Why are you ignoring the high-grade LCD monitors that graphics professionals prefer to CRTs? You can, in fact, pay more to get excellent visual quality. If you are willing to pay for quality, you too can use LCDs that produce perfect colors with even lighting and no motion tear. If you want to blather about the $100 crap LCDs, a fair comparison is the $100 CRTs that go pop after 6 months---not a high end Trinitron tube. Get real.
SSDs are not the end of reliable storage, LCDs are not the end of clear and accurate displays, and your nostalgic rant is not the least bit enlightening.
But soon enough I won't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD, just like I can't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.
Just like you can't buy a goddamn real 5.25 floppy drive or a goddamn real cassette drive? Their successors had their growing pains, naturally, but eventually eclipsed the old technology on every meaningful metric.
It's called "information technology" for a reason. We find better ways of storing, manipulating, and transmitting information. If you have a fetish for magnetizing spinning aluminium and glass platters, that is a personal issue---but don't pretend it is the only way to store data and don't assume we won't find better ways of accomplishing the task.
The idea that we should always need or produce "goddamn real HDs" is profoundly backwards.
There's a lot of horribly possibilities and I'd like to see legal safeguards being put in place long before we start to really really need them.
Police won't be so bothered if we forbid them to read peoples minds against their will now than 50 years down the line when it's helping their conviction rate.
There is probably no law required for this. You have a constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. Actually, it is quite likely a law which requires or permits such mind-reading would be deemed unconstitutional.
Why is this the case? Why can't the RAID controller split up a TRIM on the array into TRIMs on each drive?
The RAID controller can't split a TRIM command among the drives because that feature requires a great deal of development, testing, and validation. All of those things cost money that isn't going to be spent adding features to old products. Count on TRIM-aware RAID controllers being introduced over the next several years. And by introduced, I mean sold for a profit to replace existing hardware.
It's kind of silly that the phone is unable to access the files in the partition while they're being accessed by the PC, but nonetheless, I think it's a cleaner solution.
It's not silly at all. When the PC has block-level access, the OS assumes its file system driver has sole control over that partition. This is, at the very least, true of NTFS (and wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption for most file system drivers).
If they made it so that the phone and the PC could both access the partition, there would have to be provisions for simultaneous changes/writes, syncing issues when both systems load the same file, and many of the other complications you see with network shares.
It's far simpler to lock the partition for whatever system is using it than to deal with all the edge cases where simultaneous use can cause the loss, desyncing, or corruption of data.
It is quite clear that he was using the phrases "First World" and "Second World" to define a hierarchy based on telecom progress that mirrors the hierarchy those terms traditionally reflect in political and social progress.
Whether he was using the terms illustratively or speaking metaphorically, it was quite clear (to me, at any rate) that he not only understands the traditional use of those words but was also leveraging that usage to make his point.
In conclusion, you lose one point for poor comprehension and another for pedantry.
Apple seems to care about the user experience and they probably figured out that by pissing off the small percentage of people like you they could provide a sellable experience to everyone else.
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
I'm intrigued by the iPad and considering purchasing one. I've wanted an eBook reader for a while, but they seem like a waste of plastic if that's all they can do. I'd still need my laptop to get on the web or check email.
The iPad looks good for my use, as I don't do anything technical or work-related on my Wind. The ability to go with Verizon (ATT sucks around here) is an improvement. The lack of Flash support is still annoying, but with the ARM cores it should be forthcoming. If Apple gets that working with an update before a quality clone comes out, I'll probably buy it.
Apple's products are generally the best if you match their use cases and impossible to tweak if you don't.
This isn't a special way to access the Control Panel for developers because there is some sort of problem with the new layout.
Rather, this is part of a more general feature for developers to create and display namespaces within Windows. Microsoft simply used the same method for managing the Control Panels applets that it suggests its developers use for their own applications.
Now, the article points out there is a way users can exploit this feature to get the Control Panel applets listed discretely without any flair, bells, or whistles (like classic Windows) rather than navigating through a hand-holding GUI.
I prefer the tweak in the article because I'm used to the applets and know what they all do. At the same time, I can still see where the new Control Panel GUI is probably more intuitive to novice users and will get them to the options they need more easily (albeit with a few more clicks as they're guided through).
Then there's the fact that even if you say "Ok, all dev systems go on their own network that is assumed insecure/hostile." Fine, what happens when one of those systems gets owned and the virus goes on a deleting rampage, wiping out the source code? That's a real problem.
No, it's not. "Assumed hostile" is not the same as "ZOMG NO BACKUPS". This sort of idiot blathering is what makes sys admins boil in their skins. You still have your live backups and your tape backups. Just because we assume a host is higher than normal risk does not mean we suddenly deny all normal admin services to it. You're still getting backups, OS patches, group policy pushes, and firewall/HPSS rules even if you have local admin. As a matter of fact, it's normal to set a more frequent backup schedule for high-risk hosts.
Now, your backup server may be different from everyone else's backup server because I don't want to risk *their* data on account of *your* network-nuking screwup---but you'll still have a backup server that I locked down (on which you have no privs) in case you manage to get the worm of the week on your desktop or otherwise manage to blow it up.
It isn't acceptable to say "We lost 5 months of work of 30 people because someone's system got infected." It also doesn't matter if the server is "secure" since all the dev systems must have read/write access to the code to do their job.
What? Read/write access to a file share or a repository is entirely different from read/write access to the system partition. I can reliably backup the repository since you have no admin credentials for that box, and I can usually backup your box so you don't lose any uncommitted code changes. You can easily break my backup job on your workstation if you have local admin---so be sure to commit your code to the repository or else ask me to validate the workstation backup if you're worried about losing work.
If I give you local admin, when there's a problem the assumption will be that you caused it. This assumption in no way changes my administrative responsibilities, and lack of proper backup or infrastructure is still my problem unless I have a documentation denying it from management.
//They could easily extended broadband to fringe areas over POTS and which is the cheapest way to do so. So POTS is a part of the solution here.//
No, this is just plain wrong. The distance you can run fiber from a CO is greater than the distance you can sustain DSL service.
The practical limitation (costs) for fiber lines is still present, but it is falling rapidly. Fiber cost over $50/foot to deploy initially; now it's well under $20. In rural areas where there is no DSLAM within a reasonable radius, you'll either be waiting for enough people to move in so that a DSLAM is economical or else wait for fiber deployment costs to drop.
Broadband over POTS isn't seeing much improvement anymore, and when you consider that lines may need to be rerun to provide acceptable data service it looks even worse.
POTS is getting long in the tooth, but I'm sure the only reason ATT wants to drop it is because of the "cumbersome" regulations which require them to invest in making reliable service. VoIP providers are *not* subject to regulations regarding reliability.
The only part of POTS that's really impressive in the 21st century is the part that's required by government regulation.
//The nonsense about fiber having back-up is great until the outage is more than 8 hours, assuming your battery has been maintained.//
This is a seriously good point, and people need to consider it before getting fiber to the premises---many don't.//Of course, I've got a generator so I'd have power at my house, but what about the fiber hubs? How long is their backup?//
Answer: N/A.
Fiber hubs a little more than highly precise and very expensive arrays of mirrors and lenses. They are completely passive and require no power.
The OLTs (telco side) and ONTs (client side) require power to convert the signal into the proper format for OC transit or to electric for output over coax/ethernet.//POTS still does the job for me.//
Good thing you have buried lines. In areas with aerial lines, the telco usually has to wait until downed power lines are fixed first---linemen have no equipment to mitigate or work near an electrical hazard.
//Any system will stop working when the battery dies. The point of saying POTS lasting through outages is because Telcos have to adhere (or should) to strict standards regarding availability of service and they maintain their centralized battery backup much better than a consumer does (or can).//
Former telco employee here. Battery backups are generally insufficient for that purpose.
They have batteries that last long enough to ensure the backup generators can be brought online. Usually the generators kick automatically in the event of a power loss, but there is a long enough delay that the service would blink if it couldn't transition through battery backup first, and, hey, sometimes they DON'T kick automatically. Other than this, batteries have little to do with the service availability---it's mostly due to diesel. AFAIK, COs have redundant generators; although this may be restricted to certain COs, they were present everywhere I looked.
I'd like to add...
Previous poster is essentially right about the government regulation too---there is not a financial incentive to provide service this reliable based on consumer pricing alone. If a CO goes down and people lose service, there are very substantial penalties unless it's an absolutely unavoidable "act of God" situation. The government often makes stupid rules, but the telephone regulations are good stuff and I'd really like to extend them to VoIP/wireless. (Yeah, right, in my dreams, hey?)
WRT: "c) it must not depend on power available at the customers site"
I'd be OK with this as long is there is some sort of battery backup, and the cost of power and battery replacement is factored into the consideration of (a) cheaper.
If the battery is automatic, I'd say a minimum of 72 hours. If it's toggled on for use as needed by the customer then 8 hours should be enough to get through most outages.
The OP wasn't entirely correct. Even proving the published information false doesn't qualify it as libel.
Rather, it must be demonstrated that the publisher either knew the information was false---or was grossly negligent in assessing the veracity of the statements.
Publishing unsubstantiated rumors can occasionally get you nailed for libel. Indicating that the rumors come from an anonymous source (i.e., acknowledging a potentially unreliable basis for the claims) is generally enough to avoid the negligence clause.
Writing "Celebrity X shot his wife" is libel if I have nothing to demonstrate a good reason for me to actually believe he did it. On the other hand, writing "Anonymous witness reports Celebrity X shot his wife" is not libel if someone calls me anonymously and tells me they saw him do it.
The anonymous source is guilty of slander if he's lying; but I am not guilty of libel if I believe the report is likely legitimate and newsworthy.
//NAT gives you the same thing: addresses that are non-routable outside of your network. Using it becomes simpler.//
I believe I clarified what I meant later in my post: his argument boils down to security through laziness. It's trivial (both in the presence or absence of NAT) to setup ACLs for devices or subnets which have no legitimate need for inbound connections. NAT happens to give you the equivalent of a free line or two you might otherwise need to type.
//Yeah, sure, but X rules out an entire class of human error.//
If people want to use equipment and practices that cater to a plug-and-play or "set it and forget it" mindset, that's fine. But the OP blowing up because IPv6 may take away a dirty little shortcut is still grossly stupid. We have a real security method that offers the same (or better) protections.
To bring this back into my original point about competence; assuming network connectivity and security is his job, he should be aware of configuration details and diligent enough to check them. If he doesn't know his DHCP address pools and how to setup ACLs for them he's not a competent network engineer (or whatever title is in vogue these days). ACLs may be a pain, but that's the job.
tl;dr - A hacktastic shortcut is going away. There's no need for him to QQ about it while accusing people who can cope of being "elitist".
//My problem, from your point of view, is that I'm not an elitist.//
Your problem, from my point of view, is that you're not competent.//In the end the current setup means I use network addresses that DO NOT ROUTE to the outside world.//
It's called a firewall. Or a router with a proper ACL. You can google this stuff. NAT doesn't prevent routing to the outside world; it merely prevents the outside world from seeing your internal network structure. A properly-configured router or firewall will do that and more.//If you want into my network, I have to map it. If I didn't map it, you're not getting in, all things held equal.//
Every firewall I've ever seen has a default-deny setting which can be enabled for ingress/egress independently for every IP address, by individual IPs, or by ranges. Your argument boils down to the fact that NAT must drop inbound packets without either an existing connection or a mapping by default. You're proposing security by virtue of laziness---and neglecting other security features, to boot.//So tell me again, without being so strict with your terms, why forfeiting the level of control I presently have is a good thing//
You're using NAT as a method of access control, which is not what it was designed for. In addition, it does so very poorly and leaves a number of gaps in your security that a real access control device would cover.
In short, the control NAT gives you is illusory and meaningless. You have a far greater degree of control with a real firewall---regardless of whether it uses NAT. Get a real security implementation going and quit QQing about this new-fangled intarweb.
A purchase order is put in for office supplies. Most places that deal with corporations or the USG accept POs. The accounting/finance department tracks all POs and monitors for legitimacy and patterns of abuse.
To clarify, as I assume you're unfamiliar with them:
Purchase orders are legally-binding documents, and as such they are often accepted in lieu of immediate cash payment. Merchants will often require certain paperwork on file before accepting POs from a company; failure to issue payment would result in a fairly simple court case---the purchase order is essentially a contract on the part of the buyer.
This is where reason steps back into your world. A judge can deny a change of name for "frivolous" or "immoral" reasons.
I'm fairly certain that changing your name to a GB-long binary string in order to circumvent copyright restrictions qualifies as immoral. In the absence of a reason to change your name to a GB-long binary string, such a request is patently frivolous.
Along those lines, I'm sure that a change of name to circumvent trademark use restrictions would also fall under the immorality criterion. There are practicing lawyers you can pay to get an absolutely firm answer to your question... if you're being anything more than an obnoxious tool by asking it.
As I already stated (in CAPS), the scientist is not the primary source of data. These people should not be badgering the researcher for his climatological data. They should ask questions where necessary to clarify his methods and obtain the data independently from the same sources he used.
The researcher should not be distributing the raw data under normal circumstances; and this, of course, applies doubly if there are privacy or confidentially requirements for access to it.
Why?
1. Independent acquisition of data ensures they are using the official, public data and not an altered version.
2. Performing the analysis using the same methods as the researcher allows them to verify the calculations were performed correctly.
3. Discussion of the methodology in order to duplicate it will provide insight into the work, and if there are shortcomings in the methodology they can address the issues with the original researcher or in their own paper.
However---I repeat---the researcher is never supposed to be the source of data. If he received bad data, corrupted/damaged his data, or deliberately altered his data then there would be no way to invalidate the study based upon data received from him. The researcher is obligated to disclose his sources of data, to explain any corrections made to that primary data, and to clarify his methods of analyzing the data.
In the event that a researcher generates the data he analyzes (e.g., a lab experiment), then he must document clearly the methods he employed to generate it so that others may do the same. Written or recorded data may be subject to confidentiality, especially with research into human behavior---in those cases the distribution of data may be prohibited, require additional consent from participants, or require a confidentiality agreement.
And, just in case...
tl;dr - If they're asking the author of a study for raw climate data, they're doing it wrong.
//Free exchange of information isn't a problem for an honest scientist.//
Responding to each and every request for data can be quite time-consuming. How many requests from random, miscellaneous, and often politically-motivated people do you expect a working scientist to entertain per day? Per week?
The way studies of this sort work is the author should include the method he used for gathering data (and correcting it, if applicable). The primary source for the data is NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE STUDY. It is the same place from which he obtained it. Whether this source is NOAA, foreign weather observatories, or international climate bodies is irrelevant---the author is never a primary source of data unless he is performing experiments, and anyone who has done real science understands this.
Another scientist should be able to come along, gather the same data, and analyze it according to the same method. There is an expectation that the author would clarify his methods if asked by another qualified researcher---the imposition on his time is worthwhile because the scientific process requires these checks. A simple data entry error can skew results, and followup investigation can always uncover errors or address shortcomings in methodology. If a neutral and qualified researcher says, "I followed your method with the same data set and got X where you got Y" then certainly further investigation is necessary.
Scientists are not obliged to respond to spurious demands for data or explanations of methodology from anyone at anytime.
The primary data sources (e.g., observatories) may place restrictions on access to the data as well in order to avoid excessive overhead. If it's coming from NGOs, then tough. If it is funded by your government, then contact your representative and demand open access and the funding/staffing to supply it.
You cannot copyright a legal name. I.e., if a word or phrase is your official identifier it cannot be copyrighted. There is no precedent being set here; this man is simply stupid.
Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.
I'll oblige since you're apparently unable to do basic research yourself.
The relevant section of law is 15 U.S.C. 1-7. The law was known as the Sherman Antitrust Act prior to its incorporation into the U.S.C.
A deliberate attempt to remove competition by a potential monopoly is considered a violation of the law per the Supreme Court's decision in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan.
Three criteria were established for determining if behaviour constitutes attempted monopolization: (1) predatory/anticompetitive behavior, (2) intent to monopolize, and (3) a reasonable chance of becoming a monopoly.
Unless you're a dolt, crippling the compiler product in the presence of competing processors is obviously predatory or anticompetitive in nature. While you can argue the other two criteria, I doubt anyone will seriously believe Intel doesn't want to be the only game in town or Intel has no chance of becoming a consumer CPU monopoly.
Thus, should it be demonstrated that Intel crippled their compiler for AMD processors, they are in violation of federal law. I don't understand why you couldn't have found this all by yourself; this is not new law by any stretch of the imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
Their willingness to ignore safety concerns is in pursuit of knowledge and possibly to improve the safety of other human beings.
The amateur stormchasers, on the other hand, are just doing it for thrills.
One motive is far more respectable.
-
Also, the scientists are doing a job that's paid for (to a significant degree) by the NSF. Thank you, stormchasers, for helping piss away tax dollars.
How much torque can you get from a state-of-the-art rank armature?
Why are you ignoring the high-grade LCD monitors that graphics professionals prefer to CRTs? You can, in fact, pay more to get excellent visual quality. If you are willing to pay for quality, you too can use LCDs that produce perfect colors with even lighting and no motion tear. If you want to blather about the $100 crap LCDs, a fair comparison is the $100 CRTs that go pop after 6 months---not a high end Trinitron tube. Get real.
SSDs are not the end of reliable storage, LCDs are not the end of clear and accurate displays, and your nostalgic rant is not the least bit enlightening.
But soon enough I won't be able to even buy a goddamn real HD, just like I can't buy a CRT now thanks to companies convincing people to buy inferior products.
Just like you can't buy a goddamn real 5.25 floppy drive or a goddamn real cassette drive? Their successors had their growing pains, naturally, but eventually eclipsed the old technology on every meaningful metric.
It's called "information technology" for a reason. We find better ways of storing, manipulating, and transmitting information. If you have a fetish for magnetizing spinning aluminium and glass platters, that is a personal issue---but don't pretend it is the only way to store data and don't assume we won't find better ways of accomplishing the task.
The idea that we should always need or produce "goddamn real HDs" is profoundly backwards.
There's a lot of horribly possibilities and I'd like to see legal safeguards being put in place long before we start to really really need them.
Police won't be so bothered if we forbid them to read peoples minds against their will now than 50 years down the line when it's helping their conviction rate.
There is probably no law required for this. You have a constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. Actually, it is quite likely a law which requires or permits such mind-reading would be deemed unconstitutional.
Why is this the case? Why can't the RAID controller split up a TRIM on the array into TRIMs on each drive?
The RAID controller can't split a TRIM command among the drives because that feature requires a great deal of development, testing, and validation. All of those things cost money that isn't going to be spent adding features to old products. Count on TRIM-aware RAID controllers being introduced over the next several years. And by introduced, I mean sold for a profit to replace existing hardware.
It's kind of silly that the phone is unable to access the files in the partition while they're being accessed by the PC, but nonetheless, I think it's a cleaner solution.
It's not silly at all. When the PC has block-level access, the OS assumes its file system driver has sole control over that partition. This is, at the very least, true of NTFS (and wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption for most file system drivers).
If they made it so that the phone and the PC could both access the partition, there would have to be provisions for simultaneous changes/writes, syncing issues when both systems load the same file, and many of the other complications you see with network shares.
It's far simpler to lock the partition for whatever system is using it than to deal with all the edge cases where simultaneous use can cause the loss, desyncing, or corruption of data.
It is quite clear that he was using the phrases "First World" and "Second World" to define a hierarchy based on telecom progress that mirrors the hierarchy those terms traditionally reflect in political and social progress.
Whether he was using the terms illustratively or speaking metaphorically, it was quite clear (to me, at any rate) that he not only understands the traditional use of those words but was also leveraging that usage to make his point.
In conclusion, you lose one point for poor comprehension and another for pedantry.
Apple seems to care about the user experience and they probably figured out that by pissing off the small percentage of people like you they could provide a sellable experience to everyone else.
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
I'm intrigued by the iPad and considering purchasing one. I've wanted an eBook reader for a while, but they seem like a waste of plastic if that's all they can do. I'd still need my laptop to get on the web or check email.
The iPad looks good for my use, as I don't do anything technical or work-related on my Wind. The ability to go with Verizon (ATT sucks around here) is an improvement. The lack of Flash support is still annoying, but with the ARM cores it should be forthcoming. If Apple gets that working with an update before a quality clone comes out, I'll probably buy it.
Apple's products are generally the best if you match their use cases and impossible to tweak if you don't.
Your sig makes your post exceptionally ironic.
This isn't a special way to access the Control Panel for developers because there is some sort of problem with the new layout.
Rather, this is part of a more general feature for developers to create and display namespaces within Windows. Microsoft simply used the same method for managing the Control Panels applets that it suggests its developers use for their own applications.
Now, the article points out there is a way users can exploit this feature to get the Control Panel applets listed discretely without any flair, bells, or whistles (like classic Windows) rather than navigating through a hand-holding GUI.
I prefer the tweak in the article because I'm used to the applets and know what they all do. At the same time, I can still see where the new Control Panel GUI is probably more intuitive to novice users and will get them to the options they need more easily (albeit with a few more clicks as they're guided through).
Then there's the fact that even if you say "Ok, all dev systems go on their own network that is assumed insecure/hostile." Fine, what happens when one of those systems gets owned and the virus goes on a deleting rampage, wiping out the source code? That's a real problem.
No, it's not. "Assumed hostile" is not the same as "ZOMG NO BACKUPS". This sort of idiot blathering is what makes sys admins boil in their skins. You still have your live backups and your tape backups. Just because we assume a host is higher than normal risk does not mean we suddenly deny all normal admin services to it. You're still getting backups, OS patches, group policy pushes, and firewall/HPSS rules even if you have local admin. As a matter of fact, it's normal to set a more frequent backup schedule for high-risk hosts.
Now, your backup server may be different from everyone else's backup server because I don't want to risk *their* data on account of *your* network-nuking screwup---but you'll still have a backup server that I locked down (on which you have no privs) in case you manage to get the worm of the week on your desktop or otherwise manage to blow it up.
It isn't acceptable to say "We lost 5 months of work of 30 people because someone's system got infected." It also doesn't matter if the server is "secure" since all the dev systems must have read/write access to the code to do their job.
What? Read/write access to a file share or a repository is entirely different from read/write access to the system partition. I can reliably backup the repository since you have no admin credentials for that box, and I can usually backup your box so you don't lose any uncommitted code changes. You can easily break my backup job on your workstation if you have local admin---so be sure to commit your code to the repository or else ask me to validate the workstation backup if you're worried about losing work.
If I give you local admin, when there's a problem the assumption will be that you caused it. This assumption in no way changes my administrative responsibilities, and lack of proper backup or infrastructure is still my problem unless I have a documentation denying it from management.
//They could easily extended broadband to fringe areas over POTS and which is the cheapest way to do so. So POTS is a part of the solution here.//
No, this is just plain wrong. The distance you can run fiber from a CO is greater than the distance you can sustain DSL service.
The practical limitation (costs) for fiber lines is still present, but it is falling rapidly. Fiber cost over $50/foot to deploy initially; now it's well under $20. In rural areas where there is no DSLAM within a reasonable radius, you'll either be waiting for enough people to move in so that a DSLAM is economical or else wait for fiber deployment costs to drop.
Broadband over POTS isn't seeing much improvement anymore, and when you consider that lines may need to be rerun to provide acceptable data service it looks even worse.
POTS is getting long in the tooth, but I'm sure the only reason ATT wants to drop it is because of the "cumbersome" regulations which require them to invest in making reliable service. VoIP providers are *not* subject to regulations regarding reliability.
The only part of POTS that's really impressive in the 21st century is the part that's required by government regulation.
//The nonsense about fiber having back-up is great until the outage is more than 8 hours, assuming your battery has been maintained.//
This is a seriously good point, and people need to consider it before getting fiber to the premises---many don't. //Of course, I've got a generator so I'd have power at my house, but what about the fiber hubs? How long is their backup?//
Answer: N/A.
Fiber hubs a little more than highly precise and very expensive arrays of mirrors and lenses. They are completely passive and require no power.
The OLTs (telco side) and ONTs (client side) require power to convert the signal into the proper format for OC transit or to electric for output over coax/ethernet. //POTS still does the job for me.//
Good thing you have buried lines. In areas with aerial lines, the telco usually has to wait until downed power lines are fixed first---linemen have no equipment to mitigate or work near an electrical hazard.
//Any system will stop working when the battery dies. The point of saying POTS lasting through outages is because Telcos have to adhere (or should) to strict standards regarding availability of service and they maintain their centralized battery backup much better than a consumer does (or can).//
Former telco employee here. Battery backups are generally insufficient for that purpose.
They have batteries that last long enough to ensure the backup generators can be brought online. Usually the generators kick automatically in the event of a power loss, but there is a long enough delay that the service would blink if it couldn't transition through battery backup first, and, hey, sometimes they DON'T kick automatically. Other than this, batteries have little to do with the service availability---it's mostly due to diesel. AFAIK, COs have redundant generators; although this may be restricted to certain COs, they were present everywhere I looked.
I'd like to add...
Previous poster is essentially right about the government regulation too---there is not a financial incentive to provide service this reliable based on consumer pricing alone. If a CO goes down and people lose service, there are very substantial penalties unless it's an absolutely unavoidable "act of God" situation. The government often makes stupid rules, but the telephone regulations are good stuff and I'd really like to extend them to VoIP/wireless. (Yeah, right, in my dreams, hey?)
WRT: "c) it must not depend on power available at the customers site"
I'd be OK with this as long is there is some sort of battery backup, and the cost of power and battery replacement is factored into the consideration of (a) cheaper.
If the battery is automatic, I'd say a minimum of 72 hours. If it's toggled on for use as needed by the customer then 8 hours should be enough to get through most outages.
The OP wasn't entirely correct. Even proving the published information false doesn't qualify it as libel.
Rather, it must be demonstrated that the publisher either knew the information was false---or was grossly negligent in assessing the veracity of the statements.
Publishing unsubstantiated rumors can occasionally get you nailed for libel. Indicating that the rumors come from an anonymous source (i.e., acknowledging a potentially unreliable basis for the claims) is generally enough to avoid the negligence clause.
Writing "Celebrity X shot his wife" is libel if I have nothing to demonstrate a good reason for me to actually believe he did it. On the other hand, writing "Anonymous witness reports Celebrity X shot his wife" is not libel if someone calls me anonymously and tells me they saw him do it.
The anonymous source is guilty of slander if he's lying; but I am not guilty of libel if I believe the report is likely legitimate and newsworthy.
As a comment on the original article suggested, Target just needs to block gp/search in their robots.txt file to prevent that crap from being indexed.
In the absence of such action, Google surely has a way to block it themselves.
//NAT gives you the same thing: addresses that are non-routable outside of your network. Using it becomes simpler.//
I believe I clarified what I meant later in my post: his argument boils down to security through laziness. It's trivial (both in the presence or absence of NAT) to setup ACLs for devices or subnets which have no legitimate need for inbound connections. NAT happens to give you the equivalent of a free line or two you might otherwise need to type.
//Yeah, sure, but X rules out an entire class of human error.//
If people want to use equipment and practices that cater to a plug-and-play or "set it and forget it" mindset, that's fine. But the OP blowing up because IPv6 may take away a dirty little shortcut is still grossly stupid. We have a real security method that offers the same (or better) protections.
To bring this back into my original point about competence; assuming network connectivity and security is his job, he should be aware of configuration details and diligent enough to check them. If he doesn't know his DHCP address pools and how to setup ACLs for them he's not a competent network engineer (or whatever title is in vogue these days). ACLs may be a pain, but that's the job.
tl;dr - A hacktastic shortcut is going away. There's no need for him to QQ about it while accusing people who can cope of being "elitist".
//My problem, from your point of view, is that I'm not an elitist.//
Your problem, from my point of view, is that you're not competent. //In the end the current setup means I use network addresses that DO NOT ROUTE to the outside world.//
It's called a firewall. Or a router with a proper ACL. You can google this stuff. NAT doesn't prevent routing to the outside world; it merely prevents the outside world from seeing your internal network structure. A properly-configured router or firewall will do that and more. //If you want into my network, I have to map it. If I didn't map it, you're not getting in, all things held equal.//
Every firewall I've ever seen has a default-deny setting which can be enabled for ingress/egress independently for every IP address, by individual IPs, or by ranges. Your argument boils down to the fact that NAT must drop inbound packets without either an existing connection or a mapping by default. You're proposing security by virtue of laziness---and neglecting other security features, to boot. //So tell me again, without being so strict with your terms, why forfeiting the level of control I presently have is a good thing//
You're using NAT as a method of access control, which is not what it was designed for. In addition, it does so very poorly and leaves a number of gaps in your security that a real access control device would cover.
In short, the control NAT gives you is illusory and meaningless. You have a far greater degree of control with a real firewall---regardless of whether it uses NAT. Get a real security implementation going and quit QQing about this new-fangled intarweb.
A purchase order is put in for office supplies. Most places that deal with corporations or the USG accept POs. The accounting/finance department tracks all POs and monitors for legitimacy and patterns of abuse.
To clarify, as I assume you're unfamiliar with them:
Purchase orders are legally-binding documents, and as such they are often accepted in lieu of immediate cash payment. Merchants will often require certain paperwork on file before accepting POs from a company; failure to issue payment would result in a fairly simple court case---the purchase order is essentially a contract on the part of the buyer.
This is where reason steps back into your world. A judge can deny a change of name for "frivolous" or "immoral" reasons.
I'm fairly certain that changing your name to a GB-long binary string in order to circumvent copyright restrictions qualifies as immoral. In the absence of a reason to change your name to a GB-long binary string, such a request is patently frivolous.
Along those lines, I'm sure that a change of name to circumvent trademark use restrictions would also fall under the immorality criterion. There are practicing lawyers you can pay to get an absolutely firm answer to your question... if you're being anything more than an obnoxious tool by asking it.
As I already stated (in CAPS), the scientist is not the primary source of data. These people should not be badgering the researcher for his climatological data. They should ask questions where necessary to clarify his methods and obtain the data independently from the same sources he used.
The researcher should not be distributing the raw data under normal circumstances; and this, of course, applies doubly if there are privacy or confidentially requirements for access to it.
Why?
1. Independent acquisition of data ensures they are using the official, public data and not an altered version.
2. Performing the analysis using the same methods as the researcher allows them to verify the calculations were performed correctly.
3. Discussion of the methodology in order to duplicate it will provide insight into the work, and if there are shortcomings in the methodology they can address the issues with the original researcher or in their own paper.
However---I repeat---the researcher is never supposed to be the source of data. If he received bad data, corrupted/damaged his data, or deliberately altered his data then there would be no way to invalidate the study based upon data received from him. The researcher is obligated to disclose his sources of data, to explain any corrections made to that primary data, and to clarify his methods of analyzing the data.
In the event that a researcher generates the data he analyzes (e.g., a lab experiment), then he must document clearly the methods he employed to generate it so that others may do the same. Written or recorded data may be subject to confidentiality, especially with research into human behavior---in those cases the distribution of data may be prohibited, require additional consent from participants, or require a confidentiality agreement.
And, just in case...
tl;dr - If they're asking the author of a study for raw climate data, they're doing it wrong.
//Free exchange of information isn't a problem for an honest scientist.//
Responding to each and every request for data can be quite time-consuming. How many requests from random, miscellaneous, and often politically-motivated people do you expect a working scientist to entertain per day? Per week?
The way studies of this sort work is the author should include the method he used for gathering data (and correcting it, if applicable). The primary source for the data is NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE STUDY. It is the same place from which he obtained it. Whether this source is NOAA, foreign weather observatories, or international climate bodies is irrelevant---the author is never a primary source of data unless he is performing experiments, and anyone who has done real science understands this.
Another scientist should be able to come along, gather the same data, and analyze it according to the same method. There is an expectation that the author would clarify his methods if asked by another qualified researcher---the imposition on his time is worthwhile because the scientific process requires these checks. A simple data entry error can skew results, and followup investigation can always uncover errors or address shortcomings in methodology. If a neutral and qualified researcher says, "I followed your method with the same data set and got X where you got Y" then certainly further investigation is necessary.
Scientists are not obliged to respond to spurious demands for data or explanations of methodology from anyone at anytime.
The primary data sources (e.g., observatories) may place restrictions on access to the data as well in order to avoid excessive overhead. If it's coming from NGOs, then tough. If it is funded by your government, then contact your representative and demand open access and the funding/staffing to supply it.
You cannot copyright a legal name. I.e., if a word or phrase is your official identifier it cannot be copyrighted. There is no precedent being set here; this man is simply stupid.
Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.
I'll oblige since you're apparently unable to do basic research yourself.
The relevant section of law is 15 U.S.C. 1-7. The law was known as the Sherman Antitrust Act prior to its incorporation into the U.S.C.
A deliberate attempt to remove competition by a potential monopoly is considered a violation of the law per the Supreme Court's decision in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan.
Three criteria were established for determining if behaviour constitutes attempted monopolization: (1) predatory/anticompetitive behavior, (2) intent to monopolize, and (3) a reasonable chance of becoming a monopoly.
Unless you're a dolt, crippling the compiler product in the presence of competing processors is obviously predatory or anticompetitive in nature. While you can argue the other two criteria, I doubt anyone will seriously believe Intel doesn't want to be the only game in town or Intel has no chance of becoming a consumer CPU monopoly.
Thus, should it be demonstrated that Intel crippled their compiler for AMD processors, they are in violation of federal law. I don't understand why you couldn't have found this all by yourself; this is not new law by any stretch of the imagination.