You've never been hit with a crowbar, have you? Please believe me that when you feel bones breaking for this or other reasons, it's altering some fundamental truths, includin gthe nature of your relation to your deity and the rest of the universe. And torture has, occasionally, been quite effective in changing people's minds. It's just not reliable or safe.
This is the core of the problem with "Trusted Computing", usable to disable or enable software and hardware features. The technoloy is workable and can provide reasonable grades of encryption and especially DRM, for which it was clearly designed. But ownership of the master keys is a joke: they sit in Microsoft's hands, with no published corporate or legal policy on when or how they can be obtained by governments or corporate partners. In other words, it's a good lock, but Microsoft always has the spare keys.
No need to try again: you seem to have misunderstood my point. The study I referred to should at least show a _correlation_ in diabetes frequency among non-identical twins, if the factor is the kind of environmental exposure to non-human milk proteins which you've asserted. I'm sorry to say that you have not provided any data or reference to justify your claim, and I'd expect such a claim to have especially shown up in the various studies of family susceptibility.
Moreover, your claim is nonsensical. "Insulin" and the "Islets of Langerhans" are quite distinct. Insulin is a simple protein. "Islets of Langerhans" are cell clusters, containing several different _types_ of cells, which happen to include the beta cells which make insulin. An immune problem that attacked the Islets of Langerhans would also destroy these sources of these other hormones, such as glucagon and somatostation. Type 1 diabetics lose beta cells, _not_ the Islets of Langerhans!
Destroying the Islets, or removing the pancreas, wreaks biochemical havoc. I've a friend who had pancreatic cancer and had his removed: his care is quite awkward. He requires a great deal of medication and treatment that diabetics do not. So, before you make a claim like that, I urge you to actually look into the biology or at least find out where your claim came from.
Non-identical twins raised in the same womb and the same dietary environment would experience the same protein exposures, and as children experience similar infections or environmental factors, and have an elevated risk of sharing Type 1 diabetes if one of them has it. They don't.
From where did you hear this theory or see this claim?
I've seen this one. Unfortunately, the extrenal devices they wanted to use, such as their approved wireless keyboards and remote KVM's and other devices, were no longer made in PS/2 format.
Of course opening the code doesn't make it automatic. But closing it often precludes such change or sophistication: when I have professional access to the software base for commercial packages, I'm often _amazed_ at the boneheaded practices I'd pull a release candidate for on the spot, and make the author go back and rewrite it during our code review meetings.
Microsoft does not require court orders _anywhere_ in their published policies. This was very clear in the "Trusted Computing" efforts, where they never published guidelines for the circumstances under which they would release private escrow keys, or provide access to arbitrary governments around the world to Microsoft owned signing authorities to replace any keys they wished, and it was very clear that they intended to retain all the master keys personally.
Or ncurses. Or maybe flat HTML. Most sophisticated interfaces can be done with a bit of thought and caution in flat-text compatible formats that work very well with even the most modest text screens or flat text browsers. This makes them more robust, takes far fewer client resources, makes them more stable, makes them more portable, and avoids sophisticated GUI's with options and features that serve only to gratify the designer's wish to prove their sophistication, rather than actually get any work done. It also makes the tools accessible to visually impaired people, who may have trouble distinguishing sophisticated borders and popups that only work with certain browsers in certain modes. Fancy popups are often illegible to tired staff, and contribute to RSI.
A few years ago, I went through this this with a very expensive, very powerful system configuration tool absorbed thousands of hours in in-house engineering time trying to stabilize it and get it to actually follow our workflow, and was eventually thrown out in favor of Webmin. That project had wonderful plans, and resource allocations, and milestones, and Powerpoint slides, and managerial sponsors, and everything. But it _never worked_.
Use GUI's when you have to. Keep them simple, use well established tools, but don't design your own just because you can. Small changes to an existing tool that is similar will be a lot more stable than starting from scratch, and you can often get your changes implemented upstream to expand the existing tools as needed.
Perhaps some education of web users is in order. Looking up the actual comments on Ebay, rather than merely whether there is a negative one, would help reveal the sort of vindictive comment this bully threatens other vendors with. And educating consumers on how to get their complaints actually dealt with by blocking the accounts of abusive vendors, rather than merely refunding a particular purchase, would be invaluable.
I've also read the article. Keep in mind that if Google starts manipulating page ranks based on the "semantic content" of the linking pages in order to lower the ranks of such awful businesses, they open themselves up for a _world_ of pain refusing requests from governments or litigious companies to "lower" the scores of links that criticize them, effectively censoring critics without having to actually block them from posting their material. And that kind of linguistic analysis is computationally expensive. It would burden a system that's already maintaining incredible amounts of data: it might cost quite a bit more money to implement, money out of Google's pockets, that they don'w want to spend.
No, guilt or innocence is for a _court_ to decide.
Police, the agents of law enforcement non the streets, have dozens of missions. Emergency medical aid, crime prevention, and revenue gathering through fines nad regulation enforcement. And an officer who pursues a suspect, at the cost of all those other goals, may lose their job. The idea that "law enforcement" is like the idea that "the military is about defending the nation". It's an ideal that cannot be reached.
It was conceivable at the time. The invention of the cotton gin, and the increasing mechanization of manufacturing and agriculture, was eliminating the economic advantage of owning slaves, just as the invention of the horse collar made horses more effective than slaves for farming in Europe and helped profoundly reduce slavery in Europe, hundreds of years earlier.
Sadly, even where it's not a key of the national economy, slavery still occurs in countries that have outlawed it. It still occurs in the USA: "Wage Slave" has real meaning when your employer holds your green card, or your passwport, and conceals your identity from immigration services and the IRS, and its still a business: just look for convictions.
Please look into "asset forfeiture", especually for drug related offenses. The ACLU is already active in this, as described at http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police. Neither a conviction, nor a court order, is required for these seizures, and you _can_ have your assets or vehicle seized without a charge ever being filed.
Do not ever assume that the Department of Homeland Security could find its own bottom with a strip search and a full body X-ray. Due to various laws such as the Patriot Act, they've been protected from having to actually pay attention to civil rights. They are _extremely_ careless of "having their paperwork in order".
It most certainly does, especailly when the person who picks up the tip (such as a busboy) isn't ther person who served the meal or cooked it. The social dymamics of tip sharing in small restaurants is amazing and well worth study.
A lot of poorly paid wait staff are profoundly dependent on those cash tips, and a lot of bookkeeping oddities to let the poorly paid staff retain as much as possible of that income, or for some businesses (such as a lot of less savory taxi companies or restaurant owners) to try to funnel the tip money into the business owner's coffers.
Then you don't tip much. In the US, wait staff, cabbies, and baggage handlers all appreciate cash. So do children, who are less likely to have a bank card and who appreciate a bit of money in their own control. So do I: it's a valuable way to handle affairs I don't care to leave a paper trail for.
I admit that my description may not have been clear. The underlying structure of the UNIX style ACL's pervades a lot of programming. And "Group Policy" is certainly the framework around Windows ACL's and other tools. The UNIX style was meant to be an example of a workable and sufficient type of policy.
The idea that user or group membership can be stacked is useful and workable, and also supported in more sophisticated UNIX models. The problem is that the "Group Policies" structures allows groups to be listed as members of other groups. Avoiding that simple, admittedly common step, makes it far easier to report and avoid inappropriate access.
Unfortunately, far too many tools are absolutely reliant on this risky behavior to leverage their own privileges.
Good for you. My experience with "Group Policies" is that they're wonderful for fluffing your resume, but in real practice, anyone paying attention can leverage their way right up the chain of privileges pretty easily. The inclusion of groups in other groups obscures the genuine membership of groups and leads to "group accounts" for particular activities that have far too much privilege. I demonstrated this _yesterday_, by showing that a vendor's debugging account had access to payroll databases and the password access system due to a failure to track the changes in group membership over the last year.
I was working for the vendor, and this sort of thing is sadly common. Most Microsoft "group policies" would be better handled with the minimal "user, group, other" privileges common to UNIX. The ones that can't be handled that way are usually badly designed.
Maintaining the upstream infrastructure for Exchange is a grotesque waste of money for small and large environments. The frequent corruption of "PST" files, and the insistence on reformatting even plain text mail in the Outlook client, are tremendous encumbrances for some of us. It's also hideous at handling spam issues and normally requires a separate, robust, UNIX or Linux based spam blocker upstream. Its backup and storage requirements are, frankly, insane, and its performance over remote connections is hideoous.
There is a reason that small companies outsource Exchange support, and large companies own staff throw it out. Its primary advantage is Windows integration and the calendar toolkit, which is the primary reason to retain it.
Not a chance. They may provide it in a "supplemental" channel with a different name, much as they do with CentOS, but from experience RedHat does not do major, possibly not reverse compatible, upgrades on core server components.
You have a chance to get it from centosplus. I've used that on RHEL servers for a number of critical featurs, such as NTFS enabled kernels that I don't have to package and rebuild myself..
I hope they never send out any videos. The version of vlc with Centos 5, is buggy as hell and lacks support for a great many things.
Look for the one from RPMforge, which ports packages for RHEL and is far more up to date. CentOS is pinned to the frankly out of date major releases of RHEL, which is aimed at stability for their paying customers rather than leading edge tools for home users, especially CentOS users.
And then there is this video, documenting how a law firm _advised_ their clients on how to avoid the H1-B requirements to avoid finding a qualified US worker.
You can make money providing Americans as consultants, but because our expenses are so much higher, we do tend to cost more. So a consulting agency can make a much higher margin of profit, and face far less stringent work safety or harassment policies.
He's also not offered evidence or first-hand experience to contradict the calims. I'm afraid my observations are founded on direct patent submmissions, working with patent attorneys to get patents submitted for work of my peers, and direct testimony in patent cases (both to confirm and revoke patents).
Slashdot Mirror
You've never been hit with a crowbar, have you? Please believe me that when you feel bones breaking for this or other reasons, it's altering some fundamental truths, includin gthe nature of your relation to your deity and the rest of the universe. And torture has, occasionally, been quite effective in changing people's minds. It's just not reliable or safe.
This is the core of the problem with "Trusted Computing", usable to disable or enable software and hardware features. The technoloy is workable and can provide reasonable grades of encryption and especially DRM, for which it was clearly designed. But ownership of the master keys is a joke: they sit in Microsoft's hands, with no published corporate or legal policy on when or how they can be obtained by governments or corporate partners. In other words, it's a good lock, but Microsoft always has the spare keys.
No need to try again: you seem to have misunderstood my point. The study I referred to should at least show a _correlation_ in diabetes frequency among non-identical twins, if the factor is the kind of environmental exposure to non-human milk proteins which you've asserted. I'm sorry to say that you have not provided any data or reference to justify your claim, and I'd expect such a claim to have especially shown up in the various studies of family susceptibility.
Moreover, your claim is nonsensical. "Insulin" and the "Islets of Langerhans" are quite distinct. Insulin is a simple protein. "Islets of Langerhans" are cell clusters, containing several different _types_ of cells, which happen to include the beta cells which make insulin. An immune problem that attacked the Islets of Langerhans would also destroy these sources of these other hormones, such as glucagon and somatostation. Type 1 diabetics lose beta cells, _not_ the Islets of Langerhans!
Destroying the Islets, or removing the pancreas, wreaks biochemical havoc. I've a friend who had pancreatic cancer and had his removed: his care is quite awkward. He requires a great deal of medication and treatment that diabetics do not. So, before you make a claim like that, I urge you to actually look into the biology or at least find out where your claim came from.
Then I'd expect this paper to have different results:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/5/838.full
Non-identical twins raised in the same womb and the same dietary environment would experience the same protein exposures, and as children experience similar infections or environmental factors, and have an elevated risk of sharing Type 1 diabetes if one of them has it. They don't.
From where did you hear this theory or see this claim?
I've seen this one. Unfortunately, the extrenal devices they wanted to use, such as their approved wireless keyboards and remote KVM's and other devices, were no longer made in PS/2 format.
Of course opening the code doesn't make it automatic. But closing it often precludes such change or sophistication: when I have professional access to the software base for commercial packages, I'm often _amazed_ at the boneheaded practices I'd pull a release candidate for on the spot, and make the author go back and rewrite it during our code review meetings.
Only if they need their program to give the same results when they compile it again.
The "templates" in C++ are mishandled so often, that alone is a compelling reason to keep the Linux kernel and long-term stable projects in C.
Microsoft does not require court orders _anywhere_ in their published policies. This was very clear in the "Trusted Computing" efforts, where they never published guidelines for the circumstances under which they would release private escrow keys, or provide access to arbitrary governments around the world to Microsoft owned signing authorities to replace any keys they wished, and it was very clear that they intended to retain all the master keys personally.
Solaris isn't dead yet in some large companies. It's dying out now, though.
Or ncurses. Or maybe flat HTML. Most sophisticated interfaces can be done with a bit of thought and caution in flat-text compatible formats that work very well with even the most modest text screens or flat text browsers. This makes them more robust, takes far fewer client resources, makes them more stable, makes them more portable, and avoids sophisticated GUI's with options and features that serve only to gratify the designer's wish to prove their sophistication, rather than actually get any work done. It also makes the tools accessible to visually impaired people, who may have trouble distinguishing sophisticated borders and popups that only work with certain browsers in certain modes. Fancy popups are often illegible to tired staff, and contribute to RSI.
A few years ago, I went through this this with a very expensive, very powerful system configuration tool absorbed thousands of hours in in-house engineering time trying to stabilize it and get it to actually follow our workflow, and was eventually thrown out in favor of Webmin. That project had wonderful plans, and resource allocations, and milestones, and Powerpoint slides, and managerial sponsors, and everything. But it _never worked_.
Use GUI's when you have to. Keep them simple, use well established tools, but don't design your own just because you can. Small changes to an existing tool that is similar will be a lot more stable than starting from scratch, and you can often get your changes implemented upstream to expand the existing tools as needed.
Perhaps some education of web users is in order. Looking up the actual comments on Ebay, rather than merely whether there is a negative one, would help reveal the sort of vindictive comment this bully threatens other vendors with. And educating consumers on how to get their complaints actually dealt with by blocking the accounts of abusive vendors, rather than merely refunding a particular purchase, would be invaluable.
I've also read the article. Keep in mind that if Google starts manipulating page ranks based on the "semantic content" of the linking pages in order to lower the ranks of such awful businesses, they open themselves up for a _world_ of pain refusing requests from governments or litigious companies to "lower" the scores of links that criticize them, effectively censoring critics without having to actually block them from posting their material. And that kind of linguistic analysis is computationally expensive. It would burden a system that's already maintaining incredible amounts of data: it might cost quite a bit more money to implement, money out of Google's pockets, that they don'w want to spend.
No, guilt or innocence is for a _court_ to decide.
Police, the agents of law enforcement non the streets, have dozens of missions. Emergency medical aid, crime prevention, and revenue gathering through fines nad regulation enforcement. And an officer who pursues a suspect, at the cost of all those other goals, may lose their job. The idea that "law enforcement" is like the idea that "the military is about defending the nation". It's an ideal that cannot be reached.
It was conceivable at the time. The invention of the cotton gin, and the increasing mechanization of manufacturing and agriculture, was eliminating the economic advantage of owning slaves, just as the invention of the horse collar made horses more effective than slaves for farming in Europe and helped profoundly reduce slavery in Europe, hundreds of years earlier.
Sadly, even where it's not a key of the national economy, slavery still occurs in countries that have outlawed it. It still occurs in the USA: "Wage Slave" has real meaning when your employer holds your green card, or your passwport, and conceals your identity from immigration services and the IRS, and its still a business: just look for convictions.
Please look into "asset forfeiture", especually for drug related offenses. The ACLU is already active in this, as described at http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police. Neither a conviction, nor a court order, is required for these seizures, and you _can_ have your assets or vehicle seized without a charge ever being filed.
Do not ever assume that the Department of Homeland Security could find its own bottom with a strip search and a full body X-ray. Due to various laws such as the Patriot Act, they've been protected from having to actually pay attention to civil rights. They are _extremely_ careless of "having their paperwork in order".
It most certainly does, especailly when the person who picks up the tip (such as a busboy) isn't ther person who served the meal or cooked it. The social dymamics of tip sharing in small restaurants is amazing and well worth study.
A lot of poorly paid wait staff are profoundly dependent on those cash tips, and a lot of bookkeeping oddities to let the poorly paid staff retain as much as possible of that income, or for some businesses (such as a lot of less savory taxi companies or restaurant owners) to try to funnel the tip money into the business owner's coffers.
Then you don't tip much. In the US, wait staff, cabbies, and baggage handlers all appreciate cash. So do children, who are less likely to have a bank card and who appreciate a bit of money in their own control. So do I: it's a valuable way to handle affairs I don't care to leave a paper trail for.
I admit that my description may not have been clear. The underlying structure of the UNIX style ACL's pervades a lot of programming. And "Group Policy" is certainly the framework around Windows ACL's and other tools. The UNIX style was meant to be an example of a workable and sufficient type of policy.
The idea that user or group membership can be stacked is useful and workable, and also supported in more sophisticated UNIX models. The problem is that the "Group Policies" structures allows groups to be listed as members of other groups. Avoiding that simple, admittedly common step, makes it far easier to report and avoid inappropriate access.
Unfortunately, far too many tools are absolutely reliant on this risky behavior to leverage their own privileges.
Good for you. My experience with "Group Policies" is that they're wonderful for fluffing your resume, but in real practice, anyone paying attention can leverage their way right up the chain of privileges pretty easily. The inclusion of groups in other groups obscures the genuine membership of groups and leads to "group accounts" for particular activities that have far too much privilege. I demonstrated this _yesterday_, by showing that a vendor's debugging account had access to payroll databases and the password access system due to a failure to track the changes in group membership over the last year.
I was working for the vendor, and this sort of thing is sadly common. Most Microsoft "group policies" would be better handled with the minimal "user, group, other" privileges common to UNIX. The ones that can't be handled that way are usually badly designed.
Thunderbird with Gmail IMAP support is pretty sweet, and handles multiple upstream mail services better.
Maintaining the upstream infrastructure for Exchange is a grotesque waste of money for small and large environments. The frequent corruption of "PST" files, and the insistence on reformatting even plain text mail in the Outlook client, are tremendous encumbrances for some of us. It's also hideous at handling spam issues and normally requires a separate, robust, UNIX or Linux based spam blocker upstream. Its backup and storage requirements are, frankly, insane, and its performance over remote connections is hideoous.
There is a reason that small companies outsource Exchange support, and large companies own staff throw it out. Its primary advantage is Windows integration and the calendar toolkit, which is the primary reason to retain it.
Not a chance. They may provide it in a "supplemental" channel with a different name, much as they do with CentOS, but from experience RedHat does not do major, possibly not reverse compatible, upgrades on core server components.
You have a chance to get it from centosplus. I've used that on RHEL servers for a number of critical featurs, such as NTFS enabled kernels that I don't have to package and rebuild myself..
I hope they never send out any videos. The version of vlc with Centos 5, is buggy as hell and lacks support for a great many things.
Look for the one from RPMforge, which ports packages for RHEL and is far more up to date. CentOS is pinned to the frankly out of date major releases of RHEL, which is aimed at stability for their paying customers rather than leading edge tools for home users, especially CentOS users.
And then there is this video, documenting how a law firm _advised_ their clients on how to avoid the H1-B requirements to avoid finding a qualified US worker.
You can make money providing Americans as consultants, but because our expenses are so much higher, we do tend to cost more. So a consulting agency can make a much higher margin of profit, and face far less stringent work safety or harassment policies.
He's also not offered evidence or first-hand experience to contradict the calims. I'm afraid my observations are founded on direct patent submmissions, working with patent attorneys to get patents submitted for work of my peers, and direct testimony in patent cases (both to confirm and revoke patents).