This has already been addressed at RealClimate. The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable, as is the analysis itself. But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing, then please don't let me stop you.
Humulin ("Human Insulin") is produced by a recombinant DNA process which transferred the gene for human insulin production into a variety of e. coli, and was approved by the FDA in 1982 (http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/goodfor5.html). The bottom line is that we've been making human-animal hybrids for decades, they already treat some diseases and hold great promise in treating more, and legislation such as this only reinforces the image of Louisiana as a Luddite backwater.
2) I read the linked-to blurb(s)* and promptly got confused. I'm sure this is indeed some sort of breakthrough, but could some of the more mathematically-literate Slashdotters out there translate this into an explanation that the rest of us could understand? I'd particularly like to see exactly how this finding applies to real-world applications. Thanks in advance...
The "symptoms" that Michael J. Fox was exhibiting (the twitching, etc.) are not symptoms of Parkinson's Disease, they are side effects of the treatment for Parkinson's disease. It's called dyskinesias, and it's a side effect of the Dopamine used to treat Parkinson's. He stops taking the medications before public events so those side effects aren't even worse than what we saw. The symptoms of Parkinson's Disease aren't twitching and swaying, they are rigor, slight tremor (that's slight tremor, not the uncontrolled limb swaying due to the dopamine), and bradykinesia (short, stopping movements).
So no, Rush was not right. He was wrong, and to the best of my knowledge he has still not apologized. As for further analysis of his motives and morals, I defer to my more enthusiastic Slashdot brethren.
I had to do this twice (different houses, neither with cable or DSL broadband). The prices have come down drastically, but you will still pay at least $200-$300/month; maybe you can get your employer to subsidize it. The nice thing about a T1 is that it's a monitored line, which means if anything goes wrong the service provider jumps to get it fixed RIGHT NOW. Once I was moving my UPS around and unplugged it. Before I got it plugged back in to the outlet across the room the phone rang - it was my service provider, having noticed that there was a problem with the line.
You don't want to go to your local telco directly with this request; they probably don't even know how to spell T1. You want to go to one of the resellers like Speakeasy or one of the other providers whose ads occasionally appear in the Slashdot banner ad space. In fact, I'm sure that several of your fellow state residents will chime in with their opinions of local T1 providers.
For example, you cannot make a GSM-compliant phone and then plug your GSM SIM into it and talk. You simply couldn't connect to the carrier, they'd just reject to connect to your unrecognized mobile phone, unless you as a "mobile manufacturer" striked a deal with them in advance.
Sorry, that's just not so. I bought an unlocked Treo 650, stuck in my T-Mobile SIM (and T-Mobile does NOT offer the 650) and it Just Worked (tm) - like GSM is supposed to do.
I've dealt with this from the client side (i.e., I've been the one getting the code) and I can tell you that you could probably put the source on the internet and post it on billboards and it wouldn't really matter. The important thing is not so much the code itself as the architecture and structure of THE ENTIRE PRODUCT and how one would go about doing important (i.e. business related) things to it. Your customers will need training AND documentation to do this, especially if your code base is of any significant size, and since it represents "millions of dollars", it's probably fairly large and complex. So you probably don't have to worry about technological restrictions on your source code, just legal ones; "customer may not disclose to any third party..." yadda yadda yadda in the contract.
If you're still nervous about opening the family jewels, you should consider watermarking the documentation. Send it out as non-editable PDF and include a unique identifier in small innocuous type as part of each page's footer. This won't prevent a determined technology-capable thief from stealing your data, but it will give you traceability as to which client leaked it and thereby give the lawyers something (or someone) to chew on.
Interesting. While your perception seems to be that "the more visible groups are pushing for the privatization of religion so that it is silent in the public square", mine is more of that the religious right (for want of a better term) has been emboldened by their recent political successes and has been actively pushing to have their particular brand of religion enforced as common law. While you may mourn the silencing of public displays of religion, I welcome it, for the simple reason that I am NOT a member of any majority religion, and have no desire to be bombarded with messages that I don't belong, that I am somehow flawed and alien, even in the land of my birth.
The problem arises because most religions is that they are exclusionary; if you do not belong, you are an outsider, an alien, someone not necessarily to be included or trusted. With prostletyzing religions the situation gets worse; failure to accept the particular creed being offered, the very Word of God (tm), can be interpreted that you are considered an active enemy of God himself and your situation can get very ugly very fast. Now, I'm not saying that America has become a hotbed of fanatic "convert or die!" activity. But I do distinctly remember the former President Bush saying that atheists really couldn't be considered American because America is a nation under God. Talk like that, especially from a President, gives me and everyone else who isn't of the mainstream religion the willies. I ask you to try to remember that the next time you consider whether public displays of a particular faith are in the best interest of the nation and ALL of its citizens.
No, the reason we keep giving it more and more control over our lives has nothing to do with "an increasingly secular society", and is not a desire for "something to take the place of God". It's because an apparent majority of voters in this country are so woefully ignorant of history and so blindly hysterical with panic over the possibility of an attack that they have surrendered their liberty and thus their future for a cynical illusion of security.
As for the the complaint of "an increasingly secular society": we are seeing a resurgence of religion, or at least assertive dogma, over much of the world. In light of this development, this complaint starts to sound more like a self-indulgent assumption of victimhood, a straw-man argument in much the same mold as the Republican Senate, Republican House of Representatives, and Republican President of the US whining (unconvincingly) that their Great Plans (tm) are somehow being stymied by some mysterious hidden force of the Democrats. In short, I don't buy it - and I believe that I am not alone.
But I will give you one thing - you are absolutely right that government, especially this one, is not our friend.
This couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bottom-feeding scumbuckets. Don't forget that RIM (or "Lawsuits in Motion" as El Reg dubbed them) was the group of clowns who sued Palm and others for daring to infringe on their breathtakingly innovative concept of putting a little keyboard on a PDA. Screw 'em. Screw 'em right up the arse with a pile-driver, 10 metres of razor wire, and a bottle of vinegar. And whether you love software patents or hate them, this event is a rare conjunction of equal parts schadenfreude and poetic justice.
Now we just have to wait a few years for the NTP <descriptions containing far too much vitriol to ever be displayed publicly> to get their peckers handed to them in thin slices. It'll be worth it.
I have much the same problem, but I find that if I write the name down I can visualize the written name and match it to the person. Weird, I know, but it works for me.
The original poster asks "Who do Slashdot readers turn to when technology goes wrong? Do you trust them to deliver by tommorow, without fail?" My answers are "PC Connection"and "yes". I've been dealing with them for well over a decade, and they've never disappointed. Overnight shipping for a Saturday delivery will cost you, but if they have it in stock and you order it before 3am ET it will be there the next day.
Disclaimer: I'm just a customer, not affiliated with them in any other way. And yes, I realize this sounds like a blatant plug, but they've been really good for me and I figure that they might be just as good for someone else.
I live outside Boston, and from where I sit the situation is not good at all. It seems that local tech companies are still laying off people, and there's a glut of talent (or at least resumes) out there. I've been developing software since 1980 (multiple languages, multiple OS's, multiple environments), I'm pretty good at it, I've got two headhunters working with/for me and I *STILL* am basically retired. Most of my friends who still have tech jobs hate them, but are afraid to leave because they fear they won't be able to find something else. And most of my friends who HAD tech jobs are either working in another field or have left the area. Supposedly the job market has picked up in this area, but from what I've seen I'm not convinced.
1) Antec Sonata case with Antec Tru-Power 330W power supply and low-noise 92mm case fan. Essentially silent. $90 at provantage.com
2) CoolerMaster DP5-7JD1B CPU cooler. Barely audible. $10 at directron.com
3) Any Maxtor hard drive with an FDB (fluid dynamic bearing) motor. Essentially silent. ~$100 at your favorite cheapo online store.
I built this with an XP2600+ CPU, and it's quieter than the fan in my TFT display (don't ask). It makes just enough noise that I can tell that it's running, and I can still hear the quiet ticking of the clock behind me.
I would love to develop stuff with QT. Free stuff, hopefully useful stuff, that's just a compile away from being cross-platform. But unfortunately, there's just a leeetle fly in the ointment, one teeny-tiny reason why I cant:
Because it would cost me over $2000 just to TEST the damn thing!!!
You see, for various reasons I'm stuck on a Win32 development platform right now. I have access to Linux boxes, and I'd love an excuse to get another Mac, but for the time being I'm doing all my grunt work on Windows. So in order to actually do anything useful, I'd have to do at least the initial development under Windows. And that's gonna cost me. Sure, I could download the 30-day evaluation, but that puts a "Buy Me Dammit!" window up on every app, and stops working after 30 days. Not exactly conducive to development flow, eh? But if I want to see what it should look like, I'm out to the tune of $1500. And if I wanted to also test it on a Mac, well, that's $2500. At least there's a $500 discount for two platforms.
Hey Trolltech, if any of you are listening, may I respectfully make a suggestion?
You mention on your site that the reason the Linux versions are free and the Win32/Mac versions aren't is that you want to foster Linux development. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but you're going about it exactly the wrong way. The best way to get people to move to Linux is to give people who already use Windows really cool FREE applications that run on Windows but that also happen to run JUST THE SAME on Linux. And do the same for the Mac. That approach eliminates the major migration barrier of "but can I run my application on Linux?" Because with QT apps the answer would be "sure, no problem".
But the only way this would happen would be if the tools to create these cross-platform goodies were accessible to the legions of individuals and small groups who write them. And right now, the price tag puts the price of developing even free Windows and Mac programs out of their reach. So you're left with the ability to create really nice free stuff for Linux that the Windows and Mac users will NEVER EVER HEAR OF. They'll never get used to those free applications, they'll never get to like those free applications, they'll never ever realize that they can have their favorite free applications WITH the benefits of Linux. And that is the biggest shame of all, because it does nothing to promote Linux.
So my suggestion to you is to please Please PLEASE open up your licensing just a little to provide free Win32 and Mac toolkits, just like you do for Linux, to create non-proprietary applications. Please understand that I have no quarrel with your current (and eminently fair) prices for development kits used for proprietary applications. But PLEASE open up your toolkit to the little guy who just wants to create something to give back to the community but is stymied by the price tag.
This is one of those flat-out lies that won't die. If those pinheads had done even the least bit of fact-checking they would have found that this canard was the creation of RNC spin-meisters. The curious can check out these links:
FWIW, we actually get the dead-tree edition of Fast Company magazine (don't ask why, it's a long story) and it's just as slick and empty as any of the old Dot-Com business plans. These people are just a waste of ink and pulp.
Re:I dont think I would hack my car
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
True, but you'll want to die if you screw up your Tivo.:)
The DMCA essentially outlaws the kind of reverse engineering which was necessary to create (and which is necessary to maintain) SAMBA and other pieces of FOSS which interoperate with proprietary software. And it just so happens that the folks who created SAMBA (hi Tridge!) reside in Australia. Now, if I put on my tinfoil hat juuust riight I can see Microsoft stomping on the one piece of software that allows the non-MS world to coexist with Windows, and just before the next version of Windows (with its obligatory changes to the networking protocols) sees the light of day. Coincidence?
"But vendors and IT decision-makers widely believe it is too expensive to implement these more hacker-resistant security models, he [Tiemann] said."
So let me get this straight: US industry alone spent around half a billion buckaroonies cleaning up the last little virus/worm fiasco, we get about a half-dozen or so of these little gems per year, and yet it's TOO EXPENSIVE(tm) to engineer in security that would stop this kind of thing from happening?
So tell me, just who are these "vendors and IT decision-makers"? Or, to rephrase the question, just who are these drooling, incompetent, feeble-minded idiots who understand so little about security and the consequences of its failure? I'm asking because I want to make sure that i never, ever use (or heaven forbid, purchase!) any product that they have had anything to do with.
Mr. Tiemann, please tell us, did some people actually say this? Really? Because if so, we need to know which products, companies, and idiots to avoid. And I want some of what they're smoking.
I don't *think* it's a Sandisk, but it's hard to tell; it's a no-name I got on eBay. If it helps, it's gold-colored plastic in an extended (flattened) oval with a slight flare at the base.
FWIW, I've used it as a drive on Win2k and Red Hat 9.0 without problems.
I just downloaded the ISO, burned it, and tried it out. First boot was just the CD, and worked just fine (except for ethernet - see below). Second boot was with a random 256M USB keydrive plugged in; the boot sequence hung at the point where it checked for a USB keydrive, it accessed the USB drive for about a minute (I could see the light blinking) and then I got a Kernel Panic. Maybe the keydrive has to be initialized, maybe I missed something else; I'm going back to the Mandrake site for more info.
Ethernet problems; it failed to recognize my Ethernet controller, a Broadcom 440x chip built into my motherboard.
Slashdot Mirror
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
This has already been addressed at RealClimate. The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable, as is the analysis itself. But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing, then please don't let me stop you.
Humulin ("Human Insulin") is produced by a recombinant DNA process which transferred the gene for human insulin production into a variety of e. coli, and was approved by the FDA in 1982 (http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/goodfor5.html). The bottom line is that we've been making human-animal hybrids for decades, they already treat some diseases and hold great promise in treating more, and legislation such as this only reinforces the image of Louisiana as a Luddite backwater.
1) Frist Psot!
2) I read the linked-to blurb(s)* and promptly got confused. I'm sure this is indeed some sort of breakthrough, but could some of the more mathematically-literate Slashdotters out there translate this into an explanation that the rest of us could understand? I'd particularly like to see exactly how this finding applies to real-world applications. Thanks in advance...
* - Why yes, I am new here - how did you know?
BZZZZT!!! WRONG!!!!
The "symptoms" that Michael J. Fox was exhibiting (the twitching, etc.) are not symptoms of Parkinson's Disease, they are side effects of the treatment for Parkinson's disease. It's called dyskinesias, and it's a side effect of the Dopamine used to treat Parkinson's. He stops taking the medications before public events so those side effects aren't even worse than what we saw. The symptoms of Parkinson's Disease aren't twitching and swaying, they are rigor, slight tremor (that's slight tremor, not the uncontrolled limb swaying due to the dopamine), and bradykinesia (short, stopping movements).
But don't take my word for it. Look It Up.
So no, Rush was not right. He was wrong, and to the best of my knowledge he has still not apologized. As for further analysis of his motives and morals, I defer to my more enthusiastic Slashdot brethren.
I had to do this twice (different houses, neither with cable or DSL broadband). The prices have come down drastically, but you will still pay at least $200-$300/month; maybe you can get your employer to subsidize it. The nice thing about a T1 is that it's a monitored line, which means if anything goes wrong the service provider jumps to get it fixed RIGHT NOW. Once I was moving my UPS around and unplugged it. Before I got it plugged back in to the outlet across the room the phone rang - it was my service provider, having noticed that there was a problem with the line.
You don't want to go to your local telco directly with this request; they probably don't even know how to spell T1. You want to go to one of the resellers like Speakeasy or one of the other providers whose ads occasionally appear in the Slashdot banner ad space. In fact, I'm sure that several of your fellow state residents will chime in with their opinions of local T1 providers.
Good luck!
Sorry, that's just not so. I bought an unlocked Treo 650, stuck in my T-Mobile SIM (and T-Mobile does NOT offer the 650) and it Just Worked (tm) - like GSM is supposed to do.
I've dealt with this from the client side (i.e., I've been the one getting the code) and I can tell you that you could probably put the source on the internet and post it on billboards and it wouldn't really matter. The important thing is not so much the code itself as the architecture and structure of THE ENTIRE PRODUCT and how one would go about doing important (i.e. business related) things to it. Your customers will need training AND documentation to do this, especially if your code base is of any significant size, and since it represents "millions of dollars", it's probably fairly large and complex. So you probably don't have to worry about technological restrictions on your source code, just legal ones; "customer may not disclose to any third party..." yadda yadda yadda in the contract.
If you're still nervous about opening the family jewels, you should consider watermarking the documentation. Send it out as non-editable PDF and include a unique identifier in small innocuous type as part of each page's footer. This won't prevent a determined technology-capable thief from stealing your data, but it will give you traceability as to which client leaked it and thereby give the lawyers something (or someone) to chew on.
Interesting. While your perception seems to be that "the more visible groups are pushing for the privatization of religion so that it is silent in the public square", mine is more of that the religious right (for want of a better term) has been emboldened by their recent political successes and has been actively pushing to have their particular brand of religion enforced as common law. While you may mourn the silencing of public displays of religion, I welcome it, for the simple reason that I am NOT a member of any majority religion, and have no desire to be bombarded with messages that I don't belong, that I am somehow flawed and alien, even in the land of my birth.
The problem arises because most religions is that they are exclusionary; if you do not belong, you are an outsider, an alien, someone not necessarily to be included or trusted. With prostletyzing religions the situation gets worse; failure to accept the particular creed being offered, the very Word of God (tm), can be interpreted that you are considered an active enemy of God himself and your situation can get very ugly very fast. Now, I'm not saying that America has become a hotbed of fanatic "convert or die!" activity. But I do distinctly remember the former President Bush saying that atheists really couldn't be considered American because America is a nation under God. Talk like that, especially from a President, gives me and everyone else who isn't of the mainstream religion the willies. I ask you to try to remember that the next time you consider whether public displays of a particular faith are in the best interest of the nation and ALL of its citizens.
No, the reason we keep giving it more and more control over our lives has nothing to do with "an increasingly secular society", and is not a desire for "something to take the place of God". It's because an apparent majority of voters in this country are so woefully ignorant of history and so blindly hysterical with panic over the possibility of an attack that they have surrendered their liberty and thus their future for a cynical illusion of security.
As for the the complaint of "an increasingly secular society": we are seeing a resurgence of religion, or at least assertive dogma, over much of the world. In light of this development, this complaint starts to sound more like a self-indulgent assumption of victimhood, a straw-man argument in much the same mold as the Republican Senate, Republican House of Representatives, and Republican President of the US whining (unconvincingly) that their Great Plans (tm) are somehow being stymied by some mysterious hidden force of the Democrats. In short, I don't buy it - and I believe that I am not alone.
But I will give you one thing - you are absolutely right that government, especially this one, is not our friend.
This couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bottom-feeding scumbuckets. Don't forget that RIM (or "Lawsuits in Motion" as El Reg dubbed them) was the group of clowns who sued Palm and others for daring to infringe on their breathtakingly innovative concept of putting a little keyboard on a PDA. Screw 'em. Screw 'em right up the arse with a pile-driver, 10 metres of razor wire, and a bottle of vinegar. And whether you love software patents or hate them, this event is a rare conjunction of equal parts schadenfreude and poetic justice.
Now we just have to wait a few years for the NTP <descriptions containing far too much vitriol to ever be displayed publicly> to get their peckers handed to them in thin slices. It'll be worth it.
batmobile?
You don't. Removal requires (minor) surgery. Yum. See http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1756587,00.as p
I have much the same problem, but I find that if I write the name down I can visualize the written name and match it to the person. Weird, I know, but it works for me.
The original poster asks "Who do Slashdot readers turn to when technology goes wrong? Do you trust them to deliver by tommorow, without fail?" My answers are "PC Connection"and "yes". I've been dealing with them for well over a decade, and they've never disappointed. Overnight shipping for a Saturday delivery will cost you, but if they have it in stock and you order it before 3am ET it will be there the next day.
Disclaimer: I'm just a customer, not affiliated with them in any other way. And yes, I realize this sounds like a blatant plug, but they've been really good for me and I figure that they might be just as good for someone else.
I live outside Boston, and from where I sit the situation is not good at all. It seems that local tech companies are still laying off people, and there's a glut of talent (or at least resumes) out there. I've been developing software since 1980 (multiple languages, multiple OS's, multiple environments), I'm pretty good at it, I've got two headhunters working with/for me and I *STILL* am basically retired. Most of my friends who still have tech jobs hate them, but are afraid to leave because they fear they won't be able to find something else. And most of my friends who HAD tech jobs are either working in another field or have left the area. Supposedly the job market has picked up in this area, but from what I've seen I'm not convinced.
You were TOLD not to ask! :)
It's a Sony 20" LCD monitor; my guess is the fan keeps the fluorescent tubes cool.
1) Antec Sonata case with Antec Tru-Power 330W power supply and low-noise 92mm case fan. Essentially silent. $90 at provantage.com
2) CoolerMaster DP5-7JD1B CPU cooler. Barely audible. $10 at directron.com
3) Any Maxtor hard drive with an FDB (fluid dynamic bearing) motor. Essentially silent. ~$100 at your favorite cheapo online store.
I built this with an XP2600+ CPU, and it's quieter than the fan in my TFT display (don't ask). It makes just enough noise that I can tell that it's running, and I can still hear the quiet ticking of the clock behind me.
I would love to develop stuff with QT. Free stuff, hopefully useful stuff, that's just a compile away from being cross-platform. But unfortunately, there's just a leeetle fly in the ointment, one teeny-tiny reason why I cant:
Because it would cost me over $2000 just to TEST the damn thing!!!
You see, for various reasons I'm stuck on a Win32 development platform right now. I have access to Linux boxes, and I'd love an excuse to get another Mac, but for the time being I'm doing all my grunt work on Windows. So in order to actually do anything useful, I'd have to do at least the initial development under Windows. And that's gonna cost me. Sure, I could download the 30-day evaluation, but that puts a "Buy Me Dammit!" window up on every app, and stops working after 30 days. Not exactly conducive to development flow, eh? But if I want to see what it should look like, I'm out to the tune of $1500. And if I wanted to also test it on a Mac, well, that's $2500. At least there's a $500 discount for two platforms.
Hey Trolltech, if any of you are listening, may I respectfully make a suggestion?
You mention on your site that the reason the Linux versions are free and the Win32/Mac versions aren't is that you want to foster Linux development. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but you're going about it exactly the wrong way. The best way to get people to move to Linux is to give people who already use Windows really cool FREE applications that run on Windows but that also happen to run JUST THE SAME on Linux. And do the same for the Mac. That approach eliminates the major migration barrier of "but can I run my application on Linux?" Because with QT apps the answer would be "sure, no problem".
But the only way this would happen would be if the tools to create these cross-platform goodies were accessible to the legions of individuals and small groups who write them. And right now, the price tag puts the price of developing even free Windows and Mac programs out of their reach. So you're left with the ability to create really nice free stuff for Linux that the Windows and Mac users will NEVER EVER HEAR OF. They'll never get used to those free applications, they'll never get to like those free applications, they'll never ever realize that they can have their favorite free applications WITH the benefits of Linux. And that is the biggest shame of all, because it does nothing to promote Linux.
So my suggestion to you is to please Please PLEASE open up your licensing just a little to provide free Win32 and Mac toolkits, just like you do for Linux, to create non-proprietary applications. Please understand that I have no quarrel with your current (and eminently fair) prices for development kits used for proprietary applications. But PLEASE open up your toolkit to the little guy who just wants to create something to give back to the community but is stymied by the price tag.
This is one of those flat-out lies that won't die. If those pinheads had done even the least bit of fact-checking they would have found that this canard was the creation of RNC spin-meisters. The curious can check out these links:
i ns /
6 40 .html
a mp aigns/wh2000/stories/gore032199.htm
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wigg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/c
and there are many, many more.
FWIW, we actually get the dead-tree edition of Fast Company magazine (don't ask why, it's a long story) and it's just as slick and empty as any of the old Dot-Com business plans. These people are just a waste of ink and pulp.
True, but you'll want to die if you screw up your Tivo. :)
The DMCA essentially outlaws the kind of reverse engineering which was necessary to create (and which is necessary to maintain) SAMBA and other pieces of FOSS which interoperate with proprietary software. And it just so happens that the folks who created SAMBA (hi Tridge!) reside in Australia. Now, if I put on my tinfoil hat juuust riight I can see Microsoft stomping on the one piece of software that allows the non-MS world to coexist with Windows, and just before the next version of Windows (with its obligatory changes to the networking protocols) sees the light of day. Coincidence?
"But vendors and IT decision-makers widely believe it is too expensive to implement these more hacker-resistant security models, he [Tiemann] said."
So let me get this straight: US industry alone spent around half a billion buckaroonies cleaning up the last little virus/worm fiasco, we get about a half-dozen or so of these little gems per year, and yet it's TOO EXPENSIVE(tm) to engineer in security that would stop this kind of thing from happening?
So tell me, just who are these "vendors and IT decision-makers"? Or, to rephrase the question, just who are these drooling, incompetent, feeble-minded idiots who understand so little about security and the consequences of its failure? I'm asking because I want to make sure that i never, ever use (or heaven forbid, purchase!) any product that they have had anything to do with.
Mr. Tiemann, please tell us, did some people actually say this? Really? Because if so, we need to know which products, companies, and idiots to avoid. And I want some of what they're smoking.
FWIW, I've used it as a drive on Win2k and Red Hat 9.0 without problems.
Ethernet problems; it failed to recognize my Ethernet controller, a Broadcom 440x chip built into my motherboard.