The rule is not restricting use of the spectrum directly. It is prohibiting use of a particular class of device, the actual access point devices, within the scope of a voluntary contractual agreement. The 'hot plate' analogy presented by a previous poster is very accurate. The rules say you are not permitted to operate the following devices inside your dormitory, hot-plates, wireless access points, interplexing beacons, etc...They are not restricing use of the frequencies directly, since they are possibly allowing use of microwave ovens; but only in an indirect manner.
That Giraffes necks are so long because they decided it would be in there best interest to eat leaves at the tops of trees and their offspring agreed? Trying to play this as a win for 'evolutionists' is idiotic, do you people really have nothing else to persuade people that you have to commit an old old fallacy? Shame shame, hopefully some real scientists will see this for what it is, a neat incident and not much more...
Nothing would make me happier than to see more countries do like what was done by Hugh Grant's character as Prime Minister of England in 'Love Actually' when he stood up for his country in the face of America. I am all for national sovereingty and minimizing gloablization efforts because they stifle individual countries and end up hindering everyone in some way. Now some people might not like it but if each country's politicians look out for the good of their countries instead of bringing them into these stupid trade groups and treaty organizations I think the world might just be better off.
I would say that this is an interesting situation. If the goal is to gain widespread adoption of a standard system then the 'more free' BSD type license is advantageous. The problem still remains that nothing prevents an 'embrace and extend' type move that in fact breaks compatibility while allowing the extender to say 'We support X feature, only better.' No one license should rule. As far as I'm concerned there is room for closed source as well, I think it is a bad way to do things, but there is room enough for a variety of approaches, I personally apply the GPL to my work because I like it, not because I make the same philosophical and ethical conclusions of RMS.
The only problem with the BSD license and others like it is that it permits the code to be gobbled up by corporate interests and take away the freedom of the end user/developer. The GPL preserves the freedom of the code to be accessible at the expense of disallowing corporate users to relicense and hide that code from its users. BSD and similar licenses are more 'free' but it violates the sense of community that FOSS is, in theory, about. Open Source is by far more corporate friendly but is not necessarily protected from absue like Free Software licensing is. In order to maintain the sense of community and cooperation, the code must always remain open and free, only Free Software licenses addresses that appropriately.
I would love to use another tool, unfortunately I had to make the decision to not use Webmin and its virtual hosting system because it doesn't provide the experience for my paying clients that they expect. I will gladly switch to a Free substitute once I have time to build one or someone else produces one that will meet the expectations of my clients.
Am I the only one who is troubled by the blend of proprietary and 'open' systems surrounding PHP? I mean a proprietary system, Zend, powers PHP, plus to get best performance I'm suppose to license another proprietary system? I am a big advocate of Free Software and feel uncomfortable using PHP even though it is a great tool because of the strange mixture of proprietary and open development.
Maybe it's just me.
The airwaves should be privately owned, bought and sold. They are not "public airwaves" They are no different than owning land property. Do what you want with it, but don't screw with your neigbor's land.
Unlike land how would one "own" the signal space between 1Mhz and 2Mhz? How do you own a chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum? This is not like land, it is publicly accessible given the right equipment and needs to be treated either as a public resource with NO regulation or as a public, government monitored/controlled, resource with whatever regulation we the people and the government on our behalf want to enforce. The key to that last part is enforcement. If it is going to be treated as the later type of public resource then standards have to be set. Censorship is interesting in this spectrum because there is no limitation to who can access the medium of transmission, you only need the right equipment. I personally think individuals adults should bear the responsibility for maintaining whatever level of 'protection' they feel is necessary for them and their families and not try to force what they think on others. But if everbody, or at least most people, wants 'protection' then in a democracy that is what you get. Too bad not enough people vote to really know where America stands on most instances.
We have a system that is potentially going to cause companies to have to upgrade their systems in order to handle a new ID scheme. I understand that companies want to save money, but eventually these things will run out and upgrades will need to be done. Would a smart move not be to bite the bullet and just produce a new numbering scheme with more longevity?
Actually it was an oversight that I left it out. I haven't used WP in years but many of the professors around my work use it because it handles Turabian formatting much better than anything else. And the other list of applicated further illustrates the point I wanted to make, MS is not the best player in the game and really the only thin that keeps them where they are is general ignorance and monopolistic market dominance.
OS Market: Mac OS, GNU/Linux crowd, BSDs and proprietary Unixes.
In that market no one believes that MS is the best and most stable game in town, just the easiest for the average PC using peon to use, but some studies indicate that Apple's UI is actually more intuitive; but with the hardware so expensive most folks just buy the cheapy PC.
Well AppleWorks doesn't come close to resembling a real productivity sweet having used it myself and getting horrible headaches. OpenOffice is getting close to being as good as MS Office but there is a familiarity issue that stands in its way more than anything else, so I guess MS could be considered 'better' depending on how we define it.
Server Accessories (Exchange, IIS, SQL): Apache, MySQL/PostgreSQL/DB
Exchange is kind of nice and I am not aware of any really strong competitors to this but I am sure they are out there. Apache simply creams IIS on every point as a web server except maybe for lack of a GUI; but IIS is no where near as flexible, not even version 6. MS SQL is well featured but for thousands of dollars it should be. MySQL and the other OSS dbs out there are just as full feautered and cost a WHOLE lot less.
I work with MS boxes at work, use nothing but macs and home and have a couple of BSD and LInux dedicated boxes and have to say that although MS software is as pervasive as STDs are becoming, it is nowhere near the optimal platform for much of anything except solitaire, but I prefer chess on my mac as it demands a bit more thought. But then again I do not comprise the segment that would be considered an 'average PC user.'
[BAD PATENT] I want to count to 100, I know that I can do it with a computer so I patent the general idea of being able to count from 0 to 100 with a computer. I own the concept of counting from 0 to 100 with no specificity.
[OK PATENT] I want to count to 100, I write a routine that counts to 100 starting at 0 in some specific programming language, I now own the implementation with a good amount of specificity.
At some point the line can become blurry between an idea and its implementation. This system still has problems; but requiring actual implementation versus just allowing the patenting of ideas/unproven systems is a step in the right direction.
But this would require reworking the general principles of corporate law because we currently treat corporations as individuals; allowing them to own property and work in ways they otherwise would not be able to if not treated as a legally autonomous entity, and employees thus become agents of the corporation producing on its behalf. You speculative note is ill-concieved because it would destroy the abilities of corporations to function effectively. A better yet just as speculative idea would be to abolish the idea of being able to own an idea, instead allow ownership of implementations, processes and ways of doing things should not be ownable; but a specific method of doing something might be worth allowing people to own; unless you are one of those millitant 'free software' folks who vehemently oppose all kinds of IP ownership...
This ignores the fact that a national 'do-not-spam registry' would provide a wealth of mostly valid email addresses allowing spammers to focus their efforts. Without an authentication mecahnism the registry is a useless list. This submitter is idiotically biased since he ignores a very valid issue that would give any straight thinking individual pause about such a registry.
But in this instance all we care about is security patches, at least that's all I have been thinking on. My fault for not being explicit in that regard. Any non-security patch should never be auto-applied, at least as far as I am concerned.
But you should be able to override the default behavior of auto-installing patches; my thinking would be that systems should patch themselves automatically unless the user specifies that they shouldn't.
The issue still remains though that an unpatched system is still vulnerable, if the patch breaks an application and the machine goes unpatched there is a loss in security because of potential intrusion. If the patch is applied there is a potential loss of productivity. This is the kind of call a sysadmin has to make for their network, but a sysadmin should know enough to make the decision in an informed way, the average computer user is not equipped in the same way and probably should recieve the patch in order to mitigate risk that user's compromised system may cause to the greater group of users they may connect to via the internet.
Many posters have already taken to jumping to bad conclusions having not latched on to one of the report author's best conclusions. If patches are not applied then the time and money spent on discovery are worthless. The only ways to make discovery worthwhile is if the patches are applied, otherwise discovery does not resolve the vulnerabilities.
Automatic/Forced patching is the only way to make discovery worthwhile because otherwise the number of vulnerable systems is unpredicatable over time and constitutes a large risk. Security issues must be resolved as quickly as possible in order to mitigate risks, and unless patch application is automated and enforced then discovery becomes meaningless.
This is one of the best points the author makes though. He describes that if automated installation of patches were widely deployed then the benefits to discovery would increase. The problem lies in the number of systems that remain unpatched and thus exposed. The real problem is not that Discovery is not worth the time and money spent, but that it becomes worthless if the patches created are not applied.
Liquid cooling allows for reduction of noise if done right. I had a system that didn't run hot but I chose to liquid cool it 1) for the coolness factor and 2) for the noise reduction, All components (CPU, Chipset, GPU, Etc.) that I normally would have mounted fans for were integrated into the liquid cooling system and then I only needed one fan, I used an extremely quiet inline pump and voila a system that made almost no perceptable, to me, noise when running. The liquid cooling also had one other nice effect, it kept the temperature across all components stable within a 2-3 degree range as opposed to the 5-10 degree swing, especially on CPUs and GPUs that I would usually see under load. So that meant less stress on the hardware under load which was another big plus.
No OS, no other software...not SCSI as mentioned by the original poster....Yet my Mac came with twice as much hard drive, Wireless Net card, Gigabit Ethernet, Dual Head Vid Card, plus a solid Unix based operating system, iPhoto (matched by some built-in Windows features), iTunes (matched by Windows Media), iMovie & iDVD (matched by Movie Maker? HA!), iCal (not matched on stock Windows system), AND now would come with GrageBand (no match on stock Windows system)...but then again this list doesn't include any software, nor a keyboard or mouse (optical) as included with every PowerMac...Both mac and windows are good for abought anything you want to do, sure macs are more expensive, but you do get a decent amount of features out of the box....PLUS, I can pretty easily install any Open Source app with minimal reconfiguration being OS X is a BSD system...
Uh...Common sense trumps again, stupid users deserve what they get. I don't download garbage off of limewire, nor do I use an account in root's group for normal work. The same sorts of attacks that Windows users are suceptable to exist in EVERY operating system if the users are too ignorant to take security seriously.
Besides the issue isn't a false sense of security really. It's a naive ignorance in regards to security. As for Web Objects Server taking down a system, I would guess that somewhere there is a design flaw in which Apple has tried to tie the app and the OS too closely together, also, a server application would not be considered a normal part of most users system experiences...at least not part of any I know...
A driver may do it, but there are many applications capable of bringing down a Windows system, and that is the bad thing.
Also Mac networking is quite good. I use a 12" Powerbook 867 everyday on a 100%, till I plug up my Mac, network and have no difficulty. I use Entourage to check my work email because we use Exchange servers, but I use finder to browse network shares, I can print to all the printers I need to without hassle. But I put about 3 hours into making the system work because it was worth it to be able to use my mac instead of my XP desktop. We also have a number of professors that use Macs without hassle on the network. And at home I have my powerbook plus a PowerMac G4 and a FreeBSD system all existing quite fine. In fact, my Macs were easier to network together out of the box than any windows system I have configured, short of automated deployment situations.
Yes, early versions of OS X did not play nearly as well with Windows Networks but that is because MS is not real open about how to make them work well. BUT 10.3 works just fine. Besides I enjoy my mac because it is easier to use, easier to manage and due to its lower market share not nearly as interesting a target as all the unpatched and outdated windows boxes. Plus common sense will save you from a world of hurt when working on the internet anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
The rule is not restricting use of the spectrum directly. It is prohibiting use of a particular class of device, the actual access point devices, within the scope of a voluntary contractual agreement. The 'hot plate' analogy presented by a previous poster is very accurate. The rules say you are not permitted to operate the following devices inside your dormitory, hot-plates, wireless access points, interplexing beacons, etc...They are not restricing use of the frequencies directly, since they are possibly allowing use of microwave ovens; but only in an indirect manner.
That Giraffes necks are so long because they decided it would be in there best interest to eat leaves at the tops of trees and their offspring agreed? Trying to play this as a win for 'evolutionists' is idiotic, do you people really have nothing else to persuade people that you have to commit an old old fallacy? Shame shame, hopefully some real scientists will see this for what it is, a neat incident and not much more...
Nothing would make me happier than to see more countries do like what was done by Hugh Grant's character as Prime Minister of England in 'Love Actually' when he stood up for his country in the face of America. I am all for national sovereingty and minimizing gloablization efforts because they stifle individual countries and end up hindering everyone in some way. Now some people might not like it but if each country's politicians look out for the good of their countries instead of bringing them into these stupid trade groups and treaty organizations I think the world might just be better off.
I would say that this is an interesting situation. If the goal is to gain widespread adoption of a standard system then the 'more free' BSD type license is advantageous. The problem still remains that nothing prevents an 'embrace and extend' type move that in fact breaks compatibility while allowing the extender to say 'We support X feature, only better.' No one license should rule. As far as I'm concerned there is room for closed source as well, I think it is a bad way to do things, but there is room enough for a variety of approaches, I personally apply the GPL to my work because I like it, not because I make the same philosophical and ethical conclusions of RMS.
The only problem with the BSD license and others like it is that it permits the code to be gobbled up by corporate interests and take away the freedom of the end user/developer. The GPL preserves the freedom of the code to be accessible at the expense of disallowing corporate users to relicense and hide that code from its users. BSD and similar licenses are more 'free' but it violates the sense of community that FOSS is, in theory, about. Open Source is by far more corporate friendly but is not necessarily protected from absue like Free Software licensing is. In order to maintain the sense of community and cooperation, the code must always remain open and free, only Free Software licenses addresses that appropriately.
I would love to use another tool, unfortunately I had to make the decision to not use Webmin and its virtual hosting system because it doesn't provide the experience for my paying clients that they expect. I will gladly switch to a Free substitute once I have time to build one or someone else produces one that will meet the expectations of my clients.
Am I the only one who is troubled by the blend of proprietary and 'open' systems surrounding PHP? I mean a proprietary system, Zend, powers PHP, plus to get best performance I'm suppose to license another proprietary system? I am a big advocate of Free Software and feel uncomfortable using PHP even though it is a great tool because of the strange mixture of proprietary and open development. Maybe it's just me.
Unlike land how would one "own" the signal space between 1Mhz and 2Mhz? How do you own a chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum? This is not like land, it is publicly accessible given the right equipment and needs to be treated either as a public resource with NO regulation or as a public, government monitored/controlled, resource with whatever regulation we the people and the government on our behalf want to enforce. The key to that last part is enforcement. If it is going to be treated as the later type of public resource then standards have to be set. Censorship is interesting in this spectrum because there is no limitation to who can access the medium of transmission, you only need the right equipment. I personally think individuals adults should bear the responsibility for maintaining whatever level of 'protection' they feel is necessary for them and their families and not try to force what they think on others. But if everbody, or at least most people, wants 'protection' then in a democracy that is what you get. Too bad not enough people vote to really know where America stands on most instances.
We have a system that is potentially going to cause companies to have to upgrade their systems in order to handle a new ID scheme. I understand that companies want to save money, but eventually these things will run out and upgrades will need to be done. Would a smart move not be to bite the bullet and just produce a new numbering scheme with more longevity?
Actually it was an oversight that I left it out. I haven't used WP in years but many of the professors around my work use it because it handles Turabian formatting much better than anything else. And the other list of applicated further illustrates the point I wanted to make, MS is not the best player in the game and really the only thin that keeps them where they are is general ignorance and monopolistic market dominance.
I hardly use preview and it snows.... :-)
Who would be there competitors though?
OS Market: Mac OS, GNU/Linux crowd, BSDs and proprietary Unixes.
In that market no one believes that MS is the best and most stable game in town, just the easiest for the average PC using peon to use, but some studies indicate that Apple's UI is actually more intuitive; but with the hardware so expensive most folks just buy the cheapy PC.
Productivity Market: Appleworks, OpenOffice/StarOffice, others?
Well AppleWorks doesn't come close to resembling a real productivity sweet having used it myself and getting horrible headaches. OpenOffice is getting close to being as good as MS Office but there is a familiarity issue that stands in its way more than anything else, so I guess MS could be considered 'better' depending on how we define it.
Server Accessories (Exchange, IIS, SQL): Apache, MySQL/PostgreSQL/DB
Exchange is kind of nice and I am not aware of any really strong competitors to this but I am sure they are out there. Apache simply creams IIS on every point as a web server except maybe for lack of a GUI; but IIS is no where near as flexible, not even version 6. MS SQL is well featured but for thousands of dollars it should be. MySQL and the other OSS dbs out there are just as full feautered and cost a WHOLE lot less.
I work with MS boxes at work, use nothing but macs and home and have a couple of BSD and LInux dedicated boxes and have to say that although MS software is as pervasive as STDs are becoming, it is nowhere near the optimal platform for much of anything except solitaire, but I prefer chess on my mac as it demands a bit more thought. But then again I do not comprise the segment that would be considered an 'average PC user.'
Simplistic example:
[BAD PATENT]
I want to count to 100, I know that I can do it with a computer so I patent the general idea of being able to count from 0 to 100 with a computer. I own the concept of counting from 0 to 100 with no specificity.
[OK PATENT]
I want to count to 100, I write a routine that counts to 100 starting at 0 in some specific programming language, I now own the implementation with a good amount of specificity.
At some point the line can become blurry between an idea and its implementation. This system still has problems; but requiring actual implementation versus just allowing the patenting of ideas/unproven systems is a step in the right direction.
But this would require reworking the general principles of corporate law because we currently treat corporations as individuals; allowing them to own property and work in ways they otherwise would not be able to if not treated as a legally autonomous entity, and employees thus become agents of the corporation producing on its behalf. You speculative note is ill-concieved because it would destroy the abilities of corporations to function effectively. A better yet just as speculative idea would be to abolish the idea of being able to own an idea, instead allow ownership of implementations, processes and ways of doing things should not be ownable; but a specific method of doing something might be worth allowing people to own; unless you are one of those millitant 'free software' folks who vehemently oppose all kinds of IP ownership...
This ignores the fact that a national 'do-not-spam registry' would provide a wealth of mostly valid email addresses allowing spammers to focus their efforts. Without an authentication mecahnism the registry is a useless list. This submitter is idiotically biased since he ignores a very valid issue that would give any straight thinking individual pause about such a registry.
But in this instance all we care about is security patches, at least that's all I have been thinking on. My fault for not being explicit in that regard. Any non-security patch should never be auto-applied, at least as far as I am concerned.
But you should be able to override the default behavior of auto-installing patches; my thinking would be that systems should patch themselves automatically unless the user specifies that they shouldn't.
The issue still remains though that an unpatched system is still vulnerable, if the patch breaks an application and the machine goes unpatched there is a loss in security because of potential intrusion. If the patch is applied there is a potential loss of productivity. This is the kind of call a sysadmin has to make for their network, but a sysadmin should know enough to make the decision in an informed way, the average computer user is not equipped in the same way and probably should recieve the patch in order to mitigate risk that user's compromised system may cause to the greater group of users they may connect to via the internet.
Many posters have already taken to jumping to bad conclusions having not latched on to one of the report author's best conclusions. If patches are not applied then the time and money spent on discovery are worthless. The only ways to make discovery worthwhile is if the patches are applied, otherwise discovery does not resolve the vulnerabilities.
Automatic/Forced patching is the only way to make discovery worthwhile because otherwise the number of vulnerable systems is unpredicatable over time and constitutes a large risk. Security issues must be resolved as quickly as possible in order to mitigate risks, and unless patch application is automated and enforced then discovery becomes meaningless.
This is one of the best points the author makes though. He describes that if automated installation of patches were widely deployed then the benefits to discovery would increase. The problem lies in the number of systems that remain unpatched and thus exposed. The real problem is not that Discovery is not worth the time and money spent, but that it becomes worthless if the patches created are not applied.
Liquid cooling allows for reduction of noise if done right. I had a system that didn't run hot but I chose to liquid cool it 1) for the coolness factor and 2) for the noise reduction, All components (CPU, Chipset, GPU, Etc.) that I normally would have mounted fans for were integrated into the liquid cooling system and then I only needed one fan, I used an extremely quiet inline pump and voila a system that made almost no perceptable, to me, noise when running. The liquid cooling also had one other nice effect, it kept the temperature across all components stable within a 2-3 degree range as opposed to the 5-10 degree swing, especially on CPUs and GPUs that I would usually see under load. So that meant less stress on the hardware under load which was another big plus.
No OS, no other software...not SCSI as mentioned by the original poster....Yet my Mac came with twice as much hard drive, Wireless Net card, Gigabit Ethernet, Dual Head Vid Card, plus a solid Unix based operating system, iPhoto (matched by some built-in Windows features), iTunes (matched by Windows Media), iMovie & iDVD (matched by Movie Maker? HA!), iCal (not matched on stock Windows system), AND now would come with GrageBand (no match on stock Windows system)...but then again this list doesn't include any software, nor a keyboard or mouse (optical) as included with every PowerMac...Both mac and windows are good for abought anything you want to do, sure macs are more expensive, but you do get a decent amount of features out of the box....PLUS, I can pretty easily install any Open Source app with minimal reconfiguration being OS X is a BSD system...
Care to share your parts and prices? Also, are you using a legal copy of Windows?
Spoils keynotes...
Uh...Common sense trumps again, stupid users deserve what they get. I don't download garbage off of limewire, nor do I use an account in root's group for normal work. The same sorts of attacks that Windows users are suceptable to exist in EVERY operating system if the users are too ignorant to take security seriously.
Besides the issue isn't a false sense of security really. It's a naive ignorance in regards to security. As for Web Objects Server taking down a system, I would guess that somewhere there is a design flaw in which Apple has tried to tie the app and the OS too closely together, also, a server application would not be considered a normal part of most users system experiences...at least not part of any I know...
A driver may do it, but there are many applications capable of bringing down a Windows system, and that is the bad thing.
Also Mac networking is quite good. I use a 12" Powerbook 867 everyday on a 100%, till I plug up my Mac, network and have no difficulty. I use Entourage to check my work email because we use Exchange servers, but I use finder to browse network shares, I can print to all the printers I need to without hassle. But I put about 3 hours into making the system work because it was worth it to be able to use my mac instead of my XP desktop. We also have a number of professors that use Macs without hassle on the network. And at home I have my powerbook plus a PowerMac G4 and a FreeBSD system all existing quite fine. In fact, my Macs were easier to network together out of the box than any windows system I have configured, short of automated deployment situations.
Yes, early versions of OS X did not play nearly as well with Windows Networks but that is because MS is not real open about how to make them work well. BUT 10.3 works just fine. Besides I enjoy my mac because it is easier to use, easier to manage and due to its lower market share not nearly as interesting a target as all the unpatched and outdated windows boxes. Plus common sense will save you from a world of hurt when working on the internet anyways.