I believe for my company, SPAM represents over 80% of all the emails we receive.
Detected spams/total emails from our logfiles: last week: 6317/7496 (short week because logfile rotation was a day late) 1 week ago: 7469/8956 (long week because of delayed logfile rotation) 2 weeks ago: 5984/7293
These numers do not include the emails that we reject besed on sender IP address, bad recipient, etc.
Actually if you rtfa you'd realize thats what this tax was initially for, to tax PBX's.
Actually if you read the article, you would realize that it is not to tax Private Branch Exchanges, but rather to tax companies who have their own inter-office land lines. To quote the article:
companies operating their own land line communication systems
The grandma test is not a good litmus test for usability because it completely disregards the average user, who will go out and buy new software, upgrade a printer, buy a new sound card, buy a DVD drive, etc.
I'm sorry, but I just don't think your idea of the average user is close to reality. Now there are many users that fit your profile, but there are many more whose main method to upgrade software is to buy a new system, with all the new software pre-installed.
Now I'm not claiming that the average user never installs things, like games, etc. (else how would Gator be so prevalent), but they are simply not clamoring for the latest versions of major packages.
What's one of MS's biggest headaches? How to get all those Office '97 users to upgrade!
I bet you that the law is so vaguely worded that it could describe the connection between you and your provider (DSL), you and your cable company for TV or cable modem, cordless multi-unit telephones (like the pair Sam's sold last X-mas that could have more handsets added to the setup), and even the datalink between your PDA and your desktop
And if it is so vague, it probably applies and always applied to PBXs, which did exist and were common when the law was written.
So either it has a specific exclusion for PBXs, or I really doubt that it covers LANs anyway. In any case, just sling a couple of VoIP phones on the LAN and call it a PBX system!
This article highlights problems also. In the follow-up it appears that Diebold still claims that their systems work, despite evidence to the contrary.
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
My personal opinion is that if you removed RedHat trade marked packages, in accordance with appendix 1 sections 1 and 2 of the RHEL licence, replaced them with your own image packages and called it "My Personal Advanced Linux" you could then install that on other machines without breaching the RHEL subscription agreement. But ask a solicitor first.
I have one Gentoo machine that is my "Compile Server" On this, I build binary packages, which go into the portage tree. All other Gentoo machines on the network then sync against the compile server (instead of using "emerge sync"), and thus also get the binary packages.
Then, on the other machines, I install from the binaries.
This allows me to test the installs first, resolve any problems, etc.
Furthermore, to speed up the process, several machines run DISTCC and are used as clients of the compile server.
But while the above point is interesting, it's somewhat irrelevant to this case: the breach of contract occured in the US:
Exactly. In fact India does have a well developed legal system. I am sure that, like all legal systems, it has its flaws, corruption, etc. but it does exist and can be used.
So perhaps if the outsourcing had been done properly, with the appropriate contracts and to someone in India (where, as a long-standing democracy I would put more faith in the judicial system than in Pakistan), the problems would not arise.
Of course one can also argue that there are added costs involved in legal action in India instead of the US (if there were a breach of the agreeemnts), but it is possible and should be factored into any cost reduction analysis.
Robert Marsh is an honorable businessman. He did his deal with SCO, and abided by it thinking that it was in the best interest of his business to pay off SCO to get them to go away.
He is clearly a businessman but I don't think the "honorable" part is validated by his recent behavior over the licenses. Consider that he had a number of choices:
1. Insist that his deal remained totally secret.
2. Refuse to deal with the extortionists.
3. Assuming he negotiated a better license agreement, insist that he would be free to publicise the text of that.
Just as businesses clearly have to pay off extortionists some times in order to survive, it may make business sense, but it is in no way "honorable".
Furthermore, it was clearly his intent to attract customers on the basis that he could offer safety from SCO's lawsuits: else why not insist on complete secrecy? Thus he hoped to benefit from SCO's FUD and should therefore be considered complicit. The only possible alternative explanation is that he reduced his own cost by allowing EV1's name to be publicized by SCO: once again, in this scenario, he is knowingly attempting to benefit from SCO's FUD.
Law doesn't use plain English. In this case, "entity" is whatever is described in the definitions section of that particular bit of law
While I understand that laws can re-define words, in this case, I don't think that could have happened. If there was a definition of the word "entity" in the specific law, this case would not have got anywhere near the Supremes.
However, it seems that in this case, they have said, because the usual language of laws explicitly mentions sub-units of governments when they are included, the lack of such an inclusion can be interpreted to mean that they are not included.
Let's take an example:
a) All four-legged animals, including cats.
b) All four-legged animals.
According to the Supremes, item "b" above does not include cats.
Yes, and when you can remember the sequence without notes at 11:00pm (or later) Saturday night (because that's the only time you can get on the machine that week) then you are a real real man.
Been there, done that, glad I don't have to any more!
Re:Does it allow console access via serial port?
on
In-Depth Look At LinuxBIOS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
I believe for my company, SPAM represents over 80% of all the emails we receive.
Detected spams/total emails from our logfiles:
last week: 6317/7496 (short week because logfile rotation was a day late)
1 week ago: 7469/8956 (long week because of delayed logfile rotation)
2 weeks ago: 5984/7293
These numers do not include the emails that we reject besed on sender IP address, bad recipient, etc.
Original Agreement
Modified Agreement
companies operating their own land line communication systems
Now I'm not claiming that the average user never installs things, like games, etc. (else how would Gator be so prevalent), but they are simply not clamoring for the latest versions of major packages.
What's one of MS's biggest headaches? How to get all those Office '97 users to upgrade!
So either it has a specific exclusion for PBXs, or I really doubt that it covers LANs anyway. In any case, just sling a couple of VoIP phones on the LAN and call it a PBX system!
What happend to basic physics?
Force <> Energy <> Power!
... to read this and think that The Mirror newspaper is closing it's website?
Did anyone actually pay them for the privilege of receiving widely available information?
That's OK, you worked 12 hours per day and the time adds up to the equivalent of 20 years.
Even PERL did not exist in 1984! It was released in 1987.
This article highlights problems also. In the follow-up it appears that Diebold still claims that their systems work, despite evidence to the contrary.
How long before someone figures out how to bypass the restrictions.
Practically, yes. In theory, since DeBeers have created a market, the stones have value, and they can be re-sold.
No, I am not going to argue that anyone who re-sells a diamond will not lose money: they will. But they won't lose 100% of their purchase price.
Society defines "value" simply as "what someone else will pay for it". That's why diamonds have value -- there is another sucker who will pay for it!
Yes, I know this. But most of these machines are not running NFS, and I don't want nfs on them.
Then, on the other machines, I install from the binaries.
This allows me to test the installs first, resolve any problems, etc.
Furthermore, to speed up the process, several machines run DISTCC and are used as clients of the compile server.
So perhaps if the outsourcing had been done properly, with the appropriate contracts and to someone in India (where, as a long-standing democracy I would put more faith in the judicial system than in Pakistan), the problems would not arise.
Of course one can also argue that there are added costs involved in legal action in India instead of the US (if there were a breach of the agreeemnts), but it is possible and should be factored into any cost reduction analysis.
1. Insist that his deal remained totally secret.
2. Refuse to deal with the extortionists.
3. Assuming he negotiated a better license agreement, insist that he would be free to publicise the text of that.
Just as businesses clearly have to pay off extortionists some times in order to survive, it may make business sense, but it is in no way "honorable".
Furthermore, it was clearly his intent to attract customers on the basis that he could offer safety from SCO's lawsuits: else why not insist on complete secrecy? Thus he hoped to benefit from SCO's FUD and should therefore be considered complicit. The only possible alternative explanation is that he reduced his own cost by allowing EV1's name to be publicized by SCO: once again, in this scenario, he is knowingly attempting to benefit from SCO's FUD.
However, it seems that in this case, they have said, because the usual language of laws explicitly mentions sub-units of governments when they are included, the lack of such an inclusion can be interpreted to mean that they are not included.
Let's take an example:
a) All four-legged animals, including cats.
b) All four-legged animals.
According to the Supremes, item "b" above does not include cats.
Was this case badly reported, or did the Supreme Court just ignore the plain english used in the law?
Don't ask that question: I was modded down, "Offtopic", for asking the exact same question!
Do they also need fixes?
Been there, done that, glad I don't have to any more!
Ah, to answer my own post, it looks like it does, for many motherboards
instead of hauling a monitor over to a machine that won't boot, they could remotely connect via a Portserver or similar. Much easier!