All you need is a torch and a busy track near a school or government building.
Or a fairly small quantity of explosive. If the aim is to cause chaos then attacking signaling hardware could be very effective.
You'd be amazed what trains carry; especially non-passenger trains. Simply derail the wrong train near a city is enough to close down some cities for days or weeks.
Or the "right train" if you are in the train derailing business.
MS does not have to own all of UNIX to file a lawsuits against Linux companies.
They don't need to own ANY in order to file a lawsuit against anyone they feel like suing.
What is to stop MS from filing a lawsuits against Redhat, Oracle, or Google?
Probably because all of these companies would have reason to counter sue MS.
Even if the lawsuits were completely bogus, MS could send a warning that Linux is minefield of legalities - so smart companies had better stay away from Linux.
They'd have to be very careful not to also send the message that Windows/Office was a minefield of legalities... Then the really smart companies would buy from outside of the US. Which may well be bad news for anyone working in Canonical's Boston office who didn't want to move to Montreal.
As long as an effective defense is more expensive than out of court settlement, this type of harassment will exist. Even though Davenport Lyons may have known that some of the recipients of the letter were not guilty of anything, it would have been time consuming to figure out which ones they were. And with the state of the courts these days, it was more effective to take a wide view and hit everyone they could.
Whilst this may be the case in the US it probably isn't the case in the UK. For the amounts involved courts would use the "small claims procedure" which is specifically intended to favour litigants in person. Whilst either side in such a case can operate through lawyers they do so entirely at their own expense. IIRC the only court cases Davenport Lyons/ACS:Law/whatever they are calling themselves currently have "won" have been as "judgment by default". i.e. the defendent didn't reply to the summons or show up to the hearing. Sending out what amount to invoices is cheap. Issuing a court summons costs money. If the defendant disagrees that they owe the money you need to produce some actual evidence they can also countersue you. At least in the UK if one party is an individual and the other is not then the former has the choice of where any hearing will be held. This means that if someone used a London law firm to sue someone in Newcastle they'd potentially have to pay the cost of sending someone from that firm to court there with no chance of recovering the cost of travel and possible hotel stay.
Air marshals carry specially designed firearms that are less likely to cause explosive decompression.
They covered this on Mythbusters years ago. Regular bullets make neat round holes when they leave the fuselage. You'd need a lot of bullet holes before you got any loss of cabin pressure at all.
It's far more likely that we'll die in the car on the way to the airport than die in the airport or on the plane. Why are we so obsessed with implementing measures that don't actually increase security on planes?
The same amount of money could probably be spent far more usefully on making roads safer.
Anyone working in the terminals go through the same screening that passengers do (though I am less certain about people working out on the tarmac).
Surprisingly, TSA is very cognizant of an insider threat scenario.
What that ultimately means is that we're getting very, very little out of the extra screenings, which shouldn't be a surprise. 9/11 happened as much by luck as by planning, there were numerous opportunities to foil it, but because of poor intelligence sharing didn't. Why, we're going further than that is really beyond me. Terrorist plots convoluted enough to escape the notice of the intelligence community tend to fall apart on their own because there's too many pieces to break.
The obvious exceptions would be terrorist conspiracies with the support of governments. Since these tend to be the only kind of entities who can influence (or infiltrate) "intelligence" or law enforcement. The other obvious exception would be the likes of Ted Kaczynski where there is simply no terrorist conspiracy to find. There is really very little you can get out of such screenings because terrorists are rare and terrorists threatening aviation are only a small subset. Any terrorist wanting to attack aviation using suicide bombers would do better to give them some guns, grenades, one bomb each (with a dead man's switch just in case) and fake identity documents. Then tell them to go to an airport, shoot people, throw grenades around then blow themselves up once they run out of ammunition. (Yelling "God is great" being optional.) It also makes little sense to subject flight crew to the same screening process as passengers for various reasons. If anything it would be a far better idea to have them screening "their" passengers....
I'm glad he's doing this, but this exemplifies how insane Senate rules and traditions are - all it takes is one Senator to stop anything. It was bad enough when Senators had more discretion, but nowadays you have Senators putting holds on everything and filibustering every single bill that comes through the Senate. It's ridiculous.
The point of a legislature is to critically examine proposed legislation. Rather than simply "rubber stamping" whatever is placed before it. Far far worst is where people are voting for bills they have not read and fully understood. The only "ridiculous" part of this happening now is that it means that US Senators were probably not previously doing their jobs. The time when the US would have actually needed the most legislation would have been in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Governments do not need to create a "bussines incentive" giving away even more money for free just to encourage bussiness do what they should be doing with their own money anyway.
All too often what happens is that businesses either adapt or come into the industry to simply take the money and not deliver the goods. Governments tend to be better at handing out money than they are attaching enforceable conditions to its use.
So, if I steal half a dozen cars from the local car dealer and give them to people, I get no punishment at all. My "proceeds" are exactly 0. In fact, there is some cost out of my pocket; do you think maybe the car dealer should have to reimburse me for expenses?
This is effectivly "shoplifting". The retailer will still have to pay their supplier. But they can't sell the cars to customers, since they no longer have them. If physical items (including complex machines) could be trivially created there probably wouldn't be much need for many retail businesses in the first place.
No, I want to steal his car, Sell it for £10,000 and only say i got £50 for it:P and give him £50 back:D
In such a case there is an objective cost of the car which can be agreed on. A more relevent question would be what would a CD left in a stolen car be worth? Probably not X times sixty odd thousand USD.
I think a big part of it (from the public's perspective, anyway) is a misconception about open source. Many non-technology-oriented people I know think open source automatically makes it less secure, since "anyone can see what makes it tick."
It isn't so much "technology" as cryptography, which is technology agnostic.
Not only that, but people seem not to realize that the whole concept of "democracy" is these days merely a marketing gimmick.
Even fewer realise that "elections" and "voting" are not synonymous with "democracy". Not only are there plenty of modern examples of fracical elections the classical Atheneans had a very different method of doing things which used random selection of citizens.
At least with the paper ballot reader systems you have the actual documents to count, and could count them on by hand or by an Open Source device after an election to prove or disprove any claims of errors.
Or you use a very dumb machine to count/sort ballots... One which probably has lots of other uses.
Does it have to do EVERYTHING that Office does in order to be "comparable"?
Especially considering how many MS Office "features" often go unused.
It depends on your use case. A jet fighter and a bomber are comparable military vehicles. A helicopter and a jet fighter are comparable too. A Humvee and a jet fighter a comparable.
What are you using it for? What do you want it to do for you?
Ah old fashioned systems analysis. As opposed to the more modern approach of spending lots of money on software prior to working out what tasks it needs to perform:)
How much are you willing to spend? How fast do you want it done? How much customization do you need?
Until the first two questions have been answered these last three cannot have any meaningful answers. Leaving aside the ability of costs rising to meet/exceed budgets (especially if external contractors/consultants are involved).
I work for an New Zealand small - medium company. The stacks up thus:
Option 1. 20 seat Office 2010 enterprise license - $13,000 per annum
Option 2. Office 365. 20 x $27/month x $NZ Exchange = $8484 per annum.
Option 3. 20 OEMS with hardware purchase(assume 4 year cycle): $2500 per annum
The currency code you need is "NZD".
Without knowing the actual tasks which are needed it's impossible to know what version of MS Office might be needed or even if it is the most suitable package for the task in hand. At the most extreme you might spending lots of money for the most expensive MS Office package when OO.org will do everything you ever need to do.
I'm working at a small but growing office. We considered putting a Windows server in the mix, but with the CAL's it's just not in the budget.
Note that added to the purchase cost of a CAL is the cost of working out when you need to buy one, the process of buying one (especially if it involves dealing with suppliers you don't usually deal with) and having to have a system to record what you actually have.
He's saying that "I'm a Windows tech, and it would cost money to train me up and then more to install Linux," doesn't actually mean it'll cost a lot to train that tech up and then more to install Linux. What he's saying is that "If a Windows tech says it'll cost money to train him up and then cost more to install Linux, get a Linux tech and lose the Windows one."
What proportion of "Windows techs" are Windows only vs the proportion of "Linux techs" who are Linux only?
This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent.
Whilst ignoring that "Windows" isn't one thing and migrating between different versions of Windows may not be simple.
Because I have spent thousands and thousands of hours learning Microsoft products I will be resistant to deploying Linux in any place that makes my boss money.
How many of those thousands of hours will become worthless when Microsoft changes something... Never mind that something which takes that amount of time to learn can hardly be called "easy".
Slashdot Mirror
All you need is a torch and a busy track near a school or government building.
Or a fairly small quantity of explosive. If the aim is to cause chaos then attacking signaling hardware could be very effective.
You'd be amazed what trains carry; especially non-passenger trains. Simply derail the wrong train near a city is enough to close down some cities for days or weeks.
Or the "right train" if you are in the train derailing business.
MS does not have to own all of UNIX to file a lawsuits against Linux companies.
They don't need to own ANY in order to file a lawsuit against anyone they feel like suing.
What is to stop MS from filing a lawsuits against Redhat, Oracle, or Google?
Probably because all of these companies would have reason to counter sue MS.
Even if the lawsuits were completely bogus, MS could send a warning that Linux is minefield of legalities - so smart companies had better stay away from Linux.
They'd have to be very careful not to also send the message that Windows/Office was a minefield of legalities... Then the really smart companies would buy from outside of the US. Which may well be bad news for anyone working in Canonical's Boston office who didn't want to move to Montreal.
3. People ignore them and act like they are part of the furniture...they overhear things, a lot of things!
Cleaning staff might overheard even more if they talk amongst themselves in a foreign language.
As long as an effective defense is more expensive than out of court settlement, this type of harassment will exist. Even though Davenport Lyons may have known that some of the recipients of the letter were not guilty of anything, it would have been time consuming to figure out which ones they were. And with the state of the courts these days, it was more effective to take a wide view and hit everyone they could.
Whilst this may be the case in the US it probably isn't the case in the UK. For the amounts involved courts would use the "small claims procedure" which is specifically intended to favour litigants in person. Whilst either side in such a case can operate through lawyers they do so entirely at their own expense. IIRC the only court cases Davenport Lyons/ACS:Law/whatever they are calling themselves currently have "won" have been as "judgment by default". i.e. the defendent didn't reply to the summons or show up to the hearing.
Sending out what amount to invoices is cheap. Issuing a court summons costs money. If the defendant disagrees that they owe the money you need to produce some actual evidence they can also countersue you. At least in the UK if one party is an individual and the other is not then the former has the choice of where any hearing will be held. This means that if someone used a London law firm to sue someone in Newcastle they'd potentially have to pay the cost of sending someone from that firm to court there with no chance of recovering the cost of travel and possible hotel stay.
Air marshals carry specially designed firearms that are less likely to cause explosive decompression.
They covered this on Mythbusters years ago. Regular bullets make neat round holes when they leave the fuselage. You'd need a lot of bullet holes before you got any loss of cabin pressure at all.
It's far more likely that we'll die in the car on the way to the airport than die in the airport or on the plane. Why are we so obsessed with implementing measures that don't actually increase security on planes?
The same amount of money could probably be spent far more usefully on making roads safer.
Anyone working in the terminals go through the same screening that passengers do (though I am less certain about people working out on the tarmac).
Surprisingly, TSA is very cognizant of an insider threat scenario.
How are TSA screeners screened?
What that ultimately means is that we're getting very, very little out of the extra screenings, which shouldn't be a surprise. 9/11 happened as much by luck as by planning, there were numerous opportunities to foil it, but because of poor intelligence sharing didn't. Why, we're going further than that is really beyond me. Terrorist plots convoluted enough to escape the notice of the intelligence community tend to fall apart on their own because there's too many pieces to break.
The obvious exceptions would be terrorist conspiracies with the support of governments. Since these tend to be the only kind of entities who can influence (or infiltrate) "intelligence" or law enforcement. The other obvious exception would be the likes of Ted Kaczynski where there is simply no terrorist conspiracy to find.
There is really very little you can get out of such screenings because terrorists are rare and terrorists threatening aviation are only a small subset. Any terrorist wanting to attack aviation using suicide bombers would do better to give them some guns, grenades, one bomb each (with a dead man's switch just in case) and fake identity documents. Then tell them to go to an airport, shoot people, throw grenades around then blow themselves up once they run out of ammunition. (Yelling "God is great" being optional.)
It also makes little sense to subject flight crew to the same screening process as passengers for various reasons. If anything it would be a far better idea to have them screening "their" passengers....
I'm glad he's doing this, but this exemplifies how insane Senate rules and traditions are - all it takes is one Senator to stop anything. It was bad enough when Senators had more discretion, but nowadays you have Senators putting holds on everything and filibustering every single bill that comes through the Senate. It's ridiculous.
The point of a legislature is to critically examine proposed legislation. Rather than simply "rubber stamping" whatever is placed before it. Far far worst is where people are voting for bills they have not read and fully understood. The only "ridiculous" part of this happening now is that it means that US Senators were probably not previously doing their jobs. The time when the US would have actually needed the most legislation would have been in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Governments do not need to create a "bussines incentive" giving away even more money for free just to encourage bussiness do what they should be doing with their own money anyway.
All too often what happens is that businesses either adapt or come into the industry to simply take the money and not deliver the goods. Governments tend to be better at handing out money than they are attaching enforceable conditions to its use.
Not quite... the copyright owner loses a portion of his or her exclusivity on the right to copy the work...
There are two difficult questions here. One is how big that portion is. The other is how much that exclusivity is actually worth.
So, if I steal half a dozen cars from the local car dealer and give them to people, I get no punishment at all. My "proceeds" are exactly 0. In fact, there is some cost out of my pocket; do you think maybe the car dealer should have to reimburse me for expenses?
This is effectivly "shoplifting". The retailer will still have to pay their supplier. But they can't sell the cars to customers, since they no longer have them.
If physical items (including complex machines) could be trivially created there probably wouldn't be much need for many retail businesses in the first place.
No, I want to steal his car, Sell it for £10,000 and only say i got £50 for it :P and give him £50 back :D
In such a case there is an objective cost of the car which can be agreed on.
A more relevent question would be what would a CD left in a stolen car be worth? Probably not X times sixty odd thousand USD.
I think a big part of it (from the public's perspective, anyway) is a misconception about open source. Many non-technology-oriented people I know think open source automatically makes it less secure, since "anyone can see what makes it tick."
It isn't so much "technology" as cryptography, which is technology agnostic.
Not only that, but people seem not to realize that the whole concept of "democracy" is these days merely a marketing gimmick.
Even fewer realise that "elections" and "voting" are not synonymous with "democracy". Not only are there plenty of modern examples of fracical elections the classical Atheneans had a very different method of doing things which used random selection of citizens.
At least with the paper ballot reader systems you have the actual documents to count, and could count them on by hand or by an Open Source device after an election to prove or disprove any claims of errors.
Or you use a very dumb machine to count/sort ballots... One which probably has lots of other uses.
Recycling in general is not necessarily environmentally friendly.
That's even without considering that the definition of "environmentally friendly" can be both variable and highly political.
Does it have to do EVERYTHING that Office does in order to be "comparable"?
:)
/exceed budgets (especially if external contractors/consultants are involved).
Especially considering how many MS Office "features" often go unused.
It depends on your use case. A jet fighter and a bomber are comparable military vehicles. A helicopter and a jet fighter are comparable too. A Humvee and a jet fighter a comparable. What are you using it for? What do you want it to do for you?
Ah old fashioned systems analysis. As opposed to the more modern approach of spending lots of money on software prior to working out what tasks it needs to perform
How much are you willing to spend? How fast do you want it done? How much customization do you need?
Until the first two questions have been answered these last three cannot have any meaningful answers. Leaving aside the ability of costs rising to meet
Free crap is still free crap. Not saying that the Google app is, in fact, crap. Merely that "free" and "better" are on separate axes.
What you probably mean is that "cost" and "untility/quality" are separate axes. After all there is plenty of expensive "crap" around.
I work for an New Zealand small - medium company. The stacks up thus:
Option 1. 20 seat Office 2010 enterprise license - $13,000 per annum
Option 2. Office 365. 20 x $27/month x $NZ Exchange = $8484 per annum.
Option 3. 20 OEMS with hardware purchase(assume 4 year cycle): $2500 per annum
The currency code you need is "NZD". Without knowing the actual tasks which are needed it's impossible to know what version of MS Office might be needed or even if it is the most suitable package for the task in hand. At the most extreme you might spending lots of money for the most expensive MS Office package when OO.org will do everything you ever need to do.
I'm working at a small but growing office. We considered putting a Windows server in the mix, but with the CAL's it's just not in the budget.
Note that added to the purchase cost of a CAL is the cost of working out when you need to buy one, the process of buying one (especially if it involves dealing with suppliers you don't usually deal with) and having to have a system to record what you actually have.
He's saying that "I'm a Windows tech, and it would cost money to train me up and then more to install Linux," doesn't actually mean it'll cost a lot to train that tech up and then more to install Linux. What he's saying is that "If a Windows tech says it'll cost money to train him up and then cost more to install Linux, get a Linux tech and lose the Windows one."
What proportion of "Windows techs" are Windows only vs the proportion of "Linux techs" who are Linux only?
This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent.
Whilst ignoring that "Windows" isn't one thing and migrating between different versions of Windows may not be simple.
Because I have spent thousands and thousands of hours learning Microsoft products I will be resistant to deploying Linux in any place that makes my boss money.
How many of those thousands of hours will become worthless when Microsoft changes something... Never mind that something which takes that amount of time to learn can hardly be called "easy".
Perhaps move to fiber should be considered
By the time the thieves realise that they have the wrong type of cable they are likely to have damaged if not completly severed it.