expplain to me how he is any more of a liability then before he gave notice.
Because now they know he is leaving in two weeks. If they knew he was turning in his notice a week before he gave it, they would have cut his access then.
managers are just jackasses and dont have a grip on reality.
Yes, employees have such a solid grip on reality versus managers. If they are such jackasses with reality impairment, why would the corporation trust them to make judgements on who will leave remain dedicated to their jobs and who will stop dotting their i's in their last two weeks.
I'll be crying myself to sleep all night over that one. I can barely see the screen now through the tears.
Do you often read into things and make things up this badly?
Are you always so pedantic? You chose to draw a distinction between GENERATE and TAX, as if TAXING were not a specific means of GENERATING revenue. They had no money. They taxed something. Now they have money. Hence, they brought into being, or gave rise to, money, by means of taxation. ie the GENERATED revenue by TAXATION.
So tell me, if you fell off a 10 story building and landed on your head, would you understand common english words less?
I thought I might HINT at an ALTERNATE viewpoint that might give you the VISION to see your ERRORS without publicly MOCKING YOU. Your facts are not facts, they are misunderstandings caused by you confusion of MANUFACTURING with GENERATING, perhaps, or some other limited understanding you possess of the nuances of the word GENERATE.
Apologize for your ignorance all you want now, it will do little to dry my tears of sadness for the state of our education system (unless perhaps you're Canadian?!?!)
First of all, except for a few rare exceptions the government does not GENERATE revenue. Thats why it has to tax the citizens. If it generated revenue, it would be self-sufficient.
Starting tomorrow, the government will abolish income taxes for you. Instead, they will begin charging you for protecting you from the terrorists. Your rate will vary depending on your value, determined by your annual income.
They do. That doesn't save your ass in these situations:
Actually, in my experience, they don't. I filter everything that does not belong explicitly at the gateway, and I dump a lot of packets with a private IP source address. I dump a lot of traffic in general, and it bugs me. (and don't misquote me, I never called my network security fluff, I called packets that would never see the light of day again, could not possibly be return routed, and could harm me no more than a rodent that dines on alligator eggs could hurt a 20 year old swamp vetran, "fluff"
Most devices you know of (ie, cheap consumer broadband routers) are not capable of being confiugred to perform NAT without filtering, at least not through the idiot proof web interface (and that's certainly a good thing).
Perhaps your point isn't clear. The cheap NAT gateways (actually PAT, see below) everyone else is talking about don't do this (ie are secure), but I assume you are refering to a larger scale Cisco Router that a begining network admin might activate NAT on thinking it will secure him.
Honestly, your concerns sound like a seriously broken NAT implementation. If the "device" is not explicitly listening for the private IP address on the outside interface, why the heck isn't it dropping the packet thats not meant for it? Instead, this implementation sends the mystery packet to the routing engine! Maybe if it were a broadcast packet, then it might be jusified in routing it inside, but thats still a far cry from having routes into a private network.
An insecure NAT implemenation would be inside system gets NAT'ed to external IP a.b.c.d; I then connect to random port of a.b.c.d and this connection gets forwarded in to the inside system, which might have a vulnerablility. But the reality is that most of those little home routers are actually doing PAT, or Port Address Translation. This allows multiple internal boxes to share a single external address, but breaks any notion of non-explicit forwarding of a connection inside (which box should it forward the connection to?).
This is so wrong. Send from the outside a packet to a NAT box that claims to come _from_ the inside.
Exactly. What the H*ll is a packet with a source or destination IP address of the private address space doing on the public internet? Why don't ISP's filter this crap at its source, the networks edge, instead of making me deal with this fluff.
And for the record, have you actually tried this little experiment? most devices I know of would just drop that clearly troubled packet in the old bit bucket, not carefully move it to the "right side of the fence".
Their main business model is to put fiber into big multi-tenant office buildings and sell everybody 100-meg Ethernet for about the price other carriers charge for one or two T1s.
Their business model is to buy the networks of other Tier 1's when they fail on the cheap. I suspect they are also leasing space on other provider's fiber so they don't spend millions laying even more redundant fiber. They have also adopted new, non-telco based technologies that let them get more bandwidth out of their circuits for less $$. They also have Colos and other facilities
If I were a customer, I wouldn't expect there to be enough upstream to really get that much bandwidth all the time, but I'd expect to get more than a T1 all the time, and a lot more than a T1 almost all the time.
And you'd be wrong. I honestly didn't expect much from them either, but we've conistently flowed 50+ Mbps though the circuit. Makes me feel like an ass for spending 12x that much for an OC-3.
Level 3 has apparently decided they're not getting enough value out of the relationship (i.e. not sending Cogent enough packets to make it worth their while) to keep peering, and wants Cogent to either pay them for service or get transit from somebody else.
Peering, not transit. My guess is that Level 3 is having cash flow issues, despite their claims of "record earnings", though that just may be the management trying desparately to find new sources of income to maintain those record earnings.
From what I can glean, Level 3 is heavy in the Broadband providers (users) (one of the largest providers of wholesale dial-up service to ISPs in North America and is the primary provider of Internet connectivity for millions of broadband subscribers, through its cable and DSL partners), Cogent is heavy with the Service providers (servers). From Level 3's press release:
For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network
They need each other.
They gave them about 50 days to make other arrangements, but Cogent decided to play chicken with them.
I'd say it was the other way around. Level 3 tried to extort $$ from Cogent; Cogent didn't give in. Now Level 3 has to explain to those recipients of that traffic why they cut them off; my guess is a lot of them won't like L3's explaination of "it wasn't fair" and will sign with a new provider (maybe Cogent!) when their contracts end. The perfect irony will be if Cogent buys L3 in two years when they go bankrupt from lack of clients. I have no intention of moving away from Cogent, I believe they did the right thing.
My guess would be that you're either
(a) too wrapped up in the "anti-phishing industry" to step back and wonder why we need such an industry;
Because there are criminals in this world, and they love the anonymity the internet gives them? Ever step back and wonder why we need a police force? Security cameras? Bounty hunters? Criminal and Civil Court systems?
(b) invested too heavily in the "anti-phishing industry" to accept that it may not be needed;
Isn't this just restating (a)? Well, for the record anti-phishing is just part of the larger anti-online fraud puzzle. I expect the business to go away right around the time firewalls, anti-virus, and now anti-spyware, anti-spam, and anti-pharming goes away. So I'll be thrilled to start hunting for a new job, but pardon me if I don't rush to polish off my resume just yet.
(c) just not amenable to lateral thinking.
The fact that the only application of stolen identities you can think of is Credit Cards shows your own lack of lateral thinking, and even a lack of understanding of phishing's history.
"Anywho, being a well-informed and adept engineer of the internet age, I still do all my investing in person because I'm paranoid as heck =]."
Sadly, if one of these fraudsters gets enough info on you, you may find that "you" are doing business with a bank you've never heard of with a line of credit you've never asked for;)
Personally, I like how he thinks doing his investments in "person" keep him safe from fraud. Does he have a seat on a Stock Exchange or trusting a guy in an office hundreds of miles from an exchange who claims to represent an investment firm (CLUE: Ponzi schemes pre-date the internet)? Perhasp he invests directly in local businesses, where he carefully audits the books, and works as an "internet guy" from the back office, watching the cameras while using his voice translation software? Does he deal only in cash, never uses an ATM or checks?
I work in the anti-phishing industry, and suggestions like the article makes are pie in the sky "corporations have magic powers" crap. Make banks pay for phishing and you'll create a cottage industry of phishing victims, of the sort that plagues the insurance industry today.
Heh. In order to do it completely right, you'd make a cluster out of fault tollerant nodes
Of course you do. Fault Tolerance is pretty cheap and straightforward. It costs me about a 10% premium on my Dell servers. However it does not buy me the ability to tak a machine down for maintenace the way clustering does. If you're looking for serious uptime, fault tolerance is not going to get you there on its own.
On May 10, 2005, The New York Times published an article concerning a breach at Cisco System, in which an intruder seized programming instructions for many of the computers that control the flow of Internet traffic. The attention was focused on a 16-year-old in Uppsala, Sweden, who was charged in March with breaking into university computers in his hometown. The crucial element in the attack that provided access at Cisco and elsewhere was the intruder's use of a vulnerable version of Secure Shell software.
Should organizations using Secure Shell become worried? Is this something that could also happen in your network?
SSH1 vs. SSH2 There are two versions of the Secure Shell protocol. The current version, Secure Shell version 2 (SSH2) introduced by SSH Communications Security in 1998 provides several security improvements compared to the original Secure Shell version 1 (SSH1). SSH Communications Security considers SecSh v1 vulnerable and does not recommend its use. The first step in eliminating vulnerabilities in your Secure Shell environment would be to upgrade all SSH1 to SSH2.
Security Maintenance Challenge But it is not just environments running old SSH1 protocol versions that may be vulnerable against known exploits that can result in similar incidents like the one mentioned in The New York Times article.
For example, several vulnerabilities have been discovered over recent years in the widely used open-source implementation of Secure Shell protocol, OpenSSH.
Keeping OpenSSH environments secure requires constantly updating the environment with latest security patches. However, updating OpenSSH servers involves an extremely laborious and time-consuming process of source-code compilation, testing, installation, and configuration. In large-scale environments this leads to a heavy administrative burden and increased costs. As a result, during the times of constrained IT budgets many organizations have been forced to neglect frequent security patches and software updates making them vulnerable.
Even if organizations are willing to go through the costly process of manually maintaining the software on a regular basis, lack of centralized management can still present a risk. The New York Times writes:
"Government investigators and other computer experts watched helplessly while monitoring the activity, unable to secure some systems as quickly as others were found compromised."
Given the increased use of automation and sophistication of attacks, the window of opportunity for reacting to new security threats is becoming smaller. Therefore, centralized, real-time management of security systems is a critical building block in comprehensive enterprise security.
Solution - SSH Tectia SSH Communications Security, the original developer of the Secure Shell protocol, provides end-to-end communications security solutions specifically for the enterprise. Its SSH Tectia solution has been developed to overcome the security and manageability issues of large-scale Secure Shell environments.
By standardizing on SSH Tectia throughout heterogeneous enterprise networks, including Windows, Unix, Linux, and IBM mainframes, organizations can cost-effectively implement secure practices for maintaining and using Secure Shell. The key features and benefits of SSH Tectia for ensuring secure operation include:
Centralized Secure Shell software management enabling real-time updates to a large number of hosts and reducing the window of opportunity for exploits.
Centralized Secure Shell monitoring allowing fast identification of system anomalies.
Enterprise-class support and maintenance services including 24x7 support option enabling fast problem resolution.
FIPS 140-2 certification of cryptographic libraries serving as a proof of reliable implementation of cryptographic functions.
The enterprise-proven Secure Shell code of SSH Tectia is based on the 10 years to in-depth experience of the original development team of secure shell, and based fully on the secure, industry-proven SSH2 protocol.
I'm sure SSH Communications stands to make more money if they can discredit a free, opensource product.
Unfortunately, Theo de Raadt chose to counter his claims with "installed base" numbers, which do absolutely nothing to discredit their statements. Of course, the article doesn't have any of those statements either.
So basicly the story here really is, The RIAA has bad lawyers.
Nonsense. The lawyers no have to file a whole new case, which means all news fees for whiting out a name on a document. Or did you think the RIAA lawyers were trying to do whats best for their clients? They're lawyers
Many of the public want more features. Many of the public would use more features were they to be included. Thus, Apple is short-changing the public in that it is advertising its players as the best, and yet they are closer to last with respect to features
No, you're just overlooking the latest iPod Mega. Its been around for years, not only plays DVD's, but burns them as well; sit your ass in a hotspot and you can download music and video right from the player!
I assume by many you mean more than three, but less than the 87% of people who chose the iPod despite the availability of other models.
iTunes now accounts for over a billion dollars annually in sales for Apple
Which is why they should be less money
Except Sales != Profits. Most iTMS money goes to others, like the record company. But at the end of the day, iTMS profits go to improving iTMS, not to giving away iPods like AOL CD's. The iPod is perfectly usable without iTMS (I only buy songs when Pepsi or 7-11 give me credits), so it would be really stupid of Apple to give them away. Besides, if Apple was viciously undercutting competitors like the Archos using iTMS profits, people would scream about "Monopoly power", etc.
I'm guessing these days the average port worker makes more than the average IT worker.
Admittedly, the odds of dying a gruesome death in IT are much less. Somehow that never seems to factor into the pay that well. I still recall the nonchalance a co-worker had when he mentioned someone lost an arm to a machine in his other job (pre-IT career). Reattachment isn't an option when its been reduced to 1/2" thickness.
Dude! With a lineup like that we could ressurect The Tick!
Comic > Animated TV > Live Action TV > Movie
Book it Dan-o! We gots a sure thing!
But I really want to see American Maid back. And maybe Ninjas. Bat Manuel may have the edge on Die Fleidermaus. And Stinky, I mean Sewer Urchin! Perhaps guest appearances by Door-man and Plunger Man!
it was a non-google search engine (I forget which) that explicitly disobeyed robots.txt
Robots.txt has the protective power of a big red Don't Push button on a public street. Heck, I keep an eye on anyone that comes to my datacenter, in case their eyes start to fixate on the EPO button...
Excellent summary. What the worker bee is missing is that there is no extra work available to fill the time that would be freed up. He'd upgrade all the computers then have to layoff some staff that were no longer needed, which would actually save him money in the long run. Fortunately the "dumb" manager would prefer to hold on to valued employees and wait for an upturn.
Slashdot Mirror
Because now they know he is leaving in two weeks. If they knew he was turning in his notice a week before he gave it, they would have cut his access then.
managers are just jackasses and dont have a grip on reality.
Yes, employees have such a solid grip on reality versus managers. If they are such jackasses with reality impairment, why would the corporation trust them to make judgements on who will leave remain dedicated to their jobs and who will stop dotting their i's in their last two weeks.
I'll be crying myself to sleep all night over that one. I can barely see the screen now through the tears.
Do you often read into things and make things up this badly?
Are you always so pedantic? You chose to draw a distinction between GENERATE and TAX, as if TAXING were not a specific means of GENERATING revenue. They had no money. They taxed something. Now they have money. Hence, they brought into being, or gave rise to, money, by means of taxation. ie the GENERATED revenue by TAXATION.
So tell me, if you fell off a 10 story building and landed on your head, would you understand common english words less?
I thought I might HINT at an ALTERNATE viewpoint that might give you the VISION to see your ERRORS without publicly MOCKING YOU. Your facts are not facts, they are misunderstandings caused by you confusion of MANUFACTURING with GENERATING, perhaps, or some other limited understanding you possess of the nuances of the word GENERATE.
Apologize for your ignorance all you want now, it will do little to dry my tears of sadness for the state of our education system (unless perhaps you're Canadian?!?!)
Starting tomorrow, the government will abolish income taxes for you. Instead, they will begin charging you for protecting you from the terrorists. Your rate will vary depending on your value, determined by your annual income.
Feel better now?
The have a "Buy Now" link, and they are a company, so why don't these guys count?
By your measure, you could say Microsoft is the only company that sells an OS for Intel's computers.
Actually, in my experience, they don't. I filter everything that does not belong explicitly at the gateway, and I dump a lot of packets with a private IP source address. I dump a lot of traffic in general, and it bugs me. (and don't misquote me, I never called my network security fluff, I called packets that would never see the light of day again, could not possibly be return routed, and could harm me no more than a rodent that dines on alligator eggs could hurt a 20 year old swamp vetran, "fluff"
Most devices you know of (ie, cheap consumer broadband routers) are not capable of being confiugred to perform NAT without filtering, at least not through the idiot proof web interface (and that's certainly a good thing).
Perhaps your point isn't clear. The cheap NAT gateways (actually PAT, see below) everyone else is talking about don't do this (ie are secure), but I assume you are refering to a larger scale Cisco Router that a begining network admin might activate NAT on thinking it will secure him.
Honestly, your concerns sound like a seriously broken NAT implementation. If the "device" is not explicitly listening for the private IP address on the outside interface, why the heck isn't it dropping the packet thats not meant for it? Instead, this implementation sends the mystery packet to the routing engine! Maybe if it were a broadcast packet, then it might be jusified in routing it inside, but thats still a far cry from having routes into a private network.
An insecure NAT implemenation would be inside system gets NAT'ed to external IP a.b.c.d; I then connect to random port of a.b.c.d and this connection gets forwarded in to the inside system, which might have a vulnerablility. But the reality is that most of those little home routers are actually doing PAT, or Port Address Translation. This allows multiple internal boxes to share a single external address, but breaks any notion of non-explicit forwarding of a connection inside (which box should it forward the connection to?).
Exactly. What the H*ll is a packet with a source or destination IP address of the private address space doing on the public internet? Why don't ISP's filter this crap at its source, the networks edge, instead of making me deal with this fluff.
And for the record, have you actually tried this little experiment? most devices I know of would just drop that clearly troubled packet in the old bit bucket, not carefully move it to the "right side of the fence".
Right, but Level 3 is?
Their main business model is to put fiber into big multi-tenant office buildings and sell everybody 100-meg Ethernet for about the price other carriers charge for one or two T1s.
Their business model is to buy the networks of other Tier 1's when they fail on the cheap. I suspect they are also leasing space on other provider's fiber so they don't spend millions laying even more redundant fiber. They have also adopted new, non-telco based technologies that let them get more bandwidth out of their circuits for less $$. They also have Colos and other facilities
If I were a customer, I wouldn't expect there to be enough upstream to really get that much bandwidth all the time, but I'd expect to get more than a T1 all the time, and a lot more than a T1 almost all the time.
And you'd be wrong. I honestly didn't expect much from them either, but we've conistently flowed 50+ Mbps though the circuit. Makes me feel like an ass for spending 12x that much for an OC-3.
Level 3 has apparently decided they're not getting enough value out of the relationship (i.e. not sending Cogent enough packets to make it worth their while) to keep peering, and wants Cogent to either pay them for service or get transit from somebody else.
Peering, not transit. My guess is that Level 3 is having cash flow issues, despite their claims of "record earnings", though that just may be the management trying desparately to find new sources of income to maintain those record earnings.
From what I can glean, Level 3 is heavy in the Broadband providers (users) (one of the largest providers of wholesale dial-up service to ISPs in North America and is the primary provider of Internet connectivity for millions of broadband subscribers, through its cable and DSL partners), Cogent is heavy with the Service providers (servers). From Level 3's press release:
They need each other.
They gave them about 50 days to make other arrangements, but Cogent decided to play chicken with them.
I'd say it was the other way around. Level 3 tried to extort $$ from Cogent; Cogent didn't give in. Now Level 3 has to explain to those recipients of that traffic why they cut them off; my guess is a lot of them won't like L3's explaination of "it wasn't fair" and will sign with a new provider (maybe Cogent!) when their contracts end. The perfect irony will be if Cogent buys L3 in two years when they go bankrupt from lack of clients. I have no intention of moving away from Cogent, I believe they did the right thing.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Is it really a server if its not connected to a network?
My guess would be that you're either
(a) too wrapped up in the "anti-phishing industry" to step back and wonder why we need such an industry;
Because there are criminals in this world, and they love the anonymity the internet gives them? Ever step back and wonder why we need a police force? Security cameras? Bounty hunters? Criminal and Civil Court systems?
(b) invested too heavily in the "anti-phishing industry" to accept that it may not be needed;
Isn't this just restating (a)? Well, for the record anti-phishing is just part of the larger anti-online fraud puzzle. I expect the business to go away right around the time firewalls, anti-virus, and now anti-spyware, anti-spam, and anti-pharming goes away. So I'll be thrilled to start hunting for a new job, but pardon me if I don't rush to polish off my resume just yet.
(c) just not amenable to lateral thinking.
The fact that the only application of stolen identities you can think of is Credit Cards shows your own lack of lateral thinking, and even a lack of understanding of phishing's history.
Sadly, if one of these fraudsters gets enough info on you, you may find that "you" are doing business with a bank you've never heard of with a line of credit you've never asked for ;)
Personally, I like how he thinks doing his investments in "person" keep him safe from fraud. Does he have a seat on a Stock Exchange or trusting a guy in an office hundreds of miles from an exchange who claims to represent an investment firm (CLUE: Ponzi schemes pre-date the internet)? Perhasp he invests directly in local businesses, where he carefully audits the books, and works as an "internet guy" from the back office, watching the cameras while using his voice translation software? Does he deal only in cash, never uses an ATM or checks?
I work in the anti-phishing industry, and suggestions like the article makes are pie in the sky "corporations have magic powers" crap. Make banks pay for phishing and you'll create a cottage industry of phishing victims, of the sort that plagues the insurance industry today.
Quantum singularity. It should be so black it actually sucks the light out of neighboring pixels.
Of course you do. Fault Tolerance is pretty cheap and straightforward. It costs me about a 10% premium on my Dell servers. However it does not buy me the ability to tak a machine down for maintenace the way clustering does. If you're looking for serious uptime, fault tolerance is not going to get you there on its own.
Somebody's downloading porn and I want to know who!
Somebody leaked company wide payroll data!
DDOS threats? Do we pazy the ransom?!?!
cue the music...
THE PRESS RELEASE FROM http://www.ssh.com/
On May 10, 2005, The New York Times published an article concerning a breach at Cisco System, in which an intruder seized programming instructions for many of the computers that control the flow of Internet traffic. The attention was focused on a 16-year-old in Uppsala, Sweden, who was charged in March with breaking into university computers in his hometown. The crucial element in the attack that provided access at Cisco and elsewhere was the intruder's use of a vulnerable version of Secure Shell software.
Should organizations using Secure Shell become worried? Is this something that could also happen in your network?
SSH1 vs. SSH2
There are two versions of the Secure Shell protocol. The current version, Secure Shell version 2 (SSH2) introduced by SSH Communications Security in 1998 provides several security improvements compared to the original Secure Shell version 1 (SSH1). SSH Communications Security considers SecSh v1 vulnerable and does not recommend its use. The first step in eliminating vulnerabilities in your Secure Shell environment would be to upgrade all SSH1 to SSH2.
Security Maintenance Challenge
But it is not just environments running old SSH1 protocol versions that may be vulnerable against known exploits that can result in similar incidents like the one mentioned in The New York Times article.
For example, several vulnerabilities have been discovered over recent years in the widely used open-source implementation of Secure Shell protocol, OpenSSH.
Keeping OpenSSH environments secure requires constantly updating the environment with latest security patches. However, updating OpenSSH servers involves an extremely laborious and time-consuming process of source-code compilation, testing, installation, and configuration. In large-scale environments this leads to a heavy administrative burden and increased costs. As a result, during the times of constrained IT budgets many organizations have been forced to neglect frequent security patches and software updates making them vulnerable.
Even if organizations are willing to go through the costly process of manually maintaining the software on a regular basis, lack of centralized management can still present a risk. The New York Times writes:
"Government investigators and other computer experts watched helplessly while monitoring the activity, unable to secure some systems as quickly as others were found compromised."
Given the increased use of automation and sophistication of attacks, the window of opportunity for reacting to new security threats is becoming smaller. Therefore, centralized, real-time management of security systems is a critical building block in comprehensive enterprise security.
Solution - SSH Tectia
SSH Communications Security, the original developer of the Secure Shell protocol, provides end-to-end communications security solutions specifically for the enterprise. Its SSH Tectia solution has been developed to overcome the security and manageability issues of large-scale Secure Shell environments.
By standardizing on SSH Tectia throughout heterogeneous enterprise networks, including Windows, Unix, Linux, and IBM mainframes, organizations can cost-effectively implement secure practices for maintaining and using Secure Shell.
The key features and benefits of SSH Tectia for ensuring secure operation include:
Centralized Secure Shell software management enabling real-time updates to a large number of hosts and reducing the window of opportunity for exploits.
Centralized Secure Shell monitoring allowing fast identification of system anomalies.
Enterprise-class support and maintenance services including 24x7 support option enabling fast problem resolution.
FIPS 140-2 certification of cryptographic libraries serving as a proof of reliable implementation of cryptographic functions.
The enterprise-proven Secure Shell code of SSH Tectia is based on the 10 years to in-depth experience of the original development team of secure shell, and based fully on the secure, industry-proven SSH2 protocol.
Unfortunately, Theo de Raadt chose to counter his claims with "installed base" numbers, which do absolutely nothing to discredit their statements. Of course, the article doesn't have any of those statements either.
Work hard, play hard. I recall the parties on the Engineering campus being much better.
Nonsense. The lawyers no have to file a whole new case, which means all news fees for whiting out a name on a document. Or did you think the RIAA lawyers were trying to do whats best for their clients? They're lawyers
So I don't update
Its a defendant with fancy graphics and a giant aluminum wing. Its usually capitalized like this:
Defendant Pro SE!!!!
No, you're just overlooking the latest iPod Mega. Its been around for years, not only plays DVD's, but burns them as well; sit your ass in a hotspot and you can download music and video right from the player!
I assume by many you mean more than three, but less than the 87% of people who chose the iPod despite the availability of other models.
Which is why they should be less money
Except Sales != Profits. Most iTMS money goes to others, like the record company. But at the end of the day, iTMS profits go to improving iTMS, not to giving away iPods like AOL CD's. The iPod is perfectly usable without iTMS (I only buy songs when Pepsi or 7-11 give me credits), so it would be really stupid of Apple to give them away. Besides, if Apple was viciously undercutting competitors like the Archos using iTMS profits, people would scream about "Monopoly power", etc.
Admittedly, the odds of dying a gruesome death in IT are much less. Somehow that never seems to factor into the pay that well. I still recall the nonchalance a co-worker had when he mentioned someone lost an arm to a machine in his other job (pre-IT career). Reattachment isn't an option when its been reduced to 1/2" thickness.
Comic > Animated TV > Live Action TV > Movie
Book it Dan-o! We gots a sure thing!
But I really want to see American Maid back. And maybe Ninjas. Bat Manuel may have the edge on Die Fleidermaus. And Stinky, I mean Sewer Urchin! Perhaps guest appearances by Door-man and Plunger Man!
Robots.txt has the protective power of a big red Don't Push button on a public street. Heck, I keep an eye on anyone that comes to my datacenter, in case their eyes start to fixate on the EPO button...
Excellent summary. What the worker bee is missing is that there is no extra work available to fill the time that would be freed up. He'd upgrade all the computers then have to layoff some staff that were no longer needed, which would actually save him money in the long run. Fortunately the "dumb" manager would prefer to hold on to valued employees and wait for an upturn.