My personal story goes like this: I was an undergraduate working part time in one of the non-main buildings for a large-ish business that was migrating to NT systems from a large Unix mainframe (not sure of the flavor). One day after the "cut-over", I was playing around a bit and accidentally took ownership of the building's NT Server's shares. All of them. Accounting, payroll, you name it. Apparently the consultants that were hired set things up such that anyone could do this. Oops.
So, since my boss wasn't around, I walked over to the building's supervisor and let him know what kind of trouble I just made. Besides, I couldn't seem to get the ownership changed back and I figured I was about to be fired regardless. The supervisor instead was rather impressed by my "helpfullness" and called down to the VP in charge of the network.
The next day I had to go to the main building (about 45 miles away) and see the VP in person with a few of his staff. Again, I wasn't fired, but instead considered helpful. We walked through a couple of things, and they seemed to be okay with it all. But the kicker was that they weren't at all worried. Why? Because they had already hired an insurance company to come in and audit their network. Those guys would be responsible for finding all their problems.
So, while I was considered helpful, they really weren't concerned. They figured that the insurance people would do their job and find all their problems. That's the way they wanted to run their business. That's also the way that most businesses operate. If they don't ask for help, they may not object, but they'd prefer you to just not worry about things. Perhaps if they don't think about it, it will not exist
Now, don't get me wrong--I think it's noble to help others. And I also think it's important to help secure up the 'net for everyone's sake. I mean, if I had a buggy machine that was vulnerable I would want someone to tell me. But not everyone's that way. And companies especially are afraid of some bob-the-hacker guy calling or e-mailing about a vulnerability. How would they know you haven't already exploited that vulnerability? How would they know that you haven't told your friends about it?
On the other hand, if believe a company may be vulnerable, send them an e-mail or call them up and ask them if they would mind you just checking on their machines for vulnerabilities. If they say sure, them proceed and send them a nice report if you find anything or not. If they say no, then DO NOT badger them. Politely say thanks for their time, and go on with life--even if you know they already are vulnerable. Some companies will get very unhappy and send lawyers if they find you scanning their networks and they know who did it.
I suppose being listed as an "approved security consultant" for the company's insurer would be incredibly helpful as well. But I have no idea how one would go about doing that.
This is one of those times I recommend that you take a page from M$. See if this big corporate firm would be interested in leasing this domain from you. You then are the official owner of the domain, and can point the TLD at the DNS servers of their choosing. But this way you get a guaranteed income every month or year--and if you ever want the domain back you can get it.
Obviously, you will have to commit to these guys leasing the domain for some amount of time--they won't want to only be entitled to the domain for a year at a time. They also would want some amount of time to migrate from this domain if the need ever arise.
If I were a big company, I really think that $50 or $100 a month for the "priveledge" of you pointing your domain to their DNS servers would be well worth it. Besides, this way they don't have to fork out lots of cash initially and find out a year later that they may have wasted money. Here they can cancel their contract and you can go back to using the domain or lease it to someone else.
Of course, I haven't recently checked out whether or not you can legally do this. This may just be one of those "great ideas" that just happens to also be "greatly illegal". If that's the case, please disregard.
Ameritech is running the same types of ads here in Ohio as well. What the ads don't say clearly is that you need to live next door to the central office if you want the maximum DSL bandwidth. For me, where I live nearly 3 miles from the CO, the best they claim for me is 128Mbps either direction. All that for $50 a month.
By contrast, the cable can handle huge amounts of bandwidth down and I'm pretty much assured a minimum of 128Kbps up. But, the cable bandwidth is shared among all my neighbors. It's important to realize, though, that all my neighbors aren't sharing 1.5Mbps down and 128Kbps up. It's more like 10.5Mbps down and 512Kpbs up. Business customers can get a dedicated line that gives them the entire bandwidth. Heck, Road Runner Columbus even offers what they call a "direct connection" to the internet at up to 45Mbps symetric.
Back to this topic, have I ever experienced a slow-down during peak hours? Nope. But I now live in a subdivision that I am certain isn't abusing the cable network. When I lived near Ohio State, however, I did find at times I was limited in bandwidth and Time Warner had troubles with their DHCP server getting overloaded. The worst data rate I ever was able to receive was somewhere near 500Kbps. That's many times better than most DSL lines. And at $45 a month (new price "adjustment"), it's easily the better choice.
Mr. Stallman is clearly upset, and his statement regarding our president is inflammatory and disrespectful. Don't get me wrong--I can sympathize with Mr. Stallman. But if moderators on/. could moderate stories, this one might just get the old "Troll" or "Flamebait" markings.
Regarding everything else--I agree. I really, really do. The problem that most people (at least on/.) aren't recognizing is that we're in the minority here. Joe Redneck, Aunt Minnie, and Mr. Jones don't care about our or their privacy right now. In fact, they're just mad at the people who committed the terrible acts or terrorism. More than 80% of Americans support the idea of the US going to war. That's how serious this is.
We really need to be more careful. I know we don't want our country to spiral down that toilet we all know as big brotherhood. But if we make statements like this and the public media starts to publicize it like mad; we're soon going to find ourselves on the wrong end of those big guns. Those 80% of Americans that support our country right now are just going to think we're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves; or at the very least that we "harbor and assist" them. That certainly won't help our fight.
So folks, let's turn this down a notch. Let's choose our words with a little more caution because we may not be able to win these battles right now; and frankly we can't get ourselves confused by America as the enemy. Let's just take a little time to help our government using polite tactics instead of attacking them. Our view just doesn't have the support of the people right now.
I realize that this probably isn't going to get me lots of friends here on/., and frankly I'll probably get modded down. But here goes:
I'm disappointed. First, there was Katz' terrible journalistic FUD. Now it seems to be spreading.
You know, if I have to "lose" a couple of "rights" here and there for the next week, month, or heck even year to prevent another huge terrorist attack--that's okay. Maybe I'll care more about my rights later. Right now, though, I'd rather just let the investigators use whatever means necessary to "hunt down and punish those responsible" (thanks, W). Maybe once all this boils over I'll care whether or not the FBI wants to listen to my phone calls and read my e-mails. There's really nothing there of interest, anyways. Maybe someday I'll care about encrypting every piece of communication. Not now, though.
I think we all need to remember that our federal government is on the brink of war with possibly some other nations (Afganistan et al). In times of war, our liberties sometimes go away for a time. But they always return. I don't think there's anyone who can say "boy, America was a lot more free before Hitler". Relax, folks. America will return to the "free" society we all love and admire once we've overcome terrorism at its worst.
I have every confidence that if any legislation gets passed that unfairly restricts our rights; our Supreme Court will strike it down later. Granted, that will take time. But that's okay with me--I'm more than happy to restrict my own rights temporarily. It's just not that big a deal when we consider 5,000+ people are dead because we weren't being careful.
You've never needed swap space. It's never been a required item. But, if you don't have it, it's YOSF (Your Own Stupid Fault) if you run out of memory. Besides, there's something to be said about a computer with more than 512Mb of RAM that gets the kernel message "Out of memory" or "insufficient memory". In today's world of ever cheaper hard drives, why not just give in and allow for a Gb of swap "just in case"?
Here in Ohio, cable modem service through AOL/Time Warner requires an attenuator. It's a 6dB drop--helps keep the Motorola modems from getting signals far in excess of what they can handle. Generally, the 6dB "tap" is made near where the cable comes into the house or apartment and then goes to your modem directly. Find that little deally and see if your cable modem will sync up properly without it. If not, you may need something in between--like a 4 or 5dB drop. Either way, it's not your fault--so they should fix the problem for you. Sometimes it's really worth it to just play dumb and say "It don't work. Fix it."
Okay, this is a flame--so feel free to mod it as such. But I'm disappointed in the moderators that would rate the above comment as "funny" and not something "insightful" or "interesting". I can't think of one "funny" thing in relation to this disaster.
Okay, I'm probably not winning any points with anyone here; but I believe that it's not very important what ISP individuals use in the field. My previous employer allowed the field consultants to choose whatever ISP they desired, with the first $25 per month picked up by the company. To deal with the corporate e-mail, we just simply made entries into the "alias" file for sendmail. Most ISPs will allow the relay of e-mail (by domain) so long as the sender is connecting from inside their network. This means that our consultants could even send e-mail that "looked" like it came from our SMTP server; even though it really was send direct from the consultant's ISP.
Another great feature of having this flexibility with the field consultants is that they can individually pick the ISP they like and trust. If a consultant wishes to have broadband, then it's not a problem either. Face it, no single ISP can offer everything your field personnel need and want in their own (personal) lives. Might as well let them enjoy the 'net when they aren't working.
Okay, this just happens to be the research area I work in--and I know full well the problems associated with getting high quality GaAs on Si. It's not nearly as simple as it sounds. So, it appears that Motorola found a "magical" insulating layer to put between the Si substrate and the GaAs layer. Wonderful. But it won't ever be anything but a novelty.
Here's why: In industry, everything is driven by economic margins. Plus, the pure Si industry is now very mature and they will not simply add new machinery to their processes that screw up their entire production line. That makes sense, really. Why on earth ruin a perfectly great production line just to toy around?
The other great point is final production cost. There is no way the pure Si industry will adopt a single step that is far costlier than the rest of their production line combined. Then add to the fact that those industries are adverse to any step that may slow down their production runs or cause unnecessary problems.
Sorry, people. If you want GaAs on Si, there is only one way that it can be made which will result in something the Si industry is not too adverse to. That means epitaxial growth of any buffering layers followed by high quality GaAs growth. The biggest problem that still hasn't been worked out is how does one go about making proper interconnections? Also, the buffering layer can be very conductive--and that is sometimes very hard to control. Motorola has got their heads up where it doesn't belong if they think the world is going to go crazy over this.
Lego actually did things right. They made (relatively) cheap toys out of durable plastic that kids couldn't easily destroy. Now, that's come back to haunt them. When I was about 8, I got my first set of Legos. Every birthday and Christmas I would get more. And more.
Now, don't get me wrong--the new Lego toys are schweet. I think they are far more awesome than the ones I played with. But they are more complex, and 8-year-olds don't have to use their imaginations nearly as much.
My kids (once I have some) will certainly play with Legos. But they aren't going to be the new fancy ones--oh no. Instead, they will grow up on my Legos, thanks to my mum for storing them. Of course I'll buy some new sets for my kids; but since my old Legos are still "cool" and look great it seems silly to toss them or buy lots of new sets. In effect, building great, durable plastic toys is what go Lego into this problem. Kindda sad when you think about it.
As the old saying goes, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
Believe it or not, a lot of companies really think that way--and it's just another great thing that IBM is embracing Linux. We all should be thankful IBM is willing to make a profit off the open source movement. Lord knows someone needs to.
Hey--since I can't seem to get to your site, just how much do these bad boys run for consumers? The Rio Receiver runs about $300, although it would clash with my black components, and that's just uncool in my rack.;)
Agreeing with a previous poster, just exactly how much damage was done? Sure, the ISP covered its butt and that resulted in a loss of internet for a couple of days. Big deal. The ISP certainly didn't do anything wrong.
The MPAA, however, may be considered big, mean, and nasty for... oh wait they were just protecting their propery rights. And it looks like they made a mistake. Since Road Runner (TW)is like most ISP and uses Dynamic IPs, this sometimes happens. Oops.
If the writer's boyfriend feels like he was treated terribly, then the process is simple: he can send the MPAA a complaint letter via certified mail. He can even ask them to pay for "damages" of about $5.00 since he was without internet for a couple of days. And maybe the MPAA will actually send an appology letter with a check for $2.50. If the boyfriend is really persistent, file a claim in small claims court--it costs about $35 here,and the loser pays. I'm sure he could get a settlement for $40, or win the case and earn $5.00. Big deal. Of course, then the MPAA will have lost in court...
I forgot that Netcraft requires nearly weekly "checking" of your own sites to ensure the Linux/Apache combination are always near the top. I forgot to fix the results over the last couple of weeks. Sorry, dudes.
I'm sure the authors of all these recent viruses would just love to implement this. I can think of lots of fun things to do now:
Outlook virus that sends not only itself to all persons in the address book, but also a random file from "My Documents" or somesuch. Especially good if the virus picks files that are.doc,.xls, etc.
IIS exploit that fully allows "visitors" to read all cgi scripts, as well as perform "updates" to these scripts.
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I've got some MS exploits to write....
Unless the laws are so totally different in all parts of North America, the basic law is simple: you can't just not pay a bill. Here's a great analogy from my past: I was renting an apartment from a company that didn't have the building up to code. Sure, I could have just refused to pay my rent until the problem was fixed, right? Wrong. Had I done that, my landlord would have every right to charge me late fees, declare my account delinquent, whathave you. Simply put, it wasn't my right to deny payment, because it had not been a finding of law that stated I didn't need to make payment. It is up to a court judge (note: not just a judge who's acting as a citizen as in this case) to decide the fate.
Faced with this, I am in a hard place. I don't want to pay my bill because that makes me feel like I'm saying it's all okay--and things certainly are not okay. So what am I to do? Simple. I file suit. Another option would be (if I intend to file suit) to send a formal complaint to the clerk of courts with a check for the disputed amount. The court will keep hold of the funds until things are sorted out. The clerk will also notify the defendant of the funds that have been sent in as well as the complaint. This will effectively "lock" the account so that it does not become delinquent.
I really wish people would better understand that this is a very important point: one cannot go without paying off a debt. It doesn't matter how right you think you are; and it doesn't matter if the other party isn't living up to its end of the contract. If you wish to show that the defendant hasn't lived up to its portion of the contract, the absolute worst thing you can do is break the contract yourself. It is imperative that if you are going to make a claim that you haven't made a single breach of the contract. It's almost always the plantiff's burden to show proof, and by breaking the contract by withholding payment you have started off on the wrong foot.
Last comment: if you are ever thinking about withholding payment, call your lawyer first. Don't get yourself screwed by doing something that's just going to hurt you. The courts here simply throw out cases where the plantiff withheld payment. This is because it looks like the plantiff is trying to get away with free products or services. You can either pay the bill and then file suit for that money back (and yes, that's a great idea at times) or send the money to the clerk of courts. But doing neither of those things will cause bad things.
Flame aside, of course I read the article. And believe it or not, Rogers Cable had every right to call in the collection agency. Here's why:
First, when I "subscribe" to anything, I am agreeing to pay my bill in full every time a bill is due. Sure, I may have objections. I may even say that I don't want to pay it. But that doesn't pay the bill, and I'm not released from being required to pay in the legal sense.
Second, the lawsuit hadn't been filed. That means there wasn't a court injunction that temporarily "locked" the account until the mess could be sorted out. Had the judge simply filed the suit immediately after not paying the bill in full, her account would not have been sent to a collections agency. The burden in on the plaintiff here.
The proper thing would have been to pay the bill in full if the suit hadn't been filed. The judge could have then proceeded with the civil suit and asked for a refund of the money. Not paying the bill and not getting the account locked in a legal way forced her account into collections. One can't just go around not paying bills--one's credit rating is based on payment only; not on whether you're right or wrong for denying payment.
There really isn't the claim that these moons actually currently have lifeforms on them, just that it's possible for the moons to support life in the future. Subtle difference, sure, but if we earthlings need to have a base for refueling and building spacecraft for missions to further areas in the universe this is the place. It's on the outside of the asteriod belt, so new missions wouldn't have to carefully plan for navigating that region. It also might be possible to terraform these moons to be much more earth-like.
This is obviously excessive. There is no way this judge, nor anyone else, could get that sum of money from any ISP. It just isn't going to happen.
Now, what the judge is trying to do is make a point. She doesn't want Roger's Cable to get away without major negative press. She probably doesn't care much about whether she wins or loses, and I can't blame her. Sometimes finding a way to tell potential consumers to stay away is worth a loss in court.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any lobbying groups that work from our perspective. I am thus forced into a question--what needs to be done about this? Since in my original post I mentioned that we each as citizens need to take responsibility for our government.... I guess that means me, too.
I'm probably just like most other individuals out there--I don't have lots of time. I can't do everything I want and need to do. But I really shouldn't use this as an excuse.
If anyone has some experience in the area of lobbying, or just has some interest and would be willing to start an organization with me--I'll get some of the paperwork going. I can take care of the non-profit status, collection of "dues" and other administrative things in the beginning. I will find some initial funding to get things going, too. Heck, I can even be the first "director". I can't do everything, though, so I'll need help and support from others. Please e-mail me at "director{at}halfgrey{dot}org" if you (or anyone else) has a desire to get this ball rolling.
Perhaps this is a good time for those of us who read/. to consider the reality of the US system of government. Senators, congresspersons, and even presidents cannot know absolutely everything about every issue. They simply haven't the time, energy, or desire. And we can't condemn our representatives for this.
Instead, we need to individually contact our representatives. They aren't all evil, and they actually do care about their constituents. But they have to make decisions based on the information that they receive. It is our responsibility as citizens to help our government make proper decisions.
It is irresponsible for us to simply complain when our government is on the brink of doing something terrible for our rights and needs. We must instead be an interactive force in government. The NRA and AARP are so successful as lobby groups because of their members. Perhaps it's time for geeks to think about membership in a similar lobbist group. Shoot, if the FSF gave out membership cards and bumper stickers for $50 a year, I'd do it.
From what I remember reading recently, isn't this the first root compromise on BSD in several years? I've been considering switching critical components to OpenBSD recently, and to be honest hearing this is reassuring. My hat's off to the guys that found this--as well as the entire BSD teams that put together such good solid code.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 5
With all due respect, people do not desire a curtain so that they may only commit crimes. Not all men beat their wives. Not all men rape their wives. And additionally, not all people grown weed in their house.
I, for one, have a very strong desire for privacy--whether "artificial" as you call it or otherwise. No one needs to see me make love to my wife (no, it's not rape since she always consents). No one needs to see that I can't last five minutes. And no one needs to know I've got a hideous birthmark on my left cheek. There is just no reason for you, the government, or anyone else to see those things.
Similarly, there is absolutely no reason for anyone--government or not--to watch me doing legal things in my house. I have guns--but that doesn't give anyone the right to inspect them on demand (unless you want to merely ascertain the pain that occurs when one is shot). I also have DVDs and computers--but that also does not give anyone the right to inspect my computers to determine if I'm copying the DVDs to them (I'm not).
The entire fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an artifical curtain. Not every government has such a constitutionally given right. This right was not given to early colonists, and was one of those issues that forced our revolution. We all need to respect this right; whether you feel that your life should be broadcast on television 24-hours-a-day or not.
Slashdot Mirror
My personal story goes like this: I was an undergraduate working part time in one of the non-main buildings for a large-ish business that was migrating to NT systems from a large Unix mainframe (not sure of the flavor). One day after the "cut-over", I was playing around a bit and accidentally took ownership of the building's NT Server's shares. All of them. Accounting, payroll, you name it. Apparently the consultants that were hired set things up such that anyone could do this. Oops.
So, since my boss wasn't around, I walked over to the building's supervisor and let him know what kind of trouble I just made. Besides, I couldn't seem to get the ownership changed back and I figured I was about to be fired regardless. The supervisor instead was rather impressed by my "helpfullness" and called down to the VP in charge of the network.
The next day I had to go to the main building (about 45 miles away) and see the VP in person with a few of his staff. Again, I wasn't fired, but instead considered helpful. We walked through a couple of things, and they seemed to be okay with it all. But the kicker was that they weren't at all worried. Why? Because they had already hired an insurance company to come in and audit their network. Those guys would be responsible for finding all their problems.
So, while I was considered helpful, they really weren't concerned. They figured that the insurance people would do their job and find all their problems. That's the way they wanted to run their business. That's also the way that most businesses operate. If they don't ask for help, they may not object, but they'd prefer you to just not worry about things. Perhaps if they don't think about it, it will not exist
Now, don't get me wrong--I think it's noble to help others. And I also think it's important to help secure up the 'net for everyone's sake. I mean, if I had a buggy machine that was vulnerable I would want someone to tell me. But not everyone's that way. And companies especially are afraid of some bob-the-hacker guy calling or e-mailing about a vulnerability. How would they know you haven't already exploited that vulnerability? How would they know that you haven't told your friends about it?
On the other hand, if believe a company may be vulnerable, send them an e-mail or call them up and ask them if they would mind you just checking on their machines for vulnerabilities. If they say sure, them proceed and send them a nice report if you find anything or not. If they say no, then DO NOT badger them. Politely say thanks for their time, and go on with life--even if you know they already are vulnerable. Some companies will get very unhappy and send lawyers if they find you scanning their networks and they know who did it.
I suppose being listed as an "approved security consultant" for the company's insurer would be incredibly helpful as well. But I have no idea how one would go about doing that.
I suppose "dot-biz" (NeuLevel) may not have much good bizness sense after all :)
This is one of those times I recommend that you take a page from M$. See if this big corporate firm would be interested in leasing this domain from you. You then are the official owner of the domain, and can point the TLD at the DNS servers of their choosing. But this way you get a guaranteed income every month or year--and if you ever want the domain back you can get it.
Obviously, you will have to commit to these guys leasing the domain for some amount of time--they won't want to only be entitled to the domain for a year at a time. They also would want some amount of time to migrate from this domain if the need ever arise.
If I were a big company, I really think that $50 or $100 a month for the "priveledge" of you pointing your domain to their DNS servers would be well worth it. Besides, this way they don't have to fork out lots of cash initially and find out a year later that they may have wasted money. Here they can cancel their contract and you can go back to using the domain or lease it to someone else.
Of course, I haven't recently checked out whether or not you can legally do this. This may just be one of those "great ideas" that just happens to also be "greatly illegal". If that's the case, please disregard.
Ameritech is running the same types of ads here in Ohio as well. What the ads don't say clearly is that you need to live next door to the central office if you want the maximum DSL bandwidth. For me, where I live nearly 3 miles from the CO, the best they claim for me is 128Mbps either direction. All that for $50 a month.
By contrast, the cable can handle huge amounts of bandwidth down and I'm pretty much assured a minimum of 128Kbps up. But, the cable bandwidth is shared among all my neighbors. It's important to realize, though, that all my neighbors aren't sharing 1.5Mbps down and 128Kbps up. It's more like 10.5Mbps down and 512Kpbs up. Business customers can get a dedicated line that gives them the entire bandwidth. Heck, Road Runner Columbus even offers what they call a "direct connection" to the internet at up to 45Mbps symetric.
Back to this topic, have I ever experienced a slow-down during peak hours? Nope. But I now live in a subdivision that I am certain isn't abusing the cable network. When I lived near Ohio State, however, I did find at times I was limited in bandwidth and Time Warner had troubles with their DHCP server getting overloaded. The worst data rate I ever was able to receive was somewhere near 500Kbps. That's many times better than most DSL lines. And at $45 a month (new price "adjustment"), it's easily the better choice.
Mr. Stallman is clearly upset, and his statement regarding our president is inflammatory and disrespectful. Don't get me wrong--I can sympathize with Mr. Stallman. But if moderators on /. could moderate stories, this one might just get the old "Troll" or "Flamebait" markings.
Regarding everything else--I agree. I really, really do. The problem that most people (at least on /.) aren't recognizing is that we're in the minority here. Joe Redneck, Aunt Minnie, and Mr. Jones don't care about our or their privacy right now. In fact, they're just mad at the people who committed the terrible acts or terrorism. More than 80% of Americans support the idea of the US going to war. That's how serious this is.
We really need to be more careful. I know we don't want our country to spiral down that toilet we all know as big brotherhood. But if we make statements like this and the public media starts to publicize it like mad; we're soon going to find ourselves on the wrong end of those big guns. Those 80% of Americans that support our country right now are just going to think we're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves; or at the very least that we "harbor and assist" them. That certainly won't help our fight.
So folks, let's turn this down a notch. Let's choose our words with a little more caution because we may not be able to win these battles right now; and frankly we can't get ourselves confused by America as the enemy. Let's just take a little time to help our government using polite tactics instead of attacking them. Our view just doesn't have the support of the people right now.
I realize that this probably isn't going to get me lots of friends here on /., and frankly I'll probably get modded down. But here goes:
I'm disappointed. First, there was Katz' terrible journalistic FUD. Now it seems to be spreading.
You know, if I have to "lose" a couple of "rights" here and there for the next week, month, or heck even year to prevent another huge terrorist attack--that's okay. Maybe I'll care more about my rights later. Right now, though, I'd rather just let the investigators use whatever means necessary to "hunt down and punish those responsible" (thanks, W). Maybe once all this boils over I'll care whether or not the FBI wants to listen to my phone calls and read my e-mails. There's really nothing there of interest, anyways. Maybe someday I'll care about encrypting every piece of communication. Not now, though.
I think we all need to remember that our federal government is on the brink of war with possibly some other nations (Afganistan et al). In times of war, our liberties sometimes go away for a time. But they always return. I don't think there's anyone who can say "boy, America was a lot more free before Hitler". Relax, folks. America will return to the "free" society we all love and admire once we've overcome terrorism at its worst.
I have every confidence that if any legislation gets passed that unfairly restricts our rights; our Supreme Court will strike it down later. Granted, that will take time. But that's okay with me--I'm more than happy to restrict my own rights temporarily. It's just not that big a deal when we consider 5,000+ people are dead because we weren't being careful.
You've never needed swap space. It's never been a required item. But, if you don't have it, it's YOSF (Your Own Stupid Fault) if you run out of memory. Besides, there's something to be said about a computer with more than 512Mb of RAM that gets the kernel message "Out of memory" or "insufficient memory". In today's world of ever cheaper hard drives, why not just give in and allow for a Gb of swap "just in case"?
Here in Ohio, cable modem service through AOL/Time Warner requires an attenuator. It's a 6dB drop--helps keep the Motorola modems from getting signals far in excess of what they can handle. Generally, the 6dB "tap" is made near where the cable comes into the house or apartment and then goes to your modem directly. Find that little deally and see if your cable modem will sync up properly without it. If not, you may need something in between--like a 4 or 5dB drop. Either way, it's not your fault--so they should fix the problem for you. Sometimes it's really worth it to just play dumb and say "It don't work. Fix it."
Okay, this is a flame--so feel free to mod it as such. But I'm disappointed in the moderators that would rate the above comment as "funny" and not something "insightful" or "interesting". I can't think of one "funny" thing in relation to this disaster.
Okay, I'm probably not winning any points with anyone here; but I believe that it's not very important what ISP individuals use in the field. My previous employer allowed the field consultants to choose whatever ISP they desired, with the first $25 per month picked up by the company. To deal with the corporate e-mail, we just simply made entries into the "alias" file for sendmail. Most ISPs will allow the relay of e-mail (by domain) so long as the sender is connecting from inside their network. This means that our consultants could even send e-mail that "looked" like it came from our SMTP server; even though it really was send direct from the consultant's ISP.
Another great feature of having this flexibility with the field consultants is that they can individually pick the ISP they like and trust. If a consultant wishes to have broadband, then it's not a problem either. Face it, no single ISP can offer everything your field personnel need and want in their own (personal) lives. Might as well let them enjoy the 'net when they aren't working.
Nothing to see here. Move along, please.
Okay, this just happens to be the research area I work in--and I know full well the problems associated with getting high quality GaAs on Si. It's not nearly as simple as it sounds. So, it appears that Motorola found a "magical" insulating layer to put between the Si substrate and the GaAs layer. Wonderful. But it won't ever be anything but a novelty.
Here's why: In industry, everything is driven by economic margins. Plus, the pure Si industry is now very mature and they will not simply add new machinery to their processes that screw up their entire production line. That makes sense, really. Why on earth ruin a perfectly great production line just to toy around?
The other great point is final production cost. There is no way the pure Si industry will adopt a single step that is far costlier than the rest of their production line combined. Then add to the fact that those industries are adverse to any step that may slow down their production runs or cause unnecessary problems.
Sorry, people. If you want GaAs on Si, there is only one way that it can be made which will result in something the Si industry is not too adverse to. That means epitaxial growth of any buffering layers followed by high quality GaAs growth. The biggest problem that still hasn't been worked out is how does one go about making proper interconnections? Also, the buffering layer can be very conductive--and that is sometimes very hard to control. Motorola has got their heads up where it doesn't belong if they think the world is going to go crazy over this.
Lego actually did things right. They made (relatively) cheap toys out of durable plastic that kids couldn't easily destroy. Now, that's come back to haunt them. When I was about 8, I got my first set of Legos. Every birthday and Christmas I would get more. And more.
Now, don't get me wrong--the new Lego toys are schweet. I think they are far more awesome than the ones I played with. But they are more complex, and 8-year-olds don't have to use their imaginations nearly as much.
My kids (once I have some) will certainly play with Legos. But they aren't going to be the new fancy ones--oh no. Instead, they will grow up on my Legos, thanks to my mum for storing them. Of course I'll buy some new sets for my kids; but since my old Legos are still "cool" and look great it seems silly to toss them or buy lots of new sets. In effect, building great, durable plastic toys is what go Lego into this problem. Kindda sad when you think about it.
As the old saying goes, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
Believe it or not, a lot of companies really think that way--and it's just another great thing that IBM is embracing Linux. We all should be thankful IBM is willing to make a profit off the open source movement. Lord knows someone needs to.
Hey--since I can't seem to get to your site, just how much do these bad boys run for consumers? The Rio Receiver runs about $300, although it would clash with my black components, and that's just uncool in my rack. ;)
Agreeing with a previous poster, just exactly how much damage was done? Sure, the ISP covered its butt and that resulted in a loss of internet for a couple of days. Big deal. The ISP certainly didn't do anything wrong.
The MPAA, however, may be considered big, mean, and nasty for... oh wait they were just protecting their propery rights. And it looks like they made a mistake. Since Road Runner (TW)is like most ISP and uses Dynamic IPs, this sometimes happens. Oops.
If the writer's boyfriend feels like he was treated terribly, then the process is simple: he can send the MPAA a complaint letter via certified mail. He can even ask them to pay for "damages" of about $5.00 since he was without internet for a couple of days. And maybe the MPAA will actually send an appology letter with a check for $2.50. If the boyfriend is really persistent, file a claim in small claims court--it costs about $35 here,and the loser pays. I'm sure he could get a settlement for $40, or win the case and earn $5.00. Big deal. Of course, then the MPAA will have lost in court...
I forgot that Netcraft requires nearly weekly "checking" of your own sites to ensure the Linux/Apache combination are always near the top. I forgot to fix the results over the last couple of weeks. Sorry, dudes.
Perhaps some others forgot to re-list their sites as well?
I'm sure the authors of all these recent viruses would just love to implement this. I can think of lots of fun things to do now:
Outlook virus that sends not only itself to all persons in the address book, but also a random file from "My Documents" or somesuch. Especially good if the virus picks files that are .doc, .xls, etc.
IIS exploit that fully allows "visitors" to read all cgi scripts, as well as perform "updates" to these scripts.
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I've got some MS exploits to write....
Apparently this needs to be cleared up still...
Unless the laws are so totally different in all parts of North America, the basic law is simple: you can't just not pay a bill. Here's a great analogy from my past: I was renting an apartment from a company that didn't have the building up to code. Sure, I could have just refused to pay my rent until the problem was fixed, right? Wrong. Had I done that, my landlord would have every right to charge me late fees, declare my account delinquent, whathave you. Simply put, it wasn't my right to deny payment, because it had not been a finding of law that stated I didn't need to make payment. It is up to a court judge (note: not just a judge who's acting as a citizen as in this case) to decide the fate.
Faced with this, I am in a hard place. I don't want to pay my bill because that makes me feel like I'm saying it's all okay--and things certainly are not okay. So what am I to do? Simple. I file suit. Another option would be (if I intend to file suit) to send a formal complaint to the clerk of courts with a check for the disputed amount. The court will keep hold of the funds until things are sorted out. The clerk will also notify the defendant of the funds that have been sent in as well as the complaint. This will effectively "lock" the account so that it does not become delinquent.
I really wish people would better understand that this is a very important point: one cannot go without paying off a debt. It doesn't matter how right you think you are; and it doesn't matter if the other party isn't living up to its end of the contract. If you wish to show that the defendant hasn't lived up to its portion of the contract, the absolute worst thing you can do is break the contract yourself. It is imperative that if you are going to make a claim that you haven't made a single breach of the contract. It's almost always the plantiff's burden to show proof, and by breaking the contract by withholding payment you have started off on the wrong foot.
Last comment: if you are ever thinking about withholding payment, call your lawyer first. Don't get yourself screwed by doing something that's just going to hurt you. The courts here simply throw out cases where the plantiff withheld payment. This is because it looks like the plantiff is trying to get away with free products or services. You can either pay the bill and then file suit for that money back (and yes, that's a great idea at times) or send the money to the clerk of courts. But doing neither of those things will cause bad things.
Flame aside, of course I read the article. And believe it or not, Rogers Cable had every right to call in the collection agency. Here's why:
First, when I "subscribe" to anything, I am agreeing to pay my bill in full every time a bill is due. Sure, I may have objections. I may even say that I don't want to pay it. But that doesn't pay the bill, and I'm not released from being required to pay in the legal sense.
Second, the lawsuit hadn't been filed. That means there wasn't a court injunction that temporarily "locked" the account until the mess could be sorted out. Had the judge simply filed the suit immediately after not paying the bill in full, her account would not have been sent to a collections agency. The burden in on the plaintiff here.
The proper thing would have been to pay the bill in full if the suit hadn't been filed. The judge could have then proceeded with the civil suit and asked for a refund of the money. Not paying the bill and not getting the account locked in a legal way forced her account into collections. One can't just go around not paying bills--one's credit rating is based on payment only; not on whether you're right or wrong for denying payment.
There really isn't the claim that these moons actually currently have lifeforms on them, just that it's possible for the moons to support life in the future. Subtle difference, sure, but if we earthlings need to have a base for refueling and building spacecraft for missions to further areas in the universe this is the place. It's on the outside of the asteriod belt, so new missions wouldn't have to carefully plan for navigating that region. It also might be possible to terraform these moons to be much more earth-like.
This is obviously excessive. There is no way this judge, nor anyone else, could get that sum of money from any ISP. It just isn't going to happen.
Now, what the judge is trying to do is make a point. She doesn't want Roger's Cable to get away without major negative press. She probably doesn't care much about whether she wins or loses, and I can't blame her. Sometimes finding a way to tell potential consumers to stay away is worth a loss in court.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any lobbying groups that work from our perspective. I am thus forced into a question--what needs to be done about this? Since in my original post I mentioned that we each as citizens need to take responsibility for our government.... I guess that means me, too.
I'm probably just like most other individuals out there--I don't have lots of time. I can't do everything I want and need to do. But I really shouldn't use this as an excuse.
If anyone has some experience in the area of lobbying, or just has some interest and would be willing to start an organization with me--I'll get some of the paperwork going. I can take care of the non-profit status, collection of "dues" and other administrative things in the beginning. I will find some initial funding to get things going, too. Heck, I can even be the first "director". I can't do everything, though, so I'll need help and support from others. Please e-mail me at "director{at}halfgrey{dot}org" if you (or anyone else) has a desire to get this ball rolling.
Perhaps this is a good time for those of us who read /. to consider the reality of the US system of government. Senators, congresspersons, and even presidents cannot know absolutely everything about every issue. They simply haven't the time, energy, or desire. And we can't condemn our representatives for this.
Instead, we need to individually contact our representatives. They aren't all evil, and they actually do care about their constituents. But they have to make decisions based on the information that they receive. It is our responsibility as citizens to help our government make proper decisions.
It is irresponsible for us to simply complain when our government is on the brink of doing something terrible for our rights and needs. We must instead be an interactive force in government. The NRA and AARP are so successful as lobby groups because of their members. Perhaps it's time for geeks to think about membership in a similar lobbist group. Shoot, if the FSF gave out membership cards and bumper stickers for $50 a year, I'd do it.
From what I remember reading recently, isn't this the first root compromise on BSD in several years? I've been considering switching critical components to OpenBSD recently, and to be honest hearing this is reassuring. My hat's off to the guys that found this--as well as the entire BSD teams that put together such good solid code.
With all due respect, people do not desire a curtain so that they may only commit crimes. Not all men beat their wives. Not all men rape their wives. And additionally, not all people grown weed in their house.
I, for one, have a very strong desire for privacy--whether "artificial" as you call it or otherwise. No one needs to see me make love to my wife (no, it's not rape since she always consents). No one needs to see that I can't last five minutes. And no one needs to know I've got a hideous birthmark on my left cheek. There is just no reason for you, the government, or anyone else to see those things.
Similarly, there is absolutely no reason for anyone--government or not--to watch me doing legal things in my house. I have guns--but that doesn't give anyone the right to inspect them on demand (unless you want to merely ascertain the pain that occurs when one is shot). I also have DVDs and computers--but that also does not give anyone the right to inspect my computers to determine if I'm copying the DVDs to them (I'm not).
The entire fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an artifical curtain. Not every government has such a constitutionally given right. This right was not given to early colonists, and was one of those issues that forced our revolution. We all need to respect this right; whether you feel that your life should be broadcast on television 24-hours-a-day or not.