To prevent a large monopoly from forming around a certain product, service or market? Seems like a good enough reason to me. Monopolies only benefit themselves (the companies that create them) and not consumers. In the EU, at least the government still cares about protecting the consumer. In the US, the companies run the show and the politicians.
The unfortunate situation in this case is that the probe is using a "guilty until proven innocent" approach of things, thus causing 3K people losing their jobs. Where is the actual, sufficiently reasonable evidence that this merger will result in a monopoly? What other industries will get affected by it? IBM? MS? Large DB software writers? Server manufacturers? MySQL? Who are these potential consumers that must be protected by this evil merge of doom?
This shredding of 3K employees, probably translate to 3K households being affected, in an already affected job market. These are also white collar or almost-white collar workers who, as consumers to other services, will have to cut their spending. And that trickles down to blue collar jobs (in particular in the service sector), possibly affecting several other thousand households (not to mention the impact on the local economies where the bulk of the job shredding take place.) In market economy whether is in either side of the Atlantic, the less that white collar employees spend in their local economies, the more that it affects those that are under a lower income bracket.
So much for protecting the consumer. I agree that monopolies must be stamped out, but this is ridiculous.
As a current Kindle 2 owner, the thing that matters the most (at least to me) is book selection. An e-reader is only as useful as the books you can put on it. B&Ns claims of "over a million titles available" (thereby claiming they have more titles then the what's available for the Kindle) is spurious at best, as I believe (IIRC) it includes a lot of free public domain books, books that are freely available on the Kindle, just not necessarily from the Kindle store. Sure, it's nice that they include more of those books in their own store, but that doesn't mean their EXCLUSIVE selection is any better.
For anybody looking to compare Nook from Kindle, look at which books are available in the respective stores first.
Bingo. One of the things that bother me as an otherwise happy Kindle 2 user is the selection of books available. Up and until recently, it was hard to get compsci/programming text books for it. Now that is changing. However, there is a dismal disparity between what is available for the Kindle and what's available in print. There is a large selection of books on Mathematics, Systems Engineering and Sci-Fi that I'd love to get for the Kindle, but they aren't available yet (and w/o any word when that will happen.)
If B&N is the same as Amazon, it will be the same - a good e-reader but an anemic selection of commercial e-books available for it.
Can users install their own apps or replace the OS? If not, I don't see how use of Android OS would matter.
It would matter for the manufacturer if it helps it reduce software development costs, thus reducing time-to-market, manufacturing costs.
This would matter to the company (and its sofware developers and hardware manufacturers and every other 3rd party company, down to individual developers involved in its manufacture) as it would improve its ability to be competitive, by increasing their ability to reduce pricing (a-la ZOMG! Sunday sale!!11).
This would also matter to the end-user (the average of which cares more about reading content than being teh l33t hax0r (or p0s3r). It'd matter to him in that it increases her chances of getting a quality e-reader at a lower price (or get more features for the same price.)
It would also matter for the Android OS community (and Linux at large) in that it would prove, once again, that it is possible to produce a hell of a product using FOSS.
Not everything that matter to the open source community (or software innovation in general) revolves around "gee, can I play open source mommy-n-daddy with it and insert my e-weener up its USB port"? Amazing, I know!
The only time where accessing production data is a concern is for things that fall under HIPAA
(.ie. medical records.) Then and there, other restrictions apply, but these are business side restrictions (forced on a business by itself to comply with federal law), not hosting or data-ownership issues.
I meant to say that the only time where accessing production data is with data subject to some sort of confidentiality agreements, security clearance, or data subject to privacy laws (such as medical records and HIPAA).
Many developers forget to test and develop with real and current data, allowing problems to slip further downstream than they should.
Some companies don't allow developers to test with real/production data. Production data may not belong to the company (e.g. cloud computing providers)
Production data might not belong to the hosting company, but the developers that will test against it work for the client company. So, for a hosting company or a sysadmin, it is simply a matter of moving production data (belonging to the client company) from a production env (owned by the hosting company and leased to the client) into another environment (the test environment, owned by the hosting company, but leased to the client as well.)
This would be different from the hosting company moving production data around for purposes other than backups or recoveries without approval from the client company that owns the data.
so they have strict controls over who has access to the data.
Nope, they might have strict controls over who has access to a production environment. That is, the only entity accessing production data in a production environment is a production app running on a production server using a specific mean (.ie. JDBC on port 1521 from machine A to machine B.) Nobody else, not even developers get access to it.
But accessing production data moved at the client's request to a non-production server (done off-hours) that developers have access to according to the SLA, that's totally feasible, cloud or not.
The only time where accessing production data is a concern is for things that fall under HIPAA (.ie. medical records.) Then and there, other restrictions apply, but these are business side restrictions (forced on a business by itself to comply with federal law), not hosting or data-ownership issues.
Thank you for adding that. Why shooting guns at people, for some people, is less shocking than swearing at them confuses the heck out of me. And gods forbid that a nipple enter the scene - Maybe we can filter that nasty part out by digitally inserting a carefully placed exploding head.
You seem to be missing the point of a fight comic, of good characters fighting evil characters, the heroic epic.
Remember how in the GI Joe cartoons when the good guys where shooting at the Cobra airplanes and never did a Cobra soldier died? They all were jumping in parachutes?
Or in the old Transformers' toons. Rarely a character died. You can't compare that kind of shooting (the fighting/struggle part of an heroic epic) with, say, a bunch of gansta' blowing each others brains off over a truck of dope. It'd be like comparing the fighting scenes of Mighty Max with Conan's Battle of the Mounds (which I love btw, but I'd never let a little kid watch it.)
The Transformers movie was supposed to be a real pple + CGI rendering of an epic cartoon series originally for kids.
When I first saw the first Transformer's movie, I was concerned to see characters being killed by the Decepticons. That's when I started questioning whether this was appropriate for a 6 year old kid.
With the second movie, that certainly cleared that up, that shit is not for kids.
It should not be that mystifying to understand why this is an issue.
When the movies came out, I was hoping to get the DVDs and show them to my 6 and 7 year old nephews. Instead, movie makers took a perfectly kid's cartoon and made it into a drool-over-Megan-Fox-with-doggie-humping kaplooza for male teens.
Can't wait to see AstroBoy (I grew up watching the cartoon), but color me surprise if it doesn't get butchered, too.
- If you are unemployed (or you are going through a period of duress.ie. medical problems, tragedies), you can negotiate a waiver of up to 12 months (IIRC) during which time you do not have to pay. Unsubsidized loans might still accrue interest, but that's better than defaulting or paying when you literally can't. Most of the time they don't really give you that much of a problem when asking for a few months break.
- The better your grades are, the best your chances are to get scholarship money. The more of that you get, the less you rely on student loans.
- A substantial chunk of student debt is due (at least from what I've personally witnessed) in great part on not knowing how to spend as opposed to actual education/living expenses.
I'm very surprised that the person in the article has such a high interest rate, though. Are those the interest rates now? I got my loans during the 90s. Mine were always less than 7% (same with everybody I know that has student loans.)
By "us" you mean top notch, creme de la crem holders of MS and PhD degrees in engineering and science, right?
People with less than that, or with irrelevant industrial or research existence don't get to complain about losing jobs to foreign brain talent.
This is America, a capitalist nation based on competition, survival of the fittest and success of the most talented ones (or at least it should be.) It's not some hocus pocus pseudo-socialist protectionist state where people (specially the mediocre ones) are immune to competition simply because they were born American.
I don't know, bitching about too many H-1Bs coming here and taking our jobs used to be pretty common here. Not sure if those doing the bitching were PhDs but I presume most were at least college graduates.
Riiiight. Dream on buddy.
Anyways, every time I see the same type of discussion on foreign born brain power, I remember (and chuckle at) the time I actually saw a goddam hamburger flipper at a mall telling an Indian born MS in Computer Science (and now a Sr. Developer/Manager at one of the largest engineering firms in the world) that she was taking job from "them" ("them" being I don't know who the fuck... maybe other hamburger flippers.)
That was like right of silence-of-the-fucking-lambs-meets-dumb-and-dumber.
We need more Ajay Bhatt"s and less Real Housewhores of US of A.
It'd be nice when the US Government would invest in it's own citizens.
It does. It's just the majority don't take any fucking advantage of it. If you are bright, you will get the same help. Barring medical emergencies, tragedies or some sort of dramatic turn of events, you go as far as you want to go.
Face it, a large number of our Ph.D. is foreign born. Follow Occam's way and answer me this. Why do you think that is?
Because my some occult government/big IT machination, US citizens do not get the chance to feel those positions, giving that chance to foreign students (that are qualified whether you like it or not)?
Or is it because US citizens don't step up to the plate in enough numbers to fill in those positions?
For starters, the title of the article is incredibly stupid ("Reinvent the Internet"?????)
Moving away from that brain fart of a title for a moment, would it be possible that it is not Micro$oft per say, but Microsoft Research, the research branch, that will be involved in this? If that were the case (considering the caliber of researchers that they have there), then I could see good things coming.
But if it is Micro$oft, the products division, then, hmmmm, we'll be seeing data packets with executable vbscript in them (yikes!)
In another news, China buys 60% of Microsoft shares.
How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics. Any of that rings a bell?
The simplest thing they could do is use IPv6 extended headers to carry a security label, and/or a short digital signature or other indicator that would permit packets to be more tamper-resistant, and/or a Kerberos token, and/or enough additional markings that IPSec could operate per-connection.
In fact, if you had one extended header for each of those, you could mix-and-match security extensions according to needs. And because IPv6 only defines a handful of extended headers at present, there's virtually no risk of creating an incompatible protocol. Everything will still "just work", it'd "just work" in a much more secure fashion.
Ok, Internet reinvented in a secure fashion. Can I have my $31 million now, please? No personal checks.
Ok, I've said it before in a related story, for the military, there can be strategic reasons NOT to use IPv6.
Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch.
Ya, "all the time". I worked for a company that outsourced its data center to IBM. They "accidentially" deleted our Oracle database - twice - and it often took two weeks to get things simple done on the servers, like add an entry added to the/etc/hosts file. I was hired as the senior Unix SA and we purchased our own equipment ($2 million worth), brought the operations back in-house, paid the early-termination fee and still came out ahead financially and in operational support for the year with no further screw-ups. Even got an award for moving the data center with no loss in production.
Sure, to each their own, but beware.
In the case when the outsourced data center deleted your Oracle data center,
did the operations team at your company had regular visits to the data centers?
Did they routinely conducted drills on disaster recovery?
Did your IT department checked and agreed upon for specific SLA terms that dictated problems of type A takes x amount of time (ie. adding an entry to/etc/hosts)?
Was there a clause that would allow a selected group/member of IT had access to the physical servers on the data center? Was it even negotiated?
Sometimes upper management decides to move to a 3rd party solution, but most often that not, it is a decision done by IT. I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but in general, cases like this are the result of operation failures from the 3rd party AND the IT shop requesting the outsourcing.
I think you have those two backwards. Computing hiccups that just simply happen are those things that will happen whether its under your watch or their watch. Problems that occur because of human error are those that you should concern yourself with when exploring cloud computing. In essence, you're outsourcing your data storage and maintenance, not the computer problems. Do you trust them more than you trust yourself?
It's not a matter of trust, but a matter of procedure and operations. In every case that I've seen things migrated/managed by a 3rd party, we have had people do visual inspections, things that smoke out any potential problems.
In the cloud, that is still an unknown, but if you have a large operation that you want to move it there, you would/should have enough clout to do some sort of inspection on the provider (given that your operation is/will be a large one.)
Blindingly moving to a 3rd party, cloud or not, just as blindingly operating on your own is a no-no.
I've seen operations that work flawlessly on your own and under a 3rd party infrastructure. Equally, I've seen catastrophic human errors on both type of operations.
Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
Meh, in my day, if you were weaker and still showed up (and even gave as much as he took), that'd really get you respect and almost certainty in never been bullied, harassed or gave crap ever again.
It really did suck getting beat the crap out, but man, did it feel great after that, with all the kids telling you "you the man". Simpler times when we were younger, thinking our adolescent problems were really all that, and you resolved your disputes in fist fights (or hair pulling+bitch slapping for the girls.)
Now, it's all 'ur mom!!!!' posts on mywhore comment pages and name calling on a society that frowns on getting physical (even to the point of not even letting pre-school kids tumble around in playgrounds for fear of Mr. Law$uit.
So crap escalate out of hand because no ones ever has to face consequences; bullies get nastier and the weak gets weaker because OMG standing your ground is not proper. Then, one day, the emo kid with the save-the-whale trench coat goes Quake, the depressed girl hangs herself from the ceiling fan because someone send her a 'u r fat' text message, lawyers salivate as they prepare their briefings, clueless/overworked teachers saying I didn't see it coming (again), with those guilty of parental crying 'OMG!!! We did everything right! Blame it to Sex and the City/Obama/Bush/The Jew'... all on that on Fox News!
Being serious, I'd support legislature that pursue online harassment with the purpose of causing great harm. Great (and real) physical/emotional harm, whether caused by physical or virtual means should be punished. The question here is that a prosecution should do the utmost to demonstrate the case merits pursuit. I haven't seen anything on this particular case that demonstrate this is/is not the case, however.
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch. Unless you are a software giant (like ebay or amazon) that can build your own data center, or are a minor/midsize operation (or are just a guy with a home computer), you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else's watch.
It is done all the time, by many, for years now. Almost no glitches that can be directly attributed by the fact that a 3rd party was involved. In order to have a meaningful opinion on IT operations, you need to differentiate problems that occur because things are not run by you (things that are inevitable in computing) vs problems that occur because of lack of safeguards or wrong procedures (which can and will happen under your watch or someone else's.)
So what? I HAS been proven to hold up, so the article still remains useless...
You keep saying that (proven to hold up). I don't think you know what that means... and I don't think you understand the essence of the article that you are calling useless. The fact that it's been upheld in different courts (in different countries which might not operate under the same legal mechanisms) does not indicate that it is bullet proof in a particular country's legal interpretation for all cases.
And that, you zealot, is what it's at the root of the matter. If, instead of getting all worked up in your kool-aid fueled e-rage, you put some energy into reading the article (using the reading comprehension skills you have not used until now), you will find out that the authors are simply pointing out the need for adding clarity to certain definitions and word usages in the GPLv2 to avoid ambiguities that can arise when used in different legal interpretations...
... and multiple legal interpretations are bound to happen if we consider multiple legal systems in different countries.
Reading comprehension. An amazing concept, I know!!!!
While I'd question the value in responding to trolls like this one, I do feel the need to congratulate you on the use of the phrase "ideologotardic nonsense". I don't think Webster's could have said it better!
The sad thing is that these turdtards aren't really trolls, but actually buy into this quasi-Stallman koolaid.
But there is value in replying dude... imagine if I hadn't, I wouldn't have produce such a descriptive gem!!
This bullshit opinion that all patents are evil needs to end. If somebody spends time and money develoing an idea and inventing something new they deserve some bloody reward for it
I don't know if as many people would have a problem with this sentiment per se. However, the patent system is regularly abused by people who haven't spent time and money inventing something and aren't actually going to spend any time and money producing the product either, but simply look to sit on the patent and make their money from suing anyone who does put the effort in and brings the product to market.
The other problem is the granting of patents (especially software patents) for things that the patent office may think is novel and worthy of protection, but we all know is so obvious that it wouldn't occur to any of us to try to patent. However, once the patent is granted, again the patentee puts all their real effort into suing anyone who dares to come up with the same idea.
It is this leeching and obstructive use of patents that I would imagine that most people have problems with.
Most people have a problem with patents because they are stupid and like the sound of their own ideological drivel.
Intelligent people have problems with the abuse and leeching of the patent system, and they clearly express that view whenever it is proper and applicable.
Stupid nerd people, and many of/. posters in particular (college kids or aging Hippies who still live in the 60's) have a problem with patents no matter what. If you want a patent, you are indecent. If you disagree, u r evil, luv M$, drop dead and die!!(10+1).
There are clearly two positions here: one logical and moral, and one illogical and certainly immoral. Insinuating that the OP is indecent because he/she wants to patent something (without evidence that he/she is trying to leech the system), that is certain immoral and pretty f* stupid.
Most of the most belligerent/. posters fall into the later category.
Your choice is whether to be selfish or decent. Are you going to stand on the shoulders of giants, but sue anyone who would stand on yours?
How you proceed says a bit about who you are.
Bullshit morality by proxy combined with rhetorical, ideologotardic nonsense that can neither be proved, nor argued for logically.
Prove to me in a logically consistent manner that decency and selflessness are inevitably inconsistent and incompatible with one's natural right to get remunerated/recognized for one's original and hard-earned intellectual work, and to protect that natural right should the individual desires so.
Prove to me also that absolute selflessness as a trait is obligatory for one to be decent (as opposed to a voluntary act might increase, but never defines decency), and that the exhibition of such a trait mandates ones to surrender one's natural right get remunerated for one's originally created intellectual work.
Prove that, and we can talk. Your ability to prove this, and your willingness to respect other peoples' rights will say not a bit, but a lot about you, your intellect and your decency.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company? Or is that not the case?
Ever heard of multinationals?
To prevent a large monopoly from forming around a certain product, service or market? Seems like a good enough reason to me. Monopolies only benefit themselves (the companies that create them) and not consumers. In the EU, at least the government still cares about protecting the consumer. In the US, the companies run the show and the politicians.
The unfortunate situation in this case is that the probe is using a "guilty until proven innocent" approach of things, thus causing 3K people losing their jobs. Where is the actual, sufficiently reasonable evidence that this merger will result in a monopoly? What other industries will get affected by it? IBM? MS? Large DB software writers? Server manufacturers? MySQL? Who are these potential consumers that must be protected by this evil merge of doom?
This shredding of 3K employees, probably translate to 3K households being affected, in an already affected job market. These are also white collar or almost-white collar workers who, as consumers to other services, will have to cut their spending. And that trickles down to blue collar jobs (in particular in the service sector), possibly affecting several other thousand households (not to mention the impact on the local economies where the bulk of the job shredding take place.) In market economy whether is in either side of the Atlantic, the less that white collar employees spend in their local economies, the more that it affects those that are under a lower income bracket.
So much for protecting the consumer. I agree that monopolies must be stamped out, but this is ridiculous.
As a current Kindle 2 owner, the thing that matters the most (at least to me) is book selection. An e-reader is only as useful as the books you can put on it. B&Ns claims of "over a million titles available" (thereby claiming they have more titles then the what's available for the Kindle) is spurious at best, as I believe (IIRC) it includes a lot of free public domain books, books that are freely available on the Kindle, just not necessarily from the Kindle store. Sure, it's nice that they include more of those books in their own store, but that doesn't mean their EXCLUSIVE selection is any better. For anybody looking to compare Nook from Kindle, look at which books are available in the respective stores first.
Bingo. One of the things that bother me as an otherwise happy Kindle 2 user is the selection of books available. Up and until recently, it was hard to get compsci/programming text books for it. Now that is changing. However, there is a dismal disparity between what is available for the Kindle and what's available in print. There is a large selection of books on Mathematics, Systems Engineering and Sci-Fi that I'd love to get for the Kindle, but they aren't available yet (and w/o any word when that will happen.)
If B&N is the same as Amazon, it will be the same - a good e-reader but an anemic selection of commercial e-books available for it.
Can users install their own apps or replace the OS? If not, I don't see how use of Android OS would matter.
It would matter for the manufacturer if it helps it reduce software development costs, thus reducing time-to-market, manufacturing costs.
This would matter to the company (and its sofware developers and hardware manufacturers and every other 3rd party company, down to individual developers involved in its manufacture) as it would improve its ability to be competitive, by increasing their ability to reduce pricing (a-la ZOMG! Sunday sale!!11).
This would also matter to the end-user (the average of which cares more about reading content than being teh l33t hax0r (or p0s3r). It'd matter to him in that it increases her chances of getting a quality e-reader at a lower price (or get more features for the same price.)
It would also matter for the Android OS community (and Linux at large) in that it would prove, once again, that it is possible to produce a hell of a product using FOSS.
Not everything that matter to the open source community (or software innovation in general) revolves around "gee, can I play open source mommy-n-daddy with it and insert my e-weener up its USB port"? Amazing, I know!
The only time where accessing production data is a concern is for things that fall under HIPAA
(.ie. medical records.) Then and there, other restrictions apply, but these are business side restrictions (forced on a business by itself to comply with federal law), not hosting or data-ownership issues.
I meant to say that the only time where accessing production data is with data subject to some sort of confidentiality agreements, security clearance, or data subject to privacy laws (such as medical records and HIPAA).
Many developers forget to test and develop with real and current data, allowing problems to slip further downstream than they should.
Some companies don't allow developers to test with real/production data. Production data may not belong to the company (e.g. cloud computing providers)
Production data might not belong to the hosting company, but the developers that will test against it work for the client company. So, for a hosting company or a sysadmin, it is simply a matter of moving production data (belonging to the client company) from a production env (owned by the hosting company and leased to the client) into another environment (the test environment, owned by the hosting company, but leased to the client as well.)
This would be different from the hosting company moving production data around for purposes other than backups or recoveries without approval from the client company that owns the data.
so they have strict controls over who has access to the data.
Nope, they might have strict controls over who has access to a production environment. That is, the only entity accessing production data in a production environment is a production app running on a production server using a specific mean (.ie. JDBC on port 1521 from machine A to machine B.) Nobody else, not even developers get access to it.
But accessing production data moved at the client's request to a non-production server (done off-hours) that developers have access to according to the SLA, that's totally feasible, cloud or not.
The only time where accessing production data is a concern is for things that fall under HIPAA (.ie. medical records.) Then and there, other restrictions apply, but these are business side restrictions (forced on a business by itself to comply with federal law), not hosting or data-ownership issues.
Thank you for adding that. Why shooting guns at people, for some people, is less shocking than swearing at them confuses the heck out of me. And gods forbid that a nipple enter the scene - Maybe we can filter that nasty part out by digitally inserting a carefully placed exploding head.
You seem to be missing the point of a fight comic, of good characters fighting evil characters, the heroic epic.
Remember how in the GI Joe cartoons when the good guys where shooting at the Cobra airplanes and never did a Cobra soldier died? They all were jumping in parachutes?
Or in the old Transformers' toons. Rarely a character died. You can't compare that kind of shooting (the fighting/struggle part of an heroic epic) with, say, a bunch of gansta' blowing each others brains off over a truck of dope. It'd be like comparing the fighting scenes of Mighty Max with Conan's Battle of the Mounds (which I love btw, but I'd never let a little kid watch it.)
The Transformers movie was supposed to be a real pple + CGI rendering of an epic cartoon series originally for kids.
When I first saw the first Transformer's movie, I was concerned to see characters being killed by the Decepticons. That's when I started questioning whether this was appropriate for a 6 year old kid.
With the second movie, that certainly cleared that up, that shit is not for kids.
It should not be that mystifying to understand why this is an issue.
Can't wait to see AstroBoy (I grew up watching the cartoon), but color me surprise if it doesn't get butchered, too.
I'm very surprised that the person in the article has such a high interest rate, though. Are those the interest rates now? I got my loans during the 90s. Mine were always less than 7% (same with everybody I know that has student loans.)
More jobs for the rest of us.
By "us" you mean top notch, creme de la crem holders of MS and PhD degrees in engineering and science, right?
People with less than that, or with irrelevant industrial or research existence don't get to complain about losing jobs to foreign brain talent.
This is America, a capitalist nation based on competition, survival of the fittest and success of the most talented ones (or at least it should be.) It's not some hocus pocus pseudo-socialist protectionist state where people (specially the mediocre ones) are immune to competition simply because they were born American.
I don't know, bitching about too many H-1Bs coming here and taking our jobs used to be pretty common here. Not sure if those doing the bitching were PhDs but I presume most were at least college graduates.
Riiiight. Dream on buddy.
Anyways, every time I see the same type of discussion on foreign born brain power, I remember (and chuckle at) the time I actually saw a goddam hamburger flipper at a mall telling an Indian born MS in Computer Science (and now a Sr. Developer/Manager at one of the largest engineering firms in the world) that she was taking job from "them" ("them" being I don't know who the fuck... maybe other hamburger flippers.)
That was like right of silence-of-the-fucking-lambs-meets-dumb-and-dumber.
We need more Ajay Bhatt"s and less Real Housewhores of US of A.
It'd be nice when the US Government would invest in it's own citizens.
It does. It's just the majority don't take any fucking advantage of it. If you are bright, you will get the same help. Barring medical emergencies, tragedies or some sort of dramatic turn of events, you go as far as you want to go.
Face it, a large number of our Ph.D. is foreign born. Follow Occam's way and answer me this. Why do you think that is?
Moving away from that brain fart of a title for a moment, would it be possible that it is not Micro$oft per say, but Microsoft Research, the research branch, that will be involved in this? If that were the case (considering the caliber of researchers that they have there), then I could see good things coming.
But if it is Micro$oft, the products division, then, hmmmm, we'll be seeing data packets with executable vbscript in them (yikes!)
In another news, China buys 60% of Microsoft shares. How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics. Any of that rings a bell?
Don't ask, don't tell.
Is that how you swing? :)
The simplest thing they could do is use IPv6 extended headers to carry a security label, and/or a short digital signature or other indicator that would permit packets to be more tamper-resistant, and/or a Kerberos token, and/or enough additional markings that IPSec could operate per-connection.
In fact, if you had one extended header for each of those, you could mix-and-match security extensions according to needs. And because IPv6 only defines a handful of extended headers at present, there's virtually no risk of creating an incompatible protocol. Everything will still "just work", it'd "just work" in a much more secure fashion.
Ok, Internet reinvented in a secure fashion. Can I have my $31 million now, please? No personal checks.
Ok, I've said it before in a related story, for the military, there can be strategic reasons NOT to use IPv6.
Ya, "all the time". I worked for a company that outsourced its data center to IBM. They "accidentially" deleted our Oracle database - twice - and it often took two weeks to get things simple done on the servers, like add an entry added to the /etc/hosts file. I was hired as the senior Unix SA and we purchased our own equipment ($2 million worth), brought the operations back in-house, paid the early-termination fee and still came out ahead financially and in operational support for the year with no further screw-ups. Even got an award for moving the data center with no loss in production.
Sure, to each their own, but beware.
In the case when the outsourced data center deleted your Oracle data center,
Sometimes upper management decides to move to a 3rd party solution, but most often that not, it is a decision done by IT. I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but in general, cases like this are the result of operation failures from the 3rd party AND the IT shop requesting the outsourcing.
I think you have those two backwards. Computing hiccups that just simply happen are those things that will happen whether its under your watch or their watch. Problems that occur because of human error are those that you should concern yourself with when exploring cloud computing. In essence, you're outsourcing your data storage and maintenance, not the computer problems. Do you trust them more than you trust yourself?
It's not a matter of trust, but a matter of procedure and operations. In every case that I've seen things migrated/managed by a 3rd party, we have had people do visual inspections, things that smoke out any potential problems.
In the cloud, that is still an unknown, but if you have a large operation that you want to move it there, you would/should have enough clout to do some sort of inspection on the provider (given that your operation is/will be a large one.)
Blindingly moving to a 3rd party, cloud or not, just as blindingly operating on your own is a no-no.
I've seen operations that work flawlessly on your own and under a 3rd party infrastructure. Equally, I've seen catastrophic human errors on both type of operations.
From there I draw my conclusions.
Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
Meh, in my day, if you were weaker and still showed up (and even gave as much as he took), that'd really get you respect and almost certainty in never been bullied, harassed or gave crap ever again.
It really did suck getting beat the crap out, but man, did it feel great after that, with all the kids telling you "you the man". Simpler times when we were younger, thinking our adolescent problems were really all that, and you resolved your disputes in fist fights (or hair pulling+bitch slapping for the girls.)
Now, it's all 'ur mom!!!!' posts on mywhore comment pages and name calling on a society that frowns on getting physical (even to the point of not even letting pre-school kids tumble around in playgrounds for fear of Mr. Law$uit.
So crap escalate out of hand because no ones ever has to face consequences; bullies get nastier and the weak gets weaker because OMG standing your ground is not proper. Then, one day, the emo kid with the save-the-whale trench coat goes Quake, the depressed girl hangs herself from the ceiling fan because someone send her a 'u r fat' text message, lawyers salivate as they prepare their briefings, clueless/overworked teachers saying I didn't see it coming (again), with those guilty of parental crying 'OMG!!! We did everything right! Blame it to Sex and the City/Obama/Bush/The Jew'... all on that on Fox News!
Being serious, I'd support legislature that pursue online harassment with the purpose of causing great harm. Great (and real) physical/emotional harm, whether caused by physical or virtual means should be punished. The question here is that a prosecution should do the utmost to demonstrate the case merits pursuit. I haven't seen anything on this particular case that demonstrate this is/is not the case, however.
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch. Unless you are a software giant (like ebay or amazon) that can build your own data center, or are a minor/midsize operation (or are just a guy with a home computer), you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else's watch.
It is done all the time, by many, for years now. Almost no glitches that can be directly attributed by the fact that a 3rd party was involved. In order to have a meaningful opinion on IT operations, you need to differentiate problems that occur because things are not run by you (things that are inevitable in computing) vs problems that occur because of lack of safeguards or wrong procedures (which can and will happen under your watch or someone else's.)
When you're dealing with Microsoft, you're dealing with cockroaches. Get over it.
Non sequitur. What exactly does this invalidate anything that the article says?
So what? I HAS been proven to hold up, so the article still remains useless...
You keep saying that (proven to hold up). I don't think you know what that means... and I don't think you understand the essence of the article that you are calling useless. The fact that it's been upheld in different courts (in different countries which might not operate under the same legal mechanisms) does not indicate that it is bullet proof in a particular country's legal interpretation for all cases.
And that, you zealot, is what it's at the root of the matter. If, instead of getting all worked up in your kool-aid fueled e-rage, you put some energy into reading the article (using the reading comprehension skills you have not used until now), you will find out that the authors are simply pointing out the need for adding clarity to certain definitions and word usages in the GPLv2 to avoid ambiguities that can arise when used in different legal interpretations...
Reading comprehension. An amazing concept, I know!!!!
While I'd question the value in responding to trolls like this one, I do feel the need to congratulate you on the use of the phrase "ideologotardic nonsense". I don't think Webster's could have said it better!
The sad thing is that these turdtards aren't really trolls, but actually buy into this quasi-Stallman koolaid.
But there is value in replying dude... imagine if I hadn't, I wouldn't have produce such a descriptive gem!!
This bullshit opinion that all patents are evil needs to end. If somebody spends time and money develoing an idea and inventing something new they deserve some bloody reward for it
I don't know if as many people would have a problem with this sentiment per se. However, the patent system is regularly abused by people who haven't spent time and money inventing something and aren't actually going to spend any time and money producing the product either, but simply look to sit on the patent and make their money from suing anyone who does put the effort in and brings the product to market. The other problem is the granting of patents (especially software patents) for things that the patent office may think is novel and worthy of protection, but we all know is so obvious that it wouldn't occur to any of us to try to patent. However, once the patent is granted, again the patentee puts all their real effort into suing anyone who dares to come up with the same idea. It is this leeching and obstructive use of patents that I would imagine that most people have problems with.
Most people have a problem with patents because they are stupid and like the sound of their own ideological drivel.
Intelligent people have problems with the abuse and leeching of the patent system, and they clearly express that view whenever it is proper and applicable.
Stupid nerd people, and many of /. posters in particular (college kids or aging Hippies who still live in the 60's) have a problem with patents no matter what. If you want a patent, you are indecent. If you disagree, u r evil, luv M$, drop dead and die!!(10+1).
There are clearly two positions here: one logical and moral, and one illogical and certainly immoral. Insinuating that the OP is indecent because he/she wants to patent something (without evidence that he/she is trying to leech the system), that is certain immoral and pretty f* stupid.
Most of the most belligerent /. posters fall into the later category.
Your choice is whether to be selfish or decent. Are you going to stand on the shoulders of giants, but sue anyone who would stand on yours?
How you proceed says a bit about who you are.
Bullshit morality by proxy combined with rhetorical, ideologotardic nonsense that can neither be proved, nor argued for logically.
Prove to me in a logically consistent manner that decency and selflessness are inevitably inconsistent and incompatible with one's natural right to get remunerated/recognized for one's original and hard-earned intellectual work, and to protect that natural right should the individual desires so.
Prove to me also that absolute selflessness as a trait is obligatory for one to be decent (as opposed to a voluntary act might increase, but never defines decency), and that the exhibition of such a trait mandates ones to surrender one's natural right get remunerated for one's originally created intellectual work.
Prove that, and we can talk. Your ability to prove this, and your willingness to respect other peoples' rights will say not a bit, but a lot about you, your intellect and your decency.