While you can link at those speeds with Cat5 you cannot actually get those speeds. Usually it tops out about 200-400mbit for me when I've tried. For most uses that's perfectly fine but in some cases it's not like my entire graphics and video editing departments. Servers are all connected with Cat6 if they use a lot of bandwidth.
I ran into this problem in Vegas as the place only had Cat5 connecting all the rooms to their closets so I had to use LACP trunking to get my bandwidth up.
Have you ever actually tested the bandwidth between a Cat5 and a Cat6 cable? Cat5e is quite a bit closer but older Cat5 will leave you with a hard time filling even 400mbit. This is still of course much higher than rated and obviously depends on cable lengths. I've done gigabit links over 750 feet but it will only work with cat5e or higher and at that range Cat6 is the only thing that will get you above 200mbit even though you are linked at a gig.
So the answer to the question is that sometimes its necessary to upgrade your cabling and in most situations it's not as most workstations don't need anything higher than 400mbit at this point. When you actually need gigabit speeds then you will need to upgrade to Cat6 cabling unless you're only going 20 feet at a time. Of course if you are going 10gig then you are better off skipping Cat6 all-together and just going with Cat7 but at that level I'd rather play with glass instead of copper.
If your cables are plenum rated and installed appropriately then they will last for quite a long time. Outdoor cabling however doesn't last near as long especially if you're in an extreme climate. I had issues in VT with the freezing and thawing and in AZ I have issues with the sun baking the insulation to the point it becomes brittle. In any case it's easy to test for. Just put a machine on each end, start a ping with progressively larger packet sizes and watch the statistics. If you start getting errors then you've either reached the max spec of the cabling or the cabling has degraded.
My guess is that you were using crappy Cat6 cabling. I've not experienced any of these problems and it does provided a marked improvement in performance if you're actually using your pipe.
Obviously end-points like regular workstations and portables like you were deploying it matters less that you lose a 200mbit to cabling overhead. I find when crimped it's no different in any device I've used though so I would chalk that up to bad crimpers as they do make a world of difference.
Cat6 in the server room, everywhere else Cat5e seems to be up for the job. This of course depends on the size of your room and how things are cabled.
Given the state of chinese films I tend to wonder where you get your ideas from? I've seen some that were every bit as polished. Take Hero for one.
People will continue to create polished works regardless due to pride in their work and the reality that you can do a lot more with less now than you used to be able to. You can create studio quality sound at home for only a couple of thousand dollars now compared to hundreds of thousands for a professional recording studio. A lot of the extras are simply unnecessary now especially given that the vast majority of listeners aren't listening to your work on multi-thousand dollar stereo systems.
If you cut the cost of production from a couple of million dollars to a couple of thousand then you now do not need to charge anywhere near as much for your music. In fact, the costs would be so much lower that you could make a very good living touring and selling merchandise. Of course a lot of middle-men wouldn't be happy with that.
Why should consumers suffer high prices for content when the option exists that allows them an easy path? Combine that with the very unfriendly practices of the past, refusals to replace scratched or broken cds for instance and its no wonder people have no problems copying music from someone that did run the risk of paying for a CD which may or may not have had some form of malware on it.
The only musicians I ever hear talking about money are the ones that already have millions and feel they should be further compensated. If copyright terms weren't 70+ years then more people would be willing to wait. Why should an artist produce one work and forever be setup? This doesn't encourage contribution to the arts like copyright was intended to do. If copyright terms were set back to only 5 years then it would encourage talented people to produce new works and reduce the costs associated with production.
Despite what you seem to think, it doesn't cost a lot to produce good quality sound and more importantly, most reproductions of works are through inferior systems which can't accurately reproduce the work anyway so the money is wasted over-mastering works. Then of course the reality that waaaaaay too much money is spent on marketing individual albums. All those costs contribute to why music costs as much as it does now and most of those costs are out of control. Why should a good sounding guitar cost many thousands of dollars? Because idiotic musicians will pay it for a quality Fender which isn't better in most cases than a much cheaper alternative.
None of this of course justifies not reimbursing people for their efforts but the amounts are out of control so you can't expect everyone to just accept it.
Then of course comes the reality that music probably should be free to promote concerts and merchandise where the musicians actually make real money. Of course we wouldn't want to support the musicians would we? We'd rather spend too much on a CD and pay all sorts of middle-men.
If I don't know what's running on my servers then I have other problems besides worrying about software licensing.
Of course that's beside the fact that I have never in my life encountered software that bonds to the Windows license key because it doesn't make any sense to do so. Windows has a GUID for each install that is locked to the hardware. That is how a lot of people bond their software to a particular server. Although in my experience it is usually linked to the MAC address of the network card or some factor of hardware like WGA uses.
Nope, changing the product key is simply not a concern, you will know before you've done any damage if the key won't work as OOBE will tell you and default back to your current key which obviously does work.
You are right in general but a shop that is too cheap to buy software won't have equipment around that will allow you to install Linux to get your back-end infrastructure running without causing major disruption to your end-users.
It's easy to replace the back-end. It's hard to replace it without anybody noticing anything during transition. Of course nothing says you have to replace everything all at once but you're leaving yourself open while you do the transition work.
Why would Option A cause any disruption? Changing a product key is not dangerous by any means and Microsoft provides tools to help you as they know this is common.
While you are right that people like to choose I find that providing management with options only serves to prolong the process longer than it needs to go.
You are right that they should be aware of the alternatives though so in most situations I usually say this is the plan that I want to go with which is your Option A. Then I comment that with some downtime the end result could be achieved through other means. Management doesn't like to be presented with too much information, keep it concise and all will get along but definitely make them aware of the caveats that you are likely to encounter.
In any case it sounds like we agree and its more about personal preferences of the people involved.
I agree with your general philosophy there but replacing a windows server is pretty difficult depending on whether or not you have extra hardware lying around that can be used to provide the transition.
If the company is too cheap to buy software licenses then they probably don't have spare servers around either.
This is why I write comprehensive timelines stating goals. First and foremost is the short-term goal of getting the company legal. Then the goal is to transition the company to use more free software so you aren't traumatizing everyone. If the owners have to foot a huge bill on top of transitioning a chunk of the company to new and unfamiliar applications they will be very resistant and the end-users will feel similarly.
By all means replace expensive stuff with cheap or free stuff where you can but do it after you get the company legal so you can do it in smaller more manageable portions. Your users will thank you as you make their lives easier and it allows you to reallocate that software to other places that might specifically need the expensive app.
You present a fairly sensible approach except for the fact that presumably the company already has a working solution for them so they just need to get it legal. With Microsoft this is easy, you just get a select agreement and based on the number of installs you get a substantial discount.
I had the exact same situation happen to me when I moved into this job. I had a closed door meeting with the owner and my boss to determine what the priorities were and what the best way to proceed was. In the end a select agreement allowed us to instantly make all of our servers legal since I had no prior documentation illustrating that we had legitimate licenses.
Server side you simply can't just drop in replacements when you already have running systems. With the Microsoft approach you can just change your license key to the new volume license key you get with your select agreement and away you go without reinstalling anything.
On the desktop a simple PDF writer is more than sufficient and free for end-user PDF creation instead of having to purchase Acrobrat in most situations, obviously not all. Of course Foxit is my preferred choice for reading PDFs.
In the end I went through department by department to determine what everyone needed to do there jobs with minimal impact, the company spent a load of money and now we're a completely legal shop. It actually feels good to provide the transition.
Also in my case I outlined the cost to get us legal and then outlined ways we could reduce costs in future by deploying Linux in places it makes sense like with our new Asterisk system. It removes the fear they have that it will keep happening so they will be less resistant to getting the company legal.
You're confusing people that enjoy porn on occasion versus people that have addictive personalities and over-indulge.
The occasional viewer is not harmed in any way shape or form nor are their views towards the world any different.
Anyone that takes anything too far, even drinking too much water can be deadly invariably leads to problems.
Naturally the same is true of violent video games or video games in general. When their use is destructive in your life then you need to stop. Just because you can't handle something doesn't mean I can't and so there is no cause for censorship in any form.
To me it seems like it would be relatively simple to just change one company's address scheme to something that doesn't conflict.
I guess I just have it easy where I am so that's something to be thankful for although I don't understand why company A users would have to talk to company B servers or boxes. I set it up so that I just use a simple proxy since all our apps are web-based for the most part. Everything else is handled through back-end site replication so the users don't even know they are connecting to machines several thousands of miles away.
An honest question, how many companies are having troubles with NAT? With my network I manage I have absolutely no issues company wide across all sites. It's simply not an issue.
Compare that with the fact that the vast majority of my network printers don't support IPv6 along with having to compile my own DHCPv6 client for XP and I have very little reason to deploy since I'll have to maintain IPv4 functionality anyways it doesn't make sense to have to maintain routing for both protocols when one works just fine on its own.
I don't use NAT for security, I use it for convenience, if I suddenly have a surge in demand I can just create a new subnet on a new VLAN and continue on with little or no effort. This happened to me recently at an event when I exceeded the addressable space of a class C subnet so I had to expand. Took me all of five minutes to do and everyone can use their VPN clients or do whatever they want.
I have nothing against IPv6 but I see no compelling reason in even the near term that will make me move. When ISPs suddenly jack up rates for service that I already have then that will pave the way for transition.
Given that Blackberry market share is higher than that of the iPhone I wonder where you come up with this statement? Source
The network friendly appearance is due to the fact that it is not new and so RIM has learned a lot of hard lessons over the years that Apple is just now encountering with its partnership with AT&T.
The Blackberry is superior from a technological standpoint. The iPhone is superior from a UI standpoint. It's that simple, at least in my head.
Most people have to learn the hard way because they recognize that the environment is different now than it was then and that we have very different capabilities now than we did even 20 years ago.
Communism usually fails due to corruption of controlling entities, the old saying absolute power corrupts absolutely will always remain true so it becomes a question of when human nature has evolved enough to make a system of government that will actually work. Of course this will always be a contradiction since nothing works for everybody so there will always be people that wish things to be different.
You're right though, repeating the mistakes of the past without understanding how things have changed causes even more problems like encouraging people defaulting on debt to take on more debt to get the economy going again. When there isn't enough capital adding credit will never fix the problem.
All that said, Shell is pretty foolish and I'm annoyed because of the all the subsidies they get. The problem is that they get these tax breaks and nothing is ever stated as to what we get in return.
My entire office switched to Office 2007 and the vast majority of people had no trouble adapting to the new UI. It makes your common features much more accessible. People that had the most problems were people that knew the old office the best and were used to hunting for the feature they wanted when it was no longer necessary in 2007.
As for GUIs I can safely say my Ubuntu install is far less consistent than the Windows install I have in a VM. Once I had the keymaps for Ubuntu I was able to operate my VM correctly.
Very few apps on any Linux distro have a consistent look and feel because there are a lot of toolkits available and there is very little effort in the way of standardization.
Ubuntu is famous for this lack of consistently, with Debian or CentOS you get consistency across boots at least. With Ubuntu right now sometimes my screen manager is at the very top of the screen, sometimes it is the second line. This makes Ubuntu look amateurish so you can't blame people for being uncomfortable with it. Then of course comes the playing of videos. Right now for the life of me I can't download youtube videos and play the flv when I can do it just fine on my Windows box using the same software no less. Firefox with downloadhelper to be exact. This is because mplayer doesn't know about the flash libraries available for whatever reason as it used to work in the past.
Sorry, but there are very few situation where I recommend Linux to anyone that I'm not around very often in terms of desktop usage. OOo takes a long time to load even on modest hardware and there is simply no compelling reason for someone to switch from Windows to Linux. They don't gain anything that they are going to use and the lose a lot that they will.
The only time in the last year I've been able to recommend Linux was for a netbook scenario where it was a relatively new computer user that just wanted to be able to check email and browse the web while out and about. Even things like printer setup is sometimes awkward with most Linux distros. I'll admit that its getting pretty slick these days though with automatic network printer discovery. Of course this is a feature Windows has had for 9 years.
In fairness to 3G speeds, my Sprint phone while tethered to my PC gets 768kbps which coincidently the same speed as bottom rung DSL in many places. Not fast by any stretch but certainly fast enough for a lot of things. I was looking at ATT in Florida near Palm Beach, they initially tried to tell me only 768kbps was available and I was simply shocked, this was a couple of months ago. I had these speeds back in 1997 in rural VT so I was surprised to see it still even offered in Florida.
You seriously need to relax because you're putting different words and trying to apply them to me. I said outright that the victim is justified in doing whatever is necessary to defend against an attacker. I said it explicitly in my reply which you replied to.
You're making a horrible assumption that a victim will know ahead of time that she is getting raped, by ahead of time I mean have enough time to recognize she's being attacked because once the confrontation has begun the attacker is just as close to the weapon as the defender, the shot will never get off.
If as you pointed out the gun was used as a deterrent then you've just committed a crime unless some very specific criteria is met. Of course you would have also prevented a crime and the chances of getting caught are minimal in this particular circumstance.
As you pointed out, the gun is more reassuring even if it is a false sense of security. Concealed handguns can give you real security, but not in close quarters where you don't even see your attacker. There are certainly instances where it is appropriate, like in the instance where the attacker is yelling at you and threatening violence, if the attacker is not then a gun cannot be revealed much less used.
It's amazing how people jump to conclusions based on things that aren't even written. I wasn't suggesting they couldn't use a gun, only that it in most likelihood is a bad idea for them to use it when they are already in the process of being grabbed. Think about it, what is the first thing an attacker is likely to try to neutralize? More likely the attacker will look through the purse and find the gun after the event is over. As horrific as the crime is there are few ways to affectively defend against it.
Also most stun guns will indeed give you more than one shot, a simple handheld you need to be terribly careful with as you just press it anywhere on the attacker you can reach. You might be referring to police issue tasers which can shoot up to 20ish feet? Or act as a local stun gun.
I think you are confusing the idea of defending your home with a gun versus defending against a personal attack. Once they have already grabbed you it's too late for a gun to help you unless you get really lucky.
I didn't suggest that they weren't justified in resisting, only that a gun is not a close combat weapon and usually results in the original carrier losing the weapon. Pepper spray or stun guns are far better options to defend yourself when in close proximity to your attacker.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not attacking gun ownership, only implying that people like you are the reason so many have a problem with it. Where I grew up, we had and still have the most liberal gun laws there are. Vermont has always loved its guns and recognizes that education is a better tool than banning weapons. Teach someone to use the weapon only under the right circumstances and then let them have the weapon. Otherwise you get a weaker person trying to pull a gun on a much stronger person while the stronger person can easily reach the weapon.
I'll also add that while pepper spray could be turned on a victim it wouldn't kill the victim but you're talking about a particularly violent crime so there are a lot of negative possible outcomes. A woman really should do like a few women in South Africa are trying and wear special protective gear that latches onto the attacker. It's proving quite effective.
Or had the weapon taken from her and ended up a victim of murder as well as rape. Sounds like a great idea!
People don't understand the full price of war and more importantly that actions speak louder than words. When one party won't listen to reason naked force is the only alternative we have.
Of course most of the conflicts we are now involved in are our own doing so its a case of what goes around comes around and the real problem is that people aren't taking responsibility and instead choosing to just do even more wrong.
Of course thats not unique to the U.S. Israel and their neighbors have both done the same things. One does wrong to the other, then retaliation and the cycle never stops.
It's safe to say there are a lot of things mankind just hasn't figured out how to do yet. Manage a global economy with globally reaching consequences is one of them. Capitalism does leave its victims and when you mess with them you get what we have today.
What is your point then? Nuclear weapons at the time were strictly a Soviet and American technology. That is far from the case these days and also worth noting that Japan was not wiped off the map and was already preparing to surrender.
There are theories that the detonations were just a way to show off to the world the power of the atomic bomb and for the Emperor of Japan to save face when he was ready to surrender.
Of course at the time we had a lot of trouble producing nuclear weapons and could not have continued to bombard anyone. Going up against a nuclear power ensured destruction so many countries became nuclear powers. It's hard to wipe any country off the map without pissing off one of said countries. My bets would be Pakistan and India since the fallout would cause huge problems for them.
So its still MAD and not about a preemptive strike which was ruled out after people saw how horrific the bombs were in Japan. Modern bombs are a bit more destructive too so that would be nothing to what would happen if we used our modern arsenal. In short, everyone loses.
Now compare someone who spends $100,000 to someone that spends $50,000 and you begin to see my point. There was a time when you simply couldn't get quality unless you spend ridiculous money on time renting a recording studio. This is simply not the case anymore but recording studio time is still just as expensive.
You are right in that it is nice to pay someone to do that work for you but really, spend millions on it?
It sounds like we mostly agree on the mechanics, we just disagree on how much needs to be spent on it and more importantly, how many people need to be involved in it.
I work with TV producers a lot these days and it astonishes me the number of people involved in putting on a production which by all rights should only require a couple of people. In fact, the TV crew that was filming our event had twice as many people as we did to actually put the event on and we had more than one hundred thousand people show up to our event.
Just look at a typical film crew, one guy is holding the camera, another is holding spare equipment, another is cataloging, another is hold a microphone, sometimes even two guys are holding mics. Then comes transcription later which involves still more people, then editors, various other engineers. Far too many people are involved which drives up the cost of production. For comparison's sake, we put on a show with 8 cameras for less than 1/10th the cost for this tv production crew with 2 cameras. That's an incredible disparity considering we had to buy all the equipment whereas the tv crew already had the equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't suggesting it was more durable only that building codes require you to use plenum rated cables for indoor installations.
While you can link at those speeds with Cat5 you cannot actually get those speeds. Usually it tops out about 200-400mbit for me when I've tried. For most uses that's perfectly fine but in some cases it's not like my entire graphics and video editing departments. Servers are all connected with Cat6 if they use a lot of bandwidth.
I ran into this problem in Vegas as the place only had Cat5 connecting all the rooms to their closets so I had to use LACP trunking to get my bandwidth up.
Have you ever actually tested the bandwidth between a Cat5 and a Cat6 cable? Cat5e is quite a bit closer but older Cat5 will leave you with a hard time filling even 400mbit. This is still of course much higher than rated and obviously depends on cable lengths. I've done gigabit links over 750 feet but it will only work with cat5e or higher and at that range Cat6 is the only thing that will get you above 200mbit even though you are linked at a gig.
So the answer to the question is that sometimes its necessary to upgrade your cabling and in most situations it's not as most workstations don't need anything higher than 400mbit at this point. When you actually need gigabit speeds then you will need to upgrade to Cat6 cabling unless you're only going 20 feet at a time. Of course if you are going 10gig then you are better off skipping Cat6 all-together and just going with Cat7 but at that level I'd rather play with glass instead of copper.
If your cables are plenum rated and installed appropriately then they will last for quite a long time. Outdoor cabling however doesn't last near as long especially if you're in an extreme climate. I had issues in VT with the freezing and thawing and in AZ I have issues with the sun baking the insulation to the point it becomes brittle. In any case it's easy to test for. Just put a machine on each end, start a ping with progressively larger packet sizes and watch the statistics. If you start getting errors then you've either reached the max spec of the cabling or the cabling has degraded.
My guess is that you were using crappy Cat6 cabling. I've not experienced any of these problems and it does provided a marked improvement in performance if you're actually using your pipe.
Obviously end-points like regular workstations and portables like you were deploying it matters less that you lose a 200mbit to cabling overhead. I find when crimped it's no different in any device I've used though so I would chalk that up to bad crimpers as they do make a world of difference.
Cat6 in the server room, everywhere else Cat5e seems to be up for the job. This of course depends on the size of your room and how things are cabled.
Given the state of chinese films I tend to wonder where you get your ideas from? I've seen some that were every bit as polished. Take Hero for one.
People will continue to create polished works regardless due to pride in their work and the reality that you can do a lot more with less now than you used to be able to. You can create studio quality sound at home for only a couple of thousand dollars now compared to hundreds of thousands for a professional recording studio. A lot of the extras are simply unnecessary now especially given that the vast majority of listeners aren't listening to your work on multi-thousand dollar stereo systems.
If you cut the cost of production from a couple of million dollars to a couple of thousand then you now do not need to charge anywhere near as much for your music. In fact, the costs would be so much lower that you could make a very good living touring and selling merchandise. Of course a lot of middle-men wouldn't be happy with that.
Why should consumers suffer high prices for content when the option exists that allows them an easy path? Combine that with the very unfriendly practices of the past, refusals to replace scratched or broken cds for instance and its no wonder people have no problems copying music from someone that did run the risk of paying for a CD which may or may not have had some form of malware on it.
The only musicians I ever hear talking about money are the ones that already have millions and feel they should be further compensated. If copyright terms weren't 70+ years then more people would be willing to wait. Why should an artist produce one work and forever be setup? This doesn't encourage contribution to the arts like copyright was intended to do. If copyright terms were set back to only 5 years then it would encourage talented people to produce new works and reduce the costs associated with production.
Despite what you seem to think, it doesn't cost a lot to produce good quality sound and more importantly, most reproductions of works are through inferior systems which can't accurately reproduce the work anyway so the money is wasted over-mastering works. Then of course the reality that waaaaaay too much money is spent on marketing individual albums. All those costs contribute to why music costs as much as it does now and most of those costs are out of control. Why should a good sounding guitar cost many thousands of dollars? Because idiotic musicians will pay it for a quality Fender which isn't better in most cases than a much cheaper alternative.
None of this of course justifies not reimbursing people for their efforts but the amounts are out of control so you can't expect everyone to just accept it.
Then of course comes the reality that music probably should be free to promote concerts and merchandise where the musicians actually make real money. Of course we wouldn't want to support the musicians would we? We'd rather spend too much on a CD and pay all sorts of middle-men.
If I don't know what's running on my servers then I have other problems besides worrying about software licensing.
Of course that's beside the fact that I have never in my life encountered software that bonds to the Windows license key because it doesn't make any sense to do so. Windows has a GUID for each install that is locked to the hardware. That is how a lot of people bond their software to a particular server. Although in my experience it is usually linked to the MAC address of the network card or some factor of hardware like WGA uses.
Nope, changing the product key is simply not a concern, you will know before you've done any damage if the key won't work as OOBE will tell you and default back to your current key which obviously does work.
You are right in general but a shop that is too cheap to buy software won't have equipment around that will allow you to install Linux to get your back-end infrastructure running without causing major disruption to your end-users.
It's easy to replace the back-end. It's hard to replace it without anybody noticing anything during transition. Of course nothing says you have to replace everything all at once but you're leaving yourself open while you do the transition work.
Why would Option A cause any disruption? Changing a product key is not dangerous by any means and Microsoft provides tools to help you as they know this is common.
While you are right that people like to choose I find that providing management with options only serves to prolong the process longer than it needs to go.
You are right that they should be aware of the alternatives though so in most situations I usually say this is the plan that I want to go with which is your Option A. Then I comment that with some downtime the end result could be achieved through other means. Management doesn't like to be presented with too much information, keep it concise and all will get along but definitely make them aware of the caveats that you are likely to encounter.
In any case it sounds like we agree and its more about personal preferences of the people involved.
I agree with your general philosophy there but replacing a windows server is pretty difficult depending on whether or not you have extra hardware lying around that can be used to provide the transition.
If the company is too cheap to buy software licenses then they probably don't have spare servers around either.
This is why I write comprehensive timelines stating goals. First and foremost is the short-term goal of getting the company legal. Then the goal is to transition the company to use more free software so you aren't traumatizing everyone. If the owners have to foot a huge bill on top of transitioning a chunk of the company to new and unfamiliar applications they will be very resistant and the end-users will feel similarly.
By all means replace expensive stuff with cheap or free stuff where you can but do it after you get the company legal so you can do it in smaller more manageable portions. Your users will thank you as you make their lives easier and it allows you to reallocate that software to other places that might specifically need the expensive app.
You present a fairly sensible approach except for the fact that presumably the company already has a working solution for them so they just need to get it legal. With Microsoft this is easy, you just get a select agreement and based on the number of installs you get a substantial discount.
I had the exact same situation happen to me when I moved into this job. I had a closed door meeting with the owner and my boss to determine what the priorities were and what the best way to proceed was. In the end a select agreement allowed us to instantly make all of our servers legal since I had no prior documentation illustrating that we had legitimate licenses.
Server side you simply can't just drop in replacements when you already have running systems. With the Microsoft approach you can just change your license key to the new volume license key you get with your select agreement and away you go without reinstalling anything.
On the desktop a simple PDF writer is more than sufficient and free for end-user PDF creation instead of having to purchase Acrobrat in most situations, obviously not all. Of course Foxit is my preferred choice for reading PDFs.
In the end I went through department by department to determine what everyone needed to do there jobs with minimal impact, the company spent a load of money and now we're a completely legal shop. It actually feels good to provide the transition.
Also in my case I outlined the cost to get us legal and then outlined ways we could reduce costs in future by deploying Linux in places it makes sense like with our new Asterisk system. It removes the fear they have that it will keep happening so they will be less resistant to getting the company legal.
You're confusing people that enjoy porn on occasion versus people that have addictive personalities and over-indulge.
The occasional viewer is not harmed in any way shape or form nor are their views towards the world any different.
Anyone that takes anything too far, even drinking too much water can be deadly invariably leads to problems.
Naturally the same is true of violent video games or video games in general. When their use is destructive in your life then you need to stop. Just because you can't handle something doesn't mean I can't and so there is no cause for censorship in any form.
To me it seems like it would be relatively simple to just change one company's address scheme to something that doesn't conflict.
I guess I just have it easy where I am so that's something to be thankful for although I don't understand why company A users would have to talk to company B servers or boxes. I set it up so that I just use a simple proxy since all our apps are web-based for the most part. Everything else is handled through back-end site replication so the users don't even know they are connecting to machines several thousands of miles away.
An honest question, how many companies are having troubles with NAT? With my network I manage I have absolutely no issues company wide across all sites. It's simply not an issue.
Compare that with the fact that the vast majority of my network printers don't support IPv6 along with having to compile my own DHCPv6 client for XP and I have very little reason to deploy since I'll have to maintain IPv4 functionality anyways it doesn't make sense to have to maintain routing for both protocols when one works just fine on its own.
I don't use NAT for security, I use it for convenience, if I suddenly have a surge in demand I can just create a new subnet on a new VLAN and continue on with little or no effort. This happened to me recently at an event when I exceeded the addressable space of a class C subnet so I had to expand. Took me all of five minutes to do and everyone can use their VPN clients or do whatever they want.
I have nothing against IPv6 but I see no compelling reason in even the near term that will make me move. When ISPs suddenly jack up rates for service that I already have then that will pave the way for transition.
Given that Blackberry market share is higher than that of the iPhone I wonder where you come up with this statement? Source
The network friendly appearance is due to the fact that it is not new and so RIM has learned a lot of hard lessons over the years that Apple is just now encountering with its partnership with AT&T.
The Blackberry is superior from a technological standpoint. The iPhone is superior from a UI standpoint. It's that simple, at least in my head.
Most people have to learn the hard way because they recognize that the environment is different now than it was then and that we have very different capabilities now than we did even 20 years ago.
Communism usually fails due to corruption of controlling entities, the old saying absolute power corrupts absolutely will always remain true so it becomes a question of when human nature has evolved enough to make a system of government that will actually work. Of course this will always be a contradiction since nothing works for everybody so there will always be people that wish things to be different.
You're right though, repeating the mistakes of the past without understanding how things have changed causes even more problems like encouraging people defaulting on debt to take on more debt to get the economy going again. When there isn't enough capital adding credit will never fix the problem.
All that said, Shell is pretty foolish and I'm annoyed because of the all the subsidies they get. The problem is that they get these tax breaks and nothing is ever stated as to what we get in return.
My entire office switched to Office 2007 and the vast majority of people had no trouble adapting to the new UI. It makes your common features much more accessible. People that had the most problems were people that knew the old office the best and were used to hunting for the feature they wanted when it was no longer necessary in 2007.
As for GUIs I can safely say my Ubuntu install is far less consistent than the Windows install I have in a VM. Once I had the keymaps for Ubuntu I was able to operate my VM correctly.
Very few apps on any Linux distro have a consistent look and feel because there are a lot of toolkits available and there is very little effort in the way of standardization.
Ubuntu is famous for this lack of consistently, with Debian or CentOS you get consistency across boots at least. With Ubuntu right now sometimes my screen manager is at the very top of the screen, sometimes it is the second line. This makes Ubuntu look amateurish so you can't blame people for being uncomfortable with it. Then of course comes the playing of videos. Right now for the life of me I can't download youtube videos and play the flv when I can do it just fine on my Windows box using the same software no less. Firefox with downloadhelper to be exact. This is because mplayer doesn't know about the flash libraries available for whatever reason as it used to work in the past.
Sorry, but there are very few situation where I recommend Linux to anyone that I'm not around very often in terms of desktop usage. OOo takes a long time to load even on modest hardware and there is simply no compelling reason for someone to switch from Windows to Linux. They don't gain anything that they are going to use and the lose a lot that they will.
The only time in the last year I've been able to recommend Linux was for a netbook scenario where it was a relatively new computer user that just wanted to be able to check email and browse the web while out and about. Even things like printer setup is sometimes awkward with most Linux distros. I'll admit that its getting pretty slick these days though with automatic network printer discovery. Of course this is a feature Windows has had for 9 years.
In fairness to 3G speeds, my Sprint phone while tethered to my PC gets 768kbps which coincidently the same speed as bottom rung DSL in many places. Not fast by any stretch but certainly fast enough for a lot of things. I was looking at ATT in Florida near Palm Beach, they initially tried to tell me only 768kbps was available and I was simply shocked, this was a couple of months ago. I had these speeds back in 1997 in rural VT so I was surprised to see it still even offered in Florida.
You seriously need to relax because you're putting different words and trying to apply them to me. I said outright that the victim is justified in doing whatever is necessary to defend against an attacker. I said it explicitly in my reply which you replied to.
You're making a horrible assumption that a victim will know ahead of time that she is getting raped, by ahead of time I mean have enough time to recognize she's being attacked because once the confrontation has begun the attacker is just as close to the weapon as the defender, the shot will never get off.
If as you pointed out the gun was used as a deterrent then you've just committed a crime unless some very specific criteria is met. Of course you would have also prevented a crime and the chances of getting caught are minimal in this particular circumstance.
As you pointed out, the gun is more reassuring even if it is a false sense of security. Concealed handguns can give you real security, but not in close quarters where you don't even see your attacker. There are certainly instances where it is appropriate, like in the instance where the attacker is yelling at you and threatening violence, if the attacker is not then a gun cannot be revealed much less used.
It's amazing how people jump to conclusions based on things that aren't even written. I wasn't suggesting they couldn't use a gun, only that it in most likelihood is a bad idea for them to use it when they are already in the process of being grabbed. Think about it, what is the first thing an attacker is likely to try to neutralize? More likely the attacker will look through the purse and find the gun after the event is over. As horrific as the crime is there are few ways to affectively defend against it.
Also most stun guns will indeed give you more than one shot, a simple handheld you need to be terribly careful with as you just press it anywhere on the attacker you can reach. You might be referring to police issue tasers which can shoot up to 20ish feet? Or act as a local stun gun.
I think you are confusing the idea of defending your home with a gun versus defending against a personal attack. Once they have already grabbed you it's too late for a gun to help you unless you get really lucky.
I didn't suggest that they weren't justified in resisting, only that a gun is not a close combat weapon and usually results in the original carrier losing the weapon. Pepper spray or stun guns are far better options to defend yourself when in close proximity to your attacker.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not attacking gun ownership, only implying that people like you are the reason so many have a problem with it. Where I grew up, we had and still have the most liberal gun laws there are. Vermont has always loved its guns and recognizes that education is a better tool than banning weapons. Teach someone to use the weapon only under the right circumstances and then let them have the weapon. Otherwise you get a weaker person trying to pull a gun on a much stronger person while the stronger person can easily reach the weapon.
I'll also add that while pepper spray could be turned on a victim it wouldn't kill the victim but you're talking about a particularly violent crime so there are a lot of negative possible outcomes. A woman really should do like a few women in South Africa are trying and wear special protective gear that latches onto the attacker. It's proving quite effective.
Or had the weapon taken from her and ended up a victim of murder as well as rape. Sounds like a great idea!
People don't understand the full price of war and more importantly that actions speak louder than words. When one party won't listen to reason naked force is the only alternative we have.
Of course most of the conflicts we are now involved in are our own doing so its a case of what goes around comes around and the real problem is that people aren't taking responsibility and instead choosing to just do even more wrong.
Of course thats not unique to the U.S. Israel and their neighbors have both done the same things. One does wrong to the other, then retaliation and the cycle never stops.
It's safe to say there are a lot of things mankind just hasn't figured out how to do yet. Manage a global economy with globally reaching consequences is one of them. Capitalism does leave its victims and when you mess with them you get what we have today.
What is your point then? Nuclear weapons at the time were strictly a Soviet and American technology. That is far from the case these days and also worth noting that Japan was not wiped off the map and was already preparing to surrender.
There are theories that the detonations were just a way to show off to the world the power of the atomic bomb and for the Emperor of Japan to save face when he was ready to surrender.
Of course at the time we had a lot of trouble producing nuclear weapons and could not have continued to bombard anyone. Going up against a nuclear power ensured destruction so many countries became nuclear powers. It's hard to wipe any country off the map without pissing off one of said countries. My bets would be Pakistan and India since the fallout would cause huge problems for them.
So its still MAD and not about a preemptive strike which was ruled out after people saw how horrific the bombs were in Japan. Modern bombs are a bit more destructive too so that would be nothing to what would happen if we used our modern arsenal. In short, everyone loses.
Now compare someone who spends $100,000 to someone that spends $50,000 and you begin to see my point. There was a time when you simply couldn't get quality unless you spend ridiculous money on time renting a recording studio. This is simply not the case anymore but recording studio time is still just as expensive.
You are right in that it is nice to pay someone to do that work for you but really, spend millions on it?
It sounds like we mostly agree on the mechanics, we just disagree on how much needs to be spent on it and more importantly, how many people need to be involved in it.
I work with TV producers a lot these days and it astonishes me the number of people involved in putting on a production which by all rights should only require a couple of people. In fact, the TV crew that was filming our event had twice as many people as we did to actually put the event on and we had more than one hundred thousand people show up to our event.
Just look at a typical film crew, one guy is holding the camera, another is holding spare equipment, another is cataloging, another is hold a microphone, sometimes even two guys are holding mics. Then comes transcription later which involves still more people, then editors, various other engineers. Far too many people are involved which drives up the cost of production. For comparison's sake, we put on a show with 8 cameras for less than 1/10th the cost for this tv production crew with 2 cameras. That's an incredible disparity considering we had to buy all the equipment whereas the tv crew already had the equipment.