Don't forget its humans deciding what "patterns" are suspect in the first place and its that the machines will be searching for, this does nothing to reduce human bias. It might even enhance it, given that a small group of people will likely be tasked with developing those patterns, as a opposed to a much larger group of independantly(or at least more so) minded security personal.
If a human gets it wrong, with some luck hopefully his partner, or commander may get it right and make a better choice. No it does not always work like, people become victims of social pressure to do bad things and make poor choices, but there is still a humanity there which at least can over come those things some of the time. That's why we have heros folks, most people are not but a person at least has the potential to be a hero, a machine does not.
Right but just because the prosecutor feels that way did nothing to stop the FBI form acting ethically and filing and amicus(sp) curie(sp) breif(friend of the court, sense my spelling is hopeless). The FBI is an investigative and enforcement agency. They don't have a vested interest in convictions, or at least they should not. I hope agents get rewarded for quality investigative work and not just "busts". That might be to much to hope for, but if true then the discovery that evidence is bad should be brought to light in the name of justice. There should be no direct reason the FBI would not want justice.
Almost all other OSS model vs proprietary model arguments are at least somewhat fuzy. Ethics and economics often seem to be in conflict. In many cases neither is tested or clear and we can't even agree on what goes in the pro and what goes in the con columns for each model individually. This case though highlights the fact very clearly that even if all software in your stack is not OSS at least the platform and common libraries should be.
JET is a depreciated platform and is no longer being actively developed or really supported in new projects by Microsoft. *OK* A perfectly reasonable position to take when you do have functionally replacement products being offered, which they do in the form of MSDE.
Every product has a life cycle which eventually is end of life, JET is old obsolete and makes little since for new work on todays more powerful platforms. *OK*
Lots of projects and products are build around JET, many of them are not obsoleted, replaced, and newer versions based on different storeage backends might be quite a ways off. There is a lot of JET stuff out there, lots.
The OSS model in this case would result in somebody fixing it, simplly because so many people use it for so many things. Even if the original authors could not be bothered lots of organizations or individuals out there would have a vested interest in makeing a fix. They would then be prettly likely to share it because there is no reason not to do so. In other words the entire software ecology around JET could be secure while other people and vendors migrate off those depricated platform components, instead everthing is going to remain vulnerable or broken unless Microsoft(insert any other vendor here for other cases) can be shamed into patching it.
I think its a legacy, when IM became popularized with most people it was early-to-mid nineties. The internet was new and the public regarded it more or less they way the regaurd TV. It was viewed as primarily recreational. Hey this is cool you can talk to people about things your interested it and look at photos *neat*.
More importantly very few people were online all the time, most were using dialup which meant their other primary method of being contacted was blocked. If they did have an internet connection at work it mostly to be mail gateway. So I think for a lot of people when they first experienced IM they knew like them most of the people they knew to send a message to were doing something unimportant and would not mind the interuption, just by their being signed in to the IM service in the first place. They were if anything doing something like posting to a news group or reading about what Beenie-bady was comming out next.
The technical and socail landscape around being "online" has changed remarkably for most people since that time and I think the soical behavior around IM specifically is just a little behinde those other transitions.
My appologies if you feel slighted by my attaching my post to yours. My intention was only to lend support your position that we should be using specific words by attempting to illustrate some reasons why copyright infringement and plagiarism are different words and different discussions.
I do not agree with you in that there is no relationship to the ethics of the two acts and the langauge around them. Both acts are related in that they entail prohibited duplication of content. Its a question of manor and intent which always are realated to ethics. "He killed Bob." as compared with "He murdered Bob." In both cases "Bob" is dead because of something "He" but what separates the two acts is largly a question of the ethics and morality behind his taking of Bob's life.
A paper trail just gets you a manual recount process that has a demonstrated error/uncertainty rate greater than the percentage of votes by which George W Bush "won" his first presidency. Right but the thing is (if you have durable media cardstock with inked responses) you can KEEP recounting until you get the same result enough times that the uncertainty is removed.
If the vote is with 1% and lets say we have determined the average error rate to be 3% when hand counting, then if you do 3 counts and get the same outcome all 3 times, you are pretty darn safe. If not well COUNT IT AGAIN. You just keep counting until you get enough successive counts with the same outcome everyone is satisfied.
You are totally correct in that plagiarism is the correct word and that it is the word we should be using to talk about the issue. To the point being made by other posters however plagiarism is a more serious matter then copyright infringement IMHO. With copyright infringement some control over the content is lost to the owner/author. With plagiarism not only is some of the control lost to the author but also the credit for the work.
In both the academic and artistic circles this is much more damaging than copyright infringement. Once you have created a work of academic or artistic value and its recognized by others as one of those things, it really becomes your personal credibility in the field. If your an artist, it gets you hired to perform, or patronized, if your an academic it gets you a job in industry, a teaching position, funding to more similar work, etc.
If someone plagiarizes your work then they may get these things instead of you and worse yet possible get you accused or suspected of plagiarism. I think its clear the original author is hurt much more by plagiarism then mere copyright infringement, which if people are bothering to infringe on your copyrights probably does more for your general credibility then anything else could and may actually benefit you in a variety, although certainly not all circumstances. If anyone wants to compare this to the RIAA crying about mp3z its would have to be like you uploading the latest top 40 song and then claiming you and your buddies performed it in the garage the other day.
Yup totally undetectable, its not like the enemy has the equipment to spot the infrared thrown of by gas heated to super high energy levers or anything. So much harder to see then a metal pole.
Given the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"? No we don't expect them to say "yes" I am sure the parent expects as I would that they make an attempt to at the very least escape, and idealy attempt to destroy their opressors, even if these actions will get them killed.
As to the suicide over jail thing that depends, If I was looking at a REAL life sentance like not getting out ever not in fifteen years never, then yea I would probably not allow myself to be taken alive, but I would not kill myself either. I would put society in the position of doing it so they have to live with it. Maybe it would be justifed, maybe everyone will sleep soundly that night, maybe not.
The fact is that the vast majority of businesses do not want homogeneous IT infrastructures," Pund-IT analyst King said. "Instead, they want to be able to better and more easily manage their IT assets no matter what hardware or OS platforms they buy. See I don't think they really care about hetrogeneous IT infrastructures. They might view it as a nice to have in terms of not being completly beholden to one vendor, not have their entire infrustructure vulnerable to the same threats, and so fourth; but they don't care. If they did care they would be investing hetrogeneous infrastructures despite additional management overhead.
The reality is most small shops are either all Linux/BSD/appliance(with a few OEM licensed winders boxen on ppls desks who need to deal with customer docs) shops or all windows/appliance shops. Most medium business I have seen are all Windows shops and if there is any Linux its well hidden inside appliance devices which include lots of proprietary stuff to integrate with Windows.
I only know enough about the internals of a couple large organizations to comment so these statements much more anecedotal then the above. These organizations have so many resources that the hurdle rate for hetrogeneous infrastructures at least appears lower. They will make some effort in this direction but its one of keeping it that way not setting out to create it. They are large because they grew over decades and got into the IT game before Microsoft became a monopoly. So they have a hetrogeneous legacy have solved the management problems themsevles some what and are just used to it in general.
Other then having a support staff more acustom to assiting with Windows integration issues, don't know have not tried calling them. I don't see what SLES has that reall makes it interoperate with Windows better then anything else, especially in terms of unified management tools. They act like they are the only distribution that includes Samba, and kerb5. Ok so maybe they are the only distribution where Microsoft won't sue you for useing Samba, but with still not knowing the internals of the deal a wise man would consider that shaky at best to mention nothing of the fact that running SUSE you are probably more visible to Microsoft then you otherwise would be.
So as a Network admin, I think SUSE-Microsoft have TOTALLY FAILED to deliver on their promise. I still wonder if either side is being honest with customers and the public and SUSE and Microsoft are really thinking the same things. I also don't think enough of the commercial world is really concerned about hetrogeneous IT infrastructures of they were we'd see more of them. In the end that is what will be needed but I think most Linux vendors could gain more ground sooner offering a compelling end to end solution complete backoffice and desktop. I don't think it even needs to work or be simpler to manage then windows to be successful. Just cheaper and more flexible in terms of license costs and support options but COMPLETE. In other words, CSRs, Sales People, AR, production better all be able to run on that platform.
Can we please, this is slashdot after all understand the meaning of broadband! Broadband is not in anyway related to the number of bits you can move in a given time. Its the opposite of baseband. Broadband uses a range of frequencies in the spectrum to transmit data, while base band uses an emf pulse. Think of how a telephone cooperates as a compared to a telegraph.
Ethernet on copper wire is baseband for example, where as your cable modem is broadband because its actually modulating a carrier frequency. If you mean how the communications device works say broadband if you want to talk about the amount of data that it can transmit, lets call it highspeed, lowspeed, or just talk in mbits/sec shall we?
Move is usually a destructive operation, on almost every platform I have ever used. Here are my experiences
Target diskete failure doing a move from C: to A: on DOS, yep your data is gone.
Network error moving from one windows box to another, yep your data is gone.
NFS write failure on Linux 2.4, check your data is gone.
Maybe move should be implemented as copy, completly then delete but its often not. I don't think there is any convention that demands it be that way. If you care about the data, at all you should always copy, check(maybe cursory, maybe md5 depending on how much you care) then delete.
I tell my users all the time, "move it only if you can lose it."
I don't think this is really a "bug" so much as a behavior, ie there is no handling of media exceptions when doing a move. Now if you data sometime went bye bye with two working devices that would be bug, and that is not what is being described here.
I don't think its fair to single MAC OS out for this either. As far as I know most mainstream OS seem to handle move operations with media exceptions badly. I am also not a MAC appologist. I don't have nor have every had any Apple products. Sure maybe the OS should copy, check at least no exception events happened durring and then delete but its not a bug. I don't think you can blame the OS for problems when the hardware under it be it a disk, NIC card, or memory flakes out. If it handles it gracefully then that is a virtue of the system, if does not handle it then its room for improvement in terms of features but not really a "bug".
umm, I pretty much said that in my case against jammers and using mesh instead. Thats passive interfearance not active, and I don't think its unreasonable for someone to block(not jam) raido signals on their own property.
All that to get a fraction of the performance of, say, a $10 embedded CPU that can already run Linux. Nice. Thank you for your post. I will never understand how even on a site targeted mostly at geeks people can't get that:
Some times people do/make things they could easily buy because they want to, to learn, to feel connected to those who came before them and did it on thier own, or to just have something they built with their own hands.
Please if you can't understand that at least don't mock others who do~!
My guess is that is down right now because he took it the Vintage Computer show, but I it had been online to be Slashdoted its running Mixin so likely it would have just run out of memory tring to serive all those connections, and dead locked.
Right and that is a big difference right thier. As a jour(sp) I would have a really hard time finding someone guilty for murder when there is no proof anyone is actaully dead.
In the Peterson case there were many reasons to suspect Scott would want to kill her and lots of the evidence showed he had the oppertunity. In the Reiser case we don't even know a woman is dead. There is no body and this is a person who had every reason to want to disappear. Its not unhead of people to live most of a life time before they get tracked down, if they want to remain hidden. I think thats reasonable doubt right there, or it would be for me.
Banning this tech is crazy, because the tech is the same tech that the radio in your self phone uses, its called um raido.
That said you are not allowed to broadcast on these frequencies, especially in anyway that disrupts those who have the right of way on those frequencies. Which in this case is cell phone users. We already have rules in place for this and they should be enforeced, we should not creat new rules regarding who is allowed to have what type of radio that is just stupid and would be abused by the gov left and right.
If a business want to block cell phone useage they can simply put up some wallpaper with a little metal content and ground it. There problem solved, and you won't risk interfearing with anyone down the street. Lots of places already do this and products are sold for this use. I think its a perfectly legitimate thing for theaters,resturants,concert halls, clubs, or any other establishment that has an interest in maintaining a certain type of atmosphere. I don't think no phone policies and signs would work either. People get way to uptight about cell phones will likely become beligerent if asked to turn them off and will simple ignore the signs.
As to the 911 issues, you know what YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT YOUR CELL WILL OPERATE ANYWHERE. If it works great if no well you're SOL sorry. The local shopping Mall has a metal roof. My phone won't work throught most of it. Should they have to alter the building? Its a raido its effected by all sorts of conditions. I don't consider it a reliable communications device because its not. You should not think of your cell as a reliable device either because its not. Most business are required in many municipalities to have working reliable access to the phone system in case of emergency. This was a big issue when my company deployed VOIP. There were lots of legal issue around making damn sure where ever a phone was pickup LOCAL 911 could be called. I am sure places like theaters are required to have a phone which can be used in emergencies. If they are well they should be.
1. Lets accept the premis that, this only shows a coralation between p2p and CD buying. People who download often also buy CDs often because they love the product and will get it any way they can.
2. Let us also take it for given that many of these downloads would be sales if they could not be had via p2p. There is not really any evidence for this but its what the RIAA would like to think so we will work with it.
It follows from one and two that their best customers are P2P users. In the RIAA view all p2p is piracy. So RIAA does it makes sense to
A) Relentless go after pirates who are also your best customers creating all sorts of ill will and hostility to your organization. Only after having eliminated piracy (good luck) do you offer your own products to people who now do business with you because you're still the only game in town and will be constantly seeking the next opportunity to shift things to formats you can't control and retun us to the current situaiton all over again.
OR do you...
B) Try to offer products the digital customer wants. Downloads at a reasonable price where you can profit without profiteering. The customer having payed you fairly for your wares can then enjoy them how they wish. Their happy to do business with you because you provide a quality, safe, and reputable service they can't get p2p. These people become you best customers. The hold outs are really just the "pirates" who never buy any thing anyway and you then can go after them without alienating your good customers having separated the two groups.
one thing you can't expect to do is...
C) Remain in business without offering any new products, especially products people want, know are possible, serve as competition to your own, and can be had at least in part for free elseware.
The reasons for the switch are plain as day. Its hard to fully integrate Linux and Exchange. Nigeria has an economy that gets a huge boost from SPAMing. Everyone knows that if your serious about SPAMing you use Exchange. They would have been doing a huge education disservice to the children their if they did not educate them using the tools they will be using in the future careers as SPAM server admins. They would have been denied an opportunity to become familiar with industry leading SPAMing tools, such as Exchange and Windows.
I am sorry to have to point out to my fellow Slashbots, that FOSS just does not offer much that is truly competitive in the SPAMing market space. I mean it can up to 30 seconds to install the sendmail package on most distors and them more then almost half an hour to configure it. After all that you know what your still not done done. Chances are you need to setup a working DNS that actually handles PTR records! All this just to send a few million mails forget that, its just not reasonable.
With Exchange I just drop the FREE(as in beer) CD-R disk I got form my local street vendor and in seven or eight minuets I can start offering my customers great deals on Rolex knock offs, Auto Insurance, Viagra. FOSS is just not ready for the enterpires SPAMers data center. It might be ok for the Fortune 500, and the average medium and small business, but its not ready for the SPAMers basement.
What does the number of people on your side have to do with morals? The Nazi party was voted into power and had immoral policies - unless you contest that point too I am not a moral relativist, I think the Nazi's were absoultly wrong, but would they have said that? Suppose you build a time machine and go back to 1939. Next you go to Germany and interview some people leaving a Nazi party meeting. Ask them if the party polices are ethical, and to explain their rational for killing thousands of Jews, Polish people, and others. I suspect they will have an answer for you. I doubt you will find it satisfactory though but it will make perfect sense to them.. They are likely to prattle on about economic injustices might blame us Americas too, and then conclude that "those folks had it comeing to them, and as for the rest of you we know better and global hegemony under Germany is for your own good."
More importantly they will all agree with each other. In the case of WWII morality was finally decided by a much more valgar approch to the question, "Might makes right!" In this case our morality won out not because the Nazi's suddenly got religion but because the alies defeated them after years of mutually destructive combat. I have little doubt everyone from President/Dictator on down to infantry-man felt they were fighting for "What's Right!" on BOTH sides.
Copyright in the end is going to be resolved the same way, because thats all our political system is good at. If you think about it eventually one side or the other is going to wrangle enough politcal support to get their way. Its not going to be a compromise. Someone will lose the fight. The DMCA is not popular and has not done particularly well in court, its been seven years and nobody has tried again sense, in the political arena. The executive has done some evil via FCC, but that is pretty much waiting to be destroyed the first time its tried in a law court too, and congress won't react to it at all unless they have the support to go hole hogg one way or the other.
Look at the abortion issue, not a great amount of legislation on that. Other then the partial birth thing nobody has make a serious push to legalize it or delegalize it sense, and the over all thing has sat in legal limbo sense Roe v. Wade, which more makes it tricky to enfore the prohibition of abortion than it does to prohibit creating a prohibition.
The issue is left to be fought over until one side gets the critical mass to invade and destroy the other entirely. After that it won't be a debate any more, the RIGHT side will have won, whatever the outcome.
Just because he was a famous entertainer should not give him a free pass. You know Lennon actually was a communist. We were fighting a war with communists. Lennon ran around advocating their positions. Was that within his rights to do under on Constitution? Yes it certainly was which is why he was allowed to do it. Still though he very possibly could have been a threat. He very possibly could have used his fame to fortune to give aide and comfort to the enemy. Some people believe that he did.
They certainly had every reason to be keeping a file on that pinko freak, just like if I started running around in public claiming how great Osama is and how we must all convert and fight a jaihd against the evil United States empire, it would be very prudent for FBI to start watching me.
Doing a little investigation, within the rule of law, on someone who publicly advertises their opposition to your interests is a logical thing to do. Chances are they don't pose a threat. Chances are they are not planing to commit treason. Odds are greater though that they dangerous then the guy standing across the street with a waving a giant flag singing "God Bless the USA." is. When you don't have the resources or inclination to address all your potential risks you tackle the greatest ones first. After all what sense would there be in building a razor wire fence all the way around my home only to leave the gate unlocked all the time? None, thats what. More importantly I don't really want a razor wire fence around my home. Its better just to lock the doors and windows when I leave and report that suspicious van thats parked on our street every other day that none of the neighbors know anything about either and hope thats enough. Replace the suspecious van with John Lennon and you have the same situation.
Now if we could just get this court to look at a few of the crazy firearms legislation thats been rammed through in the last 2 decades we might find ourselves in a free country again.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget its humans deciding what "patterns" are suspect in the first place and its that the machines will be searching for, this does nothing to reduce human bias. It might even enhance it, given that a small group of people will likely be tasked with developing those patterns, as a opposed to a much larger group of independantly(or at least more so) minded security personal.
If a human gets it wrong, with some luck hopefully his partner, or commander may get it right and make a better choice. No it does not always work like, people become victims of social pressure to do bad things and make poor choices, but there is still a humanity there which at least can over come those things some of the time. That's why we have heros folks, most people are not but a person at least has the potential to be a hero, a machine does not.
Right but just because the prosecutor feels that way did nothing to stop the FBI form acting ethically and filing and amicus(sp) curie(sp) breif(friend of the court, sense my spelling is hopeless). The FBI is an investigative and enforcement agency. They don't have a vested interest in convictions, or at least they should not. I hope agents get rewarded for quality investigative work and not just "busts". That might be to much to hope for, but if true then the discovery that evidence is bad should be brought to light in the name of justice. There should be no direct reason the FBI would not want justice.
Almost all other OSS model vs proprietary model arguments are at least somewhat fuzy. Ethics and economics often seem to be in conflict. In many cases neither is tested or clear and we can't even agree on what goes in the pro and what goes in the con columns for each model individually. This case though highlights the fact very clearly that even if all software in your stack is not OSS at least the platform and common libraries should be.
JET is a depreciated platform and is no longer being actively developed or really supported in new projects by Microsoft. *OK* A perfectly reasonable position to take when you do have functionally replacement products being offered, which they do in the form of MSDE.
Every product has a life cycle which eventually is end of life, JET is old obsolete and makes little since for new work on todays more powerful platforms. *OK*
Lots of projects and products are build around JET, many of them are not obsoleted, replaced, and newer versions based on different storeage backends might be quite a ways off. There is a lot of JET stuff out there, lots.
The OSS model in this case would result in somebody fixing it, simplly because so many people use it for so many things. Even if the original authors could not be bothered lots of organizations or individuals out there would have a vested interest in makeing a fix. They would then be prettly likely to share it because there is no reason not to do so. In other words the entire software ecology around JET could be secure while other people and vendors migrate off those depricated platform components, instead everthing is going to remain vulnerable or broken unless Microsoft(insert any other vendor here for other cases) can be shamed into patching it.
I think its a legacy, when IM became popularized with most people it was early-to-mid nineties. The internet was new and the public regarded it more or less they way the regaurd TV. It was viewed as primarily recreational. Hey this is cool you can talk to people about things your interested it and look at photos *neat*.
More importantly very few people were online all the time, most were using dialup which meant their other primary method of being contacted was blocked. If they did have an internet connection at work it mostly to be mail gateway. So I think for a lot of people when they first experienced IM they knew like them most of the people they knew to send a message to were doing something unimportant and would not mind the interuption, just by their being signed in to the IM service in the first place. They were if anything doing something like posting to a news group or reading about what Beenie-bady was comming out next.
The technical and socail landscape around being "online" has changed remarkably for most people since that time and I think the soical behavior around IM specifically is just a little behinde those other transitions.
Oh its forty-two all right for correct vaules of E, which would seems likely to be 5.25.
My appologies if you feel slighted by my attaching my post to yours. My intention was only to lend support your position that we should be using specific words by attempting to illustrate some reasons why copyright infringement and plagiarism are different words and different discussions.
I do not agree with you in that there is no relationship to the ethics of the two acts and the langauge around them. Both acts are related in that they entail prohibited duplication of content. Its a question of manor and intent which always are realated to ethics. "He killed Bob." as compared with "He murdered Bob." In both cases "Bob" is dead because of something "He" but what separates the two acts is largly a question of the ethics and morality behind his taking of Bob's life.
greater than the percentage of votes by which George W Bush "won" his first presidency. Right but the thing is (if you have durable media cardstock with inked responses) you can KEEP recounting until you get the same result enough times that the uncertainty is removed.
If the vote is with 1% and lets say we have determined the average error rate to be 3% when hand counting, then if you do 3 counts and get the same outcome all 3 times, you are pretty darn safe. If not well COUNT IT AGAIN. You just keep counting until you get enough successive counts with the same outcome everyone is satisfied.
You are totally correct in that plagiarism is the correct word and that it is the word we should be using to talk about the issue. To the point being made by other posters however plagiarism is a more serious matter then copyright infringement IMHO. With copyright infringement some control over the content is lost to the owner/author. With plagiarism not only is some of the control lost to the author but also the credit for the work.
In both the academic and artistic circles this is much more damaging than copyright infringement. Once you have created a work of academic or artistic value and its recognized by others as one of those things, it really becomes your personal credibility in the field. If your an artist, it gets you hired to perform, or patronized, if your an academic it gets you a job in industry, a teaching position, funding to more similar work, etc.
If someone plagiarizes your work then they may get these things instead of you and worse yet possible get you accused or suspected of plagiarism. I think its clear the original author is hurt much more by plagiarism then mere copyright infringement, which if people are bothering to infringe on your copyrights probably does more for your general credibility then anything else could and may actually benefit you in a variety, although certainly not all circumstances. If anyone wants to compare this to the RIAA crying about mp3z its would have to be like you uploading the latest top 40 song and then claiming you and your buddies performed it in the garage the other day.
Yup totally undetectable, its not like the enemy has the equipment to spot the infrared thrown of by gas heated to super high energy levers or anything. So much harder to see then a metal pole.
As to the suicide over jail thing that depends, If I was looking at a REAL life sentance like not getting out ever not in fifteen years never, then yea I would probably not allow myself to be taken alive, but I would not kill myself either. I would put society in the position of doing it so they have to live with it. Maybe it would be justifed, maybe everyone will sleep soundly that night, maybe not.
And in what case would I want the content to be unknow to third parties but not care if third parties tampered with it?
The reality is most small shops are either all Linux/BSD/appliance(with a few OEM licensed winders boxen on ppls desks who need to deal with customer docs) shops or all windows/appliance shops. Most medium business I have seen are all Windows shops and if there is any Linux its well hidden inside appliance devices which include lots of proprietary stuff to integrate with Windows.
I only know enough about the internals of a couple large organizations to comment so these statements much more anecedotal then the above. These organizations have so many resources that the hurdle rate for hetrogeneous infrastructures at least appears lower. They will make some effort in this direction but its one of keeping it that way not setting out to create it. They are large because they grew over decades and got into the IT game before Microsoft became a monopoly. So they have a hetrogeneous legacy have solved the management problems themsevles some what and are just used to it in general.
Other then having a support staff more acustom to assiting with Windows integration issues, don't know have not tried calling them. I don't see what SLES has that reall makes it interoperate with Windows better then anything else, especially in terms of unified management tools. They act like they are the only distribution that includes Samba, and kerb5. Ok so maybe they are the only distribution where Microsoft won't sue you for useing Samba, but with still not knowing the internals of the deal a wise man would consider that shaky at best to mention nothing of the fact that running SUSE you are probably more visible to Microsoft then you otherwise would be.
So as a Network admin, I think SUSE-Microsoft have TOTALLY FAILED to deliver on their promise. I still wonder if either side is being honest with customers and the public and SUSE and Microsoft are really thinking the same things. I also don't think enough of the commercial world is really concerned about hetrogeneous IT infrastructures of they were we'd see more of them. In the end that is what will be needed but I think most Linux vendors could gain more ground sooner offering a compelling end to end solution complete backoffice and desktop. I don't think it even needs to work or be simpler to manage then windows to be successful. Just cheaper and more flexible in terms of license costs and support options but COMPLETE. In other words, CSRs, Sales People, AR, production better all be able to run on that platform.
Can we please, this is slashdot after all understand the meaning of broadband! Broadband is not in anyway related to the number of bits you can move in a given time. Its the opposite of baseband. Broadband uses a range of frequencies in the spectrum to transmit data, while base band uses an emf pulse. Think of how a telephone cooperates as a compared to a telegraph.
Ethernet on copper wire is baseband for example, where as your cable modem is broadband because its actually modulating a carrier frequency. If you mean how the communications device works say broadband if you want to talk about the amount of data that it can transmit, lets call it highspeed, lowspeed, or just talk in mbits/sec shall we?
Move is usually a destructive operation, on almost every platform I have ever used. Here are my experiences
Target diskete failure doing a move from C: to A: on DOS, yep your data is gone.
Network error moving from one windows box to another, yep your data is gone.
NFS write failure on Linux 2.4, check your data is gone.
Maybe move should be implemented as copy, completly then delete but its often not. I don't think there is any convention that demands it be that way. If you care about the data, at all you should always copy, check(maybe cursory, maybe md5 depending on how much you care) then delete.
I tell my users all the time, "move it only if you can lose it."
I don't think this is really a "bug" so much as a behavior, ie there is no handling of media exceptions when doing a move. Now if you data sometime went bye bye with two working devices that would be bug, and that is not what is being described here.
I don't think its fair to single MAC OS out for this either. As far as I know most mainstream OS seem to handle move operations with media exceptions badly. I am also not a MAC appologist. I don't have nor have every had any Apple products. Sure maybe the OS should copy, check at least no exception events happened durring and then delete but its not a bug. I don't think you can blame the OS for problems when the hardware under it be it a disk, NIC card, or memory flakes out. If it handles it gracefully then that is a virtue of the system, if does not handle it then its room for improvement in terms of features but not really a "bug".
umm, I pretty much said that in my case against jammers and using mesh instead. Thats passive interfearance not active, and I don't think its unreasonable for someone to block(not jam) raido signals on their own property.
Some times people do/make things they could easily buy because they want to, to learn, to feel connected to those who came before them and did it on thier own, or to just have something they built with their own hands.
Please if you can't understand that at least don't mock others who do~!
My guess is that is down right now because he took it the Vintage Computer show, but I it had been online to be Slashdoted its running Mixin so likely it would have just run out of memory tring to serive all those connections, and dead locked.
Right and that is a big difference right thier. As a jour(sp) I would have a really hard time finding someone guilty for murder when there is no proof anyone is actaully dead.
In the Peterson case there were many reasons to suspect Scott would want to kill her and lots of the evidence showed he had the oppertunity. In the Reiser case we don't even know a woman is dead. There is no body and this is a person who had every reason to want to disappear. Its not unhead of people to live most of a life time before they get tracked down, if they want to remain hidden. I think thats reasonable doubt right there, or it would be for me.
Banning this tech is crazy, because the tech is the same tech that the radio in your self phone uses, its called um raido.
That said you are not allowed to broadcast on these frequencies, especially in anyway that disrupts those who have the right of way on those frequencies. Which in this case is cell phone users. We already have rules in place for this and they should be enforeced, we should not creat new rules regarding who is allowed to have what type of radio that is just stupid and would be abused by the gov left and right.
If a business want to block cell phone useage they can simply put up some wallpaper with a little metal content and ground it. There problem solved, and you won't risk interfearing with anyone down the street. Lots of places already do this and products are sold for this use. I think its a perfectly legitimate thing for theaters,resturants,concert halls, clubs, or any other establishment that has an interest in maintaining a certain type of atmosphere. I don't think no phone policies and signs would work either. People get way to uptight about cell phones will likely become beligerent if asked to turn them off and will simple ignore the signs.
As to the 911 issues, you know what YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT YOUR CELL WILL OPERATE ANYWHERE. If it works great if no well you're SOL sorry. The local shopping Mall has a metal roof. My phone won't work throught most of it. Should they have to alter the building? Its a raido its effected by all sorts of conditions. I don't consider it a reliable communications device because its not. You should not think of your cell as a reliable device either because its not. Most business are required in many municipalities to have working reliable access to the phone system in case of emergency. This was a big issue when my company deployed VOIP. There were lots of legal issue around making damn sure where ever a phone was pickup LOCAL 911 could be called. I am sure places like theaters are required to have a phone which can be used in emergencies. If they are well they should be.
1. Lets accept the premis that, this only shows a coralation between p2p and CD buying. People who download often also buy CDs often because they love the product and will get it any way they can.
...
...
2. Let us also take it for given that many of these downloads would be sales if they could not be had via p2p. There is not really any evidence for this but its what the RIAA would like to think so we will work with it.
It follows from one and two that their best customers are P2P users. In the RIAA view all p2p is piracy. So RIAA does it makes sense to
A) Relentless go after pirates who are also your best customers creating all sorts of ill will and hostility to your organization. Only after having eliminated piracy (good luck) do you offer your own products to people who now do business with you because you're still the only game in town and will be constantly seeking the next opportunity to shift things to formats you can't control and retun us to the current situaiton all over again.
OR do you
B) Try to offer products the digital customer wants. Downloads at a reasonable price where you can profit without profiteering. The customer having payed you fairly for your wares can then enjoy them how they wish. Their happy to do business with you because you provide a quality, safe, and reputable service they can't get p2p. These people become you best customers. The hold outs are really just the "pirates" who never buy any thing anyway and you then can go after them without alienating your good customers having separated the two groups.
one thing you can't expect to do is
C) Remain in business without offering any new products, especially products people want, know are possible, serve as competition to your own, and can be had at least in part for free elseware.
The reasons for the switch are plain as day. Its hard to fully integrate Linux and Exchange. Nigeria has an economy that gets a huge boost from SPAMing. Everyone knows that if your serious about SPAMing you use Exchange. They would have been doing a huge education disservice to the children their if they did not educate them using the tools they will be using in the future careers as SPAM server admins. They would have been denied an opportunity to become familiar with industry leading SPAMing tools, such as Exchange and Windows.
I am sorry to have to point out to my fellow Slashbots, that FOSS just does not offer much that is truly competitive in the SPAMing market space. I mean it can up to 30 seconds to install the sendmail package on most distors and them more then almost half an hour to configure it. After all that you know what your still not done done. Chances are you need to setup a working DNS that actually handles PTR records! All this just to send a few million mails forget that, its just not reasonable.
With Exchange I just drop the FREE(as in beer) CD-R disk I got form my local street vendor and in seven or eight minuets I can start offering my customers great deals on Rolex knock offs, Auto Insurance, Viagra. FOSS is just not ready for the enterpires SPAMers data center. It might be ok for the Fortune 500, and the average medium and small business, but its not ready for the SPAMers basement.
More importantly they will all agree with each other. In the case of WWII morality was finally decided by a much more valgar approch to the question, "Might makes right!" In this case our morality won out not because the Nazi's suddenly got religion but because the alies defeated them after years of mutually destructive combat. I have little doubt everyone from President/Dictator on down to infantry-man felt they were fighting for "What's Right!" on BOTH sides.
Copyright in the end is going to be resolved the same way, because thats all our political system is good at. If you think about it eventually one side or the other is going to wrangle enough politcal support to get their way. Its not going to be a compromise. Someone will lose the fight. The DMCA is not popular and has not done particularly well in court, its been seven years and nobody has tried again sense, in the political arena. The executive has done some evil via FCC, but that is pretty much waiting to be destroyed the first time its tried in a law court too, and congress won't react to it at all unless they have the support to go hole hogg one way or the other.
Look at the abortion issue, not a great amount of legislation on that. Other then the partial birth thing nobody has make a serious push to legalize it or delegalize it sense, and the over all thing has sat in legal limbo sense Roe v. Wade, which more makes it tricky to enfore the prohibition of abortion than it does to prohibit creating a prohibition.
The issue is left to be fought over until one side gets the critical mass to invade and destroy the other entirely. After that it won't be a debate any more, the RIGHT side will have won, whatever the outcome.
Just because he was a famous entertainer should not give him a free pass. You know Lennon actually was a communist. We were fighting a war with communists. Lennon ran around advocating their positions. Was that within his rights to do under on Constitution? Yes it certainly was which is why he was allowed to do it. Still though he very possibly could have been a threat. He very possibly could have used his fame to fortune to give aide and comfort to the enemy. Some people believe that he did.
They certainly had every reason to be keeping a file on that pinko freak, just like if I started running around in public claiming how great Osama is and how we must all convert and fight a jaihd against the evil United States empire, it would be very prudent for FBI to start watching me.
Doing a little investigation, within the rule of law, on someone who publicly advertises their opposition to your interests is a logical thing to do. Chances are they don't pose a threat. Chances are they are not planing to commit treason. Odds are greater though that they dangerous then the guy standing across the street with a waving a giant flag singing "God Bless the USA." is. When you don't have the resources or inclination to address all your potential risks you tackle the greatest ones first. After all what sense would there be in building a razor wire fence all the way around my home only to leave the gate unlocked all the time? None, thats what. More importantly I don't really want a razor wire fence around my home. Its better just to lock the doors and windows when I leave and report that suspicious van thats parked on our street every other day that none of the neighbors know anything about either and hope thats enough. Replace the suspecious van with John Lennon and you have the same situation.
Now if we could just get this court to look at a few of the crazy firearms legislation thats been rammed through in the last 2 decades we might find ourselves in a free country again.
um, No we use Courier wide you insensitive clod.