. . when the collateral damage becomes so great that people start losing the benefits of the internet.
It looks to me like we are segregating the internet into 2 nets:
1) Free of Spam
2) Free from regulation
I suppose some people think this is a great idea, but I find it disturbing because innocent people are punished without any recourse (don't give me the "switch ISP" baloney, it's not always possible, and you know it).
Of course, the first one will still have Spam, just less of it, the second will still have regulations, just less of that. Personally, I like option #2 and deal with Spam at my server with SpamAssasin and at my clients with Thunderbird. No blacklists required.
I find it truly ironic that the Democrats are running as fiscal conservatives. I consider myself a real fiscal conservative and frankly, I'm a little unnerved/disappointed/concerned about the current speding levels. Still, I don't trust Kerry to make good on any promises to cut spending levels. I do believe he will raise taxes and that that would only add to the current deficit and stall the recovery.
As far as the ultra-rightists, I think they would finally bring some balance to a court system that has clearly leaned too far to the left in the past. The judicial system has fewer checks than the executive and legislative branches, and they are largly unaccountable to the voters. The recent habit of legislating from the bench has me very concerned.
Of course, I recognize that people who are fundamentally on the left won't agree with me, as they see the judicial branch as the only way to get unpopular legislation codified into law. I think if an idea is so unpopular that Congress cannot make it into law, then the judicial system ought not be able to do an end run, but should wait until it has popular support. I realize that the majority is not always right, but I prefer to take my chances with a representative rule rather than have dicates handed down by a small group of jurists.
Don't you know that liberals are immune from acting in a contradictory manner, everything they say and do makes perfect sense "by definition". If it seems like a contradiction to you, that's because you have a small mind and need to open it up to their vastly superior understanding. Or have you not been paying attention to the recent media coverage of political events?
Tread carefully with these accusations, there are people here who will flame you with extreme prejudice for having a viewpoint that conflicts with theirs!!
Here's the difference: Republicans - try to buy your vote by giving you back your own money. Democrats - try to buy your vote by giving you nice things that they bought with your money.
Still confused? The bottom line is it doesn't matter all that much. If Kerry wins, the status quo will continue, just with less bluster and more whining. The only candidate with any chance of making sweeping changes (assuming you want changes, apparently most Democrats do not, since they selected Kerry as the nominee) is Nader. Of course, he has no actual chance of winning, but he makes a lot of people feel good and that's worth something, I suppose.
Yeah, this week I've gotta write an IQ for a new Solaris box. The system it will run is not to be validated, but every bit of HW going into our server room must be IQ'd. Why? I think my boss just feels more comfortable when surrounded by stacks of white binders full of 3 hole punched printouts no one will ever read.
I must continually fight the temptation to include stuff like a page that says "This page intentionally left blank to see if anyone ever reads this stuff" or "Help, I'm trapped in this printer by an evil Vorgon who is making me change toner for food!!!"
Our systems even specify exact driver versions, BIOS firmware, hardware revisions etc. to ensure full compliance.
Yup, and we often reject critical security patches as too much trouble to apply and re-validate.A convoluted change management process means less work for me also, because the paperwork is so daunting, most users give up and work around the existing bug or mis-configuration. Seems kind of silly and conter-productive, but I would rather do silly for a salary, than elegant for the unemployed.
Maybe the "no sales tax" states need to implement an optional 1 cent per transaction sales tax (retained by the merchant as a collection fee). That way you could say (honestly) that you paid sales tax in Oregon and are exempt from Wash state tax.
Of course, some places will still want you to pay the difference, but it might help in some places.
Yes, Christianity has a horrible history and it has taken a long time to "mature" past the point of killing for religion. My point is that Muslims are now in that killing part of the cycle. I hope they eventually mature also, but the world cannot, and will not, tolerate the abuses of religion as they once did. The Muslim world is centuries behind the modern world and their jealousy of that fact has sparked the moral equivalent of the race riots in the US. The blacks suffered most in those riots (both physically and regarding their stature in society), and the Muslims will suffer most in this current situation. It saddens me to see the good Muslims being enslaved and corrupted by the wicked among them.
Using Iraq as a "magnet" to draw terrorists to their death/capture seems like the best plan at this point. It's sad that they must see what the Coalition is doing, but their fanaticism means they simply can't help themselves, they must go join the jihad in Iraq. The Coalition has found a way to exploit their moral weaknesses, which is a good thing, I suppose.
Yes, but *you* audit them, not the FDA, and then the FDA audit you. This is a big distinction and removes (fortunately) the liability from the developer and places it on the implementor. This is fortunate because on the implementing company can asses the fitness ofthe software within their environment.
I work for a pharma company and I do know CFR 21 Part 11, and you are wrong.
Developers can write anything they want, it's the implementation that must be validated. If a company says their software is CFR 21 Part 11 certified, they are lying. If you write software for a regulated industry, you won't be sued or shut down no matter how crappy it is. The company that implemented and used your software won't be so lucky, but it's up to them to perform the needed due diligence, not the SW dev.
Now, if you want your software to be used and appreciated, you should pay attention to the regs, which are quite voluminous and complicated (imagine that from our government). But common sense will get you very far in this if you consider that the regs are intended to make the companies accountable. Digital signatures, auditable logs, robust validation checks are all very good (the technical term is "non-repudiation"). If your software can be implemented in a way that makes it impossible for a single user to alter data "after the fact" without leaving an accountability trail, then it will be better than most of the commercial SW being sold into this market. The key phrase here is "can be implemented". The best software, poorly implemented, won't comply; so be sure the implementation and validation docs are good also.
In fact, document the thing to death and things will go well for you. It almost seems like quality is measured by the volume of documentation, the more the better.
You youngin's don't know how good you got it. Why, back in my day we didn't have no fancy, schmancy network sniffers. We just power cycled the boxes until they started working right (or until quitting time, whichever came first).
*mumbles* gotta teach these whipper snappers a thing or two - next they'll need some lessons in percussive maintenance
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I seem to recall the Clinton administration actually stopping a terrorist plot pre Y2k. Remember the higher security/threat level that got the guy coming in from Canada at the border (trying to blow up LAX).
Clinton was not involved in that (I think he was humpin Monica at the time). It was the intelligence community and border police we have to thank for that. The 93 WTC bombing did kill people, on Clinton's watch. Why wasn't he more proactive? Was he distracted ? Where is the congressional hearing on that, huh? Oh, it's OK because he's a liberal.
I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
Clinton and his cabinet were absolutley convinced that Iraq had WMD's. There are lots of quotes to prove that if you look a bit.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of. You have shown zero compassion for the Kurds (who were in fact the victims of WMD's) or the Shites (brutally massacred after the 91 Gulf War), but your heart bleeds for the enemy soldiers at Gitmo. Give me a break! This isn't about being right or compassionate, it's about getting power back from the Republicans, any way you can. For liberals, the ends justify the means, and if that means you have to wish for a bad economy to get back in power, that's what you do. So wish away, but the economy looks like its coming back quite well, good news for the average American, but bad news for you liberals who have positioned yourselves to only benefit from the misfortune of America. No wonder you're so incensed that Bush is doing a great job, it makes your gloom and doom stories so much less believable. Sad really.
Who's pathetic and racist? You and your egostistical cronies. If you don't like the way America is, why don't you emigrate to France? They will welcome you with open arms since you think like their politicians (If it makes us rich and powerful, it must be OK).
Re:Ban on non-proliferation?
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
History doesn't agree with you. It took violence on a truly massive scale to destroy Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Dialog may work when dealing with reasonable people, but many people only respect the threat of armed response by superior military forces.
You're right. And in both the cases you mentioned (and many other vicious acts of aggression thoughout history), the driving force was a religious fervor, a sense that they had cornered the market on "truth" and were destined to make their religion/way of life the norm for the whole world.
It's eery how history repeats itself now with the Muslims. The bright spot is civilization has rebuffed these threats before, once there was a man to come forward as a true leader. No world leader has ever before determined to take on the terrorists of the world. Will he succeed? It's not certain, but Americans feel better about this war than any we ever engaged in. WW2 was won in part by the influx of American enthusiam to stop a madman.
Wow, if I ever need a lawyer, I want one who calls himself "Prince Vegeta".:)
Dennis
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
You forgot all the terrorist attacks and Mogidishu which happened on Clinton's watch. No wonder Bin Laden assumed we would roll over and play dead again.
It's annoying that the media and now Congress are saying that the Bush administration didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, but they give those Clinton do nothing's a pass on their 8 years in office. The only decisive thing the Clinton administration ever did was in Waco, and we know how that turned out.
There are all these folks saying that the war in Iraq was not needed or that it was premature. Then the same people fault Bush for not going after Bin Laden before 9/11. Can you imagine the uproar if he had!!
It boggles my mind that Clinton was offered Bin Laden on more than 1 occasion and turned it down because he couldn't figure out what to charge him with. Now the Bush administration is supposed to have known, in the first few months of their term, that they needed to take pre-emptive action to remove Bin Laden, when 8 years of Clinton policy was to ignore him. What are the liberals in our government and media thinking ? How does this make any sense at all?
I understand the liberals buying all this, because they already live in some alternate reality, but surely the average citizen of the US sees the duplicity in this.
You've been under the influence of the dark side for too long. Any code you write now will look like a memo defending a management decision -- pretty and fluffy, but utterly devoid of meaning.
Really, it's better for everyone if you don't try to bail now. You'll thank me later, when you come back to your senses (at the next company-paid seminar at a nice resort).
Going into management is like getting married,
it's easier to get into than out of
(additional analogies to marriage left as an exercise for the reader)
No, it's because they can't afford to. US agriculture is energy intensive, consumes lots of non-renewable raw materials, and generates lots of pollution. If a country is willing and able to pay that price, it's not surprising that they can get enormous yields per acre. But third world nations don't have the money to engage in that kind of agriculture.
I disagree. It is possible (I suspect even easier) to build a sustainable agriculture practice without all the expensive inputs. In the US, the most expensive input into agriculture is labor. Ironically, that's what these other countries have as a cheap input. We substitute petroleum inputs for labor because it's cheaper, the situation is probably reversed in South America.
I'm really not sure why things are the way they are, but I don't buy your theory. I suspect it has more to do with the efforts of farmers to grow cash crops for export rather than sustainable food crops.
Anyway, that's my opinion, and it's worth at least as much as you paid for it:)
So instead when you call 911 you have a random chance of the software working? Yes, lets put small understaffed local companies in charge of the emergency phone system.
Better yet, let's just outsource the whole mess to India! That'll improve service.
The one thing that bugs me about this is that he did what he thought was best for his company. His job is ensuring the company's survival. Period.
It's been said, "if you can't be a good example to others, at least be a good warning!"
It looks like he's taking the warning part seriously. Maybe this whole thing will be a net loss for SCO, publicity wise. I doubt SCO will learn anything, but other companies should be concerned about any sort of legal or financial dealings with SCO in the future. In this industry, that's important.
However, I'm fairly sure that Epic has the ability to remotely de-activate codes that were being illegally distributed (with the game validating your code with a central server before you're allowed to play online) - they already have a system in place for dealing with people spreading codes.
Interesting. Combine that with the recent report of a trojan that harvests codes from infected machines and you have a recipe for creating a new sort of havoc. If the trojan harvested codes are published in such a way that they get disabled, you'd have a sort of DDOS against a game company. It could overhelm their ability to sort out which users were legit, and piss off a lot of legit users at the same time. If you get enough personal info, you might even attack specific people to get them banned from the game for "sharing" their code if they do something you don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks to me like we are segregating the internet into 2 nets:
1) Free of Spam
2) Free from regulation
I suppose some people think this is a great idea, but I find it disturbing because innocent people are punished without any recourse (don't give me the "switch ISP" baloney, it's not always possible, and you know it).
Of course, the first one will still have Spam, just less of it, the second will still have regulations, just less of that. Personally, I like option #2 and deal with Spam at my server with SpamAssasin and at my clients with Thunderbird. No blacklists required.
I find it truly ironic that the Democrats are running as fiscal conservatives. I consider myself a real fiscal conservative and frankly, I'm a little unnerved/disappointed/concerned about the current speding levels. Still, I don't trust Kerry to make good on any promises to cut spending levels. I do believe he will raise taxes and that that would only add to the current deficit and stall the recovery.
As far as the ultra-rightists, I think they would finally bring some balance to a court system that has clearly leaned too far to the left in the past. The judicial system has fewer checks than the executive and legislative branches, and they are largly unaccountable to the voters. The recent habit of legislating from the bench has me very concerned.
Of course, I recognize that people who are fundamentally on the left won't agree with me, as they see the judicial branch as the only way to get unpopular legislation codified into law. I think if an idea is so unpopular that Congress cannot make it into law, then the judicial system ought not be able to do an end run, but should wait until it has popular support. I realize that the majority is not always right, but I prefer to take my chances with a representative rule rather than have dicates handed down by a small group of jurists.
Don't you know that liberals are immune from acting in a contradictory manner, everything they say and do makes perfect sense "by definition". If it seems like a contradiction to you, that's because you have a small mind and need to open it up to their vastly superior understanding.
Or have you not been paying attention to the recent media coverage of political events?
Tread carefully with these accusations, there are people here who will flame you with extreme prejudice for having a viewpoint that conflicts with theirs!!
Here's the difference:
Republicans - try to buy your vote by giving you back your own money.
Democrats - try to buy your vote by giving you nice things that they bought with your money.
Still confused?
The bottom line is it doesn't matter all that much. If Kerry wins, the status quo will continue, just with less bluster and more whining. The only candidate with any chance of making sweeping changes (assuming you want changes, apparently most Democrats do not, since they selected Kerry as the nominee) is Nader. Of course, he has no actual chance of winning, but he makes a lot of people feel good and that's worth something, I suppose.
I must continually fight the temptation to include stuff like a page that says "This page intentionally left blank to see if anyone ever reads this stuff" or "Help, I'm trapped in this printer by an evil Vorgon who is making me change toner for food!!!"
Yup, and we often reject critical security patches as too much trouble to apply and re-validate.A convoluted change management process means less work for me also, because the paperwork is so daunting, most users give up and work around the existing bug or mis-configuration. Seems kind of silly and conter-productive, but I would rather do silly for a salary, than elegant for the unemployed.
And that's several steps above a liberal, so I'm still happy about your label.
Of course, some places will still want you to pay the difference, but it might help in some places.
Yes, Christianity has a horrible history and it has taken a long time to "mature" past the point of killing for religion. My point is that Muslims are now in that killing part of the cycle. I hope they eventually mature also, but the world cannot, and will not, tolerate the abuses of religion as they once did. The Muslim world is centuries behind the modern world and their jealousy of that fact has sparked the moral equivalent of the race riots in the US. The blacks suffered most in those riots (both physically and regarding their stature in society), and the Muslims will suffer most in this current situation. It saddens me to see the good Muslims being enslaved and corrupted by the wicked among them.
Using Iraq as a "magnet" to draw terrorists to their death/capture seems like the best plan at this point. It's sad that they must see what the Coalition is doing, but their fanaticism means they simply can't help themselves, they must go join the jihad in Iraq. The Coalition has found a way to exploit their moral weaknesses, which is a good thing, I suppose.
Yes, but *you* audit them, not the FDA, and then the FDA audit you. This is a big distinction and removes (fortunately) the liability from the developer and places it on the implementor. This is fortunate because on the implementing company can asses the fitness ofthe software within their environment.
I work for a pharma company and I do know CFR 21 Part 11, and you are wrong.
Developers can write anything they want, it's the implementation that must be validated. If a company says their software is CFR 21 Part 11 certified, they are lying. If you write software for a regulated industry, you won't be sued or shut down no matter how crappy it is. The company that implemented and used your software won't be so lucky, but it's up to them to perform the needed due diligence, not the SW dev.
Now, if you want your software to be used and appreciated, you should pay attention to the regs, which are quite voluminous and complicated (imagine that from our government). But common sense will get you very far in this if you consider that the regs are intended to make the companies accountable. Digital signatures, auditable logs, robust validation checks are all very good (the technical term is "non-repudiation"). If your software can be implemented in a way that makes it impossible for a single user to alter data "after the fact" without leaving an accountability trail, then it will be better than most of the commercial SW being sold into this market. The key phrase here is "can be implemented". The best software, poorly implemented, won't comply; so be sure the implementation and validation docs are good also.
In fact, document the thing to death and things will go well for you. It almost seems like quality is measured by the volume of documentation, the more the better.
You youngin's don't know how good you got it. Why, back in my day we didn't have no fancy, schmancy network sniffers. We just power cycled the boxes until they started working right (or until quitting time, whichever came first).
*mumbles* gotta teach these whipper snappers a thing or two - next they'll need some lessons in percussive maintenance
Clinton was not involved in that (I think he was humpin Monica at the time). It was the intelligence community and border police we have to thank for that. The 93 WTC bombing did kill people, on Clinton's watch. Why wasn't he more proactive? Was he distracted ? Where is the congressional hearing on that, huh? Oh, it's OK because he's a liberal.
I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
Clinton and his cabinet were absolutley convinced that Iraq had WMD's. There are lots of quotes to prove that if you look a bit.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of. You have shown zero compassion for the Kurds (who were in fact the victims of WMD's) or the Shites (brutally massacred after the 91 Gulf War), but your heart bleeds for the enemy soldiers at Gitmo. Give me a break! This isn't about being right or compassionate, it's about getting power back from the Republicans, any way you can. For liberals, the ends justify the means, and if that means you have to wish for a bad economy to get back in power, that's what you do. So wish away, but the economy looks like its coming back quite well, good news for the average American, but bad news for you liberals who have positioned yourselves to only benefit from the misfortune of America. No wonder you're so incensed that Bush is doing a great job, it makes your gloom and doom stories so much less believable. Sad really.
Who's pathetic and racist? You and your egostistical cronies. If you don't like the way America is, why don't you emigrate to France? They will welcome you with open arms since you think like their politicians (If it makes us rich and powerful, it must be OK).
You're right. And in both the cases you mentioned (and many other vicious acts of aggression thoughout history), the driving force was a religious fervor, a sense that they had cornered the market on "truth" and were destined to make their religion/way of life the norm for the whole world.
It's eery how history repeats itself now with the Muslims. The bright spot is civilization has rebuffed these threats before, once there was a man to come forward as a true leader. No world leader has ever before determined to take on the terrorists of the world. Will he succeed? It's not certain, but Americans feel better about this war than any we ever engaged in. WW2 was won in part by the influx of American enthusiam to stop a madman.
Wow, if I ever need a lawyer, I want one who calls himself "Prince Vegeta". :)
Dennis
It's annoying that the media and now Congress are saying that the Bush administration didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, but they give those Clinton do nothing's a pass on their 8 years in office. The only decisive thing the Clinton administration ever did was in Waco, and we know how that turned out.
There are all these folks saying that the war in Iraq was not needed or that it was premature. Then the same people fault Bush for not going after Bin Laden before 9/11. Can you imagine the uproar if he had!!
It boggles my mind that Clinton was offered Bin Laden on more than 1 occasion and turned it down because he couldn't figure out what to charge him with. Now the Bush administration is supposed to have known, in the first few months of their term, that they needed to take pre-emptive action to remove Bin Laden, when 8 years of Clinton policy was to ignore him. What are the liberals in our government and media thinking ? How does this make any sense at all?
I understand the liberals buying all this, because they already live in some alternate reality, but surely the average citizen of the US sees the duplicity in this.
We've got a quick one here, fellas!
Really, it's better for everyone if you don't try to bail now. You'll thank me later, when you come back to your senses (at the next company-paid seminar at a nice resort).
Going into management is like getting married, it's easier to get into than out of
(additional analogies to marriage left as an exercise for the reader)
I disagree. It is possible (I suspect even easier) to build a sustainable agriculture practice without all the expensive inputs. In the US, the most expensive input into agriculture is labor. Ironically, that's what these other countries have as a cheap input. We substitute petroleum inputs for labor because it's cheaper, the situation is probably reversed in South America.
I'm really not sure why things are the way they are, but I don't buy your theory. I suspect it has more to do with the efforts of farmers to grow cash crops for export rather than sustainable food crops.
Anyway, that's my opinion, and it's worth at least as much as you paid for it :)
Better yet, let's just outsource the whole mess to India! That'll improve service.
It's been said, "if you can't be a good example to others, at least be a good warning!"
It looks like he's taking the warning part seriously. Maybe this whole thing will be a net loss for SCO, publicity wise. I doubt SCO will learn anything, but other companies should be concerned about any sort of legal or financial dealings with SCO in the future. In this industry, that's important.
What good is "proven experience in addition", my 12 year old has that (and subtraction too).
that one was just too easy
"Harvard"
They even renamed the school after him.
Interesting.
Combine that with the recent report of a trojan that harvests codes from infected machines and you have a recipe for creating a new sort of havoc. If the trojan harvested codes are published in such a way that they get disabled, you'd have a sort of DDOS against a game company. It could overhelm their ability to sort out which users were legit, and piss off a lot of legit users at the same time. If you get enough personal info, you might even attack specific people to get them banned from the game for "sharing" their code if they do something you don't like.
There you have it!
Why when I was young, we upgraded our websites every night, and we liked it that way!
Today's youngin's don't know how good they got it. "Every Wednesday night" (shakes head), what's the world a comin' to.