In addition to the above, also check out the DRM section of the draft(Section 3)
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
The first paragraph can be interpretted as: DRM cannot be included in GPLv3 licensed code which allows people to collect data on people and encrypt it. DRM cannot be used to restrict content or operation of code in any way, if the code is covered under this license.
The second paragraph can be interpretted as: If your code or content is licensed under the GPLv3draft, you CANNOT use DRM to restrict or otherwise encrypt the code, content, or use of the software and product if it prevents the complete access to the code and/or functionality of the code and by extension, the content. If it employs DRM, then the code/keys/etc required for full functionality of the product must be released to allow for proper operation of the code/product.
Think about the impact of that for a minute.
Think about DVD disks. They use DRM. Think about iTunes. They use DRM. Think about password protected, remote site authenticated digital video streams(online video sales, digital satellite, etc). They all use DRM to restrict the access of the content to specific hardware, regions, zones, people, and times.
Basically, under GPLv3draft, DMCA is invalidated by requirement of the practical availability of the keys, passwords, and access to the underlying encryption code. So if your DRM project is licensed under the GPLv3draft, it essentially becomes worthless DRM. Under the provisions of section 3, you would need to release the keys of all customers as distributing it with only limited passwords for specific users would prevent/restrict people from distributing the code and using it for the content for which it was intended to display.
Perhaps that is a somewhat loose interpretation of that paragraph, but the paragraph itself is worded somewhat loosely. But once again... that's the point, isn't it? To broaden the definition so that more freedom is attained. Once again, at the cost of the individual freedom/right of the developer/company/IP owner.
So, yes. In effect, it DOES require the handing over of keys if one adopts the GPLv3draft, as it is worded right now.
Take a look at the GPLv3 Draft, section 1, para 1-3:
Source Code.
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source version of a work.
The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
This can be interpretted to mean that if your code is digitally encrypted, say in a source repository, and you have made changes which are specifically there, you will need to include the means to access those custom changes, which means relinquishing your private key or passcode, if that is what you use to access the source code. If you PGP encrypt your source code, you will need to release your PGP key to allow for review of code, etc.
Perhaps that is not the _intent_ of the GPLv3 draft, but it is one interpretation. The wording is too unspecific that it can be twisted or interpretted to mean you need to provide the means to de-encrypt or otherwise give access to the code. If people encrypt their code like that, that is.
It can also be interpretted to mean that if your code contains DRM bits, any in-code encryption, which requires a key/passcode/etc to compile or otherwise function fully, needs to be provided as well. Well, if you built your code with special easter eggs that are only released with your own signed key, then you would need to release your key as well. It is yet another possible interpretation.
I believe the wording is attempting to be highly encompassing. If people chose to encrypt parts of their private source code, and distribute it on a limited basis, they would, if they switched to GPLv3, need to disclose their signing keys and/or change all of their code to remove the need for the keys.
If I had hundreds of thousands of lines of code with various bits that fall under that provision, I would be a bit taken aback as well. It isn't surprising and it is hardly an unexpected response to legal wording, that by trying to be as free as possible to the community, is horribly restrictive to the individual.
It would be nice if a few IP lawyers can look at the draft independantly and see if their interpretations of the draft are all similar.
Still, it is still a draft, so hopefully, it will be updated/changed to be more specific/accurate in it's description of what needs to be released. If the current wording and interpretation IS the intended meaning and interpretation, then it is rather far reaching and may not see widespread adoption.
Widespread adoption within the FSF itself doesn't constitute widespread adoption as the code's licensing/enforcement there was placed under the management and trust of the FSF.:)
Btw, IANAL(I am not a lawyer), so the practical legal interpretation may vary greatly from a layman's interpretation.
Hmm... wouldn't it have been easier to just toss the wire into a kiln/oven and melted the plastic/wax off of it? Better yet, make use of your friendly neighborhood supply of acetone to dissolve the plastic.
About the article, the answer may just be to create new allows which provides the same features and characterstics as copper using more commonly available materials...
That or learn the fine art of alchemy and transmutation of one metal into another...
I think the problem with the question you and anyone who is apt and able with computers has is that there is literally two worlds: the computer world and its history and the normal world.
The normal world is aware of devices which allows them to do things differently. Ie, word processing is a task which is done one a variety of devices like typewriters, wordprocessors, and computers. In such a case, a computer is just a huge expensive word processor/typewriter. This is completely different from the normal world user who may use their "computer" to just do email, surf the web, and chat. In that person's case, the computer is just a way to keep in touch and get the news.
Define your scope. Otherwise, you will literally have to feed the other person the entire world history of computers. There are dedicated fields to such topics. A couple of them are called world history and anthropology.
What do you want your family member to understand, exactly? Why do they need to know?
The word computer just means something that computes. But that is meaningless to a lay person. In an ideal world, people wouldn't need to know what's going on inside of the computer. (Ie, Apple's view, most "computer" devices and portables, etc)
If you really want her to learn what a computer is, enroll her in post-adult education in computer science. The formalized course will introduce her to concepts which forms the basis of computer theory. This will, in turn, lead to a better understanding of why computers work the way they do and what it is that they do: automate repetitive tasks, present simple interfaces to overly complex tasks, or whatever you want them to do.
You don't need to understand what a computer is and how it works to derive enjoyment and use out of it. But you do need that understanding to make the most out of it.
[ranted, then went back and deleted original stuff]
This amounts to nothing more than extortion. Extortion of businesses, who should be charging appropriately for their services, and extortion of customers, for basically holding their internet usability by the neck.
In reading the article, Bell South is basically saying they can gaurantee end-to-end reliability and that content will get delivered reliably.. IF the content provider pays extra for the "better" connectivity. The problem is, they can't guarantee this. Things happen.
If this does come to pass, one would want a severe SLA applied against BellSouth. Ie, for every customer who doesn't get what they ordered from the content provider's site, due connectivity issues, then the Telcos, be it Bellsouth or any other wanting to adopt this scheme, should reimburse the content provider for damages(hours spent debugging, cost of lost timeliness of product, and % of time of connectivity fees, etc) incurred due to the inability to deliver content.
If you are going to charge extra for reliability, you damn well better deliver it!
As for content providers charging more for reliable delivery of content, this basically amounts to subscription fees. Ie, if you pay, I'll host the content to be delivered to you on a dedicated server with a capped number of customers. The server will be able to handle a 100% customer base level of access at the same time and will only be made available to paying customers.
Free/public/non-paying folks can use the general access servers, which may become overloaded from time to time. Etc.
If implemented by the content providers, this is nothing new. If implemented by the telcos and enforced on the content providers and/or the customers, then it is nothing short of extortion. People are already paying for reliable connectivity. There is no need to screw people over by increasing your customer to bandwidth ratio or introducing connectivity issues to make a normal connection look "more reliable".
I suppose if you redefine what "spam" is...
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, been seeing an upsurge of spam... not a decline.
The difference between steve jobs's and bill gates's reality bubbles are that steve's produces positive results while bill's result in users getting f'd over when the "defeated" threats arrive(malware, spyware, virus(s), security flaws, a**-backward drm, etc.)
Every time I _have_ to start up IE, I', wonderiing if _this_ time, I'll get screwed over.
You seem to have an idea of what it is that you believe IS should be at the company. Your current problem is that you are one person fighting a war of ideas with the rest of the upper management. The heart of the problem is that your definition of IS(Information Services?) and their's differ.
1) Hammer out what IS/IT means to them and yourself and come to some concensus.
You can't just tell them you are right and they are wrong. You can't even justify such a thing. It's human nature. It's like trying to convince people the world wasn't flat when everyone believed it was... even if you ARE right, you'll still be hung out to dry.
You and management need to come to a compromise. Some middle ground of what your role and that of the IS department is. You have to decide on what you are willing to live with and what you absolutely must have a say in.
2) You need buy-in.
You pointed out you've get a few years of management experience. One of the most important things in management is to get buy-in for a project or an idea. If you have no supporters, you are essentially fighting a one man war. You'll live a hard and stressful life like that. Find allies who will watch your back and put in the good word/support for you when you walk out of the room.
3) SWOTT / cost-benefit analysis.
Once again, put that management experience to good use. Give them the SWOTT analysis and show them the cost benefit analysis of your ideas. Show them the same for their competitors. Show them what it is costing them to not take your ideas seriously. Show them the potential gains/benefits if some of your ideas are taken seriously and implemented.
4) Keep in the loop.
An IS department that gets the work order for an implementation when it hasn't been included in the planning stages is just a disaster waiting to happen. See above about getting buy-in. Use support to stay in the loop so that even if you aren't included in the actual planning meetings, you can at least serve as an advisor to one of the people who are. You get to have some say, via proxy, and you get buy-in from the person who proposes your ideas and it produces a smoother implementation.
In this way, you build a visible positive reputation for yourself at the company. Otherwise, you are merely the complainer at the company who has all of these pie in the sky ideas about how the company should be managed when all you work with are the computers.
5) You are taking on the errors and mistakes of your predecessor.
Look, no matter your experience/skill/etc, the truth is that management sees you in the same like as the person you replaced. They've had to deal with that person's mess for years and have come to regard the IS department in a negative light.
You may or may not realise this, but your job is to work on changing their minds about that and proving to them, through building up trust, that IS is an asset and partner to the company and that you are a reliable and insightful person they can rely on.
Submitting a report/proposal/meeting showing them that their ideas are wrong and that your ideas are right carries little to no weight because you may or may not have built up any credibility at the company.
You've been with the company for a few years, if that time has been spent invisibly fixing things and when you are visible to the management, you are making demands for processes to be changed, think about what the IS department looks like through upper management's eyes.
6) Work somewhere else.
Look, let's say you have tried everything and have worked hard to build trust, open dialog, and still... they won't listen. Then maybe it's time to leave. Seriously. You're just going to lose hair or get an ulcer trying to convince people who won't listen to you, but who still pile crap project after crap project on you.
If leaving isn't an option, then you need to reduce your expectations of the company and place your hearfelt interests elsewhere and see the job for what it is: a job.
Funny this thread should come up as I'm nearing the 40 mark... it's weird since it's kinda true... once you start hitting that age, you kinda transition off to management, some public works project, or you kinda vanish.
Kinda feeling the tug of the inevitable myself... weird.
College Campuses(1.5mbps to 45mbps, depending on campus)
Cable and DSL Users(1.5mbps - 6.0mbps per connection)
Business Servers(1.5mbps - 1gbps, depending on business system)
The original article assumes you wanted to take out more than one sector in the cellular coverage. If you wanted to be more specific and pinpoint only a handful of sectors, you would need less than the numbers the article specifies.
Most text messaging service providers have email gateways. This is one of the reasons why I disabled my text messaging capability. No way to filter the message and at $0.10 / message, it is too abusable.
A weak computer running a fast multi-threaded emailer(Postfix) can dump a fair amount of email at a email-to-sms gateway. It is amazing how many messages/sec you can achieve if you tweak your configuration. 3-4 well placed and configured systems could take out a sector or 2. Distribute that over 10-20 thousand zombies, and you have much greater capacity and better redundancy. The provier will either need to already have anti-DDOS equipment in place or shut down the gateway. Bounce those over open relays and it makes dynamic rerouting even more difficult.
Scenario:
There is a convention going on. Someone was going to launch an attack on the convention site. They don't need to wipe out access to the entire city. They only need to wipe out acccess to the cellualr cells/sectors covering the convention area itself.
So, they gain access to a list of peoples' phone numbers, who will be attending and SMS-bombard those numbers.
Guess what? Since all of those numbers are at the convention site and being serviced by a fixed number of cellular cells, you have now effectively targetted those cells and overloaded them.
With the cell access busy, to the people trying to make calls or receive calls at the convention, an attack on the convention would only be reportable by landline and/or by bystanders outside of the convention center.
Say the attack is a silent one: chemical, toxin, biological. The emergency response would be delayed enough that most of the target individuals would be dead before help could arrive. Most people these days depend heavily on their cell phones. The first thought isn't to try to make a call on a landline for many.
Another abuse would be to use the system to financially deplete another organization's funds by ramping up their telco fees through excessive messaging via a zombie network. While most organizations might have flat fee subscriptions, some do not. Especially for their one-off need-it-now celphone plans.
I've actually called my provider and asked them about filtering and blocking, but they have told me that it was either completely on or completely off. I chose completely off.
I loved the Manga and the Anime(in original Japanese+subtitles). I think it is about time they brought this anime to DVD!
Personally, don't really care about the voice dubbing so long as the original voices are there and subtitles are available in english.
Listened to some of the test clips, but didn't have time to listen through all of them. Kahm-B isn't so good though. The voice is way too "open". Kahm's voice always struck me as being a bit more compressed. Time to swing by Hitoshi Doi's website and see who did the original voice acting for Kahm.
I would avoid online providers. Too many things can go wrong, least of which is theft of data.
Which option works for you will depend on what level of accessibility you will need.
If you just need to get access to the files in the event of server/site destruction and you can easily re-create the system and just need to re-import the data, then a cheap option would be to get some virtual hosting space or a racked system with tons of storage and a low cost data connection, depending on your quantity of data an budget.
You will regularly encrypt your data and sync it with the remote server. The data will basically be warehoused at the remote server in an encrypted state.
Old archives are deleted as space runs out or after a pre-determined amount of time.
When your primary site dies, you rebuild your servers, copy the files from your remote server, decrypt, and import.
Most virtual hosting places offer several GB of storage and a good deal of bandwidth per month for a mere $35/month. They are not explicitly marked as backup servers, but converting them into a backup server is fairly simple.
If your level of access if critical, then your best option is to have a live duplicate server that you sync your data with. If the main site dies, people will automatically be switched to the backup site until your primary site is rebuilt.
What you choose depends on what you need and how quickly you need to have things back up by.
Imagine if the Terminator had access to the net, as it is now. "Taking Out" all Sarah Conners within a given mile radius is a simple matter of mapping software, addressbooks, and a name+area to target.
Now, you could locate and plan "events" around individuals throughout the US/world.
No need for super computers... with a few PCs and access to the various API's on the net, you too can have your own war-room and tactical planning system.
There are AMD processors that support MMX, SSE, SSE2 (Intel Processor extensions)
The Intel Compiler is a widely used one for a segment of developers.
The compiler should create code which will use any and all of Intel's own optimizations( MMX, SSE, SSE2 )
The compiler will do this for Intel Processors.
The compiler will not use those very same extensions/optimizations when it detects an AMD cpu.
Those extensions are implemented by AMD to INTEL's specifications(licensed from them).
The compiler SHOULD make use of them.
They are NOT AMD specific extensions/optimizations.
The allegation is that INTEL made their compiler to work properly when compiling for INTEL chips, but not use ANY optimization extensions(intel or otherwise) when it detects an AMD chip.
The compiler doesn't need to be optimized for AMD's chips. But it does need to be optimized for extensions which Intel supports. The claim is that Intel's compiler DOES NOT support their own extensions when an AMD chip is detected.
This is important because the Intel Compiler is used to compile benchmarks, enterprise level code, demonstrations, etc. Business decisions to go with one chip or another are based on the performance of the software, which was compiled from the Intel Compiler, which claims to be able to support the INTEL extensions.
By crippling the resulting code when the compiler detects an AMD CPU, Intel is essentially LYING about the performance of their processor and about the performance of the AMD processor through resulting benchmark software(s) and applications compiled with the Intel compiler.
Yes, AMD can make their own compiler, but people have to choose to use it. People who are already using the Intel compiler invested time and money into creating a development environment based on it. Switching isn't easy. If the compiler makes the AMD cpu look bad, businesses will choose to go with Intel thinking those processors gave them better bang for their buck, when the opposite might be true.
It's like having two cars that can do 125MPH, but one has been electronically locked to max out at around 85MPH, then putting them on a racetrack to determine which car is faster.
That isn't a valid comparison. And if INTEL's compiler IS purposefully generating substandard code that doesn't even support their own extensions in AMD's cpus, then benchmarks compiled with the Intel compiler are similarly invalid.
This could also mean contractual violations between AMD and INTEL since AMD licenses the enhanced extensions from INTEL.
It ISN'T about INTEL's compiler not optimizing itself for AMD specific instruction sets. It is about INTEL's compiler not optimizing itself for INTEL specific extensions on AMD CPUs, which AMD has license from INTEL and implemented in their processors.
Another way of looking at it is that AMD has licensed enhancements believing that INTEL's compiler will similarly take advantage of those enhancements. Perhaps that was in the agreement, perhaps not.
If it was the case, then AMD should be furious. They basically licensed and implemented extensions, from INTEL, into their processors that INTEL is choosing to not support. Not because it isn't compatible, the extensions were implemented to their specifications, but to be anti-competitive and deceptive in the intent of their licensing of the extensions.
A simple: if ( intel cpu) { optimized code + extensions } else-if ( amd cpu ) { standard code w/o extensions} is overly simplistic for an engineering organization like Intel and would be difficult to explain away since they are licensing their extensions.
The compiler should be checking for the existence of extensions and choosing to compile in functionality or not. Most games and graphics packages use dynamic libraries and alternate blocks of code for different extensions detected. If small, mid-sized, and large game companies can do thi
LA times must have heard about the massive abuse of Wiki's by spammers/etc. The fact that the wiki system is open to abuse, in general, seems to preclude the need for LA Times to actually properly defend their Wiki system.
If they can't be bothered to properly secure and manage their system, beta or otherwise, then they can't go blaming another news site for advertising their Wiki and having a horde of people "abusing"^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"overloading" their system.
It's like putting up a beta mail server and not properly securing it and wondering why they are getting blacklisted.
If the latency for the DirecDish is an issue for you, then the latency from the celphone wireless will likewise be an issue.
I've linked my PDA and my laptop to my celphone via USB, IR, and bluetooth. I've tried it with 3G(1x) via SprintPCS(vision) and Cingular GPRS/EDGE.
All I can say is that on a celphone, you expect there to be delays. It is, afterall, a low-processing power device. On the laptop, websurfing is "okay".
With SprintPCS's vision plan, I found that I got a pretty good xfer rate of around 60kilobits per second to around 120 kilbits per second. Yes, that is kiloBITS. So, compared to the poster's dial-up speeds, that is much better. Note, though, that this is near a cel-tower with good reception.
In poor reception areas, you can expect around 9.6kilobits per second to around 14.4 kilobits per second.
If that's your only option, then it isn't a bad way to go. The highest speed you will be able to achieve is around 144 kilobits/second with the current generation of tech. This should grow to around 384kilobits per second as more of the next-gen tech arrives, but it still isn't what it should be. SprintPCS Vision does some kind of caching and image compressing, so you will get better rates, but lower quality images for web pages.
With Cingular, GPRS gives you 14.4kilbit/sec dial-up connection. With EDGE, you are supposed to be able to get 384 kilobits/second. I've experienced issues where given a good signal, you will still get less than admirable rates due to contention with other folk and with other voice usage of the network.
Verizon has their EVDO which is promising 1.5mbit/second capabilities(wireless DSL, basically). Haven't used them yet, but people who have used them say they are pretty good. They have pretty good coverage as well, so that might be an option. Without EVDO, you are basically dealing with the normal "wireless dialup" speeds as noted above.
If you are thinking of doing gaming, voip, etc... look elsewhere. For email, web surfing, and maybe newsgroups... ie, non-time sensitive applications, then wireless connectivity could be a good fit.
Another option is perhaps a long-distance 802.11b/g link with a neighbor. Ie, find someone who actually has a chance of getting good service. Work out an agreement with them and then have them setup a line-of-sight wireless (wifi) link to your place.
You become dependant on them for connectivity and possibly end up investing more in hardware, but you will have much better bandwidth and much better latency for games/voip/etc.
These are not hackers or computer science students. These are prospective business school students. Their aim is to be successful through whatever means is available to them. Competition is mind numbingly high to get into a prestigious school.
To know whether you got in or not, before other applications is priceless. It lets you know if you should be calling ahead and making arrangements and being setup and ready before your other competition. Likewise, if you were rejected, you will know that you shouldn't waste any more time/money/effort on that particular school. I mean... if you know you're not accepted, by bother trying to make folks happy there. Ie, why be lead on when you know the outcome?
To call this a hacking issue is like saying someone who finds the key hidden under the flowerpot is skilled at picking locks.
More than anything else, this is probably a stunt to do one or more of several things:
Give the big name schools yet another reason to reject potential applications.
Put some scare into candidates who are a little "too competitive", like those who are actually sabotaging their competition's projects/reports/etc.
Put the blame on individuals when the security issue was with the company all of these schools make use of and to take the heat off of the business schools for not properly auditing the application process.
The applicants sought to learn their status early. The process did not let them change their status, change or view other peoples' status, or access personal information which they did not already have access to.
This is the equivelent of guessing the correct URL on a website to view content not originally meant to be viewed. Or, it can be considered the equivelent of going through your instructor's gradebook to see how you are doing.
As for the students who tried to view the information, well, curiosity has its price. The only question is whether their names will be entered into a kind of "ethical" blacklist between the schools.
It would be nice, and naive, to think that business leaders don't push the ethical envelope to get the results they want. If you get the info before your competition, that's an advantage you have over them. You don't give a hand to your competiting business if they have a hard year. You probably would like to know the contacts they have, that you don't. What are the ethics of befriending them to learn their contacts and using those contacts to your personal advantage? Would it be naive to think that people and companies don't do that?
Guess what I'm saying is that these 119 people who wanted to succeed so bad, were willing to step over that ethical line. Are they the exception or the rule of the highly desired schools? If they are the rule, what are these schools doing to change the culture that breeds such behaviour?
Sounds like a Dilbert cartoon where the PHB's make a resoundingly successful suggestion to the effect of:
"Let's save money by firing all of our internal staff and replacing them with contractors, then, we'll replace our contractors with outsourced staff, then, we'll save even more money by hiring employees!"
Seriously, the reason why people are avoiding CS like the plague is because of outsourcing, horror stories of the dot-com bust, stories from people in the field who complain about constant stress and long work hours, pager duty, etc.
CS -> IT is a career move with uncertainties. There are people graduating now who are wondering where the heck they are going to get a job. The market is cluttered with people who had been laid off and can't find work. Companies are being extry picky about who they want to hire(multiple degrees AND years of work experience... but not the people who got laid off recently, because they are burned out...)
Is it any wonder that people are avoiding the computer science fields?
Before, people swarmed into CS because it was a career choice with possibilities and options. Now, it is viewed as a path to despair and a limited future.
Hmm... maybe my news is lagged, it probably is. But I was under the impression that Japanese youth(16-24'ish) have a good deal more disposable income for trendy electronics like celphones and psps because of the family/rent issue.
Goes something like this: The youths who work part time jobs are still living at home. The parents basically cover the rent and utilities, with the children kicking in some portion. This means that the bulk of what the children earn, which isn't taken up by the government in taxes, is disposable income.
I think this, along with the depressed economy in America, explains the level of difference in sales of the PSP between Japan and America.
I'm dying to get one, but I'm also looking at my bills/living expenses/etc and thinking... $300 can mean one PSP(w/one game, most likely lumines) or it can mean gas for the car, food at lunch, stuff I can buy for girlfriend's bday, bills, etc.
Not saying Japanese youths have it easy or that they don't have expenses. Just young wage earners who are living at home with their parents, where ever they live, will have more disposable income.
Although, as much as I want a PSP, I find myself wondering: why? There just isn't enough compelling games out for me to want one. That and the fact that I can't actually go and hold one to get a feel for it.:/
That sounds about right. The not skipping and being okay, not the groin bit.:/ Sorry to hear about that, btw.
Most of the laptop hard drives, either 1.8" or 2.5" used in iPods... I forget which size, can withstand between 100-150Gs of force. 150G of force is impacting something at around 30mph. That's when they are spinning. When they are not spinning, ie most of the time on an iPod, the laptop drives can withstand nearly 1000Gs of force.
Microdrives can withstand upwards of double that of the laptop drives.
CF cards can withstand around 2000Gs of force.
So, at least in the case of iPods, it should survive quite well. Especially with a human body to help absorb some of the impact. ^_-
It would seem that the problem which exists is as follows:
Businesses get money from people who come in through these intrusive advertisements. Since they make money, they continue to employ the techniques or pay money to people to do it for them.
People who study this technology and use it to intrusively put ads on peoples' browsers when they don't want them. They get paid well by the businesses, so they continue to exist to improve their technique.
Since you really can't dissuade the middlemen in a material way, you need to dissuade the businesses from continuing in employing such practices.
The best way to do this would be to create a list of businesses which employ such techniques and enter them into a boycott database. Ala RBL.
Another method might be to employ a plugin which, when it encounters a site which attempts a pop-up, pop-under, or pop-revenge and the site is not a pop-approved site, the plugin will continue to suck a variety of files from the site. Be it the advertisement media or something else "heavy" on the page.
With enough people with the plugin and continually sucking bandwidth from the business's site, this will incur a bad-behaviour-curbing financial cost to the companies which insist on making money at the expense of web-surfers.
If enough people have the plugin, then the business' ill-behaved website will get a "time out". Businesses, after a while, would potentially get the hint and stop employing such techniques... or take the MPAA/RIAA route and start suing their own potential customers.
Either avenue hurts their business or their business image.
If businesses claim to be looking out for their customers, they should act like it. They should conduct business legally AND ethically. To employ means to circumvent a protective function on a web browser is basically, breaking into someone's house to post banners and advertisements. It is, in my mind, just a stone's throw away from malware/adware/spyware.
With more and more cases of people being asked or directed to move away from IE to an alternative like Firefox, was choosing IE to bolt on new features to such a hot idea?
The very behaviour of the browser you are describing makes me shudder to think that it will be used outside of a lab or beta environment. Granted, the issues are due largely in part to the underlying IE/Windows system and sloppy coding on the part of AOL developers, but that just begs the question of: Why IE when there are so many other choices out there?
Heck, Firefox/Mozilla can both be easily customized to serve ads from a remote server with the XPI modules. *shakes head* Seems like a bad management decision on the part of the AOL heads.
I've owned a dual-usb white ibook since late 2001/early 2002 and have had no troubles with it.
I was lucky in that I didn't get one with the faulty logic board and have loved using it. They are solid laptops and nowhere near as clunky as most of the PC based laptops I see which seem to like the idea of large volumes and bulky components.:(
My only gripes with Apple's iBook:
No PCCARD or CARDBUS slots.
Software locked against using iDVD. (No good reason for this since there are external DVD writers available!)
I also use WinXPPro and Linux. (iBook chosen because it contains a Unix backend! Woohoo!)
Slashdot Mirror
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
The first paragraph can be interpretted as: DRM cannot be included in GPLv3 licensed code which allows people to collect data on people and encrypt it. DRM cannot be used to restrict content or operation of code in any way, if the code is covered under this license.
The second paragraph can be interpretted as: If your code or content is licensed under the GPLv3draft, you CANNOT use DRM to restrict or otherwise encrypt the code, content, or use of the software and product if it prevents the complete access to the code and/or functionality of the code and by extension, the content. If it employs DRM, then the code/keys/etc required for full functionality of the product must be released to allow for proper operation of the code/product.
Think about the impact of that for a minute.
Think about DVD disks. They use DRM. Think about iTunes. They use DRM. Think about password protected, remote site authenticated digital video streams(online video sales, digital satellite, etc). They all use DRM to restrict the access of the content to specific hardware, regions, zones, people, and times.
Basically, under GPLv3draft, DMCA is invalidated by requirement of the practical availability of the keys, passwords, and access to the underlying encryption code. So if your DRM project is licensed under the GPLv3draft, it essentially becomes worthless DRM. Under the provisions of section 3, you would need to release the keys of all customers as distributing it with only limited passwords for specific users would prevent/restrict people from distributing the code and using it for the content for which it was intended to display.
Perhaps that is a somewhat loose interpretation of that paragraph, but the paragraph itself is worded somewhat loosely. But once again... that's the point, isn't it? To broaden the definition so that more freedom is attained. Once again, at the cost of the individual freedom/right of the developer/company/IP owner.
So, yes. In effect, it DOES require the handing over of keys if one adopts the GPLv3draft, as it is worded right now.
Take a look at the GPLv3 Draft, section 1, para 1-3:
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source version of a work.
The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
This can be interpretted to mean that if your code is digitally encrypted, say in a source repository, and you have made changes which are specifically there, you will need to include the means to access those custom changes, which means relinquishing your private key or passcode, if that is what you use to access the source code. If you PGP encrypt your source code, you will need to release your PGP key to allow for review of code, etc.
Perhaps that is not the _intent_ of the GPLv3 draft, but it is one interpretation. The wording is too unspecific that it can be twisted or interpretted to mean you need to provide the means to de-encrypt or otherwise give access to the code. If people encrypt their code like that, that is.
It can also be interpretted to mean that if your code contains DRM bits, any in-code encryption, which requires a key/passcode/etc to compile or otherwise function fully, needs to be provided as well. Well, if you built your code with special easter eggs that are only released with your own signed key, then you would need to release your key as well. It is yet another possible interpretation.
I believe the wording is attempting to be highly encompassing. If people chose to encrypt parts of their private source code, and distribute it on a limited basis, they would, if they switched to GPLv3, need to disclose their signing keys and/or change all of their code to remove the need for the keys.
If I had hundreds of thousands of lines of code with various bits that fall under that provision, I would be a bit taken aback as well. It isn't surprising and it is hardly an unexpected response to legal wording, that by trying to be as free as possible to the community, is horribly restrictive to the individual.
It would be nice if a few IP lawyers can look at the draft independantly and see if their interpretations of the draft are all similar.
Still, it is still a draft, so hopefully, it will be updated/changed to be more specific/accurate in it's description of what needs to be released. If the current wording and interpretation IS the intended meaning and interpretation, then it is rather far reaching and may not see widespread adoption.
Widespread adoption within the FSF itself doesn't constitute widespread adoption as the code's licensing/enforcement there was placed under the management and trust of the FSF. :)
Btw, IANAL(I am not a lawyer), so the practical legal interpretation may vary greatly from a layman's interpretation.
Hmm... wouldn't it have been easier to just toss the wire into a kiln/oven and melted the plastic/wax off of it? Better yet, make use of your friendly neighborhood supply of acetone to dissolve the plastic.
About the article, the answer may just be to create new allows which provides the same features and characterstics as copper using more commonly available materials...
That or learn the fine art of alchemy and transmutation of one metal into another...
I think the problem with the question you and anyone who is apt and able with computers has is that there is literally two worlds: the computer world and its history and the normal world. The normal world is aware of devices which allows them to do things differently. Ie, word processing is a task which is done one a variety of devices like typewriters, wordprocessors, and computers. In such a case, a computer is just a huge expensive word processor/typewriter. This is completely different from the normal world user who may use their "computer" to just do email, surf the web, and chat. In that person's case, the computer is just a way to keep in touch and get the news. Define your scope. Otherwise, you will literally have to feed the other person the entire world history of computers. There are dedicated fields to such topics. A couple of them are called world history and anthropology. What do you want your family member to understand, exactly? Why do they need to know? The word computer just means something that computes. But that is meaningless to a lay person. In an ideal world, people wouldn't need to know what's going on inside of the computer. (Ie, Apple's view, most "computer" devices and portables, etc) If you really want her to learn what a computer is, enroll her in post-adult education in computer science. The formalized course will introduce her to concepts which forms the basis of computer theory. This will, in turn, lead to a better understanding of why computers work the way they do and what it is that they do: automate repetitive tasks, present simple interfaces to overly complex tasks, or whatever you want them to do. You don't need to understand what a computer is and how it works to derive enjoyment and use out of it. But you do need that understanding to make the most out of it.
[ranted, then went back and deleted original stuff]
This amounts to nothing more than extortion. Extortion of businesses, who should be charging appropriately for their services, and extortion of customers, for basically holding their internet usability by the neck.
In reading the article, Bell South is basically saying they can gaurantee end-to-end reliability and that content will get delivered reliably.. IF the content provider pays extra for the "better" connectivity. The problem is, they can't guarantee this. Things happen.
If this does come to pass, one would want a severe SLA applied against BellSouth. Ie, for every customer who doesn't get what they ordered from the content provider's site, due connectivity issues, then the Telcos, be it Bellsouth or any other wanting to adopt this scheme, should reimburse the content provider for damages(hours spent debugging, cost of lost timeliness of product, and % of time of connectivity fees, etc) incurred due to the inability to deliver content.
If you are going to charge extra for reliability, you damn well better deliver it!
As for content providers charging more for reliable delivery of content, this basically amounts to subscription fees. Ie, if you pay, I'll host the content to be delivered to you on a dedicated server with a capped number of customers. The server will be able to handle a 100% customer base level of access at the same time and will only be made available to paying customers.
Free/public/non-paying folks can use the general access servers, which may become overloaded from time to time. Etc.
If implemented by the content providers, this is nothing new. If implemented by the telcos and enforced on the content providers and/or the customers, then it is nothing short of extortion. People are already paying for reliable connectivity. There is no need to screw people over by increasing your customer to bandwidth ratio or introducing connectivity issues to make a normal connection look "more reliable".
Seriously, been seeing an upsurge of spam... not a decline.
The difference between steve jobs's and bill gates's reality bubbles are that steve's produces positive results while bill's result in users getting f'd over when the "defeated" threats arrive(malware, spyware, virus(s), security flaws, a**-backward drm, etc.)
Every time I _have_ to start up IE, I', wonderiing if _this_ time, I'll get screwed over.
You seem to have an idea of what it is that you believe IS should be at the company. Your current problem is that you are one person fighting a war of ideas with the rest of the upper management. The heart of the problem is that your definition of IS(Information Services?) and their's differ.
1) Hammer out what IS/IT means to them and yourself and come to some concensus.
You can't just tell them you are right and they are wrong. You can't even justify such a thing. It's human nature. It's like trying to convince people the world wasn't flat when everyone believed it was... even if you ARE right, you'll still be hung out to dry.
You and management need to come to a compromise. Some middle ground of what your role and that of the IS department is. You have to decide on what you are willing to live with and what you absolutely must have a say in.
2) You need buy-in.
You pointed out you've get a few years of management experience. One of the most important things in management is to get buy-in for a project or an idea. If you have no supporters, you are essentially fighting a one man war. You'll live a hard and stressful life like that. Find allies who will watch your back and put in the good word/support for you when you walk out of the room.
3) SWOTT / cost-benefit analysis.
Once again, put that management experience to good use. Give them the SWOTT analysis and show them the cost benefit analysis of your ideas. Show them the same for their competitors. Show them what it is costing them to not take your ideas seriously. Show them the potential gains/benefits if some of your ideas are taken seriously and implemented.
4) Keep in the loop.
An IS department that gets the work order for an implementation when it hasn't been included in the planning stages is just a disaster waiting to happen. See above about getting buy-in. Use support to stay in the loop so that even if you aren't included in the actual planning meetings, you can at least serve as an advisor to one of the people who are. You get to have some say, via proxy, and you get buy-in from the person who proposes your ideas and it produces a smoother implementation.
In this way, you build a visible positive reputation for yourself at the company. Otherwise, you are merely the complainer at the company who has all of these pie in the sky ideas about how the company should be managed when all you work with are the computers.
5) You are taking on the errors and mistakes of your predecessor.
Look, no matter your experience/skill/etc, the truth is that management sees you in the same like as the person you replaced. They've had to deal with that person's mess for years and have come to regard the IS department in a negative light.
You may or may not realise this, but your job is to work on changing their minds about that and proving to them, through building up trust, that IS is an asset and partner to the company and that you are a reliable and insightful person they can rely on.
Submitting a report/proposal/meeting showing them that their ideas are wrong and that your ideas are right carries little to no weight because you may or may not have built up any credibility at the company.
You've been with the company for a few years, if that time has been spent invisibly fixing things and when you are visible to the management, you are making demands for processes to be changed, think about what the IS department looks like through upper management's eyes.
6) Work somewhere else.
Look, let's say you have tried everything and have worked hard to build trust, open dialog, and still... they won't listen. Then maybe it's time to leave. Seriously. You're just going to lose hair or get an ulcer trying to convince people who won't listen to you, but who still pile crap project after crap project on you.
If leaving isn't an option, then you need to reduce your expectations of the company and place your hearfelt interests elsewhere and see the job for what it is: a job.
OMG! So that's why it tastes the way it does!!
Funny this thread should come up as I'm nearing the 40 mark... it's weird since it's kinda true... once you start hitting that age, you kinda transition off to management, some public works project, or you kinda vanish.
Kinda feeling the tug of the inevitable myself... weird.
Let's look at it this way:
Sources of Bandwidth/Attacks
The original article assumes you wanted to take out more than one sector in the cellular coverage. If you wanted to be more specific and pinpoint only a handful of sectors, you would need less than the numbers the article specifies.
Most text messaging service providers have email gateways. This is one of the reasons why I disabled my text messaging capability. No way to filter the message and at $0.10 / message, it is too abusable.
A weak computer running a fast multi-threaded emailer(Postfix) can dump a fair amount of email at a email-to-sms gateway. It is amazing how many messages/sec you can achieve if you tweak your configuration. 3-4 well placed and configured systems could take out a sector or 2. Distribute that over 10-20 thousand zombies, and you have much greater capacity and better redundancy. The provier will either need to already have anti-DDOS equipment in place or shut down the gateway. Bounce those over open relays and it makes dynamic rerouting even more difficult.
Scenario:
There is a convention going on. Someone was going to launch an attack on the convention site. They don't need to wipe out access to the entire city. They only need to wipe out acccess to the cellualr cells/sectors covering the convention area itself.
So, they gain access to a list of peoples' phone numbers, who will be attending and SMS-bombard those numbers.
Guess what? Since all of those numbers are at the convention site and being serviced by a fixed number of cellular cells, you have now effectively targetted those cells and overloaded them.
With the cell access busy, to the people trying to make calls or receive calls at the convention, an attack on the convention would only be reportable by landline and/or by bystanders outside of the convention center.
Say the attack is a silent one: chemical, toxin, biological. The emergency response would be delayed enough that most of the target individuals would be dead before help could arrive. Most people these days depend heavily on their cell phones. The first thought isn't to try to make a call on a landline for many.
Another abuse would be to use the system to financially deplete another organization's funds by ramping up their telco fees through excessive messaging via a zombie network. While most organizations might have flat fee subscriptions, some do not. Especially for their one-off need-it-now celphone plans.
I've actually called my provider and asked them about filtering and blocking, but they have told me that it was either completely on or completely off. I chose completely off.
I loved the Manga and the Anime(in original Japanese+subtitles). I think it is about time they brought this anime to DVD!
Personally, don't really care about the voice dubbing so long as the original voices are there and subtitles are available in english.
Listened to some of the test clips, but didn't have time to listen through all of them. Kahm-B isn't so good though. The voice is way too "open". Kahm's voice always struck me as being a bit more compressed. Time to swing by Hitoshi Doi's website and see who did the original voice acting for Kahm.
Wing.
I would avoid online providers. Too many things can go wrong, least of which is theft of data.
Which option works for you will depend on what level of accessibility you will need.
If you just need to get access to the files in the event of server/site destruction and you can easily re-create the system and just need to re-import the data, then a cheap option would be to get some virtual hosting space or a racked system with tons of storage and a low cost data connection, depending on your quantity of data an budget.
You will regularly encrypt your data and sync it with the remote server. The data will basically be warehoused at the remote server in an encrypted state.
Old archives are deleted as space runs out or after a pre-determined amount of time.
When your primary site dies, you rebuild your servers, copy the files from your remote server, decrypt, and import.
Most virtual hosting places offer several GB of storage and a good deal of bandwidth per month for a mere $35/month. They are not explicitly marked as backup servers, but converting them into a backup server is fairly simple.
If your level of access if critical, then your best option is to have a live duplicate server that you sync your data with. If the main site dies, people will automatically be switched to the backup site until your primary site is rebuilt.
What you choose depends on what you need and how quickly you need to have things back up by.
Imagine if the Terminator had access to the net, as it is now. "Taking Out" all Sarah Conners within a given mile radius is a simple matter of mapping software, addressbooks, and a name+area to target.
Now, you could locate and plan "events" around individuals throughout the US/world.
No need for super computers... with a few PCs and access to the various API's on the net, you too can have your own war-room and tactical planning system.
Look, the issue is this:
The compiler doesn't need to be optimized for AMD's chips. But it does need to be optimized for extensions which Intel supports. The claim is that Intel's compiler DOES NOT support their own extensions when an AMD chip is detected.
This is important because the Intel Compiler is used to compile benchmarks, enterprise level code, demonstrations, etc. Business decisions to go with one chip or another are based on the performance of the software, which was compiled from the Intel Compiler, which claims to be able to support the INTEL extensions.
By crippling the resulting code when the compiler detects an AMD CPU, Intel is essentially LYING about the performance of their processor and about the performance of the AMD processor through resulting benchmark software(s) and applications compiled with the Intel compiler.
Yes, AMD can make their own compiler, but people have to choose to use it. People who are already using the Intel compiler invested time and money into creating a development environment based on it. Switching isn't easy. If the compiler makes the AMD cpu look bad, businesses will choose to go with Intel thinking those processors gave them better bang for their buck, when the opposite might be true.
It's like having two cars that can do 125MPH, but one has been electronically locked to max out at around 85MPH, then putting them on a racetrack to determine which car is faster.
That isn't a valid comparison. And if INTEL's compiler IS purposefully generating substandard code that doesn't even support their own extensions in AMD's cpus, then benchmarks compiled with the Intel compiler are similarly invalid.
This could also mean contractual violations between AMD and INTEL since AMD licenses the enhanced extensions from INTEL.
It ISN'T about INTEL's compiler not optimizing itself for AMD specific instruction sets. It is about INTEL's compiler not optimizing itself for INTEL specific extensions on AMD CPUs, which AMD has license from INTEL and implemented in their processors.
Another way of looking at it is that AMD has licensed enhancements believing that INTEL's compiler will similarly take advantage of those enhancements. Perhaps that was in the agreement, perhaps not.
If it was the case, then AMD should be furious. They basically licensed and implemented extensions, from INTEL, into their processors that INTEL is choosing to not support. Not because it isn't compatible, the extensions were implemented to their specifications, but to be anti-competitive and deceptive in the intent of their licensing of the extensions.
A simple: if ( intel cpu) { optimized code + extensions } else-if ( amd cpu ) { standard code w/o extensions} is overly simplistic for an engineering organization like Intel and would be difficult to explain away since they are licensing their extensions.
The compiler should be checking for the existence of extensions and choosing to compile in functionality or not. Most games and graphics packages use dynamic libraries and alternate blocks of code for different extensions detected. If small, mid-sized, and large game companies can do thi
LA times must have heard about the massive abuse of Wiki's by spammers/etc. The fact that the wiki system is open to abuse, in general, seems to preclude the need for LA Times to actually properly defend their Wiki system.
If they can't be bothered to properly secure and manage their system, beta or otherwise, then they can't go blaming another news site for advertising their Wiki and having a horde of people "abusing"^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"overloading" their system.
It's like putting up a beta mail server and not properly securing it and wondering why they are getting blacklisted.
If the latency for the DirecDish is an issue for you, then the latency from the celphone wireless will likewise be an issue.
I've linked my PDA and my laptop to my celphone via USB, IR, and bluetooth. I've tried it with 3G(1x) via SprintPCS(vision) and Cingular GPRS/EDGE.
All I can say is that on a celphone, you expect there to be delays. It is, afterall, a low-processing power device. On the laptop, websurfing is "okay".
With SprintPCS's vision plan, I found that I got a pretty good xfer rate of around 60kilobits per second to around 120 kilbits per second. Yes, that is kiloBITS. So, compared to the poster's dial-up speeds, that is much better. Note, though, that this is near a cel-tower with good reception.
In poor reception areas, you can expect around 9.6kilobits per second to around 14.4 kilobits per second.
If that's your only option, then it isn't a bad way to go. The highest speed you will be able to achieve is around 144 kilobits/second with the current generation of tech. This should grow to around 384kilobits per second as more of the next-gen tech arrives, but it still isn't what it should be. SprintPCS Vision does some kind of caching and image compressing, so you will get better rates, but lower quality images for web pages.
With Cingular, GPRS gives you 14.4kilbit/sec dial-up connection. With EDGE, you are supposed to be able to get 384 kilobits/second. I've experienced issues where given a good signal, you will still get less than admirable rates due to contention with other folk and with other voice usage of the network.
Verizon has their EVDO which is promising 1.5mbit/second capabilities(wireless DSL, basically). Haven't used them yet, but people who have used them say they are pretty good. They have pretty good coverage as well, so that might be an option. Without EVDO, you are basically dealing with the normal "wireless dialup" speeds as noted above.
If you are thinking of doing gaming, voip, etc... look elsewhere. For email, web surfing, and maybe newsgroups... ie, non-time sensitive applications, then wireless connectivity could be a good fit.
Another option is perhaps a long-distance 802.11b/g link with a neighbor. Ie, find someone who actually has a chance of getting good service. Work out an agreement with them and then have them setup a line-of-sight wireless (wifi) link to your place.
You become dependant on them for connectivity and possibly end up investing more in hardware, but you will have much better bandwidth and much better latency for games/voip/etc.
These are not hackers or computer science students. These are prospective business school students. Their aim is to be successful through whatever means is available to them. Competition is mind numbingly high to get into a prestigious school.
To know whether you got in or not, before other applications is priceless. It lets you know if you should be calling ahead and making arrangements and being setup and ready before your other competition. Likewise, if you were rejected, you will know that you shouldn't waste any more time/money/effort on that particular school. I mean... if you know you're not accepted, by bother trying to make folks happy there. Ie, why be lead on when you know the outcome?
To call this a hacking issue is like saying someone who finds the key hidden under the flowerpot is skilled at picking locks.
More than anything else, this is probably a stunt to do one or more of several things:
The applicants sought to learn their status early. The process did not let them change their status, change or view other peoples' status, or access personal information which they did not already have access to.
This is the equivelent of guessing the correct URL on a website to view content not originally meant to be viewed. Or, it can be considered the equivelent of going through your instructor's gradebook to see how you are doing.
As for the students who tried to view the information, well, curiosity has its price. The only question is whether their names will be entered into a kind of "ethical" blacklist between the schools.
It would be nice, and naive, to think that business leaders don't push the ethical envelope to get the results they want. If you get the info before your competition, that's an advantage you have over them. You don't give a hand to your competiting business if they have a hard year. You probably would like to know the contacts they have, that you don't. What are the ethics of befriending them to learn their contacts and using those contacts to your personal advantage? Would it be naive to think that people and companies don't do that?
Guess what I'm saying is that these 119 people who wanted to succeed so bad, were willing to step over that ethical line. Are they the exception or the rule of the highly desired schools? If they are the rule, what are these schools doing to change the culture that breeds such behaviour?
Sounds like a Dilbert cartoon where the PHB's make a resoundingly successful suggestion to the effect of:
"Let's save money by firing all of our internal staff and replacing them with contractors, then, we'll replace our contractors with outsourced staff, then, we'll save even more money by hiring employees!"
Seriously, the reason why people are avoiding CS like the plague is because of outsourcing, horror stories of the dot-com bust, stories from people in the field who complain about constant stress and long work hours, pager duty, etc.
CS -> IT is a career move with uncertainties. There are people graduating now who are wondering where the heck they are going to get a job. The market is cluttered with people who had been laid off and can't find work. Companies are being extry picky about who they want to hire(multiple degrees AND years of work experience... but not the people who got laid off recently, because they are burned out...)
Is it any wonder that people are avoiding the computer science fields?
Before, people swarmed into CS because it was a career choice with possibilities and options. Now, it is viewed as a path to despair and a limited future.
Hmm... maybe my news is lagged, it probably is. But I was under the impression that Japanese youth(16-24'ish) have a good deal more disposable income for trendy electronics like celphones and psps because of the family/rent issue.
Goes something like this: The youths who work part time jobs are still living at home. The parents basically cover the rent and utilities, with the children kicking in some portion. This means that the bulk of what the children earn, which isn't taken up by the government in taxes, is disposable income.
I think this, along with the depressed economy in America, explains the level of difference in sales of the PSP between Japan and America.
I'm dying to get one, but I'm also looking at my bills/living expenses/etc and thinking... $300 can mean one PSP(w/one game, most likely lumines) or it can mean gas for the car, food at lunch, stuff I can buy for girlfriend's bday, bills, etc.
Not saying Japanese youths have it easy or that they don't have expenses. Just young wage earners who are living at home with their parents, where ever they live, will have more disposable income.
Although, as much as I want a PSP, I find myself wondering: why? There just isn't enough compelling games out for me to want one. That and the fact that I can't actually go and hold one to get a feel for it. :/
*LMAO*
That sounds about right. The not skipping and being okay, not the groin bit. :/ Sorry to hear about that, btw.
Most of the laptop hard drives, either 1.8" or 2.5" used in iPods... I forget which size, can withstand between 100-150Gs of force. 150G of force is impacting something at around 30mph. That's when they are spinning. When they are not spinning, ie most of the time on an iPod, the laptop drives can withstand nearly 1000Gs of force.
Microdrives can withstand upwards of double that of the laptop drives.
CF cards can withstand around 2000Gs of force.
So, at least in the case of iPods, it should survive quite well. Especially with a human body to help absorb some of the impact. ^_-
It would seem that the problem which exists is as follows:
Since you really can't dissuade the middlemen in a material way, you need to dissuade the businesses from continuing in employing such practices.
The best way to do this would be to create a list of businesses which employ such techniques and enter them into a boycott database. Ala RBL.
Another method might be to employ a plugin which, when it encounters a site which attempts a pop-up, pop-under, or pop-revenge and the site is not a pop-approved site, the plugin will continue to suck a variety of files from the site. Be it the advertisement media or something else "heavy" on the page.
With enough people with the plugin and continually sucking bandwidth from the business's site, this will incur a bad-behaviour-curbing financial cost to the companies which insist on making money at the expense of web-surfers.
If enough people have the plugin, then the business' ill-behaved website will get a "time out". Businesses, after a while, would potentially get the hint and stop employing such techniques... or take the MPAA/RIAA route and start suing their own potential customers.
Either avenue hurts their business or their business image.
If businesses claim to be looking out for their customers, they should act like it. They should conduct business legally AND ethically. To employ means to circumvent a protective function on a web browser is basically, breaking into someone's house to post banners and advertisements. It is, in my mind, just a stone's throw away from malware/adware/spyware.
^_- It works.
Buying an Apple desktop or laptop will definitely fix the problem of having IE being embedded into your operating system.
Similarly, buying a new Linux computer will similarly help.
For coach and other discount flyers, there is no such thing as a DC port for your laptop or game adapters.
You'll only get this in the first class, executive/business/commercial class flights on most airlines.
With more and more cases of people being asked or directed to move away from IE to an alternative like Firefox, was choosing IE to bolt on new features to such a hot idea?
The very behaviour of the browser you are describing makes me shudder to think that it will be used outside of a lab or beta environment. Granted, the issues are due largely in part to the underlying IE/Windows system and sloppy coding on the part of AOL developers, but that just begs the question of: Why IE when there are so many other choices out there?
Heck, Firefox/Mozilla can both be easily customized to serve ads from a remote server with the XPI modules. *shakes head* Seems like a bad management decision on the part of the AOL heads.
I second that.
I've owned a dual-usb white ibook since late 2001/early 2002 and have had no troubles with it.
I was lucky in that I didn't get one with the faulty logic board and have loved using it. They are solid laptops and nowhere near as clunky as most of the PC based laptops I see which seem to like the idea of large volumes and bulky components. :(
My only gripes with Apple's iBook:
I also use WinXPPro and Linux. (iBook chosen because it contains a Unix backend! Woohoo!)