I setup something using Winamp2 plus a plugin called Winamp Web Interface. It's entirely controlled through the web interface (no monitor or keyboard attached, I just sit it next to the stereo). The machine runs Windows 98 - no, seriously. I've been using it for a few months and it works almost flawlessly. All the MP3s are retrieved over the Windows network in my house.
This situation brought itself to bear a few years ago, when I learned that a friend of mine was donating not only his time, but also hard $$$ for server space for his favorite charity. What, if anything would he be able to write-off? He uses the server for other projects, so not 100% is for the charity.
I'm not an accountant but I think you could probably
deduct a fraction of the money spent on the server
that corresponds to the fraction of the server dedicated to the charity.
In other words, if the charity uses 30% of the server's disk, bandwidth and CPU time then you could write off 30% of the cost.
That's how it works when you split expenses that
are part personal and part business (like a computer you use for work and for gaming). So maybe it works for charities.
"The costs of ignoring security and getting hacked are small: the possibility of bad press and angry customers, maybe some network downtime, none of which is permanent. And there's some regulatory pressure, from audits or lawsuits, that add additional costs. The result: a smart organization does what everyone else does, and no more."
I don't understand. If the cost of having no security is so low then liability won't change anything. Why get security insurance if you can easily swallow the cost of getting hacked?
It seems like the real problem is that security doesn't matter that much to most companies. If it did they would work hard to protect their bottom line by finding secure software. Liability won't significantly change this.
>The problem with liability is that the your >financial risk now becomes proportional to your >success.
That's true for all industries. If Mom'n'Pop's Tire company makes a bad tire then they won't lose much. If Firestone makes a bad tire then they lose millions.
Fortunately, revenue and profit are also proportional to success. Well, usually.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote a little HOWTO if you want more info.
I'm not an accountant but I think you could probably deduct a fraction of the money spent on the server that corresponds to the fraction of the server dedicated to the charity.
In other words, if the charity uses 30% of the server's disk, bandwidth and CPU time then you could write off 30% of the cost.
That's how it works when you split expenses that are part personal and part business (like a computer you use for work and for gaming). So maybe it works for charities.
Michael
"The costs of ignoring security and getting hacked are small: the possibility of bad press and angry customers, maybe some network downtime, none of which is permanent. And there's some regulatory pressure, from audits or lawsuits, that add additional costs. The result: a smart organization does what everyone else does, and no more."
I don't understand. If the cost of having no security is so low then liability won't change anything. Why get security insurance if you can easily swallow the cost of getting hacked?
It seems like the real problem is that security doesn't matter that much to most companies. If it did they would work hard to protect their bottom line by finding secure software. Liability won't significantly change this.
>The problem with liability is that the your >financial risk now becomes proportional to your >success.
That's true for all industries. If Mom'n'Pop's Tire company makes a bad tire then they won't lose much. If Firestone makes a bad tire then they lose millions.
Fortunately, revenue and profit are also proportional to success. Well, usually.
Essentially, the "no split infinitives" rule is just an attempt by some to impose Latin rules on English.
(The Europeans have started making decent planes since then.)
More information is available here.
The original text is avaiable here.
For some reason, the email version (I received one too) omits the references to China, Israel, Egypt and Nicaragua, among others.