And the original point stands... have you audited the source code? Have you compiled / built the product from the source code? If not, then have the alleged source code isn't any better than trusting the Windows source code.
Circular argument; I take it that you have done both?
Just because an individual states they do not have the competency to verify an action, it does not immediately make the original action invalid. Source code verification and auditing is a problem in ALL fields, and is not a particular malignancy associated with any particular programming methodology. However, the ease at which one may perform a public audit, and verification, of any code in question is greatly enhanced when anyone can view the code. Furthermore, a closed source audit relies on trusting the entity doing the auditing, with no possible method of performing ones own personal audit unless one is prepared to enter into an agreement with the original owner of the source code in question.
At some point you have to trust something, and trust relies on repeated positive outcomes, or consistent outcomes; you can trust that something will fail in a given scenario, and something can be trustworthy even with known flaws (an aircraft's landing gear has several inherent flaws, but a pilot knows not to fly with it deployed all the time.) In this particular case the system is performing as expected, and the original source code is performing as expected. That several other pool operators deliberately altered their source code, and concealed this from their users and did not publicly publish the code, does not diminish trust in the original system, but diminishes trust in those who thought it would be a good idea to make a system variant that lied about its status and support. They are now paying for their transgression, figuratively and literally, as the correctly working part of the system mops up after their mess.
I think you'd be surprised at how horrendously incompetent most people are. I'd say young people are nowhere near as 'tech savvy' as some people like to claim they are, to the point where they have difficulty doing much beyond accessing their Facebook pages and using a few specific programs.
Ahh, just spotted what you were referring to, it's a SOP. A supplementary order paper, and in this case it is the one that caused controversy and was not enacted into the final bill: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/government/2013/0237/latest/whole.html#DLM5187401 . I repeat, this SOP is not in force. Such papers are proposals for changes to the bill, you'll see this one is shown to be a proposal by it stating it is so.
So, please be a bit more careful, and link to your material next time:)
If you note Section 15, 3A, it still says the same. This is what is known as a trump line, in that under the currently in force legislation software is an invention which is not patentable.
I would be most interested in linked examples of what you are referring to, because I certainly have not found it on the government legislative website so far, so that a more informed debate may occur.
It's a bit too early in the piece to see the legal ramifications at this stage, but I'll give you a brief outline of what would most likely happen in this environment:
"A system comprising a computer with a touch-sensing display, and a program running on that computer such that gesture A causes the computer to display blah blah blah" ; this is actually two separate things, one is the physical hardware which is a device capable of sensing touch. The program running on the device that performs other actions in reaction to the manipulation of that device is considered software, as it may be substituted at any point by another program that can interpret the gesture differently.
The real interesting bit is actually the touch sensing display, which would be a device with embedded software that provides a basic API for positional feedback. If the embedded software provides gesture recognition as part of the panel, independent of the computer, then you have something that would probably be patentable. This would not stop someone creating another panel that could sense touch, but leave out all of the embedded API to the point it only provided RAW touch output and had to rely 100% on a software implementation for the rest; in that case you can patent the panel, but the software would be covered under standard copyright. In each case the software can be considered independent of the panel, except when the panel itself provides feedback to a computer as a result of embedded software [even then it has to be considered in it's entirety, not as independent bits, and would be trivial to get around.]
Now there is an older article here: http://www.iitp.org.nz/newsletter/article/430 Where if you look down to "The New Amendment", keyfeatures, point 4 you'll get the gist of where we are at. There are probably better sources and articles, but unfortunately I don't have them to hand right now. Key thing to remember is that it's all untested at this time, wait and see:)
*sigh* I am in New Zealand, and yes I have read and understood the legislation. For full disclosure I am also an Associate Member of the IITP, one of the groups who pushed hard to get this mess sorted out.
Most people skip the most important line which reads:
Quoting from the article "Gold is used for connectors because it does not oxidize quickly, and because of its high electrical conductivity; however, when mixed with solder that contains tin, the gold and tin can combine, making the combination brittle under certain conditions."
You are right, it is a mere part of the original dice article at: http://news.dice.com/2012/12/10/linux-virtual-private-server/ . It also does not help that the HowTo was written by someone who really does not fully well know what they are doing, and it is this sort of thing that catches out people trying to learn how to do things properly. What would help, though, would be if the guy actually got someone who knew what they were doing, and added those bits to his article so it was more complete [this is where a more collaborative blog is essential.]
For the record my first VPS was a pretty interesting beast at nosupportvpshosting.com, where you have to know what you are doing or suffer the consequences [I quite like them because they keep out of your way, plus I use it mainly for self-education purposes.] The HowTo at dice pretty much glosses over the security issues with a non-adequate solution in my opinion [if you have seen the nasty stuff flying around recently then you'll know what I mean.]
"including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield."
Now, lets say I am a soldier that has just been killed. My device does not know this, but the opposing force does. They pickup my phone, start running through a list of who is on the battlefield, and designate where their snipers need to aim.
Alternatively, opposing force finds device, and now appears on the location system as the soldier. This could be a bit of an issue if they send a message via it for everyone to regroup... or medical evac. I can imagine a well booby trapped body for that.
My point being: convenience is very nice, but deactivating it on death is vital. This is not something you'll get off-the-shelf, but can be as simple as a plugin heart monitor with password reset in the event of no pulse.
There is the possibility of buying the retail copies, which are a bit less restrictive, but they cost a bundle. However, once you have them, you only need to buy upgrade copies in the future when moving from OS to OS [which is considerably cheaper.]
Having said that though, and assuming it is specified in US dollars, that is a very high price per PC. For a business environment, with a lot of spare machines [not just parts] you would be buying render-farm level material there. I'd say you'd be quite happy spending $500 per machine, and still have plenty of power to spare.
We hear about various hacking events all the time concerning military systems, but it begs the question "can I get a torrent for it?".
Sure, the data might be several terabytes in size, but I'm sure there are sub-sections of that data that could be divided out for usage by... anyone.
If the information connected to that aircraft were to enter the public domain I can imagine a serious leap in public technology, no sweat [not to mention foreign governments].
At the same time I can imagine some people currently sweating behind their keyboard, debating whether they should pay the $30 billion ransom to prevent just that.
So, we currently know the information has been stolen from a secure facility. All someone needs to do now [big ask, I know] is to hack the systems of the individuals who gained that information.
When I was working on the cluster during the first 3 months of 2003, and setting up various parts of the software ( a few custom code alterations needed to be made to PBS, as it had a very serious bug that stopped the system from functioning properly at all ), I was sure that there was a bit more than just single node work occurring. You are correct about suspending a node etc, but then again you could also choose a node or node set to run jobs on ( and given the price to run jobs on the cluster it really should not have been too much of an issue unless 16 people had 4 node jobs running at once ). Personally just adding the job to the queue would be sensible, as it would allow the job to run when a free node, or node set, was available.
A lot of you mention about using the old versions of office that are installed.
Let me point out something about the licensing scheme in use: The software is licensed for a period of time, that period of time has expired. We are now required to uninstall all copies of Office on the Mac systems, or buy it.
The Ministry has indicated that they were paying for all Macs to have Office installed, but that only 50% of schools were actually using the office software.
This means an overpayment of 50% to Microsoft, and therefore a loss leader for the MOE.
You may also be interested to know that ALL software from MS is licensed in this manner, and that the minute that the MOE decides not to renew any aspect of the contract we either have to uninstall, or buy [ some of the less morally inclined will, of course, just keep running it ].
The costs for buying software out of the blue like this is staggering for a school, and in the case of the one I work for I'll be putting Neo Office in place [ newspapers and other commentators be damned ], and let the staff have a merry bitch fest about it. If they want to buy office for their individual Macs, they will be welcome to do so.
I currently work at a school of 994 pupils ( this can flux between 900 and 1200 pupils year on year ).
We have the following setup:
6 Computer Labs consisting of a total of 270 PCs.
30 PCs in Administration areas.
70 Staff Laptops.
12 Servers ( with 3 virtual, and one hyper backup doomsday scenario server that will takeover in the event of the server room burning to the ground).
Data-wise we deal with multiple storage servers, for a total of roughly 2.5 TB of data.
On top of this there are numerous Computers located in administration, and other areas of the school, along with 70 Staff laptops.
When I first started as the junior part-time technician there was myself, the head technician, and four students managing this.
I took over the head technician position two months later, and we started running two full time sys admins and four pupils.
One year later this was reduced to myself, and more recently I have added another student for training ( he should be around for a few years ).
year on year things are getting simpler, and year on year we add a further 30 or so machines, with an attrition rate of 20 or so machines every 5 years.
The fact of the matter is this, if you get a good Sys Admin, then you will have no issues. My suggestion would be a part-time position for a junior technician to manage the environment you have just described, and make sure he is not incompetent and learns slowly and accurately [ he also needs a memory like an Elephant ]. Unless your pupils and machines are self-destructing every two-minutes, I would play the expanding school card to say that a SysAdmin such as yourself can guide them into the future and maintain everything in tip-top condition. Also point out that you can train the staff on applications etc, it certainly worked for me.
Be aware, I am VERY MUCH the exception to the rule, other schools - with less equipment than I currently run - have up to four or even 5 paid technicians and a SysAdmin ( and these are public ). They constantly berate me over the phone saying what I do with everything in the school is insane and would take too long ( I am, for example, a security specialist ). My reply is that for ever 2 hours I invest in something I gain two months in maintenance advantage. laptops, for example, after a fair bit of work ( described as completely pointless, "you just ghost them if they break" ) are now at the stage where they go out, and out of 70 in 3 years I have only had three have software problems, and 10 fail - requiring repair - due to hardware issues.
For those wondering, I have a BSc in CS and IS, and am a W2K3 SysAdmin + Linux Guru. Schools are the best places to work because of the challenge, but if you are after money I suggest working elsewhere.
The deal is certainly a very interesting option, but there are numerous problems to overcome:
The educational space is very MS application specific, and I'm not joking about this.
With the MS deal having appeared first, I discovered that naturally the school I started working at has a very tight W2k3 infrastructure, based around Active Directory ( not pretty, but it does work when you find out all the undocumented "features" ). Breaking this structure down to work with Linux boxes is currently not an option, I'd simply not be able to get clearence.
I've been trying to get Linux into the school more prominently, but with myself being the only guy with Linux system expertise this is a wee bit hard. Some of the more liberal departments are running Linux specifically for some courses, as it forces the kids to think outside the box [ The Young Enterprise course and their companies have been the benefactors of Mandrake 10.1 ].
The kids have unfortunately bypassed the command prompt stage, so they have no idea about the underlying power of any OS, let alone windows. I'm trying to train a geek squad now, but it's a bit embarrassing for them when they don't even know the dir command... does this matter some may ask? Well it certainly matters when you run 90% of the system updates at high speed through batch scripting.
Right now all schools are currently sorting out which administration packages they will use, some are fine, but most face transferring to a new system at great expense. This requires re-training and immense additional expense in the IT budget, money which does not flow into getting a Linux solution in place.
From what I read, Kirstin school currently has a 50% install base of Linux, I think it was SuSe, and they duel boot their systems for the best of both worlds. I don't have that option, they have about seven technicians for about 350 PC's ( and about 1200 student laptops ), I am one head technician dealing with roughly 450 PC's, and roughly 70 Laptops. I simply cannot train everyone to be able to effectively use it.
However, it's not all doom and gloom, I'm not one to run away from a challenge, and this looks suitably difficult to implement. There is nothing more boring than having everything running smoothly; the kids provide ample entertainment with destroyed PC's and other miscellaneous problems, something which attracted me to the area I work in today [ oh, and lets not even begin people and kids bringing in PC's infected with spyware + viruses ].
Yawn...
Yes, yes, very interesting, now tell me, have you actually read the website?
If you had you would have found out that it is using the available router infrostructure when deployed in controller mode.
And why just sample traffic? If you are the military I'd expect the active mode in combination with controller mode to be implemented. Which *gasp* FILTERS the traffic.
So why call upstream?
It seems that you appear to have missed the point that NetDeflect actually performs filtering, and not just graphical sampling ( which is also avalable, and in most cases, included with all versions of the product).
I suggest you do your research a little more next time.
Also read the "Having Seen The Product" Post, it
is actually written by someone who knows what they are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
I always loose my mind when I see idiots writing rouge instead of rogue.
It really effects me deeply.
Agreed, I see red too...
BTW, it's "affects" :)
And the original point stands... have you audited the source code? Have you compiled / built the product from the source code? If not, then have the alleged source code isn't any better than trusting the Windows source code.
Circular argument; I take it that you have done both?
Just because an individual states they do not have the competency to verify an action, it does not immediately make the original action invalid.
Source code verification and auditing is a problem in ALL fields, and is not a particular malignancy associated with any particular programming methodology. However, the ease at which one may perform a public audit, and verification, of any code in question is greatly enhanced when anyone can view the code. Furthermore, a closed source audit relies on trusting the entity doing the auditing, with no possible method of performing ones own personal audit unless one is prepared to enter into an agreement with the original owner of the source code in question.
At some point you have to trust something, and trust relies on repeated positive outcomes, or consistent outcomes; you can trust that something will fail in a given scenario, and something can be trustworthy even with known flaws (an aircraft's landing gear has several inherent flaws, but a pilot knows not to fly with it deployed all the time.) In this particular case the system is performing as expected, and the original source code is performing as expected. That several other pool operators deliberately altered their source code, and concealed this from their users and did not publicly publish the code, does not diminish trust in the original system, but diminishes trust in those who thought it would be a good idea to make a system variant that lied about its status and support. They are now paying for their transgression, figuratively and literally, as the correctly working part of the system mops up after their mess.
Curiously, Kim Dotcom saved the day: https://twitter.com/LizardMafi... https://twitter.com/KimDotcom
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
They probably already know how to pirate.
I think you'd be surprised at how horrendously incompetent most people are. I'd say young people are nowhere near as 'tech savvy' as some people like to claim they are, to the point where they have difficulty doing much beyond accessing their Facebook pages and using a few specific programs.
I agree, and I do work at a school.
Ahh, just spotted what you were referring to, it's a SOP. A supplementary order paper, and in this case it is the one that caused controversy and was not enacted into the final bill: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/government/2013/0237/latest/whole.html#DLM5187401 . I repeat, this SOP is not in force. Such papers are proposals for changes to the bill, you'll see this one is shown to be a proposal by it stating it is so.
So, please be a bit more careful, and link to your material next time :)
Here we have the legislative page: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL8651_1/patents-bill
Here we have the link to all related bill documents: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/versions.aspx
Additionally here we have a link to the "live" bill currently in force, this is the passed version, 235-2: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/14.0/whole.html
If you note Section 15, 3A, it still says the same. This is what is known as a trump line, in that under the currently in force legislation software is an invention which is not patentable.
I would be most interested in linked examples of what you are referring to, because I certainly have not found it on the government legislative website so far, so that a more informed debate may occur.
It's a bit too early in the piece to see the legal ramifications at this stage, but I'll give you a brief outline of what would most likely happen in this environment:
"A system comprising a computer with a touch-sensing display, and a program running on that computer such that gesture A causes the computer to display blah blah blah" ; this is actually two separate things, one is the physical hardware which is a device capable of sensing touch. The program running on the device that performs other actions in reaction to the manipulation of that device is considered software, as it may be substituted at any point by another program that can interpret the gesture differently.
The real interesting bit is actually the touch sensing display, which would be a device with embedded software that provides a basic API for positional feedback. If the embedded software provides gesture recognition as part of the panel, independent of the computer, then you have something that would probably be patentable. This would not stop someone creating another panel that could sense touch, but leave out all of the embedded API to the point it only provided RAW touch output and had to rely 100% on a software implementation for the rest; in that case you can patent the panel, but the software would be covered under standard copyright. In each case the software can be considered independent of the panel, except when the panel itself provides feedback to a computer as a result of embedded software [even then it has to be considered in it's entirety, not as independent bits, and would be trivial to get around.]
Now there is an older article here: http://www.iitp.org.nz/newsletter/article/430 Where if you look down to "The New Amendment", keyfeatures, point 4 you'll get the gist of where we are at. There are probably better sources and articles, but unfortunately I don't have them to hand right now. Key thing to remember is that it's all untested at this time, wait and see :)
*sigh* I am in New Zealand, and yes I have read and understood the legislation. For full disclosure I am also an Associate Member of the IITP, one of the groups who pushed hard to get this mess sorted out.
Most people skip the most important line which reads:
"A computer program is not a patentable invention." Section 15, part 3A: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/latest/whole.html?search=sw_096be8ed8054d616_computer+program_25_se&p=1#DLM1419225
Now, is that unclear to anyone?
Quoting from the article "Gold is used for connectors because it does not oxidize quickly, and because of its high electrical conductivity; however, when mixed with solder that contains tin, the gold and tin can combine, making the combination brittle under certain conditions."
You are right, it is a mere part of the original dice article at: http://news.dice.com/2012/12/10/linux-virtual-private-server/ . It also does not help that the HowTo was written by someone who really does not fully well know what they are doing, and it is this sort of thing that catches out people trying to learn how to do things properly. What would help, though, would be if the guy actually got someone who knew what they were doing, and added those bits to his article so it was more complete [this is where a more collaborative blog is essential.]
For the record my first VPS was a pretty interesting beast at nosupportvpshosting.com, where you have to know what you are doing or suffer the consequences [I quite like them because they keep out of your way, plus I use it mainly for self-education purposes.] The HowTo at dice pretty much glosses over the security issues with a non-adequate solution in my opinion [if you have seen the nasty stuff flying around recently then you'll know what I mean.]
We seriously need King Kong with Biplanes placed on the Empire State building!
"including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield."
Now, lets say I am a soldier that has just been killed. My device does not know this, but the opposing force does. They pickup my phone, start running through a list of who is on the battlefield, and designate where their snipers need to aim.
Alternatively, opposing force finds device, and now appears on the location system as the soldier. This could be a bit of an issue if they send a message via it for everyone to regroup... or medical evac. I can imagine a well booby trapped body for that.
My point being: convenience is very nice, but deactivating it on death is vital. This is not something you'll get off-the-shelf, but can be as simple as a plugin heart monitor with password reset in the event of no pulse.
There is the possibility of buying the retail copies, which are a bit less restrictive, but they cost a bundle. However, once you have them, you only need to buy upgrade copies in the future when moving from OS to OS [which is considerably cheaper.] Having said that though, and assuming it is specified in US dollars, that is a very high price per PC. For a business environment, with a lot of spare machines [not just parts] you would be buying render-farm level material there. I'd say you'd be quite happy spending $500 per machine, and still have plenty of power to spare.
We hear about various hacking events all the time concerning military systems, but it begs the question "can I get a torrent for it?". Sure, the data might be several terabytes in size, but I'm sure there are sub-sections of that data that could be divided out for usage by... anyone. If the information connected to that aircraft were to enter the public domain I can imagine a serious leap in public technology, no sweat [not to mention foreign governments]. At the same time I can imagine some people currently sweating behind their keyboard, debating whether they should pay the $30 billion ransom to prevent just that. So, we currently know the information has been stolen from a secure facility. All someone needs to do now [big ask, I know] is to hack the systems of the individuals who gained that information.
Hi, David here, when was that?
When I was working on the cluster during the first 3 months of 2003, and setting up various parts of the software ( a few custom code alterations needed to be made to PBS, as it had a very serious bug that stopped the system from functioning properly at all ), I was sure that there was a bit more than just single node work occurring. You are correct about suspending a node etc, but then again you could also choose a node or node set to run jobs on ( and given the price to run jobs on the cluster it really should not have been too much of an issue unless 16 people had 4 node jobs running at once ). Personally just adding the job to the queue would be sensible, as it would allow the job to run when a free node, or node set, was available.
Check http://helix.massey.ac.nz/pbs.html As it gives a good overview of how the scheduling system works.
Additionally its a 65 Node system, and has since been superseded by Helix 2, much like the Sisters cluster was.
Naturally this will have changed over the last 4 years, but I'm pretty sure it's not quite as bad as described.
Regards,
David Keenleyside B.Sc. CS & IS
A lot of you mention about using the old versions of office that are installed.
Let me point out something about the licensing scheme in use:
The software is licensed for a period of time, that period of time has expired.
We are now required to uninstall all copies of Office on the Mac systems, or buy it.
The Ministry has indicated that they were paying for all Macs to have Office installed,
but that only 50% of schools were actually using the office software.
This means an overpayment of 50% to Microsoft, and therefore a loss leader for the MOE.
You may also be interested to know that ALL software from MS is licensed in this manner,
and that the minute that the MOE decides not to renew any aspect of the contract we either
have to uninstall, or buy [ some of the less morally inclined will, of course, just keep running it ].
The costs for buying software out of the blue like this is staggering for a school, and in
the case of the one I work for I'll be putting Neo Office in place [ newspapers and other commentators
be damned ], and let the staff have a merry bitch fest about it. If they want to buy office for
their individual Macs, they will be welcome to do so.
I currently work at a school of 994 pupils ( this can flux between 900 and 1200 pupils year on year ). We have the following setup: 6 Computer Labs consisting of a total of 270 PCs. 30 PCs in Administration areas. 70 Staff Laptops. 12 Servers ( with 3 virtual, and one hyper backup doomsday scenario server that will takeover in the event of the server room burning to the ground). Data-wise we deal with multiple storage servers, for a total of roughly 2.5 TB of data. On top of this there are numerous Computers located in administration, and other areas of the school, along with 70 Staff laptops. When I first started as the junior part-time technician there was myself, the head technician, and four students managing this. I took over the head technician position two months later, and we started running two full time sys admins and four pupils. One year later this was reduced to myself, and more recently I have added another student for training ( he should be around for a few years ). year on year things are getting simpler, and year on year we add a further 30 or so machines, with an attrition rate of 20 or so machines every 5 years. The fact of the matter is this, if you get a good Sys Admin, then you will have no issues. My suggestion would be a part-time position for a junior technician to manage the environment you have just described, and make sure he is not incompetent and learns slowly and accurately [ he also needs a memory like an Elephant ]. Unless your pupils and machines are self-destructing every two-minutes, I would play the expanding school card to say that a SysAdmin such as yourself can guide them into the future and maintain everything in tip-top condition. Also point out that you can train the staff on applications etc, it certainly worked for me. Be aware, I am VERY MUCH the exception to the rule, other schools - with less equipment than I currently run - have up to four or even 5 paid technicians and a SysAdmin ( and these are public ). They constantly berate me over the phone saying what I do with everything in the school is insane and would take too long ( I am, for example, a security specialist ). My reply is that for ever 2 hours I invest in something I gain two months in maintenance advantage. laptops, for example, after a fair bit of work ( described as completely pointless, "you just ghost them if they break" ) are now at the stage where they go out, and out of 70 in 3 years I have only had three have software problems, and 10 fail - requiring repair - due to hardware issues. For those wondering, I have a BSc in CS and IS, and am a W2K3 SysAdmin + Linux Guru. Schools are the best places to work because of the challenge, but if you are after money I suggest working elsewhere.
The deal is certainly a very interesting option, but there are numerous problems to overcome:
The educational space is very MS application specific, and I'm not joking about this.
With the MS deal having appeared first, I discovered that naturally the school I started working at has a very tight W2k3 infrastructure, based around Active Directory ( not pretty, but it does work when you find out all the undocumented "features" ). Breaking this structure down to work with Linux boxes is currently not an option, I'd simply not be able to get clearence.
I've been trying to get Linux into the school more prominently, but with myself being the only guy with Linux system expertise this is a wee bit hard. Some of the more liberal departments are running Linux specifically for some courses, as it forces the kids to think outside the box [ The Young Enterprise course and their companies have been the benefactors of Mandrake 10.1 ].
The kids have unfortunately bypassed the command prompt stage, so they have no idea about the underlying power of any OS, let alone windows. I'm trying to train a geek squad now, but it's a bit embarrassing for them when they don't even know the dir command... does this matter some may ask? Well it certainly matters when you run 90% of the system updates at high speed through batch scripting.
Right now all schools are currently sorting out which administration packages they will use, some are fine, but most face transferring to a new system at great expense. This requires re-training and immense additional expense in the IT budget, money which does not flow into getting a Linux solution in place.
From what I read, Kirstin school currently has a 50% install base of Linux, I think it was SuSe, and they duel boot their systems for the best of both worlds. I don't have that option, they have about seven technicians for about 350 PC's ( and about 1200 student laptops ), I am one head technician dealing with roughly 450 PC's, and roughly 70 Laptops. I simply cannot train everyone to be able to effectively use it.
However, it's not all doom and gloom, I'm not one to run away from a challenge, and this looks suitably difficult to implement. There is nothing more boring than having everything running smoothly; the kids provide ample entertainment with destroyed PC's and other miscellaneous problems, something which attracted me to the area I work in today [ oh, and lets not even begin people and kids bringing in PC's infected with spyware + viruses ].
Regards,
Nuke Bloodaxe.
Yawn... Yes, yes, very interesting, now tell me, have you actually read the website? If you had you would have found out that it is using the available router infrostructure when deployed in controller mode. And why just sample traffic? If you are the military I'd expect the active mode in combination with controller mode to be implemented. Which *gasp* FILTERS the traffic. So why call upstream? It seems that you appear to have missed the point that NetDeflect actually performs filtering, and not just graphical sampling ( which is also avalable, and in most cases, included with all versions of the product). I suggest you do your research a little more next time. Also read the "Having Seen The Product" Post, it is actually written by someone who knows what they are talking about.