If I hadn't been sitting in a theater when I heard the "lies" I would agree 100%. But this was an entertainment piece designed to bring attention to what he, as an artist, felt was an issue. I had the opportunity to see and evaluate this performance twice in DC, both in the original and modified versions. After the first performance, I actually had to research whether he had gone over there or not. At no point did he state that it was based on actual experience, and due to the semi-abstract presentation I thought it was a total work of fiction.
What I can say, is that the modified version did not significantly differ in the overall tone, look or feel of the show. The Woz Q&A was pretty interesting though.
Key clarification here. Mike Daisey was not found to have fabricated any issues. The issues he brought up have mostly been revealed to be real.
What he misrepresented was his actual experiences on his trip to the Foxconn and other manufacturing facilities. He included embellishments and some fabricated facts in the original version of his monologue. After the media issues following the NPR broadcast, he modified his monologue to remove the problematic content and discuss his original mistake.
Having been at the show in DC when Woz made these comments about the cloud, I felt that Daisey took ownership of his original mistakes and clarified his theatrical representation of his experiences. There were two entire pages in the playbill discussing it and a 3-4 minute section of the monologue that was directed at it. That's the part most people missed when this originally became an issue...this is a theatrical performance, not a documentary.
I once had a user call because her computer wouldn't boot. I ended up pulling the hard disk and putting it in another machine so I could recover some of her files. When I looked at it, I noticed a bunch of folders on the root of the disk with three letter names: DLL, EXE, INI, SYS, BAT, etc...
The really impressive part is that she had actually managed to move most of the system into these before hitting the files that were in use.
The summary mentions Rehobeth, I went there. It's not in Delaware, Rehobeth is in Maryland. None of the beaches in Delaware had sand.
At least there's something good there now.
You're an idiot. Rehoboth, Lewes, Bethany, Dewey and Cape Henlopen are all Delaware beaches with plenty of sand (and they had a lot more back in the 70s). They're also less than 30 minutes from the Air Force base. You have to go all the way out of the bottom of the state to get to Ocean City, the north most beach in Maryland.
If you're that geographically inept, I hope you weren't driving that bike around too much. BTW, how was that 1869 Mustang? I hear the wood fired Fords were the best...
I do agree that aside from the beaches, there's not a hell of a lot to do in DE though...
For the record, and don't shoot the messenger on this, here's how you change that:
In the administrator -Menus > Main Menu -Click Home to edit the home page, or choose the page that needs the layout changed. -Change the layout using Basic Parameters on the right. To do what you want, change the "Columns" setting to 1.
A lot of people have trouble getting used to the conceptual layout of Joomla. As far as the pages go, EVERYTHING revolves around the menus. This is because the menu represents all instances of the pages. In order to change the settings on any one, you change it's settings in the menu configuration.
It's not the most obvious, but after you work with it a bit it begins to make a lot of sense.
So I just called them after testing this out and asked about the domain name they hijacked out from under me. The official line their phone reps (thank you Megan) are giving is that they are doing this as "a protection against online scammers stealing domains from our customers." Apparently they only hold the domains for 4 days.
I love the irony... We're protecting you from people scamming you by doing the exact same thing!
We run all of our low I/O file servers on a Raid 5 (with a hot spare) array. You can't beat the price/utilization ratio there. Yeah, you don't get the same performance as Raid 1, but if space is a priority it's the way to go.
I think the confusion is that the article says the recent security ENHANCEMENTS wouldn't be provided to anything but XP. This means no pop-up blocker/firewall/{insert service pack 2 goodie here} for Win2k or below.
They are not saying that they're going to stop making hotfixes for the older versions. Windows 2000 is still officially supported...just don't hold your breath for a pop-up blocker.
You forgetting patches? I can't imagine your machines stay up for 5 minutes, let alone months, if you're not rebooting every couple weeks for the montly releases...
With the notable exception that you can opt-out of this so called "tax" by simply not purchasing the product. I'd like to see you try that with a real tax. The advertising, the events, and the additional cost are more like by-products. As with anything else, if you are opposed to the by-product, you cease use of whatever creates it.
We do have a fast, automated client rebuild process, however, don't you think that at least an attempt should be made to be proactive? We can't have our desktop techs spend all thier time reimaging our 15,000 workstations.
Absolutely, you can't secure everything. But making the attempt can at least deter some of your problems. It's the same as a lock on your door: It probably won't keep someone determined out, but it will at least keep the honest people honest, and foil the most unskilled crooks...
By "rules", do you mean technical requirements or policies
I was a simple way of saying "the way we have chosen to run the infrastructure such that all critical services are avaialable all the time". That includes both the technical configurations, and the administrative policies.
But if the latter, I care not for the rules.
To be frank, I don't care if a user likes the "rules" or not. They are there for a reason. I am prefectly willing to work with them to find a way for them to get what they need done within the constraints of our environment, but that does not include simply giving them admin access and walking away.
What, they turned off their antivirus software? Or the automatic updates thereof? Or they uninstalled it completely?
Several people have made this comment (or a similar one about not having an adequate Anti-Virus setup). Let me explain those of you who quite obviously have not had to deal with the situation this past two weeks: The recent Bagle, MyDoom, and Netsky viruses were being released faster than the AV companies could update defs. Once they did release them, it takes my organization 3 hours to push the updates to all 15,000 clients. In that 3 hours, we routinely had several people manage to infect themselves with these viruses. MyDoom in particualar was setup to randomly delete files from any accesible drive. Several users with admin access had thier machines trashed as critical system files were deleted. Now, this is a gross simplification of the events of the past two weeks, but it's a good rough example of what I'm talking about.
At one place I worked, not only could you not install your own software by default, but in fact had no access at all (much less write access) to most of your own C: drive.
So, just a matter of curiosity, you think that it would be better to run an environment where any user can install unlicenesed software and delete critical system files? How about get infected with a virus, and due to thier heightened access it's able to delete the OS. To be perfectly honest in today's IT world, you can't trust the people using the systems with any sort of access that can affect the system itself.
Unfortunately that goes double for the "technically inclined" users. Sure, you may have have a top notch, dual processor, 5 gig ram desktop at home running 200 different operating systems on a souped up wireless network but you don't know THIS environement. Things are different in a large network environment, and if it's not your job to run it, you probably don't know all the rules. I have had to spend more hours than I care to count fixing something some developer broke because his manaager forced us to give him administrative access on his machine. It's rarely that the person isn't technically capable, but that they don't know how our systems are set up. It's easy for someone to make a mistake when they have access to things they don't understand.
It is by no means an insult to your technical abilities to lock your machine down. It is simply the only way for the sysadmins that are responsible for your system to ensure that it's working properly.
I'm sorry if I seem a little testy, but I just spent 2 weeks screwing with virus damage because certain users have access to things they don't need. This post just hit a well timed nerve...
Actually, that's not entierly true. MS is getting slightly better in that not ALL of the patch packages require a reboot anymore. Keep in mind though, that MS has a really bad habit distributing packages that force a reboot even when not necessary. Between that and simply restarting a service instead of the box you can seriously cut down on reboots.
If you are all that worried about reboots, it is often possible to download the patch, extract it, do a little analysis on it, and repackage it so that it doesn't require a reboot. Most of the time the reboot is needed because the package puts unecessary entries in the "pending file rename" keys in the registry. If you make your own package to replace the files when the patch is run you can usually escape with no reboot.
The last patch I had to reboot my critical systems for was MS03-049 because it required a restart of the workstation service. All of my critical systems are up to date and have an uptime of a little more than 2 months. I know that's nothing compared to a *nix system, but it's better than 2 weeks:)
I work in a 100% Windows environment and frequetly have to tune systems to meet very strict security standards (yes, I realize the irony in that...).
I spend a significant amount of time digging through "half a dozen different" registry locations (pretty similar to browsing a filesystem in gui) "to edit esoteric" value names to activate/deactivate hidden or complely undocumented features in software and even the OS. Yeah, it's really annoying. Yeah, it's not necessarily user friendly. But, no, it's not limited to OSS apps.
To be fair, all the US did was sabatoge thier own software. Had they gone out and actually bombed the pipeline, I agree, it would have been really hard on "releations" with the Soviets. However, think about our side of it. Here it is twenty some years later and information like this is just now becoming public. Presumably it was the same on the Soviet side. So in effect, all this did was make the KGB really really suspicious of any software they stole from us. It is very unlikely many people in Siberia knew the real cause for the explosion. And even if they did, it's kind of hard to get angry when software you steal doesn't work.
Are you really going to call Adobe for support when the pirated version of Photoshop you pull off IRC doesn't work right?
If they can generate this "comparison pulse" inside the chip without relying on the main board's clock signal, why can't they just use that to run the chip? Why bother with using the external source and doing a whole comparison operation?
Now if only the ISP would turn on compression on their end everything would be sweet (*).
Compression "enhancements" like this won't do you any good on your downloaded software or most images. Your downloaded programs are already compressed. Something like this can't crunch it much further, if at all. Pics like.jpgs are also pre-compressed (part of the format).
Compression works by eliminating repetitive data in a way that can be reveresed. You can only do it once. That's why you don't get a smaller file if you try to zip a.zip. So basically, these things are rip-offs unless you sit around downloading huge uncompressed files all day long.
Actually, there are several repositories including Freshrpms.net. Most of them keep the Freshrpms packages AND the standard release packages. The standard packages are the ones in the "dist" directories. You have to wait for the repositories to update to the new release packages, but yeah, you can do an upgrade that way.
My college campus, for example, used to have it's primary logins through telnet, they have since shut that port, and require an ssh client to login. I know this is a common trend on Unix campuses, so I think Putty qualifies.
It works fine, as it should being an official release. It just lacks in features and it is almost never updated. One of the biggest problems is that it still uses the TOC (aim's open, very small feature set) protocol. Or at least it did the last time I looked at it. For example, when I tried it, there was no built in way to check a user's away message. This is a result of using TOC as opposed to Oscar.
Functionally there's not anything wrong with it, it just doesn't measure up to some of the other clients out there. Aol knew this, and pretty much gave up on the idea of being able to compete in the Linux market. I believe that's why the blocks stopped right about the time development on the Aim Linux client slowed to a near halt.
Actually in the earlier days, GAIM had several problems with AIM blocking them specifically. I remember several occasions where the Oscar protocol had to be abandoned for days in favor of the miserable TOC protocol while the developers figured out what Aim had thrown at them this time... I think the main reason this hasn't been a problem is that the Aim official client on Linux sucks and they know it, so Gaim hasn't really bothered them. Although it's great to see my favorite client on a new platform, I worry that a Windows port will catch Aol's attention and the blocks will start once again...
Slashdot Mirror
If I hadn't been sitting in a theater when I heard the "lies" I would agree 100%. But this was an entertainment piece designed to bring attention to what he, as an artist, felt was an issue. I had the opportunity to see and evaluate this performance twice in DC, both in the original and modified versions. After the first performance, I actually had to research whether he had gone over there or not. At no point did he state that it was based on actual experience, and due to the semi-abstract presentation I thought it was a total work of fiction.
What I can say, is that the modified version did not significantly differ in the overall tone, look or feel of the show. The Woz Q&A was pretty interesting though.
Key clarification here. Mike Daisey was not found to have fabricated any issues. The issues he brought up have mostly been revealed to be real.
What he misrepresented was his actual experiences on his trip to the Foxconn and other manufacturing facilities. He included embellishments and some fabricated facts in the original version of his monologue. After the media issues following the NPR broadcast, he modified his monologue to remove the problematic content and discuss his original mistake.
Having been at the show in DC when Woz made these comments about the cloud, I felt that Daisey took ownership of his original mistakes and clarified his theatrical representation of his experiences. There were two entire pages in the playbill discussing it and a 3-4 minute section of the monologue that was directed at it. That's the part most people missed when this originally became an issue...this is a theatrical performance, not a documentary.
I once had a user call because her computer wouldn't boot. I ended up pulling the hard disk and putting it in another machine so I could recover some of her files. When I looked at it, I noticed a bunch of folders on the root of the disk with three letter names: DLL, EXE, INI, SYS, BAT, etc...
The really impressive part is that she had actually managed to move most of the system into these before hitting the files that were in use.
At least there's something good there now.
You're an idiot. Rehoboth, Lewes, Bethany, Dewey and Cape Henlopen are all Delaware beaches with plenty of sand (and they had a lot more back in the 70s). They're also less than 30 minutes from the Air Force base. You have to go all the way out of the bottom of the state to get to Ocean City, the north most beach in Maryland.If you're that geographically inept, I hope you weren't driving that bike around too much. BTW, how was that 1869 Mustang? I hear the wood fired Fords were the best...
I do agree that aside from the beaches, there's not a hell of a lot to do in DE though...
For the record, and don't shoot the messenger on this, here's how you change that:
In the administrator
-Menus > Main Menu
-Click Home to edit the home page, or choose the page that needs the layout changed.
-Change the layout using Basic Parameters on the right. To do what you want, change the "Columns" setting to 1.
A lot of people have trouble getting used to the conceptual layout of Joomla. As far as the pages go, EVERYTHING revolves around the menus. This is because the menu represents all instances of the pages. In order to change the settings on any one, you change it's settings in the menu configuration.
It's not the most obvious, but after you work with it a bit it begins to make a lot of sense.
So I just called them after testing this out and asked about the domain name they hijacked out from under me. The official line their phone reps (thank you Megan) are giving is that they are doing this as "a protection against online scammers stealing domains from our customers." Apparently they only hold the domains for 4 days.
I love the irony... We're protecting you from people scamming you by doing the exact same thing!
*Blink*...umm, you're kidding I assume?
We run all of our low I/O file servers on a Raid 5 (with a hot spare) array. You can't beat the price/utilization ratio there. Yeah, you don't get the same performance as Raid 1, but if space is a priority it's the way to go.
I think the confusion is that the article says the recent security ENHANCEMENTS wouldn't be provided to anything but XP. This means no pop-up blocker/firewall/{insert service pack 2 goodie here} for Win2k or below.
They are not saying that they're going to stop making hotfixes for the older versions. Windows 2000 is still officially supported...just don't hold your breath for a pop-up blocker.
You forgetting patches? I can't imagine your machines stay up for 5 minutes, let alone months, if you're not rebooting every couple weeks for the montly releases...
Five rules (was four, but the ads2 addresses seem to be a trend lately...
*ad.*
*ad/*
*ads.*
*ads/*
*ads2*
I still get the occasional ad, but its maybe once a week...amazes me how many of those paths have the word Ad in them...
With the notable exception that you can opt-out of this so called "tax" by simply not purchasing the product. I'd like to see you try that with a real tax. The advertising, the events, and the additional cost are more like by-products. As with anything else, if you are opposed to the by-product, you cease use of whatever creates it.
We do have a fast, automated client rebuild process, however, don't you think that at least an attempt should be made to be proactive? We can't have our desktop techs spend all thier time reimaging our 15,000 workstations.
Absolutely, you can't secure everything. But making the attempt can at least deter some of your problems. It's the same as a lock on your door: It probably won't keep someone determined out, but it will at least keep the honest people honest, and foil the most unskilled crooks...
By "rules", do you mean technical requirements or policies
I was a simple way of saying "the way we have chosen to run the infrastructure such that all critical services are avaialable all the time". That includes both the technical configurations, and the administrative policies.
But if the latter, I care not for the rules.
To be frank, I don't care if a user likes the "rules" or not. They are there for a reason. I am prefectly willing to work with them to find a way for them to get what they need done within the constraints of our environment, but that does not include simply giving them admin access and walking away.
What, they turned off their antivirus software? Or the automatic updates thereof? Or they uninstalled it completely?
Several people have made this comment (or a similar one about not having an adequate Anti-Virus setup). Let me explain those of you who quite obviously have not had to deal with the situation this past two weeks: The recent Bagle, MyDoom, and Netsky viruses were being released faster than the AV companies could update defs. Once they did release them, it takes my organization 3 hours to push the updates to all 15,000 clients. In that 3 hours, we routinely had several people manage to infect themselves with these viruses. MyDoom in particualar was setup to randomly delete files from any accesible drive. Several users with admin access had thier machines trashed as critical system files were deleted. Now, this is a gross simplification of the events of the past two weeks, but it's a good rough example of what I'm talking about.
At one place I worked, not only could you not install your own software by default, but in fact had no access at all (much less write access) to most of your own C: drive.
So, just a matter of curiosity, you think that it would be better to run an environment where any user can install unlicenesed software and delete critical system files? How about get infected with a virus, and due to thier heightened access it's able to delete the OS. To be perfectly honest in today's IT world, you can't trust the people using the systems with any sort of access that can affect the system itself.
Unfortunately that goes double for the "technically inclined" users. Sure, you may have have a top notch, dual processor, 5 gig ram desktop at home running 200 different operating systems on a souped up wireless network but you don't know THIS environement. Things are different in a large network environment, and if it's not your job to run it, you probably don't know all the rules. I have had to spend more hours than I care to count fixing something some developer broke because his manaager forced us to give him administrative access on his machine. It's rarely that the person isn't technically capable, but that they don't know how our systems are set up. It's easy for someone to make a mistake when they have access to things they don't understand.
It is by no means an insult to your technical abilities to lock your machine down. It is simply the only way for the sysadmins that are responsible for your system to ensure that it's working properly.
I'm sorry if I seem a little testy, but I just spent 2 weeks screwing with virus damage because certain users have access to things they don't need. This post just hit a well timed nerve...
Actually, that's not entierly true. MS is getting slightly better in that not ALL of the patch packages require a reboot anymore. Keep in mind though, that MS has a really bad habit distributing packages that force a reboot even when not necessary. Between that and simply restarting a service instead of the box you can seriously cut down on reboots.
:)
If you are all that worried about reboots, it is often possible to download the patch, extract it, do a little analysis on it, and repackage it so that it doesn't require a reboot. Most of the time the reboot is needed because the package puts unecessary entries in the "pending file rename" keys in the registry. If you make your own package to replace the files when the patch is run you can usually escape with no reboot.
The last patch I had to reboot my critical systems for was MS03-049 because it required a restart of the workstation service. All of my critical systems are up to date and have an uptime of a little more than 2 months. I know that's nothing compared to a *nix system, but it's better than 2 weeks
I work in a 100% Windows environment and frequetly have to tune systems to meet very strict security standards (yes, I realize the irony in that...).
I spend a significant amount of time digging through "half a dozen different" registry locations (pretty similar to browsing a filesystem in gui) "to edit esoteric" value names to activate/deactivate hidden or complely undocumented features in software and even the OS. Yeah, it's really annoying. Yeah, it's not necessarily user friendly. But, no, it's not limited to OSS apps.
To be fair, all the US did was sabatoge thier own software. Had they gone out and actually bombed the pipeline, I agree, it would have been really hard on "releations" with the Soviets. However, think about our side of it. Here it is twenty some years later and information like this is just now becoming public. Presumably it was the same on the Soviet side. So in effect, all this did was make the KGB really really suspicious of any software they stole from us. It is very unlikely many people in Siberia knew the real cause for the explosion. And even if they did, it's kind of hard to get angry when software you steal doesn't work.
Are you really going to call Adobe for support when the pirated version of Photoshop you pull off IRC doesn't work right?
Ok, maybe I just don't get it.
If they can generate this "comparison pulse" inside the chip without relying on the main board's clock signal, why can't they just use that to run the chip? Why bother with using the external source and doing a whole comparison operation?
Now if only the ISP would turn on compression on their end everything would be sweet (*).
.jpgs are also pre-compressed (part of the format).
.zip. So basically, these things are rip-offs unless you sit around downloading huge uncompressed files all day long.
Compression "enhancements" like this won't do you any good on your downloaded software or most images. Your downloaded programs are already compressed. Something like this can't crunch it much further, if at all. Pics like
Compression works by eliminating repetitive data in a way that can be reveresed. You can only do it once. That's why you don't get a smaller file if you try to zip a
Actually, there are several repositories including Freshrpms.net. Most of them keep the Freshrpms packages AND the standard release packages. The standard packages are the ones in the "dist" directories. You have to wait for the repositories to update to the new release packages, but yeah, you can do an upgrade that way.
My college campus, for example, used to have it's primary logins through telnet, they have since shut that port, and require an ssh client to login. I know this is a common trend on Unix campuses, so I think Putty qualifies.
No, but you can very easily run jad on the .jar files and make it that way ;)...
It works fine, as it should being an official release. It just lacks in features and it is almost never updated. One of the biggest problems is that it still uses the TOC (aim's open, very small feature set) protocol. Or at least it did the last time I looked at it. For example, when I tried it, there was no built in way to check a user's away message. This is a result of using TOC as opposed to Oscar.
Functionally there's not anything wrong with it, it just doesn't measure up to some of the other clients out there. Aol knew this, and pretty much gave up on the idea of being able to compete in the Linux market. I believe that's why the blocks stopped right about the time development on the Aim Linux client slowed to a near halt.
Just hit ctrl + the number of the tab you want. Just like switching X desktops, but using the numbers, not the F keys. :)
Actually in the earlier days, GAIM had several problems with AIM blocking them specifically. I remember several occasions where the Oscar protocol had to be abandoned for days in favor of the miserable TOC protocol while the developers figured out what Aim had thrown at them this time... I think the main reason this hasn't been a problem is that the Aim official client on Linux sucks and they know it, so Gaim hasn't really bothered them. Although it's great to see my favorite client on a new platform, I worry that a Windows port will catch Aol's attention and the blocks will start once again...