From the prices page. But, actually, I'm referring to Linux desktops.
I don't generally think of Linux servers as having arbitrary per-connection limits, although that's probably where the "100 users" comes from. Since the "package" says it comes with Novell Desktop 9, and then makes the "up to" 100 users claim, it may be easy to confuse the two.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without the supervision of a licensed engineer.
As a denizen of Tulsa who has, in fact, read the statute which is probably in question here, I believe an exception has been made. Pressure vessels under a certain diameter are now completely unregulated.
While you're right that the submitter's speculation about RFID is completely at-odds with the actual article, dumber things have happened.
And, as a Slashdotter who's been on the receiving-end of some half-assed "smartcard" technology from one of those supposed "security consult firms", I think you're way off when you assume they automatically know more than anyone here.
Did you miss that part of Civics class when they explained the point of representative democracy? Fuck yeah I expect them to read EVERY FUCKING BILL because IT'S THEIR FUCKING JOBS.
If they won't do it, the rest of us will.
Some days I think Slashcode would do a better job running this fucking country than the group of 500 dipshits collectively referred to as "Congress".
So, you're saying, an organization, having been provided a list of "honeymonkey" IPs, possibly by Microsoft, can continue to use their pet exploits without fear of them being discovered and patched?
And you're saying this also gives Microsoft the plausible denyability to ignore reports of exploits that aren't discovered by their "honeymonkeys"? And, according to you, this also reduces companies' incentive to hire security experts to independently monitor for and discover said exploits, instead relying on Microsoft and their unholy alliance with this select group of hackers?
Well, that's some conspiracy theory you've concocted. I think you need to put on your "tinfoil hat", crackpot...
With the current idiocy of allowing Iran to become a fully fledged nuclear power just how long before they try to become a spaceborne power?
When they need it to be able to afford a slightly-better-than-third-world standard of living, they will. Iran doesn't exactly have vast coal deposits to rely upon for things like, you know, electricity. And, as another poster mentioned, in case they need it to prevent a certain first-world power from "liberating" any natural resources they might have from them.
The science involved will invariable trickle down. Do you have objections to the fact that airplanes benefitted from military research?
Good. I was sitting here trying to think of an example of why no one wants to invest in basic research any more. And now you've given it. Basic scientific research perhaps does, but military applications in general *don't* trickle down.
You can say "NASA" and "velcro" all you want but the fact is that we haven't commercialized half of the tech that was on a space shuttle forty years ago.
Throw in a healthy dose of "terrorism" and "the gov't needs to track everyone" and the real purpose of increased interest in near-space becomes thinly veiled.
The fact is, we're way ahead of the game in the basic research department. The only thing holding back real progress is energy supplies, and throwing money at the Army hasn't seemed to help gas prices or invent affordable solar panels. Something tells me that more massive military forays would tend to waste more energy and resources than they would produce.
Good job. You've pointed out the liberalism is inconsistent. Since liberalism is based on individual freedom, I'm not sure why you thought it wouldn't be.
Do I have the "freedom" to have multiple wives? Liberalism would say I do. "Leftists" would say I don't. Fortunately, what you've confused as "Leftists" are really just liberals.
In case you haven't noticed, true liberals have always stood up for the rights of *everyone*, not just those with whom they agree. If there's a question as to the extent of state power (which there obviously seems to be) Republicans are no more consistently "right" than "Leftists" are "left".
And even if some liberals really are "Leftists", what you point out is just the typical "put all the [people you don't like] in one place" strategy. I don't see any of those "Islamofascist" countries locking their borders and preventing people from leaving like the "Leftist" USSR did. It's too bad the US doesn't grok the concept of different states having different cultures. We seem to have been founded upon it.
I assume you're going to call up your ISP and transition your site onto dedicated machines? Isn't it worth the extra cost to be assured that some other customer of the shared server environment can't compromise your crypto key?
It may very well be. If you're running a $5,000/day site, then yeah you can't afford not to. At the very least, the cost of requesting that your ISP disable HT is very much worthwhile.
It is. Bonds are often required by government in areas that they can't legally tax.
Car insurance, for instance, is really just a bond. Government can't prohibit your right to travel, so they use liability to require a bond that is effectively a tax.
Looks like freedom of speech is going the same way. You put up a bond to be able to talk. If you say something people don't like, you lose money. If they make the bond high enough, normal people will have to lease their bonds through insurance companies, effectively paying a tax for the priviledge to communicate. No pesky "rights" to get in the way.
Actually the logic is completely correct. But you're confusing "fines", which are the result of criminal prosecution, with "damages", which are the result of civil suit.
Damages are usually limited to "actual" losses, which is exactly "the price of the shirt". Fines can be much more, but they're exacted by government, not industry cabals (see Blockbuster).
As the OP said, the savings are due to reduced *costs*. With full time employees, there are optimum schedules for when those employees work, if they are to work regularly.
A store with one employee can be open 7 hours a day, 6 days a week while only paying two hours of overtime. This could easily be a one-man business; and lots of liquor stores are. Remember, half of everyone in the US (especially in the red states) still lives in small towns.
With one full-time and one part-time employee, you could be open 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. But if one employee is sick or quits, it means closing shop. And, in the end, if you're not selling 50% more liquor, you're not making as much in profit.
Which is why this kind of "cost-cutting by reducing service" only works in industries where sales are constant, and without organized labor. If you ask me, it's an anachronism when many liquor stores are huge warehouses staffed by ten people. And I'm sure those types of liquor stores would agree.
From your subject, I was afraid you would try to argue that the US is a democracy.
Admittedly, this case had problems, regardless of the philosophies involved. I for one am glad that the Supreme Court decided to interpret the boundary between in-state and out-of-state commerce as it was intended by both the original Constitution and the 21st Amendment, by separating the concept of "delivery" from that of "sale".
Every attempt to repeal the Sunday-closing law is shot down by the liquor business.
This sounds reasonable, but really makes no sense. If there were no law forbidding it, nothing could *force* liquor stores to stay open 7 days a week. If the overhead really were that bad, stores that stayed open on Sundays would go out of business.
Your scenario is even worse than just a "bad for business" mentality, like the MPAA wanting ratings because people would stop going to movies otherwise. The kind of behaviour you suggest is indicative of wholesale collusion among the industry not only to meet the needs of their customers, but to screw their employees in the process.
For your analysis to be correct, the major players in the industry would have to have sat down, decided that they'll always sell a fixed amount of product no matter what they do, colluded to keep their costs as low as possible and lobbied for laws to enforce this collusion. I know that liquor is a highly regulated industry, but I don't think they've gone that far.
Yeah, but that would require "police work". It's much easier to just write broad, vague all-encompassing laws so that the party in power can use them against their enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
From the prices page. But, actually, I'm referring to Linux desktops.
I don't generally think of Linux servers as having arbitrary per-connection limits, although that's probably where the "100 users" comes from. Since the "package" says it comes with Novell Desktop 9, and then makes the "up to" 100 users claim, it may be easy to confuse the two.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without the supervision of a licensed engineer.
As a denizen of Tulsa who has, in fact, read the statute which is probably in question here, I believe an exception has been made. Pressure vessels under a certain diameter are now completely unregulated.
I'd rather enjoy the idea that, every few years, half of the words in a law are randomly removed.
The only thing that would create is more efficient compression algorithms.
Although it still sounds like a decent deal, $500 only gets you support for five endusers, not 100. Each additional user is $50 in increments of five.
While you're right that the submitter's speculation about RFID is completely at-odds with the actual article, dumber things have happened.
And, as a Slashdotter who's been on the receiving-end of some half-assed "smartcard" technology from one of those supposed "security consult firms", I think you're way off when you assume they automatically know more than anyone here.
Did you miss that part of Civics class when they explained the point of representative democracy? Fuck yeah I expect them to read EVERY FUCKING BILL because IT'S THEIR FUCKING JOBS.
If they won't do it, the rest of us will.
Some days I think Slashcode would do a better job running this fucking country than the group of 500 dipshits collectively referred to as "Congress".
So, you're saying, an organization, having been provided a list of "honeymonkey" IPs, possibly by Microsoft, can continue to use their pet exploits without fear of them being discovered and patched?
And you're saying this also gives Microsoft the plausible denyability to ignore reports of exploits that aren't discovered by their "honeymonkeys"? And, according to you, this also reduces companies' incentive to hire security experts to independently monitor for and discover said exploits, instead relying on Microsoft and their unholy alliance with this select group of hackers?
Well, that's some conspiracy theory you've concocted. I think you need to put on your "tinfoil hat", crackpot...
With the current idiocy of allowing Iran to become a fully fledged nuclear power just how long before they try to become a spaceborne power?
When they need it to be able to afford a slightly-better-than-third-world standard of living, they will. Iran doesn't exactly have vast coal deposits to rely upon for things like, you know, electricity. And, as another poster mentioned, in case they need it to prevent a certain first-world power from "liberating" any natural resources they might have from them.
The science involved will invariable trickle down. Do you have objections to the fact that airplanes benefitted from military research?
Good. I was sitting here trying to think of an example of why no one wants to invest in basic research any more. And now you've given it. Basic scientific research perhaps does, but military applications in general *don't* trickle down.
You can say "NASA" and "velcro" all you want but the fact is that we haven't commercialized half of the tech that was on a space shuttle forty years ago.
Throw in a healthy dose of "terrorism" and "the gov't needs to track everyone" and the real purpose of increased interest in near-space becomes thinly veiled.
The fact is, we're way ahead of the game in the basic research department. The only thing holding back real progress is energy supplies, and throwing money at the Army hasn't seemed to help gas prices or invent affordable solar panels. Something tells me that more massive military forays would tend to waste more energy and resources than they would produce.
Good job. You've pointed out the liberalism is inconsistent. Since liberalism is based on individual freedom, I'm not sure why you thought it wouldn't be.
Do I have the "freedom" to have multiple wives? Liberalism would say I do. "Leftists" would say I don't. Fortunately, what you've confused as "Leftists" are really just liberals.
In case you haven't noticed, true liberals have always stood up for the rights of *everyone*, not just those with whom they agree. If there's a question as to the extent of state power (which there obviously seems to be) Republicans are no more consistently "right" than "Leftists" are "left".
And even if some liberals really are "Leftists", what you point out is just the typical "put all the [people you don't like] in one place" strategy. I don't see any of those "Islamofascist" countries locking their borders and preventing people from leaving like the "Leftist" USSR did. It's too bad the US doesn't grok the concept of different states having different cultures. We seem to have been founded upon it.
I assume you're going to call up your ISP and transition your site onto dedicated machines? Isn't it worth the extra cost to be assured that some other customer of the shared server environment can't compromise your crypto key?
It may very well be. If you're running a $5,000/day site, then yeah you can't afford not to. At the very least, the cost of requesting that your ISP disable HT is very much worthwhile.
Compare: making all users run as root to speed up login times.
how do you expect to *snip* get *snip* a space colonization effort?
Quietly, very quietly.
It is. Bonds are often required by government in areas that they can't legally tax.
Car insurance, for instance, is really just a bond. Government can't prohibit your right to travel, so they use liability to require a bond that is effectively a tax.
Looks like freedom of speech is going the same way. You put up a bond to be able to talk. If you say something people don't like, you lose money. If they make the bond high enough, normal people will have to lease their bonds through insurance companies, effectively paying a tax for the priviledge to communicate. No pesky "rights" to get in the way.
But would you pay them $5 per month for each person who downloads from you?
Actually the logic is completely correct. But you're confusing "fines", which are the result of criminal prosecution, with "damages", which are the result of civil suit.
Damages are usually limited to "actual" losses, which is exactly "the price of the shirt". Fines can be much more, but they're exacted by government, not industry cabals (see Blockbuster).
As the OP said, the savings are due to reduced *costs*. With full time employees, there are optimum schedules for when those employees work, if they are to work regularly.
A store with one employee can be open 7 hours a day, 6 days a week while only paying two hours of overtime. This could easily be a one-man business; and lots of liquor stores are. Remember, half of everyone in the US (especially in the red states) still lives in small towns.
With one full-time and one part-time employee, you could be open 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. But if one employee is sick or quits, it means closing shop. And, in the end, if you're not selling 50% more liquor, you're not making as much in profit.
Which is why this kind of "cost-cutting by reducing service" only works in industries where sales are constant, and without organized labor. If you ask me, it's an anachronism when many liquor stores are huge warehouses staffed by ten people. And I'm sure those types of liquor stores would agree.
From your subject, I was afraid you would try to argue that the US is a democracy.
Admittedly, this case had problems, regardless of the philosophies involved. I for one am glad that the Supreme Court decided to interpret the boundary between in-state and out-of-state commerce as it was intended by both the original Constitution and the 21st Amendment, by separating the concept of "delivery" from that of "sale".
Every attempt to repeal the Sunday-closing law is shot down by the liquor business.
This sounds reasonable, but really makes no sense. If there were no law forbidding it, nothing could *force* liquor stores to stay open 7 days a week. If the overhead really were that bad, stores that stayed open on Sundays would go out of business.
Your scenario is even worse than just a "bad for business" mentality, like the MPAA wanting ratings because people would stop going to movies otherwise. The kind of behaviour you suggest is indicative of wholesale collusion among the industry not only to meet the needs of their customers, but to screw their employees in the process.
For your analysis to be correct, the major players in the industry would have to have sat down, decided that they'll always sell a fixed amount of product no matter what they do, colluded to keep their costs as low as possible and lobbied for laws to enforce this collusion. I know that liquor is a highly regulated industry, but I don't think they've gone that far.
Yeah, but that would require "police work". It's much easier to just write broad, vague all-encompassing laws so that the party in power can use them against their enemies.
Not just 'consent', but 'informed' as well.
Does this include automatic update features? If an update breaks something, is it malware?
Is something going on behind the scenes ?
Pay no attention to that monkey... er, man... er, monkey-boy behind the curtain.
Seems to be a difference in the way the licenses deal with patent issues.
I'll bet KDE gets there first :p