Since Linux is the underdog it should make things easier to administrate and use than Windows.
Easier for who? Linux experts or Windows experts? Take two people who have spent equal time on their respective OS learning how to do sys-admin tasks, and the Linux sys-admin might find it easier then the Windows sys-admin. But give a sys-admin whose experience is solely (or preomdinantly) in Windows and of course he's going to find a different OS difficult.
In the end of the day, it matters to business owners what they want to do more. Look for the long-term benefits, or the short term benefits. In today's American corporate culture, the short term benefits are what they're looking for because chances are they won't be around when the long-term problems occur.
Having said that, this is all under the hypothetical that Linux is easier to use for sys-admins. I'm not a sys-admin, so I don't know for sure.
Any decent sysadmin knows concepts, not platforms, and can work with whatever you hand them
Boss: I want result X.
Sys-admin: Oh that's easy. In theory you do acts A, B and C. In theory it takes about Y weeks to do it.
Boss: Great, I'll let you get to it.
Y weeks later.
Boss: So how is it going? Do you think you'll be able to finish it in a timely manner?
Sys-admin: I've barely started, I don't know your platform, I only know the concepts.
To say a great sys-admin shouldn't know a platform, only concepts AND be able to work with whatever you hand them is ridiculous. A good foundation of concepts and theory is essential to a good sys-admin. But experience and knowledge of a particular platform that they're expected to use is also important. It's like knowing the concepts in OO programming is much more important then knowing a particular OO language. However you can't hand someone a task to do in a specific OO language without some training prior in that particular language (whether it be self-taught for a few days or a course for a few weeks).
By posting on slashdot you prove that you actually know about TPM and have formed an opinion on it (at least in regards to mobile phones). Joe Consumer most definitely doesn't know about TPM and hasn't formed an opinion on it. Ergo, you're not Joe Consumer.
I don't see the PHB's getting excited about this until they have to pay good money for it.
You can always burn it to CD and sell it to them (with the source code and GNU license included at no extra charge) for $500,000 per CD. Would that be expensive enough to get them excited?
Mine's stuck on the loading page. Seems about par the course for open-source apps
*zing*
Thankyou ladies and gentleman, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to bludgeon your waittress to a bloody pulp....
I'd certainly support being taxed for it (if all/any the profits also went back into funding it). It's my health, why the hell shouldn't I support it? Or is letting people die of numerous diseases, because mostly only the poor people suffer from them, a situation you like to keep around?
You'll note I very carefully said "Convicted monopolist." American law obviously has a different ruling on a monopoly then a simple dictionary website. Fancy that.
So like I said, perhaps you should speak with the sys-admin saying that by company policy you're allowed to look at a site the proxy doesn't allow you to.
Microsoft has participated in illegal practices for quite some time. They are a convicted monopoly, and what's different about how they did business before and after their conviction? Absolutely nothing. That may be because Bush came into power soon after they were convicted, the Republicans all being supportive of big businesses of course didn't want to cause Microsoft any harm, damn the laws that it broke. Paranoid? Possibly. Co-incedence, doubtful. See the facts here.
So when Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law, and nothing happened. What incentive does Microsoft have to comply with other laws? What's going to happen? They'll be convicted again? I'm sure Microsoft is quivering in their boots.
First of all, I cannot read the article because of the corporate proxy filter, so I'm talking "blind" here.
It would appear your workplace doesn't approve the use of the internet for personal uses. Perhaps you should stop surfing slashdot instead of "talking blind." If it is allowed, perhaps you should speak with your sys-admin, if surfing slashdot is somehow tied in to your job and not for personal use, you should definitely speak with a manager and/or sys-admin to see about changing the proxy filter so you can perform your job better.
Aaah, but if the RIAA is distributing the file (or giving it to people to distribute), that's implied consent, so therefore you can't be sued (well okay. You can be, but the RIAA should lose).
I mean really kiddies why not look up the origins of the joke and then use it responsibly?
"Woah! Watch out! I think he's got a soviet russia joke! Quick, everyone! Evacuate the city before he uses it. He doesn't look like he's going to use it very responsibly so we're all in danger!"
Seriously. Use a joke responsibly? WTF? Maybe where your from using jokes is a serious business, but out here in Australia making a joke is anything BUT serious. People don't think about "using a joke responsibly", it's a joke, it's meant to make people laugh, if it does great, if it doesn't oh well. But you don't have to consider using it responsibly, the most thought you should put into it is "is this going to hurt anyone's feelings."
Files that impersonate other files (e.g. get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static) tend to only impersonate files that people don't have permission to distribute (and are therefore breaking the law). Most files that are legally distributable tend to not suffer from having poisonous files out there, so therefore people that follow the law don't actually have a problem with them.
If the past is any indicator (and it normally is), the bittorrent poisonous files will mostly (if not only) be impersonating files that people aren't allowed to distribute. Your garage bands or Linux distributors that use bit-torrent, are most likely not going to have people impersonating their files out there (there may be a little bit of it, but chances are it'll be a very small amount).
So really, for people that follow the law, this isn't going to be a problem. For people breaking the law, you really have no reason to complain. However what can be a problem is when legit files falsely report information to increase their perceived popularity.
Congratulations. You, and people like you are the reason Wikipedia has the problems it does. It must make you feel like a big person to be able to vandalise a website.
I know this will get modded down, but these sort of people annoy me.
Honestly Judge, the defendent just happened to confess after I beat the crap out of his little boy and raped his wife.
Oh I agree. The police shouldn't be allowed to use any information they obtain while beating the crap out of kids and raping people's wives. Sure, they can still beat the kids and rape the wives, they just can't use any information they obtained while doing so.
I think I pointed out the hole in your logic. It's legal for the police to stand in a street looking around themself. It's illegal for them to rape people.
You put a gun in an overweight nerds hand and shove him onto the battlefield and he's going to get killed very quickly. You put him behind the remote controls for one of these babies, and you'll have a lean-mean killing machine. Will nerds be the nest people to be drafted by the government? After all, all of those years training in Quake and Doom should make them experts wielding these babies.
I can see it now, Korea is at war with someone else using these on the battlefield. Kim and his friends want a LAN party, so they PAY the military to for an hours worth of time renting out 5 of these. They get behind their computers, and are suddenly transported to a battlefield and they go for it. Just make sure it's programmed so that the thing can't shoot allies (perhaps the allies emit a beacon) and the kids can go for their life, trying to frag as many people as they can. It'll be all the rage!
We're constantly hearing about combat robots, but are any in use? The only ones I know of being in use are reconnaisance robots (of numerous types) and bomb-defusing robots.
Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.
What if probable cause was based solely on the electromagnetic radiation the policeman's eye picked up in the visible light spectrum? Should that be admissable? This isn't a case of tiny nanobots coursing through your body and clothes searching for contrabands. This is a case of data that is being emitted by you (or your belongings) that is detectable in a place the policeman (or device) is allowed to be, such as a public street. No-one is being searched, the policeman is merely processing data that he is constantly being bombarded with, that in the past he has ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Linux is the underdog it should make things easier to administrate and use than Windows.
Easier for who? Linux experts or Windows experts? Take two people who have spent equal time on their respective OS learning how to do sys-admin tasks, and the Linux sys-admin might find it easier then the Windows sys-admin. But give a sys-admin whose experience is solely (or preomdinantly) in Windows and of course he's going to find a different OS difficult.
In the end of the day, it matters to business owners what they want to do more. Look for the long-term benefits, or the short term benefits. In today's American corporate culture, the short term benefits are what they're looking for because chances are they won't be around when the long-term problems occur.
Having said that, this is all under the hypothetical that Linux is easier to use for sys-admins. I'm not a sys-admin, so I don't know for sure.
Any decent sysadmin knows concepts, not platforms, and can work with whatever you hand them
Boss: I want result X. Sys-admin: Oh that's easy. In theory you do acts A, B and C. In theory it takes about Y weeks to do it. Boss: Great, I'll let you get to it. Y weeks later. Boss: So how is it going? Do you think you'll be able to finish it in a timely manner? Sys-admin: I've barely started, I don't know your platform, I only know the concepts.
To say a great sys-admin shouldn't know a platform, only concepts AND be able to work with whatever you hand them is ridiculous. A good foundation of concepts and theory is essential to a good sys-admin. But experience and knowledge of a particular platform that they're expected to use is also important. It's like knowing the concepts in OO programming is much more important then knowing a particular OO language. However you can't hand someone a task to do in a specific OO language without some training prior in that particular language (whether it be self-taught for a few days or a course for a few weeks).
You should also add "comment by a user named after one of the other australian's favourite authors" to the improbability factor.
Oh, and you're the reason my name has an _a affixed to it!
Meet me. Joe Consumer.
By posting on slashdot you prove that you actually know about TPM and have formed an opinion on it (at least in regards to mobile phones). Joe Consumer most definitely doesn't know about TPM and hasn't formed an opinion on it. Ergo, you're not Joe Consumer.
I don't see the PHB's getting excited about this until they have to pay good money for it.
You can always burn it to CD and sell it to them (with the source code and GNU license included at no extra charge) for $500,000 per CD. Would that be expensive enough to get them excited?
Mine's stuck on the loading page. Seems about par the course for open-source apps *zing* Thankyou ladies and gentleman, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to bludgeon your waittress to a bloody pulp....
I think almost every geek's heart must skip a beat when they hear about giant squids (think "Jules Verne").
I never knew Jules Verne included tentactle rape in his stories.
IANAL but I agree, nothing beats professional advice. Although YMMV.
I'd certainly support being taxed for it (if all/any the profits also went back into funding it). It's my health, why the hell shouldn't I support it? Or is letting people die of numerous diseases, because mostly only the poor people suffer from them, a situation you like to keep around?
You'll note I very carefully said "Convicted monopolist." American law obviously has a different ruling on a monopoly then a simple dictionary website. Fancy that.
So like I said, perhaps you should speak with the sys-admin saying that by company policy you're allowed to look at a site the proxy doesn't allow you to.
No. Only the police can commit entrapment. Source
Microsoft has participated in illegal practices for quite some time. They are a convicted monopoly, and what's different about how they did business before and after their conviction? Absolutely nothing. That may be because Bush came into power soon after they were convicted, the Republicans all being supportive of big businesses of course didn't want to cause Microsoft any harm, damn the laws that it broke. Paranoid? Possibly. Co-incedence, doubtful. See the facts here.
So when Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law, and nothing happened. What incentive does Microsoft have to comply with other laws? What's going to happen? They'll be convicted again? I'm sure Microsoft is quivering in their boots.
First of all, I cannot read the article because of the corporate proxy filter, so I'm talking "blind" here.
It would appear your workplace doesn't approve the use of the internet for personal uses. Perhaps you should stop surfing slashdot instead of "talking blind." If it is allowed, perhaps you should speak with your sys-admin, if surfing slashdot is somehow tied in to your job and not for personal use, you should definitely speak with a manager and/or sys-admin to see about changing the proxy filter so you can perform your job better.
Aaah, but if the RIAA is distributing the file (or giving it to people to distribute), that's implied consent, so therefore you can't be sued (well okay. You can be, but the RIAA should lose).
I mean really kiddies why not look up the origins of the joke and then use it responsibly?
"Woah! Watch out! I think he's got a soviet russia joke! Quick, everyone! Evacuate the city before he uses it. He doesn't look like he's going to use it very responsibly so we're all in danger!"
Seriously. Use a joke responsibly? WTF? Maybe where your from using jokes is a serious business, but out here in Australia making a joke is anything BUT serious. People don't think about "using a joke responsibly", it's a joke, it's meant to make people laugh, if it does great, if it doesn't oh well. But you don't have to consider using it responsibly, the most thought you should put into it is "is this going to hurt anyone's feelings."
Files that impersonate other files (e.g. get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static) tend to only impersonate files that people don't have permission to distribute (and are therefore breaking the law). Most files that are legally distributable tend to not suffer from having poisonous files out there, so therefore people that follow the law don't actually have a problem with them.
If the past is any indicator (and it normally is), the bittorrent poisonous files will mostly (if not only) be impersonating files that people aren't allowed to distribute. Your garage bands or Linux distributors that use bit-torrent, are most likely not going to have people impersonating their files out there (there may be a little bit of it, but chances are it'll be a very small amount).
So really, for people that follow the law, this isn't going to be a problem. For people breaking the law, you really have no reason to complain. However what can be a problem is when legit files falsely report information to increase their perceived popularity.
Congratulations. You, and people like you are the reason Wikipedia has the problems it does. It must make you feel like a big person to be able to vandalise a website.
I know this will get modded down, but these sort of people annoy me.
but I always verify the info with another source or two because people (even the majority) are sometimes wrong.
You should always do this no matter what your source. Whether your source is NASA's website or the Brittanica.
Will these things be able to climb stairs?
HA! And you thought I was going to ask if it ran on Linux.
Does the Korean government even care about determining whether people they shoot are civilians or not?
Honestly Judge, the defendent just happened to confess after I beat the crap out of his little boy and raped his wife.
Oh I agree. The police shouldn't be allowed to use any information they obtain while beating the crap out of kids and raping people's wives. Sure, they can still beat the kids and rape the wives, they just can't use any information they obtained while doing so.
I think I pointed out the hole in your logic. It's legal for the police to stand in a street looking around themself. It's illegal for them to rape people.
You put a gun in an overweight nerds hand and shove him onto the battlefield and he's going to get killed very quickly. You put him behind the remote controls for one of these babies, and you'll have a lean-mean killing machine. Will nerds be the nest people to be drafted by the government? After all, all of those years training in Quake and Doom should make them experts wielding these babies.
I can see it now, Korea is at war with someone else using these on the battlefield. Kim and his friends want a LAN party, so they PAY the military to for an hours worth of time renting out 5 of these. They get behind their computers, and are suddenly transported to a battlefield and they go for it. Just make sure it's programmed so that the thing can't shoot allies (perhaps the allies emit a beacon) and the kids can go for their life, trying to frag as many people as they can. It'll be all the rage!
We're constantly hearing about combat robots, but are any in use? The only ones I know of being in use are reconnaisance robots (of numerous types) and bomb-defusing robots.
Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.
What if probable cause was based solely on the electromagnetic radiation the policeman's eye picked up in the visible light spectrum? Should that be admissable? This isn't a case of tiny nanobots coursing through your body and clothes searching for contrabands. This is a case of data that is being emitted by you (or your belongings) that is detectable in a place the policeman (or device) is allowed to be, such as a public street. No-one is being searched, the policeman is merely processing data that he is constantly being bombarded with, that in the past he has ignored.