That would be rather naive. I know someone who used to spend his downtime during boring meetings browsing Wikipedia and deliberately editing articles with nonsense (blatant sometimes, subtle other times). Why? Beats me, perhaps the same reason some people troll on forums or spray graffiti...
Most people are crap at giving Powerpoint presentations but can you really blame them?
Yes, quite easily, in much the same way as I can blame "sysadmins" who routinely give people admin access to a server because they don't know how to set up access properly. That may be the easiest way out if you don't know what you're doing; if you take a little time to understand the tool you're using, it's just as quick and easy to do it properly.
It practically begs you to do 500 slides filled with wipes blah blah blah TLDR
I can see why you think Powerpoint and Word make it easy to do stupid things by default. Your post is a turgid ramble with no coherent structure. If you can't write a few basic paragraphs that succinctly and clearly describe your position when using a bare bones text entry screen, then having powerful tools will simply allow you to present a more powerfully messed up turgid ramble.
They're tools. If a user rushes head first into any tool and starts pressing buttons or typing commands without understanding how to properly use the tool, then...well...garbage in, garbage out. It's the equivalent of RTFM.
I've worked in a highly stressful environment before where I didn't know if I was going to still have a job the next day or not.
Life is too short to put up with that amount of stress. You should've been job hunting.
I had everything set up sufficiently complex but still for good reasons, that if they had fired me getting someone else to fix it would have been a nightmare and cost them a fortune, which they would find out as soon as they tried to get someone else to go in and fix it.
Wow, again. So the client is really screwed if you end up in hospital with pneumonia for two weeks (I pick that example because it happened unexpectedly with one of our developers within the past 12 months). A professional sets things up so they are easy to maintain and trusts in his ability and skill to get jobs, based partly on that.
Since I left on good terms I overhauled everything before I left and took out most of the non bog standard bits I had implemented. They ended up with a slightly worse but fixable in a pinch system.
So out of the generosity of your heart, and because you left on good terms, you decided to magnaminously grant them a bad system rather than an utterly broken one. Wow...yet again.
Had the work environment been less stressful I wouldn't have felt it necessary to go through all of the trouble, but they decided to make it that way, so I decided to build some security into my job that was otherwise nonexistant.
Next time, don't go through all that trouble to sabotage a client's systems. If it's that bad, just do your job properly and take "all that trouble" to instead look for another job. And try building some security into your job by being professional and really good at what you do.
You are the kind of consultant who gives consultants a bad name. Thanks for nothing.
Ever had a stalker? Sometimes people do care. It can be kind of frightening. Especially for a young woman.
There's another side to this apart from the legal side. There's the community side, which is to say the common (? or not so much, any more, sadly) courtesy that makes the difference between a narcissist or an outright sociopath and someone who understands that sometimes, just because you can, doesn't trump "this person really doesn't want me to, is upset about it, and you know what, maybe I can have a bit of a heart and say okay".
This gentleman may have the law on his side, but I would be quite impressed if he took the stance of "I'm going to be a human being and take another person's feelings into account". Call me old-fashioned or idealistic, but I think that may just make the world a better place, in some small way.
Replace the word "boss" with "server admin" and I'll agree with you. I'm sometimes frustrated at times by the prevailing/. opinions that (i) bosses suck, and (ii) "you can teach yourself". Yes, you can, but one of the best justifications for learning in a formalized course of study is you get to learn from other people's mistakes and experiences.
I am thinking of two individuals right now, both very clever, both in the server admin field - one (call him Ricki) motivated to learn, the other (call him Gavin) who just got in because...well, I don't know, candidly. I suspect it's because he thought he "knew computers". Both had no formal learning in Computer Science or IT when they got started.
Both of these individuals, while I was working with them, demonstrated a lack of knowledge of something very fundamental - permissions. In Ricki's case, he didn't understand how NTFS permissions on a folder combine with share level permissions when you're accessing over the network. He was very young, had only been in the industry a year or two, and very motivated. I liked him. We took ten minutes to cover the topic, and I can guarantee he never made that mistake again.
"Gavin", on the other hand, had been in the industry for several years. The mistake he made was he didn't understand how different group memberships combine - the problem was someone could only read a file, but not write to it, they were in two groups, one with R and one with RW, and he thought the way to fix this was to take them out of the R group. He would not listen to any explanation of how permissions combined - not interested, too arrogant to learn. He'll get the desired result, eventually, but it's not because he knows what he's doing - it's because he will hack and chop and swear and guess until he gets it to work apparently correctly, and he doesn't care how he got there. So, of course, he can never reproduce it the second time, he continually repeats the same mistakes, and he introduces all kinds of underlying issues because he neither knows nor cares what he's doing.
My point - these are fundamental errors and mistakes, and if you don't understand how permissions work, then how on earth have you gotten several years into a server admin position? Next point - that is why you take structured, formal courses of study. Things like permissions, if you're doing a technical server admin course, are taught at the beginning. It's like music - if you don't understand scales and modes and a little bit of basic music theory, it's really hard to know where you're going. A well designed course of formal study recognizes this and teaches all the necessary information in a logical sequence. The danger of self-instruction is you focus on the cool stuff and gloss over the boring but important stuff. Witness "Gavin" - he's spent several years playing with server farms, VMWare, all kinds of cool stuff, and he still doesn't know how file level permissions work! It's amazing...and scary. "Ricki", on the other hand, I'm sure will keep learning - but I am convinced that a structured course of study would've given him a much better base on which to build, rather than having to figure the basics out by trial and error. Working on something and figuring it out by trial and error is a great skill, and important for a tech - but there are fundamentals (like permissions!) which are just so basic and necessary that they should be taught up front. "Here's how they work, here's how groups work, play and experiment for ten minutes to verify what I've just told you and make sure you understand effective permissions, then on to the next module."
Following on from this, and to swing back to the original question, I think you can't beat the experience of classroom learning. I recently finished my MBA, and some of the most valuable insights I've heard have been from the discussions we've had in class with various professionals who work in pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance, technology, etc. If I do another degree (and I would love to), I'll only pick online if there's no school in the area offering the exact programmes I want - I just don't think you get the quality of interaction.
Kind of small at 40 kW and 150 kW, but that's a good range for a small shop or plant. Plus they can be ganged together to aggregate up to the MW range. At that level you can join the markets for a typical grid operator.
There are a lot of storage technologies being researched and it's really the most exciting next step for the smart grid. I think I've already seen people talking about pumped hydro and CAES, which are well understood technologies. The problem with most of these technologies is they require natural infrastructure (e.g. correct ground topology) and/or are very expensive/long winded to develope. There are other technologies such as ice storage, or harnessing the energy stored in hot water heaters. Very geeky, very interesting. I think the main problem we have to match is to get people to understand it's never going to be a "one size fits all" solution.
By the way - remember that with your PEV, you can aggregate a few hundred of them up to suddenly become a resource that can sell into the local ISO/RTO frequency regulation markets
Missing a vital point, you are. That web site discourse talks about authors willingly sharing a portion of their works in the hopes of gaining wider market share of readers who'll then buy. Yes, I realize you're proposing that this is a great solution and a way to get more buyers, and I don't even disagree. But the key word is willingly. And if you (plural - general/. readership) believe that this is a good solution, then have the courage of your convictions and stick to some principle and don't pirate the stupid thing - instead, boycott, notify publishers/recording labels that you're boycotting, write letters, whatever. But show some damned honor for a change.
Ask youself: How many of the singer / actor / movie / album / software on the shelf today are worth the price-tag?
The song sux.
The singing sux.
The music sux.
The acting sux.
The story sux.
Everything sux and yet they (the movie/music/software companies) expect us to pay and pay and pay through our nose for their wares.
If it's that atrocious, why would anyone want to pirate it in the first place, assuming most people are not masochists?
And I have NOT downloaded any music (pay or pirated) either.
I admire you and say "good for you" with complete sincerity. Now if only the rest of the general/. and technical community would begin to approach that level of morals.
Of course, with NY County Lawyer pontificating and bleating self-righteously and ignoring that, you know, copyright violation is still illegal, and giving them some vague background of pretend justification, there's very little chance.
I must be in the minority, but I do not use Gmail for two reasons.
The interface is too messy and non-intuitive to me.
The junk filter doesn't work, at least for me.
I have a Gmail account, which I check once every two or three months, and it's full of spam every time. Hundreds of messages, and I'm sure it's that low only because I never use it and have never posted that address on-line. My Yahoo e-mail account, on the other hand, which I've used constantly since the mid-1990s and for which my e-mail address is all over the web gets a lot more spam, but it's almost ALL caught. I get one spam message in my inbox every three months or so.
I know, anecdote, and judging by the posts here I'm the only one. But Yahoo mail works for me, and has been a constant success for well over a decade, whereas Gmail doesn't work at all for me.
Because they'd rather get involved in endless pedantic debates over the meaning of the word "theft" instead of just manning up and admitting they're choosing to do something illegal and immoral. (Sigh...and usually that will provoke a screamfest - "what's immoral is locking up work which wants to be free...", yabber, yabber, cliche, cliche - instead of an adult response. Can someone please tell me why two wrongs make a right in this case, apparently?)
It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I don't knowingly violate copyright. If copyright law gets changed, then my actions may change. Until then, I buy the media I choose to consume, and if I don't think the price is right -- I do without.
Wow, someone with a grown-up attitude on this topic, posting on/. Thank you.
Personally, I really prefer the situation at Unreal. It's open source. Everyone who gives a small damn had the opportunity to check it out. Anyone could have run any number of monitoring tools on the software, and caught it doing it's thing.
But nobody did; that's the problem. It's all nice that you can check it; but if you are in a situation where most people prefer to choose to believe/hope/pray that someone else will, well, then, the advantage of being able to view the source isn't really an advantage if no-one utilizes said advantage.
And if you really want to encourage the ordinary non-technical user to adopt Linux, then you have to be aware of that. Even plenty of highly technical users will not check the code, for the simple reason it's not their skill; there are a lot of highly technical users who aren't programmers, or are programmers but aren't kernel programmers. Or they don't have the time. Or the motivation. Plenty of reasons why some who has the ability to check code simply will not do so.
Etc. Oh, what the hell...I could rattle on and it'll do no good, because I'll get shouted down by people getting desperately defensive rather than responding with "yeah, problem, how do we as a community fix it and give non-technical users the confidence".
Because that really is a problem. Try explaining to a non-technical user how open source works and the first thing they'll think of is "so anyone can stick their own code in? Huh...doesn't seem very secure". Trying to say "but anyone can check it!" will only make them respond "I can't, can you? And if you can, do you take the time to do so? All of it? No? Well, who does? How do you know they do?..." etc.
Good luck...you'll need it if you ever are to get to the year of Linux on the desktop.
I don't know, man...I've had my Yahoo mail address since the mid-90s, and I have no problem with spam. I get tons of it...but it all goes into the SPAM folder. No false positives. Ever. And my yahoo address is out there all over the place. I use it probably far more freely than I should, because, well, their spam filtering just works so well (for me). Whenever I sign up for *anything*, it's using my yahoo mail address.
I'll be candid and admit I get about one spam mail that slips through every so often; but as it's quite literally only running at the rate of three a year that do make it through, I can live with it. Certainly not "virtually useless".
I won't compare it to gmail, because I don't use it. I have an account, but (i) everyone knows my yahoo account; (ii) I use it all the time; and (iii) I have never liked gmail, so don't use it. Just too confusing and awkward for me.
Exactly. "Principles of Corporate Finance", Brealey/Myers/Allen.
Major public companies typically buy insurance against large potential losses...
BP has challenged this conventional wisdom...
BP...took a hard look at its insurance strategy...BP decided not to insure against most losses over $10 million. For these larger, more specialized risks BP felt that insurance companies had less ability to assess risk and were less well placed to advise on safety measures. As a result, BP concluded, insurance against large risks was not competitively priced.
How much extra risk did BP assume by its decision not to insure against major losses? BP estimated that large losses of above $500 million could be expected to occur once in 30 years. But BP is a huge company with equity worth about $200 billion... BP concluded that this was a risk worth taking. In other words, it concluded that for large, low-probability risks the stock market was a more efficient risk-absorber than the insurance industry.
Now we get to see how well their hedging will work out.
No, no, no. It's a partition according to the KB article.
So you either partition the drive and make sure your system* volume (=partition in this case) is less than 2 TB, or use it as a huge big data drive and have some other smaller drive as your system drive.
* Remember that the volume with the critical files, such as ntldr, that Windows uses for booting and starting up is not the boot drive; it's the system drive. The boot drive contains the operating system. Yes, I know it's backwards. I didn't make up the definitions.
I think it was particularly newsworthy because (a) it came on the heels of several other outages; (b)/. has had several stories about the debates with newspaper publishers, online aggregators, pay for content, etc.; and (c) this was now leading to questions about "is the cloud ready for prime-time" beyond just Google.
(Update: I just checked the same search on Google, and the first link is their app status dashboard). Looks like GMail has had problems over the last week.)
Our solar system is made up of a star - the Sun - eight planets, 146 moons, a bunch of comets, asteroids and space rocks, ice and several dwarf planets, such as Pluto.
The eight planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Mercury is closest to the Sun. Neptune is the farthest. Remember the order of the planets like this: My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Neptune.
There's also a gross-out version: My Very Early Morning Jam Sandwich Usually Nauseates. Why not make up one of your own?
even assuming foul play, pickpocketing != robbery.
robbery implies threats of violence.
So if someone breaks into your house while you're away on vacation, you can't say that you've been robbed?!?!?!?
This is one of those areas where/. readers love to pontificate on the precise meaning of words and totally lose sight of what the intent might be.
So, if someone breaks into your house, they can:
* take pictures of every page of your diary; * write down your social security number and any passwords they might find; * take a copy of your spare set of car keys; * format your hard drive; *...after they've copied all the files, including your final draft of the book you're writing for O'Reilly.
But in the world of/., nothing tangible has been taken from you, so it's not theft or stealing. (It's not even copyright infringement, in the cases posited above.) Neat, huh?
Copyright infringement is not theft. Please look up the definitions of the two.
Okay, I'll do that.
Theft: the act of stealing
Stealing: 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
Copyright infringement is taking something without permission. Equals stealing. Equals theft. And by the way, why does it make things ANY better when slashdotters self-righteously proclaim "it's not theft or stealing, it's copyright infringement"? Nice one, all you're doing is muddying the argument over semantics; as is frequently pointed out, it's still illegal.
Next time you decide to pontificate, make sure you know what you're getting into.
Exactly. I really have to wonder what the reason is for asking this question on Slashdot. If you must check your e-mail at home as part of your job requirements, you either get provided a computer to use at home, or they give you a pager or something that's more active than passive (if you really need to be checking your e-mail at home, then either you have automated alerts, or it's something really important which shouldn't rely on you thinking "time to check my e-mail again").
Otherwise, enjoy your free time at home. Read a book. Go to a movie. Play a game. Whatever. There are a thousand more things to do in the evenings that are more fun, more productive, and less intrusive than working yourself up over accessing your e-mail which will still be there for you in ten hours.
I do not trust Symantec on enterprise anything since the days I was working with their Storage Foundation.
Bad trick #1 Go to the training course, where the instructor is bragging how he helped write the product. Observe that occasionally during the training course the software happens to lose sight of your volumes. Ask instructor, "how do I fix this?". Received response, "hmm...format and start again. I don't know how to fix that." If this is a production environment, I've just lost terabytes of critical information.
Bad trick #2 Have this up and running in a production environment. Have it go ballistic and take your file system down. Call technical support. Take several hours to fix it.
Bad trick #2 - follow-up After you've had this happen a few times, write a letter to Symantec management complaining that you really need to have better than this kind of reliability in a product for which the entire reason of its existence is to provide mission-critical data with superior redundancy and protection in an enterprise. Receive a whining response back that "this kind of thing is really hard to do, you have to expect the occasional problem with it".
I know it's hard to do, which is why my company pays lots of money to you on the premise you're selling an enterprise level product. And no, I do not have to expect the occasional problem with it; I expect this level of product to perform the way it's supposed to.
My learning from this: I do not trust Symantec for any of their products. Based on my company's experience, they can't do enterprise products properly, thereby placing our data at more risk, not less, and think this is acceptable. Bad.
As a grammar pedant myself, I lovingly craft a carefully formed response and kindly request that you stop being so pretentious and go with what the dictionary says.
This should not be marked informative. As others point out below, that is precisely the situation for which Microsoft provides SBS (Small Business Server), and has done so for over a decade. According to this page it's $1,089 for SBS Standard Edition with 5 CALs, and $1,540 for an additional 20 CALs. Less than $3,000 to get your 25 user office up and running, and you don't need a huge investment in hardware because it's designed to run on one server.
(And why did you call out the Enterprise version of Windows Server? It'd be a fairly unusual small company that needs that kind of horsepower. Even most true enterprises run Standard Server on most of their machines and only put Enterprise on the ones that really need it. I think you're trying to troll...)
What if we ran an open data project like an open source project? What would this look like?
Wikipedia. With all the inherent problems of self-proclaimed authorities who don't know what they're talking about; bored trouble-makers who inject bad information because they're, well, bored; petty little squabbles which result in valid data being deleted; and so on.
But you are an anomaly in the world of users. You know what you're doing and, if you make a mistake, you'll probably be relatively sanguine about it.
Most users are not like that. (And most Slashdotters complain endlessly about "stupid users" who will blindly click on every little web animation and then are surprised when they get hijacked.) Locking a system down is a protective measure; it helps avoid a rash of nonsense phone calls to the support line.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be rather naive. I know someone who used to spend his downtime during boring meetings browsing Wikipedia and deliberately editing articles with nonsense (blatant sometimes, subtle other times). Why? Beats me, perhaps the same reason some people troll on forums or spray graffiti...
Most people are crap at giving Powerpoint presentations but can you really blame them?
Yes, quite easily, in much the same way as I can blame "sysadmins" who routinely give people admin access to a server because they don't know how to set up access properly. That may be the easiest way out if you don't know what you're doing; if you take a little time to understand the tool you're using, it's just as quick and easy to do it properly.
It practically begs you to do 500 slides filled with wipes blah blah blah TLDR
I can see why you think Powerpoint and Word make it easy to do stupid things by default. Your post is a turgid ramble with no coherent structure. If you can't write a few basic paragraphs that succinctly and clearly describe your position when using a bare bones text entry screen, then having powerful tools will simply allow you to present a more powerfully messed up turgid ramble.
They're tools. If a user rushes head first into any tool and starts pressing buttons or typing commands without understanding how to properly use the tool, then...well...garbage in, garbage out. It's the equivalent of RTFM.
Wow...
I've worked in a highly stressful environment before where I didn't know if I was going to still have a job the next day or not.
Life is too short to put up with that amount of stress. You should've been job hunting.
I had everything set up sufficiently complex but still for good reasons, that if they had fired me getting someone else to fix it would have been a nightmare and cost them a fortune, which they would find out as soon as they tried to get someone else to go in and fix it.
Wow, again. So the client is really screwed if you end up in hospital with pneumonia for two weeks (I pick that example because it happened unexpectedly with one of our developers within the past 12 months). A professional sets things up so they are easy to maintain and trusts in his ability and skill to get jobs, based partly on that.
Since I left on good terms I overhauled everything before I left and took out most of the non bog standard bits I had implemented. They ended up with a slightly worse but fixable in a pinch system.
So out of the generosity of your heart, and because you left on good terms, you decided to magnaminously grant them a bad system rather than an utterly broken one. Wow...yet again.
Had the work environment been less stressful I wouldn't have felt it necessary to go through all of the trouble, but they decided to make it that way, so I decided to build some security into my job that was otherwise nonexistant.
Next time, don't go through all that trouble to sabotage a client's systems. If it's that bad, just do your job properly and take "all that trouble" to instead look for another job. And try building some security into your job by being professional and really good at what you do.
You are the kind of consultant who gives consultants a bad name. Thanks for nothing.
Ever had a stalker? Sometimes people do care. It can be kind of frightening. Especially for a young woman.
There's another side to this apart from the legal side. There's the community side, which is to say the common (? or not so much, any more, sadly) courtesy that makes the difference between a narcissist or an outright sociopath and someone who understands that sometimes, just because you can, doesn't trump "this person really doesn't want me to, is upset about it, and you know what, maybe I can have a bit of a heart and say okay".
This gentleman may have the law on his side, but I would be quite impressed if he took the stance of "I'm going to be a human being and take another person's feelings into account". Call me old-fashioned or idealistic, but I think that may just make the world a better place, in some small way.
Replace the word "boss" with "server admin" and I'll agree with you. I'm sometimes frustrated at times by the prevailing /. opinions that (i) bosses suck, and (ii) "you can teach yourself". Yes, you can, but one of the best justifications for learning in a formalized course of study is you get to learn from other people's mistakes and experiences.
I am thinking of two individuals right now, both very clever, both in the server admin field - one (call him Ricki) motivated to learn, the other (call him Gavin) who just got in because...well, I don't know, candidly. I suspect it's because he thought he "knew computers". Both had no formal learning in Computer Science or IT when they got started.
Both of these individuals, while I was working with them, demonstrated a lack of knowledge of something very fundamental - permissions. In Ricki's case, he didn't understand how NTFS permissions on a folder combine with share level permissions when you're accessing over the network. He was very young, had only been in the industry a year or two, and very motivated. I liked him. We took ten minutes to cover the topic, and I can guarantee he never made that mistake again.
"Gavin", on the other hand, had been in the industry for several years. The mistake he made was he didn't understand how different group memberships combine - the problem was someone could only read a file, but not write to it, they were in two groups, one with R and one with RW, and he thought the way to fix this was to take them out of the R group. He would not listen to any explanation of how permissions combined - not interested, too arrogant to learn. He'll get the desired result, eventually, but it's not because he knows what he's doing - it's because he will hack and chop and swear and guess until he gets it to work apparently correctly, and he doesn't care how he got there. So, of course, he can never reproduce it the second time, he continually repeats the same mistakes, and he introduces all kinds of underlying issues because he neither knows nor cares what he's doing.
My point - these are fundamental errors and mistakes, and if you don't understand how permissions work, then how on earth have you gotten several years into a server admin position? Next point - that is why you take structured, formal courses of study. Things like permissions, if you're doing a technical server admin course, are taught at the beginning. It's like music - if you don't understand scales and modes and a little bit of basic music theory, it's really hard to know where you're going. A well designed course of formal study recognizes this and teaches all the necessary information in a logical sequence. The danger of self-instruction is you focus on the cool stuff and gloss over the boring but important stuff. Witness "Gavin" - he's spent several years playing with server farms, VMWare, all kinds of cool stuff, and he still doesn't know how file level permissions work! It's amazing...and scary. "Ricki", on the other hand, I'm sure will keep learning - but I am convinced that a structured course of study would've given him a much better base on which to build, rather than having to figure the basics out by trial and error. Working on something and figuring it out by trial and error is a great skill, and important for a tech - but there are fundamentals (like permissions!) which are just so basic and necessary that they should be taught up front. "Here's how they work, here's how groups work, play and experiment for ten minutes to verify what I've just told you and make sure you understand effective permissions, then on to the next module."
Following on from this, and to swing back to the original question, I think you can't beat the experience of classroom learning. I recently finished my MBA, and some of the most valuable insights I've heard have been from the discussions we've had in class with various professionals who work in pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance, technology, etc. If I do another degree (and I would love to), I'll only pick online if there's no school in the area offering the exact programmes I want - I just don't think you get the quality of interaction.
You can :-)
Kind of small at 40 kW and 150 kW, but that's a good range for a small shop or plant. Plus they can be ganged together to aggregate up to the MW range. At that level you can join the markets for a typical grid operator.
There are a lot of storage technologies being researched and it's really the most exciting next step for the smart grid. I think I've already seen people talking about pumped hydro and CAES, which are well understood technologies. The problem with most of these technologies is they require natural infrastructure (e.g. correct ground topology) and/or are very expensive/long winded to develope. There are other technologies such as ice storage, or harnessing the energy stored in hot water heaters. Very geeky, very interesting. I think the main problem we have to match is to get people to understand it's never going to be a "one size fits all" solution.
By the way - remember that with your PEV, you can aggregate a few hundred of them up to suddenly become a resource that can sell into the local ISO/RTO frequency regulation markets
Missing a vital point, you are. That web site discourse talks about authors willingly sharing a portion of their works in the hopes of gaining wider market share of readers who'll then buy. Yes, I realize you're proposing that this is a great solution and a way to get more buyers, and I don't even disagree. But the key word is willingly. And if you (plural - general /. readership) believe that this is a good solution, then have the courage of your convictions and stick to some principle and don't pirate the stupid thing - instead, boycott, notify publishers/recording labels that you're boycotting, write letters, whatever. But show some damned honor for a change.
Ask youself: How many of the singer / actor / movie / album / software on the shelf today are worth the price-tag?
The song sux.
The singing sux.
The music sux.
The acting sux.
The story sux.
Everything sux and yet they (the movie/music/software companies) expect us to pay and pay and pay through our nose for their wares.
If it's that atrocious, why would anyone want to pirate it in the first place, assuming most people are not masochists?
And I have NOT downloaded any music (pay or pirated) either.
I admire you and say "good for you" with complete sincerity. Now if only the rest of the general /. and technical community would begin to approach that level of morals.
Of course, with NY County Lawyer pontificating and bleating self-righteously and ignoring that, you know, copyright violation is still illegal, and giving them some vague background of pretend justification, there's very little chance.
I must be in the minority, but I do not use Gmail for two reasons.
I have a Gmail account, which I check once every two or three months, and it's full of spam every time. Hundreds of messages, and I'm sure it's that low only because I never use it and have never posted that address on-line. My Yahoo e-mail account, on the other hand, which I've used constantly since the mid-1990s and for which my e-mail address is all over the web gets a lot more spam, but it's almost ALL caught. I get one spam message in my inbox every three months or so.
I know, anecdote, and judging by the posts here I'm the only one. But Yahoo mail works for me, and has been a constant success for well over a decade, whereas Gmail doesn't work at all for me.
Because they'd rather get involved in endless pedantic debates over the meaning of the word "theft" instead of just manning up and admitting they're choosing to do something illegal and immoral. (Sigh...and usually that will provoke a screamfest - "what's immoral is locking up work which wants to be free...", yabber, yabber, cliche, cliche - instead of an adult response. Can someone please tell me why two wrongs make a right in this case, apparently?)
It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I don't knowingly violate copyright. If copyright law gets changed, then my actions may change. Until then, I buy the media I choose to consume, and if I don't think the price is right -- I do without.
Wow, someone with a grown-up attitude on this topic, posting on /. Thank you.
Personally, I really prefer the situation at Unreal. It's open source. Everyone who gives a small damn had the opportunity to check it out. Anyone could have run any number of monitoring tools on the software, and caught it doing it's thing.
But nobody did; that's the problem. It's all nice that you can check it; but if you are in a situation where most people prefer to choose to believe/hope/pray that someone else will, well, then, the advantage of being able to view the source isn't really an advantage if no-one utilizes said advantage.
And if you really want to encourage the ordinary non-technical user to adopt Linux, then you have to be aware of that. Even plenty of highly technical users will not check the code, for the simple reason it's not their skill; there are a lot of highly technical users who aren't programmers, or are programmers but aren't kernel programmers. Or they don't have the time. Or the motivation. Plenty of reasons why some who has the ability to check code simply will not do so.
Etc. Oh, what the hell...I could rattle on and it'll do no good, because I'll get shouted down by people getting desperately defensive rather than responding with "yeah, problem, how do we as a community fix it and give non-technical users the confidence".
Because that really is a problem. Try explaining to a non-technical user how open source works and the first thing they'll think of is "so anyone can stick their own code in? Huh...doesn't seem very secure". Trying to say "but anyone can check it!" will only make them respond "I can't, can you? And if you can, do you take the time to do so? All of it? No? Well, who does? How do you know they do?..." etc.
Good luck...you'll need it if you ever are to get to the year of Linux on the desktop.
I don't know, man...I've had my Yahoo mail address since the mid-90s, and I have no problem with spam. I get tons of it...but it all goes into the SPAM folder. No false positives. Ever. And my yahoo address is out there all over the place. I use it probably far more freely than I should, because, well, their spam filtering just works so well (for me). Whenever I sign up for *anything*, it's using my yahoo mail address.
I'll be candid and admit I get about one spam mail that slips through every so often; but as it's quite literally only running at the rate of three a year that do make it through, I can live with it. Certainly not "virtually useless".
I won't compare it to gmail, because I don't use it. I have an account, but (i) everyone knows my yahoo account; (ii) I use it all the time; and (iii) I have never liked gmail, so don't use it. Just too confusing and awkward for me.
Exactly. "Principles of Corporate Finance", Brealey/Myers/Allen.
Major public companies typically buy insurance against large potential losses...
BP has challenged this conventional wisdom...
BP...took a hard look at its insurance strategy...BP decided not to insure against most losses over $10 million. For these larger, more specialized risks BP felt that insurance companies had less ability to assess risk and were less well placed to advise on safety measures. As a result, BP concluded, insurance against large risks was not competitively priced.
How much extra risk did BP assume by its decision not to insure against major losses? BP estimated that large losses of above $500 million could be expected to occur once in 30 years. But BP is a huge company with equity worth about $200 billion... BP concluded that this was a risk worth taking. In other words, it concluded that for large, low-probability risks the stock market was a more efficient risk-absorber than the insurance industry.
Now we get to see how well their hedging will work out.
No, no, no. It's a partition according to the KB article.
So you either partition the drive and make sure your system* volume (=partition in this case) is less than 2 TB, or use it as a huge big data drive and have some other smaller drive as your system drive.
* Remember that the volume with the critical files, such as ntldr, that Windows uses for booting and starting up is not the boot drive; it's the system drive. The boot drive contains the operating system. Yes, I know it's backwards. I didn't make up the definitions.
Search for "google news outage september 22". (I don't know what comes up on Google; I use Yahoo as my default engine.)
Here's a good link. Google Outages Damage Cloud Credibility. It came a couple of days later and gave a roundup of recent Google outages. Specifics about that outage: look here.
I think it was particularly newsworthy because (a) it came on the heels of several other outages; (b) /. has had several stories about the debates with newspaper publishers, online aggregators, pay for content, etc.; and (c) this was now leading to questions about "is the cloud ready for prime-time" beyond just Google.
(Update: I just checked the same search on Google, and the first link is their app status dashboard). Looks like GMail has had problems over the last week.)
That's why I use Yahoo.
First link:
Solar System Exploration at NASA
First few paragraphs:
Our solar system is made up of a star - the Sun - eight planets, 146 moons, a bunch of comets, asteroids and space rocks, ice and several dwarf planets, such as Pluto.
The eight planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Mercury is closest to the Sun. Neptune is the farthest. Remember the order of the planets like this: My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Neptune.
There's also a gross-out version: My Very Early Morning Jam Sandwich Usually Nauseates. Why not make up one of your own?
even assuming foul play, pickpocketing != robbery.
robbery implies threats of violence.
So if someone breaks into your house while you're away on vacation, you can't say that you've been robbed?!?!?!?
This is one of those areas where /. readers love to pontificate on the precise meaning of words and totally lose sight of what the intent might be.
So, if someone breaks into your house, they can:
* take pictures of every page of your diary; ...after they've copied all the files, including your final draft of the book you're writing for O'Reilly.
* write down your social security number and any passwords they might find;
* take a copy of your spare set of car keys;
* format your hard drive;
*
But in the world of /., nothing tangible has been taken from you, so it's not theft or stealing. (It's not even copyright infringement, in the cases posited above.) Neat, huh?
Copyright infringement is not theft. Please look up the definitions of the two.
Okay, I'll do that.
Theft: the act of stealing
Stealing: 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
Copyright infringement is taking something without permission. Equals stealing. Equals theft. And by the way, why does it make things ANY better when slashdotters self-righteously proclaim "it's not theft or stealing, it's copyright infringement"? Nice one, all you're doing is muddying the argument over semantics; as is frequently pointed out, it's still illegal.
Next time you decide to pontificate, make sure you know what you're getting into.
Exactly. I really have to wonder what the reason is for asking this question on Slashdot. If you must check your e-mail at home as part of your job requirements, you either get provided a computer to use at home, or they give you a pager or something that's more active than passive (if you really need to be checking your e-mail at home, then either you have automated alerts, or it's something really important which shouldn't rely on you thinking "time to check my e-mail again").
Otherwise, enjoy your free time at home. Read a book. Go to a movie. Play a game. Whatever. There are a thousand more things to do in the evenings that are more fun, more productive, and less intrusive than working yourself up over accessing your e-mail which will still be there for you in ten hours.
I do not trust Symantec on enterprise anything since the days I was working with their Storage Foundation.
Bad trick #1
Go to the training course, where the instructor is bragging how he helped write the product. Observe that occasionally during the training course the software happens to lose sight of your volumes. Ask instructor, "how do I fix this?". Received response, "hmm...format and start again. I don't know how to fix that." If this is a production environment, I've just lost terabytes of critical information.
Bad trick #2
Have this up and running in a production environment. Have it go ballistic and take your file system down. Call technical support. Take several hours to fix it.
Bad trick #2 - follow-up
After you've had this happen a few times, write a letter to Symantec management complaining that you really need to have better than this kind of reliability in a product for which the entire reason of its existence is to provide mission-critical data with superior redundancy and protection in an enterprise. Receive a whining response back that "this kind of thing is really hard to do, you have to expect the occasional problem with it".
I know it's hard to do, which is why my company pays lots of money to you on the premise you're selling an enterprise level product. And no, I do not have to expect the occasional problem with it; I expect this level of product to perform the way it's supposed to.
My learning from this: I do not trust Symantec for any of their products. Based on my company's experience, they can't do enterprise products properly, thereby placing our data at more risk, not less, and think this is acceptable. Bad.
As a grammar pedant myself, I lovingly craft a carefully formed response and kindly request that you stop being so pretentious and go with what the dictionary says.
Main Entry: virus
Pronunciation: \v-rs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural viruses
This should not be marked informative. As others point out below, that is precisely the situation for which Microsoft provides SBS (Small Business Server), and has done so for over a decade. According to this page it's $1,089 for SBS Standard Edition with 5 CALs, and $1,540 for an additional 20 CALs. Less than $3,000 to get your 25 user office up and running, and you don't need a huge investment in hardware because it's designed to run on one server.
(And why did you call out the Enterprise version of Windows Server? It'd be a fairly unusual small company that needs that kind of horsepower. Even most true enterprises run Standard Server on most of their machines and only put Enterprise on the ones that really need it. I think you're trying to troll...)
What if we ran an open data project like an open source project? What would this look like?
Wikipedia. With all the inherent problems of self-proclaimed authorities who don't know what they're talking about; bored trouble-makers who inject bad information because they're, well, bored; petty little squabbles which result in valid data being deleted; and so on.
But you are an anomaly in the world of users. You know what you're doing and, if you make a mistake, you'll probably be relatively sanguine about it.
Most users are not like that. (And most Slashdotters complain endlessly about "stupid users" who will blindly click on every little web animation and then are surprised when they get hijacked.) Locking a system down is a protective measure; it helps avoid a rash of nonsense phone calls to the support line.