But the point isn't that you can't come up with a way around anything I dream up. There's always a way. The gamble is that a)you don't have time to watch everything that closely, b)I'm more clever at disguising it than you are at detecting it, c)I won't generate enough noise to trip your alarm.
The majority of companies I've worked for don't have very complex networks and don't monitor their traffic much (if at all). Most of the IT admins I know wouldn't even know how to capture and analyze the traffic. Maybe in big corporations like Dell or IBM you might have somebody, or if you got lucky and got someone competent who knows how; but not most small and medium sized businesses of say 100 employees or less.
But those same businesses have IT admins that are quick to try and lock everything down and then not negotiate when you really need something different from status quo. IMHO that is where the problem starts.
And honestly and truly, if I had to work with tools I didn't like because I wasn't allowed to dream up a more efficient/effective solution, I'd be out of there at my earliest convenience because I'd be bored of the job.
Perhaps what you miss is that I really don't have to play by your rules because I don't have to play at all. Become too restrictive and I will leave. It's the company's loss, not mine; but you (as an IT admin) cannot perceive that loss from your perspective (and it isn't your job to, so why should you care).
OK, "dead-man-switch"... I don't know what to call it instead. Booby trap?
Say you start scanning ports, I could easily detect and shut the web server off (or anything else I didn't want you to find). Trivial. Or just drop TCP/IP traffic if from a certain range. Or hell, just explicitly allow traffic only certain IPs. Get around THAT, Mr. Smarty Pants.
OK, but say even doing that slipped my mind... 8080 isn't supposed to be open. What about port 110? 25? Some other service that you were normally running -- but not on THIS box? There are lots of things that actually run a small web server on a different port. Network printers often have a web-based admin for config. You really think I couldn't impersonate one of those?
No, I think I got it right... what you show is arrogance.
Remember the first rule of war? "Know thy enemy." If you think I would ever deploy something without first scouting your competence, you're crazy. That means I'm going to make sure what I do flies beneath whatever radar you might dream up because I'll find out about your radar before you even know what I am possibly capable of.
Maybe what you do resembles science. What I do resembles magic.
Yes, truly I do. I am not saying things are not locked down, I am saying that I've been places where they were locked down even more than here.
I don't really mean network as in just the "series of tubes" definition -- I mean any corporate device that has any physical connection to the network as well. Meaning even a computer or a thumbdrive.
Even so, it is naive for you to think that I am incapable of hiding something from you. Maybe not a web server, but maybe! Depending on your competency and mine, who could say here. But it sure assumes a lot though! Like, that I would not consider YOUR intelligence and technical competence, and my lack of understanding/use of port-shifting, encryption, obfuscation, and dead-man-switches.
But that's OK. You seem to exhibit the same arrogant attitude as most IT people I've dealt with. Which actually works in my favor.
Then please do us all a favor and stay at whatever company you're with. I'd really rather not run into you.
But please try to distinguish a power user from a superuser:
A power user knows how to do some technical thing. A superuser also knows how, but knows whether that thing should be done or not, and what legal and technical consequences it will bring (copyright infringement, bandwidth, detectability, security risk).
As a superuser, and in my current job, I would view an IT job as beneath my technical abilities. Yet I am managed by what they think is best for my work environment. 86% of the time, that's fine and dandy. But when I lack something I need, I might have to make a decision whether to fly under the radar, or have you reject everything I propose carte blanch, simply because your view is that I am "playing around" unnecessarily.
I think you need to kick up the notch on what a "superuser" is. A superuser would not run Bonzai Butty.
I think of a superuser who generally has some creative technical skill beyond the normal person. I would think even most tech support people I've known would not meet the "superuser" criteria. Think perhaps "application developer" -- where they were actually hired to create applications and such. Or maybe the level 2 and 3 support personnel. You know who I'm talking about, the folks who are truly wicked-smart but tend not to flaunt it.
And a little policy goes a long way. I mean, give us some credit. Most "superusers" have probably even been IT people at one time or another. So give us the leeway to run those things (I mean that you *could* *in* *theory* run those things).
But then also lay down the law: No Bonzai Buddy. No BitTorrent. No mp3's on the company storage devices. No DHCP servers. And if we catch you, the penalty is that we will revert you to a supermanageduser. And deal with it on a person-by-person basis.
See, that's exactly what's wrong with your model. You (and your management overlords) think of everything in short terms of instant gratification of ROIC. You think that if I can't justify a piece of hardware or software that makes my job easier and how it translates into instant dollars, then it isn't worth your time fooling with.
Foo. What about the cost of a turnover? Does anyone ever factor in THAT cost? How much does it cost to replace a seasoned employee, to regain the specific culture and knowledge that the old employee had?
Well, it's exactly these kinds of frustrations that build up and make us superusers go, "Fuck it. I'm tired of this crap. They could never pay me enough." After all, time has proven that we are good enough to easily find work elsewhere.
So I'm willing to risk installing something that goes around your puny and ill-thought restriction vs. you finding out and getting pissed off at me.
And if you do find out, then I'm not a real "superuser" am I? A real superuser never gets caught.
Now, I sound bitter. But right now I have my perfect dream job. And I also get a lot of leeway to be creative with my own machine. And I work for the military, no less! But I have dealt with so many companies in the past that had this Nazi-istic IT department that made it impossible to have a new idea or a creative thought.
Hm...
The job is stepping on users' faces while they're drowning under an ocean of work, and that's what we do. There. Fixed that for ya. Oh... not finished
And that just precisely means making arbitrary decisions about what can and what cannot safely be allowed in our one-size-fits-all circumstance, and the sheer size of our ego means not wanting to turn on a manhole-cover if somebody wants a completely different config, even if merited. That's the way it is. We're not being helpful, we're making sure you don't butcher things for us in the IT department by your attempt at being practical. There. That reflects real-world experience.
I challenge your definition of the word "sound" and "noise" and assert that you are mixing the terms:
Dictionary.com says the definition of "sound":
Def. 2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. Merriam-Webster, "sound":
1.c. mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing OK, then what about the word "noise": Dictionary.com again, "noise":
Def. 2. a sound of any kind Merriam-Webster, "noise": Hmmm... the closest definition is:
2.b. any sound that is undesired or interferes with one's hearing of something So, no mention of a detector other than only on the Merriam-Webster definition of "noise" might a detector be needed.... although that is subjective on whether you desire the sound of a tree falling. Otherwise, a "detector" is not necessary for sound to exist. Plainly, it is nothing more than vibration. Since it would seem impossible for a tree to fall without making vibrations, it *must* make a sound. Does it make a noise? That is dependent on your subjectiveness of the sound it makes at worst.
OK, I keep seeing one extreme to the other: "I never buy music" or "I only have 10 CD's and don't need anymore" or "$5? Sure! Now I can pirate all I want!"
Well how about me. I download a song from Shareazaa once in awhile. I'm a musician, and sometimes I need to hear an example of what I am going to play. Yes, I probably should pay for it, and when I can't find it on Shareazaa, I go to iTunes.
But we're talking maybe two or three songs a month! It's not a huge number! Certainly not worth $5 a month for me. Even if I were perfectly clean, iTunes still only makes $3/mo from me.
Just covering the middle ground here, and saying it's still a bad idea.
I am posting my comment from China right now, and I can tell you that [xxxxx] [xx] [xx] [xxxx] and [xxxxxxx] [xx] [xxxx] BBC [xx] [xxxx] so that [xx] [xxx] [xxxx] [xx] [xx] [xxxxx] Chinese government. What I can't figure out is, why is this the only article on Slashdot today? Slow news day? Hmm.
Patents are just a weapon and make little difference to the balance of power when every player has them in proportion to their financial resources. You forgot one variable: If the little guy is not in the market, he has nothing to lose but the money he spends on this case. If the manufacturer loses, they lose considerably more, and potentially gain a competitor. Some single small-inventor patent-trolls know this, too. In my opinion, they abuse the system by claiming infringement, then willing to settle for $30,000. Since this is about the limit to what a company might spend in litigation, they usually cave (even if they really aren't infringing).
But you are right. "Bob's Computer Chips" and his three patents are not going to survive a barrage from Intel. Luckily, they don't seek small guys out and snuff them quickly. I don't know why, they just don't.
But also, here is something to consider: Bob didn't put nearly the amount of time and money and research into his processors as Intel did. It seems unreasonable to expect that Bob can just simply walk into the marketplace and decide to make processors.
But that isn't even fighting ground, though. Now, if Bob starts making processors and John thinks he can do it too, then now Bob's three patents will make all the difference in the world.
Now I am sounding pro-patent. I am not. In fact, I am very much against almost every form of intellectual property. I do not think ideas should be exclusively owned. I agree with you that it can stifle innovation. Problem is, with no protection at all, even having no IP laws can be abused by large corporations.
My purpose here was simply to inform you on how the current IP laws work, maybe a few tips/tricks, and what companies are thinking regarding IP law.
You know, I think I am being misconstrued for being pro-patent.
I am not. In fact, I am very anti-intellectual property. It fails to reason with me that you can own an idea exclusively. So, yes, I agree with everything you are saying. I wish IP law would just disappear. Unlikely.
Be that as it may, my belief about it does not change reality and what laws are actually in place now. That means that unless you can manage to change/abolish those laws or the way the world works, you have to play in *their* sandbox. And apparently cats have already been in it first.
Now this is the way it is. I agree it sucks, but what are you gonna do?
As for me, I chose to educate myself about IP law and then subsequently walk all over it, defiantly disregarding whatever IP laws I choose and/or think that I might get away with. It's already been proven anyway that no one could possibly live without committing some form of intellectual property infringement. So I have given up trying.
No, I've lived the big corporation IP legal department scene, and I tell you that is not their mindset at all regarding IP. I supposed if a company was misguided, it could do something like that... but it's unheard of.
Yes, they might try to do what they can to stop the little guy, but not by legal-flooding him. That is mythological.
Usually a big company would rather just settle and make the little guy go away. If it's a reasonable enough request, they usually do it. If not, then they will litigate. Litigation is expensive, even for the big company. And it's compounded if they lose (and they do lose quite often -- remember its often jury trial). But they don't just go filing new irrelevant law suits and filing meaningless motions for the sole fact of tying things up in court. That might work in criminal court, but that would just annoy a civil judge.
Besides, most attorneys I know would want the credit for winning the case (if it can be won), and if not, then the credit for reducing damages as much as possible. You don't do that by pissing off the plaintiff.
Also, most Asian-based company are notorious for simply rolling over to IP conflicts (don't fight hard at all).
Trust me, a little guy like that can cause MUCH more headache for a big company than a big company is willing to do him. What the RIAA does is really unusual.
You are right about certain kinds of patents. Software patents and business process patents are ridiculous in my mind, and should go away.
But if a company has spent large sums of money in researching and developing a product, I have no problem with them patenting even just the incremental changes -- those are not very strong patents on their own. But also, those little increments are exactly how the little guy would cram a wedge into the system.
As a large corporation, we often spoke ill of the "think tanks" -- just groups of people who are paid to do nothing but think up ideas that large companies might infringe on, and then patent them -- hoping their patent investment will pay off. Those guys never created any real products. They just leech from those who do.
Cross-licensing is an effective way of getting the benefit of the other guy's patents... but its a double-edge sword. If that company pisses you off, you have less to sue with.
Depends on which intellectual property you're talking about. Trademarks? Yes. Patents? No.
If I have a patent on something, and I know you are infringing, I don't have to do a thing about it if I don't wanna. But if you look at me funny...
Now, if I choose not to do anything about it, then all I am giving up are the damages that I otherwise would have had when I put you "on notice." See, damages accrue when you are given notice that you are infringing...
Or... they also accrue if I have an identical product and I marked mine with the patent numbers that cover them. Then I don't have to tell you nuthin'! And your damages be accruing.
Also, I can choose who I want to penalize. If I am a really big fan of IBM, I can sue everyone in the industry but IBM if I so desire. (It'd be kinda nutsy, but I could.)
Slashdot Mirror
It clones a whole ship? How does it handle the sails?
(ba-dum-bum).
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
True; I think of communication by light waves or lasers being better than radio waves. A properly aimed laser would not be detectable by any other outside party (especially at our distance). I think a significantly advanced alien civilization would quickly discover that as well -- meaning we could not possibly detect that communication assuming it exists, it exists long enough, and it exists when we are looking for it.
And you're right, I would argue that for any next communication tech.
And you're also right that it's not a waste of time to listen to the universe; but you must admit it could be done possibly more effectively.
I feel that using SETI to look for alien life is like using a metal detector from earth to look for lost watches on the moon. You might find something, but not likely. Certainly your chances are infinitely higher than if you never looked at all, but the effort seems comparably minuscule to the potential technologies an alien life form might actually use.
I sound like I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm not. I actually hope SETI would find something genuine (despite the odds against it ever doing so).
I think what you say is true. However, perhaps radio waves are only easy for *us* to detect simply because of our set of circumstances.
How do we know that another civilization with a different set of minerals, or position in their solar system, or some other circumstance -- makes detection and creation of gravitational waves easy for them?
Then their communication devices would be based on grav waves.
Or perhaps they once used radio waves and realized that it was inefficient and used something else.
Or what about some Star Trekesque kind of subspace communication that we have no way of knowing about.
IMHO that is why SETI is really just a waste of time; radio waves are just one possible way alien life might communicate; but it is likely to be irrelevant by the time we discover it.
You mean like the parallel universes theory?
Well I create web forms for databases, and my Javascript is there for a reason: To help validate data or modify the form in real-time before data is posted. Then when it is posted it is validated again (in case Javascript is off). But the Javascript, is a performance enhancement aimed at a group of people with a certain set of assumptions.
So your argument doesn't really work because I *do* have to do things special to even get it to work with the seeing.
I agree Flash is generally bad, but there are some valid reasons to use it, even for making a whole site. A banking institution web site is not one of them.
The big problem designers have with plain old HTML is that it does not allow unfettered management of layout, such as that of a magazine. Yes, I know about CSS. But for example, I still only have a few fonts to choose from and have no say-so over how big the font scales in relation to my graphics. This is a stupid oversight in HTML, IMHO.
It is fine to scale up a page when you change the font size, but scale EVERYTHING up dammit!
Why is layout so important? Because my boss or my customer says it is and they write the checks. I can argue all day long about utility vs. presentability, but in the end? Presentability seems to be the winning factor.
Well, what medium other than HTML do you have control over those choices? Flash. I can include any fonts I want, and I can scale the entire site up and down if I want.
Another reason is that Flash makes it very difficult for the visitor to steal the content from the web site and keep it as their own. Ever tried to download and keep those nifty little hentai Flash games? Or streaming video in a Flash player? Next to impossible.
(Good reasons, but I still hate fuggin Flash.)
I don't dispute that there are not ways of detecting.
What I am saying is that most companies I've worked for 100 employees or less had no detection capability that I ever heard of, even though it was readily available.
Perhaps these companies feel that they should be able to trust anyone inside their own walls so why should they need such a thing in the first place? I don't know why not. I would have it if I were the IT king.
But detection only works if you have physical access to that network. In a later post, I came up with the idea of having a 2nd private network (with its own wiring), but having corporate computers connected to both the corporate network and the private network by using two independent interfaces. Now you cannot detect the anomolous traffic because it isn't on your network, yet it's a security threat because secure data could inadvertently end up on the private network.
My point is that I don't have to know everything about everything to get what I want. I just have to be smarter than the IT guy in charge. And usually, from my experience, it hasn't been that difficult.
Could not a machine exist on both networks at the same time using dual interfaces? I've done that before.
Yes, so I have set up a private network; but unless you have software to keep stuff that belongs on your network from moving off your network, how could you possibly know data wandered over to my private network?
You can't. There is no detection tool for that other than the inevitable "Hmm... that's peculiar, why are there two ethernet cables leading to this machine?"
But any equipment that I had installed like that I assume will be discovered and confiscated, so it isn't really a loss to me.
Personally, if I wanted an MP3 repository that my fellow workmates had access to at work (aside from the fact that I personally wouldn't) -- but remained invisible to you, --this might be how I would do it to avoid any network detection. Yeah, you might see a wireless USB card hanging out the back of the machine (assuming it isn't too locked down to install one or I can't trick you into letting me install it), but otherwise you might never know.
I don't even know how you could test and debug such a system without inadvertently figuring out a design flaw like that.
Maybe they meant to mess it up on purpose? Sabotage? Maybe it was meant as a back door for later?
The same number of posts that you demonstrate your arrogance.
Never thought I would dream of running my own ethernet cable? Or hiding a wi-fi router in a wall somewhere and spackle over it? Maybe even bringing a rogue machine covertly? Create a whole shadow network that is off your visibility entirely?
Sure, you'll just say that you'll lock down USB ports so they don't recognize network interfaces from them. Or walk around with a wi-fi detector.
Fine, you've demonstrated you're worth your salt (as well as your suffocating grip on technology).
Good for you. Most IT folks would never consider the possibility of those things. But your shop is not the kind I'd volunteer to be around anyway, so you have no worries with the likes of me.
Though I might be swayed to challenge someone like you just for the sheer hell of it, come what may.
That's why you don't violate policies if you're a contractor, you wait until you're a perm.
Then, when you get that 2nd notice, and see that you can't win, start looking for another (less restrictive) job.
This conversation seems too dependent on me having knowledge of YOUR network, not networks in general. It isn't really possible for me to win this argument because you will simply pull out a "Well, I have an anti-anti-anti-missile!"
Fine, I could make the same type of arguments. But the point isn't that you can't come up with a way around anything I dream up. There's always a way. The gamble is that a)you don't have time to watch everything that closely, b)I'm more clever at disguising it than you are at detecting it, c)I won't generate enough noise to trip your alarm.
The majority of companies I've worked for don't have very complex networks and don't monitor their traffic much (if at all). Most of the IT admins I know wouldn't even know how to capture and analyze the traffic. Maybe in big corporations like Dell or IBM you might have somebody, or if you got lucky and got someone competent who knows how; but not most small and medium sized businesses of say 100 employees or less.
But those same businesses have IT admins that are quick to try and lock everything down and then not negotiate when you really need something different from status quo. IMHO that is where the problem starts.
And honestly and truly, if I had to work with tools I didn't like because I wasn't allowed to dream up a more efficient/effective solution, I'd be out of there at my earliest convenience because I'd be bored of the job.
Perhaps what you miss is that I really don't have to play by your rules because I don't have to play at all. Become too restrictive and I will leave. It's the company's loss, not mine; but you (as an IT admin) cannot perceive that loss from your perspective (and it isn't your job to, so why should you care).
OK, "dead-man-switch"... I don't know what to call it instead. Booby trap?
Say you start scanning ports, I could easily detect and shut the web server off (or anything else I didn't want you to find). Trivial. Or just drop TCP/IP traffic if from a certain range. Or hell, just explicitly allow traffic only certain IPs. Get around THAT, Mr. Smarty Pants.
OK, but say even doing that slipped my mind... 8080 isn't supposed to be open. What about port 110? 25? Some other service that you were normally running -- but not on THIS box? There are lots of things that actually run a small web server on a different port. Network printers often have a web-based admin for config. You really think I couldn't impersonate one of those?
No, I think I got it right... what you show is arrogance.
Remember the first rule of war? "Know thy enemy." If you think I would ever deploy something without first scouting your competence, you're crazy. That means I'm going to make sure what I do flies beneath whatever radar you might dream up because I'll find out about your radar before you even know what I am possibly capable of.
Maybe what you do resembles science. What I do resembles magic.
Yes, truly I do. I am not saying things are not locked down, I am saying that I've been places where they were locked down even more than here.
I don't really mean network as in just the "series of tubes" definition -- I mean any corporate device that has any physical connection to the network as well. Meaning even a computer or a thumbdrive.
Even so, it is naive for you to think that I am incapable of hiding something from you. Maybe not a web server, but maybe! Depending on your competency and mine, who could say here. But it sure assumes a lot though! Like, that I would not consider YOUR intelligence and technical competence, and my lack of understanding/use of port-shifting, encryption, obfuscation, and dead-man-switches.
But that's OK. You seem to exhibit the same arrogant attitude as most IT people I've dealt with. Which actually works in my favor.
Then please do us all a favor and stay at whatever company you're with. I'd really rather not run into you.
But please try to distinguish a power user from a superuser:
A power user knows how to do some technical thing. A superuser also knows how, but knows whether that thing should be done or not, and what legal and technical consequences it will bring (copyright infringement, bandwidth, detectability, security risk).
As a superuser, and in my current job, I would view an IT job as beneath my technical abilities. Yet I am managed by what they think is best for my work environment. 86% of the time, that's fine and dandy. But when I lack something I need, I might have to make a decision whether to fly under the radar, or have you reject everything I propose carte blanch, simply because your view is that I am "playing around" unnecessarily.
I think you need to kick up the notch on what a "superuser" is. A superuser would not run Bonzai Butty.
I think of a superuser who generally has some creative technical skill beyond the normal person. I would think even most tech support people I've known would not meet the "superuser" criteria. Think perhaps "application developer" -- where they were actually hired to create applications and such. Or maybe the level 2 and 3 support personnel. You know who I'm talking about, the folks who are truly wicked-smart but tend not to flaunt it.
And a little policy goes a long way. I mean, give us some credit. Most "superusers" have probably even been IT people at one time or another. So give us the leeway to run those things (I mean that you *could* *in* *theory* run those things).
But then also lay down the law: No Bonzai Buddy. No BitTorrent. No mp3's on the company storage devices. No DHCP servers. And if we catch you, the penalty is that we will revert you to a supermanageduser. And deal with it on a person-by-person basis.
See, that's exactly what's wrong with your model. You (and your management overlords) think of everything in short terms of instant gratification of ROIC. You think that if I can't justify a piece of hardware or software that makes my job easier and how it translates into instant dollars, then it isn't worth your time fooling with.
Foo. What about the cost of a turnover? Does anyone ever factor in THAT cost? How much does it cost to replace a seasoned employee, to regain the specific culture and knowledge that the old employee had?
Well, it's exactly these kinds of frustrations that build up and make us superusers go, "Fuck it. I'm tired of this crap. They could never pay me enough." After all, time has proven that we are good enough to easily find work elsewhere.
So I'm willing to risk installing something that goes around your puny and ill-thought restriction vs. you finding out and getting pissed off at me.
And if you do find out, then I'm not a real "superuser" am I? A real superuser never gets caught.
Now, I sound bitter. But right now I have my perfect dream job. And I also get a lot of leeway to be creative with my own machine. And I work for the military, no less! But I have dealt with so many companies in the past that had this Nazi-istic IT department that made it impossible to have a new idea or a creative thought.
Just sayin'.
Dictionary.com says the definition of "sound": Def. 2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. Merriam-Webster, "sound": 1.c. mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing OK, then what about the word "noise":
Dictionary.com again, "noise": Def. 2. a sound of any kind Merriam-Webster, "noise":
Hmmm... the closest definition is: 2.b. any sound that is undesired or interferes with one's hearing of something So, no mention of a detector other than only on the Merriam-Webster definition of "noise" might a detector be needed.... although that is subjective on whether you desire the sound of a tree falling. Otherwise, a "detector" is not necessary for sound to exist. Plainly, it is nothing more than vibration. Since it would seem impossible for a tree to fall without making vibrations, it *must* make a sound. Does it make a noise? That is dependent on your subjectiveness of the sound it makes at worst.
Yes, I am being nitpicky.
OK, I keep seeing one extreme to the other: "I never buy music" or "I only have 10 CD's and don't need anymore" or "$5? Sure! Now I can pirate all I want!"
Well how about me. I download a song from Shareazaa once in awhile. I'm a musician, and sometimes I need to hear an example of what I am going to play. Yes, I probably should pay for it, and when I can't find it on Shareazaa, I go to iTunes.
But we're talking maybe two or three songs a month! It's not a huge number! Certainly not worth $5 a month for me. Even if I were perfectly clean, iTunes still only makes $3/mo from me.
Just covering the middle ground here, and saying it's still a bad idea.
I am posting my comment from China right now, and I can tell you that [xxxxx] [xx] [xx] [xxxx] and [xxxxxxx] [xx] [xxxx] BBC [xx] [xxxx] so that [xx] [xxx] [xxxx] [xx] [xx] [xxxxx] Chinese government. What I can't figure out is, why is this the only article on Slashdot today? Slow news day? Hmm.
But you are right. "Bob's Computer Chips" and his three patents are not going to survive a barrage from Intel. Luckily, they don't seek small guys out and snuff them quickly. I don't know why, they just don't.
But also, here is something to consider: Bob didn't put nearly the amount of time and money and research into his processors as Intel did. It seems unreasonable to expect that Bob can just simply walk into the marketplace and decide to make processors.
But that isn't even fighting ground, though. Now, if Bob starts making processors and John thinks he can do it too, then now Bob's three patents will make all the difference in the world.
Now I am sounding pro-patent. I am not. In fact, I am very much against almost every form of intellectual property. I do not think ideas should be exclusively owned. I agree with you that it can stifle innovation. Problem is, with no protection at all, even having no IP laws can be abused by large corporations.
My purpose here was simply to inform you on how the current IP laws work, maybe a few tips/tricks, and what companies are thinking regarding IP law.
You know, I think I am being misconstrued for being pro-patent.
I am not. In fact, I am very anti-intellectual property. It fails to reason with me that you can own an idea exclusively. So, yes, I agree with everything you are saying. I wish IP law would just disappear. Unlikely.
Be that as it may, my belief about it does not change reality and what laws are actually in place now. That means that unless you can manage to change/abolish those laws or the way the world works, you have to play in *their* sandbox. And apparently cats have already been in it first.
Now this is the way it is. I agree it sucks, but what are you gonna do?
As for me, I chose to educate myself about IP law and then subsequently walk all over it, defiantly disregarding whatever IP laws I choose and/or think that I might get away with. It's already been proven anyway that no one could possibly live without committing some form of intellectual property infringement. So I have given up trying.
No, I've lived the big corporation IP legal department scene, and I tell you that is not their mindset at all regarding IP. I supposed if a company was misguided, it could do something like that... but it's unheard of.
Yes, they might try to do what they can to stop the little guy, but not by legal-flooding him. That is mythological.
Usually a big company would rather just settle and make the little guy go away. If it's a reasonable enough request, they usually do it. If not, then they will litigate. Litigation is expensive, even for the big company. And it's compounded if they lose (and they do lose quite often -- remember its often jury trial). But they don't just go filing new irrelevant law suits and filing meaningless motions for the sole fact of tying things up in court. That might work in criminal court, but that would just annoy a civil judge.
Besides, most attorneys I know would want the credit for winning the case (if it can be won), and if not, then the credit for reducing damages as much as possible. You don't do that by pissing off the plaintiff.
Also, most Asian-based company are notorious for simply rolling over to IP conflicts (don't fight hard at all).
Trust me, a little guy like that can cause MUCH more headache for a big company than a big company is willing to do him. What the RIAA does is really unusual.
You are right about certain kinds of patents. Software patents and business process patents are ridiculous in my mind, and should go away.
But if a company has spent large sums of money in researching and developing a product, I have no problem with them patenting even just the incremental changes -- those are not very strong patents on their own. But also, those little increments are exactly how the little guy would cram a wedge into the system.
As a large corporation, we often spoke ill of the "think tanks" -- just groups of people who are paid to do nothing but think up ideas that large companies might infringe on, and then patent them -- hoping their patent investment will pay off. Those guys never created any real products. They just leech from those who do.
Cross-licensing is an effective way of getting the benefit of the other guy's patents... but its a double-edge sword. If that company pisses you off, you have less to sue with.
Depends on which intellectual property you're talking about. Trademarks? Yes. Patents? No.
If I have a patent on something, and I know you are infringing, I don't have to do a thing about it if I don't wanna. But if you look at me funny...
Now, if I choose not to do anything about it, then all I am giving up are the damages that I otherwise would have had when I put you "on notice." See, damages accrue when you are given notice that you are infringing...
Or... they also accrue if I have an identical product and I marked mine with the patent numbers that cover them. Then I don't have to tell you nuthin'! And your damages be accruing.
Also, I can choose who I want to penalize. If I am a really big fan of IBM, I can sue everyone in the industry but IBM if I so desire. (It'd be kinda nutsy, but I could.)