Information security is probably the hottest segment of the market right now. Penetration testing, intrusion detection, common criteria. There are a ton of different things that you can do in the field, and there's LOTS of demand. Plus, since there are a lot of positions as government contractors available you have a bit more job security than you would have as a contractor for the commercial market.
Actually, I did this very thing last week! I took the drive out of a Gateway dual Pentium II Xeon box and slapped it into a Dell single Pentium III box, with completely different graphics cards, sound card, etc. It worked just fine! It took about 10 minutes for all of the drivers to finish installing, but other than that it worked like a charm.
Well, they're right-on about the drivers. It's great knowing that 99% of the time I can plug in my hardware and it will work with no problem on Win2K. I wish I could say the same for Linux, Solaris, etc.
It's also important to note, however, that Spider Man opened in considerably more theaters than Star Wars. I *believe*, though I'm not sure, the number was somewhere between 1500-2000. That makes a BIG difference in the money that Star Wars pulled in.
This brings up another problem I have with this issue. Cinderella certainly isn't a Disney story. It's a fairy tale. Now, let's assume that Disney puts out a movie based upon a story they originated in-house. In 100-or-so years when the copyright expires, why isn't it just the STORY that becomes public domain? Why is it that Disney's "implementation" of the story has to become public domain.
In my opinion, the story itself should be released to the public, but not necessarily Disney's version of it (i.e., your cheap videos statement) The company no doubt spent millions to develop the movie, so I don't feel it should become public domain. The story, however, should be and other studios should be allowed to retell it in their own way. Just a thought.
I think a very important question to ask here is, "Does anyone care?" I mean, seriously, ask Joe Schmoe on the street if this matters to them and chances are they will say no.
To the STRONG majority of the world's population, Disney and Mickey Mouse go hand in hand. They wouldn't want to see the creators of South Park begin marketing Mickey Mouse cartoons. People draw an association between a work (be it a song, movie, etc.) and the creator of that work. That connection is important on a cultural level, even if people don't realize it. I'm sure if you asked people on the street, a majority of them would say that yes, a company/individual who creates something should retain ownership of it. It's human nature. If I build a deck on my house, I wouldn't want my neighbors thinking they could hold parties on it. It's MY deck. I created it, therefore I should retain ownership of it. Human nature tends to this belief.
Would Disney (and other companies as well) have had much of its early material if it werent for the Brothers Grimm and other public-domain stories? No. But, that's not to say that 100 years from now the Earth will be devoid of any culture unless Disney releases Steamboat Willie into the public domain.
If only they were using Open Source Software in the aviation industry...
I hate to say it, but that's a bunch of crap. Do you mean to tell me that in the history of open source software there has NEVER been a release that contained a bug? If that's the case, then why do we have things like Red Carpet? It's software. Bugs happen. That's life. Whether you're talking about closed source or open source, there will always be problems.
Unfortunately, the open source community seems to think that they have the answer to all of technology's problems.
It's fast and stable, and yet it sucks? What more could you want? Uhhh, hello! CDE is NOT Solaris. It's merely a front-end, much like Gnome, KDE, et al are front-ends. You can put Gnome on Solaris and suddenly it's just as shiny as Linux. Moron.
It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Isn't the typical Slashdot argument to paying for software, "All software should be free"? And yet, you still want to get paid to write it? That doesn't seem to compute to me. This seems like the big problem with the open-source methodology. Nobody likes to work for free, and yet people often voluntee their time and skills for certain efforts they appreciate/support/believe in. If you want to open source the software, then open source it and don't expect any compensation for developing it. If you want to be compensated, then don't complain when companies like Microsoft, Sun, etc. want to be compensated for their work in developing their products.
Reading these posts, all I see are one-sided views. This being Slashdot, however, I'm not too surprised. The typical Slashdot reader has a very liberal view of intellectual property and ownership rights. However, what happens to the industry that creates these products if they're available for free everywhere? Yes, as it stands right now Universal, Sony, etc. aren't going bankrupt on DVD sales because people are pirating movies and transmitting them across the Internet. But, as broadband connections increase we will see an increase in the amount of people who get their movies this way.
Immediately, I'm going to see replies saying, "Change the business models. The companies can still make money in this environment by doing x, y, z." And, yes, perhaps there is a business model out there somewhere that would enable studios to develop content, distrubte it for free, and still make profits on it. However, no one has discovered that business model yet! Nor do I think they ever will.
All one has to do is look at Linux. Linux is a wonderful product, developed by volunteers, and given away free to anyone who wishes to download it. That said, there are a lot of companies out there who develop their own distributions of Linux and are trying to sell them. Has any of them made a profit? Nope. Red Hat? They were profitable for 1 quarter, and haven't been ever since. Caldera? Corel? None of them have made money by selling something available for free.
The entertainment industry can't exist in the way that Linux does. Content created by movie and television studios costs a LOT of money. If this content is then pirated by consumers and distributed for free the studios can't afford to create new content. End of story! Yes, it hasn't reached that extreme yet. Disney isn't going to have to close up shop because of the amount of piracy on the Internet right now. But, the problem can only get worse.
There needs to be some sort of compromise on the issue. Fair use can get along with DRM. THAT is the issue that needs to be resolved. As consumers, we shouldn't say, "Well, I bought this CD so I should be allowed to rip MP3's of it and distribute them to all of my friends and anyone who wants to download them off of Napster." That isn't what "fair use" is all about. It's about protecting the consumer's right to use a product they purchased. Should I be able to duplicate a CD so I can keep one copy in my car and another one at home? Yes. Should I be able to make copies for all of my coworkers? No.
I don't support the DMCA because it's poorly written legislature. However, I do feel that there needs to be some sort of control over intellectual property so that piracy doesn't detract from a studio's ability to make great content.
You know, I'm still looking for a place that sells a PC case that looks similar to the PowerMac G4 tower case. You know, the translucent one. I especially like the flip-down side that lets you upgrade stuff. I know there's a site that explains how to squeeze a PC into a mac case, but I'm looking for one DESIGNED for a PC.:)
There are several large, well-known companies that do contract work. SAIC (my employer), CSC, Booz-Allen Hamilton, etc. Many of the companies out there specialize in government contracts, but they most likely also do commercial work.
Actually, in Maryland you can be convicted of shoplifting, but they have to have pretty good evidence. (i.e., you stuffed a canned ham down your pants. More than likely, you weren't planning to pay for it) And, also, they can take action against you as long as you are on store property, including the parking lot. I have a good friend who works as security for a store in the mall, and the entire mall is considered that store's property, so he's allowed to tear off after people and chase them through the mall if necessary.
The audit is designed to prove ownership of the software. In essence, Microsoft is possibly forcing them to prove their own guilt. If you walk out of a store and set off the alarms, you have to show a receipt for your merchandise to prove that you paid for it. It's not up to the store to conduct an inventory analysis and prove there is a sweater missing. It's up to you to prove that you paid for it and own it legit.
What I'd really like to see happen is California take some initiative and put this software to good use! Yes, they've got WAY more licenses than they need. But, that's based on their CURRENT need. California has the chance now to do some really big things with information management.
My dad works for the State of Maryland. I can't even imagine how many millions (billions?) of dollars MD could save if they just restructured the way they maintain information. Welfare records are still being maintained using PAPER spreadsheets. Auditing this information takes months. The savings in this area alone could justify such a purchase. Auditing time could be cut drastically. Code could be written to locate discrepancies in the data. This doesn't even take into account things like payroll systems which could be automated. Doing that would allow the state to eliminate the positions of the hundreds of people with little-to-no education they have working in their payroll department.
Bill Gates (love him or hate him) really hit the nail on the head in his book Business @ The Speed of Thought. It really outlines how technology can be used to increase the flow of information, while at the same time reducing the cost associated with acting on that information.
Maybe someone in the California government will take charge and turn this bad situation into a golden opportunity!
One of the big problems facing GNOME and other open-source software is that of ease-of-use. Microsoft and Apple spend millions of dollars when developing new operating systems or UIs in order to ensure that their product is easy to use for the non-geek end user. What kind of useability studies has Ximian conducted? What is Ximian doing to correct any problems that the research has brought to light?
My question is, why isn't anyone complaining about bundling in the case of Mac OS X? Yes, I know, Apple isn't trying to tie a web browser in as part of the underlying OS. But still, they include things like iPhoto and iMovie. Aren't these considered "middleware"? Why isn't anyone complaining about that?
Not necessarily. Many times in the OS community, new code is added to a project. How often does the ENTIRETY of the code get reviewed? Yes, I believe that open source software does seem to result in fewer vulnerabilities. But it doesn't mean that there are NO vulnerabilities in open source software. Windows 2000 has approximately 50 million lines of code. If they've even gone through 1/4 of that it's astonishing. When was the last time someone actively poured through every line of the Linux kernel looking for possible bugs? Very often, code is reviewed in small chunks rather than from start to finish. This will solve small bugs and vulnerabilities related to specific functions, but BIG bugs require reviewing a LOT of code. That's probably what Mr. Lipner is talking about.
The key to user security is to enable it by default. Most people running Win2K at home don't bother modifying their file permissions, closing off unnecessary services, etc. They leave settings at the default and go on their way. If Microsoft made the default installations more secure it would drastically improve the security of its OS. How many times has Security Focus reported on vulnerabilities related to Windows file-sharing? The answer to the problem is to turn it off and let the user decide if they want to turn it on. Outlook scripting, ActiveX, file sharing, Windows messaging, etc. Removing or disabling these services are necessary to secure a Windows box, and to reducing the bad PR that Microsoft receives every time a new vulnerability is discovered.
The problem with the Zaurus, a consumer-level PDA, is the same problem we see when trying to use Linux as a consumer-level OS. The Zaurus does a lot of things poorly. Sure, it is capable of so much more than a Palm because of the underlying OS that powers it. But, the things it currently does aren't done well.
The interface is poor. The handwriting recognition is relatively good, however. The applications aren't nearly full-featured enough, and aren't geared towards consumers.
Plus, there are standardization issues to take into account. The majority of PDAs in the market are PalmOS-based. Wouldn't it make sense if I could transfer data to and from a Palm with my Zaraus? Why isn't data stored and transmitted in industry-standard formats for cross-platform compatibility?
If the Zaurus, and Linux-based PDAs in general, are to succeed then issues related to consumers need to be addressed. Yes, I'm a geek and like having a command prompt available to me from my PDA. What normal consumer would ever want that? What about security issues? As more and more users begin connecting wirelessly with their PDAs security needs to move to the forefront. Access on the Zaurus is done as root, with no password. Nice and secure, huh?
The Zaurus is good as an alpha-quality Linux PDA, but it is certainly not ready for primetime. There are technical and usability issues that need to be addressed, and Sharp (and Trolltech, developers of the Qtopia interface that is used on the Zaurus) seems to be ignoring these issues or not doing enough to correct them.
From what I gather, Microsoft is adding extensions to communication protocols that they developed. True? If that's the case, then so what? They are free to do so. They aren't modifying some existing standard so that it's inoperable with other products. They're not hijacking a standard (like they did with Java). So what's the problem? If Microsoft developed the protocol, aren't they free to do with it whatever they like.
Okay, is it just me or does anyone else find this just a little funny (in a sick, unethical way)? I mean, sure it's wrong of Verisign to try and trick people into doing business with them. On the other hand, if people/companies have such poor records management that they don't even notice it then they've got bigger problems than Verisign
In this situation, does Windows have an edge? I've noticed that Windows comes up much faster on my Dual 1GHz P3 with 1GB RAM than KDE 3.0 does. MUCH faster. There's so much hype about Linux someday conquering Windows on the desktop. Is this REALLY possible if Windows runs faster than GNOME and KDE, the two leading GUIs for Linux?
Would this problem be solved by using one GUI library? If you think KDE is slow, try running GNOME apps on KDE. The overhead of loading all of those additional UI libraries is unbelievable. Would Linux on the desktop be more effective if only one UI library was used?
My girlfriend is from Cumberland, and she's a total non-geek. She won't believe it when I tell her that her hometown is mentioned on Slashdot.
Cumberland is very far out of the way, though. It's a small city in the mountains of western Maryland. You can't even get decent cellular phone reception out there. In fact, I don't think they have any digital coverage at all.
The cost of living is low there, and it's a nice place to live if you like the small-town atmosphere and don't mind semi-rural communities too much. However, the lack of high-tech jobs and broadband does inhibit some people from moving there. It's good to see one of these factors being removed. Perhaps it will bring more telecommuting to the area!
Slashdot Mirror
Information security is probably the hottest segment of the market right now. Penetration testing, intrusion detection, common criteria. There are a ton of different things that you can do in the field, and there's LOTS of demand. Plus, since there are a lot of positions as government contractors available you have a bit more job security than you would have as a contractor for the commercial market.
Actually, I did this very thing last week! I took the drive out of a Gateway dual Pentium II Xeon box and slapped it into a Dell single Pentium III box, with completely different graphics cards, sound card, etc. It worked just fine! It took about 10 minutes for all of the drivers to finish installing, but other than that it worked like a charm.
Well, they're right-on about the drivers. It's great knowing that 99% of the time I can plug in my hardware and it will work with no problem on Win2K. I wish I could say the same for Linux, Solaris, etc.
It's also important to note, however, that Spider Man opened in considerably more theaters than Star Wars. I *believe*, though I'm not sure, the number was somewhere between 1500-2000. That makes a BIG difference in the money that Star Wars pulled in.
This brings up another problem I have with this issue. Cinderella certainly isn't a Disney story. It's a fairy tale. Now, let's assume that Disney puts out a movie based upon a story they originated in-house. In 100-or-so years when the copyright expires, why isn't it just the STORY that becomes public domain? Why is it that Disney's "implementation" of the story has to become public domain.
In my opinion, the story itself should be released to the public, but not necessarily Disney's version of it (i.e., your cheap videos statement) The company no doubt spent millions to develop the movie, so I don't feel it should become public domain. The story, however, should be and other studios should be allowed to retell it in their own way. Just a thought.
I think a very important question to ask here is, "Does anyone care?" I mean, seriously, ask Joe Schmoe on the street if this matters to them and chances are they will say no.
To the STRONG majority of the world's population, Disney and Mickey Mouse go hand in hand. They wouldn't want to see the creators of South Park begin marketing Mickey Mouse cartoons. People draw an association between a work (be it a song, movie, etc.) and the creator of that work. That connection is important on a cultural level, even if people don't realize it. I'm sure if you asked people on the street, a majority of them would say that yes, a company/individual who creates something should retain ownership of it. It's human nature. If I build a deck on my house, I wouldn't want my neighbors thinking they could hold parties on it. It's MY deck. I created it, therefore I should retain ownership of it. Human nature tends to this belief.
Would Disney (and other companies as well) have had much of its early material if it werent for the Brothers Grimm and other public-domain stories? No. But, that's not to say that 100 years from now the Earth will be devoid of any culture unless Disney releases Steamboat Willie into the public domain.
I hate to say it, but that's a bunch of crap. Do you mean to tell me that in the history of open source software there has NEVER been a release that contained a bug? If that's the case, then why do we have things like Red Carpet? It's software. Bugs happen. That's life. Whether you're talking about closed source or open source, there will always be problems. Unfortunately, the open source community seems to think that they have the answer to all of technology's problems.
It's fast and stable, and yet it sucks? What more could you want? Uhhh, hello! CDE is NOT Solaris. It's merely a front-end, much like Gnome, KDE, et al are front-ends. You can put Gnome on Solaris and suddenly it's just as shiny as Linux. Moron.
It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Isn't the typical Slashdot argument to paying for software, "All software should be free"? And yet, you still want to get paid to write it? That doesn't seem to compute to me. This seems like the big problem with the open-source methodology. Nobody likes to work for free, and yet people often voluntee their time and skills for certain efforts they appreciate/support/believe in. If you want to open source the software, then open source it and don't expect any compensation for developing it. If you want to be compensated, then don't complain when companies like Microsoft, Sun, etc. want to be compensated for their work in developing their products.
Reading these posts, all I see are one-sided views. This being Slashdot, however, I'm not too surprised. The typical Slashdot reader has a very liberal view of intellectual property and ownership rights. However, what happens to the industry that creates these products if they're available for free everywhere? Yes, as it stands right now Universal, Sony, etc. aren't going bankrupt on DVD sales because people are pirating movies and transmitting them across the Internet. But, as broadband connections increase we will see an increase in the amount of people who get their movies this way.
Immediately, I'm going to see replies saying, "Change the business models. The companies can still make money in this environment by doing x, y, z." And, yes, perhaps there is a business model out there somewhere that would enable studios to develop content, distrubte it for free, and still make profits on it. However, no one has discovered that business model yet! Nor do I think they ever will.
All one has to do is look at Linux. Linux is a wonderful product, developed by volunteers, and given away free to anyone who wishes to download it. That said, there are a lot of companies out there who develop their own distributions of Linux and are trying to sell them. Has any of them made a profit? Nope. Red Hat? They were profitable for 1 quarter, and haven't been ever since. Caldera? Corel? None of them have made money by selling something available for free.
The entertainment industry can't exist in the way that Linux does. Content created by movie and television studios costs a LOT of money. If this content is then pirated by consumers and distributed for free the studios can't afford to create new content. End of story! Yes, it hasn't reached that extreme yet. Disney isn't going to have to close up shop because of the amount of piracy on the Internet right now. But, the problem can only get worse.
There needs to be some sort of compromise on the issue. Fair use can get along with DRM. THAT is the issue that needs to be resolved. As consumers, we shouldn't say, "Well, I bought this CD so I should be allowed to rip MP3's of it and distribute them to all of my friends and anyone who wants to download them off of Napster." That isn't what "fair use" is all about. It's about protecting the consumer's right to use a product they purchased. Should I be able to duplicate a CD so I can keep one copy in my car and another one at home? Yes. Should I be able to make copies for all of my coworkers? No.
I don't support the DMCA because it's poorly written legislature. However, I do feel that there needs to be some sort of control over intellectual property so that piracy doesn't detract from a studio's ability to make great content.
You know, I'm still looking for a place that sells a PC case that looks similar to the PowerMac G4 tower case. You know, the translucent one. I especially like the flip-down side that lets you upgrade stuff. I know there's a site that explains how to squeeze a PC into a mac case, but I'm looking for one DESIGNED for a PC. :)
There are several large, well-known companies that do contract work. SAIC (my employer), CSC, Booz-Allen Hamilton, etc. Many of the companies out there specialize in government contracts, but they most likely also do commercial work.
Actually, in Maryland you can be convicted of shoplifting, but they have to have pretty good evidence. (i.e., you stuffed a canned ham down your pants. More than likely, you weren't planning to pay for it) And, also, they can take action against you as long as you are on store property, including the parking lot. I have a good friend who works as security for a store in the mall, and the entire mall is considered that store's property, so he's allowed to tear off after people and chase them through the mall if necessary.
The audit is designed to prove ownership of the software. In essence, Microsoft is possibly forcing them to prove their own guilt. If you walk out of a store and set off the alarms, you have to show a receipt for your merchandise to prove that you paid for it. It's not up to the store to conduct an inventory analysis and prove there is a sweater missing. It's up to you to prove that you paid for it and own it legit.
What I'd really like to see happen is California take some initiative and put this software to good use! Yes, they've got WAY more licenses than they need. But, that's based on their CURRENT need. California has the chance now to do some really big things with information management.
My dad works for the State of Maryland. I can't even imagine how many millions (billions?) of dollars MD could save if they just restructured the way they maintain information. Welfare records are still being maintained using PAPER spreadsheets. Auditing this information takes months. The savings in this area alone could justify such a purchase. Auditing time could be cut drastically. Code could be written to locate discrepancies in the data. This doesn't even take into account things like payroll systems which could be automated. Doing that would allow the state to eliminate the positions of the hundreds of people with little-to-no education they have working in their payroll department.
Bill Gates (love him or hate him) really hit the nail on the head in his book Business @ The Speed of Thought. It really outlines how technology can be used to increase the flow of information, while at the same time reducing the cost associated with acting on that information.
Maybe someone in the California government will take charge and turn this bad situation into a golden opportunity!
One of the big problems facing GNOME and other open-source software is that of ease-of-use. Microsoft and Apple spend millions of dollars when developing new operating systems or UIs in order to ensure that their product is easy to use for the non-geek end user. What kind of useability studies has Ximian conducted? What is Ximian doing to correct any problems that the research has brought to light?
This seems like a great technology for an enterprise to take advantage of older hardware. Upgrading your company's desktop PCs? Take the older ones and plug them into your openMosix cluster. If I recall correctly, processes can automatically migrate from node to node based on system load. I know my old had a Unix cluster for all of the CS students to use. It would get seriously bogged down at times, especially around finals. It'd be nice to have something like this which is able to take advantage of older hardware. There were times when a simple 'ls' would take 30 seconds to complete. Certainly this is something that an old 486 node could take care of.
My question is, why isn't anyone complaining about bundling in the case of Mac OS X? Yes, I know, Apple isn't trying to tie a web browser in as part of the underlying OS. But still, they include things like iPhoto and iMovie. Aren't these considered "middleware"? Why isn't anyone complaining about that?
Not necessarily. Many times in the OS community, new code is added to a project. How often does the ENTIRETY of the code get reviewed? Yes, I believe that open source software does seem to result in fewer vulnerabilities. But it doesn't mean that there are NO vulnerabilities in open source software. Windows 2000 has approximately 50 million lines of code. If they've even gone through 1/4 of that it's astonishing. When was the last time someone actively poured through every line of the Linux kernel looking for possible bugs? Very often, code is reviewed in small chunks rather than from start to finish. This will solve small bugs and vulnerabilities related to specific functions, but BIG bugs require reviewing a LOT of code. That's probably what Mr. Lipner is talking about.
The key to user security is to enable it by default. Most people running Win2K at home don't bother modifying their file permissions, closing off unnecessary services, etc. They leave settings at the default and go on their way. If Microsoft made the default installations more secure it would drastically improve the security of its OS. How many times has Security Focus reported on vulnerabilities related to Windows file-sharing? The answer to the problem is to turn it off and let the user decide if they want to turn it on. Outlook scripting, ActiveX, file sharing, Windows messaging, etc. Removing or disabling these services are necessary to secure a Windows box, and to reducing the bad PR that Microsoft receives every time a new vulnerability is discovered.
The problem with the Zaurus, a consumer-level PDA, is the same problem we see when trying to use Linux as a consumer-level OS. The Zaurus does a lot of things poorly. Sure, it is capable of so much more than a Palm because of the underlying OS that powers it. But, the things it currently does aren't done well.
The interface is poor. The handwriting recognition is relatively good, however. The applications aren't nearly full-featured enough, and aren't geared towards consumers.
Plus, there are standardization issues to take into account. The majority of PDAs in the market are PalmOS-based. Wouldn't it make sense if I could transfer data to and from a Palm with my Zaraus? Why isn't data stored and transmitted in industry-standard formats for cross-platform compatibility?
If the Zaurus, and Linux-based PDAs in general, are to succeed then issues related to consumers need to be addressed. Yes, I'm a geek and like having a command prompt available to me from my PDA. What normal consumer would ever want that? What about security issues? As more and more users begin connecting wirelessly with their PDAs security needs to move to the forefront. Access on the Zaurus is done as root, with no password. Nice and secure, huh?
The Zaurus is good as an alpha-quality Linux PDA, but it is certainly not ready for primetime. There are technical and usability issues that need to be addressed, and Sharp (and Trolltech, developers of the Qtopia interface that is used on the Zaurus) seems to be ignoring these issues or not doing enough to correct them.
From what I gather, Microsoft is adding extensions to communication protocols that they developed. True? If that's the case, then so what? They are free to do so. They aren't modifying some existing standard so that it's inoperable with other products. They're not hijacking a standard (like they did with Java). So what's the problem? If Microsoft developed the protocol, aren't they free to do with it whatever they like.
Okay, is it just me or does anyone else find this just a little funny (in a sick, unethical way)? I mean, sure it's wrong of Verisign to try and trick people into doing business with them. On the other hand, if people/companies have such poor records management that they don't even notice it then they've got bigger problems than Verisign
In this situation, does Windows have an edge? I've noticed that Windows comes up much faster on my Dual 1GHz P3 with 1GB RAM than KDE 3.0 does. MUCH faster. There's so much hype about Linux someday conquering Windows on the desktop. Is this REALLY possible if Windows runs faster than GNOME and KDE, the two leading GUIs for Linux?
Would this problem be solved by using one GUI library? If you think KDE is slow, try running GNOME apps on KDE. The overhead of loading all of those additional UI libraries is unbelievable. Would Linux on the desktop be more effective if only one UI library was used?
My girlfriend is from Cumberland, and she's a total non-geek. She won't believe it when I tell her that her hometown is mentioned on Slashdot.
Cumberland is very far out of the way, though. It's a small city in the mountains of western Maryland. You can't even get decent cellular phone reception out there. In fact, I don't think they have any digital coverage at all.
The cost of living is low there, and it's a nice place to live if you like the small-town atmosphere and don't mind semi-rural communities too much. However, the lack of high-tech jobs and broadband does inhibit some people from moving there. It's good to see one of these factors being removed. Perhaps it will bring more telecommuting to the area!