It doesn't seem like the definition of a scientific term is something that should be left to a democratic vote. Public opinion with regards to science is never a good thing to rely on (creation vs evolution, naturalistic healing, etc).
Agreed. If the definition of a planet had been left to popular vote, the solar system would have (at last count) at least 15 "planets", including some TNOs that don't even have a name yet. Whilst I was somewhat disappointed when Pluto got "demoted", I can't say I disagree with the reasoning behind it.
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
Here in Australia - well at least Victoria - refusing a breath test lands you in almost as much trouble as failing one badly. (2 years loss of license plus a pretty hefty fine)
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test. It's non-invasive and it's not like it's a cheek swap DNA test. But I bet that no drop of blood goes to waste once they draw that...
I agree. All this mucking about with warrants is ridiculous - simply make the penalty for refusing a breath test as bad or worse than the penalty for driving at two or three times the legal limit.
Is this the problem with the lawyers, or is this a problem with the judge?
I never understood how the justice system is supposed to deal with insane judges. All these talk of checks and balances, but I see nothing to stop an insane judge making years of peoples' life hell for making judgment like this.
Insane judges aren't the real issue - judges with agendas or who owe favours, publicly disclosed or (more likely) not are. An insane judge would generally be known for making unpredictable judgements and people would take steps to avoid such judges wherever possible. A truly insane ruling should be taken care of in the higher courts.
Those judges who want to put their own spin on the law are the real issue. Most of the time, their rulings would be carefully crafted to resist valid challenges to the ruling. These are the ones who open up ridiculous loopholes in the law by setting precedents.
This is how low Slashdot has sunk. Years ago, this site was very pro-privacy. We're now at the point where a company can archive your emails and passwords, claim it was an accident, and get off the hook by promising not to do it again next time--and that's "doing nothing wrong whatsoever" according to the posters here.
What the fuck?
I'd say Slashdot is still pro-privacy. Post a link about some company using sneaky methods to track users, restore deleted cookies or have Facebook haemorrhage information you've marked as to be viewed "by friends only", and you'll get lots of comments from people who are upset or even outraged.
However to my mind, when someone broadcasts this information unencrypted, they're asking for trouble and have lost their right to bleat about privacy. Personal responsibility still applies. Complaining that Google collected your passwords and bits of your email over your unencrypted wireless link is only one step below complaining that your neighbour knows about the affair you're having with your secretary because you had phone sex with her over a megaphone.
A contract by adhesion really only means it's non-negotiable - that doesn't mean that consent isn't required. They may be relying on the contract being taken as a shrink wrap contract, but their enforceability is highly debatable.
To me, this would seem to be a case of complaining that someone has been reading your mail when it's been pinned to a notice board on your front fence. If they want to put a pay wall into effect, then they can go right ahead (and probably loose most of their readership in the process). Otherwise my response would be to point out that they're literally leaving themselves open.
Since I haven't seen how the site was presented before this story was posted, I can't comment as to how legitimate a "shrinkwrap" contract might be. If there's a big "WARNING" page that you have to click through to access articles, that's one thing. If they rely on "fine print" that you have to go looking for, I'd suggest the shrinkwrap argument would be baseless.
Next up: 10 out of 10 randomly selected stock brokers want more deregulation of the financial system 10 out of 10 randomly selected Taliban fighters don't trust the USA
Ha! You are saying because you personally are faster at installing Windows Server that Samba4 is worse? Sounds like you are good at Windows so that's what you want to install (at some license cost to the client), which is fair enough.
Not at all. Whenever I need to put a solution together, usually the first thing I look at is open source. Unfortunately, when you are implementing a solution for someone who is paying you $120 per hour, the time involved in configuration becomes a significant factor as well.
My other motivating factor for replacing Samba-4 with Server 2008 is maintainability. I've made the mistake of getting caught as the only person in a volunteer organisation capable of troubleshooting and/or configuring a system in the past. As that organisation grows, you find yourself receiving calls in the middle of the week demanding help when something breaks and can sometimes get quite nasty when you tell them you're at work and not in a position to help at that time.
What you are missing is that it was a shame the organization didn't get someone who was better than you at Samba. The labor cost would be the same and the licensing cost would be zero. There are certainly people out there who can do this stuff and *save the customer money* at the same time. Just doesn't happen to be you - so you should recognize your own point-of-view is affecting your product comparison so it becomes less objective. The lower long term cost *and* initial cost of Linux makes it better than Windows in the long-term (I know, I'm working on a Linux-based solution where the number of servers will easily exceed ten thousand) - in fact Linux was chosen (not by me) for this very reason, it is a much better strategic investment on this large scale.
I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.
It takes less than 20 minutes to half an hour if you've already got DDNS running on the network.
...and if you're intimately familiar with the configuration of them and your distro of choice provides a late enough version of BIND. I first tried it with CentOS-5 and got a headache for my trouble. Attempting the same thing with Ubuntu 10.04LTS was easier.
For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license.
That's because it's alpha. When it becomes ready for production, installing it will entail "apt-get install samba4" or some such, which a decent default configuration I would imagine.
One problem with this is that you're not just configuring Samba-4, but you also need to ensure that your BIND and DHCP configuration are set up to match as well, otherwise you'll end up with a partially functional setup.
I did see someone else mention that Samba were considering rolling a DNS server into Samba-4 - if this does happen, this will remove a significant configuration headache resulting in a much simpler installation. Throw in an integrated DHCP server, and you'll be approaching the level of "apt-get install samba4". If this is the case, I'm all for it - like I said, I'm surprised and just how functional Samba-4 is for a piece of alpha software.
Once Samba4 is released, these Windows servers could be replaced as well.
Samba 4 has been in various stages of alpha for the last five years - or is it six?
Personally, I have considered a Samba 4 installation in only one place - a volunteer organisation that simply didn't have the budget for anything else. I'm still sniffing around for a surplus Windows Server license to replace it.
For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license. I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.
This week, bogus statistics pushing an increasingly boring anti-microsoft zealotry and a pro-"operating system that takes at least one more step than windows to run any popular application or game" agenda.
I agree. Percentages are tossed around without any evidence or explanation as to how these figures were arrived at. Who was surveyed? What industries were they in? Why are they planning to add Linux servers? What function will these servers have? Why aren't they planning on adding Windows servers?
And GIMP is every bit as good as Photoshop, if not better, right? Right?
For me? Yes, it is. For a professional graphics editor? No, absolutely not.
The difference between the comparisons is that very few people need all the features of the M$ Office suite. Very, very few people need the really advanced features in Word or Excel. Macros are one exception - and 90% of applications I've seen developed as macros should never have been developed as macros in the first place.
Maybe not, but I suspect he'll be around for a while yet. His mother is still going strong, although she's a much more pleasant character than her son.
It's a pity more of that character didn't rub off on her son.
I had a friend here in New Zealand who showed me a print-out spam from a local bank. It activated her printer and printed without her consent. How they did it, I don't know, but ink-jet printers aren't cheap to run. They did this twice before she complained, and the spams ceased. To me this was the lowest form of spam.
At one volunteer organisation that I used to maintain some of their IT systems (on a volunteer basis, I should add) I recommended we ditch the Sendmail/Dovecot/DSpam email system and replace it with Exchange - simply because it was impossible to train any of the permanent staff on how to properly create and delete new email accounts and I got sick of getting calls every few days because someone had dome something stupid and the person whose duty it was to do this couldn't do any troubleshooting. The organisation already had a Windows domain and had Office throughout the organisation, which reduced the cost a bit further.
But I mean, misleading headline much? Why not say all OSes got 64-bit. Do they expect us to read the article or something? Honestly.
In a word, "yes". You can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously if you haven't at least tried to get your facts (however limited/speculative/subjective/fanciful they may be) from the article straight first.
The other half of the story is that there was a 64 bit flash plugin for Linux (which we only got some considerable length of time after Windoze users got theirs) which was unceremoniously dumped. To make matters worse, Gentoo went and blocked all old 64 bit versions at the same time because of "security issues". (as if the new version didn't have security issues!)
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't HP have something like Toshiba's "Tempro" utility to tell Joe Sixpack when to update his drivers and HP-related programs?
Yes, but only for drivers and applications that don't need updating.
(damn this new posting procedure - so damned slow *and* it just cut the end off my last attempt at a comment!)
Doesn't HP have something like Toshiba's "Tempro" utility to tell Joe Sixpack when to update his drivers and HP-related programs?
Yes, but only for drivers and applicati
It doesn't seem like the definition of a scientific term is something that should be left to a democratic vote. Public opinion with regards to science is never a good thing to rely on (creation vs evolution, naturalistic healing, etc).
Agreed. If the definition of a planet had been left to popular vote, the solar system would have (at last count) at least 15 "planets", including some TNOs that don't even have a name yet. Whilst I was somewhat disappointed when Pluto got "demoted", I can't say I disagree with the reasoning behind it.
You think Mozilla should engage in witch-hunt?
Obligatory Monty Python reference...
Mod parent up. It's an excellent point that I would have made myself, had the point not already been made. :)
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
Here in Australia - well at least Victoria - refusing a breath test lands you in almost as much trouble as failing one badly. (2 years loss of license plus a pretty hefty fine)
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test. It's non-invasive and it's not like it's a cheek swap DNA test. But I bet that no drop of blood goes to waste once they draw that...
I agree. All this mucking about with warrants is ridiculous - simply make the penalty for refusing a breath test as bad or worse than the penalty for driving at two or three times the legal limit.
I, for one, would like to invite our new advertising overlords to take a flying f..k. But that's just me.
A terrorists in Saudi Arabia already stuffed explosives up his butt.
Well doesn't that give new meaning to the phrase "fire in the hole"...
Is this the problem with the lawyers, or is this a problem with the judge?
I never understood how the justice system is supposed to deal with insane judges. All these talk of checks and balances, but I see nothing to stop an insane judge making years of peoples' life hell for making judgment like this.
Insane judges aren't the real issue - judges with agendas or who owe favours, publicly disclosed or (more likely) not are. An insane judge would generally be known for making unpredictable judgements and people would take steps to avoid such judges wherever possible. A truly insane ruling should be taken care of in the higher courts.
Those judges who want to put their own spin on the law are the real issue. Most of the time, their rulings would be carefully crafted to resist valid challenges to the ruling. These are the ones who open up ridiculous loopholes in the law by setting precedents.
This is how low Slashdot has sunk. Years ago, this site was very pro-privacy. We're now at the point where a company can archive your emails and passwords, claim it was an accident, and get off the hook by promising not to do it again next time--and that's "doing nothing wrong whatsoever" according to the posters here.
What the fuck?
I'd say Slashdot is still pro-privacy. Post a link about some company using sneaky methods to track users, restore deleted cookies or have Facebook haemorrhage information you've marked as to be viewed "by friends only", and you'll get lots of comments from people who are upset or even outraged.
However to my mind, when someone broadcasts this information unencrypted, they're asking for trouble and have lost their right to bleat about privacy. Personal responsibility still applies. Complaining that Google collected your passwords and bits of your email over your unencrypted wireless link is only one step below complaining that your neighbour knows about the affair you're having with your secretary because you had phone sex with her over a megaphone.
Search on "contracts by adhesion"
A contract by adhesion really only means it's non-negotiable - that doesn't mean that consent isn't required. They may be relying on the contract being taken as a shrink wrap contract, but their enforceability is highly debatable.
To me, this would seem to be a case of complaining that someone has been reading your mail when it's been pinned to a notice board on your front fence. If they want to put a pay wall into effect, then they can go right ahead (and probably loose most of their readership in the process). Otherwise my response would be to point out that they're literally leaving themselves open.
Since I haven't seen how the site was presented before this story was posted, I can't comment as to how legitimate a "shrinkwrap" contract might be. If there's a big "WARNING" page that you have to click through to access articles, that's one thing. If they rely on "fine print" that you have to go looking for, I'd suggest the shrinkwrap argument would be baseless.
They probably got to it a little like this
Perversely, I had this exact clip from Yes Prime Minister in mind when I made my comment in the beginning. :)
Next up:
10 out of 10 randomly selected stock brokers want more deregulation of the financial system
10 out of 10 randomly selected Taliban fighters don't trust the USA
My point exactly.
Ha! You are saying because you personally are faster at installing Windows Server that Samba4 is worse? Sounds like you are good at Windows so that's what you want to install (at some license cost to the client), which is fair enough.
Not at all. Whenever I need to put a solution together, usually the first thing I look at is open source. Unfortunately, when you are implementing a solution for someone who is paying you $120 per hour, the time involved in configuration becomes a significant factor as well.
My other motivating factor for replacing Samba-4 with Server 2008 is maintainability. I've made the mistake of getting caught as the only person in a volunteer organisation capable of troubleshooting and/or configuring a system in the past. As that organisation grows, you find yourself receiving calls in the middle of the week demanding help when something breaks and can sometimes get quite nasty when you tell them you're at work and not in a position to help at that time.
What you are missing is that it was a shame the organization didn't get someone who was better than you at Samba. The labor cost would be the same and the licensing cost would be zero. There are certainly people out there who can do this stuff and *save the customer money* at the same time. Just doesn't happen to be you - so you should recognize your own point-of-view is affecting your product comparison so it becomes less objective. The lower long term cost *and* initial cost of Linux makes it better than Windows in the long-term (I know, I'm working on a Linux-based solution where the number of servers will easily exceed ten thousand) - in fact Linux was chosen (not by me) for this very reason, it is a much better strategic investment on this large scale.
I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.
It takes less than 20 minutes to half an hour if you've already got DDNS running on the network.
...and if you're intimately familiar with the configuration of them and your distro of choice provides a late enough version of BIND. I first tried it with CentOS-5 and got a headache for my trouble. Attempting the same thing with Ubuntu 10.04LTS was easier.
For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license.
That's because it's alpha. When it becomes ready for production, installing it will entail "apt-get install samba4" or some such, which a decent default configuration I would imagine.
One problem with this is that you're not just configuring Samba-4, but you also need to ensure that your BIND and DHCP configuration are set up to match as well, otherwise you'll end up with a partially functional setup.
I did see someone else mention that Samba were considering rolling a DNS server into Samba-4 - if this does happen, this will remove a significant configuration headache resulting in a much simpler installation. Throw in an integrated DHCP server, and you'll be approaching the level of "apt-get install samba4". If this is the case, I'm all for it - like I said, I'm surprised and just how functional Samba-4 is for a piece of alpha software.
Once Samba4 is released, these Windows servers could be replaced as well.
Samba 4 has been in various stages of alpha for the last five years - or is it six?
Personally, I have considered a Samba 4 installation in only one place - a volunteer organisation that simply didn't have the budget for anything else. I'm still sniffing around for a surplus Windows Server license to replace it.
For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license. I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.
This week, bogus statistics pushing an increasingly boring anti-microsoft zealotry and a pro-"operating system that takes at least one more step than windows to run any popular application or game" agenda.
I agree. Percentages are tossed around without any evidence or explanation as to how these figures were arrived at. Who was surveyed? What industries were they in? Why are they planning to add Linux servers? What function will these servers have? Why aren't they planning on adding Windows servers?
And GIMP is every bit as good as Photoshop, if not better, right? Right?
For me? Yes, it is. For a professional graphics editor? No, absolutely not.
The difference between the comparisons is that very few people need all the features of the M$ Office suite. Very, very few people need the really advanced features in Word or Excel. Macros are one exception - and 90% of applications I've seen developed as macros should never have been developed as macros in the first place.
Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.
Maybe not, but I suspect he'll be around for a while yet. His mother is still going strong, although she's a much more pleasant character than her son.
It's a pity more of that character didn't rub off on her son.
I had a friend here in New Zealand who showed me a print-out spam from a local bank. It activated her printer and printed without her consent. How they did it, I don't know, but ink-jet printers aren't cheap to run. They did this twice before she complained, and the spams ceased. To me this was the lowest form of spam.
Fax spam is just as bad.
Who knew that Billion was spelled differently in Canada, maybe it is like color and colour.
Hell, in Canada one billion can be a different number. Wouldn't it be nice if the long billion was applied to this particular spammer...
Just a wild guess, but I'd say that it's because you don't need to pay to use it.
That's only one part of the cost of software. Granted, with a lot of mainstream commercial software that initial cost is not insignificant, however then the maintenance of it comes in to play. With a few notable exceptions, OSS systems tend to be far less implemented, leading to difficulties in finding staff to maintain the systems, and maintenance often can take longer.
At one volunteer organisation that I used to maintain some of their IT systems (on a volunteer basis, I should add) I recommended we ditch the Sendmail/Dovecot/DSpam email system and replace it with Exchange - simply because it was impossible to train any of the permanent staff on how to properly create and delete new email accounts and I got sick of getting calls every few days because someone had dome something stupid and the person whose duty it was to do this couldn't do any troubleshooting. The organisation already had a Windows domain and had Office throughout the organisation, which reduced the cost a bit further.
Oh yeah, and ARE YOU LISTENING MUSIC INDUSTRY? Innovate or die.
If it's all the same to you, I think I'd rather they skip the innovation and just die. Same goes for most of the major motion picture studios.
Luckily for me, they seem hellbent on this already.
But I mean, misleading headline much? Why not say all OSes got 64-bit. Do they expect us to read the article or something? Honestly.
In a word, "yes". You can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously if you haven't at least tried to get your facts (however limited/speculative/subjective/fanciful they may be) from the article straight first.
The other half of the story is that there was a 64 bit flash plugin for Linux (which we only got some considerable length of time after Windoze users got theirs) which was unceremoniously dumped. To make matters worse, Gentoo went and blocked all old 64 bit versions at the same time because of "security issues". (as if the new version didn't have security issues!)