I've modded the openvpn gui msi to make it practically idiot-proof. It was not particularly difficult. As for auth, you can use an external perl script to auth over ldap/kerb onto AD. Not "easy" but doable certainly, however. I'd say doing u:pw means you are avoiding some of the best aspect of openvpn, passwordless operation built upon 256bit TLS keys.
Google is an ad company, maybe they want "labels" so they can market "Labels" on a for fee basis, with them used in searches? As opposed to tags, that everyone uses, and then, become a more hardly marketable term? Say the google engine can give.001 relevance to a tag, and.01 to a Label, and change for really good label results...
Wouldn't these chipset changes have made the cards unsuitable for your corporate needs even in Windows?
I know incompatible chipset changes in anything would make me nervous, from a support standpoint. Perhaps some pressure could be applied to vendors to abandon the practice?
The submitter is more optimistic, asking: "Is this the future and the effective end of DRM -- to be taken and co-opted by nation-states?" Since the nation-states enforce many of the provisions of the DRM, at least those related to copyright provisions, and since also, they make laws to prohibit private parties from doing so(that would be vigilante), the nation-states are already on board, if not technically, co-opted for DRM. Now one of the nation-states, thinks the deal the others decided it would get is not good. Not sure it really qualifies as a new type of co-opt. It's basically a contract renegotiation, nothing to see here, except "Economic powerhouse wants a better deal, news at eleven!"
>It has a complex control that's simple to use(clickwheel) so on what side of the simple/complex equation is the ipod?
my take: it's complex(does many things) but easy to use and understand, but it's simple-looking(it doesn't look complex) so people put it on the simple side... and they're wrong... But Apple's pocketbook agrees with them, not me.
For microsoft, a company that makes no money on support, but on initial licenses, those older OSes haven't just ceased to exist, they are a threat to their business model.
I'm surprised I'm the first one to apparently mention it, but have they tracked the progression of blockers to firefox/thunderbird adoption? Maybe there's just more blockers because now, it's so easy?
Because solving the base problem is an unattractive, costly proposition that requires environmentally unaware entities to change the way they do business. The problem is not the green guys... And changing the idea of someone else is a heck of a lot harder than changing your own. Right now these others prefer running the risk of blowing up the planet, than reducing their greenhouse gases emissions, or even going to the european model of paying for emissions. It's an economic policy problem, a tragedy of the commons.
That's incorrect, once you have decrypted the pgp message, you get to KEEP it, and you can copy the unprotected copy however many times you want. You can also copy the DRMed message an unlimited number of times, and try to decrypt it on another computer. What's evil about DRM is not the technical encryption, it's the "we can use technology to regulare the social use of data" aspects. Social in this case means "more than one computer". Period. Because it's an attempt to regulate the use of data, by regulating the copy of data. Basically the same wrong idea that open source overturned...
Are skulls that unique? I was sure the unicity was contributed to by not just bone structure, but muscle structure, cartilage(the nose) and pigmentation. In fact, do we know for sure that no two faces are unique? Until facial recognition can tell fraternal twins better than a human can, perhaps we shouldn't put those in mission critical environments, shall we?
If my computer help days are any indication, J Random User expects YOU to tell him about Macs, no matter how unsatisfied he is, he will NOT try to learn about the alternatives. He will just bitch and moan about how expensive it gets to maintain this computer, while trying not to spend a cent more than he has to, and hoping he could just junk it. When non-techies have a bad experience buying technology, they don't assign blame to themselves(for making the wrong choice) or to the maker of the technology(since for them it's all the same). They blame technology in general. As a better educated user, you can(if you are so inclined) let them know the experience can vary with the provider, and not despair. You can also share stories, either of what worked for you, or what didn't. Some of it may even be good business for you(they might pay you to install them a Mac). Then again, Macs tend to be lower-support than PCs, especially on AppleCare YMMV.
Because they hard to reengineer them for quad core(esp. memory bus wise, but also bios, etc..), otherwise, they would have launched quand WHEN they launched the 2.0Ghz core. Back when it was 2000$ a pop.
p.s. You don't launch an expensive technology based on cheap commodity parts, that's like subsidizing their waiting with your R&D dollars... You don't want them to wait, and the whole point of it being more expensive at launch, is that the target audience is those early adopter folx. They pay the R&D. Also keep in mind that they are launching a new quad technology to sell new chips. This technology is there for them to to show at and say they have better chips than Intel, allowing you to do better things with them, so you will BUY them. AMD might design the motherboard that allows quad, but they don't SELL it, so they have no incentive for allowing you to use existing chips.
The paper ballots could be used as forensic evidence, for once. It's a LOT harder to prove who tampered with a diebold machine, since so many people have access to it(the voters touch it, for once, so not all fingerprints would be usable... Paper ballots are also divided into smaller groups(a diebold machine would replace several "ballot boxes") compounding the problem, because of the cost of the diebold machine.
I am however, not working for anyone in the US electoral system, so my information could be incorrect.
On how many platforms? and for how long did they stay unpatched would be good questions to answer to make a fair comparison too... Last I checked, we're talking anything between 66% to more than double the platforms, and a mean time to a quick fix for a critical bug in weeks vs months. Not to mention you can usually get about three next-minor-version-number upgrade to the free stuff between "fixes" of the non-free. I can just hear the Oracle DBAs being happy they had open vulnerabilities and no fixes for soo long too, instead of the choice to upgrade, patch or workaround in days to weeks of a vulnerability being found.
But Apple can only be in the software business if they control the hardware, and prevent tweaking, because a great deal of their stability, not to mention their software team size, depends on that hardware control. Just because the hardware is not more powerful than say, an AMD64, it can still be a difference, if say, you get to test your code on it six months in advance. You can't test a DIY six months in advance.
1) It's hard to quantify what's lost, and since it's being traded "for" something usually, it's rather hard to evaluate how good a deal it is, so most people don't do the exercise, since what's lost... usually isn't lost at time of purchase, but much later.
2) What's lost can have almost infinite value, one's loss of privacy could end with becoming a victim of identity theft and until it's established one's a victim, one could be accused of pretty nasty things. But that doesn't happen right away, is hard to prove, and doesn't happen to everyone.
That means that the protection seems large, unwieldy, like expensive insurance, and at some point, risky, like suing a large corporation over a five dollar item. People don't see the value of what they lose, only the value of what they lose by trying to protect some abstract value.
Until some court cases start making noise over protection of private data, I don't see that changing.
To convince a large company to shell out a large amount of dollars to support something that's free? Especially considering all the new enterprise-friendly features that are being added in 5.0 and 5.1 like NDB. Do you have any advice to offer or arguments that work better than others? Do larger companies quibble about the fact that it's free, or do they try for a break in the price? Or are you more into licensing those mysql users, selling them value-added once they are already using the product and all the features, just adding support, expert advice and "certified binaries"?
Apple doesn't have 95 per cent market share, when they do, it'll be illegal for them to bundle the two together.
Of course, before then, they'll have probably started selling the os to run on PCs, if they ever get that kind of numbers. Better to sell the OS to put on a clone, than not sell anything at all, after all.
Considering how it's all based on google's cluster technology, don't hope for the php/python just yet. Static pages will work fine, ajax too, but anything requiring server storage breaks the model they got(and that works, flawlessly). They'd need to publish a google cluster api before they could host your dynamic pages.
You can remove this behaviour with the tune2fs utility, while the partition is unmounted. Most linux distros do this by default on ext3. On ext2, for obvious reasons, it's not recommended.
Why is it still on the 911 site then? I fail to see what purpose it serves to remove the googlemaps of the same data I doubt that terrorists are that much less technical than the people of the seattle911.com site. The only reason I can see with keeping the data public(on the 911 web site, not the seattle911.com one) might be public access to information laws or some other regulatory issue. If the information is public, let seattle911.com do whatever it wants with it. If the goal is to prevent terrorism, don't MASK the information, take it off the 911 web site too. We aren't talking about an intranet here. The public servants are alrady at risk, since it's PUBLIC information. The only reason I can see to keep the info public, but not let seattle911.com use it, is that if seattle911.com is ad-based, and they don't want the seattle911.com to benefit for free, from this information. But in that case, that's what a cease and desist letter is for. If it really is that risky for the public servants, why isn't the information better protected? How is publicising the info on only one site that much less safe than on two?
People complain that Microsoft is making it hard to be secure, if not impossible. Then Microsoft changes things, to make it hard to be secure, if not impossible, but in a different way. People still complain.
It's inexact, and quite impossible to say right now, before Vista is released, that Vista is secure(which in this context, means unhackable).
Slashdot Mirror
Since when are emergency services hosted on the public Internet? Who thought this was a good idea?
I've modded the openvpn gui msi to make it practically idiot-proof. It was not particularly difficult. As for auth, you can use an external perl script to auth over ldap/kerb onto AD. Not "easy" but doable certainly, however. I'd say doing u:pw means you are avoiding some of the best aspect of openvpn, passwordless operation built upon 256bit TLS keys.
Google is an ad company, maybe they want "labels" so they can market "Labels" on a for fee basis, with them used in searches? As opposed to tags, that everyone uses, and then, become a more hardly marketable term? Say the google engine can give .001 relevance to a tag, and .01 to a Label, and change for really good label results...
Sometimes it pays not to follow the crowd.
Wouldn't these chipset changes have made the cards unsuitable for your corporate needs even in Windows?
I know incompatible chipset changes in anything would make me nervous, from a support standpoint. Perhaps some pressure could be applied to vendors to abandon the practice?
>It has a complex control that's simple to use(clickwheel)
so on what side of the simple/complex equation is the ipod?
my take: it's complex(does many things) but easy to use and understand, but it's simple-looking(it doesn't look complex) so people put it on the simple side... and they're wrong... But Apple's pocketbook agrees with them, not me.
For microsoft, a company that makes no money on support, but on initial licenses, those older OSes haven't just ceased to exist, they are a threat to their business model.
I'm surprised I'm the first one to apparently mention it, but have they tracked the progression of blockers to firefox/thunderbird adoption?
Maybe there's just more blockers because now, it's so easy?
Because solving the base problem is an unattractive, costly proposition that requires environmentally unaware entities to change the way they do business. The problem is not the green guys... And changing the idea of someone else is a heck of a lot harder than changing your own. Right now these others prefer running the risk of blowing up the planet, than reducing their greenhouse gases emissions, or even going to the european model of paying for emissions. It's an economic policy problem, a tragedy of the commons.
If I may play devil's advocate here...
Maybe the RIAA's lawyer just gets a bonus from the legal damages if there are no counterclaims.
That's incorrect, once you have decrypted the pgp message, you get to KEEP it, and you can copy the unprotected copy however many times you want.
You can also copy the DRMed message an unlimited number of times, and try to decrypt it on another computer. What's evil about DRM is not the technical encryption, it's the "we can use technology to regulare the social use of data" aspects. Social in this case means "more than one computer". Period. Because it's an attempt to regulate the use of data, by regulating the copy of data. Basically the same wrong idea that open source overturned...
Are skulls that unique? I was sure the unicity was contributed to by not just bone structure, but muscle structure, cartilage(the nose) and pigmentation. In fact, do we know for sure that no two faces are unique? Until facial recognition can tell fraternal twins better than a human can, perhaps we shouldn't put those in mission critical environments, shall we?
If my computer help days are any indication, J Random User expects YOU to tell him about Macs, no matter how unsatisfied he is, he will NOT try to learn about the alternatives. He will just bitch and moan about how expensive it gets to maintain this computer, while trying not to spend a cent more than he has to, and hoping he could just junk it. When non-techies have a bad experience buying technology, they don't assign blame to themselves(for making the wrong choice) or to the maker of the technology(since for them it's all the same). They blame technology in general. As a better educated user, you can(if you are so inclined) let them know the experience can vary with the provider, and not despair. You can also share stories, either of what worked for you, or what didn't. Some of it may even be good business for you(they might pay you to install them a Mac). Then again, Macs tend to be lower-support than PCs, especially on AppleCare YMMV.
Because they hard to reengineer them for quad core(esp. memory bus wise, but also bios, etc..), otherwise, they would have launched quand WHEN they launched the 2.0Ghz core. Back when it was 2000$ a pop.
p.s. You don't launch an expensive technology based on cheap commodity parts, that's like subsidizing their waiting with your R&D dollars... You don't want them to wait, and the whole point of it being more expensive at launch, is that the target audience is those early adopter folx. They pay the R&D. Also keep in mind that they are launching a new quad technology to sell new chips. This technology is there for them to to show at and say they have better chips than Intel, allowing you to do better things with them, so you will BUY them. AMD might design the motherboard that allows quad, but they don't SELL it, so they have no incentive for allowing you to use existing chips.
The paper ballots could be used as forensic evidence, for once. It's a LOT harder to prove who tampered with a diebold machine, since so many people have access to it(the voters touch it, for once, so not all fingerprints would be usable... Paper ballots are also divided into smaller groups(a diebold machine would replace several "ballot boxes") compounding the problem, because of the cost of the diebold machine.
I am however, not working for anyone in the US electoral system, so my information could be incorrect.
On how many platforms? and for how long did they stay unpatched would be good questions to answer to make a fair comparison too...
Last I checked, we're talking anything between 66% to more than double the platforms, and a mean time to a quick fix for a critical bug in weeks vs months.
Not to mention you can usually get about three next-minor-version-number upgrade to the free stuff between "fixes" of the non-free.
I can just hear the Oracle DBAs being happy they had open vulnerabilities and no fixes for soo long too, instead of the choice to upgrade, patch or workaround in days to weeks of a vulnerability being found.
/me only buys Microsoft hardware too, but I never run the software that comes with it...
Now if only they actually made software to equivalent quality...
But Apple can only be in the software business if they control the hardware, and prevent tweaking, because a great deal of their stability, not to mention their software team size, depends on that hardware control. Just because the hardware is not more powerful than say, an AMD64, it can still be a difference, if say, you get to test your code on it six months in advance. You can't test a DIY six months in advance.
1) It's hard to quantify what's lost, and since it's being traded "for" something usually, it's rather hard to evaluate how good a deal it is, so most people don't do the exercise, since what's lost... usually isn't lost at time of purchase, but much later.
2) What's lost can have almost infinite value, one's loss of privacy could end with becoming a victim of identity theft and until it's established one's a victim, one could be accused of pretty nasty things. But that doesn't happen right away, is hard to prove, and doesn't happen to everyone.
That means that the protection seems large, unwieldy, like expensive insurance, and at some point, risky, like suing a large corporation over a five dollar item. People don't see the value of what they lose, only the value of what they lose by trying to protect some abstract value.
Until some court cases start making noise over protection of private data, I don't see that changing.
To convince a large company to shell out a large amount of dollars to support something that's free? Especially considering all the new enterprise-friendly features that are being added in 5.0 and 5.1 like NDB. Do you have any advice to offer or arguments that work better than others? Do larger companies quibble about the fact that it's free, or do they try for a break in the price? Or are you more into licensing those mysql users, selling them value-added once they are already using the product and all the features, just adding support, expert advice and "certified binaries"?
Apple doesn't have 95 per cent market share, when they do, it'll be illegal for them to bundle the two together.
Of course, before then, they'll have probably started selling the os to run on PCs, if they ever get that kind of numbers. Better to sell the OS to put on a clone, than not sell anything at all, after all.
Considering how it's all based on google's cluster technology, don't hope for the php/python just yet. Static pages will work fine, ajax too, but anything requiring server storage breaks the model they got(and that works, flawlessly). They'd need to publish a google cluster api before they could host your dynamic pages.
You can remove this behaviour with the tune2fs utility, while the partition is unmounted. Most linux distros do this by default on ext3. On ext2, for obvious reasons, it's not recommended.
Why is it still on the 911 site then?
I fail to see what purpose it serves to remove the googlemaps of the same data
I doubt that terrorists are that much less technical than the people of the seattle911.com site.
The only reason I can see with keeping the data public(on the 911 web site, not the seattle911.com one) might be public access to information laws or some other regulatory issue. If the information is public, let seattle911.com do whatever it wants with it. If the goal is to prevent terrorism, don't MASK the information, take it off the 911 web site too.
We aren't talking about an intranet here.
The public servants are alrady at risk, since it's PUBLIC information.
The only reason I can see to keep the info public, but not let seattle911.com use it, is that if seattle911.com is ad-based, and they don't want the seattle911.com to benefit for free, from this information. But in that case, that's what a cease and desist letter is for.
If it really is that risky for the public servants, why isn't the information better protected? How is publicising the info on only one site that much less safe than on two?
That's not quite exact...
People complain that Microsoft is making it hard to be secure, if not impossible. Then Microsoft changes things, to make it hard to be secure, if not impossible, but in a different way. People still complain.
It's inexact, and quite impossible to say right now, before Vista is released, that Vista is secure(which in this context, means unhackable).