SGI has too much cash. Novell has too much cash, Microsoft has oodles of cash. There are lots of companies that have this problem. If you spend cash to buy assets, those assets have to have a reasonably fast return or Wall Street will skewer the buyer.
In a less shaky economy, where your next dollar or euro or pound or yen or shekel of profit were clear, you'd be spending them. But it's not clear, because of lots of ennui in the market place. Corps are stagnating, playing only to Wall Street and their options packages, not to general stockholders. Their guts are gone. Now, entrepreneurship is found in the ASEAN countries, and in odd places like the Ukraine and Slovenia. These guys are afraid to move, not because of SarBox, but because of some dimwitted analyst who will roil when the price of oil climbs or when an earnings target is honestly missed by a shaved penny per share.
But this isn't a rant, it's an observation that control has been pulled from too many corps and handed on a platter to the speculators on the NASDAQ, and NYSE. Those bozos, who've helped ruin the economy along with the depravity of a weak dollar, are wreaking havoc. On the surface, a cheap dollar helps exports-- but deficits are at an all-time high! This is because the dollar is leaking out of the US economy at staggering rates into labor costs across the world. Soon the dollar is going to be like the lire. Get bigger wallets, which will hold far less.
There's no shredding. These aren't and never have been absolutes. What we have is a case where speech isn't free. It's bought and paid for. It construes the fact based on money spent, not the individual characteristics of the electorate and the elected.
To exempt the Internet opens up still another route around the concept where $$$ elects candidates, not the issues or the public's sentiments about them. Campaign financing reform is a ruse, as it's applied today. The numbers you cite are very broadly cast, and incorrect (please look up the number of voters in California, as an example).
Limiting contributions can work. You can see your favorite politician at an arena-- instead of the publically financed ball game playing there. No, not everyone can have a sit-down discussion. Alarmingly few ever make it to Washington, let alone go up on the hill for an up-close-and-personal visit with a politician. I have, and on numerous occasions though I live more than a 1000 miles away. I've also sent letters, emails, and signed petitions. These have unlikely done much good, but they're a part of participatory democracy. People don't care about democracy anymore; the fervor of taking issues and really understanding them has been reduced to sound bites on RSS feeds.
The framers of the constitution had no idea that campaign financing would bring in enormous multiples of the salaries paid by elective office. Two billion dollars is horrendous; Everett Dirksen must be reeling in his grave.
It's my personal belief that you're sheilding the intent of the constitution for its literal words. I also believe that free speech is protected when the amount that can be said may be, in a very practical way, limited to what one known individual can say, rather than the lies and ruse of political blogging by serupticious organizations. These are scams. Their intent is to demean, and their vehicle to demean is by masquerade. This isn't truth. This isn't free speech.
Free speech doesn't include things like child pornography, or other abuses. Consider that there are forms of political speech and rhetoric can be abuses of free speech as well.
Restrictions of expenditures allows people to come face to face with candidates, personally or virtually.... not the canned packaging of nitwits we have now. Lincoln said (as others) that it's important that people know the truth. What we have today is propaganda, marketing, and "issue warfare"-- primed by the greed of money in politics. People confuse capitalism with democracy, and they're two different things; one is a economic system, the other, a political system. Combined, they can do good but also skew each other.
In identifying the authors of speech (who otherwise have the right to assemble as you imply) we get the advantage of the context of the communication and its nature (see Chomsky and Campbell). While there's nothing inherently wrong with blogging or web content, it can become a part of obscured intent, and obscured intentions. Anonymity, one of the pillars of the web, obfuscates political speech in ways that again, skew the rights of individuals as voters versus aggregated intentions whose origins and context therefore blind the reader. This is bad. Context is a part of speech. Exemption, while superficially the allying of free speech, instead, obscures it.
Campaign contributions are out of control. Political parties fear criticism; look at the arrest situation for protesters in both Boston and New York during the presidential election last summer. This polarization inhibits contrasting views and posits that there are only two choices, where there should be more. This is what gives us red vs blue. It's contrived, and a sham.
Of course they wouldn't. It's their business. It's how they make money and foment and influence opinion. FWIW, I'm an independent voter. Everyone should be. There's not a party in the country that can satisfy the aims of each individual. They're all great. They all suck, too. That's the problem with the red/blue state designations. It's one awful measure of public opinion. But it's a freaking mandate for the reds, and the source of great angst for the blues-- a statement that's not really true as each of those states had a portion of voters that won and lost. It's not us vs them; it's a country that used to be a democracy, once guided by the rule of law.
You were born with a voice, not a megaphone. I was born broke, as every human is. Some gain immediate advantage legally by association with parents, trusts, and so on. But in a democracy, one person/one vote, that one person can yell with incredible volume, given the money that can be spent.
More speech means more signal and more noise, until people will tune it out, as many today already have. Allowing organizations to masquerade as "one person" aggregates their voices. Aggregated voices aren't represented by democracy in this way; only people are.
I don't mind choking every political party out there. Give it an equal playing field, so that each candidate can be viewed individually. Stop various parties focused campaigns to oust specific candidates with money from outside their district or state. Stop the ludicrous spending, and the need to toady to the campaign contributors when it comes to policy making and votes. These contributors very likely aren't from the district represented, thus thwarting the will of the specific electorate.
Whether a red or blue state, they were all mislead by both parties. Democracy is no longer by and for the people, it's buy and for business and special interest. Democracy is thus thwarted. And it's gone.
Good points.
In #4, perhaps the insertion of the phrase accredited news agency as an exception.
In #6, perhaps the defamer should be required to step down.
Just thoughts.
Here's free speech and $1000 to tide you over (a legal personal campaign contribution).
Which speaks louder? This is what happens when political money gets into the Internet.
Yes, it's ostensibly one person, one vote, but one person or organization or funds transfer can shout far beyond a single voice.
The Liberty Amendments:
1) No campaign may accept contributions from outside of the political district represented, and non-personal transactions of any kind must be limited to organizations principally residing within that district
2) No contribution from any individual or organization in aggregate may exceed $100. No campaign for any elected office shall exceed $100,000 more than the salary paid to the elected office. All excess monies not directly used for campaign expenses shall be donated to the United States Treasury within one month after the election for that office. No funds raised may be used to pay for any family expenses other than personal travel, including actual cartage, actual hotel with reasonable per diem expenses, and reasonable food.
3) No political party or organization may transfer its funds to a specific candidate for elective office.
4) Monies spent to publically publish information about an issue or campaign shall be considered a contribution to that issue or campaign, and are subject to the limitations in Amendment One.
5) No foreign entity of any kind shall be allowed to make a contribution of monies, or materials to any elected office or political party or organization advancing the cause of an election or publically-voted issue.
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
None of these are sufficient reasons, but what will actually drive exploration is power-- military power. That's what drives the satellite and Space Shuttle business today.
First we need to learn about how to maintain this planet, before we go spoiling others. Ecosystems need attention; we need serious birth control; a cure for malaria and AIDs; ways to feed the poor and educate them-- not more money for space exploration-- it helps none of these.
We need to fix how we relate to each other, then we can go and screw up the rest of the galaxy
It shouldn't have taken a disaster to stress what NASA does. But NASA is a political football. The engineers end up taking the blame-- they could have scotched the mission, and they should have designed it better-- that and the $68billion dollars worth of NASA launches that either blew up before orbit, or were sent into the drink because of bad trajectories, or from other malfunctions.
Yes, the research has to be done. That's what I do for a living. On a moral basis, I don't experiment with other people's lives. If TVs had a 2% component failure-- every single TV would come from the factories dead. 2% is just plainly unacceptable. As are the jeapordy that lives were and are put into. Yes, we get to learn, but this is not the price that should be paid. Criminal charges aren't small enough, in my opinion. Manslaughter is a criminal offense, and when people are put in harms way, it should be prosecuted. Not enough research and experimentation was done-- just to continue to be in the race. It's inexcusable. And in a civilization where we value human life, criminal.
All of our guts were wrenched when not one, but two shuttles went down. Zero is the right number of defects. This is not what NASA does. I wish it were.
Look how many lives were needlessly lost due to NASA's incredible failures. They've put more people and good hardware in the drink than any organization should be allowed to. Can you imagine the looks on kids faces when they watched Challenger go down?
I've heard the excuses-- and they're just that-- bad excuses for bad engineering. The mind reels at how much money has been spent for such awful returns. And now they need bandwidth. I'm hoping they get their priorities right, but sadly, their egos won't let it happen.
Small things become airborne, or they become parts of aquifers, or find other ways to spread to places unintended. Look at what happens when a tiny amount of perc pollutes an aquifer-- it spreads in just weeks. Trichloroethane, MEK, all of these spread quickly and wreck ecosystems. The potentials are huge-- especially for countries that will look the other way to regulation and even common sense to have what they believe to be an economic gain.
The possibilities are plainly gruesome. Without basic metrics in place, it's all rife for abuse-- with the usual motivators.
So many ecosystems are either misunderstood, barely understood, or already deceased. Adding nanotech to the mix without knowing the parts of the equation that are affected-- because we're ignorant of much of the environment-- is asking for disaster. Regulatory oversight is incredibly important, before some genie gets out of the bottle that destroys us. We have no methods to fight a nanotech problem, should one emerge. We're defenceless. Is that a good posture for starting an industry?
They're usually smarter than that. Forged headers are common, but so are zombies/hijacked machines. It's not rocket science to discern one from the other.
In terms of collateral damage, it also raises the bar. Watch your complaint emails, and you won't get any damage at all because you'll react or respond. Do that-- react and/or respond-- and there's no damage whatsever.
I can list for you dozens of ISPs that whose MTAs and spam controllers are so disabled and screwed up that they actually reject spam complaints because they're either/or misconfigured or have parser errors.
I'd love to find ways to block, at key router points, IPs that are known to spew email-- even full CIDR blocks. That'll get someone's attention. If mine's blocked, you can make damn sure that I'll figure out where it happened and fix it spontaneously.
The domain registration process ought to also be verified/confirmed through an audit body as well. Maybe even a fingerprint. That, too, would stop spam in its tracks. Anonymity on the Internet is very good from a privacy standpoint, but from a management perspective, people lie their butts off, then abuse the infrastructure. This kills the goose that laid the golden egg of free communication.
We use them, and they're one tool in the anti-spam arsenal. If your domain gets locked out, there's a good chance that your administrator was non-responsive. They're not foolproof, and they're not well funded. Nonetheless, their record and methodology are well-known. So is their success at getting the attention of admins from tiny domains through to AOL, its subsidiaries, and major corporations.
Yes, it bites when you get black-holed. It's usually (but not always) entirely deserved.
You do your job right, to the standards of best practices, professionally. Then you can have self respect. That others respect you may be a good thing. You must set boundaries, but make them flexible. Remember to pick your own charities and know who they are. Otherwise charities will spring up from no where, and your life discontinues being your own. It's to your own self to be true first. Be straight with your self, and others can be straight with you. Respect is spawned from such truthfulness. As Vonnegut might say, we're all meat humans (exception given to sociopaths, who are IMHO, another species).
Example: the Hyperion pre-dated the woefully under-powered Compaq portable by almost a year. Invented in Canada by Murray Bell's organization, it was a far better machine.
There's no mention of the KayPro family of machines, either.
And the ultimate portable, the Timex/Sinclair gets no treatment, either.
Such are the problems with historians. Limited core.
This is an astounding loss of life, and a healthy fraction of the posts are just evil. If this is what slashdot has come to, prejudice, intolerance and ill-will for those that have suffered, I'm outta here. These are your brethren. Mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts that have been hit by an unannounced, unpreventable, and unknowable tragedy. I'm appalled.
Bad Math: Nicole Kidman was born in Honolulu
on
Mathematics and Sex
·
· Score: 0, Troll
And so the first proof fails.
I'm a reviewer at a major pub who changes zero
on
Truth in Advertising?
·
· Score: 1
It's all defaults. I'm not in the business of optimizing other people's stuff. And I don't thwart products, either. Most optimizations are good for a single edition anyway.
I don't care if the results are therefore good or bad; I get paid to report on what the defaults do-- either way. Virtually anything can be optimized to give screaming defaults. I use only industry benchmarks, never a proprietary one so that others can extrapolate my results on their platforms. Sometimes the equipment used to benchmark costs money, and that's real life, too.
I don't believe that there are very many trade pubs in this business that optimize for results. If they do, they won't last long as people will see it for the BS it is.
My only wish is that there were more cross-platform, OSS benchmarks that couldn't be tweaked. It made good benchmarks, like Intel's IOMeter, into a meaningless tool.
There is real journalism left; you have to look for the right sources. The signal-to-noise level in blogdom is awful. Journalists are trained to write what they observe; some do and some embellish.
Lots of people blogging are downright boring and have little sense of either how to write, or even how to represent their own field of expertise, if they have one at all. Sure, there are filters, but there's little credentialization, and still more people that think they have to post to just to keep people interested in coming back. Sprinkle in some naughty photos, gossip, innuendo, made up 'facts', statistics, and there you have it: digital prattle at best
1) write in to the SLA policy-- a SU agreement with liablity 2) use (as mentioned) a L7 switch (Telena has one, too) 3) give temporary access, and make sure you check for root kits everytime with a script 4) tell your management just how expensive it is to have so many vendor's spoons in the soup and how potentially destabilizing it is to do this 5) use smart token card access coupled to your own CA; Tie the proximity of the card via RFID to a pacemaker attached directly to the aorta. If they lose it, they die. Simple. 6) partition roots across servers. Get an SNMP trap when they logon to keep track of them. Set a script against cron to send an additional alarm when they're on for more than a few minutes or upload more than a few megabytes through specific ports (indicating massive changes rather than remote control screen delta) 7) ask for one of their children for hostage use
I'm glad you've got Solaris on your aging laptop. Bravo.
You miss the point: GNU/Linux is a popular uprising. It plays in a lot of places like a fresh hammer seeks everything as a nail. Some are, some aren't. Java wasn't dismissed; but the populist support for Linux doesn't drive Solaris, and it never has. And likely won't. Solaris works on two processor architectures. To move it to another would be pretty difficult, and subject to corporate whimsy. Linux has no such corporation but it does have whimsy.
Not all goodness springs forth from the GPL, MIT, BSD, or other licenses. It springs from dedicated and creative programmers, who are free to use whatever license they choose.
JavaME isn't the kernel; it's an application foundation layer. It's pretty useful; I have few criticisms of it. Instead, the point made was populism, and the energy that it's brought. Solaris doesn't have that wind in its sails, or in its sales.
And it's unlikely to get it. These are two different OSs with two different purposes. To claim that Solaris wins in ten years is hubris. To claim that Linux wins in ten years is hubris. It's the wrong question to ask.
Sun doesn't get it. Their sense of open source only works when you write FOSS like this: F|=O$$.
As said before: 1) no Solaris on a mobile phone 2) no Solaris on a laptop/notebook/pda 3) no Solaris on a media centre 4) no Solaris in an automotive ECM, and so on.
I've talked to their PR people, and Sun engineers. They DON'T get it. Their idea of community is a country club. It's stockholder interests that they have at heart. That's ok.
What's not ok is to make believe that they're going to get Linux Love by putting on a blond wig and some lipstick.
Solaris in a WiFi access point? No. Solaris in a watch? No. Solaris in a TiVo clone? No. Solaris in an auto's ECM? No. Solaris on a laptop? No. Solaris on a mobile? No.
Sun doesn't get populism. They're too used to their own history to reinvent themselves, or understand community OSS efforts. I watched Scott slam IBM's pension funding, and Schwartz look fawningly on in the press/analyst conference. I watched the little plane with the Red Hat "Business as Usual" banner flying behind. Sun wants Linux love a lot. And they're clueless on how to get it. Not McNealy's bruskness or Schwartz's blogged ponytail are going to get it. It's a shame, because Solaris 10 looks droolingly good, if proprietary (look closely at ZFS, dtrace, and so on). Sigh.
Slashdot Mirror
SGI has too much cash. Novell has too much cash, Microsoft has oodles of cash. There are lots of companies that have this problem. If you spend cash to buy assets, those assets have to have a reasonably fast return or Wall Street will skewer the buyer.
In a less shaky economy, where your next dollar or euro or pound or yen or shekel of profit were clear, you'd be spending them. But it's not clear, because of lots of ennui in the market place. Corps are stagnating, playing only to Wall Street and their options packages, not to general stockholders. Their guts are gone. Now, entrepreneurship is found in the ASEAN countries, and in odd places like the Ukraine and Slovenia. These guys are afraid to move, not because of SarBox, but because of some dimwitted analyst who will roil when the price of oil climbs or when an earnings target is honestly missed by a shaved penny per share.
But this isn't a rant, it's an observation that control has been pulled from too many corps and handed on a platter to the speculators on the NASDAQ, and NYSE. Those bozos, who've helped ruin the economy along with the depravity of a weak dollar, are wreaking havoc. On the surface, a cheap dollar helps exports-- but deficits are at an all-time high! This is because the dollar is leaking out of the US economy at staggering rates into labor costs across the world. Soon the dollar is going to be like the lire. Get bigger wallets, which will hold far less.
There's no shredding. These aren't and never have been absolutes. What we have is a case where speech isn't free. It's bought and paid for. It construes the fact based on money spent, not the individual characteristics of the electorate and the elected.
To exempt the Internet opens up still another route around the concept where $$$ elects candidates, not the issues or the public's sentiments about them. Campaign financing reform is a ruse, as it's applied today. The numbers you cite are very broadly cast, and incorrect (please look up the number of voters in California, as an example).
Limiting contributions can work. You can see your favorite politician at an arena-- instead of the publically financed ball game playing there. No, not everyone can have a sit-down discussion. Alarmingly few ever make it to Washington, let alone go up on the hill for an up-close-and-personal visit with a politician. I have, and on numerous occasions though I live more than a 1000 miles away. I've also sent letters, emails, and signed petitions. These have unlikely done much good, but they're a part of participatory democracy. People don't care about democracy anymore; the fervor of taking issues and really understanding them has been reduced to sound bites on RSS feeds.
The framers of the constitution had no idea that campaign financing would bring in enormous multiples of the salaries paid by elective office. Two billion dollars is horrendous; Everett Dirksen must be reeling in his grave.
It's my personal belief that you're sheilding the intent of the constitution for its literal words. I also believe that free speech is protected when the amount that can be said may be, in a very practical way, limited to what one known individual can say, rather than the lies and ruse of political blogging by serupticious organizations. These are scams. Their intent is to demean, and their vehicle to demean is by masquerade. This isn't truth. This isn't free speech.
You use absolutes, where they're silly.
Free speech doesn't include things like child pornography, or other abuses. Consider that there are forms of political speech and rhetoric can be abuses of free speech as well.
Restrictions of expenditures allows people to come face to face with candidates, personally or virtually.... not the canned packaging of nitwits we have now. Lincoln said (as others) that it's important that people know the truth. What we have today is propaganda, marketing, and "issue warfare"-- primed by the greed of money in politics. People confuse capitalism with democracy, and they're two different things; one is a economic system, the other, a political system. Combined, they can do good but also skew each other.
In identifying the authors of speech (who otherwise have the right to assemble as you imply) we get the advantage of the context of the communication and its nature (see Chomsky and Campbell). While there's nothing inherently wrong with blogging or web content, it can become a part of obscured intent, and obscured intentions. Anonymity, one of the pillars of the web, obfuscates political speech in ways that again, skew the rights of individuals as voters versus aggregated intentions whose origins and context therefore blind the reader. This is bad. Context is a part of speech. Exemption, while superficially the allying of free speech, instead, obscures it.
Campaign contributions are out of control. Political parties fear criticism; look at the arrest situation for protesters in both Boston and New York during the presidential election last summer. This polarization inhibits contrasting views and posits that there are only two choices, where there should be more. This is what gives us red vs blue. It's contrived, and a sham.
Of course they wouldn't. It's their business. It's how they make money and foment and influence opinion. FWIW, I'm an independent voter. Everyone should be. There's not a party in the country that can satisfy the aims of each individual. They're all great. They all suck, too. That's the problem with the red/blue state designations. It's one awful measure of public opinion. But it's a freaking mandate for the reds, and the source of great angst for the blues-- a statement that's not really true as each of those states had a portion of voters that won and lost. It's not us vs them; it's a country that used to be a democracy, once guided by the rule of law.
You were born with a voice, not a megaphone. I was born broke, as every human is. Some gain immediate advantage legally by association with parents, trusts, and so on. But in a democracy, one person/one vote, that one person can yell with incredible volume, given the money that can be spent.
More speech means more signal and more noise, until people will tune it out, as many today already have. Allowing organizations to masquerade as "one person" aggregates their voices. Aggregated voices aren't represented by democracy in this way; only people are.
I don't mind choking every political party out there. Give it an equal playing field, so that each candidate can be viewed individually. Stop various parties focused campaigns to oust specific candidates with money from outside their district or state. Stop the ludicrous spending, and the need to toady to the campaign contributors when it comes to policy making and votes. These contributors very likely aren't from the district represented, thus thwarting the will of the specific electorate.
Whether a red or blue state, they were all mislead by both parties. Democracy is no longer by and for the people, it's buy and for business and special interest. Democracy is thus thwarted. And it's gone.
Good points. In #4, perhaps the insertion of the phrase accredited news agency as an exception. In #6, perhaps the defamer should be required to step down. Just thoughts.
Here's free speech, and the freedom to assemble.
Here's free speech and $1000 to tide you over (a legal personal campaign contribution).
Which speaks louder? This is what happens when political money gets into the Internet.
Yes, it's ostensibly one person, one vote, but one person or organization or funds transfer can shout far beyond a single voice.
The Liberty Amendments:
1) No campaign may accept contributions from outside of the political district represented, and non-personal transactions of any kind must be limited to organizations principally residing within that district
2) No contribution from any individual or organization in aggregate may exceed $100. No campaign for any elected office shall exceed $100,000 more than the salary paid to the elected office. All excess monies not directly used for campaign expenses shall be donated to the United States Treasury within one month after the election for that office. No funds raised may be used to pay for any family expenses other than personal travel, including actual cartage, actual hotel with reasonable per diem expenses, and reasonable food.
3) No political party or organization may transfer its funds to a specific candidate for elective office.
4) Monies spent to publically publish information about an issue or campaign shall be considered a contribution to that issue or campaign, and are subject to the limitations in Amendment One.
5) No foreign entity of any kind shall be allowed to make a contribution of monies, or materials to any elected office or political party or organization advancing the cause of an election or publically-voted issue.
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
Maybe we should try these.
until you have to mow it
None of these are sufficient reasons, but what will actually drive exploration is power-- military power. That's what drives the satellite and Space Shuttle business today.
First we need to learn about how to maintain this planet, before we go spoiling others. Ecosystems need attention; we need serious birth control; a cure for malaria and AIDs; ways to feed the poor and educate them-- not more money for space exploration-- it helps none of these.
We need to fix how we relate to each other, then we can go and screw up the rest of the galaxy
It shouldn't have taken a disaster to stress what NASA does. But NASA is a political football. The engineers end up taking the blame-- they could have scotched the mission, and they should have designed it better-- that and the $68billion dollars worth of NASA launches that either blew up before orbit, or were sent into the drink because of bad trajectories, or from other malfunctions.
Yes, the research has to be done. That's what I do for a living. On a moral basis, I don't experiment with other people's lives. If TVs had a 2% component failure-- every single TV would come from the factories dead. 2% is just plainly unacceptable. As are the jeapordy that lives were and are put into. Yes, we get to learn, but this is not the price that should be paid. Criminal charges aren't small enough, in my opinion. Manslaughter is a criminal offense, and when people are put in harms way, it should be prosecuted. Not enough research and experimentation was done-- just to continue to be in the race. It's inexcusable. And in a civilization where we value human life, criminal.
All of our guts were wrenched when not one, but two shuttles went down. Zero is the right number of defects. This is not what NASA does. I wish it were.
Look how many lives were needlessly lost due to NASA's incredible failures. They've put more people and good hardware in the drink than any organization should be allowed to. Can you imagine the looks on kids faces when they watched Challenger go down?
I've heard the excuses-- and they're just that-- bad excuses for bad engineering. The mind reels at how much money has been spent for such awful returns. And now they need bandwidth. I'm hoping they get their priorities right, but sadly, their egos won't let it happen.
Small things become airborne, or they become parts of aquifers, or find other ways to spread to places unintended. Look at what happens when a tiny amount of perc pollutes an aquifer-- it spreads in just weeks. Trichloroethane, MEK, all of these spread quickly and wreck ecosystems. The potentials are huge-- especially for countries that will look the other way to regulation and even common sense to have what they believe to be an economic gain.
The possibilities are plainly gruesome. Without basic metrics in place, it's all rife for abuse-- with the usual motivators.
So many ecosystems are either misunderstood, barely understood, or already deceased. Adding nanotech to the mix without knowing the parts of the equation that are affected-- because we're ignorant of much of the environment-- is asking for disaster. Regulatory oversight is incredibly important, before some genie gets out of the bottle that destroys us. We have no methods to fight a nanotech problem, should one emerge. We're defenceless. Is that a good posture for starting an industry?
They're usually smarter than that. Forged headers are common, but so are zombies/hijacked machines. It's not rocket science to discern one from the other.
In terms of collateral damage, it also raises the bar. Watch your complaint emails, and you won't get any damage at all because you'll react or respond. Do that-- react and/or respond-- and there's no damage whatsever.
I can list for you dozens of ISPs that whose MTAs and spam controllers are so disabled and screwed up that they actually reject spam complaints because they're either/or misconfigured or have parser errors.
I'd love to find ways to block, at key router points, IPs that are known to spew email-- even full CIDR blocks. That'll get someone's attention. If mine's blocked, you can make damn sure that I'll figure out where it happened and fix it spontaneously.
The domain registration process ought to also be verified/confirmed through an audit body as well. Maybe even a fingerprint. That, too, would stop spam in its tracks. Anonymity on the Internet is very good from a privacy standpoint, but from a management perspective, people lie their butts off, then abuse the infrastructure. This kills the goose that laid the golden egg of free communication.
We use them, and they're one tool in the anti-spam arsenal. If your domain gets locked out, there's a good chance that your administrator was non-responsive. They're not foolproof, and they're not well funded. Nonetheless, their record and methodology are well-known. So is their success at getting the attention of admins from tiny domains through to AOL, its subsidiaries, and major corporations.
Yes, it bites when you get black-holed. It's usually (but not always) entirely deserved.
You do your job right, to the standards of best practices, professionally. Then you can have self respect. That others respect you may be a good thing. You must set boundaries, but make them flexible. Remember to pick your own charities and know who they are. Otherwise charities will spring up from no where, and your life discontinues being your own. It's to your own self to be true first. Be straight with your self, and others can be straight with you. Respect is spawned from such truthfulness. As Vonnegut might say, we're all meat humans (exception given to sociopaths, who are IMHO, another species).
Example: the Hyperion pre-dated the woefully under-powered Compaq portable by almost a year. Invented in Canada by Murray Bell's organization, it was a far better machine.
There's no mention of the KayPro family of machines, either.
And the ultimate portable, the Timex/Sinclair gets no treatment, either.
Such are the problems with historians. Limited core.
It's short, but sweet. http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2005/022805solaris test.html is the link.
This is an astounding loss of life, and a healthy fraction of the posts are just evil. If this is what slashdot has come to, prejudice, intolerance and ill-will for those that have suffered, I'm outta here. These are your brethren. Mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts that have been hit by an unannounced, unpreventable, and unknowable tragedy. I'm appalled.
And so the first proof fails.
It's all defaults. I'm not in the business of optimizing other people's stuff. And I don't thwart products, either. Most optimizations are good for a single edition anyway.
I don't care if the results are therefore good or bad; I get paid to report on what the defaults do-- either way. Virtually anything can be optimized to give screaming defaults. I use only industry benchmarks, never a proprietary one so that others can extrapolate my results on their platforms. Sometimes the equipment used to benchmark costs money, and that's real life, too.
I don't believe that there are very many trade pubs in this business that optimize for results. If they do, they won't last long as people will see it for the BS it is.
My only wish is that there were more cross-platform, OSS benchmarks that couldn't be tweaked. It made good benchmarks, like Intel's IOMeter, into a meaningless tool.
There is real journalism left; you have to look for the right sources. The signal-to-noise level in blogdom is awful. Journalists are trained to write what they observe; some do and some embellish.
Lots of people blogging are downright boring and have little sense of either how to write, or even how to represent their own field of expertise, if they have one at all. Sure, there are filters, but there's little credentialization, and still more people that think they have to post to just to keep people interested in coming back. Sprinkle in some naughty photos, gossip, innuendo, made up 'facts', statistics, and there you have it: digital prattle at best
1) write in to the SLA policy-- a SU agreement with liablity
2) use (as mentioned) a L7 switch (Telena has one, too)
3) give temporary access, and make sure you check for root kits everytime with a script
4) tell your management just how expensive it is to have so many vendor's spoons in the soup and how potentially destabilizing it is to do this
5) use smart token card access coupled to your own CA; Tie the proximity of the card via RFID to a pacemaker attached directly to the aorta. If they lose it, they die. Simple.
6) partition roots across servers. Get an SNMP trap when they logon to keep track of them. Set a script against cron to send an additional alarm when they're on for more than a few minutes or upload more than a few megabytes through specific ports (indicating massive changes rather than remote control screen delta)
7) ask for one of their children for hostage use
I'm glad you've got Solaris on your aging laptop. Bravo.
You miss the point: GNU/Linux is a popular uprising. It plays in a lot of places like a fresh hammer seeks everything as a nail. Some are, some aren't. Java wasn't dismissed; but the populist support for Linux doesn't drive Solaris, and it never has. And likely won't. Solaris works on two processor architectures. To move it to another would be pretty difficult, and subject to corporate whimsy. Linux has no such corporation but it does have whimsy.
Not all goodness springs forth from the GPL, MIT, BSD, or other licenses. It springs from dedicated and creative programmers, who are free to use whatever license they choose.
JavaME isn't the kernel; it's an application foundation layer. It's pretty useful; I have few criticisms of it. Instead, the point made was populism, and the energy that it's brought. Solaris doesn't have that wind in its sails, or in its sales.
And it's unlikely to get it. These are two different OSs with two different purposes. To claim that Solaris wins in ten years is hubris. To claim that Linux wins in ten years is hubris. It's the wrong question to ask.
Sun doesn't get it. Their sense of open source only works when you write FOSS like this: F|=O$$.
As said before:
1) no Solaris on a mobile phone
2) no Solaris on a laptop/notebook/pda
3) no Solaris on a media centre
4) no Solaris in an automotive ECM, and so on.
I've talked to their PR people, and Sun engineers. They DON'T get it. Their idea of community is a country club. It's stockholder interests that they have at heart. That's ok.
What's not ok is to make believe that they're going to get Linux Love by putting on a blond wig and some lipstick.
Solaris in a WiFi access point? No.
Solaris in a watch? No.
Solaris in a TiVo clone? No.
Solaris in an auto's ECM? No.
Solaris on a laptop? No.
Solaris on a mobile? No.
Sun doesn't get populism. They're too used to their own history to reinvent themselves, or understand community OSS efforts. I watched Scott slam IBM's pension funding, and Schwartz look fawningly on in the press/analyst conference. I watched the little plane with the Red Hat "Business as Usual" banner flying behind. Sun wants Linux love a lot. And they're clueless on how to get it. Not McNealy's bruskness or Schwartz's blogged ponytail are going to get it. It's a shame, because Solaris 10 looks droolingly good, if proprietary (look closely at ZFS, dtrace, and so on). Sigh.