Eh? So who else pays taxes in this big revenue flow we call government? Ah - I get it - tax the polluters! That'll teach 'em!...until said polluters start shifting the taxation costs to the price of goods and services. Considering that transporation will also be under the taxation gun, this means that eventually, everything you buy (even the "certified organic uber-vegan!" foods at the local natural foods store), get to carry a higher price tag. Sorry, but there is no segregation of punitive taxes from consumption taxes in the real world, even if you try to call it by a different name. It simply doesn't stand to logic that companies so taxed will simply droop their heads to the floor, apologize to the shareholders, and simply eat the cost, especially when the majority of their competitors are liable to be under the same conditions. Much, much easier to simply jack up the price and call it good, no? Sucks if you're the consumer on this chain, but them's the breaks.
So - where does all this extra money go, anyway? If you were to consider Congress as a pig farm today, you'd likely need to ramp it up to, say, the entire porcine population of Iowa as comparison to tomorrow.
"While it would certainly help to diminish population (growth), genocide is not necessary."
I think he's saying that it wouldn't happen out of necessity, but could well be an unintended consequence. The United States (among others in the Western World) is a major food exporter. That food doesn't simply transport itself, or grow in abundance because we have magical soil... it takes chemistry, gasoline/diesel, and technology to grow, harvest, and ship all that food elsewhere. Now, we not only tax the unholy crap out of the means to produce food (thereby raising all associated costs), but much of the food itself gets repurposed into this big fat energy boondoggle-in-progress we like to call "biofuel". Overall, this means less food to go around, esp. as demand for biofuel grows. So, unless someone reaches up their arse and pulls out a means to produce food that is ecologically sound, less-CO2-forming, doesn't require that one plow under yet more land, and at the same time doesn't reduce output or costs more? Good luck... I'm sure such methods can be found and put to use over time, but not in the time frame that many of the Global Warming hysterics demand.
"(buildings consume 40% of US energy, 2/3 of electricity, and their efficiency can be improved by 1/4-1/2 for
no added cost [depending upon new/existing, and other parameters]), etc."
I'm all for conservation, though I believe you're being a bit too generalistic in your stats there (e.g. many of those "buildings" are living spaces, I believe - which complicates things by quite a bit). Companies are already doing much to reduce energy use, if for no other reason than simple economics.
Okay, that makes it go down just a bit easier, but still... I thought that in order to achieve a "cult" status, a movie/book/TV show/whatever had to have some or most of the following:
* A loyal fan base willing to spread it to firends and strangers alike, and willing to spend more than the usual amount of time on promoting it (e.g. "Star Trek" during the 1970's).
* Obscurity, or at least relative obscurity (see also "Rocky Horror Picture Show", before some jackass company released it on tape/DVD and ruined the whole thing forever).
* Independence in birth, thought, and/or most aspects of the film/book/etc that makes it stand away from the 'Mainstream' (e.g. "Night of the Living Dead").
* Longevity - it has to age a bit like fine wine before it can actually have a cult to follow it (e.g. "Equilibrium", which still kicks more ass than Chuck Norris IMHO, but has been out for years now).
IMHO, calling this flick a "cult" film kinda smacks of exploitation by marketing... but then again, maybe my semantics are just off? (I'm sincerely hoping not, but...)
"And all of these arguments are stupid because belief in evolution or creation are, like anything cultural, not inborn but rather learned."
But there's the problem - you assume that because learned behaviors are different from genetic/inborn behaviors, this will somehow negate the final result, which it will not.
Though apparently lots of folks thought the parent poster was flamebait, and the way he stated it was provocative, there is something in there that cannot be easily dismissed...
(bear with me here - but first, set aside your ideology, whatever it may be...)
The vast majority of atheists are pro-choice, yes? The vast majority of fundamentalist type Christians are pro-life, yes? If I am wrong in these, please say so.
If the atheist demographic practices abortion/contraception regularly, and/or prefers a heavily-involved career to childbirth and family? The progeny will comprise a smaller pool of humans than those born of those that believe in having large families and not even bothering with contraceptives (let alone abortion).
Note that "fittest" does not necessarily mean "most intelligent", or "what ideology I think is best", or anything beyond "most able to survive, reproduce, and therefore increase a given species' numbers".
This alone is either proof of natural selection at work - or it is proof that it is not, if you assume "fittest" to be "best" in more than just the reproductive aspect. It doesn't matter whose laws (natural or supernatural) you believe to be supreme here - it is a simple chain of causation that I would actually love to see someone try to refute, instead of merely recoiling in fear and anger and shouting "flamebait!".
Actually no... the DL-580 is the Intel variant, and the DL-585 is the Opteron variant (I used to work w/ the 585's @ my previous employer, and the way HP did NUMA on the thing made it an occasional ECC Chipkill nightmare).
/P
Re:My favorite one... (URL missing... here it is):
on
Nano Scale Artworks
·
· Score: 1
(this also means there won't be much uranium in asteroids, in case space enthusiasts want to mention mining those for the uranium).
s'okay - pretty much any modern competent book on space engineering/colonization/etc will flat-out tell you that Uranium is a non-starter as a profitable mining material. OTOH, with the typical carbonaceous asteroid or the common abundance of methane, it souldn't be impossible to synthesize some good ol' fashioned petroleum (for plastics though... as a space fuel it'd be really wasteful, esp. wasteful of oxygen). Most of us space nuts prefer solar as a primary source for the near-term anyway... I mean, it's kinda hard to deny the possiblity of using that big-arsed continuous fusion reactor already cooking along up there, not even 95 million miles off.
Hrm... I wonder if Mars or any navigable planetary moos have uranium lurking in 'em? I suspect that by the time we actually find out for certain and could make use of any, we'd already have artificial and controllable fusion figured out anyway, and wouldn't need Uranium for much in the way of power...
I remember getting quite a share of death threats and hate mail from lots of folks back in the mid-and-late '90s. It came with the territory when playing around in alt.flame and trolling other USENET groups for fun... back when trolling was actually an artform (and even educational if you did it right)- not the crude and obvious idiocy that we see today. Got lots of hate in my inbox as a result (and even more mailbombing attempts, etc etc... procmail was my bestest friend in those days...) IOW? Yeah, I was stupid.
That said, the cure for such threats was rather easy: Post the thing verbatim, along with every ounce of information you could dig up on the person. Odds were good that a sharp admin could figure out who sent it, email the ISP (back when they actually paid attention to the inbox of abuse@...), and humiliate the punk online.
Of course, back then, there were lots of advantages: it was easier to track people back then, and I'm a guy with a passion for hunting and target-shooting. I also lived in a state that had some very loose laws considering the disposition of trespassers and those who would threaten bodily harm to persons or property (Arkansas). A few simple public postings in the source's favorite newsgroups w/ all evidence, a letter to his/her ISP w/ all the evidence, and the threat-maker was gone. I had never seen anyone dumb enough to actually try for it, in spite of my (admittedly reckless habit of) publicly calling them out. Most simply went away and stayed gone. But it was a whole other Internet back then.
I suspect that OTOH a woman, who doesn't really make a hobby of pissing people off like I had, and catching crap in an Internet that has now become swamped with a cornucopia of anonymizing tools and techniques? Prolly not so easy for her to simply post and humiliate.
Props to her for posting them verbatim, though... and it's a very good start to name and shame the sources that can be found. Let the bloggers who host such stuff publicly deal with the fallout.
Though this will sound trite, I'd take such postings with a block of salt... the vast, vast majority of idiots who post such garbage don't have the nerve, transportation, or means to pull off anything that they threaten. I daresay that they're little boys who managed to squeeze off something that makes them feel big n' bad when mommy wasn't looking at their monitor.
"What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense?"
Intent, as proven or disproven before a jury at trial. If the prosecutor screws up and mis-names it, he loses.
"What is the difference between libel and parody?"
Intent, as proven or disproven in civil tort at a lawsuit.
Notice the similarities? The examples you posted as per law require either a trial or lawsuit to hammer out. You, umm, really want to have that happen on a case-by-case basis with (at level best) tens of thousands out of a porn-site ownership pool numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions?
Notice the differences? The examples you posted involve action against individuals or highly definable entities for the most part (you sue a single entity for libel, you try a single person or at most a small group of persons for murder vs. manslaughter).
"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes."
I have a coffee table book at home, called "Fille d' Joie: A History" (IIRC - I'd have to check @ home for the exact title). It contains a rich collection of stories, illustrations, photographs, personal accounts, insights, artifact images, and historical data - from prostitutes, madames, pimps, and historians throughout time. Many of the images in there are rather graphic, and there are probably more than a few sites who would dearly love to make money from displaying most of it - sites which feature pornography from a time when most folks' grandfathers probably spanked their collective monkey to 'em.
I bought it at the local bookstore, where it sat plain as day, for anyone with the funds and the means to carry it to the checkout stand. As a book, it's apparently just fine for sale in the Historical section where I found it. Online, it would likely get slapped with an ".xxx" TLD. It is after all educational, if one actually reads it. OTOH, anyone dying to get their jollies can prolly just flip through the pictures.
"Otherwise, don't do business in Utah. What's the problem here?"
So everyone there will automatically have the means to simply pack up and leave, right? (FWIW, I'd moved out of there a period of time ago). It's very similar to the anti-smoking laws that are soon to hit the state... easy enough to say "well if you want to smoke in a bar, do it in Nevada, or Wyoming, or just move elsewhere..." but for folks not able to simply do so, that's an awful big burden to place on them. I realize that we're just talking ab't pr0n here, but what happens when the subject gets more serious (e.g. anti-smoking laws getting too intrusive, etc)?
Sure, big ISP's will have local DNS servers in place (but not necessarily per-state). Now they would have to have one per state, or per county or town (in the case of selective county or municipality laws to such an effect, etc)... Do we get to the point where every single IP address user has it's own personal DNS server, and has to to correspond to a physical area just to comply? If so, we'll have to stock up on IPv6, 'cause IPv4 numbers will start getting tight much sooner than anticipated.
I'm just weighing the benefits vs. burdens, and apparently the burdens win out by a large margin IMHO.
"I know it when I see it"
-US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)
Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.
Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire.xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?
Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.
...wouldn't open proxies (and even to an extent anonymizers, depending on setup) obviate the whole ISP blocking of ".xxx", or any blocking software that parents/preachers get put on to avoid making it too easy to access?
Besides, considering the outright abuse of.org,.com, and.net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an.xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance). Unless they have some intensely strict rules w/ the registrars - more than what they propose for it (e.g. give 'em the rules required to get, say, a ".mil" extension), it won't be just for pr0n - at least not for very long, IMVHO.
Don't even get me started on the domain-squatting and name-grabbing/auctioning, either... it'd make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the 19th Century seem tame by comparison.
Considering all of that, ICANN can prolly say "nope" yet again and call it good, for all the good it'll do. Seems like a headache all-around; and when both porn industry and fundies BOTH get all ate-up about not having it, you know something's inherently wrong with the idea.
True, but it doesn't always work as advertised, especially in teh case of a half-munged registry. Say a user screws something up, thinks "reboot!", and does so... after it reboots, the registry is still hosed, and if it can get even barely to a running state (not necessarily one in which you can do anything...) Then the bad registry now gets copied over the backup, and now the once-good registry is now gone. I think (don't know for sure) that was one of the reasons and rationales for putting in the System Restore stuff when XP and Win2k3 came out - so that at least there's something to fall back on.
What is that magic, dangerous byte? If it ever existed, wouldn't be trivially easy to write a virus and scrozzle it? Where are these viruses?
You can't pump V1@grA spam or DDoS packets out of a dead machine, and malware writers are definitely in it for the cash nowadays. (IIRC, a large percentage of malware specifically hides in the registry...)
Actually, not really. from TFA: "Over the next few days, as the department, the division and consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc..."
It may have indeed been a Windows requirement that a given app and OS share a disk, at least as far as some apps go (some of which can get very picky if they don't reside in "C:\Program Files" or somesuch, but no mention was made, so...) I don't know for certain, and any further speculations on my part stop cold at "might", as stated in my original post.
I've seen a lot of systems, *nix and Windows where proper partitioning of drives hasn't happened."
I agree with you - I've seen more than a few myself on nearly all OSes, and have had to correct more than a few when it opportunity came to rebuild/re-organize the box.
"Even then the article only states that the drive containing the data was erased; it mentions nothing about the OS being on the same drive."
This niggles me, though... Why would he ever have to "reformat" a data-only partition (and "...mistakenly reformatted the backup drive, as well")? Making more space, or repairing a busted/corrupted disk (hence my mention of RAID) I could understand, but the FA merely says that he reformatted it. Blew it away. Could be that the "drive" was being upgraded size-wise, but even in tech-illiterate reporter's hands, "reformat" is understood well enough to carry some information with it. So, this leads us back to: why would you reformat a partition that only contained data?
Admin stupidity happens on all platforms
Again, agreed perfectly, and I would never assume otherwise.
Microsoft is taking you seriously now - you better start doing the same thing.
True... though IMHO, they've done far too much generalizing. I know a lot of small businesses who use far more than just "50%" Linux in the server room.
I also know that MSFT is going to have a hard fight ahead of them if they want converts. Seriously - the small business IT guys have to fight tooth-and-nail for things like backup tapes and mice... showing the boss just how big of a check he's going to have to write to implement and support an MS-only solution would be enough to make most small-business owners I know turn white in fear for their cash flows. Oh, and did we mention licensing and increased vigililance against an eventual BSA audit if we went that deep into properietary-land? Bad enough that the desktop OEM licensing has to all be kept on file and adhered to worse than SOX - now we get to keep track of CALs and Server licenses. Finish it off with "Well sir, with the extra patching and maintenance that Windows demands, I'm going to need an assistant on the payroll, and here's why... (includes list of patches requiring reboot, patching frequency, increased backup times, downtime/slowtime required to do halfway decent disk defrags in Windows, time it takes to do all the other similar functions on each OS, etc etc).
While I don't discount the seriousness and increasing desperation with which Microsoft is wanting to fight off Linux, pointing out their own product will very likely damn them more than anything else.
"Sysadmin who just wants the sh!t to work as advertised, so he uses Linux to do it"
(that, and it's not "just over 50% Linux" up in this piece... it's more like 80-90% Linux and 5% Free/OpenBSD in the server room, and 50%+ Linux desktop usage in my particular corner of the company. Interesting thing is, my last employer had similar stats in their server environments as well).
That has got to rank up there w/ the all-time worst 'oh-shit' moments in that poor bastard's career (if it still exists). I wonder what the sysadmin was thinking, storing data on the same partition as the OS. No sane production environment rig that I know of would (or at least should) have that. It may be a Windows thing, but on most servers I've dinked with, the OS sat on a pair of RAID disks by itself, and all the data sat on the monster pile of disks on their own logical RAID drive (at least RAID 5... 5+0 w/ a hot spare preferred).
That, or you'd think they'd at least have that kind of stuff stored on more than one server if it were that valuable?
Slashdot Mirror
Eh? So who else pays taxes in this big revenue flow we call government? Ah - I get it - tax the polluters! That'll teach 'em! ...until said polluters start shifting the taxation costs to the price of goods and services. Considering that transporation will also be under the taxation gun, this means that eventually, everything you buy (even the "certified organic uber-vegan!" foods at the local natural foods store), get to carry a higher price tag. Sorry, but there is no segregation of punitive taxes from consumption taxes in the real world, even if you try to call it by a different name. It simply doesn't stand to logic that companies so taxed will simply droop their heads to the floor, apologize to the shareholders, and simply eat the cost, especially when the majority of their competitors are liable to be under the same conditions. Much, much easier to simply jack up the price and call it good, no? Sucks if you're the consumer on this chain, but them's the breaks.
So - where does all this extra money go, anyway? If you were to consider Congress as a pig farm today, you'd likely need to ramp it up to, say, the entire porcine population of Iowa as comparison to tomorrow.
"While it would certainly help to diminish population (growth), genocide is not necessary."
I think he's saying that it wouldn't happen out of necessity, but could well be an unintended consequence. The United States (among others in the Western World) is a major food exporter. That food doesn't simply transport itself, or grow in abundance because we have magical soil... it takes chemistry, gasoline/diesel, and technology to grow, harvest, and ship all that food elsewhere. Now, we not only tax the unholy crap out of the means to produce food (thereby raising all associated costs), but much of the food itself gets repurposed into this big fat energy boondoggle-in-progress we like to call "biofuel". Overall, this means less food to go around, esp. as demand for biofuel grows. So, unless someone reaches up their arse and pulls out a means to produce food that is ecologically sound, less-CO2-forming, doesn't require that one plow under yet more land, and at the same time doesn't reduce output or costs more? Good luck... I'm sure such methods can be found and put to use over time, but not in the time frame that many of the Global Warming hysterics demand.
"(buildings consume 40% of US energy, 2/3 of electricity, and their efficiency can be improved by 1/4-1/2 for no added cost [depending upon new/existing, and other parameters]), etc."
I'm all for conservation, though I believe you're being a bit too generalistic in your stats there (e.g. many of those "buildings" are living spaces, I believe - which complicates things by quite a bit). Companies are already doing much to reduce energy use, if for no other reason than simple economics.
* A loyal fan base willing to spread it to firends and strangers alike, and willing to spend more than the usual amount of time on promoting it (e.g. "Star Trek" during the 1970's).
* Obscurity, or at least relative obscurity (see also "Rocky Horror Picture Show", before some jackass company released it on tape/DVD and ruined the whole thing forever).
* Independence in birth, thought, and/or most aspects of the film/book/etc that makes it stand away from the 'Mainstream' (e.g. "Night of the Living Dead").
* Longevity - it has to age a bit like fine wine before it can actually have a cult to follow it (e.g. "Equilibrium", which still kicks more ass than Chuck Norris IMHO, but has been out for years now).
IMHO, calling this flick a "cult" film kinda smacks of exploitation by marketing... but then again, maybe my semantics are just off? (I'm sincerely hoping not, but...)
But there's the problem - you assume that because learned behaviors are different from genetic/inborn behaviors, this will somehow negate the final result, which it will not.
(bear with me here - but first, set aside your ideology, whatever it may be...)
The vast majority of atheists are pro-choice, yes? The vast majority of fundamentalist type Christians are pro-life, yes? If I am wrong in these, please say so.
If the atheist demographic practices abortion/contraception regularly, and/or prefers a heavily-involved career to childbirth and family? The progeny will comprise a smaller pool of humans than those born of those that believe in having large families and not even bothering with contraceptives (let alone abortion).
Note that "fittest" does not necessarily mean "most intelligent", or "what ideology I think is best", or anything beyond "most able to survive, reproduce, and therefore increase a given species' numbers".
This alone is either proof of natural selection at work - or it is proof that it is not, if you assume "fittest" to be "best" in more than just the reproductive aspect. It doesn't matter whose laws (natural or supernatural) you believe to be supreme here - it is a simple chain of causation that I would actually love to see someone try to refute, instead of merely recoiling in fear and anger and shouting "flamebait!".
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blsux.htm
s'okay - pretty much any modern competent book on space engineering/colonization/etc will flat-out tell you that Uranium is a non-starter as a profitable mining material. OTOH, with the typical carbonaceous asteroid or the common abundance of methane, it souldn't be impossible to synthesize some good ol' fashioned petroleum (for plastics though... as a space fuel it'd be really wasteful, esp. wasteful of oxygen). Most of us space nuts prefer solar as a primary source for the near-term anyway... I mean, it's kinda hard to deny the possiblity of using that big-arsed continuous fusion reactor already cooking along up there, not even 95 million miles off.
Hrm... I wonder if Mars or any navigable planetary moos have uranium lurking in 'em? I suspect that by the time we actually find out for certain and could make use of any, we'd already have artificial and controllable fusion figured out anyway, and wouldn't need Uranium for much in the way of power...
That said, the cure for such threats was rather easy: Post the thing verbatim, along with every ounce of information you could dig up on the person. Odds were good that a sharp admin could figure out who sent it, email the ISP (back when they actually paid attention to the inbox of abuse@...), and humiliate the punk online.
Of course, back then, there were lots of advantages: it was easier to track people back then, and I'm a guy with a passion for hunting and target-shooting. I also lived in a state that had some very loose laws considering the disposition of trespassers and those who would threaten bodily harm to persons or property (Arkansas). A few simple public postings in the source's favorite newsgroups w/ all evidence, a letter to his/her ISP w/ all the evidence, and the threat-maker was gone. I had never seen anyone dumb enough to actually try for it, in spite of my (admittedly reckless habit of) publicly calling them out. Most simply went away and stayed gone. But it was a whole other Internet back then.
I suspect that OTOH a woman, who doesn't really make a hobby of pissing people off like I had, and catching crap in an Internet that has now become swamped with a cornucopia of anonymizing tools and techniques? Prolly not so easy for her to simply post and humiliate.
Props to her for posting them verbatim, though... and it's a very good start to name and shame the sources that can be found. Let the bloggers who host such stuff publicly deal with the fallout.
Though this will sound trite, I'd take such postings with a block of salt... the vast, vast majority of idiots who post such garbage don't have the nerve, transportation, or means to pull off anything that they threaten. I daresay that they're little boys who managed to squeeze off something that makes them feel big n' bad when mommy wasn't looking at their monitor.
(I gotta stop feeding this damned horror flick habit, I really do...) /P
*sigh*... I am so disappointed in you people.
Intent, as proven or disproven before a jury at trial. If the prosecutor screws up and mis-names it, he loses.
"What is the difference between libel and parody?"
Intent, as proven or disproven in civil tort at a lawsuit.
Notice the similarities? The examples you posted as per law require either a trial or lawsuit to hammer out. You, umm, really want to have that happen on a case-by-case basis with (at level best) tens of thousands out of a porn-site ownership pool numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions?
Notice the differences? The examples you posted involve action against individuals or highly definable entities for the most part (you sue a single entity for libel, you try a single person or at most a small group of persons for murder vs. manslaughter).
"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes."
I have a coffee table book at home, called "Fille d' Joie: A History" (IIRC - I'd have to check @ home for the exact title). It contains a rich collection of stories, illustrations, photographs, personal accounts, insights, artifact images, and historical data - from prostitutes, madames, pimps, and historians throughout time. Many of the images in there are rather graphic, and there are probably more than a few sites who would dearly love to make money from displaying most of it - sites which feature pornography from a time when most folks' grandfathers probably spanked their collective monkey to 'em.
I bought it at the local bookstore, where it sat plain as day, for anyone with the funds and the means to carry it to the checkout stand. As a book, it's apparently just fine for sale in the Historical section where I found it. Online, it would likely get slapped with an ".xxx" TLD. It is after all educational, if one actually reads it. OTOH, anyone dying to get their jollies can prolly just flip through the pictures.
"Otherwise, don't do business in Utah. What's the problem here?"
So everyone there will automatically have the means to simply pack up and leave, right? (FWIW, I'd moved out of there a period of time ago). It's very similar to the anti-smoking laws that are soon to hit the state... easy enough to say "well if you want to smoke in a bar, do it in Nevada, or Wyoming, or just move elsewhere..." but for folks not able to simply do so, that's an awful big burden to place on them. I realize that we're just talking ab't pr0n here, but what happens when the subject gets more serious (e.g. anti-smoking laws getting too intrusive, etc)?
Sure, big ISP's will have local DNS servers in place (but not necessarily per-state). Now they would have to have one per state, or per county or town (in the case of selective county or municipality laws to such an effect, etc)... Do we get to the point where every single IP address user has it's own personal DNS server, and has to to correspond to a physical area just to comply? If so, we'll have to stock up on IPv6, 'cause IPv4 numbers will start getting tight much sooner than anticipated.
I'm just weighing the benefits vs. burdens, and apparently the burdens win out by a large margin IMHO.
(but then, certain there are certain firearms afficinadoes who would argue with me on that point...)
-US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)
Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.
Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?
Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.
Besides, considering the outright abuse of .org, .com, and .net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an .xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance). Unless they have some intensely strict rules w/ the registrars - more than what they propose for it (e.g. give 'em the rules required to get, say, a ".mil" extension), it won't be just for pr0n - at least not for very long, IMVHO.
Don't even get me started on the domain-squatting and name-grabbing/auctioning, either... it'd make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the 19th Century seem tame by comparison.
Considering all of that, ICANN can prolly say "nope" yet again and call it good, for all the good it'll do. Seems like a headache all-around; and when both porn industry and fundies BOTH get all ate-up about not having it, you know something's inherently wrong with the idea.
Dunno about him, but... I'm crazy, not stupid.
You can't pump V1@grA spam or DDoS packets out of a dead machine, and malware writers are definitely in it for the cash nowadays. (IIRC, a large percentage of malware specifically hides in the registry...)
mount shows this bad boy as line 1:
fdisk -l picks up:
Disk /dev/hda: 80.0 GB, 80060424192 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9733 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 14 9733 78075900 8e Linux LVM
Don't look now, your bias is showing.
Actually, not really. from TFA:
"Over the next few days, as the department, the division and consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc..."
It may have indeed been a Windows requirement that a given app and OS share a disk, at least as far as some apps go (some of which can get very picky if they don't reside in "C:\Program Files" or somesuch, but no mention was made, so...) I don't know for certain, and any further speculations on my part stop cold at "might", as stated in my original post.
I've seen a lot of systems, *nix and Windows where proper partitioning of drives hasn't happened."
I agree with you - I've seen more than a few myself on nearly all OSes, and have had to correct more than a few when it opportunity came to rebuild/re-organize the box.
"Even then the article only states that the drive containing the data was erased; it mentions nothing about the OS being on the same drive."
This niggles me, though... Why would he ever have to "reformat" a data-only partition (and "...mistakenly reformatted the backup drive, as well")? Making more space, or repairing a busted/corrupted disk (hence my mention of RAID) I could understand, but the FA merely says that he reformatted it. Blew it away. Could be that the "drive" was being upgraded size-wise, but even in tech-illiterate reporter's hands, "reformat" is understood well enough to carry some information with it. So, this leads us back to: why would you reformat a partition that only contained data?
Admin stupidity happens on all platforms
Again, agreed perfectly, and I would never assume otherwise.
True... though IMHO, they've done far too much generalizing. I know a lot of small businesses who use far more than just "50%" Linux in the server room.
I also know that MSFT is going to have a hard fight ahead of them if they want converts. Seriously - the small business IT guys have to fight tooth-and-nail for things like backup tapes and mice... showing the boss just how big of a check he's going to have to write to implement and support an MS-only solution would be enough to make most small-business owners I know turn white in fear for their cash flows. Oh, and did we mention licensing and increased vigililance against an eventual BSA audit if we went that deep into properietary-land? Bad enough that the desktop OEM licensing has to all be kept on file and adhered to worse than SOX - now we get to keep track of CALs and Server licenses. Finish it off with "Well sir, with the extra patching and maintenance that Windows demands, I'm going to need an assistant on the payroll, and here's why... (includes list of patches requiring reboot, patching frequency, increased backup times, downtime/slowtime required to do halfway decent disk defrags in Windows, time it takes to do all the other similar functions on each OS, etc etc).
While I don't discount the seriousness and increasing desperation with which Microsoft is wanting to fight off Linux, pointing out their own product will very likely damn them more than anything else.
(that, and it's not "just over 50% Linux" up in this piece... it's more like 80-90% Linux and 5% Free/OpenBSD in the server room, and 50%+ Linux desktop usage in my particular corner of the company. Interesting thing is, my last employer had similar stats in their server environments as well).
That, or you'd think they'd at least have that kind of stuff stored on more than one server if it were that valuable?