Yes, and no. IT obviously needs to be involved and understand the processes going on, but to say that the people who are doing the process need to be telling IT what the process needs to be is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.
First, they don't understand the capabilities of the systems that could be brought in. Access applications are a prime example of what happens when a bunch of amatures get involved, because, in their minds, moving to access is a big step, because they don't understand its limitations.
Second, they're burdened by their own preconceptions of what the process should be. They have to worry about peoples feelings, and they have years of "how it has to be done" ingrained in their heads.
I once had an issue with people processing Obituary data...photos, text, money, etc. After working with the people involved for about a week, I got fed up and wrote their jobs out of existence...Automated things that I was told "could not be automated". Took a month for the crap storm to subside, people complaining about all the stuff I changed...They'd probably still be doing it but the errors dropped to a flat zero, and the customer complaints dropped just as fast. I rewrote a bulk mailing system which changed utterly the process by which mailings were assembled.
I got complaints for a month, and then I got complaints because part of the system was still running the old system, and they liked the new system better because it was more transparent.
I'm no fan of consultants either...One trick ponies, most of them, out to sell a single solution which may or may not address a problem that you have. However, a competent internal IT department who is in a position to both understand and support the business is usually in a far better position to come up with a process redesign than the department whose process it is.
I was going to make a hardcore double penetration input-in-the-output-port joke, but then I started thinking about how many networking geeks would jump all over the joke based on the fact that double penetrating the pron port would cause a tcp/ip collision, and therefore no penetration would occur, and I gave it up as a lost cause.
It's not about morality...Laws (like Prohibition, for example) that are solely enacted for moral purposes generally fail. Laws against things like theft and murder aren't enacted because people think theft and murder are wrong...Most people agree that morally theft and murder are okay in certain circumstances (e.g Robin Hood, and self defense)...But for the state to function correctly, life and personal property must have legal protections.
Likewise drug laws...The state doesn't give a crap if you rot your brain with drugs, except for the fact that you then become the responsibility of the state, and the state works better if you're out working and paying taxes, than it does if you're a drooling wreck in a state hospital.
Most laws actually don't legislate morality, it's just that stuff that's good for the state (no drunk drivers, no drug use, no prostitution) often has a moral component.
The XXX tld isn't a wholly bad idea, because it relys on the voluntary cooperation of porn sites, something that is far more likely to be obtained than the ability to route types of content on the same protocol to different ports based on content.
No, it's both. They want porn to have it's own port, so they can block porn's port. Doesn't matter, because hackers will achieve extreme penetration of the porn port, blocked or not.
It's stupid, and it shows a huge lack of understanding about what ports are for, and how content is directed to specific ports, and it depends wholly on the ability to separate content by its content, which is extraordinarily difficult to do with image/video data. Might as well just block port 80.
Frankly, if they put out good driver support, I think the best move is to gear the pre-installed linux options toward non-savvy users. I'm not going to use a damn out-of-the-box install of fricking WINDOWS, more less an out-of-the-box install of Linux, and I'm less anal than a lot of people around here.
Let 'em gear the linux installs toward grandmas and newbies, because the rest of us are almost certainly going to be unsatisfied regardless of what they do. Expecting a hardware company to support a hundred different os configurations is absurd.
RTFA. It says in the article, that the acceleration from this thing would be on the slow and steady side, and that it might take a spacecraft propelled by this technology "as much as a year" to break out of Earth's magnetic well.
We'd start having huge astronaut endurance issues before they got anywhere cool.
The thing that pisses me off about it is how they game search engine results, more than the stupid typo-squatting itself. These sites wouldn't be a real problem if we could cut out that bit of their business.
It's not even a surprise historically...Microsoft could have tightened up it's copy protection years ago, but didn't. Why? Because they wanted to be the standard!
Lot of people don't remember it, but it used to be that Microsoft software was the easiest to install. Other people were doing dongles, and phone activation, and all this crap, and to get Office, you just bummed a disk, and copied an activation code off the internet. Easy as pie.
Then they clamped down on the business users, and made a mint. Now they're working on the home users. I doubt they expect WGA to be genuinely effective, and I doubt they even want it to be...All it is is a gentle push to move some of the more pedestrian pirates into buying legal copies.
Generally doesn't happen. I use linux primarily for web, dns, mail, occasional file sharing, some firewall applications, and as custom application servers. We had a windows FTP crap out recently...Replaced. We run exchange; it sits downstream of a sendmail mail relay, and a apache web proxy. I run all my perl/java/python applications off linux machines running java.
I'm not a zealot; I'm happy using microsoft when it works. But when someone's struggling with an application, I'm happy to bring it over to linux, and I generally have good luck with it. Stuff runs, and doesn't break.
We had a huge rimbot outbreak at corporate a few weeks ago, and it's been echoing through the system for days. I've snagged big chunks of infrastructure that were formerly windows, and all my new stuff is working fine, and my boss is delighted, and fricking CIO's are calling me from other parts of the corporation to see if I'll show their guys how to set up this or that service on linux. I just don't have problems, and being the guy who doesn't have problems is GREAT.
I advocate linux for the same reason that I advocate a lot of tools that work...having such things nearby makes my life easier. Every time some piece of microsoft infrastructure breaks, I replace it with linux.
I'm not sure how linux security is a myth either...All the DMZ machines at work are linux machines, and I've never had any problems with them...I get more problems from the windows machines that sit on the plague-ridden windows-centric supposedly secure corporate WAN. My home network is secured by a linux router and I've never had problems there either, despite the massive sort of bot scanning that infests consumer ISPs in this country (I get faaaaaar more security hits at home).
As for being developer friendly...When I can install windows and have it come with compilers and libraries for half a dozen different programming languages, then we'll talk about "developer friendliness". Fedora recently started bundling Tomcat with their distros as an installable option...Anyone who has ever installed Tomcat knows how valuable that is.
Linux has it's issues, and it's not perfect, but it is a good tool, and it has a great place in IT infrastructure.
Yea, my mother died of the same thing last year (she went into surgery a year ago yesterday). Those sorts of treatments are years away at best, and even if they're exceptionally effective, they still may not be set up for killing an aggressive fast spreading cancer like a Glioblastoma Multiforme...Right now those are pretty much universally fatal.
Anyway, it's always easy to say, "Well they should have rushed this thing forward" but the truth of it is, they've cured a lot of types of cancer...in mice. Making the jump to people is not going as well.
European social democracies with high tax burdens, small, ethnically homogeneous populations, and strict immigration laws. And while you have better social services, it remains to be seen how well that will work in the future...As an example, almost 20% of the people in Denmark are currently living on welfare, which puts quite a large burden on the rest.
So first off, you can't move there, even if you wanted to. Second, standard of living is somewhat different. Third, you pay for it with taxes that would be considered obscene over here, and which is not attractive to immigrants, who may have the intention of sending money home to their families.
I hate this place sometimes, but I can't see immigrating to a country with less people than some cities I've lived in, who talk up their wonderful social solutions like they're universally applicable. No significant minorities. Nothing to strive for but being just about as well off as everyone else...How I long to pay more than 50% of my income in taxes!
Think about it this way...if all the competent people move here, where will all the work be? One of America's greatest advantages is that it's just a damn nice place to live. If you can move here (and thanks to our typically loose immigration laws, you probably can), you will, depriving your native country of your skill, and giving the pass along benefits to the rest of us...Skilled workers immigrating to a country is always a good thing.
The other option is to lock everything down, and say "No new immigrants." What happens then? Do you think wages will go through the roof, and jobs will grow on trees? Or do you think more companies will send the jobs to where the workers are?
Sure Microsoft wants the cheap workers, but, you know what? They can go to where the cheap workers are if they want 'em that bad, and we really don't want that to happen.
Esss-Que-Ell is three syllables, and "Sequel" is only two, so either you don't use it often enough to have the need to shorten it (amature) or you're anal enough to want to add an extra syllable, even though you use it all the time./etc is even worse, because you're moving from two syllables (et-see) to four (et-cet-er-a).
I don't insist on "sequel", because in my mind I always think "standard english query language", but it irks me when people use ess-que-ell...Just a weird pet-peeve I suppose, because "FTP" and "SSH/SSL" and "HTML" don't bother me at all. Someone who insisted on "et-cetera" would have to die though, because I couldn't handle it.
Parody is protected, so yea, this is pretty blatant abuse. The Supreme's have ruled on this over and over...Acuff-Rose is a good example (warning, legalese ahead).
Parody is the get-out-of-jail-free card of copyright law, because in order for parody to be possible, you have to be able to copy the original work, at least to a point.
There is a tremendous amount of precedent and even law directed against this sort of copyright abuse, and, in the states at least, I'd expect it to be laughed out of anything but the most local and parochial courtroom.
Typical that it's big business pulling this crap...Energy company to boot. I hope they get slapped with all the legal fees, because that's clearly what this is about...Forcing the parody site to pay legal fees to win a case that they can easily win.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and no. IT obviously needs to be involved and understand the processes going on, but to say that the people who are doing the process need to be telling IT what the process needs to be is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.
First, they don't understand the capabilities of the systems that could be brought in. Access applications are a prime example of what happens when a bunch of amatures get involved, because, in their minds, moving to access is a big step, because they don't understand its limitations.
Second, they're burdened by their own preconceptions of what the process should be. They have to worry about peoples feelings, and they have years of "how it has to be done" ingrained in their heads.
I once had an issue with people processing Obituary data...photos, text, money, etc. After working with the people involved for about a week, I got fed up and wrote their jobs out of existence...Automated things that I was told "could not be automated". Took a month for the crap storm to subside, people complaining about all the stuff I changed...They'd probably still be doing it but the errors dropped to a flat zero, and the customer complaints dropped just as fast. I rewrote a bulk mailing system which changed utterly the process by which mailings were assembled.
I got complaints for a month, and then I got complaints because part of the system was still running the old system, and they liked the new system better because it was more transparent.
I'm no fan of consultants either...One trick ponies, most of them, out to sell a single solution which may or may not address a problem that you have. However, a competent internal IT department who is in a position to both understand and support the business is usually in a far better position to come up with a process redesign than the department whose process it is.
I was going to make a hardcore double penetration input-in-the-output-port joke, but then I started thinking about how many networking geeks would jump all over the joke based on the fact that double penetrating the pron port would cause a tcp/ip collision, and therefore no penetration would occur, and I gave it up as a lost cause.
And not, you know, circular.
It's not about morality...Laws (like Prohibition, for example) that are solely enacted for moral purposes generally fail. Laws against things like theft and murder aren't enacted because people think theft and murder are wrong...Most people agree that morally theft and murder are okay in certain circumstances (e.g Robin Hood, and self defense)...But for the state to function correctly, life and personal property must have legal protections.
Likewise drug laws...The state doesn't give a crap if you rot your brain with drugs, except for the fact that you then become the responsibility of the state, and the state works better if you're out working and paying taxes, than it does if you're a drooling wreck in a state hospital.
With a good proxy, you could run it through any port. That's the problem with this whole mess.
Most laws actually don't legislate morality, it's just that stuff that's good for the state (no drunk drivers, no drug use, no prostitution) often has a moral component.
The XXX tld isn't a wholly bad idea, because it relys on the voluntary cooperation of porn sites, something that is far more likely to be obtained than the ability to route types of content on the same protocol to different ports based on content.
No, it's both. They want porn to have it's own port, so they can block porn's port. Doesn't matter, because hackers will achieve extreme penetration of the porn port, blocked or not.
It's stupid, and it shows a huge lack of understanding about what ports are for, and how content is directed to specific ports, and it depends wholly on the ability to separate content by its content, which is extraordinarily difficult to do with image/video data. Might as well just block port 80.
Frankly, if they put out good driver support, I think the best move is to gear the pre-installed linux options toward non-savvy users. I'm not going to use a damn out-of-the-box install of fricking WINDOWS, more less an out-of-the-box install of Linux, and I'm less anal than a lot of people around here.
Let 'em gear the linux installs toward grandmas and newbies, because the rest of us are almost certainly going to be unsatisfied regardless of what they do. Expecting a hardware company to support a hundred different os configurations is absurd.
RTFA. It says in the article, that the acceleration from this thing would be on the slow and steady side, and that it might take a spacecraft propelled by this technology "as much as a year" to break out of Earth's magnetic well.
We'd start having huge astronaut endurance issues before they got anywhere cool.
The thing that pisses me off about it is how they game search engine results, more than the stupid typo-squatting itself. These sites wouldn't be a real problem if we could cut out that bit of their business.
It's not even a surprise historically...Microsoft could have tightened up it's copy protection years ago, but didn't. Why? Because they wanted to be the standard!
Lot of people don't remember it, but it used to be that Microsoft software was the easiest to install. Other people were doing dongles, and phone activation, and all this crap, and to get Office, you just bummed a disk, and copied an activation code off the internet. Easy as pie.
Then they clamped down on the business users, and made a mint. Now they're working on the home users. I doubt they expect WGA to be genuinely effective, and I doubt they even want it to be...All it is is a gentle push to move some of the more pedestrian pirates into buying legal copies.
Not necessarily...Three platters spinning at 7200rpm is a lot of data.
The place where you make up time with solid state is in seek time...There is no hardware to have to move, so finding non-contiguous data is quicker.
Generally doesn't happen. I use linux primarily for web, dns, mail, occasional file sharing, some firewall applications, and as custom application servers. We had a windows FTP crap out recently...Replaced. We run exchange; it sits downstream of a sendmail mail relay, and a apache web proxy. I run all my perl/java/python applications off linux machines running java.
I'm not a zealot; I'm happy using microsoft when it works. But when someone's struggling with an application, I'm happy to bring it over to linux, and I generally have good luck with it. Stuff runs, and doesn't break.
We had a huge rimbot outbreak at corporate a few weeks ago, and it's been echoing through the system for days. I've snagged big chunks of infrastructure that were formerly windows, and all my new stuff is working fine, and my boss is delighted, and fricking CIO's are calling me from other parts of the corporation to see if I'll show their guys how to set up this or that service on linux. I just don't have problems, and being the guy who doesn't have problems is GREAT.
I advocate linux for the same reason that I advocate a lot of tools that work...having such things nearby makes my life easier. Every time some piece of microsoft infrastructure breaks, I replace it with linux.
I'm not sure how linux security is a myth either...All the DMZ machines at work are linux machines, and I've never had any problems with them...I get more problems from the windows machines that sit on the plague-ridden windows-centric supposedly secure corporate WAN. My home network is secured by a linux router and I've never had problems there either, despite the massive sort of bot scanning that infests consumer ISPs in this country (I get faaaaaar more security hits at home).
As for being developer friendly...When I can install windows and have it come with compilers and libraries for half a dozen different programming languages, then we'll talk about "developer friendliness". Fedora recently started bundling Tomcat with their distros as an installable option...Anyone who has ever installed Tomcat knows how valuable that is.
Linux has it's issues, and it's not perfect, but it is a good tool, and it has a great place in IT infrastructure.
Yea, my mother died of the same thing last year (she went into surgery a year ago yesterday). Those sorts of treatments are years away at best, and even if they're exceptionally effective, they still may not be set up for killing an aggressive fast spreading cancer like a Glioblastoma Multiforme...Right now those are pretty much universally fatal.
Anyway, it's always easy to say, "Well they should have rushed this thing forward" but the truth of it is, they've cured a lot of types of cancer...in mice. Making the jump to people is not going as well.
European social democracies with high tax burdens, small, ethnically homogeneous populations, and strict immigration laws. And while you have better social services, it remains to be seen how well that will work in the future...As an example, almost 20% of the people in Denmark are currently living on welfare, which puts quite a large burden on the rest.
So first off, you can't move there, even if you wanted to. Second, standard of living is somewhat different. Third, you pay for it with taxes that would be considered obscene over here, and which is not attractive to immigrants, who may have the intention of sending money home to their families.
I hate this place sometimes, but I can't see immigrating to a country with less people than some cities I've lived in, who talk up their wonderful social solutions like they're universally applicable. No significant minorities. Nothing to strive for but being just about as well off as everyone else...How I long to pay more than 50% of my income in taxes!
Like?
Hey, even people from the weepy European social democracies come here because our shopping kicks ass.
Besides, you're comparing us with countries in Asia and South America...Think about it for a second.
Labor protections have certainly done wonders for our auto and steel industries.
Typically short-sighted protectionist viewpoint.
Think about it this way...if all the competent people move here, where will all the work be? One of America's greatest advantages is that it's just a damn nice place to live. If you can move here (and thanks to our typically loose immigration laws, you probably can), you will, depriving your native country of your skill, and giving the pass along benefits to the rest of us...Skilled workers immigrating to a country is always a good thing.
The other option is to lock everything down, and say "No new immigrants." What happens then? Do you think wages will go through the roof, and jobs will grow on trees? Or do you think more companies will send the jobs to where the workers are?
Sure Microsoft wants the cheap workers, but, you know what? They can go to where the cheap workers are if they want 'em that bad, and we really don't want that to happen.
Nothing, per se, but y'alls copyright law is damn similar to our own. No fair use protections?
Esss-Que-Ell is three syllables, and "Sequel" is only two, so either you don't use it often enough to have the need to shorten it (amature) or you're anal enough to want to add an extra syllable, even though you use it all the time. /etc is even worse, because you're moving from two syllables (et-see) to four (et-cet-er-a).
I don't insist on "sequel", because in my mind I always think "standard english query language", but it irks me when people use ess-que-ell...Just a weird pet-peeve I suppose, because "FTP" and "SSH/SSL" and "HTML" don't bother me at all. Someone who insisted on "et-cetera" would have to die though, because I couldn't handle it.
Parody is protected, so yea, this is pretty blatant abuse. The Supreme's have ruled on this over and over...Acuff-Rose is a good example (warning, legalese ahead).
Parody is the get-out-of-jail-free card of copyright law, because in order for parody to be possible, you have to be able to copy the original work, at least to a point.
There is a tremendous amount of precedent and even law directed against this sort of copyright abuse, and, in the states at least, I'd expect it to be laughed out of anything but the most local and parochial courtroom.
Typical that it's big business pulling this crap...Energy company to boot. I hope they get slapped with all the legal fees, because that's clearly what this is about...Forcing the parody site to pay legal fees to win a case that they can easily win.