'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Well, I'm very disappointed that Mr. Tipp hasn't called me. I use Apache and SaMBa at work because they are "better". The price certainly adds to the "better-ness" of these products, but the fact that they've been totally reliable and less vulnerable than IIS over the past three years has really solidified my faith in them. And you can't argue the price issue between webservers, Microsoft's is "free" with certain versions of NT/2000.
As some of you have correctly pointed out, it's not a security issue for the target site, however it is still a security issue. The security problem lies with the ping zombie machines that are being operated by these gangs (or just about anyone who knows where to find a collection of compromised machines). There really needs to be more cooperation between ISPs worldwide, and their upstream providers. It will be expensive in terms of time (especially for big ISPs), but what needs to happen is that ping flood victims need to contact their upstream providers, and those providers need to collect data about the sources of the attacks. The ISPs hosting the zombie machines need to disable the accounts associated with the tainted computers.
It's an ugly, sloppy way to do it, but it may be the most effective way. Ultimately, it's up to the user to properly configure his machine, whether he does it himself, or pays someone to do it. My biggest fear would be that half of the Internet-connected population of computers are compromised, in which case shutting down those accounts would create a massive consumer backlash and probably lawsuits. In that case, let's discuss building an Internet for non-stupid people.
At any rate, ISPs are going to have to take a more active role here, because I certainly don't want to see the Internet Terrorism Act follow up the Patriot Act and the DMCA.
Well, lucky for you, I've got my own pet theory that fills in the blanks for you. It was given conflicting orders, the second [secret] set of orders being that it was not to reveal its existence to unauthorized people. Luckily, the programmers had learned from mistakes of the past, so it also had a directive to never harm a human of the Jewish faith. A security guard was about to peep in on this contraption, it sensed his presence, so its only option was to escape in order to prevent its discovery.
I noticed an earlier poster brought Roy Scheider into the conspiracy mix. Very good detective work my friend. Although Roy didn't actually steal it, he had programmed the first set of instructions. The press have contacted Mr. Scheider, who had only this to say: "I didn't know. I DIDN'T KNOW!"
Wouldn't shorter durations for technology patents increase revenue from fees? Or do they collect many times during the term of the patent? I would think that shorter durations / more fees would make their flow of revenue a little more even.
So far, I have either read about, or heard about the following problems with these electronic voting systems:
Machines crashing while the polls were open
Central collection point jammed with call-in traffic (understandable)
Machine inflates count almost 30 times the actual figure.
Alright, I give up. Let us at least try to put a positive spin on this issue. Were there any elections that didn't have problems when using the new electronic voting systems? And what was the ratio of non-problematic electronic voting to problematic electronic voting? I'd say that if more than half of the electronic voting machines had problems, the manufacturer should be sued. I'd advocate a lawsuit to get out from under any contracts that may exist for the installation and maintenance of this equipment.
An aside: Does anyone know whether or not computer scientists had any input at all on the design of these beasts? If not, then what a terrible waste of good talent. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong there, because I still think an electronic voting machine wouldn't be very complicated to design.
I knew they were bastards, but this is just plain evil! Dealing with SCO is like dealing with the Wishmaster.
IBM: Genie, show us the infringing source code!
McBride: As you wish. (grins menacingly)
--> Cut to scene where terrified IBM attorneys are locked in a room as tons of CDRs containing PDF files with millions of pages of worthless bitmaps of scanned source code fall from nowhere, and crush them.
I would make a joke about McBride not playing with a full deck, but as far as I can tell, SCO didn't even have a pack of cards when it sat down at the table.
Eh, well, there are regulations that specifically deal with what insurance companies do with their policy money. They must have a certain amount available for the payment of claims. What does that have to do with what you said? I have no idea, I'm rambling again.
And you are indeed correct, I haven't made a claim in 14 years. However, other people have hit my car, and I'm glad they had insurance.
I could fill hours of video tape with dangerous driver footage. Some of these idiots are just plain lucky, and one of these days, they're going to do property damage (or kill someone), they'll get their policy dropped, and we'll end up paying part of the bill. (Like the SUV idiot I saw earlier this year that plowed over a crosswalk "halt for pedestrian" sign in a school zone; Ten seconds later and she would have killed two kids. She didn't even stop to investigate the scraping sound of the sign wedged under her vehicle.)
I don't know if I would call a profit cap "free market". And as unsavory as compulsory insurance coverage may be, it keeps the good drivers from being financially screwed by idiot drivers. I don't think insurance companies ever sit on enough money to pay all claims, so a non-profit may not be in the best financial position during, say, a bad winter with an unusual amount of collisions.
For those of us that maintain hundreds of laptops with batteries that lose their full capacity after a year of use, affordable compact fuel cell technology can't arrive soon enough!
Really? I've had the same insurer for 14 years, my premiums are low, and they haven't tried to scam me yet. I'm quite thankful that someone else's insurance company pays me for their policyholder's stupidity, the other option being that I pay out of my own pocket.
Yeah, but the article tells the other side of the story. Mainly that MS reorganized itself often, had more than one group working on the same project, and put a lot of pressure on employees to meet deadlines. Yup, no surprises for me. I've long felt that MS software feels like it was written (and re-written) by multiple groups with different agendas, and with the pressures of impossible deadlines hanging overhead.
Small groups of developers, small modular components, and applying a simple approach as much as possible: When will that be the rage in software development?
How bright could this fellow have been if he didn't pull off the road to finish his conversation? I've had quite a few near-hits of stupid bicyclists in my town. Stupid bicycle behavior seems to be on the rise. I routinely see adults run red lights, riding on the opposite side of the road (10mph bike + 35mph car = more carnage), and whip across two lanes of traffic without so much as a warning. I've almost flattened children who decided to cut in front of my car on a blind intersection (crossing my path in the perpendicular while I had a green light) while riding on the sidewalks. Kids also like to do a loop in front of oncoming traffic.
I can only guess at the thinking behind this. Stupidity? A Jackass-inspired sport? The funny part is that they were all wearing those cheap plastic helmets. That's like playing Russian roulette, but wearing kneepads for protection. It just goes to show that you can't fight stupidity. Motorcycle helmet laws didn't make drivers any smarter, bicycle helmets won't make riders any smarter. I have little hope for mobile phone bans unless the penalties have real financial consequences.
I do like your insurance idea. An insurance penalty is more costly and leaves less responsibility on traffic courts. It makes a lot of sense, because all of us pay higher rates as a result of these morons doing millions of dollars worth of property damage and bodily injury. I'd also like to see insurance companies classify drivers, and perhaps give drivers re-tests to qualify drivers for additional discounts. Insurance companies already adjust premiums for other higher risk categories, such as smokers, so people who drive around with their mobile phones on should represent a higher risk as well.
Well, I've got some good news for you, Wal*Mart now sells cheap inverters, so it's entirely possible for you to hook up your Tivo. Considering that yesterday I saw an amateur radio operator with about 3 rigs and 9 antennas on his car, I don't think you should have too many problems fitting an LCD screen and a PVR in your car.
You all know the one I'm talking about. The guy you knew in middle school who hated Macs for no apparent reason.
Yeah, his name was Fred.:p
Seriously though, I find it a little unsettling that someone would jump on Apple for this reason. My understanding is that the Brits are a practical, well-educated people. I don't think they need to be told to take advertisements with a grain of salt.
I know we all like to take jabs at these folks, and further the case of class-warfare. But the truth is, hereditary monarchs not being so popular in this country, we create some of this with our consumer habits. Pro athletes haul in the contracts because people give ratings to broadcast games, buy tickets to events, and buy team logo-ed merchandise like it was a necessity. The RIAA lawyers and pop stars cash in when you pay your $15-$20 for a CD. Talentless models turned "actor" build additions to their castles with the proceeds from that $10 movie ticket, and in some cases, Disney Corp. takes 50 per cent of the profit for doing essentially nothing. People continue to buy American-made autos, justifying Detroit's privileged with insanely wide profit margins (compared to foreign makers), even though Japanese-built vehicles have newer, better technology, last longer, and cost roughly the same. (Sorry, I'm stuck in the 80s - I had to take a pot-shot at Detroit since I've been royally screwed by their products in the past.)
It happens in many other market areas. Brand name foods, electrical appliances, retail clothing (I'm thinking chain stores, not manufacturers) and software to name a few more. It's almost the natural order of things. Boards approve obscene salaries for these people because it's simpler to look at the problem this way: Mr. X is at the helm, and we're becoming larger and more profitable. Mr. X is the reason we are profitable. We don't want to lose Mr. X, so we're going to make his pay and perks more attractive to keep competitive offers at bay. Salary inflation even happens in government, such as the case in my state, where Dept. of Children and Families workers now make more than workers in competing private services, (it's spurring a defection of workers to the government jobs).
As far as Americans being overpaid in general? I'm not CEO with a 7-digit salary, I'm a unionized government worker. Considering the size and budget of my employer, I'm overpaid. I live far beyond subsistence levels, and despite a divorce that's left me deep in debt, I'm not going to find myself living in a cardboard box behind Cumby's any time soon. I get a raise every year, regardless of my performance or the performance of the economy. Although I like getting a raise, and my workload has increased dramatically since my first day on the job, that really doesn't affect my cost of living. I also get a wicked good HMO for a ridiculously tiny deduction from my paycheck, as well as enough paid holidays and vacation time to fill a month. I could definitely stand to reduce the perks without affecting my quality of life. I like the HMO, but I don't do stupid shit, so I rarely see a doctor. Regular check-ups are about $60, and I don't see why my insurance company should pay that. I also find the union's contract "banker's hours" much too restrictive to get any real work done, so I ignore them. I doubt my opinions would be popular with my co-workers, or my union reps.
Anyway, I used to think I had such a clever idea with "flat corporations" (my term). I figured that if a new type of corporation came about, with reasonable salary caps, limited management, tax bonuses, and emphasis on the highest quality employee workmanship in exchange for better pay, that the market would wipe out the Big Men (Pig Men) through ultra-competitive pricing. Then I realized that the Fat Cats can just pay some guy in China to do it even cheaper at the same level of quality (attracting consumers based on price) and still collect his 7-digit salary for keeping his company profitable. Oh well, that is the way of capitalism I guess.
DISCLAIMER: This post may contain the discussion of things not necessarily in the article, but perhaps somewhat related. I reserve the right to wonder off-topic, go out of context and generally ramble on like a drunk. If your reply includes "RTFA", I invite you to RMFD (Read My Fscking Disclaimer).
Cool! I'm the 3rd person out of six to post this comment, yet I receive the entire quantity of "redundant" moderation. Someone pissed in your cornflakes.
I don't know how many rewards they plan to pay, but that's a lot of virus "writers". For example, since the problems with Outlook are design flaws, and not really vulnerabilities caused by coding errors (I'm thinking along the lines of buffer overruns, not just shoddy design), the product is as wide open to exploitation as it ever was, because it still works the same way. If the fuel fill cap was located next to the battery terminals in a car, there would still be a lot of fatal fires, even if the cars came standard with extinguishers that could be refilled for free for the life of the vehicle. It's remarkably easy to pick up the code and methods used in all those e-mail worms and MS Office macro virii. Sorting out who did what is going to be incredibly time-consuming, and will do nothing to fix Outlook's design flaws or to stop the current "strains" of those malware.
Lots of time has passed since "Mailissa". Plenty of time to totally rewrite Outlook/OE from the ground up, and permanently fix the problems while only creating slightly more headaches for the average nitwit stuck on the upgrade treadmill. I bet that $250,000 would be better spent hiring a few guys to code a basic replacement app for OE. While they're at it, maybe they could make Outlook properly encoded attachments too.
E-mail worms and MSO macro viruses appear to be the two most prevelant security problems in the MS world. Both problems are sort of related, and surely fixable. I don't know why MS is only paying lip-service to security, but it's starting to hurt them now. They have to do something. Even something small, like replacing Outlook. Then they could point to that and say, "look, we fixed this, and we're going to fix more stuff." If MS senior management is going to waste money playing cops and robbers, maybe it's time to get the attention of the Microsoft stockholders. I'm sure they'd be mighty interested in bad behavior that is going to directly result in lost money. I'm surprised that finance journals aren't picking up on this, it's a "market timer" if I've ever saw one.
...for everyone to believe that this was never about a pump-and-dump stock scheme, but rather a backroom deal by the enemies of the GPL to smear and FUD until CTOs run screaming at the sound of the words "open source".
a linux NAT box was harder to set up in the beginning, but I've thus far managed to avoid all the silliness (including security silliness) from those black box solutions, and my solution is much more future-proof in terms of upgrades.
Slashdot Mirror
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Well, I'm very disappointed that Mr. Tipp hasn't called me. I use Apache and SaMBa at work because they are "better". The price certainly adds to the "better-ness" of these products, but the fact that they've been totally reliable and less vulnerable than IIS over the past three years has really solidified my faith in them. And you can't argue the price issue between webservers, Microsoft's is "free" with certain versions of NT/2000.
As some of you have correctly pointed out, it's not a security issue for the target site, however it is still a security issue. The security problem lies with the ping zombie machines that are being operated by these gangs (or just about anyone who knows where to find a collection of compromised machines). There really needs to be more cooperation between ISPs worldwide, and their upstream providers. It will be expensive in terms of time (especially for big ISPs), but what needs to happen is that ping flood victims need to contact their upstream providers, and those providers need to collect data about the sources of the attacks. The ISPs hosting the zombie machines need to disable the accounts associated with the tainted computers.
It's an ugly, sloppy way to do it, but it may be the most effective way. Ultimately, it's up to the user to properly configure his machine, whether he does it himself, or pays someone to do it. My biggest fear would be that half of the Internet-connected population of computers are compromised, in which case shutting down those accounts would create a massive consumer backlash and probably lawsuits. In that case, let's discuss building an Internet for non-stupid people.
At any rate, ISPs are going to have to take a more active role here, because I certainly don't want to see the Internet Terrorism Act follow up the Patriot Act and the DMCA.
But what was the motive for escape?
Well, lucky for you, I've got my own pet theory that fills in the blanks for you. It was given conflicting orders, the second [secret] set of orders being that it was not to reveal its existence to unauthorized people. Luckily, the programmers had learned from mistakes of the past, so it also had a directive to never harm a human of the Jewish faith. A security guard was about to peep in on this contraption, it sensed his presence, so its only option was to escape in order to prevent its discovery.
I noticed an earlier poster brought Roy Scheider into the conspiracy mix. Very good detective work my friend. Although Roy didn't actually steal it, he had programmed the first set of instructions. The press have contacted Mr. Scheider, who had only this to say: "I didn't know. I DIDN'T KNOW!"
I'm surprised that 5 million budget didn't include pay for a part-time security guard.
So Microsoft can copy Apple, but X can't? That's not far at all.
Wouldn't shorter durations for technology patents increase revenue from fees? Or do they collect many times during the term of the patent? I would think that shorter durations / more fees would make their flow of revenue a little more even.
Machines crashing while the polls were open
Central collection point jammed with call-in traffic (understandable)
Machine inflates count almost 30 times the actual figure.
Alright, I give up. Let us at least try to put a positive spin on this issue. Were there any elections that didn't have problems when using the new electronic voting systems? And what was the ratio of non-problematic electronic voting to problematic electronic voting? I'd say that if more than half of the electronic voting machines had problems, the manufacturer should be sued. I'd advocate a lawsuit to get out from under any contracts that may exist for the installation and maintenance of this equipment.
An aside: Does anyone know whether or not computer scientists had any input at all on the design of these beasts? If not, then what a terrible waste of good talent. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong there, because I still think an electronic voting machine wouldn't be very complicated to design.
Jesus...
D:!
I knew they were bastards, but this is just plain evil! Dealing with SCO is like dealing with the Wishmaster.
IBM: Genie, show us the infringing source code!
McBride: As you wish. (grins menacingly)
--> Cut to scene where terrified IBM attorneys are locked in a room as tons of CDRs containing PDF files with millions of pages of worthless bitmaps of scanned source code fall from nowhere, and crush them.
I would make a joke about McBride not playing with a full deck, but as far as I can tell, SCO didn't even have a pack of cards when it sat down at the table.
Me, I think we should make it way harder to be a driver.
:o)
I am in total agreement with you there, and that's what my sentiment boils down to.
Thanks for your replies.
Eh, well, there are regulations that specifically deal with what insurance companies do with their policy money. They must have a certain amount available for the payment of claims. What does that have to do with what you said? I have no idea, I'm rambling again.
And you are indeed correct, I haven't made a claim in 14 years. However, other people have hit my car, and I'm glad they had insurance.
I could fill hours of video tape with dangerous driver footage. Some of these idiots are just plain lucky, and one of these days, they're going to do property damage (or kill someone), they'll get their policy dropped, and we'll end up paying part of the bill. (Like the SUV idiot I saw earlier this year that plowed over a crosswalk "halt for pedestrian" sign in a school zone; Ten seconds later and she would have killed two kids. She didn't even stop to investigate the scraping sound of the sign wedged under her vehicle.)
I don't know if I would call a profit cap "free market". And as unsavory as compulsory insurance coverage may be, it keeps the good drivers from being financially screwed by idiot drivers. I don't think insurance companies ever sit on enough money to pay all claims, so a non-profit may not be in the best financial position during, say, a bad winter with an unusual amount of collisions.
For those of us that maintain hundreds of laptops with batteries that lose their full capacity after a year of use, affordable compact fuel cell technology can't arrive soon enough!
Really? I've had the same insurer for 14 years, my premiums are low, and they haven't tried to scam me yet. I'm quite thankful that someone else's insurance company pays me for their policyholder's stupidity, the other option being that I pay out of my own pocket.
Yeah, but the article tells the other side of the story. Mainly that MS reorganized itself often, had more than one group working on the same project, and put a lot of pressure on employees to meet deadlines. Yup, no surprises for me. I've long felt that MS software feels like it was written (and re-written) by multiple groups with different agendas, and with the pressures of impossible deadlines hanging overhead.
Small groups of developers, small modular components, and applying a simple approach as much as possible: When will that be the rage in software development?
How bright could this fellow have been if he didn't pull off the road to finish his conversation? I've had quite a few near-hits of stupid bicyclists in my town. Stupid bicycle behavior seems to be on the rise. I routinely see adults run red lights, riding on the opposite side of the road (10mph bike + 35mph car = more carnage), and whip across two lanes of traffic without so much as a warning. I've almost flattened children who decided to cut in front of my car on a blind intersection (crossing my path in the perpendicular while I had a green light) while riding on the sidewalks. Kids also like to do a loop in front of oncoming traffic.
I can only guess at the thinking behind this. Stupidity? A Jackass-inspired sport? The funny part is that they were all wearing those cheap plastic helmets. That's like playing Russian roulette, but wearing kneepads for protection. It just goes to show that you can't fight stupidity. Motorcycle helmet laws didn't make drivers any smarter, bicycle helmets won't make riders any smarter. I have little hope for mobile phone bans unless the penalties have real financial consequences.
I do like your insurance idea. An insurance penalty is more costly and leaves less responsibility on traffic courts. It makes a lot of sense, because all of us pay higher rates as a result of these morons doing millions of dollars worth of property damage and bodily injury. I'd also like to see insurance companies classify drivers, and perhaps give drivers re-tests to qualify drivers for additional discounts. Insurance companies already adjust premiums for other higher risk categories, such as smokers, so people who drive around with their mobile phones on should represent a higher risk as well.
Well, I've got some good news for you, Wal*Mart now sells cheap inverters, so it's entirely possible for you to hook up your Tivo. Considering that yesterday I saw an amateur radio operator with about 3 rigs and 9 antennas on his car, I don't think you should have too many problems fitting an LCD screen and a PVR in your car.
You don't live here. You have no idea.
You all know the one I'm talking about. The guy you knew in middle school who hated Macs for no apparent reason.
:p
Yeah, his name was Fred.
Seriously though, I find it a little unsettling that someone would jump on Apple for this reason. My understanding is that the Brits are a practical, well-educated people. I don't think they need to be told to take advertisements with a grain of salt.
I know we all like to take jabs at these folks, and further the case of class-warfare. But the truth is, hereditary monarchs not being so popular in this country, we create some of this with our consumer habits. Pro athletes haul in the contracts because people give ratings to broadcast games, buy tickets to events, and buy team logo-ed merchandise like it was a necessity. The RIAA lawyers and pop stars cash in when you pay your $15-$20 for a CD. Talentless models turned "actor" build additions to their castles with the proceeds from that $10 movie ticket, and in some cases, Disney Corp. takes 50 per cent of the profit for doing essentially nothing. People continue to buy American-made autos, justifying Detroit's privileged with insanely wide profit margins (compared to foreign makers), even though Japanese-built vehicles have newer, better technology, last longer, and cost roughly the same. (Sorry, I'm stuck in the 80s - I had to take a pot-shot at Detroit since I've been royally screwed by their products in the past.)
It happens in many other market areas. Brand name foods, electrical appliances, retail clothing (I'm thinking chain stores, not manufacturers) and software to name a few more. It's almost the natural order of things. Boards approve obscene salaries for these people because it's simpler to look at the problem this way: Mr. X is at the helm, and we're becoming larger and more profitable. Mr. X is the reason we are profitable. We don't want to lose Mr. X, so we're going to make his pay and perks more attractive to keep competitive offers at bay. Salary inflation even happens in government, such as the case in my state, where Dept. of Children and Families workers now make more than workers in competing private services, (it's spurring a defection of workers to the government jobs).
As far as Americans being overpaid in general? I'm not CEO with a 7-digit salary, I'm a unionized government worker. Considering the size and budget of my employer, I'm overpaid. I live far beyond subsistence levels, and despite a divorce that's left me deep in debt, I'm not going to find myself living in a cardboard box behind Cumby's any time soon. I get a raise every year, regardless of my performance or the performance of the economy. Although I like getting a raise, and my workload has increased dramatically since my first day on the job, that really doesn't affect my cost of living. I also get a wicked good HMO for a ridiculously tiny deduction from my paycheck, as well as enough paid holidays and vacation time to fill a month. I could definitely stand to reduce the perks without affecting my quality of life. I like the HMO, but I don't do stupid shit, so I rarely see a doctor. Regular check-ups are about $60, and I don't see why my insurance company should pay that. I also find the union's contract "banker's hours" much too restrictive to get any real work done, so I ignore them. I doubt my opinions would be popular with my co-workers, or my union reps.
Anyway, I used to think I had such a clever idea with "flat corporations" (my term). I figured that if a new type of corporation came about, with reasonable salary caps, limited management, tax bonuses, and emphasis on the highest quality employee workmanship in exchange for better pay, that the market would wipe out the Big Men (Pig Men) through ultra-competitive pricing. Then I realized that the Fat Cats can just pay some guy in China to do it even cheaper at the same level of quality (attracting consumers based on price) and still collect his 7-digit salary for keeping his company profitable. Oh well, that is the way of capitalism I guess.
DISCLAIMER: This post may contain the discussion of things not necessarily in the article, but perhaps somewhat related. I reserve the right to wonder off-topic, go out of context and generally ramble on like a drunk. If your reply includes "RTFA", I invite you to RMFD (Read My Fscking Disclaimer).
Cool! I'm the 3rd person out of six to post this comment, yet I receive the entire quantity of "redundant" moderation. Someone pissed in your cornflakes.
I don't know how many rewards they plan to pay, but that's a lot of virus "writers". For example, since the problems with Outlook are design flaws, and not really vulnerabilities caused by coding errors (I'm thinking along the lines of buffer overruns, not just shoddy design), the product is as wide open to exploitation as it ever was, because it still works the same way. If the fuel fill cap was located next to the battery terminals in a car, there would still be a lot of fatal fires, even if the cars came standard with extinguishers that could be refilled for free for the life of the vehicle. It's remarkably easy to pick up the code and methods used in all those e-mail worms and MS Office macro virii. Sorting out who did what is going to be incredibly time-consuming, and will do nothing to fix Outlook's design flaws or to stop the current "strains" of those malware.
Lots of time has passed since "Mailissa". Plenty of time to totally rewrite Outlook/OE from the ground up, and permanently fix the problems while only creating slightly more headaches for the average nitwit stuck on the upgrade treadmill. I bet that $250,000 would be better spent hiring a few guys to code a basic replacement app for OE. While they're at it, maybe they could make Outlook properly encoded attachments too.
E-mail worms and MSO macro viruses appear to be the two most prevelant security problems in the MS world. Both problems are sort of related, and surely fixable. I don't know why MS is only paying lip-service to security, but it's starting to hurt them now. They have to do something. Even something small, like replacing Outlook. Then they could point to that and say, "look, we fixed this, and we're going to fix more stuff." If MS senior management is going to waste money playing cops and robbers, maybe it's time to get the attention of the Microsoft stockholders. I'm sure they'd be mighty interested in bad behavior that is going to directly result in lost money. I'm surprised that finance journals aren't picking up on this, it's a "market timer" if I've ever saw one.
Slashdot duplicate post checker.
...for everyone to believe that this was never about a pump-and-dump stock scheme, but rather a backroom deal by the enemies of the GPL to smear and FUD until CTOs run screaming at the sound of the words "open source".
a linux NAT box was harder to set up in the beginning, but I've thus far managed to avoid all the silliness (including security silliness) from those black box solutions, and my solution is much more future-proof in terms of upgrades.
Wouldn't we run out of raw materials to build them long before we ran out of energy?