So, it is Exchange or nada. Which brings in AD as a must.
No, it doesn't. All those outsourced off-site Exchange installations, do those bring in AD at the client site? Of course not. Yes, the Exchange box may need to use AD, but this doesn't force AD on any client systems.
get what you're saying, but if the "high speeds" were "nearly" 100MPH it's not unreasonable to wonder just how the car got literally ripped in half.
Last year in a town in California, someone who was not being chased, managed to split a compact car completely in half by hitting a tree. The two parts of the car ended up quite a distance from each other. He wasn't driving on a freeway, or a sidestreet, but was on a street with a 35 or 40mph speed limit. Reports said the speed was "up to 100mph"
It wasn't a load problem. The setup was just wrong (recursive resolvers used as authoritative servers didn't answer non-recursive queries correctly). It wouldn't have worked if Microsoft had given it all the CPU power and network capacity in the world. Garbage in, garbage out.
The takeaway is either:
1. No business should use Azure because Azure doesn't scale. OR:
2. No business should rely on Microsoft services, because Microsoft does not have the necessary competence.
This is only the latest in a line of screwups by Microsoft in their service offerings.
So I actually RTFA, and I see that it is 5 million subdomain names. That is a few hundred subdomains implicated as used by botnets against 5 million. It doesn't support a conclusion that No-IP was somehow in league with the botnet operators or that support for botnets was a significant part of No-IP's business.
Microsoft portrayed No-IP as primarily a business making money from botnet operators, but Microsoft only listed a few hundred subdomain names that were implicated. Compared to what I imagine is hundreds of thousands, or millions (or tens of millions) of subdomain names that No-IP must support to have a viable business, it's a tiny fraction.
Microsoft not only didn't report these criminals to no-ip- they actually sealed the court order so they could seize the domains before no-ip found out about it.
Microsoft compounded the problem by having a DNS infrastructure that completely failed to resolve the subdomains that were not implicated in any botnet use.
Perhaps the core problem was rate limiting by No-IP, but Microsoft should have anticipated this.
Obviously, labor-intensive tasks are cheaper in China because of low wages. Tasks that produce lots of toxic chemicals (such as wafer fabs) are cheaper because of reduced environmental requirements.
But an assembly line manned by robots? Why should that be cheaper in China? Is capital that much cheaper?
3. You use an offshore proxy (perhaps to watch sprts events not available on US TV).
4. Your broswer has stored tracking cookies from Yahoo, which advertisers consider unreliable.
These are the reported cases. Prbably there are more. Remember that the NSA claimed that it did not track people if the balance of probabilities showed them to be US citizens, but this shows that, once again, the NSA was lying.
You do know that takedown notices are supposed to be filed truthfully under penalty of perjury, yes?
No. They don't.
The penalty of perjury only applies to a very small part of the takedown notice -- that the person making the request is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. The rest of the takedown notice is not under penalty of perjury.
5. A statement by you UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
Except that Vimeo has got it wrong. The law does not say that. Instead it says:
ââ(vi) A statement that the information in the
notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury,
that the complaining party is authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
So the perjury part only applies to the claim to act on behalf of someone else and not to the rest of the notice.
After flying on a domestic US flight, sat next to a pilot who did not turn off his phone (he knew that it was on), I usually did not bother turning my phone off before the ban was lifted.
Also, one only had to scan for bluetooth devices on flights on which radios were supposed to be turned off to know that the rules were flouted for years.
What about my freedom to accept the money in exchange for signing one?
How about because it is good for society? WIth the high cost of living, overcrowding, etc., why is it that tech startups happen so often in the SF Bay Area? Perhaps because of the pool of talent that is available because non-competes are not enforcable?
You cannot sell yourself into indentured servitude either. Do you really want that "right"?
And, as for the $5k, you are hopelessly naive. Non-competes depress wages, so that $5k is probably less than you would get in increased pay if non-competes were illegal where you live. Basically, you are saying that you should have the right to be screwed by large corporations. Good luck with that right.
If you look at a recent Supreme court decision in Canada involving RBC, you will find that they basically struck down most of the concept of an employment non-compete as violating a charter right to live and work where you chose
Maybe you are looking at a different case to me, but in the case I looked at, as long as an employee gives proper notice, once the notice period is over, there is no actual or implied non-compete agreement.
A non compete that says 'for one year, you may not program computers for any of our clients or competitors' is enforceable (unless the whole industry is your competitor).
Not in California. There is a small set of exceptions where non-competes can be enforced, but none of them apply to a regular employee (they apply to business owners and principals). Furthermore, non-compete agreements from other states cannot be enforced in California courts.
I've done a couple of projects with engineering companies including one at a power plant. From what I've seen, the thing that tends to lead from air gapping to lack of airgapping is support.
...
They could maintain the air gap, but it would cost money -- support and travel costs, etc.
Ultimately, it's a profit problem. Increased costs == lower profits (at least in the short term). Possibly over the long term, a security breach could cost more than the cost of an airgapped solution.
Alternatively, if the key issue is support, why don't the critical systems have their own LAN and firewall which allows only connections with the necessary IPs and ports for the remote access solution?
Perhaps Microsoft should be enjoined from distributing a OS that is responsible for most the the malware and spam that everyone's firewalls and filters are defending against.
I feel like we've barely grazed the surface of the potential of crowd funding. I mean, in a real sense here we, as society, are funding self-education - we are funding the education of our own society. That's cool.
If only there were a central organization that could collect all this money, with those who could afford it paying more, and then re-distribute it....... oh wait!!!!
Microsoft could have avoided all this mess by simply listening to people who were beta testing and using 8 and complaining about the horrible start screen. I'm sure they got PILES of feedback, but they were so stubborn they even went out of their way to keep people from bringing back the traditional start menu.
They were not listening because the feedback did not feed into their internal narrative. That narrative was that, to establish a position in tablets and phones, the UI had to be common across all types of devices. If your feedback went against this directive, it could not be accepted.
The guy behind Lavabit tried. Look how far that got him. The government effectively denied him the right to have a lawyer. Good luck representing yourself against government lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't. All those outsourced off-site Exchange installations, do those bring in AD at the client site? Of course not. Yes, the Exchange box may need to use AD, but this doesn't force AD on any client systems.
Last year in a town in California, someone who was not being chased, managed to split a compact car completely in half by hitting a tree. The two parts of the car ended up quite a distance from each other. He wasn't driving on a freeway, or a sidestreet, but was on a street with a 35 or 40mph speed limit. Reports said the speed was "up to 100mph"
The takeaway is either:
1. No business should use Azure because Azure doesn't scale. OR:
2. No business should rely on Microsoft services, because Microsoft does not have the necessary competence.
This is only the latest in a line of screwups by Microsoft in their service offerings.
So I actually RTFA, and I see that it is 5 million subdomain names. That is a few hundred subdomains implicated as used by botnets against 5 million. It doesn't support a conclusion that No-IP was somehow in league with the botnet operators or that support for botnets was a significant part of No-IP's business.
Microsoft portrayed No-IP as primarily a business making money from botnet operators, but Microsoft only listed a few hundred subdomain names that were implicated. Compared to what I imagine is hundreds of thousands, or millions (or tens of millions) of subdomain names that No-IP must support to have a viable business, it's a tiny fraction.
Microsoft compounded the problem by having a DNS infrastructure that completely failed to resolve the subdomains that were not implicated in any botnet use.
Perhaps the core problem was rate limiting by No-IP, but Microsoft should have anticipated this.
In other news, Google is the most popular site for finding <your choice of illegal material here>.
See what I did there? And how the reports of NO-IP's use for malicious software are meaningless?
But Streets and Trips is not free. It's still being killed.
Obviously, labor-intensive tasks are cheaper in China because of low wages. Tasks that produce lots of toxic chemicals (such as wafer fabs) are cheaper because of reduced environmental requirements.
But an assembly line manned by robots? Why should that be cheaper in China? Is capital that much cheaper?
Had DC chosen to grant permission, there would be no infringement. There would be no possible loss of DC's rights over the trademark.
1. You write emails in a foreign language
2. You chat with known foreigners.
3. You use an offshore proxy (perhaps to watch sprts events not available on US TV).
4. Your broswer has stored tracking cookies from Yahoo, which advertisers consider unreliable.
These are the reported cases. Prbably there are more. Remember that the NSA claimed that it did not track people if the balance of probabilities showed them to be US citizens, but this shows that, once again, the NSA was lying.
At best, only temporarily. Many of the homeless are suffering from various forms of mental illness.
I am somewhat doubtful that Verilog counts as a programming language. SystemVerilog, perhaps, but that isn't mentioned.
Also SQL -- yes, there is a distinct syntax associated with it, but is it a "programming language"?
No. They don't.
The penalty of perjury only applies to a very small part of the takedown notice -- that the person making the request is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. The rest of the takedown notice is not under penalty of perjury.
Except that Vimeo has got it wrong. The law does not say that. Instead it says:
So the perjury part only applies to the claim to act on behalf of someone else and not to the rest of the notice.
After flying on a domestic US flight, sat next to a pilot who did not turn off his phone (he knew that it was on), I usually did not bother turning my phone off before the ban was lifted.
Also, one only had to scan for bluetooth devices on flights on which radios were supposed to be turned off to know that the rules were flouted for years.
How about because it is good for society? WIth the high cost of living, overcrowding, etc., why is it that tech startups happen so often in the SF Bay Area? Perhaps because of the pool of talent that is available because non-competes are not enforcable?
You cannot sell yourself into indentured servitude either. Do you really want that "right"?
And, as for the $5k, you are hopelessly naive. Non-competes depress wages, so that $5k is probably less than you would get in increased pay if non-competes were illegal where you live. Basically, you are saying that you should have the right to be screwed by large corporations. Good luck with that right.
Maybe you are looking at a different case to me, but in the case I looked at, as long as an employee gives proper notice, once the notice period is over, there is no actual or implied non-compete agreement.
Not in California. There is a small set of exceptions where non-competes can be enforced, but none of them apply to a regular employee (they apply to business owners and principals). Furthermore, non-compete agreements from other states cannot be enforced in California courts.
Ultimately, it's a profit problem. Increased costs == lower profits (at least in the short term). Possibly over the long term, a security breach could cost more than the cost of an airgapped solution.
Alternatively, if the key issue is support, why don't the critical systems have their own LAN and firewall which allows only connections with the necessary IPs and ports for the remote access solution?
Why? Microsoft doesn't seem to think it necessary to resolve the subdomains that are not included in the list of bad subdomains.
Perhaps Microsoft should be enjoined from distributing a OS that is responsible for most the the malware and spam that everyone's firewalls and filters are defending against.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If only there were a central organization that could collect all this money, with those who could afford it paying more, and then re-distribute it ....... oh wait!!!!
They were not listening because the feedback did not feed into their internal narrative. That narrative was that, to establish a position in tablets and phones, the UI had to be common across all types of devices. If your feedback went against this directive, it could not be accepted.
The guy behind Lavabit tried. Look how far that got him. The government effectively denied him the right to have a lawyer. Good luck representing yourself against government lawyers.