I've found Napster has gotten far better in terms of absolute quality - which to me means more impossible-to-find stuff online (which of course means no lost sales to the RIAA; it's stuff I would buy if they weren't too fucking stoopid to sell it) and more bands-I've-heard-of-but-won't-buy-til-I've-heard (again, no loss in sales there, unless you count ripped off customers) - but OpenNap, by it's architecture, will end up naturally serving niches ignored by the music gangsters^H^H^H^H^H^H^industry. Fine with me.
What's the point? OpenNap doesn't need to scale in raw numbers; it's likely to move to nice-oriented servers and networks, which means less raw power and cross-traffic and humongous searches are needed to provide the perception of effectiveness to the users. That does count.
To use another analogy; using mutt in a VGA, non-X setting on a 16MB/120MHz Linux machine FEELS more effective than using outlook on a 64 MB 333MHz windowsMe machine. One is more likely to be defended as "better." The other is more likely to have the (dedicated) user feeling like it works.
It's not even worth pointing out that Napster doesn't, strictly speaking, "scale." Nothing does unless you mean "use precomputed results", which is impossible with Napster, or you mean "kinda works with a bigass hunka hunka iron."
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
When tuition at private universities is approaching $30K per year, it's kind of hard to call this "free." Students are not given an option not to subsidize these networks, either. And pretending that there is a free market in education is so stupid, it's obvious you didn't go to one of the better schools.
They have every right to complain. Furthermore, as a taxpayer, my taxes go to subsidize those schools and those tuitions, and I don't like it, I have every right to whine and complain until your ears bleed.
The AC mentality: anyone who doesn't like anything exactly the way it is should be ridiculed and mocked. That's why you are called cowards. Real people stand and fight for their beliefs instead of accepting everything like sheep taking it from the farmer.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I'm not sure "secure telnet" is more descriptive (well, acutally, I am sure; it's not), but there is already a "secure telnet", so you're out of luck there.
I agree that it's an unusually polite letter, but there are some nasty and unjustified claims in there, too. Like the implication that because SSH1 is supported, OpenSSH is doing a disservice to the Internet. Funny, every windows/mac FREE ssh client I've ever seen has support for SSH1 only, and until OpenSSH, every free client I've ever seen supported SSH1 only. To me, that looks an awful lot like doing the community a great service, one that he declined to. Sure, maybe that is keeping money out of his pocket, but that's just tough luck for him.
Additionally, from the recent security bulletins I've seen, OpenSSH-2.3.0 was one of the few that was not affected, while nearly all the commercial clients were, including those from ssh.com. I'm not sure glossing over that fact while implying that the free/open project is shady or insecure can be defended as polite or reasonable. It's FUDdy, that's for sure.
And what about Datafellows (an Amercian company that's operated out of Finland for export law reasons)? I know they've been calling their client and server "ssh" since about 1996. If he hasn't sued them in all this time, then the trademark is probably invalid. It appears to me to be a generic term, and he's only complaining now because he's inconvenienced by a bunch of people confused about the plethora of recent ssh bugs uncovered, and he's lashing out at an unprotected target that is giving away what he wants to sell.
It's actually pretty hard to have sympathy for him. Sure, his business is being eroded by something others are giving away, but that's business. It's his fault for not picking a better business model, like maybe giving away a client and selling the server.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Not only that, but it's where the name for "ssh" came from. "Secure shell."
Let's just give in and rename it kwijybo. Of course, it will cost thousands of extra keystrokes. Maybe I should send the Finn a bill. Or at least a reminder that he got a big head start because of bone-headed US export laws.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Don't be an idiot. Functionally, you are right. Linguistically, you are wrong. Now let's try "rsh" instead and you should get the point.
I demand that that damn Finn stop using "ssh", because it makes people think it's like "rsh" and encourages them to continue using that outdated, insecure protocol.
Tambourine, fooey.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It doesn't thread messages. Once you've used threaded messages for a while, you realize that it's insane to read mail any other way.
The "save replies in folder with original" feature is nice (it would be better with threading), but in my experience it either doesn't work as advertised or isn't present. It's certainly not easy to get it this kind of thing done right, since I prefer to read in my inbox, then move to folders based on the recipient later.
Filter rules can't be taken with you (at least they couldn't the last time I used outlook). This bites. Every time you change computers, it's like someone comes to your desk and turns the whole thing upside down.
Junk mail filters are nice, but every now and then they throw out perfectly legitimate mail based on some secret formula. Do you know why? No, you don't.
Most versions are very poor in informing the user about what it's doing. It just hangs forever waiting on the network (this has improved in more recent versions). It doesn't alert you if you have a very large message to download. If you are a dialup user with a large attachment, this SUCKS. The world's greatest and most innovative software company can't figure this out, apparently.
Every single version I've seen refuses to shutdown occasionally and gets stuck sometimes. Rebooting is not a productivity-enhancer.
It has an address book and a calendar that work with the mail client. Big deal, it's hardly rocket science. If you spend way too much money on corporate servers, you can get all these things working together for a group of people.
It would be nice if a groupware project could start as a web-based version of this, refine itself and get really slick, then write a couple servlets (java or c) that can puke out this data for clients that need; email and ldap get you partway there, so the calendaring part would be nice. These projects are making real progress, and not a moment too soon. It would solve a whole bunch of business problems for a whole bunch of people. And that is what this article is about, not a bunch unjustified Outlook fandom. The only reason I have that no such project is really mature yet is that it's a lot of boring programming.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
OK, finally the eternally redundant "I'm gonna patent air" post has made its way into a story. Can we kill that crap forever?
Hey, I'm gonna patent "I'm gonna patent" posts and refuse to license it just to save valuable moderator points squashing those posts! It's repetetively redundant!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I'll be honest, I grade virus writers several layers below pond scum, the NSA and Barney.
I was with you til the last one. I mean, Barney. That's pretty bad.
But you are definitely right. Viruses don't affect me personally, but the folks who work with me need a little protection.
I just got John Hardin's procmail sanitizer for a procmail/sendmail setup and initially, it looks very good. You can get it at : ftp://ftp.rubyriver.com/pub/jhardin/antispam/procm ail-security.html
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The myth of the "liberal" media is as stale as Rush Limbaugh's underpants. It's as dated as Donahue.
Since the earliest days of "Crossfire" they've always paired authentic right-wing extremists, e.g. Pat "What Holocaust?" Buchanan, with moderate to centrist representatives of the left, e.g. Michale Kinsley.
Given the supposed liberal bias of the media, how do you explain the fawning coverage of Microsoft over the past decade? How do you explain the uncritical coverage of every single military action since the first Bush administration? How do you explain Wen Ho Lee? How do you explain the free ride given to NYC Mayor Giuliani? How do you explain the non-coverage of Ralph Nader? The way you explain everything; if the press agrees with you, obviously their arms were twisted by legions of Americans rubbing their faces in the stars and stripes of reality, while if the press disagrees with you, it's some weird conspiracy. Reality is not so black-and-white, unfortunately for you.
The media is, more than ever, controlled by a few corporations, less inclinded to do real journalism regardless of the political conclusions, and more ratings-driven than any time in decades. In this climate, presenting any thoughtful point of view will not get you far at all. Fox News gets crap for sensationalistic, crappy reporting, not for their conservative yakkety-yaks. Of course, you seem to confuse the yakking of pundits with "news", but then again, that's the real problem. As long as you're focused on the bow-tie count among the punditry, you're not really paying attention to the coverage of real news stories, which makes you their patsy after all.
The point is, there is substantial reason to see the coverage of the Napster decision as evidence of a bias. The decision really is better for Napster than the screaming headlines would have you think. Unlike you, I don't need any grand conspiracy or parroted, strained allegations of bias to explain their slant. It's very simple; bad news for Napster is more exciting, and gets better ratings.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It's not a crazy idea, but it's not terribly feasible, either. Since a lot of Napster tracks are just the same files being traded over and over again, this would enable blacklisting certain mp3s, but a mere re-recording might be completely different. The mp3 compression itself would enable you to re-rip the track and the end files wouldn't be all that similar. Or just re-encode from a wav using a different encoder and get a very different result. So you'd have to decompress to wav and analyse that. Watermarks wouldn't survive long, but an overall analysis of the wav would enable fairly accurate automated identification.
But there are several problems with this; huge CPU requirements, huge temporary space requirements, and - most important - Napster doesn't have the files in the first place.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Other than your leading comment ("I don't agree that MP3 piracy is fair use"; who would? Piracy is not fair use by definition, so this is arguing the conclusion), I have to agree with you about this.
The precedents that would be set were Napster to use would be horrible. What is particularly outrageous is that the overreaching DMCA already addresses the proper way to handle this; copyright owners notify, in writing, that an infringement is occurring, and Napster, in an ISP-like role, has 24 hours to stop the infringement, which in this case means cancelling the user account.
Worse, space-shifting will be dead, fair use will be dead, the presumption of innocence will have been dealt a mean blow, and all digital expression will be presumed to be infringing unless backed with a Fortune 500 logo, and this will be backed up with technology as well as laws, thus freezing freedom of expression to the analog universe. Which means that an entire nascent culture, one which frees us from being passive consumers, will be ruthlessly annihilated.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You are right. It is not flamebait, it is a troll.
If the author hadn't done so many beer bongs during his "college days" he might remember that hard drive space and CPUs were similarly limited in capacity/power and price. BFD; that doesn't make Western Digital a good investment or a stellar innovator.
If they are such a glorious company, why does this fatuous missive contain NO explanation of the fantastic breakthroughs they made, or details of the failures of other companies involved in RAM technology, or descriptions of their daring attempts to do what was regarded by most as impossible? Had any of these things taken place, the post would likely rise to at least a two or three despite its dissenting view and a lot fewer people would be trashing their extremely questionable patents.
You haven't been around here much, have you? If you had, you would know that individual moderators have no ability to re-think their moderations, and that lame cries for help against unfair moderation only occur in grossly and obviously unfair cases, and that doesn't apply here.
You claim that "mabey [sic] he is just informed." Well, why on earth wouldn't he share such valuable information, then, instead of trying to impress a few people with his age, and making a really long comment that could be distilled to "RAM used to be expensive. That is why I think they are a good company." You state "I am sure he has a reason to invest in them." I am sure he does, but since there are no good reasons in his post, it's fair to assume that his reason isn't a very good one.
Add his stinky post, stir in your complaints, and I smell astroturf.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Viewing pornography perhaps doesn't hurt the viewer, but the person who is performing the pornography is often forced into the situation due to lack of money/lack of education about alternatives.
You know, hauling garbage for a living
is dirty and dangerous (and in NYC
at least, more likely to bring you into
contact with organized crime), and
people are more or less ALWAYS forced
into the situation due to lack of money
and education, but I don't hear you
recommending that we outlaw garbage.
And judging by the cast of "Friends", I'd say that it appears to push the actors into drug use and eating disorders, both of which can kill. So then you'd be in favor of banning it, right?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Not only that, but the pipe bombs in Columbine didn't work. When I was a kid we got our bomb-making instructions from government documents at the library and they worked.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
In the era where anyone can spend all day downloading stuff from Napster, this is, frankly, bullshit.
There is a constant problem getting qualified tech support for just Windows, so they really can't afford to have some dangerous freak sitting around waiting to get a phone call for Linux help. It's just about reducing
Since most cable ISPs cap upload speeds at far slower than the download speeds, they frankly don't have to care very much what software you are running, or worry about you "running servers" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Of course, to "install" the software (use DHCP; BFD), they "require" you to have Mac or Windows.
I've been through the process twice with Roadrunner. The first time, I let them do it on a Windows machine, and I dealt with FreeBSD later. But I realized it was a mistake to even mention my OS; I finally just let them think it was Linux. The second time, since I knew it is just DHCP, I "forgot to leave the laptop at home," and told them that "Roadrunner is already installed on my computer." They left a 6 inch patch cable as payback, so I just cut my own, and everything works just fine.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Well, it will be lazy admins who suffer from this... In particular - this is in the article, should you ever decide to read it - the nature of the flaw prevents the buffer overflow from using certain instructions, which means that it's sufficiently hard to write an exploit for this that none are currently known. So the skript kiddiez are probably not going to get their heartz dezire this time.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I agree that the idea needs refining, but this is far better than the existing extortion practiced via blank cassette tapes. Since Napster can track actual downloads, smaller artists - even ones unprotected by the ASCAP/BMI mafia - have a shot at getting their share. The current system overwhelmingly favors mega-artists, since it tracks based on really lame criteria - self-reporting by radio stations and the like. This means that if you aren't likely to get played on that one day, you don't get tracked ever. Add in radio programming suckiness and you get a system that screws smaller artists.
The fact that real musicians might finally get some real compensation is enough to make me do a double take on this one, although the fact that other uses exist makes me do a double-take. It's probably better "taxed" through some kind of bandwidth accounting at the ISP level or the like; that has lots of problems, too, but it's clear that this whole area deserves a lot more thought than is currently being given to it.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Software has been struggling for years to take some ideas from manufacturing industry, and it has still not achieved it.
This is a very interesting observation. A lot of persistent failure can be attributed to the use of the wrong metaphor.
The question is, what would be a better metaphor?
On the other hand, software is like designing a new product, if you consider the coding to be part of the design - and the production to be non-existent.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
This is good advice, which I have also received from lawyers.
Contracts like this presented after you already work there are completely bogus. I'd get a verbal admission from someone who matters that such a contract isn't worth it's weight in toilet paper before signing it, though. It's not necessary to be a troublemaker, but if they're trying to pull a snowjob on you, you're better off leaving than putting up with a bunch of scam artists.
I've learned, also, that simply crossing out the parts you object to, initialling your X marks, and sending it back is a good way to win the war of patience. They will sometimes be happy just to have a signed piece of paper, so they can pretend to have done their jobs, and you don't agree to things you don't intend to agree to. Make sure to have a personal photocopy.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Closing the implementation would do nothing to enhance security. It just makes analyzing and fixing problems and preventing attacks that much harder.
The things that would actually make a more secure protocol - controls to prevent spoofing and protocol-layer encryption - are in no way easier to accomplish with closing the implementation. In fact, they will be the better for the openness.
And, it's worth pointing out that the openness of TCP/IP has allowed it to become the de-facto networking protocol, period, beating out closed candidates that were arguably better protocols.
F Jackie.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the point? OpenNap doesn't need to scale in raw numbers; it's likely to move to nice-oriented servers and networks, which means less raw power and cross-traffic and humongous searches are needed to provide the perception of effectiveness to the users. That does count.
To use another analogy; using mutt in a VGA, non-X setting on a 16MB/120MHz Linux machine FEELS more effective than using outlook on a 64 MB 333MHz windowsMe machine. One is more likely to be defended as "better." The other is more likely to have the (dedicated) user feeling like it works.
It's not even worth pointing out that Napster doesn't, strictly speaking, "scale." Nothing does unless you mean "use precomputed results", which is impossible with Napster, or you mean "kinda works with a bigass hunka hunka iron."
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
They have every right to complain. Furthermore, as a taxpayer, my taxes go to subsidize those schools and those tuitions, and I don't like it, I have every right to whine and complain until your ears bleed.
The AC mentality: anyone who doesn't like anything exactly the way it is should be ridiculed and mocked. That's why you are called cowards. Real people stand and fight for their beliefs instead of accepting everything like sheep taking it from the farmer.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It will? According to the article (oh, that), it looks like paper. I think the strain is a few inches behind your eyes.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I agree that it's an unusually polite letter, but there are some nasty and unjustified claims in there, too. Like the implication that because SSH1 is supported, OpenSSH is doing a disservice to the Internet. Funny, every windows/mac FREE ssh client I've ever seen has support for SSH1 only, and until OpenSSH, every free client I've ever seen supported SSH1 only. To me, that looks an awful lot like doing the community a great service, one that he declined to. Sure, maybe that is keeping money out of his pocket, but that's just tough luck for him.
Additionally, from the recent security bulletins I've seen, OpenSSH-2.3.0 was one of the few that was not affected, while nearly all the commercial clients were, including those from ssh.com. I'm not sure glossing over that fact while implying that the free/open project is shady or insecure can be defended as polite or reasonable. It's FUDdy, that's for sure.
And what about Datafellows (an Amercian company that's operated out of Finland for export law reasons)? I know they've been calling their client and server "ssh" since about 1996. If he hasn't sued them in all this time, then the trademark is probably invalid. It appears to me to be a generic term, and he's only complaining now because he's inconvenienced by a bunch of people confused about the plethora of recent ssh bugs uncovered, and he's lashing out at an unprotected target that is giving away what he wants to sell.
It's actually pretty hard to have sympathy for him. Sure, his business is being eroded by something others are giving away, but that's business. It's his fault for not picking a better business model, like maybe giving away a client and selling the server.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Let's just give in and rename it kwijybo. Of course, it will cost thousands of extra keystrokes. Maybe I should send the Finn a bill. Or at least a reminder that he got a big head start because of bone-headed US export laws.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I demand that that damn Finn stop using "ssh", because it makes people think it's like "rsh" and encourages them to continue using that outdated, insecure protocol.
Tambourine, fooey.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
- Most versions I've seen can't even do imap
- It's too big
- It doesn't thread messages. Once you've used threaded messages for a while, you realize that it's insane to read mail any other way.
- The "save replies in folder with original" feature is nice (it would be better with threading), but in my experience it either doesn't work as advertised or isn't present. It's certainly not easy to get it this kind of thing done right, since I prefer to read in my inbox, then move to folders based on the recipient later.
- Filter rules can't be taken with you (at least they couldn't the last time I used outlook). This bites. Every time you change computers, it's like someone comes to your desk and turns the whole thing upside down.
- Junk mail filters are nice, but every now and then they throw out perfectly legitimate mail based on some secret formula. Do you know why? No, you don't.
- Most versions are very poor in informing the user about what it's doing. It just hangs forever waiting on the network (this has improved in more recent versions). It doesn't alert you if you have a very large message to download. If you are a dialup user with a large attachment, this SUCKS. The world's greatest and most innovative software company can't figure this out, apparently.
- Every single version I've seen refuses to shutdown occasionally and gets stuck sometimes. Rebooting is not a productivity-enhancer.
It has an address book and a calendar that work with the mail client. Big deal, it's hardly rocket science. If you spend way too much money on corporate servers, you can get all these things working together for a group of people.It would be nice if a groupware project could start as a web-based version of this, refine itself and get really slick, then write a couple servlets (java or c) that can puke out this data for clients that need; email and ldap get you partway there, so the calendaring part would be nice. These projects are making real progress, and not a moment too soon. It would solve a whole bunch of business problems for a whole bunch of people. And that is what this article is about, not a bunch unjustified Outlook fandom. The only reason I have that no such project is really mature yet is that it's a lot of boring programming.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I just installed this and it rocks: html-trap.procmail I haven't found any complaint with it yet.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hey, I'm gonna patent "I'm gonna patent" posts and refuse to license it just to save valuable moderator points squashing those posts! It's repetetively redundant!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I was with you til the last one. I mean, Barney. That's pretty bad.
But you are definitely right. Viruses don't affect me personally, but the folks who work with me need a little protection.
I just got John Hardin's procmail sanitizer for a procmail/sendmail setup and initially, it looks very good. You can get it at : ftp://ftp.rubyriver.com/pub/jhardin/antispam/procm ail-security.html
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You are so right. No more TV for you until you've cured AIDS and cooked dinner for Zaire.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Since the earliest days of "Crossfire" they've always paired authentic right-wing extremists, e.g. Pat "What Holocaust?" Buchanan, with moderate to centrist representatives of the left, e.g. Michale Kinsley.
Given the supposed liberal bias of the media, how do you explain the fawning coverage of Microsoft over the past decade? How do you explain the uncritical coverage of every single military action since the first Bush administration? How do you explain Wen Ho Lee? How do you explain the free ride given to NYC Mayor Giuliani? How do you explain the non-coverage of Ralph Nader? The way you explain everything; if the press agrees with you, obviously their arms were twisted by legions of Americans rubbing their faces in the stars and stripes of reality, while if the press disagrees with you, it's some weird conspiracy. Reality is not so black-and-white, unfortunately for you.
The media is, more than ever, controlled by a few corporations, less inclinded to do real journalism regardless of the political conclusions, and more ratings-driven than any time in decades. In this climate, presenting any thoughtful point of view will not get you far at all. Fox News gets crap for sensationalistic, crappy reporting, not for their conservative yakkety-yaks. Of course, you seem to confuse the yakking of pundits with "news", but then again, that's the real problem. As long as you're focused on the bow-tie count among the punditry, you're not really paying attention to the coverage of real news stories, which makes you their patsy after all.
The point is, there is substantial reason to see the coverage of the Napster decision as evidence of a bias. The decision really is better for Napster than the screaming headlines would have you think. Unlike you, I don't need any grand conspiracy or parroted, strained allegations of bias to explain their slant. It's very simple; bad news for Napster is more exciting, and gets better ratings.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
But there are several problems with this; huge CPU requirements, huge temporary space requirements, and - most important - Napster doesn't have the files in the first place.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The precedents that would be set were Napster to use would be horrible. What is particularly outrageous is that the overreaching DMCA already addresses the proper way to handle this; copyright owners notify, in writing, that an infringement is occurring, and Napster, in an ISP-like role, has 24 hours to stop the infringement, which in this case means cancelling the user account.
Worse, space-shifting will be dead, fair use will be dead, the presumption of innocence will have been dealt a mean blow, and all digital expression will be presumed to be infringing unless backed with a Fortune 500 logo, and this will be backed up with technology as well as laws, thus freezing freedom of expression to the analog universe. Which means that an entire nascent culture, one which frees us from being passive consumers, will be ruthlessly annihilated.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
If the author hadn't done so many beer bongs during his "college days" he might remember that hard drive space and CPUs were similarly limited in capacity/power and price. BFD; that doesn't make Western Digital a good investment or a stellar innovator.
If they are such a glorious company, why does this fatuous missive contain NO explanation of the fantastic breakthroughs they made, or details of the failures of other companies involved in RAM technology, or descriptions of their daring attempts to do what was regarded by most as impossible? Had any of these things taken place, the post would likely rise to at least a two or three despite its dissenting view and a lot fewer people would be trashing their extremely questionable patents.
You haven't been around here much, have you? If you had, you would know that individual moderators have no ability to re-think their moderations, and that lame cries for help against unfair moderation only occur in grossly and obviously unfair cases, and that doesn't apply here.
You claim that "mabey [sic] he is just informed." Well, why on earth wouldn't he share such valuable information, then, instead of trying to impress a few people with his age, and making a really long comment that could be distilled to "RAM used to be expensive. That is why I think they are a good company." You state "I am sure he has a reason to invest in them." I am sure he does, but since there are no good reasons in his post, it's fair to assume that his reason isn't a very good one.
Add his stinky post, stir in your complaints, and I smell astroturf.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You know, hauling garbage for a living is dirty and dangerous (and in NYC at least, more likely to bring you into contact with organized crime), and people are more or less ALWAYS forced into the situation due to lack of money and education, but I don't hear you recommending that we outlaw garbage.
And judging by the cast of "Friends", I'd say that it appears to push the actors into drug use and eating disorders, both of which can kill. So then you'd be in favor of banning it, right?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Not only that, but the pipe bombs in Columbine didn't work. When I was a kid we got our bomb-making instructions from government documents at the library and they worked.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
There is a constant problem getting qualified tech support for just Windows, so they really can't afford to have some dangerous freak sitting around waiting to get a phone call for Linux help. It's just about reducing
Since most cable ISPs cap upload speeds at far slower than the download speeds, they frankly don't have to care very much what software you are running, or worry about you "running servers" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Of course, to "install" the software (use DHCP; BFD), they "require" you to have Mac or Windows.
I've been through the process twice with Roadrunner. The first time, I let them do it on a Windows machine, and I dealt with FreeBSD later. But I realized it was a mistake to even mention my OS; I finally just let them think it was Linux. The second time, since I knew it is just DHCP, I "forgot to leave the laptop at home," and told them that "Roadrunner is already installed on my computer." They left a 6 inch patch cable as payback, so I just cut my own, and everything works just fine.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Well, it will be lazy admins who suffer from this... In particular - this is in the article, should you ever decide to read it - the nature of the flaw prevents the buffer overflow from using certain instructions, which means that it's sufficiently hard to write an exploit for this that none are currently known. So the skript kiddiez are probably not going to get their heartz dezire this time.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The fact that real musicians might finally get some real compensation is enough to make me do a double take on this one, although the fact that other uses exist makes me do a double-take. It's probably better "taxed" through some kind of bandwidth accounting at the ISP level or the like; that has lots of problems, too, but it's clear that this whole area deserves a lot more thought than is currently being given to it.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Huh? FreeBSD has been using OpenSSH 2.3.0 - a non vulnerable version - since December 5.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
IIRC they call it "english kissing" so this is unlikely.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The question is, what would be a better metaphor?
On the other hand, software is like designing a new product, if you consider the coding to be part of the design - and the production to be non-existent.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Contracts like this presented after you already work there are completely bogus. I'd get a verbal admission from someone who matters that such a contract isn't worth it's weight in toilet paper before signing it, though. It's not necessary to be a troublemaker, but if they're trying to pull a snowjob on you, you're better off leaving than putting up with a bunch of scam artists.
I've learned, also, that simply crossing out the parts you object to, initialling your X marks, and sending it back is a good way to win the war of patience. They will sometimes be happy just to have a signed piece of paper, so they can pretend to have done their jobs, and you don't agree to things you don't intend to agree to. Make sure to have a personal photocopy.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Closing the implementation would do nothing to enhance security. It just makes analyzing and fixing problems and preventing attacks that much harder.
The things that would actually make a more secure protocol - controls to prevent spoofing and protocol-layer encryption - are in no way easier to accomplish with closing the implementation. In fact, they will be the better for the openness.
And, it's worth pointing out that the openness of TCP/IP has allowed it to become the de-facto networking protocol, period, beating out closed candidates that were arguably better protocols.
F Jackie.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.