I remember watching a talking heads technology show on PBS in the late 80's where a spokesperson from IBM was describing how they were going to put the WinTel threat to rest with their PS/1 line of computers with the advanced MCA bus running OS/2.
This guy's entire line exhibits the same level of brand-centric myopia. Hell, he just noticed that there were different distros of Linux:
Now the challenge will be [that] they're going to need to do stuff to differentiate themselves from Red Hat, which then means that they need to find ways to basically almost have a customized distribution. And you can end up with Linux not being Linux, but Red Hat Linux being different than Novell SUSE Linux, Debian Linux and Mandrake, or whatever the case is.
For this analysis Microsoft pays this guy a 6-figure salary? I'm no genius, but I knew that Linux was not a specific distribution (e.g., "...Linux not being Linux...") in 1994.
They need to wake up before they become another DEC.
The picture painted by the current state of affairs isn't nearly as clear as you claim it to be. The legal theory bandied about by SCO council makes it difficult to establish precisely *what* their claims are.
You have cherry picked my post for the most enlightening point I hoped to make: "...not arising out of a contract or statute."
Right. First SCO claimed it was a contract dispute; then they claimed Linux developers stole their code (i.e., theft - a statutory offense); then they claimed that they suffered damage due to negligence on the part of IBM (a tort - civil wrong unrelated to their contract dispute); today, it is 'claim de jur'.
Follow SCO's bouncing legal ball and your head will swim. If you have some evidence that SCO has actually landed on a legal theory for their case, please present it before thrashing others for their objection to SCO's abuse of the legal system.
I suppose the kind of change you want is "contract suit reform" but I'm personally unaware of a pervasive problem with the way courts enforce contracts.
No, I would like to see comprehensive legal reform that accommodates both business and consumer interests. I would love to see jury awards limited to actual damage done, but I would also like to see corporations forced to prove that they have a legitimate claim before dragging Joe Public before the bar.
That would be a good start. Just like 1,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
"TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.
A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.) "
Sound like the SCO v. IBM case is a tort.
Tort reform sound appropriate. But I only support tort reform if it includes things like Slap Suits. Placing the burden of tort reform completely on individuals is hokum.
Do not order computers with external device access.
Alternatively:
1)Remove USB ports at the motherboard. 2)Do not install floppy or zip drives. 3)Do not install CDR/DVRs. 4)Remove all legacy serial and parallel ports.
Now just how you will get any work done is another matter.
When I was in high school, we were encouraged to read newspapers from abroad to get an idea of how other countries viewed the history of any given policy of the time.
My children are now studying history in US high school and are equally encouraged to read other sources than their history texts.
And I can see all the foriegners complaining that this is too U.S. centric:)
Yes, but in the spirit of the current Administration (and looks likely that it will be the future Administration), we don't take crap off of our Colonies(tm).
You see, when you are the undisputed last remaining SuperPower(tm), it is beneath you to take seriously any criticism from the USEuropean Colonies, nor from our Colonies in USChina, USIndia, or USRussia. Shit, we can't even be bothered to wake from our collective slumber to listen to such backwaters as USAfrica, or USLatin America. Japan, Taiwan, and Israel are our only allies and they don't get in our way when we care to flex our might where we care to.
Face it, who has the power to oppose us? The Arab countries? Really?
I can't speak for the other contributor, but I tried to look objectively at the financial reporting and provide a summary of what was being written in advance of SCOs conference call. What I wrote is as objective as one can be. SCO was reporting financial details and the information wasn't necessarily going to be great for investors. I also linked to a story about SCO's settlement with Baystar and how I thought that would be viewed as 'positive' for SCO.
No event in the history of human affairs can be strictly viewed objectively. No matter how hard someone tries, it is impossible to convey what is seen without taking in to account the filters that recorded the event.
Good point. I thought about that as well, and normally I would agree with you, but there have been several people who have been watching SCO's financials as an indicator of how much longer we have to put up with this charade.
The past is often a guide to the future. Better phrased: "Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it".
Taking a look at the results from the previous year indicate a progressive decline in Net Income Applicable To Common Shares. This metric is not something that will give investors something to do handsprings over.
The tone of the word "owned" implies the people have no say in the matter...
And they certainly do have a say in the matter. The U.S. Council for Puerto Rico Statehood certainly have an opinion about statehood for the tiny island commenwealth:
" We cannot continue to operate a colony, forcing U.S. citizens to accept a second-class citizenship, one without full political rights and equal representation, and not guaranteed by the constitution. The United States is a republic, not an empire."
So it is clear to many of the residents of Puerto Rico - they object to being yet another bitch of the US.
According to your reference, Puerto Rico doesn't have independence.
"Independence: none (commonwealth associated with the US)"
Puerto Rico: Come Vist America's Other Bitch.(tm)*
*(not to be confused with other American bitches, notably Guam, American Samoa, etc)
Re:Major security issues...
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 1
The question in the grandparent post was "is there a secure WiFi network".
Understood, but more than a few post have been generated that have made references to military secrets being compromised on WiFi networks. Undoubtedly, there are secure WiFi apppliances or the USDOD and the USDOE would not allow them on their networks.
That said, your question is an interesting one, moreso than you know. Let's look at it from an axiomatic viewpoint - any network connection in harm's way is going to be considered sensitive and most likely classified. Draw conclusions from there.
Unless there are military censors standing right next to the person typing the email home, there is no way to guarantee that some operational detail will not make it on to the network. The fact that the soldier typing the email is probably going to be the victim of the attack, if it comes, should be more than enough inducement to assure compliance with military regulations regarding unauthorized transmission of operational information.
WiFi networks are not the only problem if you are looking for leaks. The 21st Century soldier carries a cell phone into combat these days. Capturing a cell phone call is just as easy (or perhaps easier) than sniffing email traffic. Although there aren't many cell towers in Afghanistan, having portable communications devices makes the job of securing a military position much more difficult.
No Need For Alarm
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As this poster and this AC have pointed out, this is non-operational, family information trafficing between a small base (probably known to the enemy) and the US for the expressed purpose of letting loved ones know that they are alive and, for the time, okay.
This is not a situation where military details will be disclosed or data stolen from the hard drives of military planners laptops (they have to go to Los Alamos for that - groan).
This is an initiative to send equipment to troops who need to keep their families apprised of their condition.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Hannibal?
Ummmm.... Look... You see, this whole eating thing....
Well you can see that it can only be possible if we *first* gut him, and then burn him at the stake.
That would take some of the fun out of the whole burning-the-heretic thingy.
But I'm with you, you know.
A computer is a tool for information use, not an end in itself.
Blasphemy!
Burn the heretic!
Good catch!
I think we've identified "Dianne" as Lindsey from the Vanderbilt Kappa Delta sorority.
I remember watching a talking heads technology show on PBS in the late 80's where a spokesperson from IBM was describing how they were going to put the WinTel threat to rest with their PS/1 line of computers with the advanced MCA bus running OS/2.
This guy's entire line exhibits the same level of brand-centric myopia. Hell, he just noticed that there were different distros of Linux:
Now the challenge will be [that] they're going to need to do stuff to differentiate themselves from Red Hat, which then means that they need to find ways to basically almost have a customized distribution. And you can end up with Linux not being Linux, but Red Hat Linux being different than Novell SUSE Linux, Debian Linux and Mandrake, or whatever the case is.
For this analysis Microsoft pays this guy a 6-figure salary? I'm no genius, but I knew that Linux was not a specific distribution (e.g., "...Linux not being Linux...") in 1994.
They need to wake up before they become another DEC.
Suns revenue for the 4th quarter was over $3 billion.
Split two ways, that means each of them are getting royally screwed on OS fees.
They must be running HUGE server farms.
But you were just being an ignorant putz, weren't you.
Maybe yes, maybe *no*.
You can't continue to take losses like these and stay in business. (HINT: The loss curve exhibits a geometric progression).
That's ok, I think their customers will like it.
Yes, all two of them.
This is fundamentally a contract case.
You really know that to be the case?
The picture painted by the current state of affairs isn't nearly as clear as you claim it to be. The legal theory bandied about by SCO council makes it difficult to establish precisely *what* their claims are.
You have cherry picked my post for the most enlightening point I hoped to make: "...not arising out of a contract or statute."
Right. First SCO claimed it was a contract dispute; then they claimed Linux developers stole their code (i.e., theft - a statutory offense); then they claimed that they suffered damage due to negligence on the part of IBM (a tort - civil wrong unrelated to their contract dispute); today, it is 'claim de jur'.
Follow SCO's bouncing legal ball and your head will swim. If you have some evidence that SCO has actually landed on a legal theory for their case, please present it before thrashing others for their objection to SCO's abuse of the legal system.
I suppose the kind of change you want is "contract suit reform" but I'm personally unaware of a pervasive problem with the way courts enforce contracts.
No, I would like to see comprehensive legal reform that accommodates both business and consumer interests. I would love to see jury awards limited to actual damage done, but I would also like to see corporations forced to prove that they have a legitimate claim before dragging Joe Public before the bar.
That would be a good start. Just like 1,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
Alien Verizon Commercial: "Can you hear me now?"
"What it is, is perfectly secure against physical eavesdropping."
Don't you mean "theoretically perfect"?
Observe! Invocation of the Patriot Act!
All transport layers are now visible.
From LectLaw:
"TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.
A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.) "
Sound like the SCO v. IBM case is a tort.
Tort reform sound appropriate. But I only support tort reform if it includes things like Slap Suits. Placing the burden of tort reform completely on individuals is hokum.
Do not order computers with external device access.
Alternatively:
1)Remove USB ports at the motherboard.
2)Do not install floppy or zip drives.
3)Do not install CDR/DVRs.
4)Remove all legacy serial and parallel ports.
Now just how you will get any work done is another matter.
"History taught in American schools is wrong..."
Have you studied here?
When I was in high school, we were encouraged to read newspapers from abroad to get an idea of how other countries viewed the history of any given policy of the time.
My children are now studying history in US high school and are equally encouraged to read other sources than their history texts.
And I can see all the foriegners complaining that this is too U.S. centric :)
Yes, but in the spirit of the current Administration (and looks likely that it will be the future Administration), we don't take crap off of our Colonies(tm).
You see, when you are the undisputed last remaining SuperPower(tm), it is beneath you to take seriously any criticism from the USEuropean Colonies, nor from our Colonies in USChina, USIndia, or USRussia. Shit, we can't even be bothered to wake from our collective slumber to listen to such backwaters as USAfrica, or USLatin America. Japan, Taiwan, and Israel are our only allies and they don't get in our way when we care to flex our might where we care to.
Face it, who has the power to oppose us? The Arab countries? Really?
(sound of fading sarcasm)
Why don't I have any GODDAMN MOD POINTS!!??!!
Good point, friend. Sinking ships do not need more rats.
Keep Linux in the camp of strong(er) OSs.
I can't speak for the other contributor, but I tried to look objectively at the financial reporting and provide a summary of what was being written in advance of SCOs conference call. What I wrote is as objective as one can be. SCO was reporting financial details and the information wasn't necessarily going to be great for investors. I also linked to a story about SCO's settlement with Baystar and how I thought that would be viewed as 'positive' for SCO.
No event in the history of human affairs can be strictly viewed objectively. No matter how hard someone tries, it is impossible to convey what is seen without taking in to account the filters that recorded the event.
Strangely enough, the stock is up 6 cents in after hours trading.
Perhaps investors expected greater losses.
Good point. I thought about that as well, and normally I would agree with you, but there have been several people who have been watching SCO's financials as an indicator of how much longer we have to put up with this charade.
The past is often a guide to the future. Better phrased: "Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it".
Taking a look at the results from the previous year indicate a progressive decline in Net Income Applicable To Common Shares. This metric is not something that will give investors something to do handsprings over.
Hmmmmm.... Good point.
Lawyers losing their jobs?
No reason to lose sleep.
Today will be another bad day for SCO.
Can't be too good for the employees either. They haven't many more people to shed.
It was modded troll because it is a troll.
The tone of the word "owned" implies the people have no say in the matter...
And they certainly do have a say in the matter. The U.S. Council for Puerto Rico Statehood certainly have an opinion about statehood for the tiny island commenwealth:
" We cannot continue to operate a colony, forcing U.S. citizens to accept a second-class citizenship, one without full political rights and equal representation, and not guaranteed by the constitution. The United States is a republic, not an empire."
So it is clear to many of the residents of Puerto Rico - they object to being yet another bitch of the US.
Next will be Guam....
According to your reference, Puerto Rico doesn't have independence.
"Independence: none (commonwealth associated with the US)"
Puerto Rico: Come Vist America's Other Bitch.(tm)*
*(not to be confused with other American bitches, notably Guam, American Samoa, etc)
The question in the grandparent post was "is there a secure WiFi network".
Understood, but more than a few post have been generated that have made references to military secrets being compromised on WiFi networks. Undoubtedly, there are secure WiFi apppliances or the USDOD and the USDOE would not allow them on their networks.
That said, your question is an interesting one, moreso than you know. Let's look at it from an axiomatic viewpoint - any network connection in harm's way is going to be considered sensitive and most likely classified. Draw conclusions from there.
Unless there are military censors standing right next to the person typing the email home, there is no way to guarantee that some operational detail will not make it on to the network. The fact that the soldier typing the email is probably going to be the victim of the attack, if it comes, should be more than enough inducement to assure compliance with military regulations regarding unauthorized transmission of operational information.
WiFi networks are not the only problem if you are looking for leaks. The 21st Century soldier carries a cell phone into combat these days. Capturing a cell phone call is just as easy (or perhaps easier) than sniffing email traffic. Although there aren't many cell towers in Afghanistan, having portable communications devices makes the job of securing a military position much more difficult.
As this poster and this AC have pointed out, this is non-operational, family information trafficing between a small base (probably known to the enemy) and the US for the expressed purpose of letting loved ones know that they are alive and, for the time, okay.
This is not a situation where military details will be disclosed or data stolen from the hard drives of military planners laptops (they have to go to Los Alamos for that - groan).
This is an initiative to send equipment to troops who need to keep their families apprised of their condition.