I'll buy that certainly for situations where you want to 0wnz0r every account, but usually you only need one priveleged one. From there, everything's candy.
In theory. In practice, many, many companies completely fail to follow best practice after discovering a breakin.
If that's the case, 0wn1ng a significant chunk of the network accounts effectively keeps your access around until they adopt best practice, which for some companies is never.
Your assertions can only be disproved through a robust survey, which I'm obviously not equipped to do
I do think the body of evidence doesn't support you, though. Riddle me this: why is Walmart selling Linux boxes? Classic "category killer" retailer, hated and feared by small retailers everywhere, loyal only to cheapness and volume, is selling Linux to Joe Sixpack.
-j, writing this on a Linux running laptop, although is is not a Toshiba. (Thinkpad 570, Debian unstable)
Vastly more than.01% of people run Linux, BSD, or another operating system. Do the math, dude.
Let me spell it out for you:
You claim that (.01% x users) run linux. So, in your world, for every 100,000 PCs sold, only one uses linux.
You are full of shit. You are dead wrong. come back with other agruments, if you like, but you're a troll. Look at Netcraft if you like, look at desktopwatch, I don't care. Honestly, take your pick, you are incorrect.
I know I'm responding to a troll, but, well, damn.
I hate to say it, I've been too long out of the MS development world. That kind of overhead managed to amaze me.
I'm deploying systems right now (some buzzword compliant, some (more efficient ones) on lowly little open source, that scale to an order of magnitude higher transaction volume at a fraction of the cost. No, none of them are windows.
No wonder my company has been doing well in a downturn. (Oh, sorry, we're "recovering" now.)
You've unintentionally nailed a fairly deep truth about both Larry and Perl.
Both are very, very amusing/accessible, and very complex.
If you skip around in an attempt to "get" either of them, looking for an executive summary, you end up walking away scratching your head, because neither was "designed" (although Larry would have no trouble with that word, I do) that way. They both evolved (and now I'd really wonder what Larry would say to *that*).
But if you give a little time towards trying to understand them, both are hugely rewarding, make you think, and have proven themselves extremely useful.
The "peeling an onion" metaphor is is especially apt - there's always something new to learn.
Why do you want only those with a lot of cash to own domains? This flies in the face of, say, US trademark law, which (though much maligned here) allows me, for instance, legal acknoledgement of my term. With a flat namespace, first mover wins. So be it- that's how it always works. Should a cash reserve change that?
Don't talk about "need" - I don't need the 15 or so domains I own (I'm not even sure how many at this point). I have them. That's what counts.
True, pool.com has a vested interest. One can't expect expensive lawsuits to be driven by people with no income and no vested stake - that doesn't happen often.
If I'm not mistaken, the "reservation" system is explicitly handed to one company. There are other models that would work, pool.com's being one of them. ICANN, in typical fashion, handed out a freebie to an incumbent.
And you're actually factually incorrect: the reason ICANN has the power it has is that people who choose to participate in the distributed database known as DNS choose to participate with ICANN policies, including which name servers to use. There are others. I use others. I suspect many others will start choosing others as well, as time goes on. Many of us want a "free-for-all", and believe that would be far superior.
They always got their man. They were guilty, because they were caught, and the state said they were guilty.
I suppose you'd feel very comfortable with all of your mail read, phone calls recorded, and movements tracked. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? The state knows what's best for you, and needs to know your every action in order to act for you.
(For the record, I live in Brooklyn; I'm familiar with the homeless situation here.)
I do go back and live in it; my mother still lives there. It is nicer now; they've got incoming water from a spring discovered on her property working, have made a lot of additions to the place, and have generally spruced it up. Salaries are very low in that region, so construction takes place on a slow time scale (it takes a few months to save to rent a backhoe for a day, in order to flatten an area to expland the house on to, not counting the cost of the lumber, roofing, drywall, etc. and time off work to do the actual building. In all, about a year to expand a room.).
I'm not planning on having children, so I can make no judgement on that question - a lot of things in my life would be different if I were planning on it. My brother, who does have children, had no problem staying there with them.
As far as that absurd law allowing forced shelter confinement, I have problems with that, too.
I'll note there have been plenty of fires and explosions in perfectly up-to-code buildings as well. If you're still in Metro NYC, you can read about them daily.
If you've never actually dealt with building codes, you don't have any idea how much graft there is in it. Some of it is perfectly sane best practice (a lot of the more basic electrical code), but then you have things like the plumbing requirements, which were written by plumbers, for plumbers, in order to boost the cost of plumbing. Look it up. Also, look at the new building codes in Texas mandating flourescent lighting only. They're claiming it is an environmental act, to reduce electricity consumption, so as to improve air quality. Who does it hurt? Smaller retailers who go for mood lighting. Who gave money to several of the backers of the bill? Walmart.
I still contend: some housing is better than no housing. The state should stay out of it.
Whenever anyone starts saying that people are better off on the street than living in sub-code building, I know that they have lived a sheltered life.
I grew up in what would now be considered a squatter's shack, no running water, eventually self-generated power. My family rebuilt the place from a shell that hadn't been lived in ~60 years, judging from the old newspaper we found scattered around. I have no idea what the code for that area was, but we weren't building to it. We had lots of (horribly unsanitary) animals running around, grew much of our own produce, and had an outhouse.
It was a fine place to grow up.
Are you saying that we should have been homeless instead, because our substandard shelter was unsafe unsafe?
Now add in the fact that building codes are as much a special interest game as any other legislation.
Some folks might believe I'm making this up. I assure you, I'm not, and won't bother to respond if that's your contention.
That's deployment for a very profitable client of mine.
You're already done, if you've got the money for that kind of hardware. Rock on.
I'm deploying a fully dynamic (as in every page is at least asked if it should be dynamic, and most of it is) site, for a heavy volume, and your specs are close to mine. Sounds like you might be getting a server from CHhost or similar.
Damn, for a school, I'm not sure what you need, but Mason kicks ass for rapid, easy development.
Competition is about providing best value. Sure, sounds trite, right? Try to offer a service in NYC, or San Francisco without a justification of why you're the best. Honestly, try it - I've done it in both cities. Please, report back here.I'll share mime if you share yours.
You don't have to fuck your competition, but you have to be bloodthirsty. That's a fact.
So, the question is, when do you stop? I don't exuse any of the creepy dealings of these corps(es) - but I do wonder where "expanding your market" meets "being hated". We're tiny, and try to be nice, and so far all clients agree. Is there something that looks like Microsoftian behaviour in me? (We offer source to all clients, retain all copyrights, don't ever stop anyone from using our ideas, sometimes tell people they can't reuse source. I don't like that, but perhaps we shouldn't have been in business with them in the first place.)
OK, anyone want to pile on, I supose the is the place.
"Cost center" means something that doesn't generate revenue. Much of the (horrible annoying things we bitch about here is) business of business is turning cost centers into something else that generates money.
Of course IT is part of the business. If it were extraneous, that would be a pretty poor business to keep supporting it.
I'm a big fan of internal value exchange for large businesses. Engineering and Sales have to buy IT services within the company. Cost controls have an interesting property in that the focus the mind.
Another of Buffet's axioms, which you're not using, is "keep everyone accountable".
This book seems to be arguing (from an IT centric standpoint) the same thing. Integrate with the business. Be a profit center.
Have you read many marketing books, or sales books?
IT has come of age. It isn't some bolt-on side project. It _is_ about time it becomes part of Just Doing Business.
No, it isn't so cool anymore, but this is what being sucessful means, in the business world. That means work, and jobs, and stability. There are still cool things to be done. And yes, I do know that, because I'm playing with instability, and sometimes no work, and I don't have a job outside of my company. Oh, and really cool new projects that are terribly risky. Don't come here unless you can lose everything. And your car. And your penis. <family guy> hehehehehe</familyguy>
It should be a chargeback environment, IT should be responsible for services, and other groups should be required to use IT services for IT needs.
Much like an advertising group is responsible for advertising, and IT group is responsible for computing properly. There's an ownership in both cases that crosses departmental boundries. Perhaps is crosses more in IT cases, but it is still true. Think of how marketing works, and abuses, the notion (in many companies).
The concept that IT is a janitor function is no more valid than the concept that an executive assistant is a janitor function. Many people feel that they are both that, but the aren't. If you doubt me, ask a good exec about their assistant. I suspect if they honestly praise the assistant, they'll feel similar about IT.
And it is not morally right to acquire music you have not paid for. You have proven my argument. Next.
You've a little problem here. If I flash a flashlight at someone else, maybe quickly, that's me communicating with them. Please prove how this has anything to do with you, the copyright holder of some material that may or may not have anything to do with what is on the wire. By the way, did I mention that I hold copyright on this post? I will enforce all rights available to me.
Another typical Slashbot move. Declaring what is wrong with society.
Have a great time protesting things. There's a quote:
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
It was just an emotion-charged rally cry due to your being used to the convenience of illegally and imorally downloading music by artists that you haven't paid for.
No, this is about your illegal and immoral use of classics knowledge. You know that knowing greek infringes on those who currently know greek. You must pay.
Lemme know when you've paid, OK? That's money in my pocket.
Before you criticize, please do a good job of describing how bits on my drive are somehow your property, and how someone 5000 years ago should express a difference of opinion on current use of their thoughts.
Sounds are code. Code is thought. Thought is code, if people publicize it. Just fucking deal. I have, and I'm making money doing so, with my "IP" not something that becomes the subject of lawsuits or slashdot postings. Both via coding, and via generating noise.
I'm not interested in a flame war here, but I have to disagree.
It sounds like we've even built similar things - I've done a couple of mass mailers for mailing lists as well. Even used parts of qmail for one. Volume-wise, they're variable, and I don't know what's up with one of them anymore. The other is doing about 14M messages/day peak, with "daily" meaning "delivered before you wake up" but after midnight.
The fact that you don't think it needs failure notification or routing makes me thing you haven't considered mail delivery much beyond your immediate goal. Even if you only think of bulk mail, failures are needed to trim lists, backup MX is needed for the inevitable failures (and lots of very high volume sites depend on it for simple delivery). DSN is something lots of people depend on. Waving your hands and saying "it isn't necessary" doesn't make it so.
Beyond the realm of legitimate bulk mail, some of these become more important. Lots of applications depend on knowing that a message was either delivered or wasn't, and are built on these properties of SMTP. And this doesn't even get into things like UUCP (which is still in wide use in some parts of the world).
It almost seems like you're saying that you should have built a different protocol, but didn't, so the protocol should adapt to what you need. Be happy with tweaking your own defaults on your MTAs, and stop spouting about what MTAs in general need.
Part of the plan is to cost spammers more money, driving more of the smaller ones out of the market. Once the spammer market consolidates enough that only a few mechanisms are effective, those individuals will be easier to attack, pickaxe, and make an example of.
Having your car up on blocks when all the other neighbors are doing it is one thing. When you're tho only one, your neighbors suddenly start focusing a bit.
Whydoyouthink MS is so obsessed right now with keeping governments from adopting open source?
If one does it, who cares, tiny lost market that isn't that much money anyway.
If ten do it, Hm, is that interesting? Are there network effects?
Please, iterate in this vein.
I completely agree that OSS must stand on merit. I'd add that organizations will make their own choices, and OSS will do well when a critical mass of organizations make a choice.
God love 'em (ahem), governments are organizations, and have strange ways of making choices.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory. In practice, many, many companies completely fail to follow best practice after discovering a breakin.
If that's the case, 0wn1ng a significant chunk of the network accounts effectively keeps your access around until they adopt best practice, which for some companies is never.
Do you see a difference between the following two situations:
(1) you are in a public place, and other people can see you
(2) you are in a public place, and video archives of everything you do are stored and accessible, now, for 10 years, but almost certainly, for life
Do you not see a difference?
One is called reputation. The other is something that enables Orwellian nightmares.
There is a certain invevitability that is working here, but all that recommends is that the state not be in charge.
Your assertions can only be disproved through a robust survey, which I'm obviously not equipped to do
I do think the body of evidence doesn't support you, though. Riddle me this: why is Walmart selling Linux boxes? Classic "category killer" retailer, hated and feared by small retailers everywhere, loyal only to cheapness and volume, is selling Linux to Joe Sixpack.
-j, writing this on a Linux running laptop, although is is not a Toshiba. (Thinkpad 570, Debian unstable)
... You're also off base.
.01% of people run Linux, BSD, or another operating system. Do the math, dude.
Vastly more than
Let me spell it out for you:
You claim that (.01% x users) run linux. So, in your world, for every 100,000 PCs sold, only one uses linux.
You are full of shit. You are dead wrong. come back with other agruments, if you like, but you're a troll. Look at Netcraft if you like, look at desktopwatch, I don't care. Honestly, take your pick, you are incorrect.
I know I'm responding to a troll, but, well, damn.
I hate to say it, I've been too long out of the MS development world. That kind of overhead managed to amaze me.
I'm deploying systems right now (some buzzword compliant, some (more efficient ones) on lowly little open source, that scale to an order of magnitude higher transaction volume at a fraction of the cost. No, none of them are windows.
No wonder my company has been doing well in a downturn. (Oh, sorry, we're "recovering" now.)
The above was really what I was getting at.
It was only a tiny aside, a sort of a nod to the word games Larry tends to play.
You've unintentionally nailed a fairly deep truth about both Larry and Perl.
Both are very, very amusing/accessible, and very complex.
If you skip around in an attempt to "get" either of them, looking for an executive summary, you end up walking away scratching your head, because neither was "designed" (although Larry would have no trouble with that word, I do) that way. They both evolved (and now I'd really wonder what Larry would say to *that*).
But if you give a little time towards trying to understand them, both are hugely rewarding, make you think, and have proven themselves extremely useful.
The "peeling an onion" metaphor is is especially apt - there's always something new to learn.
I've been subbed to the NYT for a long time, with a trackable email address used only for the registration. I opted out of all of the email crap.
I've never been spammed at that particular address. I would conclude that the NYT is actually ethical wrt their email database.
You're completely misrepresenting what I said.
Read it again, think a bit, and drive through.
Ahem.
Why do you want only those with a lot of cash to own domains? This flies in the face of, say, US trademark law, which (though much maligned here) allows me, for instance, legal acknoledgement of my term. With a flat namespace, first mover wins. So be it- that's how it always works. Should a cash reserve change that?
Don't talk about "need" - I don't need the 15 or so domains I own (I'm not even sure how many at this point). I have them. That's what counts.
True, pool.com has a vested interest. One can't expect expensive lawsuits to be driven by people with no income and no vested stake - that doesn't happen often.
If I'm not mistaken, the "reservation" system is explicitly handed to one company. There are other models that would work, pool.com's being one of them. ICANN, in typical fashion, handed out a freebie to an incumbent.
And you're actually factually incorrect: the reason ICANN has the power it has is that people who choose to participate in the distributed database known as DNS choose to participate with ICANN policies, including which name servers to use. There are others. I use others. I suspect many others will start choosing others as well, as time goes on. Many of us want a "free-for-all", and believe that would be far superior.
...that you don't live under Soviet rule.
They always got their man. They were guilty, because they were caught, and the state said they were guilty.
I suppose you'd feel very comfortable with all of your mail read, phone calls recorded, and movements tracked. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? The state knows what's best for you, and needs to know your every action in order to act for you.
(For the record, I live in Brooklyn; I'm familiar with the homeless situation here.)
I do go back and live in it; my mother still lives there. It is nicer now; they've got incoming water from a spring discovered on her property working, have made a lot of additions to the place, and have generally spruced it up. Salaries are very low in that region, so construction takes place on a slow time scale (it takes a few months to save to rent a backhoe for a day, in order to flatten an area to expland the house on to, not counting the cost of the lumber, roofing, drywall, etc. and time off work to do the actual building. In all, about a year to expand a room.).
I'm not planning on having children, so I can make no judgement on that question - a lot of things in my life would be different if I were planning on it. My brother, who does have children, had no problem staying there with them.
As far as that absurd law allowing forced shelter confinement, I have problems with that, too.
I'll note there have been plenty of fires and explosions in perfectly up-to-code buildings as well. If you're still in Metro NYC, you can read about them daily.
If you've never actually dealt with building codes, you don't have any idea how much graft there is in it. Some of it is perfectly sane best practice (a lot of the more basic electrical code), but then you have things like the plumbing requirements, which were written by plumbers, for plumbers, in order to boost the cost of plumbing. Look it up. Also, look at the new building codes in Texas mandating flourescent lighting only. They're claiming it is an environmental act, to reduce electricity consumption, so as to improve air quality. Who does it hurt? Smaller retailers who go for mood lighting. Who gave money to several of the backers of the bill? Walmart.
I still contend: some housing is better than no housing. The state should stay out of it.
Whenever anyone starts saying that people are better off on the street than living in sub-code building, I know that they have lived a sheltered life.
I grew up in what would now be considered a squatter's shack, no running water, eventually self-generated power. My family rebuilt the place from a shell that hadn't been lived in ~60 years, judging from the old newspaper we found scattered around. I have no idea what the code for that area was, but we weren't building to it. We had lots of (horribly unsanitary) animals running around, grew much of our own produce, and had an outhouse.
It was a fine place to grow up.
Are you saying that we should have been homeless instead, because our substandard shelter was unsafe unsafe?
Now add in the fact that building codes are as much a special interest game as any other legislation.
Some folks might believe I'm making this up. I assure you, I'm not, and won't bother to respond if that's your contention.
Soooo....
All of that crap? maybe you said? Might be true.
I'm just going to go over here, for a while, and stand next to these tires and explosiives.
What, you like puppies now?
You're already done, if you've got the money for that kind of hardware. Rock on.
I'm deploying a fully dynamic (as in every page is at least asked if it should be dynamic, and most of it is) site, for a heavy volume, and your specs are close to mine. Sounds like you might be getting a server from CHhost or similar.
Damn, for a school, I'm not sure what you need, but Mason kicks ass for rapid, easy development.
You clearly don't work for yourself.
If you did, you'd have a notion of competition.
Competition is about providing best value. Sure, sounds trite, right? Try to offer a service in NYC, or San Francisco without a justification of why you're the best. Honestly, try it - I've done it in both cities. Please, report back here.I'll share mime if you share yours.
You don't have to fuck your competition, but you have to be bloodthirsty. That's a fact.
So, the question is, when do you stop? I don't exuse any of the creepy dealings of these corps(es) - but I do wonder where "expanding your market" meets "being hated". We're tiny, and try to be nice, and so far all clients agree. Is there something that looks like Microsoftian behaviour in me? (We offer source to all clients, retain all copyrights, don't ever stop anyone from using our ideas, sometimes tell people they can't reuse source. I don't like that, but perhaps we shouldn't have been in business with them in the first place.)
OK, anyone want to pile on, I supose the is the place.
I'd be interested in responses.
"Cost center" means something that doesn't generate revenue. Much of the (horrible annoying things we bitch about here is) business of business is turning cost centers into something else that generates money.
Of course IT is part of the business. If it were extraneous, that would be a pretty poor business to keep supporting it.
I'm a big fan of internal value exchange for large businesses. Engineering and Sales have to buy IT services within the company. Cost controls have an interesting property in that the focus the mind.
Another of Buffet's axioms, which you're not using, is "keep everyone accountable".
This book seems to be arguing (from an IT centric standpoint) the same thing. Integrate with the business. Be a profit center.
Have you read many marketing books, or sales books?
IT has come of age. It isn't some bolt-on side project. It _is_ about time it becomes part of Just Doing Business.
No, it isn't so cool anymore, but this is what being sucessful means, in the business world. That means work, and jobs, and stability. There are still cool things to be done. And yes, I do know that, because I'm playing with instability, and sometimes no work, and I don't have a job outside of my company. Oh, and really cool new projects that are terribly risky. Don't come here unless you can lose everything. And your car. And your penis. <family guy> hehehehehe</familyguy>
This is absuolutely what IT is there to fix.
It should be a chargeback environment, IT should be responsible for services, and other groups should be required to use IT services for IT needs.
Much like an advertising group is responsible for advertising, and IT group is responsible for computing properly. There's an ownership in both cases that crosses departmental boundries. Perhaps is crosses more in IT cases, but it is still true. Think of how marketing works, and abuses, the notion (in many companies).
The concept that IT is a janitor function is no more valid than the concept that an executive assistant is a janitor function. Many people feel that they are both that, but the aren't. If you doubt me, ask a good exec about their assistant. I suspect if they honestly praise the assistant, they'll feel similar about IT.
You've a little problem here. If I flash a flashlight at someone else, maybe quickly, that's me communicating with them. Please prove how this has anything to do with you, the copyright holder of some material that may or may not have anything to do with what is on the wire. By the way, did I mention that I hold copyright on this post? I will enforce all rights available to me.
Another typical Slashbot move. Declaring what is wrong with society.
Have a great time protesting things. There's a quote: "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
It was just an emotion-charged rally cry due to your being used to the convenience of illegally and imorally downloading music by artists that you haven't paid for.
No, this is about your illegal and immoral use of classics knowledge. You know that knowing greek infringes on those who currently know greek. You must pay.
Lemme know when you've paid, OK? That's money in my pocket.
Before you criticize, please do a good job of describing how bits on my drive are somehow your property, and how someone 5000 years ago should express a difference of opinion on current use of their thoughts.
Sounds are code. Code is thought. Thought is code, if people publicize it. Just fucking deal. I have, and I'm making money doing so, with my "IP" not something that becomes the subject of lawsuits or slashdot postings. Both via coding, and via generating noise.
I'm not interested in a flame war here, but I have to disagree.
It sounds like we've even built similar things - I've done a couple of mass mailers for mailing lists as well. Even used parts of qmail for one. Volume-wise, they're variable, and I don't know what's up with one of them anymore. The other is doing about 14M messages/day peak, with "daily" meaning "delivered before you wake up" but after midnight.
The fact that you don't think it needs failure notification or routing makes me thing you haven't considered mail delivery much beyond your immediate goal. Even if you only think of bulk mail, failures are needed to trim lists, backup MX is needed for the inevitable failures (and lots of very high volume sites depend on it for simple delivery). DSN is something lots of people depend on. Waving your hands and saying "it isn't necessary" doesn't make it so.
Beyond the realm of legitimate bulk mail, some of these become more important. Lots of applications depend on knowing that a message was either delivered or wasn't, and are built on these properties of SMTP. And this doesn't even get into things like UUCP (which is still in wide use in some parts of the world).
It almost seems like you're saying that you should have built a different protocol, but didn't, so the protocol should adapt to what you need. Be happy with tweaking your own defaults on your MTAs, and stop spouting about what MTAs in general need.
Part of the plan is to cost spammers more money, driving more of the smaller ones out of the market. Once the spammer market consolidates enough that only a few mechanisms are effective, those individuals will be easier to attack, pickaxe, and make an example of.
Having your car up on blocks when all the other neighbors are doing it is one thing. When you're tho only one, your neighbors suddenly start focusing a bit.
I'm kidding. A little.
You've clearly never worked on a government contract. Cost gets factored in. Even probabilistic costs.
Your cases make very little sense. Case 1 almost does. Case two fails to take into account case 1.
Hate to be an ass, but get back to me when you've been through the process.
If one does it, who cares, tiny lost market that isn't that much money anyway.
If ten do it, Hm, is that interesting? Are there network effects?
Please, iterate in this vein.
I completely agree that OSS must stand on merit. I'd add that organizations will make their own choices, and OSS will do well when a critical mass of organizations make a choice.
God love 'em (ahem), governments are organizations, and have strange ways of making choices.
But they do.