The only way to win a war is to totally destroy the enemy. All out war works if your not a coward and afraid
to wield the dogs of war to full effect.
...
ALl you need for proof is to listen to the leadership of that country that BELIEVES in the 'end times' and
are doing all they can to bring about a global war.
... sounds like you're referring to the religious fruitcake sitting in the White House.
I for one am sick and tired of Xian twats going on and on about the "end times." Tell you what - we'll ship you ALL to one spot, and you can kill each other to the glory of your individual gods.
Again, you're missing the real point - money spent at ANY level on proprietary software licenses is money that organizations don't have for other purposes, such as treating sick people, etc.
Money that schools, hospitals, and governments in Africa save by not buying Microsoft porducts (and let's be honest here - the Foundation puts in appearances when Microsoft needs to snare a contract) is money available for other uses. If the Foundation were truly independent, it would recomend the use of F/LOSS, not only for the savings in icensing costs, but also for energy savings - Vista-capable machines are the worst gas guzzlers of the computer world in terms of end-user efficiency.
Won't work. They'll say "we're saving money by buying fewer bombs."
Next fiscal year: "We're buying fewer bombs to save money, but since we're buying fewer of them, they need to be larger to do the same job. We need a few billion more."
Next fiscal year (2): "Those bigger bombs need a new delivery system, so we've ordered production of a new bomber. We need $200 billion more."
Next fiscal year (3): "We're going to make the bombs smaller to save money."
Next fiscal year (4): "Those smaller bombs need a new delivery system, so we've ordered production of a new bomber. We need $400 billion more."
Next fiscal year (5): "We're going to make the bombs do extra duty by making a version that fits on cruise missiles. This will save us billions from losses due to bombers getting shot out of the sky delivering them. $500 billion, please."
Next fiscal year (6): "We need a new type of submarine to deliver those modified cruise missles. $1 Trillion please."
Next fiscal year (7): "We're going to save money by combining submarines and bombers into a joint services vehicle - a bomber-submarine. This forward-looking high-tech plan will allow lots of economies, as one vehicle can be used by both the navy and the air force. $5. Trillion"
Next fiscal year (8): "After all the redesign work, we're happy to say the bomber-submarine is a success. Unfortunately, design modifications meant that there is no room to actually carry bombs, so the bomber-sub is being re-tasked as a stealth observation platform. We need to develop new delivery vehicles to actually deliver the bombs. This will be a steal, at only $3 Trillion"
Next fiscal year (9): "Consider this a military coup. You will be allowed to stay on as long as you help us maintain the peace. We need extra funds to hire the extra manpower to help crush the tax-payer revolts. Sign here."
"Less money spent on software = more money for charity" Ahahahahahahahahaha. How many of you eggheads using Free Software has actually given the equivalent amount if you used proprietary software to charity? Huh? huh? WAHAHAHA.
The less money poor countries have to spend on proprietary software, the less need for charity, and more freedom for their people. The Foundation is there as a PR front to help encourage the use of MS products, because Microsoft ceertainly can't compete on price, performance, or quality.
RMS has it right. Proprietary software does come with chains attached. This doesn't make it "evil", but it does mean that there is a hidden cost - lack of freedom - that should be considered as well. F/LOSS also comes with another benefit not meantioned - the recipients can pay it forward AND develop their own software industry/culture using F/LOSS, something that has a much higher barrier to entry (impossibly high in many cases) if you're stuck with only closed-source products.
Every license less that a hospital or clinic has to shell out to Microsoft is that much more money that can be diverted to essentials like personnel and drugs. For those areas that are dependent on aid, licensing proprietary software can cost lives.
Is it so bad that Microsoft is a business? I don't see Linux fans (myself included) citing Torvald's, or Stallman's, or any other core developers' helping the poor and sick of the world.
The OLPC project would have been unthinkable if it had started oput with the required hardware specs to run Vista, and a license...
The costs savings in internet infrastructure by using F/LOSS are monies now available to be spent elsewhere... (can you imagine the twin evils of cost and unreliability if the Internet, and all your ISP's servers, had been built atop Win95 boxes?).
What I find ironic is that so many are criticizing RMS for what he looks like, or what they *think* he said, based on the summary. Neither is pertinent.
Don't forget - we have no-fault divorce here. Judges are not interested in hearing "who is in the wrong" or "he said - she said". But yeah, a loser for sure. Pix would have made for an interesting family reunion. Then again, they *were* keeping it in the family..:-)
Recovering data != forensics. For example, you want to determine not just what the data was, but WHEN it was written, whether it was subsequently altered and any attempts to mask said alterations.
This *may* involve recovering data, but then again, it may not.
Forensics could involve, among other things, manually walking the chain of file nodes, checking atimes, looking for nodes that were previously part of the chain and later dropped, etc. In other words, you don't just want the current complete file - you're looking for traces of what it may have looked like in the past, as well as any intermediary or temporary files. Going past the EOF marker to see what's left in the "slack" is another example. Often, the slack contains bytes from previous incarnations of other files.
More like Not Safe For net, and with a "backbone" of only 56kbps, it really was "not safe for net"... People already had 9600kbps modems even back then (though they cost something like $700 a piece when they first came out - you could get a "cheaer" 2400bps for *only* $250).
[X] Sorry for the typo. I was doing other stuff at the same time... it's a holiday up here in Canuckistan...
Also, another missing option: 11. "The solution is $INSERT_BUZZWORD"... people seem to think that xml (to pick just one example) is like magic pixie dust, is faster than a speeding binary transfer, can leap over tall databases in a single bound, etc., when in some situations it's just kryptonite.
Neither Texas nor US law applies in Canada, Mexico, or India.
It's one of the reasons why Canada, under PIPEDA, forbids the transfer and processing of personal records in the US - Canadian privacy laws don't apply there.
... because everyone knows TV is for old people and Koreans.
Actually, I read the article, and I've only seen one of the shows they talk about - Scrubs... and even that, I haven't watched in a year.
What I found interesting was that Faux News has the oldest viewership - that explains John McCain, in a weird sort of way. they're just serving up material for their target demographic - the Polygrip set.
"I'm mandated to inspect your files for contraband, here's my license!"
"I'm mandated to tell you to get stuffed. Meet my friend, Louisville Slugger."
Effective privacy legislation is what you really need. Up here (Quebec) private investigators aren't allowed to snoop into people's private lives. No following your spouse around to dig up dirt, no making friends with someone at the DMV (ok, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec - the SAAQ) - the last employee caught giving out personal info is sitting in jail. About all that PIs *can* do nowadays is loss prevention, skip tracing, and the like.
True story - a guy who I won't name* was sitting in a car parked on the street across from his place, watching his significant other getting it on with his brother. Cops came by, asked him what we was doing, and told him he didn't have the right to spy on other people ("But it's my place!" "Doesn't matter."), and if he didn't get moving. they'd have to arrest him.
* (except to say that the only time I saw him, my impression was he's a fat, stupid, loser doper whose last name is Bromonte - I say stupid, because crooks should know better than to try to threaten someone who's honest and has no reason to hesitate before calling the cops)
It is meant to apply to those whose work involves the review and analysis of material stored on a computer.
I actually went and looked at the law itself. Yes, it applies to those whose work involves the review and analysis of material stored on a computer. That could be read to apply to pretty much anyone. Do any sysadmin work? Debug any cron jobs? Trying to find out why a partition got full? Heck, read email?
The law is really, really dumb. Especially since much "computer forensics" is just people (including cops) trained to run a few perl scripts via a nice point-n-click gui. they wouldn't know how to do a sector-by-sector analysis of a drive if you held a gun to their kids' head.
And for those who don't want to take the chance of "corrupting the morals of a minor by encouraging them to engage in a criminal activity" when they re-install Windows (hah! installing Windows *should* be a crime), you can always outsource to Canada, Mexico, or India. Just don't outsource to another state, since then you'll also run afoul of "interstate commerce to commit a crime" or some other nonsense.
If we only THOUGHT the CIO was clueless, that would be a different story. too many businesses are like septic tanks - the really big chunks (the floaters) rise to the top.
So remember, children, high visibility isn't necessarily a good thing. It might mean you're just full of shit.
McAfee is releasing the results Tuesday of its free-wheeling month-long S.P.A.M. experiment, done largely to illustrate if you didn't know already how spam is connected to malware and criminal activity, not to mention some of the slimiest marketing ever devised.
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. The woman doing the surfing is a "realtor", (they're now more commonly known as realtwhores, not "realtors" or "real estate agents"), and anti-virus vendors are helping continue the Windows near-monopoly. They need Microsoft, and Microsoft needs them. One of them (Symantec) sent me I don't know how many spams offering to protect my "Windows PC" - to which I replied "What Windows PC, you f*ckheads - stop spamming me!" They didn't. I ended up abandoning the account.
I love getting pre-paid business return envelopes in my mail. That way I can just send all the stuff that they send me right back to them. They pay to send it to me, and they pay to get it all back from me.
If it's from a spammer, do us all a favour - tape it to a box containing a cinder-block.
The [X] I don't use apt, you ignorant clod! option:
"This is an open-source virus. Please delete some files at random and pass me along to 10 friends. Please don't break the chain. One sorry person broke the chain and the next day found someone had hacked into their computer and installed Vista."
Slashdot Mirror
Poster - when talking about Iran:
I for one am sick and tired of Xian twats going on and on about the "end times." Tell you what - we'll ship you ALL to one spot, and you can kill each other to the glory of your individual gods.
What we REALLY need is a cure for religion.
Again, you're missing the real point - money spent at ANY level on proprietary software licenses is money that organizations don't have for other purposes, such as treating sick people, etc.
Money that schools, hospitals, and governments in Africa save by not buying Microsoft porducts (and let's be honest here - the Foundation puts in appearances when Microsoft needs to snare a contract) is money available for other uses. If the Foundation were truly independent, it would recomend the use of F/LOSS, not only for the savings in icensing costs, but also for energy savings - Vista-capable machines are the worst gas guzzlers of the computer world in terms of end-user efficiency.
Won't work. They'll say "we're saving money by buying fewer bombs."
Next fiscal year: "We're buying fewer bombs to save money, but since we're buying fewer of them, they need to be larger to do the same job. We need a few billion more."
Next fiscal year (2): "Those bigger bombs need a new delivery system, so we've ordered production of a new bomber. We need $200 billion more."
Next fiscal year (3): "We're going to make the bombs smaller to save money."
Next fiscal year (4): "Those smaller bombs need a new delivery system, so we've ordered production of a new bomber. We need $400 billion more."
Next fiscal year (5): "We're going to make the bombs do extra duty by making a version that fits on cruise missiles. This will save us billions from losses due to bombers getting shot out of the sky delivering them. $500 billion, please."
Next fiscal year (6): "We need a new type of submarine to deliver those modified cruise missles. $1 Trillion please."
Next fiscal year (7): "We're going to save money by combining submarines and bombers into a joint services vehicle - a bomber-submarine. This forward-looking high-tech plan will allow lots of economies, as one vehicle can be used by both the navy and the air force. $5. Trillion"
Next fiscal year (8): "After all the redesign work, we're happy to say the bomber-submarine is a success. Unfortunately, design modifications meant that there is no room to actually carry bombs, so the bomber-sub is being re-tasked as a stealth observation platform. We need to develop new delivery vehicles to actually deliver the bombs. This will be a steal, at only $3 Trillion"
Next fiscal year (9): "Consider this a military coup. You will be allowed to stay on as long as you help us maintain the peace. We need extra funds to hire the extra manpower to help crush the tax-payer revolts. Sign here."
The less money poor countries have to spend on proprietary software, the less need for charity, and more freedom for their people. The Foundation is there as a PR front to help encourage the use of MS products, because Microsoft ceertainly can't compete on price, performance, or quality.
RMS has it right. Proprietary software does come with chains attached. This doesn't make it "evil", but it does mean that there is a hidden cost - lack of freedom - that should be considered as well. F/LOSS also comes with another benefit not meantioned - the recipients can pay it forward AND develop their own software industry/culture using F/LOSS, something that has a much higher barrier to entry (impossibly high in many cases) if you're stuck with only closed-source products.
Every license less that a hospital or clinic has to shell out to Microsoft is that much more money that can be diverted to essentials like personnel and drugs. For those areas that are dependent on aid, licensing proprietary software can cost lives.
The OLPC project would have been unthinkable if it had started oput with the required hardware specs to run Vista, and a license ...
The costs savings in internet infrastructure by using F/LOSS are monies now available to be spent elsewhere ... (can you imagine the twin evils of cost and unreliability if the Internet, and all your ISP's servers, had been built atop Win95 boxes?).
And the same can be said for most Windows users - they even think they got it for free because it came with their computer ...
That's GNU/tool, you ignorant clod!
What I find ironic is that so many are criticizing RMS for what he looks like, or what they *think* he said, based on the summary. Neither is pertinent.
Don't forget - we have no-fault divorce here. Judges are not interested in hearing "who is in the wrong" or "he said - she said". But yeah, a loser for sure. Pix would have made for an interesting family reunion. Then again, they *were* keeping it in the family .. :-)
Recovering data != forensics. For example, you want to determine not just what the data was, but WHEN it was written, whether it was subsequently altered and any attempts to mask said alterations.
This *may* involve recovering data, but then again, it may not.
Forensics could involve, among other things, manually walking the chain of file nodes, checking atimes, looking for nodes that were previously part of the chain and later dropped, etc. In other words, you don't just want the current complete file - you're looking for traces of what it may have looked like in the past, as well as any intermediary or temporary files. Going past the EOF marker to see what's left in the "slack" is another example. Often, the slack contains bytes from previous incarnations of other files.
Like I said, forensics != data recovery.
More like Not Safe For net, and with a "backbone" of only 56kbps, it really was "not safe for net" ... People already had 9600kbps modems even back then (though they cost something like $700 a piece when they first came out - you could get a "cheaer" 2400bps for *only* $250).
[X] We're ALIENS! We dont HAVE ears, you ignorant clod!
It could be worse ... "You mean that wasn't the call to dinner? Well, we're hungry, and we've got this great book - How to serve Man."
[X] Sorry for the typo. I was doing other stuff at the same time ... it's a holiday up here in Canuckistan ...
Also, another missing option: 11. "The solution is $INSERT_BUZZWORD" ... people seem to think that xml (to pick just one example) is like magic pixie dust, is faster than a speeding binary transfer, can leap over tall databases in a single bound, etc., when in some situations it's just kryptonite.
I was.
It (MTV) wasn't.
Except for Weird Al videos. I'll give you that one :-)
Neither Texas nor US law applies in Canada, Mexico, or India.
It's one of the reasons why Canada, under PIPEDA, forbids the transfer and processing of personal records in the US - Canadian privacy laws don't apply there.
Actually, I read the article, and I've only seen one of the shows they talk about - Scrubs ... and even that, I haven't watched in a year.
What I found interesting was that Faux News has the oldest viewership - that explains John McCain, in a weird sort of way. they're just serving up material for their target demographic - the Polygrip set.
Two points -
"I'm mandated to tell you to get stuffed. Meet my friend, Louisville Slugger."
Effective privacy legislation is what you really need. Up here (Quebec) private investigators aren't allowed to snoop into people's private lives. No following your spouse around to dig up dirt, no making friends with someone at the DMV (ok, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec - the SAAQ) - the last employee caught giving out personal info is sitting in jail. About all that PIs *can* do nowadays is loss prevention, skip tracing, and the like.
True story - a guy who I won't name* was sitting in a car parked on the street across from his place, watching his significant other getting it on with his brother. Cops came by, asked him what we was doing, and told him he didn't have the right to spy on other people ("But it's my place!" "Doesn't matter."), and if he didn't get moving. they'd have to arrest him.
* (except to say that the only time I saw him, my impression was he's a fat, stupid, loser doper whose last name is Bromonte - I say stupid, because crooks should know better than to try to threaten someone who's honest and has no reason to hesitate before calling the cops)
I actually went and looked at the law itself. Yes, it applies to those whose work involves the review and analysis of material stored on a computer. That could be read to apply to pretty much anyone. Do any sysadmin work? Debug any cron jobs? Trying to find out why a partition got full? Heck, read email?
The law is really, really dumb. Especially since much "computer forensics" is just people (including cops) trained to run a few perl scripts via a nice point-n-click gui. they wouldn't know how to do a sector-by-sector analysis of a drive if you held a gun to their kids' head.
And for those who don't want to take the chance of "corrupting the morals of a minor by encouraging them to engage in a criminal activity" when they re-install Windows (hah! installing Windows *should* be a crime), you can always outsource to Canada, Mexico, or India. Just don't outsource to another state, since then you'll also run afoul of "interstate commerce to commit a crime" or some other nonsense.
10: No sense of humour.
s/think.KNOW/gi;
There, fixed it for you.
If we only THOUGHT the CIO was clueless, that would be a different story. too many businesses are like septic tanks - the really big chunks (the floaters) rise to the top.
So remember, children, high visibility isn't necessarily a good thing. It might mean you're just full of shit.
Coder: "How tall are you?"
CIO: "6.1"
Coder: "Gee, they're piling shit higher nowadays."
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. The woman doing the surfing is a "realtor", (they're now more commonly known as realtwhores, not "realtors" or "real estate agents"), and anti-virus vendors are helping continue the Windows near-monopoly. They need Microsoft, and Microsoft needs them. One of them (Symantec) sent me I don't know how many spams offering to protect my "Windows PC" - to which I replied "What Windows PC, you f*ckheads - stop spamming me!" They didn't. I ended up abandoning the account.
If it's from a spammer, do us all a favour - tape it to a box containing a cinder-block.
The [X] I don't use apt, you ignorant clod! option:
"This is an open-source virus. Please delete some files at random and pass me along to 10 friends. Please don't break the chain. One sorry person broke the chain and the next day found someone had hacked into their computer and installed Vista."
And their rationale for breaking the laws, whether it's the FBI, Nixon, or Bush, is "It takes a crook to catch a crook ..."
Though with Bush and his attacks on the Constitution, it needs to be updated to "It takes a terr'rist to catch a terr'rist."