Yea an 11% shrink rate would be head-rolling territory.
You can not however equate a camcorder rip to retail shrink. That would be similar to saying that someone taking a singe gummy bear out of the bulk bin at the grocery store cost the store the value of the entire bin.
A more honest approach, if it was possible, would be to count how many times one of these copies was downloaded by someone who never ended up paying to see the show, vs every single ticket sold, and every single DVD sold, of the entire production.
If that number was anywhere near even 1% I would be surprised.
Ok, so you say...
Your summary is a pretty loose interpretation of the verses ("beg", "by any means necessary", etc). Anyway, by quoting the two verses around the one you quoted alone, we've gone from "kill the disbelievers unless they convert" to "don't kill the ones you have a treaty with, kill the ones who won't submit, and if they are ignorant and ask for your protection, teach them your ways and let them leave in peace." Sounds slightly different to me.
Still sounds like the primary issue is still "kill those who won't submit". Please explain to me how killing people for not submitting is a "good" thing, and not "evil". Personally I think the very idea of killing people for not submitting to a particular religion or ideology is a very good definition of "evil".
Thanks for the links, this paragraph at the bottom of the page was particularly interesting. (Emphasis mine)
In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a' conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr.Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine.
So even after putting the entire chapter into context, it is concluded that the Muslim religion has at its very heart, the goal of subjugating the entire world to Islam.
I still don't see where I missed the point of the chapter, or how my interpretations were far enough off to be of consequence. Maybe you can solve this by answering a couple of questions.
Is there not five forms of Jihad, and are they not as follows?
Jihad al-nafs (striving against one's inner self)
Jihad al-Shaitan (striving against Satan)
Jihad al-kuffaar (striving against the disbelievers)
Jihad al-munafiqeen (striving against the hypocrites)
Jihad al-faasiqeen (striving against corrupt Muslims)
Are all five of these not the obligation of every Muslim?
Please demonstrate how killing and violence are not, and have never been, valid means of carrying out all of the above, particularly the last three.
And please to tell how so many Muslims around the world could have it so wrong that they want to see cartoonists put to death for simply offending them.
First off
"But you didn't come up with that list, did you? There are hundreds of sites out there quoting those exact verses, all of them quoting out of context."
This argument is a common tactic to assign "guilt by association" to the source, without even naming the specific phantom source, or putting even one example into "context". It is slanderous, presumptuous, and a very weak argument.
"Why are you quoting verses out of context?"
Second, lets put your examples in the context you asked them to be looked at. I noticed that you only put links, and not the entire body. This is yet another attempt at discrediting without the use of actual facts. So here they are, in context.
009.004 "Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)."
009.005 " Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. "
009.006 "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. "
Let me summarize just how these verses appear to me, and you can correct me with your far more vast knowledge of the "real" context of these verses.
009.004 If idolaters have made a deal with you, do not break it unless they break it first.
009.005 Once you have fulfilled your obligation, kill them by any means necessary unless they convert and pay the Jihza tax.
009.006 If the idolaters beg, give them a chance to convert, and if they do not, leave them alone because they are ignorant.
"Also the problem isn't Islam itself read the Quran yourself before passing judgement on it. "
I have. Here are some of the more enlightned verses from the "ROP"
From the Quran:
Sura 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."
47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
2:191 "And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."
8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."
8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
2:216 "Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not."
[Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."
Oh, and a here are a plethora of other verses you may just want to look up. If you really want to get the whole context, just read, and re-read Sura 9.
002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244
003:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167, 169, 172-173, 195
004:071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095, 100-104, 144
005:033, 035, 082
008:001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048, 057-060, 065-075
009:005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029, 036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083, 086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123
016:110
022:039, 058, 078
024:053, 055
025:052
029:006, 069
033:015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050
042:039
047:004, 020, 035
048:015-024
049:015
059:002, 005-008, 014
060:009
061:004, 011, 013
063:004
064:014
066:009
073:020
076:008
Surely there is no just cause to censor anyone who want's to openly ask questions about a "religion" that espouses such vitriol to anyone who is not a follower of their belief system.
"10 million e-mails a day"
"doing something that's pretty much being a mass annoyance."
I think we should do some math. If what he did was illegal, then lets set the punishment at a fair cost.
So 10 million e-mails
Assume 1 second of wasted time on average per e-mail.
10 million seconds
166,666 minuets
2777 hours
115 days
So if he was sentenced to 115 days for every day he was in operation and there are 3285 days in 9 years.
The guy would only have to have been in business for 29 days to have wasted more peoples time that he is going to have to spend in jail.
Sounds fair to me.
Better re-run it through your spell/grammer checker, some parts just don't add up.
"Then IBM chooses to market the project with better product results and gives the axe to the among the members of the losing project team."
There is a deeper problem to the software tax issue, than just can we get it OOS. Quite simply, it is all the DRM stuff put into the current privatly published tax software.
Where I come from (Canada), you are required to keep your records for at least 7 years, yet most of this software is controlled to be registered to one machine. How many people have the same computer they had 7 years ago?
Now, lets say you get audited after you get a new machine. Could be in six months, or six years, and you don't have your tax software installed. You have all your print outs, and you have all your original files made by the software package, but how did the math work, and all your items interrelate? Who knows? Humm, what to do?
They don't sell the package anymore, and you can't re-install even if you have the original's.
Personally, I have been ghosting HD's after tax time for years, and just praying that I can still find hardware compatible enough with the chipset drivers that will run it if I ever get audited.
Not a very secure place to be.
Personally, I think in this day and age, the Government should be obligated to supply the software, free of charge, and have historical copies available to all. Barring that, the companies should be required to publish a free version of thier software after it is pulled from the store shelves.
What I want to know, is how is my Cable dollar, and advertising viewed dollar broken up?
How much does the Cable/satalite company keep of each, and how much goes to the cost of the shows production?
I have a feeling there are quite a few hands being held out, and everyone want's a cut.
I guess the bottom line question is, if I was to cut off my Cable, and only buy the DVD's of shows I have heard about, who takes the biggest hit to thier bottom line?
Have the browser store in a searchable index, the cached results for previous pages visited.
Then if links die, you want to see how a page looked yesterday, or certain information is removed from a website, you have your own personal way back machine, with all your previously visited sites.
Best part is this would not add bloat, but would rely on the users disk space capacity.
It could be done in a more user friendly manner than just cutting them off.
Switch them to a DNS that is configured to work for those that are compromised.
Default 99% of the internet to route to a self help page, that has links to spambot removers, ad blocking software, and such that will resolve correctly.
Then have a way for said help page to mark them as clean after they have made the necessary fixes.
Tell them to re-boot, and give them back access to the standard DNS.
Infected again? Lather, rinse, repeat.
"They can't afford to waste money profiling a segment of the population that are simply attending a legally-occurring event, except in the case of complaints from neighbors or the suspected presence of someone who might do something harmful."
Ok, local example. During a political rally in our town, the local federal police, RCMP, decided that this day was a good day to pull over motorists to look for seat belt infractions. As we are a rather small town, it is trivial that by looking at the driving records to find out who "doesn't belong" and thereby identify individual's political stripes. The ticket revenue would more than offset the cost of having a car dedicated to this.
I am not saying that they were collecting this data, I personally suspect they were just harassing the supporters of the opposition to the government, as this had never happened before, and hasn't in the three years since the rally, and it is understood that the RCMP are less than detached from their governmental masters.
What is of concern is not the economics, or even the current political bent, but rather what the tool could be used for in the future. That this tool makes it legal to track and harass citizens is what should concern everyone.
Remember, one thing Hitler did very early, was force registration of all the guns in the country. It's not always what the law is used for today that is a concern, but rather what it CAN be used for in the future.
"You don't have to tell him what your political affiliation or your annual household income is."
Police officers stand outside a political rally and ask everyone to identify themselves, and run all the names of people they identify through the computer.
Police officers wait outside a time share vacation sales meeting where you have to have a minimum family income to attend.
Police officers stand outside a....
Yes it could very well be they are asking you what your political affiliation is. Every identity check they run is recorded. Very easy to collate the data.
If this case fails, its only a matter of time before companies use this tactic to smear a company. Imagine a campaign for porn sites, paid for by your competitor, and popping up with raunchy advertisements off of your home page.
Any one of these "solutions" can be exploited to hurt legitimate business. Simply send out a spam campaign on behalf of XYZ company with legitimate credentials, and watch the chaos and disaster at the company as phone lines are cut, merchant accounts cancelled, etc.
Spammers have already done all sorts of illegal activity to continue their frauds, what's one more to cut the knees out on the competition, or the competition of their customers.
What they really need to do is build into everyones cable/DSL modem an easy to configure (Read http accessable) firewall, that defaults to blocking inbounds. People would have to make the choice to open thier own ports, but at least it would make it the users choice, and not require contact with the ISP just to use the internet. Us geeks would just do it ourselves and the clueless would be safe 99% of the time.
It would also help the ISP's legally if they could prove the users made the choice to become a target.
Lotus 123 used to use the ~ symbol in its macros to represent a [RETURN] key press. I think that a program called super key did the same thing so it could have been a standard, but I can't be certain.
Add to this the fact that the apparent next Prime Minister is one of the most independently wealthy people in Canada. Kinda hard to bribe someone like that.
It is interesting to note that Canada is one of the most over governed countries in the world. We have a population similar to California. (31+ Million Canada 35 Million California) We have 24 Senators, 4 for each province.California has 2. More political numbers and facts on Canada
I wouldn't necessarily say that. If you look at this. You will see a plausable connection between M$ and SCO. I think these purchases would be chump change for the Gates familly. They wouldn't be investing to make money, they just want the bad press to keep rolling.
Read the article and draw your own conclusions.
She only sued after Mcdonalds failed to settle for just the costs of treatment and time lost for work.
McDonalds had already seen at least 700 complaints about the coffee tempature previously
The jury awarded WAY more than she initially sued for. ($100,000 plus whatever the jury felt was fair punitive damages)
The judge dropped the settlement to $640,000, which was still more than the initial suit was for because it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonalds
Please don't blame her for the value of the settlement, it was jurors that chose the punitive damages.
True. However in our company it is not unusual to loose 1 or more HD's per month. When you do loose a HD, the first thing we do is to try it in another box. Because it was part of a RAID, we couldn't just pop the drive into another machine to test it. It actually ends up being cheaper to just replace the HD's first and recover from a ghost than to spend time checking every other option just to find that is in fact 99% of the time, really a failed HD.
Sometimes it's not very obvious what is breaks. We lost a raid controler with the last one, and ended up thinking it was the HD's that failed and bought new ones. It wasn't until the new set of drives didn't work that we dug into the update issue. BTW, this was on one of our primary servers, and took considerable time to sort out with many people spinning their wheels. And no, we couldn't test it first, because not every company can afford to keep an extra 20k server lying around just in case microsoft decides to break a very obscure component driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea an 11% shrink rate would be head-rolling territory.
You can not however equate a camcorder rip to retail shrink. That would be similar to saying that someone taking a singe gummy bear out of the bulk bin at the grocery store cost the store the value of the entire bin.
A more honest approach, if it was possible, would be to count how many times one of these copies was downloaded by someone who never ended up paying to see the show, vs every single ticket sold, and every single DVD sold, of the entire production.
If that number was anywhere near even 1% I would be surprised.
Still sounds like the primary issue is still "kill those who won't submit". Please explain to me how killing people for not submitting is a "good" thing, and not "evil". Personally I think the very idea of killing people for not submitting to a particular religion or ideology is a very good definition of "evil".
Thanks for the links, this paragraph at the bottom of the page was particularly interesting. (Emphasis mine)
In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a' conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine.
So even after putting the entire chapter into context, it is concluded that the Muslim religion has at its very heart, the goal of subjugating the entire world to Islam.
I still don't see where I missed the point of the chapter, or how my interpretations were far enough off to be of consequence. Maybe you can solve this by answering a couple of questions.
Is there not five forms of Jihad, and are they not as follows?
- Jihad al-nafs (striving against one's inner self)
- Jihad al-Shaitan (striving against Satan)
- Jihad al-kuffaar (striving against the disbelievers)
- Jihad al-munafiqeen (striving against the hypocrites)
- Jihad al-faasiqeen (striving against corrupt Muslims)
Are all five of these not the obligation of every Muslim?Please demonstrate how killing and violence are not, and have never been, valid means of carrying out all of the above, particularly the last three.
And please to tell how so many Muslims around the world could have it so wrong that they want to see cartoonists put to death for simply offending them.
First off
"But you didn't come up with that list, did you? There are hundreds of sites out there quoting those exact verses, all of them quoting out of context."
This argument is a common tactic to assign "guilt by association" to the source, without even naming the specific phantom source, or putting even one example into "context". It is slanderous, presumptuous, and a very weak argument.
"Why are you quoting verses out of context?"
Second, lets put your examples in the context you asked them to be looked at. I noticed that you only put links, and not the entire body. This is yet another attempt at discrediting without the use of actual facts. So here they are, in context.
009.004 "Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)."
009.005 " Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. "
009.006 "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. "
Let me summarize just how these verses appear to me, and you can correct me with your far more vast knowledge of the "real" context of these verses.
009.004 If idolaters have made a deal with you, do not break it unless they break it first.
009.005 Once you have fulfilled your obligation, kill them by any means necessary unless they convert and pay the Jihza tax.
009.006 If the idolaters beg, give them a chance to convert, and if they do not, leave them alone because they are ignorant.
What part of "in context" did I miss?
"Also the problem isn't Islam itself read the Quran yourself before passing judgement on it. "
:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244 :121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167, 169, 172-173, 195 :071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095, 100-104, 144 :033, 035, 082 :001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048, 057-060, 065-075 :005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029, 036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083, 086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123 :110 :039, 058, 078 :053, 055 :052 :006, 069 :015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050 :039 :004, 020, 035 :015-024 :015 :002, 005-008, 014 :009 :004, 011, 013 :004 :014 :009 :020 :008
I have. Here are some of the more enlightned verses from the "ROP"
From the Quran:
Sura 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."
47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
2:191 "And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."
8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."
8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
2:216 "Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not."
[Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."
Oh, and a here are a plethora of other verses you may just want to look up. If you really want to get the whole context, just read, and re-read Sura 9.
002
003
004
005
008
009
016
022
024
025
029
033
042
047
048
049
059
060
061
063
064
066
073
076
Surely there is no just cause to censor anyone who want's to openly ask questions about a "religion" that espouses such vitriol to anyone who is not a follower of their belief system.
"doing something that's pretty much being a mass annoyance."
I think we should do some math. If what he did was illegal, then lets set the punishment at a fair cost.
- So 10 million e-mails
- Assume 1 second of wasted time on average per e-mail.
- 10 million seconds
- 166,666 minuets
- 2777 hours
- 115 days
So if he was sentenced to 115 days for every day he was in operation and there are 3285 days in 9 years.The guy would only have to have been in business for 29 days to have wasted more peoples time that he is going to have to spend in jail.
Sounds fair to me.
Better re-run it through your spell/grammer checker, some parts just don't add up.
"Then IBM chooses to market the project with better product results and gives the axe to the among the members of the losing project team."
There is a deeper problem to the software tax issue, than just can we get it OOS. Quite simply, it is all the DRM stuff put into the current privatly published tax software.
Where I come from (Canada), you are required to keep your records for at least 7 years, yet most of this software is controlled to be registered to one machine. How many people have the same computer they had 7 years ago?
Now, lets say you get audited after you get a new machine. Could be in six months, or six years, and you don't have your tax software installed. You have all your print outs, and you have all your original files made by the software package, but how did the math work, and all your items interrelate? Who knows? Humm, what to do?
They don't sell the package anymore, and you can't re-install even if you have the original's.
Personally, I have been ghosting HD's after tax time for years, and just praying that I can still find hardware compatible enough with the chipset drivers that will run it if I ever get audited.
Not a very secure place to be.
Personally, I think in this day and age, the Government should be obligated to supply the software, free of charge, and have historical copies available to all. Barring that, the companies should be required to publish a free version of thier software after it is pulled from the store shelves.
What I want to know, is how is my Cable dollar, and advertising viewed dollar broken up?
How much does the Cable/satalite company keep of each, and how much goes to the cost of the shows production?
I have a feeling there are quite a few hands being held out, and everyone want's a cut.
I guess the bottom line question is, if I was to cut off my Cable, and only buy the DVD's of shows I have heard about, who takes the biggest hit to thier bottom line?
Yes, and putting them in the hallway at night is a great way to see who is raiding the fridge.
Have the browser store in a searchable index, the cached results for previous pages visited.
Then if links die, you want to see how a page looked yesterday, or certain information is removed from a website, you have your own personal way back machine, with all your previously visited sites.
Best part is this would not add bloat, but would rely on the users disk space capacity.
It could be done in a more user friendly manner than just cutting them off.
Switch them to a DNS that is configured to work for those that are compromised.
Default 99% of the internet to route to a self help page, that has links to spambot removers, ad blocking software, and such that will resolve correctly.
Then have a way for said help page to mark them as clean after they have made the necessary fixes.
Tell them to re-boot, and give them back access to the standard DNS.
Infected again? Lather, rinse, repeat.
"They can't afford to waste money profiling a segment of the population that are simply attending a legally-occurring event, except in the case of complaints from neighbors or the suspected presence of someone who might do something harmful."
Ok, local example. During a political rally in our town, the local federal police, RCMP, decided that this day was a good day to pull over motorists to look for seat belt infractions. As we are a rather small town, it is trivial that by looking at the driving records to find out who "doesn't belong" and thereby identify individual's political stripes. The ticket revenue would more than offset the cost of having a car dedicated to this.
I am not saying that they were collecting this data, I personally suspect they were just harassing the supporters of the opposition to the government, as this had never happened before, and hasn't in the three years since the rally, and it is understood that the RCMP are less than detached from their governmental masters.
What is of concern is not the economics, or even the current political bent, but rather what the tool could be used for in the future. That this tool makes it legal to track and harass citizens is what should concern everyone.
Remember, one thing Hitler did very early, was force registration of all the guns in the country. It's not always what the law is used for today that is a concern, but rather what it CAN be used for in the future.
"You don't have to tell him what your political affiliation or your annual household income is."
....
Police officers stand outside a political rally and ask everyone to identify themselves, and run all the names of people they identify through the computer.
Police officers wait outside a time share vacation sales meeting where you have to have a minimum family income to attend.
Police officers stand outside a
Yes it could very well be they are asking you what your political affiliation is. Every identity check they run is recorded. Very easy to collate the data.
If this case fails, its only a matter of time before companies use this tactic to smear a company.
Imagine a campaign for porn sites, paid for by your competitor, and popping up with raunchy advertisements off of your home page.
That would make mom and dad happy to shop there.
Here is just a couple.
Two words, Joe job.
Any one of these "solutions" can be exploited to hurt legitimate business. Simply send out a spam campaign on behalf of XYZ company with legitimate credentials, and watch the chaos and disaster at the company as phone lines are cut, merchant accounts cancelled, etc.
Spammers have already done all sorts of illegal activity to continue their frauds, what's one more to cut the knees out on the competition, or the competition of their customers.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
What they really need to do is build into everyones cable/DSL modem an easy to configure (Read http accessable) firewall, that defaults to blocking inbounds.
People would have to make the choice to open thier own ports, but at least it would make it the users choice, and not require contact with the ISP just to use the internet. Us geeks would just do it ourselves and the clueless would be safe 99% of the time.
It would also help the ISP's legally if they could prove the users made the choice to become a target.
Lotus 123 used to use the ~ symbol in its macros to represent a [RETURN] key press. I think that a program called super key did the same thing so it could have been a standard, but I can't be certain.
Not really. /. was inconsiderate enough to post a SCO story AFTER work hours.
It's the fact that
Add to this the fact that the apparent next Prime Minister is one of the most independently wealthy people in Canada. Kinda hard to bribe someone like that.
It is interesting to note that Canada is one of the most over governed countries in the world. We have a population similar to California. (31+ Million Canada 35 Million California) We have 24 Senators, 4 for each province.California has 2.
More political numbers and facts on Canada
I wouldn't necessarily say that. If you look at this. You will see a plausable connection between M$ and SCO.
I think these purchases would be chump change for the Gates familly. They wouldn't be investing to make money, they just want the bad press to keep rolling.
Read the article and draw your own conclusions.
Quick Facts:
- She only sued after Mcdonalds failed to settle for just the costs of treatment and time lost for work.
- McDonalds had already seen at least 700 complaints about the coffee tempature previously
- The jury awarded WAY more than she initially sued for. ($100,000 plus whatever the jury felt was fair punitive damages)
- The judge dropped the settlement to $640,000, which was still more than the initial suit was for because it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonalds
Please don't blame her for the value of the settlement, it was jurors that chose the punitive damages.True. However in our company it is not unusual to loose 1 or more HD's per month. When you do loose a HD, the first thing we do is to try it in another box. Because it was part of a RAID, we couldn't just pop the drive into another machine to test it.
It actually ends up being cheaper to just replace the HD's first and recover from a ghost than to spend time checking every other option just to find that is in fact 99% of the time, really a failed HD.
Sometimes it's not very obvious what is breaks. We lost a raid controler with the last one, and ended up thinking it was the HD's that failed and bought new ones. It wasn't until the new set of drives didn't work that we dug into the update issue. BTW, this was on one of our primary servers, and took considerable time to sort out with many people spinning their wheels. And no, we couldn't test it first, because not every company can afford to keep an extra 20k server lying around just in case microsoft decides to break a very obscure component driver.