All year long, they have had no one at the helm for cybersecurity. It shouldn't surprise anyone. Let's take a job that many different agencies struggled to keep up with before, then add the requirement that they all reorganize into DHS, where instead of computer security being their number one focus, it is one of many concerns. I would bet the funding for DHS compsec is less than the total spent by the seperate agency committees. There is only so much you can save by pooling resources, and I would agrue it gets lost when you have to compete for attention with WMDs, IEDs and other serious physical security threats.
That is something I expect when we are linked to some guys linux box on his home broadband. For a company that I have not seen a lot of retail physical shelf-space dedicated to, you would think they would have a decent server and net connection. As others have said, for the cost, I would rather have a laptop.
As an IT contractor, I have repeatedly refused to sign a contract with a non-compete clause. They are simply too board. I will not agree to let a company put me on the bench unemployed for a year just because I took a job working for them. I have to earn a living, and I am not changing careers just because I left one employer for another.
The US courts tend to dislike these clauses as they restrain free-trade and block free enterprise. Since both parties in this complaint have the reputation and resources to call attention to this issue, I look forward to seeing more caselaw defending the rights of employees and courts scrutinizing noncompete agreements very closely and hopefully refusing to enforce them.
Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free? Phishers/Pharmers will still steal things rather than pay for them. Besides, like it says in the article, the illicit databases are compiled from data stolen by hackers, so it's just another layer in the cake of computer crime.
Certainly few (other than some unethical lawyers of course) want more frivolous lawsuits, but for my part, I would like to see the matter settled on the merits of the case rather than simply throwing it out on a narrow definition of malice. Otherwise this could keep coming back. Let's just have it out and leave a good precident to follow.
Like it said in the article, this means that rather than throw out the case based on the definition of malice, they will settle once and for all who owns the Unix copywrite and rights to licence its source code.
I think this is a good thing, like when AT&T and Berkeley finally sorted out that BSD was entirely free of any of the AT&T code and could go on with life free of dumb lawsuits like this.
A SPARC laptop runing Solaris is not new, neither would running Solaris on an x86 laptop be new. Both http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ and http://www.naturetech.com.tw/_page/index.html have been offering SPARC based laptops for quite a while and any x86 laptop on Sun's hardware compatibility list http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/ can run Solaris x86. What's news is this is the first time I have seen Sun offer a first party solution for laptops that get the same service and support offerings Sun provides for their servers and workstations.
Since scientific discovery rarely matches religious dogma, you have an inevitable conflict. The only way around that conflict is to rewrite one or the other.
In some religions perhaps that is so; however not all religious teachings are opposed to science. For example, one of the founders of modern science Albert Einstein said "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" [_Albert Einstein: The Human Side_, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1954]
The point is that science and religion can both seek truth, they only conflict when one denies the other, and not all religion (or all science for that matter) seeks such a conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
Well at least you can see ONE diablo thing at blizzcon.
All year long, they have had no one at the helm for cybersecurity. It shouldn't surprise anyone. Let's take a job that many different agencies struggled to keep up with before, then add the requirement that they all reorganize into DHS, where instead of computer security being their number one focus, it is one of many concerns. I would bet the funding for DHS compsec is less than the total spent by the seperate agency committees. There is only so much you can save by pooling resources, and I would agrue it gets lost when you have to compete for attention with WMDs, IEDs and other serious physical security threats.
That is something I expect when we are linked to some guys linux box on his home broadband. For a company that I have not seen a lot of retail physical shelf-space dedicated to, you would think they would have a decent server and net connection. As others have said, for the cost, I would rather have a laptop.
As an IT contractor, I have repeatedly refused to sign a contract with a non-compete clause. They are simply too board. I will not agree to let a company put me on the bench unemployed for a year just because I took a job working for them. I have to earn a living, and I am not changing careers just because I left one employer for another.
The US courts tend to dislike these clauses as they restrain free-trade and block free enterprise. Since both parties in this complaint have the reputation and resources to call attention to this issue, I look forward to seeing more caselaw defending the rights of employees and courts scrutinizing noncompete agreements very closely and hopefully refusing to enforce them.
Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free? Phishers/Pharmers will still steal things rather than pay for them. Besides, like it says in the article, the illicit databases are compiled from data stolen by hackers, so it's just another layer in the cake of computer crime.
Certainly few (other than some unethical lawyers of course) want more frivolous lawsuits, but for my part, I would like to see the matter settled on the merits of the case rather than simply throwing it out on a narrow definition of malice. Otherwise this could keep coming back. Let's just have it out and leave a good precident to follow.
Like it said in the article, this means that rather than throw out the case based on the definition of malice, they will settle once and for all who owns the Unix copywrite and rights to licence its source code. I think this is a good thing, like when AT&T and Berkeley finally sorted out that BSD was entirely free of any of the AT&T code and could go on with life free of dumb lawsuits like this.
A SPARC laptop runing Solaris is not new, neither would running Solaris on an x86 laptop be new. Both http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ and http://www.naturetech.com.tw/_page/index.html have been offering SPARC based laptops for quite a while and any x86 laptop on Sun's hardware compatibility list http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/ can run Solaris x86. What's news is this is the first time I have seen Sun offer a first party solution for laptops that get the same service and support offerings Sun provides for their servers and workstations.
There are plenty alternatives like those listed in the unix-linux antivirus mini-faq http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/openantiviru s/mini-faq/av-unix_e.txt?rev=1.40&view=markup Kindly compiled by the OpenAntivirus Project http://www.openantivirus.org/
The point is that science and religion can both seek truth, they only conflict when one denies the other, and not all religion (or all science for that matter) seeks such a conflict.