I'm a believer of a grace period. However, my only hesitation, is this: say you give a big vendor, perhaps Microsoft, notice that there is a serious hole in one of their products, and that you will give them a fixed amount of time to do something until you post full disclosure to Bugtraq.
Microsoft has enough lawyers that seem to have plenty of free time on their hands, that my bet would be that they'd try to shut you down, and prevent you from making the promised disclosure.
These tactics scare the bejesus outta me, as far as their implications for security information distribution between professionals.
The crackers and virii folk have, or will have, the information sooner than the admins. Anything that further delays getting me information about potential threats to my network, I regard as irresponsible.
Depending on the level of administrator (jr. vs. sr.) there are aspects of an interviewee that are important, aside from the abc's of their technical knowledge.
As the most sr. of engineering staff w/in our IT department, I actually try to get the other sr. admins to cover the "do you know how to..." and "what would you do..." questions. I usually interview last, and focus on the more ephemeral aspects of what we do.
I try to dig down into the person's problem solving skills, to see HOW they work. What web sites do you refer to when you don't know something (if they don't use many web sites because "they don't need to" the person doesn't have a grasp of what the DON'T know. What tools do they use on a daily basis?
Fun questions play a big part of the process to...Name a few files that are in your home directory on every machine you work on (besides your.bashrc or.tcshrc) If you have an unlimited budget, how would you do x.
The single most important question I ask myself about any candidate is "do they get IT." Do they have the basic understanding of how stuff is supposed to work, and can they figure out when things are working wrong.
It's easy to tell if someone knows how to use ls, or install a linux machines. The ABCs are easily definable. It's the less quantifiable capabilities that are far more important to me in an a potential administrator.
I, too, would love to see something like a travel log from the discovery to resolution of the incident(s). However, in MS's position, almost anything they say could be construed against them by the teeming masses (us.)
Plus, if, heaven's forbid, it's actually MS' fault, they will not admit it. They never do.
That is one of my problems with MS in general...they believe that they have to spin the truth without exception. This is one of the things that makes a huge segment of the technology industry mistrust them. If they lie about one thing, it's hard to think they're not lying about another.
Of course, one of my other problems with MS is that their software tends to be inferior for my particular needs, but that's another issue altogether.
I agree with you completely. However, I think you're grabbing that a little out of context. The lost data completely bit is in reference to what certain (most) users were reporting as lost buddy lists, etc...
From what I've read, they had a disk controller failure, and the secondary (ie. backup) controller also had some kind of fault which lead them "further down the disaster recovery plan." Which means now they go to tape backups, probably.
If they don't have tape backups, then they should be flayed, soaked in rubbing alcohol, and dumped in a big pile of dung.
Sounds to me like they didn't really have a good architecture in the first place. If they were relying on a single machine, and assuming that internal redundancy would cut it, they were very short sighted. Were I tasked with such a systems architecture, there would be a completely redundant layer of complete systems which would periodically (ie. every five hours or so) get complete copies of all the live data.
Were such a catastrophe to occur, dump the production systems, and go to your offline backups.
Downsides of such a plan: a) double the cost, and b) depending on the size of your data set, doing all that copying could prove problematic. Then again, I'd do in with a farm of
these running linux, with a gigantic pair of hot-swap Oracle databases running on the backend.
But that's just me.:)
-db
PS. usual disclaimer applies...I'm hocking my own company's product in that link above, but I don't care. It's cool. I like it, and I use it!! And, I'm not in sales...so there!;)
Dune is just too ambitious for TV or even full length feature movies. There's not enough time even in a Roots-length mini-series, let a lone a mere six hours, to cover all the nuances adequately. Big chunks of it must be left out, so I don't know why anyone who has read and admired the series would want to intentionally butcher it for the small screen.
And if you made it as long as you suggest it'd take, only the hard core sci-fi'ers would spend their time watching it. We all seem to be forgetting that these people still have to produce something which would appeal to 75% or more of their target viewing audience. If you made it ungodly long (without making it a full-blown series) it'd be difficult to keep the viewing audience involved. It's hard to get most sobs to invest a lot of time in something that will not last. Sad, but true.
Also, a number of comments have been made about the wardrobe, etc...stuff that I will call the "stylistic" nature of the miniseries' approach to the story telling. I actually quite enjoyed the pomp of the costumes of those in the royal court and the great houses. This contrasted very well with the simplicity of Fremen existance.
Also, the miniseries' overall use of color, light, and darkness was very compelling. The scene that stands out in my mind is the final fight scene between Paul and the Harkonnen Nephew (damn...not Sting! what the hell was his name...grr...) There is a rising platform/dolly shot that shows your the fighters from an offangle overhead. The lighting consisted only of two powerful lights streaming in through the doorway. The contrasting light and dark lines were phenomenal.
All that said, yes, I liked it, but I also recognize a lot of the problems (don't even get me started on some of the "desert" sets.)
It's best to think of the book, the movie, and the mini-series as separate tellings of the same story. Each storyteller brings new details, and covers others. I think we're all just a little too caught up in the absolutivity of the book, because Herbert wrote it. Herbert created a universe that many people have taken and expanded in many directions. I think this is what Frank wanted, and is the best tribute that can ben given to the man.
I'm as cynical as the next Slashdot'er. However, before you get yourself up in a craze of "less power, why would I want it?" You need to look at this box. It's COOL.
The possibilities of 24 servers in 3U using the power of a typical 1-2U server are incredible.
Get past the idea of using one server per function. You can setup a balanced solution between multiple servers (say 2,4,8,...24!!!) for such redundancy.
Get past the idea of need a super fast processor. For most web serving functions you're much better served by putting lots of smaller servers out there than you are by putting one big server.
Imagine wiring up 48 ports of ethernet with FOUR cables (plus another 24 ethernets coming out of a single RJ45.)
Stop thinking...they're new...I'm too cool for this. It will change they way you approach web architectures...hell other systems infrastructures too.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am an RLX employee. Mid to late 2000, a friend called me to come look at this box. I quit my job and moved to Texas from DC. Don't particularly like much about the area, having lived in an urban location like Georgetown, and moving to a suburban area like the Woodlands, but that didn't matter. I came running.
It all depends on what you want to do. If you want to run a database engine...no...Transmeta-based is not for you. But if you want to load balance a web farm of 48 machines...you simply cannot beat the price, form factor, power draw, or PERFORMANCE PER INCH.
Given Python's more limited exposure to the commoners, I've had varying amounts of success getting companies that I've worked for to actively use Python. Those that I have convinced, have grown to love it, and all is good with the world.
What are the five most compelling arguments that _you'd_ offer to a company doing web development, system administration, etc... to use Python over other interpreted languages such as Perl, TCL, etc...
You're kidding, right? You've seen the movies? Sure the law says that the NSA doesn't spy on US citizens, but you've seen "Sneakers," right?
You're not an American, so I'll cut you some slack!
:}
Sadly, OpenMail was much competition for Exchange
on
HP Ending OpenMail
·
· Score: 2
Very recently, I'd been in the market for a new enterprise messaging server to replace our companies Exchange 5.5 server, and I looked very long and hard at OpenMail. What I found, made me sad.
OpenMail seems to have been marketed as a direct competitor to Exchange, but the reality of it's abilities falls short of this claim. I was sorely disappointed, since I wanted to move away from a windows-based solution.
From the recent beta I was using, all OpenMail is is an SMTP server, with an integrated POP/IMAP server and a web-base mail client application. Missing is all the calendaring, folder synchronization, and all the other schwag that makes Outlook so damned popular with the corporate crowd. I was sad, because if this was the best that there was to offer, the appropriate choice was obvious.
Does anyone else know of any application suites which come closer? I've looked in vain...
We've all seen the movies...we _know_ that the bacteria will evolve. Seriously, though, what happens when it starts eating oxygen in quantities? What kind of biological safe guards can protect from this happening?
Never did too well in biology class, otherwise I'd probably know...
> Whether or not they can isn't the point. What he
> is saying is that continuing to support SSH1 is
> a Bad Idea. Kinda like saying continuing to
> drive a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires is a
> Bad Idea.
>
> Can he stop them? No.
> Do they have every right to continue supporting
> it? Yes.
> Is it a good idea to continue supporting it? I
> don't think so.
I don't think he's saying that they don't have a right to continue supporting the SSH1 protocol, but rather, it goes to support his point that trademark usage confusion exists. If he's decided that it's a bad idea, and has discontinued it's support in the commercial/trademark protected version, and is using that as a differentiating factor, then confusion is created by a similar product continuing to do so.
In the past six years, I've hired over 40 very talented Linux systems engineers--of that 1 had formal certification, yet almost every single one was a gem, ability-wise. I attribute this track record to the fact that I value real world experience far more than I would ever an arbitrary certification.
I'm a Linux hacker myself, so I have a good idea of what it takes to make someone worth their salt when it comes to systems engineering, which gives me an advantage over your average managment-type, in picking winners. I'd give much more credit to someone who has put a few years in a university computing environment (as an engineer/administrator, not a student) supporting large multiuser systems, distributed filesystems, directory services, etc... than someone who's spent a few $K to put themselves through a class. I also look for someone who's done something interesting with a web server, rather than someone who's just put up a page about their "cool" home systems and their cat.
It sounds like the shift is building a lot of momentum, with a nice push from George Lucas' decision to shoot Episode II of Star Wars entirely using digital cameras.
George Lucas is pushing the envelope of new technology, not just going with the flow of it. Digital Film would not be where it is today without what he is doing on EP2--Lucas has defined the format of large scale digital movie production, the tools, the look...
I've been a tech manager for many years. However, I'm also a Sr. Engineer in most of these instances, so I have a bit of both worlds--good things, and bad things happen due to this perspective.
As I trust, rely, and absolutly want to support the engineers who work for me, I am an avid proponent of giving A LOT of training to them. Once they've recieved training, it's important to reflect their added value to the company in the long run, but reflecting their salary, options, bonuses to their increased worth as an employee.
When dealing with upper management, I make sure to demonstrate the the two actions are intimately related to retaining good engineers. You don't send someone to training soley as a a perk--you're sending them to training to increase their value to the company, and therefore have an invested interest in keeping them on.
I've been in situations where companies have wanted employees to sign training contracts which oblige them to continue with the company for a certain amount of time, but I've never been for such measures--they tend to a) annoy me, because it's a tactic to ensure false loyalty, and b) reduces the amount of implied value that the employee feels about themself.
I try to engender loyalty by fulfilling the role of employee advocate. If one of my engineers truly need something, I'll get it for them. If they're working long hours resolving a situation, I make sure that I, or the company, foots the bill on dinner, be it a pizza and beer, or an evening dinner some night at a nice joint. Actually, I've been known to throw some mean BBQs in the courtyard of our building.
Why do I do all this to support the employees that report to me (and even the ones that don't?) It all goes back to the fact that I'm also one of them. I know what _I_ want, and it makes it easier to understand what is really important to them.
So, as far as training goes, the company is making an investment in increasing an employee's capability, and that investment doesn't end with training alone. Remember, that the company is getting added value in the proposition, not just the employee. Sit down with your employee, explain what the situation is, and trust them to do whats best, not only for themselves, but for the company as well. That is the only position you can take if you want to foster true loyalty.
And to think, I didn't think I could have a lesser opinion of him being that I already considered him a mentally insane, socially isolated, thoroughly unpleasant radical communist hippie. Now I have found that it was possible.
The sad thing is that you actually think that is an insult. Each of those are some of the best qualities of some of my friends. In case you've not heard, people like this are called "Free Thinkers."
Do yourself a favor, don't get stuck in the fish tank of life...it's more interesting to be swimming in the ocean with the sharks.
Look at the percentage of code that has been provided by Netscape employees, not even including any of the original code-base stuff--just since they open sourced it.
Given that, I have no problem if they do exactly what anyone else is free to do.
Uhh...since it would leave them less liable to legal problems, silly. Most porn sites have a great desire to operate within the limits of the laws. They don't want (or need) to present their content to minors. If having a TLD for just this type of content was an option, and it made all the filtering simpler to comply with they'd jump at the opportunity.
How many regular online users (particularly those who want to look at porn) use a filter of some kind? So their content wouldn't be "automatically filterd" for anyone but those who want/need it to protect their kids. As it is now, it's up to the filtering companies to work with and track sites of questionable content to build block lists--a solution which really doesn't work that well.
If, as your supposition suggests, sites with xxx content wouldn't voluntarily move to the new TLD, an easily (it's not hard for an agency to determin that porn is being run out of a normal domain, no is it?) enforcable law could be passed which made it a requirement of some kind. Of course, there would be some controversy as to the limitations of content that could be hosted in non-xxx TLDs, such as medical information, etc...
However, given my previous experiences, I think that your above supposition isn't on track--most adult content sites would happily comply just to make their OWN lives easier.
That's because we're better than you, didn't you know? Geez.
Really, this is counter to a lot of the experiences that I've had in the past. If you [generic you, that is] put some time into thinking about your problem, and formulating a question, the overall response you'll recieve will be positive.
If on the other hand, you go into the kernel hackers channel, and ask, "How do I install Redhat," you'll get a swift rebuke.
That's the way of the world, not just online and within the Linux community. If you barge into a world where people have spent a lot of time and effort getting to, and ask for the easy way out, then you deserve whatever you get.
Nothing good is easy. Well, that's not true...masterbation is pretty easy, but that's about it.
>...not another damn add-on for an add-on for an
>add-on. Aren't you sick of running Sawmill for
>GNOME for Xwindows for Linux?
This is the idea of abstraction, which is at the heart of Linux (and most operating systems for that matter.) For some users this idea may be somewhat disconcerting, but there is no reason for your window manager to have to possess native code for manipulating your video hardware (sawmill running on XFree86), or for your desktop widget collection to know how to manage windows (GNOME/KDE vs. Sawmill).
If you take your statement as fact, then shouldn't your window manager also be responsible for managing process memory, and disk I/O?
Abstraction is the beauty at the heart of modern operating systems--my little hello.c application doesn't need to have to include functions necessary for manipulating video memory to print the words "Hello World."
Now when a layer of abstraction is implemented poorly, of course there will be problems...that's why we love open source...go fix it! But that's another thread all together.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a believer of a grace period. However, my only hesitation, is this: say you give a big vendor, perhaps Microsoft, notice that there is a serious hole in one of their products, and that you will give them a fixed amount of time to do something until you post full disclosure to Bugtraq.
Microsoft has enough lawyers that seem to have plenty of free time on their hands, that my bet would be that they'd try to shut you down, and prevent you from making the promised disclosure.
These tactics scare the bejesus outta me, as far as their implications for security information distribution between professionals.
The crackers and virii folk have, or will have, the information sooner than the admins. Anything that further delays getting me information about potential threats to my network, I regard as irresponsible.
Depending on the level of administrator (jr. vs. sr.) there are aspects of an interviewee that are important, aside from the abc's of their technical knowledge.
.bashrc or .tcshrc) If you have an unlimited budget, how would you do x.
As the most sr. of engineering staff w/in our IT department, I actually try to get the other sr. admins to cover the "do you know how to..." and "what would you do..." questions. I usually interview last, and focus on the more ephemeral aspects of what we do.
I try to dig down into the person's problem solving skills, to see HOW they work. What web sites do you refer to when you don't know something (if they don't use many web sites because "they don't need to" the person doesn't have a grasp of what the DON'T know. What tools do they use on a daily basis?
Fun questions play a big part of the process to...Name a few files that are in your home directory on every machine you work on (besides your
The single most important question I ask myself about any candidate is "do they get IT." Do they have the basic understanding of how stuff is supposed to work, and can they figure out when things are working wrong.
It's easy to tell if someone knows how to use ls, or install a linux machines. The ABCs are easily definable. It's the less quantifiable capabilities that are far more important to me in an a potential administrator.
Plus, if, heaven's forbid, it's actually MS' fault, they will not admit it. They never do.
That is one of my problems with MS in general...they believe that they have to spin the truth without exception. This is one of the things that makes a huge segment of the technology industry mistrust them. If they lie about one thing, it's hard to think they're not lying about another.
Of course, one of my other problems with MS is that their software tends to be inferior for my particular needs, but that's another issue altogether.
-db
From what I've read, they had a disk controller failure, and the secondary (ie. backup) controller also had some kind of fault which lead them "further down the disaster recovery plan." Which means now they go to tape backups, probably.
If they don't have tape backups, then they should be flayed, soaked in rubbing alcohol, and dumped in a big pile of dung.
Sounds to me like they didn't really have a good architecture in the first place. If they were relying on a single machine, and assuming that internal redundancy would cut it, they were very short sighted. Were I tasked with such a systems architecture, there would be a completely redundant layer of complete systems which would periodically (ie. every five hours or so) get complete copies of all the live data.
Were such a catastrophe to occur, dump the production systems, and go to your offline backups.
Downsides of such a plan: a) double the cost, and b) depending on the size of your data set, doing all that copying could prove problematic. Then again, I'd do in with a farm of these running linux, with a gigantic pair of hot-swap Oracle databases running on the backend.
But that's just me. :)
-db
PS. usual disclaimer applies...I'm hocking my own company's product in that link above, but I don't care. It's cool. I like it, and I use it!! And, I'm not in sales...so there! ;)
And if you made it as long as you suggest it'd take, only the hard core sci-fi'ers would spend their time watching it. We all seem to be forgetting that these people still have to produce something which would appeal to 75% or more of their target viewing audience. If you made it ungodly long (without making it a full-blown series) it'd be difficult to keep the viewing audience involved. It's hard to get most sobs to invest a lot of time in something that will not last. Sad, but true.
Also, a number of comments have been made about the wardrobe, etc...stuff that I will call the "stylistic" nature of the miniseries' approach to the story telling. I actually quite enjoyed the pomp of the costumes of those in the royal court and the great houses. This contrasted very well with the simplicity of Fremen existance.
Also, the miniseries' overall use of color, light, and darkness was very compelling. The scene that stands out in my mind is the final fight scene between Paul and the Harkonnen Nephew (damn...not Sting! what the hell was his name...grr...) There is a rising platform/dolly shot that shows your the fighters from an offangle overhead. The lighting consisted only of two powerful lights streaming in through the doorway. The contrasting light and dark lines were phenomenal.
All that said, yes, I liked it, but I also recognize a lot of the problems (don't even get me started on some of the "desert" sets.)
It's best to think of the book, the movie, and the mini-series as separate tellings of the same story. Each storyteller brings new details, and covers others. I think we're all just a little too caught up in the absolutivity of the book, because Herbert wrote it. Herbert created a universe that many people have taken and expanded in many directions. I think this is what Frank wanted, and is the best tribute that can ben given to the man.
Most Universities do, in fact, have _published_ policies about all works belonging to the university or larger governing body.
You can, however, probably derive every project on GNU's hello.c, which would require the resulting work (as a derived work) be GPLed.
Not a lawyer, so YMMV.
I'm as cynical as the next Slashdot'er. However, before you get yourself up in a craze of "less power, why would I want it?" You need to look at this box. It's COOL.
The possibilities of 24 servers in 3U using the power of a typical 1-2U server are incredible.
Get past the idea of using one server per function. You can setup a balanced solution between multiple servers (say 2,4,8,...24!!!) for such redundancy.
Get past the idea of need a super fast processor. For most web serving functions you're much better served by putting lots of smaller servers out there than you are by putting one big server.
Imagine wiring up 48 ports of ethernet with FOUR cables (plus another 24 ethernets coming out of a single RJ45.)
Stop thinking...they're new...I'm too cool for this. It will change they way you approach web architectures...hell other systems infrastructures too.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am an RLX employee. Mid to late 2000, a friend called me to come look at this box. I quit my job and moved to Texas from DC. Don't particularly like much about the area, having lived in an urban location like Georgetown, and moving to a suburban area like the Woodlands, but that didn't matter. I came running.
So, like I said...look at the product. And think.
No I'm not a marketing guy...
I'm in IT--and you think that you're cynical.
It all depends on what you want to do. If you want to run a database engine...no...Transmeta-based is not for you. But if you want to load balance a web farm of 48 machines...you simply cannot beat the price, form factor, power draw, or PERFORMANCE PER INCH.
Given Python's more limited exposure to the commoners, I've had varying amounts of success getting companies that I've worked for to actively use Python. Those that I have convinced, have grown to love it, and all is good with the world.
What are the five most compelling arguments that _you'd_ offer to a company doing web development, system administration, etc... to use Python over other interpreted languages such as Perl, TCL, etc...
Thanks!
You're kidding, right? You've seen the movies? Sure the law says that the NSA doesn't spy on US citizens, but you've seen "Sneakers," right?
You're not an American, so I'll cut you some slack!
:}
Very recently, I'd been in the market for a new enterprise messaging server to replace our companies Exchange 5.5 server, and I looked very long and hard at OpenMail. What I found, made me sad.
OpenMail seems to have been marketed as a direct competitor to Exchange, but the reality of it's abilities falls short of this claim. I was sorely disappointed, since I wanted to move away from a windows-based solution.
From the recent beta I was using, all OpenMail is is an SMTP server, with an integrated POP/IMAP server and a web-base mail client application. Missing is all the calendaring, folder synchronization, and all the other schwag that makes Outlook so damned popular with the corporate crowd. I was sad, because if this was the best that there was to offer, the appropriate choice was obvious.
Does anyone else know of any application suites which come closer? I've looked in vain...
You think Republicans don't drink?
We've all seen the movies...we _know_ that the bacteria will evolve. Seriously, though, what happens when it starts eating oxygen in quantities? What kind of biological safe guards can protect from this happening?
Never did too well in biology class, otherwise I'd probably know...
> Whether or not they can isn't the point. What he
> is saying is that continuing to support SSH1 is
> a Bad Idea. Kinda like saying continuing to
> drive a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires is a
> Bad Idea.
>
> Can he stop them? No.
> Do they have every right to continue supporting
> it? Yes.
> Is it a good idea to continue supporting it? I
> don't think so.
I don't think he's saying that they don't have a right to continue supporting the SSH1 protocol, but rather, it goes to support his point that trademark usage confusion exists. If he's decided that it's a bad idea, and has discontinued it's support in the commercial/trademark protected version, and is using that as a differentiating factor, then confusion is created by a similar product continuing to do so.
YMMV,
RocketLogix is now RLX Technologies. Don't ask. It's a stupid patent thing.
/. reader.
An RLX Employee, and loyal
And yes...the boxes are cool. Very cool. 'nough said.
In the past six years, I've hired over 40 very talented Linux systems engineers--of that 1 had formal certification, yet almost every single one was a gem, ability-wise. I attribute this track record to the fact that I value real world experience far more than I would ever an arbitrary certification.
I'm a Linux hacker myself, so I have a good idea of what it takes to make someone worth their salt when it comes to systems engineering, which gives me an advantage over your average managment-type, in picking winners. I'd give much more credit to someone who has put a few years in a university computing environment (as an engineer/administrator, not a student) supporting large multiuser systems, distributed filesystems, directory services, etc... than someone who's spent a few $K to put themselves through a class. I also look for someone who's done something interesting with a web server, rather than someone who's just put up a page about their "cool" home systems and their cat.
YMMV.
George Lucas is pushing the envelope of new technology, not just going with the flow of it. Digital Film would not be where it is today without what he is doing on EP2--Lucas has defined the format of large scale digital movie production, the tools, the look...
Credit where credit is due.
Mmm...how exactly does the furby processor hack relate to copy protection? Not flaming, I'm just curious about what you're trying to say, exactly.
I've been a tech manager for many years. However, I'm also a Sr. Engineer in most of these instances, so I have a bit of both worlds--good things, and bad things happen due to this perspective.
As I trust, rely, and absolutly want to support the engineers who work for me, I am an avid proponent of giving A LOT of training to them. Once they've recieved training, it's important to reflect their added value to the company in the long run, but reflecting their salary, options, bonuses to their increased worth as an employee.
When dealing with upper management, I make sure to demonstrate the the two actions are intimately related to retaining good engineers. You don't send someone to training soley as a a perk--you're sending them to training to increase their value to the company, and therefore have an invested interest in keeping them on.
I've been in situations where companies have wanted employees to sign training contracts which oblige them to continue with the company for a certain amount of time, but I've never been for such measures--they tend to a) annoy me, because it's a tactic to ensure false loyalty, and b) reduces the amount of implied value that the employee feels about themself.
I try to engender loyalty by fulfilling the role of employee advocate. If one of my engineers truly need something, I'll get it for them. If they're working long hours resolving a situation, I make sure that I, or the company, foots the bill on dinner, be it a pizza and beer, or an evening dinner some night at a nice joint. Actually, I've been known to throw some mean BBQs in the courtyard of our building.
Why do I do all this to support the employees that report to me (and even the ones that don't?) It all goes back to the fact that I'm also one of them. I know what _I_ want, and it makes it easier to understand what is really important to them.
So, as far as training goes, the company is making an investment in increasing an employee's capability, and that investment doesn't end with training alone. Remember, that the company is getting added value in the proposition, not just the employee. Sit down with your employee, explain what the situation is, and trust them to do whats best, not only for themselves, but for the company as well. That is the only position you can take if you want to foster true loyalty.
The sad thing is that you actually think that is an insult. Each of those are some of the best qualities of some of my friends. In case you've not heard, people like this are called "Free Thinkers."
Do yourself a favor, don't get stuck in the fish tank of life...it's more interesting to be swimming in the ocean with the sharks.
Look at the percentage of code that has been provided by Netscape employees, not even including any of the original code-base stuff--just since they open sourced it.
Given that, I have no problem if they do exactly what anyone else is free to do.
-db
Uhh...since it would leave them less liable to legal problems, silly. Most porn sites have a great desire to operate within the limits of the laws. They don't want (or need) to present their content to minors. If having a TLD for just this type of content was an option, and it made all the filtering simpler to comply with they'd jump at the opportunity.
How many regular online users (particularly those who want to look at porn) use a filter of some kind? So their content wouldn't be "automatically filterd" for anyone but those who want/need it to protect their kids. As it is now, it's up to the filtering companies to work with and track sites of questionable content to build block lists--a solution which really doesn't work that well.
If, as your supposition suggests, sites with xxx content wouldn't voluntarily move to the new TLD, an easily (it's not hard for an agency to determin that porn is being run out of a normal domain, no is it?) enforcable law could be passed which made it a requirement of some kind. Of course, there would be some controversy as to the limitations of content that could be hosted in non-xxx TLDs, such as medical information, etc...
However, given my previous experiences, I think that your above supposition isn't on track--most adult content sites would happily comply just to make their OWN lives easier.
That's wrong. Just wrong. Now I'll be depressed for the rest of the day.
That's because we're better than you, didn't you know? Geez.
Really, this is counter to a lot of the experiences that I've had in the past. If you [generic you, that is] put some time into thinking about your problem, and formulating a question, the overall response you'll recieve will be positive.
If on the other hand, you go into the kernel hackers channel, and ask, "How do I install Redhat," you'll get a swift rebuke.
That's the way of the world, not just online and within the Linux community. If you barge into a world where people have spent a lot of time and effort getting to, and ask for the easy way out, then you deserve whatever you get.
Nothing good is easy. Well, that's not true...masterbation is pretty easy, but that's about it.
>...not another damn add-on for an add-on for an
>add-on. Aren't you sick of running Sawmill for
>GNOME for Xwindows for Linux?
This is the idea of abstraction, which is at the heart of Linux (and most operating systems for that matter.) For some users this idea may be somewhat disconcerting, but there is no reason for your window manager to have to possess native code for manipulating your video hardware (sawmill running on XFree86), or for your desktop widget collection to know how to manage windows (GNOME/KDE vs. Sawmill).
If you take your statement as fact, then shouldn't your window manager also be responsible for managing process memory, and disk I/O?
Abstraction is the beauty at the heart of modern operating systems--my little hello.c application doesn't need to have to include functions necessary for manipulating video memory to print the words "Hello World."
Now when a layer of abstraction is implemented poorly, of course there will be problems...that's why we love open source...go fix it! But that's another thread all together.