IANAL, I'm a law student. Right now, Microsoft could not be sued for negligence, because no one has been hurt by their failure to exercise due care.
As soon as trade secrets are stolen, or hard drives are trashed, or economic harm takes place, however, a negligence action may arise.
The first barrier is the economic loss rule. If the contract damages are higher than the tort (negligence) damages, there is a defense to tort. In English, there's no lawsuit unless the bug costs you more than buying your copy of Windows cost you.
The next barrier is the contractual disclaimer, the "EULA" as Microsoft calls it. The waters here are less well charted. To be realistic, it depends on how severe the harm actually is.
The wild card is intentional harm. If Microsoft in fact intentionally included this bug, knowing of the danger, for the purpose of advancing their business enterprise, legal actions could arise that are not precluded by the EULA. This would be difficult to prove, however.
I think/.'s knee jerk assessment of "death of the Internet, film at 11," is premature, however. I hope I'm not wrong, but I think the bug won't prove that severe. Just browse at "medium security" in IE, for example, right?
If I were a lawyer, I would want to sue Microsoft. They have $30 billion in cash or so sitting in bank accounts. It would be more tempting for them to settle claims than it would be for an Enron, for example.
Don't worry about the legal angle. If the harm is severe enough, justice will be done.
NetWare does this, too. Net god Joe Doupnik used to regale us with his tales of technical excellence on comp.sys.novell, and this exact procedure, albeit with SCSI drives, was one that awed us every time.
Why can't Linux do this? It doesn't have anything to do with the monolithic kernel, does it?
Tapes are superior to a second hard disc drive in several categories. These include durability of media, expected lifespan of media, resistance to stray electromagnetic forces, volume/data storage ratio, price of redundant backup media, and ease of access to the data format in later years.
The trouble with using a second hard disc drive starts when you try backing up your File System Brand Y partition, and realize your second drive needs File System Brand Y, too. Then, when you want to access that data 10 years from now, you can't find software to read File System Brand Y. You're screwed. In the short run, you always have to make sure to NEVER make a mistake and overwrite good data on your backup with bad data. Don't count on beating Murphy's Law.
Tapes are different. There are fewer data formats used by tapes, and thus your chances of recovering data later on are better.
Plus, there is no chance that the file system becomes corrupt on the tape. At worst, you dump all data from tape (possible because files are written sequentially) and pick out what you need. Better than trying to recover a toasted experimental file system from the early 2000's.
As for RAID, that is for redundancy, not "backup." A backup is physically separate from your system, and is not "live." Thus, if lightning strikes your house, your entire RAID array may be toast, but your tape cartridges, off site or on site, are likely to survive.
If you use a removable hard drive for backup, you are resigning yourself to just one or two backup sets. Moreover, off-site backup will become more and more inconvenient.
Don't go with the el cheapo tape drives, like Onstream. Choose quality. Either buy a quality new tape drive if you have the cash, or get a used SCSI tape drive, such as Exabyte, DLT, or DDS-3, or whatever, from ebay or wherever.
As for the supposed problem of corruption of tapes, there's an easy solution. Don't write data to old or used tapes. Buy new, brand name tapes. Furthermore, never assume that your data is actually backed up to tape until you have successfully done a "test recovery" of the data.
Remember that the goals of backing up are peace of mind, and, in the long run, data security.
A lot of good comments. Here are some points that haven't been thoroughly addressed.
Running the fiber will increase the value of your house. That might make it worth doing even if you never use it.
While running conduit is a good alternative to fiber, do not use metal conduit. It hurts cable performance.
Placing a single CAT-5 cable in 1" metal conduit resulted in degradation of return loss, attenuation and near-end crosstalk (NEXT), three key indicators of cable performance. The cable in the tests was still within specification, but was worse in all cases when placed in conduit. Capacitive coupling between the conduit and the cable was believed to be responsible.(LINK)
If you run shielded twisted pair, or STP, instead of the usual unshielded twisted pair, or UTP, you need to ground it properly. See for example this link.
Consult your fire codes and follow them. You might need to install plenum cable in certain spaces. When in doubt, install plenum.
Whatever cable you run, leave lots of slack on each end. This is cheap insurnace against a cable problem.
Try to adhere to a standard when you install the cable, such as EIA/TIA-568 for Ethernet.
If you are worried about Echelon type spying, you will need to run fiber and take other precautions.
After buying the wireless company, Earthlink should change its name to SkyNet. Then they will become a defense contractor. Next, they will develop a certain cybernetic microchip.
Here's a site where a guy claims that Cuba is Atlantis, and that the sunken city off the Cuban coast, which he claims was discovered back in May 2001, is that very city which according to legend was submerged. (LINK).
First, can it download my e-mail? Second, can it read my e-mail, and maybe e-books, to me, using a text to speech synthesizer? Third, can it read it to me in a pleasing female voice?
I just "defragmented" my registry files and it didn't make much of a difference. Below are the steps for Windows 98, if anyone cares.
N.B. Microsoft does NOT support regclean anymore. That means do NOT use it. If you want proof, look at the bottom of (LINK).
Steps to "defragment" registry in Win 98
Go to straight MS-DOS.
Run scandisk. Run scandisk until you don't have any more errors. Don't bother with the surface scan, unless you have a really old or idiosyncratic hard disc drive.
Windows NT was originally based on Microsoft OS/2 1.3. After IBM and Microsoft jointly released Microsoft OS/2 1.3, IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways. IBM developed IBM OS/2 2.0 and higher versions. Microsoft took their failed Windows 1.x and 2.x code and their Microsoft OS/2 1.3 code, added NTFS, and came up with NT.
At least this guy didn't pull an Ashcroft. He would have "Pulled an Ashcroft" if he had accused his critics of harming the security of the data by criticizing his security measures. "Pulling an Ashcroft" is a new phrase. It is defined as saying that any criticism of a policy prevents that policy from being effective.
Today, before the Senate, John Aschroft, the Attorney General of the United States, stated in plain terms that any criticism of Ashcroft's policies of extrajudicial military tribunals and other suspensions of civil and human rights will help terrorism. (LINK).
Good stuff. I'll check out that book. Even tanks could be vulnerable, though, to a laser-equipped army, if the lasers fire fast enough and cut through depleted uranium.
The next step is to consider what would serve as an adequate defensive countermeasure to offensive laser weapons systems. Maybe high tech body armor. Albedo suits, anyone? image
The article focuses to its detriment on lasers as a defensive armament. They are more likely to be used offensively, if history is any judge.
If the article is right, and the energy supply for these lasers continue to be expensive, bulky chemicals, we may see a return to the battlefields of the 19th century, when artillery, and not air power, was most critical to warfare. Supply lines would become more important than they are today. Battlefield tactics would have to change.
Why wouldn't they mount lasers on aircraft? Maybe the chemicals are too heavy?
It's unsafe. When you crash into something at 40 mph on one of these, you will sustain serious injuries. There are no seatbelts, because there are no seats. There is a picture of someone (Kamen?) riding the thing on drudgereport.com this evening. The rider is wearing a bicycle helmet. In terms of personal safety, that won't cut it.
There is no security. If I take my people-mover to work, leaving it in the parking lot, anyone can steal it.
No cargo room. Many car trips require the driver and passengers to bring something heavy along. I don't see how this will let you carry anything, even a shoulder bag, without disrupting the balance.
The faster you go, the more bugs you eat.
If I'm wrong about any of these, I will be very happy. We could use a new form of transport.
The author has very valid advice. Yet, some moderator marked this post a "troll." That's like saying Click and Clack on NPR are opponents of the automobile industry.
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as trade secrets are stolen, or hard drives are trashed, or economic harm takes place, however, a negligence action may arise.
The first barrier is the economic loss rule. If the contract damages are higher than the tort (negligence) damages, there is a defense to tort. In English, there's no lawsuit unless the bug costs you more than buying your copy of Windows cost you.
The next barrier is the contractual disclaimer, the "EULA" as Microsoft calls it. The waters here are less well charted. To be realistic, it depends on how severe the harm actually is.
The wild card is intentional harm. If Microsoft in fact intentionally included this bug, knowing of the danger, for the purpose of advancing their business enterprise, legal actions could arise that are not precluded by the EULA. This would be difficult to prove, however.
I think /.'s knee jerk assessment of "death of the Internet, film at 11," is premature, however. I hope I'm not wrong, but I think the bug won't prove that severe. Just browse at "medium security" in IE, for example, right?
If I were a lawyer, I would want to sue Microsoft. They have $30 billion in cash or so sitting in bank accounts. It would be more tempting for them to settle claims than it would be for an Enron, for example.
Don't worry about the legal angle. If the harm is severe enough, justice will be done.
Why can't Linux do this? It doesn't have anything to do with the monolithic kernel, does it?
The trouble with using a second hard disc drive starts when you try backing up your File System Brand Y partition, and realize your second drive needs File System Brand Y, too. Then, when you want to access that data 10 years from now, you can't find software to read File System Brand Y. You're screwed. In the short run, you always have to make sure to NEVER make a mistake and overwrite good data on your backup with bad data. Don't count on beating Murphy's Law.
Tapes are different. There are fewer data formats used by tapes, and thus your chances of recovering data later on are better.
Plus, there is no chance that the file system becomes corrupt on the tape. At worst, you dump all data from tape (possible because files are written sequentially) and pick out what you need. Better than trying to recover a toasted experimental file system from the early 2000's.
As for RAID, that is for redundancy, not "backup." A backup is physically separate from your system, and is not "live." Thus, if lightning strikes your house, your entire RAID array may be toast, but your tape cartridges, off site or on site, are likely to survive.
If you use a removable hard drive for backup, you are resigning yourself to just one or two backup sets. Moreover, off-site backup will become more and more inconvenient.
Don't go with the el cheapo tape drives, like Onstream. Choose quality. Either buy a quality new tape drive if you have the cash, or get a used SCSI tape drive, such as Exabyte, DLT, or DDS-3, or whatever, from ebay or wherever.
As for the supposed problem of corruption of tapes, there's an easy solution. Don't write data to old or used tapes. Buy new, brand name tapes. Furthermore, never assume that your data is actually backed up to tape until you have successfully done a "test recovery" of the data.
Remember that the goals of backing up are peace of mind, and, in the long run, data security.
Running the fiber will increase the value of your house. That might make it worth doing even if you never use it.
While running conduit is a good alternative to fiber, do not use metal conduit. It hurts cable performance.
If you run shielded twisted pair, or STP, instead of the usual unshielded twisted pair, or UTP, you need to ground it properly. See for example this link .
Consult your fire codes and follow them. You might need to install plenum cable in certain spaces. When in doubt, install plenum.
Whatever cable you run, leave lots of slack on each end. This is cheap insurnace against a cable problem.
Try to adhere to a standard when you install the cable, such as EIA/TIA-568 for Ethernet.
If you are worried about Echelon type spying, you will need to run fiber and take other precautions.
After buying the wireless company, Earthlink should change its name to SkyNet. Then they will become a defense contractor. Next, they will develop a certain cybernetic microchip.
Here's a site where a guy claims that Cuba is Atlantis, and that the sunken city off the Cuban coast, which he claims was discovered back in May 2001, is that very city which according to legend was submerged. (LINK) .
First, can it download my e-mail? Second, can it read my e-mail, and maybe e-books, to me, using a text to speech synthesizer? Third, can it read it to me in a pleasing female voice?
Why do they even call it "WordPad" when it can't handle Word files? It's a crock.
N.B. Microsoft does NOT support regclean anymore. That means do NOT use it. If you want proof, look at the bottom of (LINK) .
Thank you, thank you. Thanks for your applause.
Windows NT was originally based on Microsoft OS/2 1.3. After IBM and Microsoft jointly released Microsoft OS/2 1.3, IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways. IBM developed IBM OS/2 2.0 and higher versions. Microsoft took their failed Windows 1.x and 2.x code and their Microsoft OS/2 1.3 code, added NTFS, and came up with NT.
Today, before the Senate, John Aschroft, the Attorney General of the United States, stated in plain terms that any criticism of Ashcroft's policies of extrajudicial military tribunals and other suspensions of civil and human rights will help terrorism. (LINK) .
Argh. It's true. I didn't have the "Science" slashbox checked.
I hear ya, brother. link .
My preferences can't be that screwed up. Or can they?
I see your point. Still, a laser battery's location could not be detected by Fire-Finder radar.
You know, Geraldo Rivera is carrying a laser. If he gets a chance, he's going to use it on Osama.
Is that in a combat simulator, or are you talking about actual combat? If the latter, from which battles was this statistic compiled?
The next step is to consider what would serve as an adequate defensive countermeasure to offensive laser weapons systems. Maybe high tech body armor. Albedo suits, anyone? image
If the article is right, and the energy supply for these lasers continue to be expensive, bulky chemicals, we may see a return to the battlefields of the 19th century, when artillery, and not air power, was most critical to warfare. Supply lines would become more important than they are today. Battlefield tactics would have to change.
Why wouldn't they mount lasers on aircraft? Maybe the chemicals are too heavy?
It's ugly. It looks like a push lawnmower.
It's unsafe. When you crash into something at 40 mph on one of these, you will sustain serious injuries. There are no seatbelts, because there are no seats. There is a picture of someone (Kamen?) riding the thing on drudgereport.com this evening. The rider is wearing a bicycle helmet. In terms of personal safety, that won't cut it.
There is no security. If I take my people-mover to work, leaving it in the parking lot, anyone can steal it.
No cargo room. Many car trips require the driver and passengers to bring something heavy along. I don't see how this will let you carry anything, even a shoulder bag, without disrupting the balance.
The faster you go, the more bugs you eat.
If I'm wrong about any of these, I will be very happy. We could use a new form of transport.
Where do you get the formula?
The author has very valid advice. Yet, some moderator marked this post a "troll." That's like saying Click and Clack on NPR are opponents of the automobile industry.
My post is not flamebait. It's an honest, legitimate question.
But first make sure you can boot into a different kernel next time, either from hard drive or from removable media such as floppy.
When are we going to start giving kernels to a QA team before releasing them?