whoa, calm down. I didn't tell him to ignore the advice and expereince of others, for crying out loud, reread my damn post! Where did I say *anything* like that?!
What you said was, that he doesn't really need books, and he'd be better off to play around with things. Presumably the people who've written books have some experience and advice to offer.
In any event it does nothing to counter the point that while there are certainly many other resources available, and somethings may be best learned by trial and error, some things are best learned by reading the relevant reference material. Further for a simpler endeavour like this, it is likely that he would spend more time, using your approach, just finding and gathering all of the relevant materials, than he would solving the actual problem if he just bought and read a simple how to guide.
This approach further assumes that time has no value. In his case his time is valuable, and the time of the other small number of employees is most likely even more so, so time wasted 'fooling around with it' is money wasted.
We're talking about a 15 user network here. An afternoon with networking for dummies and a few hours with any decent book on administration, I like the one I recommended, but there are certainly others, is all that he's likely to need to get things up and running.
I've found that books are far, far inferior to just playing with the damn thing.
Until you need to do things correctly.
Just playing with it willl get the basics working, but it won't teach you anything about the best practice for any given situation.
It won't teach you the correct way to devise a backup rotation. It won't teach you how to devise an efficient addressing scheme. It won't teach you how to properly secure your network and your data.
Depending on your level of experience, you may already know some of these things, but the OP made it clear that he doesn't. Telling him to ignore the work, advice and experience of the others who have gone before is irresponsible, not to mention likely to waste a lot of time that he probably doesn't have to spare.
Another valuable guide that hasn't been mentioned is from oreilley
Essential System Administration, Third Edition
By Æleen Frisch
Third Edition August 2002
ISBN: 0-596-00343-9
1176 pages, $54.95 US, $85.95 CA, £38.95 UK
this is oriented to the UNIX admin but the advice is relevant to all OS
Backup Exec does in fact have an image option (it costs extra)
You're right, it does. It just doesn't work worth a damn.
and perfectly fine support for tape libraries, including FC-attached libraries, below the $300k silo level.
Perhaps support wasn't the word I should have chosen.Optimization is probably a better choice. While it does support those bigger libraries too many drives are idle for too long too often. The only cure for this is tedious, and repeated job manipulation. In addition the I/E functions are marginal and have NO ability to track the locations of exported media
There are also damn good MS SQL and Exchange agents.
if you read the original post carefully you noticed that I didn't mention those because they do in fact work pretty well.
Microsoft's IT center uses Backup Exec for thousands of servers, so presumably it scales better than you think if you buy the correct option for that as well.
I'm not at all sure thats the endorsement I'd be looking for.
Perhaps you're thinking of just what you get for the base price? Even with all the options they sell, Backup Exec is still 1/3rd the price of CommVault, for similar functionality.
A third the price... sure.. similar functionality? not even close.
Re:I hope.... not really (Score:1)
I hear the "Their support sucks" argument a lot, but that has not been my experience. We have 26 Netbackup systems throughout our company and they all work very well.
Yes, but thats the point. Netbackup is not backupexec and neither is the support. NB support is based in the US and the support is pretty good. And while I would personally still use Galaxy, NB is a decent product.
OTOH BE support is based in Pakistan and is abysmally bad. Once you overcome the language issues you're stuck with poorly trained personnel who have little or no troubleshooting skills and no ability or interest in understanding your environment, and a genuine resistance to escalation no matter how well warranted, and it's still riddled with problems. Again for a small number of file servers, it's just fine, but Veritas is positioning it as enterprise backup, and it just isn't
Not really. Its a fine product if you have one server to protect. It's an adequate product if you have 10 servers to protect. With version 10 it could even be argued that its ok for a SLIGHTLY larger implementation.
But if you have any significant number of servers to protect it doesn't scale worth a damn. There are a number of far superior backup solutions out there. My preference is CommVault galaxy, but Legato, Tivoli, CA and even Veritas all make better products. It gets even worse if your servers are anything more than file servers. The oracle agent is marginally functional at best, there are no real agents for Sybase, MySQL or Informix,. There are no block level or image level backups. The support for large (that is more than single drive autoloaders) is a joke.
And the biggest joke of all.. Support.. Veritas may have the single worst support organization on the planet.
Oh crap! I'm so sick and tired of this excuse you can't even imagine it, more so because i first came up with it myself. But years later it's crystal clear that school is school and work practice is work practice and it's way to stupid to try to teach them both at once.
Thats just stupid. The OP was studying programming. Presumably he wanted to learn to be a programmer and to be paid for this skill. In the real world, as in school, you're expected to produce a work product that meets the design criteria. If you have a better idea you can suggest and perhaps make changes to the design criteria, but you can not just do unilaterally.
Learing how to produce the product that was required, is part of learning to be a programmer, adding things that YOU feel add to the product, but which were neither requested by, or approved by the customer is counter-productive at best.
Yes, i'm all for learning in school how the real world works but not during and at the expense of regular classes.
You're still missing the point. He was given a lesson and an assignment to demonstrate that he had learned the skills presented in the lesson, nothing more. He failed to do that. There IS a lesson to be learned here.
iI disagree vehemently. WHen I was going to school I would get punished for taking the extra steps. For example once I failed a programming assignment because my program had a GUI and "we haven't learned that yet"
You didn't fail because "we haven't learned that yet" . You failed because you were given a project with defined objectives and your work product did not meet the design criteria. It works like that in the real world too. Perhaps there was more than one lesson in there?
Am I the only one here who thinks that's letting them off kind of easy?
Yeah, you might be.
I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed. In both cases, the intention and the potential outcome are the same...
Are they? I live in NJ, and have been following this story closely in both the local and nation news. There is no evidence as yet that shows any malicious intent. This guy is clearly an idiot, let's be clear about that, but this is hardly the same as aiming a SAM at a commercial airliner.
The other part of this whole thing that is so offensive is that the states' attorney has confirmed that there was no act of terrorism, yet they're prosecuting him under anti-terrorism laws instead of the multitude of appropriate laws that cover these kinds of actions. There are only 2 possible reasons for this. One, there are greater penalties. Two, there is far greater media coverage. I'll leave to you to decide the motive here.
my xp box shut down in the middle of the night last weekend, tossing some unsaved mozilla composer pages away in the process....I HATE microsofts high handedness
Just shut off the automatic updates installations. Let it download and prompt for an install.
Until you have two drives fail. Then, you're fucked. Don't act like that never happens, because it does. I've had it happen, as I'm sure others have. No more RAID5 for me. . .
Thats what hot spares are for. Even if you aren't monitoring your arrays.. you are aren't you? One global hot spare per enclosure and you need 3 failed drives before you loose data.
I mean, almost nothing good ever comes out of them for the consumer. Service takes a hit, products get dropped, prices go up. Where are the so called synergies?
In this case that may not be true. It all depends on which way the control goes. Veritas support just plain sucks. Symantec for all their faults has good support. Personally I'd abandon both for CommVault and Trend, but if Symantec takes control, the service and support at Veritas will most likely improve.
I don't understand the problem. With Pay Per View, you are QUITE SPECIFICALLY buying a license to watch a movie once. You are PAYing PER VIEW.
And this is specified where exactly? You're buying the license to watch the movie (or event or whatever), but I've never seen, signed, clicked on, or in any other way tacitly agreed to a licensing agreement of any kind.
There's no ambiguity about buying physical media vs the content, about buying a license, and so on. You're paying to have a movie playing to your sat/cable box at a specific time and date. Done.
Yes, except the Supreme Court (in the US, elsewhere YMMV) decided a long time ago that I do have the right to tape and time shift to watch at my convenience. The question of whether I'm paying for the content, or whether the content is paid for by commercial advertising is irrelevant
It could also could be true (though I doubt it) that Powell has a personal vendetta against Stern. Again, Stern doesn't even have a good conspiracy, just "free speech" and "I have the highest fines". Powell's response was simply, "Right or wrong, you broke the law".
The problem with this is that it is not a law, it is a rule. And is one that is seemingly in a constant state of flux and which is applied arbitrarily. Stern's argument, and it is a good one, says in essence, 'Make the guidlines clear and we'll obey.' In addition make them the same, and apply them the same to everyone. That is clearly not the case as evidenced by the quoted case involving Oprah. Oprah was not fined for having the exact same conversation as Stern, even though hers happened months ago, and Stern's more than 3 years ago.
When the rule can not be easily interpretted by anyone and the rules are not clear to anyone, not even attorneys that specialize in this field, then there clearly is an issue of arbitary prosecution
I am nto suggesting he be banned. I am suggesting that his show being broadcast on the public airwaves doesnt serve the public interest.
Same thing, different words. You dont feel that Stern, or people with similar opinions serve any public interest so they aren't allowed the use of the airwaves. If he's removed that is a defacto ban.
The airwaves used to be considered a public resource that ought to serve everyone.
By whom? The airwaves excepting those given to NPR and local college stations have been licensed to private companies for commercial gain. Those companies clearly know what people want to listen to.
Right now, if you are uninterested in potty jokes, sex, vulgarity, or the like you are not served by radio.
Really? Do you live in a place where NPR is not available? Does your city have no classical, jazz or country stations? Does your city have no sports talk, or political talk stations? How about the all news station? How about the local college station(s)? There are plenty of choices. The fact that you may not like some of them is the precide reason why there ARE choices.
The radio stations compete very heavily for the 18 to 35 year old white male audience. If you are not in that market segment , you are very likely not being served by the public airwaves.
Please see above. How many of that demo do you suppose listen to NPR, Rush Limbaugh, or the local classical or jazz stations?
Howard Stern, and most of all commerical radio, does not belong on the public airwaves.
On what basis? On the basis that it offends your personal sense of decency?
Would you approve of him doing a show in the middle of Yellowstone National Park, or on the grounds of the US Capitol building? Of course not. Those are national treasures. Likewise for the airwaves.
Hardly the same thing. The government did not make the decision to lease the capitol building out for commercial gain.
On private channel communications, whatever sells rules. On the public airwaves, society must benefit.
And having a show on the air that makes those of us who CHOOSE to listen laugh each morning IS a benefit to society as a whole.
If you can't, without completely ceasing your buisness operations, fight what you believe is an unjust claim, it's a useless system.
Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.
This is hardly the same thing. There is no LAW involved here. This is an FCC rule. It can therefore not by definition be illegal. Furthermore these rules are without judicial oversight, and without due process
Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.
Viacom via its former president Mel Karmazin has repeatedly said that they feel they are in the right and desire the opportunity to challenge these fines in court
What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail..
An even more ridiculous analogy. In your case these drug dealers have been convicted. They've had the opportunity of due process, they've been before the courts and they've been convicted. Show me where any of these things happens in the case of fines imposed by the FCC..
Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse..
Oh but there goes that pesky constitution again.
They (stern and infinity) are entitled to Due Process. If the FCC believes it can show that there is impending harm to the public they can file for injunctive relief. A judge (remember judicial review? ) can then make the determination whether or not a temporary injunction is warranted.
This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed..
Again completely circumventing Due Process.
Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option. It doesn't matter what Howard thinks the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it..
Viacom has again said repeatedly that they have chosen to pay the fines, because once they have filed appeals, paperwork mysteriously vanishes, license application mysteriously become embroiled in additional redtape and their ability to operate going forward is crippled. One should have nothing to do with the other, but yet once they pay the fines and withdraw the suits, thing miraculously re-appear.
the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it..
This time. Sadly Congress has now passed legislation making individual broadcasters as well as their employers liable. They've also raised the individual fines to a maximum of $275,000. While a few individuals like Stern might be able to afford a fine like that, the average broadcaster would be ruined by such a fine. As a result their speech is tempered, probably further than it needs to be. This is the textbook definition of chlling-effect.
parent is NOT a troll..in saying no one has a right to a platform
No, he's simply wrong. Stern is entitled to his platform because he, or more precisely his employer Infiniti broadcasting paid handsomely for the rights to the platform.
Maybee I'm reading it wrong but I never read anything about having to pay for this "service" when they say Premium...
You are. Premier support is a very high end, VERY expensive support contract offered by Microsoft. Because of the cost it is typically only purchased by very large organizations with very large installations. Just the exact sorts of organizations that can benefit from this type of advance notice
Why in the world would I pay Microsoft to tell me what might be wrong tomorrow when bugtraq will tell me what's wrong today?
You wouldn't. Thats not what the premier support agreement is for. The premeier support agreement is just a high end support contract for customers with large and generally complex installations. They get priority access to better trained support staff. To maximize the value of this (and to reduce needless calls) MSFT gives these customers alot of proactive support. The proactive support takes many forms, including training, access to parts of technet not available to everyone else, and notice of things like patches that are coming. This gives these customers (all of whom have BIG installations) time to adequately plan for deployment. You aren't paying them to find holes, and you aren't paying them for patches. You are paying them to make the process of deploying the patches more efficient.
Go with a local company. I'm in Minneapolis and use Sentry Systems, they are cheap, $40 a month
$40.00 a month is cheap? I use a local company which has me patched directly into a panel at the local police dispatch and fire station. I pay $90.00 a year and because there is no third party, I get actual police response when my alarm signals.
Some company's idea of flextime ( I worked for one) is actually comp time. You they compensate you with extra time off when you are required to work late, but otherwise you have a fixed schedule.
I suspect that this may be the case here
correct policies can prevent these things. and when tom gives it to berol, it's still in the same company, and they paid a license for tom's windows, didn't they
Sure, they have a license for that new copy of windows.. but how about that copy of Visio that Tom was using, that no one ever bothered to uninstall, or the Autocad, or the (insert some app that an engineer would use but a clerk would not), by simply forgetting to remove the app and passing the system on, they've become out of compliance. Never mind that the new user never opens that app, they are out of compliance just the same.
And while it may be easy to talk about keeping things up to date, and managing licenses etc. That's possible and maybe even easy when you have a large IT department and can just throw people/time/money at it. What do you do when your IT department is one or two guys who are responsible for 25 servers, plus 400 desktops, plus phones, who barely have time to wipe their own asses, do you think it's easy then?
Did you RTFA?:)
The article specificly says that pit bosses gives too much false information...:)
I did read the article, and whats more I actually understood it. The poor information that floor people report as referenced in the article has nothing to do with counting. They were referring to players play levels with regards to comps. As it works now they take a note of when you arrive, your average (as observed by the floor person) bet, and when you leave. They then, using a rather simple formula compute what comps you are eligible for. This is all subject to error as the floor person is typically responsible for 8 games with 7 players each, so he wont notice the exact time someone has left, nor will he be correct about the average bet unless the player never varies his bet. THIS system on the other hand can track EVERY bet made by a player, and arrive at a precise determination of the comp to be awarded to the player. Using a system like this would allow the floor people and pit bosses to spend more time observing the games, watching for cheats and counters etc. , which they already know how to spot without a great deal of gimmickry.
1. Companies may still be evaluating it before putting it on their production servers. So if their e-commerce site went down because of this patch would you also say "screw them for not testing properly?"
2 WEEKS isn't enough time to test a simple hotfix? All of microsofts biggest customers including all premier support customers got phone calls in addition to the normal emails emphasizing the unusually extreme urgency of this particular fix.. Perhaps testing it should have become a priority
2. "Road Warrior" laptop users who tech support hasn't had a chance to update yet
These systems should have at an absolute minimum a virus scanner with some means to update pattern files automatically. All of the major vendors had pattern files out more than a week ago
6. "Early victims" who were infected well before the patch was available
These would be who exactly? The patch was available for more than 2 weeks before the first exploit appeared.
The technical clueless that have no idea what a virus is or let alone a worm is. Who's job is it to teach them the ins and outs of security?
Who taught them that its a bad idea to leave the keys in the ignition when they park for the night? People need to take it upon themselves to learn at least the basics of how their devices operate. Learning and practicing the very basics is not too much to ask. And have you ever bothered to watch that silly little video that plays with every new Windows install?
It explains in language a trout could understand how to use Windows Update
No, the fault still lies greatly in the hands of Microsoft. They build a system, market it as drool-proof, drooling idiots all over the world buy it, and those drooling idiots get burned and are still so stupid that they don't realize they were LIED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
So what? Other systems don't have security holes? Those holes aren't eventually exposed, and patches released? Try subscribing to bugtraq or security focus or any of the dozens of other similar lists for a while and see how many holes in Linux, irix and every other *nix come out. As many as the MSFT products? no.. ZERO.. hardly..
Patches are a fact of life.. IF you don't want to patch your systems, don't connect them. It's really just that simple.
They build a system, market it as drool-proof, drooling idiots all over the world buy it,
The 2 examples stated were city governments. They have large IT organizations that are perfectly capable of making informed decisions. They also have staff who are capable of rolling hotfixes and failed to do so. The time and cost to do so are very nearly zero and yet they chose to ignore the threat. They need to accept the responsibilty.
The company I work for uses both an Im system (msn messenger over exchange) and an IRC server for different groups of users. We are a non IT company with small IT groups scattered over many sites. The IRC channel is used primarily for our help desk to make quick announcements, and to notify one another of issues.
We use the Im for individual, and quick communications that need to be read immediately.
Just because someone gets a notice that they have new email, there is no guarantee that they will stop what they are doing to read it. (I know I don't), so for a quick and important message (Like I'm rebooting server xxx NOW) messager works great.
for those situations where we need more info we use (in addition to the phone) a VC system made up of some moderately high end web cams.
All in all it might be slight overkill, but we get the job done, using free or cheap software and it's all quick and efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
whoa, calm down. I didn't tell him to ignore the advice and expereince of others, for crying out loud, reread my damn post! Where did I say *anything* like that?!
What you said was, that he doesn't really need books, and he'd be better off to play around with things. Presumably the people who've written books have some experience and advice to offer. In any event it does nothing to counter the point that while there are certainly many other resources available, and somethings may be best learned by trial and error, some things are best learned by reading the relevant reference material. Further for a simpler endeavour like this, it is likely that he would spend more time, using your approach, just finding and gathering all of the relevant materials, than he would solving the actual problem if he just bought and read a simple how to guide.
This approach further assumes that time has no value. In his case his time is valuable, and the time of the other small number of employees is most likely even more so, so time wasted 'fooling around with it' is money wasted. We're talking about a 15 user network here. An afternoon with networking for dummies and a few hours with any decent book on administration, I like the one I recommended, but there are certainly others, is all that he's likely to need to get things up and running.
I've found that books are far, far inferior to just playing with the damn thing.
Until you need to do things correctly. Just playing with it willl get the basics working, but it won't teach you anything about the best practice for any given situation. It won't teach you the correct way to devise a backup rotation. It won't teach you how to devise an efficient addressing scheme. It won't teach you how to properly secure your network and your data.
Depending on your level of experience, you may already know some of these things, but the OP made it clear that he doesn't. Telling him to ignore the work, advice and experience of the others who have gone before is irresponsible, not to mention likely to waste a lot of time that he probably doesn't have to spare.
Another valuable guide that hasn't been mentioned is from oreilley
Essential System Administration, Third Edition By Æleen Frisch Third Edition August 2002 ISBN: 0-596-00343-9 1176 pages, $54.95 US, $85.95 CA, £38.95 UK
this is oriented to the UNIX admin but the advice is relevant to all OS
Backup Exec does in fact have an image option (it costs extra)
You're right, it does. It just doesn't work worth a damn.
and perfectly fine support for tape libraries, including FC-attached libraries, below the $300k silo level.
Perhaps support wasn't the word I should have chosen.Optimization is probably a better choice. While it does support those bigger libraries too many drives are idle for too long too often. The only cure for this is tedious, and repeated job manipulation. In addition the I/E functions are marginal and have NO ability to track the locations of exported media
There are also damn good MS SQL and Exchange agents.
if you read the original post carefully you noticed that I didn't mention those because they do in fact work pretty well.
Microsoft's IT center uses Backup Exec for thousands of servers, so presumably it scales better than you think if you buy the correct option for that as well.
I'm not at all sure thats the endorsement I'd be looking for.
Perhaps you're thinking of just what you get for the base price? Even with all the options they sell, Backup Exec is still 1/3rd the price of CommVault, for similar functionality.
A third the price... sure.. similar functionality? not even close.
Re:I hope .... not really (Score:1)
I hear the "Their support sucks" argument a lot, but that has not been my experience. We have 26 Netbackup systems throughout our company and they all work very well.
Yes, but thats the point. Netbackup is not backupexec and neither is the support. NB support is based in the US and the support is pretty good. And while I would personally still use Galaxy, NB is a decent product.
OTOH BE support is based in Pakistan and is abysmally bad. Once you overcome the language issues you're stuck with poorly trained personnel who have little or no troubleshooting skills and no ability or interest in understanding your environment, and a genuine resistance to escalation no matter how well warranted, and it's still riddled with problems. Again for a small number of file servers, it's just fine, but Veritas is positioning it as enterprise backup, and it just isn't
That would be real shame as BE is a great product
Not really. Its a fine product if you have one server to protect. It's an adequate product if you have 10 servers to protect. With version 10 it could even be argued that its ok for a SLIGHTLY larger implementation.
But if you have any significant number of servers to protect it doesn't scale worth a damn. There are a number of far superior backup solutions out there. My preference is CommVault galaxy, but Legato, Tivoli, CA and even Veritas all make better products. It gets even worse if your servers are anything more than file servers. The oracle agent is marginally functional at best, there are no real agents for Sybase, MySQL or Informix,. There are no block level or image level backups. The support for large (that is more than single drive autoloaders) is a joke. And the biggest joke of all.. Support.. Veritas may have the single worst support organization on the planet.
Oh crap! I'm so sick and tired of this excuse you can't even imagine it, more so because i first came up with it myself. But years later it's crystal clear that school is school and work practice is work practice and it's way to stupid to try to teach them both at once.
Thats just stupid. The OP was studying programming. Presumably he wanted to learn to be a programmer and to be paid for this skill. In the real world, as in school, you're expected to produce a work product that meets the design criteria. If you have a better idea you can suggest and perhaps make changes to the design criteria, but you can not just do unilaterally. Learing how to produce the product that was required, is part of learning to be a programmer, adding things that YOU feel add to the product, but which were neither requested by, or approved by the customer is counter-productive at best.
Yes, i'm all for learning in school how the real world works but not during and at the expense of regular classes.
You're still missing the point. He was given a lesson and an assignment to demonstrate that he had learned the skills presented in the lesson, nothing more. He failed to do that. There IS a lesson to be learned here.
iI disagree vehemently. WHen I was going to school I would get punished for taking the extra steps. For example once I failed a programming assignment because my program had a GUI and "we haven't learned that yet"
You didn't fail because "we haven't learned that yet" . You failed because you were given a project with defined objectives and your work product did not meet the design criteria. It works like that in the real world too. Perhaps there was more than one lesson in there?
Am I the only one here who thinks that's letting them off kind of easy?
Yeah, you might be.
I mean, if I were to shoot a SAM at an airliner and get caught, I think I'd probably be looking at more than 25 years even if it missed. In both cases, the intention and the potential outcome are the same...
Are they? I live in NJ, and have been following this story closely in both the local and nation news. There is no evidence as yet that shows any malicious intent. This guy is clearly an idiot, let's be clear about that, but this is hardly the same as aiming a SAM at a commercial airliner.
The other part of this whole thing that is so offensive is that the states' attorney has confirmed that there was no act of terrorism, yet they're prosecuting him under anti-terrorism laws instead of the multitude of appropriate laws that cover these kinds of actions. There are only 2 possible reasons for this. One, there are greater penalties. Two, there is far greater media coverage. I'll leave to you to decide the motive here.
my xp box shut down in the middle of the night last weekend, tossing some unsaved mozilla composer pages away in the process....I HATE microsofts high handedness
Just shut off the automatic updates installations. Let it download and prompt for an install.
Until you have two drives fail. Then, you're fucked. Don't act like that never happens, because it does. I've had it happen, as I'm sure others have. No more RAID5 for me. . .
Thats what hot spares are for. Even if you aren't monitoring your arrays.. you are aren't you? One global hot spare per enclosure and you need 3 failed drives before you loose data.
I mean, almost nothing good ever comes out of them for the consumer. Service takes a hit, products get dropped, prices go up. Where are the so called synergies?
In this case that may not be true. It all depends on which way the control goes. Veritas support just plain sucks. Symantec for all their faults has good support. Personally I'd abandon both for CommVault and Trend, but if Symantec takes control, the service and support at Veritas will most likely improve.
I don't understand the problem. With Pay Per View, you are QUITE SPECIFICALLY buying a license to watch a movie once. You are PAYing PER VIEW.
And this is specified where exactly? You're buying the license to watch the movie (or event or whatever), but I've never seen, signed, clicked on, or in any other way tacitly agreed to a licensing agreement of any kind.
There's no ambiguity about buying physical media vs the content, about buying a license, and so on. You're paying to have a movie playing to your sat/cable box at a specific time and date. Done.
Yes, except the Supreme Court (in the US, elsewhere YMMV) decided a long time ago that I do have the right to tape and time shift to watch at my convenience. The question of whether I'm paying for the content, or whether the content is paid for by commercial advertising is irrelevant
It could also could be true (though I doubt it) that Powell has a personal vendetta against Stern. Again, Stern doesn't even have a good conspiracy, just "free speech" and "I have the highest fines". Powell's response was simply, "Right or wrong, you broke the law".
The problem with this is that it is not a law, it is a rule. And is one that is seemingly in a constant state of flux and which is applied arbitrarily. Stern's argument, and it is a good one, says in essence, 'Make the guidlines clear and we'll obey.' In addition make them the same, and apply them the same to everyone. That is clearly not the case as evidenced by the quoted case involving Oprah. Oprah was not fined for having the exact same conversation as Stern, even though hers happened months ago, and Stern's more than 3 years ago.
When the rule can not be easily interpretted by anyone and the rules are not clear to anyone, not even attorneys that specialize in this field, then there clearly is an issue of arbitary prosecution
I am nto suggesting he be banned. I am suggesting that his show being broadcast on the public airwaves doesnt serve the public interest.
Same thing, different words. You dont feel that Stern, or people with similar opinions serve any public interest so they aren't allowed the use of the airwaves. If he's removed that is a defacto ban.
The airwaves used to be considered a public resource that ought to serve everyone.
By whom? The airwaves excepting those given to NPR and local college stations have been licensed to private companies for commercial gain. Those companies clearly know what people want to listen to.
Right now, if you are uninterested in potty jokes, sex, vulgarity, or the like you are not served by radio.
Really? Do you live in a place where NPR is not available? Does your city have no classical, jazz or country stations? Does your city have no sports talk, or political talk stations? How about the all news station? How about the local college station(s)? There are plenty of choices. The fact that you may not like some of them is the precide reason why there ARE choices.
The radio stations compete very heavily for the 18 to 35 year old white male audience. If you are not in that market segment , you are very likely not being served by the public airwaves.
Please see above. How many of that demo do you suppose listen to NPR, Rush Limbaugh, or the local classical or jazz stations?
Howard Stern, and most of all commerical radio, does not belong on the public airwaves.
On what basis? On the basis that it offends your personal sense of decency?
Would you approve of him doing a show in the middle of Yellowstone National Park, or on the grounds of the US Capitol building? Of course not. Those are national treasures. Likewise for the airwaves.
Hardly the same thing. The government did not make the decision to lease the capitol building out for commercial gain.
On private channel communications, whatever sells rules. On the public airwaves, society must benefit.
And having a show on the air that makes those of us who CHOOSE to listen laugh each morning IS a benefit to society as a whole.
If you can't, without completely ceasing your buisness operations, fight what you believe is an unjust claim, it's a useless system. Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.
This is hardly the same thing. There is no LAW involved here. This is an FCC rule. It can therefore not by definition be illegal. Furthermore these rules are without judicial oversight, and without due process
Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.
Viacom via its former president Mel Karmazin has repeatedly said that they feel they are in the right and desire the opportunity to challenge these fines in court
What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail..
An even more ridiculous analogy. In your case these drug dealers have been convicted. They've had the opportunity of due process, they've been before the courts and they've been convicted. Show me where any of these things happens in the case of fines imposed by the FCC..
Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse..
Oh but there goes that pesky constitution again. They (stern and infinity) are entitled to Due Process. If the FCC believes it can show that there is impending harm to the public they can file for injunctive relief. A judge (remember judicial review? ) can then make the determination whether or not a temporary injunction is warranted.
This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed..
Again completely circumventing Due Process.
Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option. It doesn't matter what Howard thinks the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it..
Viacom has again said repeatedly that they have chosen to pay the fines, because once they have filed appeals, paperwork mysteriously vanishes, license application mysteriously become embroiled in additional redtape and their ability to operate going forward is crippled. One should have nothing to do with the other, but yet once they pay the fines and withdraw the suits, thing miraculously re-appear.
the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it..
This time. Sadly Congress has now passed legislation making individual broadcasters as well as their employers liable. They've also raised the individual fines to a maximum of $275,000. While a few individuals like Stern might be able to afford a fine like that, the average broadcaster would be ruined by such a fine. As a result their speech is tempered, probably further than it needs to be. This is the textbook definition of chlling-effect.
parent is NOT a troll..in saying no one has a right to a platform
No, he's simply wrong. Stern is entitled to his platform because he, or more precisely his employer Infiniti broadcasting paid handsomely for the rights to the platform.
Maybee I'm reading it wrong but I never read anything about having to pay for this "service" when they say Premium...
You are. Premier support is a very high end, VERY expensive support contract offered by Microsoft. Because of the cost it is typically only purchased by very large organizations with very large installations. Just the exact sorts of organizations that can benefit from this type of advance notice
Why in the world would I pay Microsoft to tell me what might be wrong tomorrow when bugtraq will tell me what's wrong today?
You wouldn't. Thats not what the premier support agreement is for. The premeier support agreement is just a high end support contract for customers with large and generally complex installations. They get priority access to better trained support staff. To maximize the value of this (and to reduce needless calls) MSFT gives these customers alot of proactive support. The proactive support takes many forms, including training, access to parts of technet not available to everyone else, and notice of things like patches that are coming. This gives these customers (all of whom have BIG installations) time to adequately plan for deployment. You aren't paying them to find holes, and you aren't paying them for patches. You are paying them to make the process of deploying the patches more efficient.
Go with a local company. I'm in Minneapolis and use Sentry Systems, they are cheap, $40 a month
$40.00 a month is cheap? I use a local company which has me patched directly into a panel at the local police dispatch and fire station. I pay $90.00 a year and because there is no third party, I get actual police response when my alarm signals.
Some company's idea of flextime ( I worked for one) is actually comp time. You they compensate you with extra time off when you are required to work late, but otherwise you have a fixed schedule. I suspect that this may be the case here
correct policies can prevent these things. and when tom gives it to berol, it's still in the same company, and they paid a license for tom's windows, didn't they
Sure, they have a license for that new copy of windows.. but how about that copy of Visio that Tom was using, that no one ever bothered to uninstall, or the Autocad, or the (insert some app that an engineer would use but a clerk would not), by simply forgetting to remove the app and passing the system on, they've become out of compliance. Never mind that the new user never opens that app, they are out of compliance just the same.
And while it may be easy to talk about keeping things up to date, and managing licenses etc. That's possible and maybe even easy when you have a large IT department and can just throw people/time/money at it. What do you do when your IT department is one or two guys who are responsible for 25 servers, plus 400 desktops, plus phones, who barely have time to wipe their own asses, do you think it's easy then?
Did you RTFA? :)
The article specificly says that pit bosses gives too much false information... :)
I did read the article, and whats more I actually understood it. The poor information that floor people report as referenced in the article has nothing to do with counting. They were referring to players play levels with regards to comps. As it works now they take a note of when you arrive, your average (as observed by the floor person) bet, and when you leave. They then, using a rather simple formula compute what comps you are eligible for. This is all subject to error as the floor person is typically responsible for 8 games with 7 players each, so he wont notice the exact time someone has left, nor will he be correct about the average bet unless the player never varies his bet. THIS system on the other hand can track EVERY bet made by a player, and arrive at a precise determination of the comp to be awarded to the player. Using a system like this would allow the floor people and pit bosses to spend more time observing the games, watching for cheats and counters etc. , which they already know how to spot without a great deal of gimmickry.
1. Companies may still be evaluating it before putting it on their production servers. So if their e-commerce site went down because of this patch would you also say "screw them for not testing properly?"
2 WEEKS isn't enough time to test a simple hotfix? All of microsofts biggest customers including all premier support customers got phone calls in addition to the normal emails emphasizing the unusually extreme urgency of this particular fix.. Perhaps testing it should have become a priority
2. "Road Warrior" laptop users who tech support hasn't had a chance to update yet
These systems should have at an absolute minimum a virus scanner with some means to update pattern files automatically. All of the major vendors had pattern files out more than a week ago
6. "Early victims" who were infected well before the patch was available
These would be who exactly? The patch was available for more than 2 weeks before the first exploit appeared.
The technical clueless that have no idea what a virus is or let alone a worm is. Who's job is it to teach them the ins and outs of security?
Who taught them that its a bad idea to leave the keys in the ignition when they park for the night? People need to take it upon themselves to learn at least the basics of how their devices operate. Learning and practicing the very basics is not too much to ask. And have you ever bothered to watch that silly little video that plays with every new Windows install? It explains in language a trout could understand how to use Windows Update
No, the fault still lies greatly in the hands of Microsoft. They build a system, market it as drool-proof, drooling idiots all over the world buy it, and those drooling idiots get burned and are still so stupid that they don't realize they were LIED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
So what? Other systems don't have security holes? Those holes aren't eventually exposed, and patches released? Try subscribing to bugtraq or security focus or any of the dozens of other similar lists for a while and see how many holes in Linux, irix and every other *nix come out. As many as the MSFT products? no.. ZERO.. hardly..
Patches are a fact of life.. IF you don't want to patch your systems, don't connect them. It's really just that simple.
They build a system, market it as drool-proof, drooling idiots all over the world buy it,
The 2 examples stated were city governments. They have large IT organizations that are perfectly capable of making informed decisions. They also have staff who are capable of rolling hotfixes and failed to do so. The time and cost to do so are very nearly zero and yet they chose to ignore the threat. They need to accept the responsibilty.
The company I work for uses both an Im system (msn messenger over exchange) and an IRC server for different groups of users. We are a non IT company with small IT groups scattered over many sites. The IRC channel is used primarily for our help desk to make quick announcements, and to notify one another of issues.
We use the Im for individual, and quick communications that need to be read immediately. Just because someone gets a notice that they have new email, there is no guarantee that they will stop what they are doing to read it. (I know I don't), so for a quick and important message (Like I'm rebooting server xxx NOW) messager works great.
for those situations where we need more info we use (in addition to the phone) a VC system made up of some moderately high end web cams.
All in all it might be slight overkill, but we get the job done, using free or cheap software and it's all quick and efficient.