This is completely the wrong line of thinking. In your example, the woman is on trial for the one instance she claimed she was raped. She is not on trial for the previous claims, and they are irrelevant to the case unless the court thinks otherwise.
Here's an example based on your line of thinking that would not work out for the best: A person is accused of murder. They have previously been accused of murder in the past, but had all cases dropped for some reason or another. The person actually committed a murder this time. Would you rather have the jury decide this person's fate based on the previous cases that had been dropped, or look at the facts presented for the latest case?
Let's just hope that bat uses his newly aquired superbat abilities (after the appropriate amount of exposure to intense intergalactic radiation) for good, and not evil.
As a former network admin for a WISP, P2P was never a problem for us. 80% of our traffic was HTTP, and it was mostly streaming video/music, or outright downloads over HTTP.
We throttled P2P across the board, and it didn't have much of an impact, honestly.
Not arguing with you, just stating that if something like relying on the hardware cache on a hard drive concerns someone, they should be able to disable that feature.
This is exactly why I don't trust production data to ext-based filesystems. The developers all have a huge chip on their shoulders, and a pipe up their ass.
It all looks great in theory, but ext has been getting worse and worse with performance AND reliability since ext2. If Linux can't get a decent native filesystem in the kernel, I'm going to switch back to Solaris.
So, how did I use the term "LDAP" incorrectly in my previous post? I'd love to know.
No, I didn't use OpenLDAP. Read again, which is also why I referred to LDAP generically and also mentioned using LDAP with PAM.
The point is Windows folks seem to think AD is a cool new toy, but the same functionality has existed for years in the *nix world. I simply gave an example that I implemented.
Unfortunately, few people in the Windows world seem to grasp that LDAP has been around for many years in the *nix world, and has all the functionality you would find in Group Policies when linked into PAM on the client side.
For a couple years, I maintained a company-wide network that supported unified "home" directories and unified login/password capabilities between Windows workstations, Linux workstations, and Solaris servers, all tied back to Fedora Directory Server. It was hell to set up, and sweet to watch in action.
Active Directory and Group Policies aren't bad for simple installations, but really turn into a mess quickly depending on your setup. LDAP and *nix systems that support PAM are a snap to set up, work fairly well and took significantly LESS time to get working properly than the Windows side did.
There's a lot of research that goes into setting up either side of the equation. Linux/Unix has been more ready for the "enterprise" desktop than Windows has, though, and that's a cold hard fact.
See Duramax, then STFU. You spew more shit than a 50's 2-stroke diesel with a bad injector. Had GM not gone down the tubes financially, you'd have the newer D-max based engines that are smaller and for use in light trucks and vans out in a year or so.
That's an ignorant thing to imply. Today's diesels are far cleaner and much less smokey than anything we've ever had before. Unless you are some moron turning up the fuel pump for some quick power, you won't see black smoke in normal driving.
I've also been in similar situations with regards to oversight and accountability with regards to secure systems.
I took great pleasure in watching the manager of my department go through every piece of networking equipment and remove my account information the day before I left that company.
Never accept anyone's password for any reason, and never offer your password up for any reason.
Sorry, but I can put an older PCI video card from nVidia or ATI in the same system that currently uses the onboard VIA video chipset, and get much worse performance (obviously, using the same VIA C7 1.5Ghz processor) playing the same YouTube videos.
I did try it, to see if the onboard video was better than what I had lying around in the parts bin.
I deployed a decent array of Mikrotik routers for a wireless ISP running OSPF internally for redundancy between towers (multiple backhauls per tower to route around a tower that may be down), and also dealt with Cisco gear on the same network doing OSPF and BGP.
I'd trust Mikrotik over Cisco any day of the week.
VIA's drivers ARE a work in progress. At least they offer SOMETHING to the Linux world, though.
I do know my way around xorg conf files, and have no qualms compiling bits and pieces from third parties to tack onto my Linux based OS (I've never had problems with ATI cards under Linux either). That being said, when I did have troubles with the newer drivers from VIA, they were quick to respond to my emails, and they were helpful.
VIA fell out of favor with me back when AMD relied on them for the bulk of their motherboard chipsets. After working at a wireless ISP, and using dozens of Mikrotik routers (most of our NIC were powered by VIA chipsets), trying out some VIA C3 and C7 based systems, and reading about the new Nano processor, I think the deserve a shot in the GNU/Linux world.
They may be easier to deal with than Intel, AMD/ATI and nVidia since they are a smaller company as well.
Get your latest Linux drivers there. I went there to get better drivers for the two VIA systems I own that rely on Chrome drivers, and the newer drivers worked great.
As an AC previously stated, motherboards with VIA's integrated video use the Chrome drivers.
I bought an Everex laptop that uses Chrome9 drivers, and it doesn't do bad for what it is ($300 laptop running Ubuntu).
My wife's PC is also an Everex system with a VIA integrated video using Chrome drivers. It's the $200 system Wal-Mart was selling a while ago.
Why pay for a video card that costs half as much, or more, than the entire system? Video performance is acceptable for day-to-day use, even playing YouTube videos.
No, they sold you access to the internet as most people would use the service, which includes blocked ports because the average person can't be bothered with a firewall or antivirus.
This applies to all ISPs. You have to investigate the service you are attempting to buy.
So, where does Comcast block you when you browse the web like the average consumer? Most people don't need remote SMTP services, or run a web/email server out of their house.
It's all in the ToS. Worth a read before you buy, and this applies to ALL internet service providers. If you plan on doing anything non-standard with your connection, it's also worth asking before you accept the contract.
I really have an issue with your #1 statement. I have an office full of 24" iMacs that appear to be dropping like flies, just after their one-year warranty. Power supplies, logic boards, and hard drives (some machines have all three go bad because of the power supply).
The Apple Store near me is absolutely worthless for warranty repair. I now take machines to a non-Apple repair center, and have had much better service.
Two more years until the hardware refresh! I can't wait.
Slashdot Mirror
This is completely the wrong line of thinking. In your example, the woman is on trial for the one instance she claimed she was raped. She is not on trial for the previous claims, and they are irrelevant to the case unless the court thinks otherwise.
Here's an example based on your line of thinking that would not work out for the best: A person is accused of murder. They have previously been accused of murder in the past, but had all cases dropped for some reason or another. The person actually committed a murder this time. Would you rather have the jury decide this person's fate based on the previous cases that had been dropped, or look at the facts presented for the latest case?
Let's just hope that bat uses his newly aquired superbat abilities (after the appropriate amount of exposure to intense intergalactic radiation) for good, and not evil.
As a former network admin for a WISP, P2P was never a problem for us. 80% of our traffic was HTTP, and it was mostly streaming video/music, or outright downloads over HTTP.
We throttled P2P across the board, and it didn't have much of an impact, honestly.
Not arguing with you, just stating that if something like relying on the hardware cache on a hard drive concerns someone, they should be able to disable that feature.
All of which can be disabled, or should be disabled on critical systems.
This is exactly why I don't trust production data to ext-based filesystems. The developers all have a huge chip on their shoulders, and a pipe up their ass.
It all looks great in theory, but ext has been getting worse and worse with performance AND reliability since ext2. If Linux can't get a decent native filesystem in the kernel, I'm going to switch back to Solaris.
It's a shame Reiser turned out to be such a whackjob. We could have had a really sweet filesystem under Linux.
So, how did I use the term "LDAP" incorrectly in my previous post? I'd love to know.
No, I didn't use OpenLDAP. Read again, which is also why I referred to LDAP generically and also mentioned using LDAP with PAM.
The point is Windows folks seem to think AD is a cool new toy, but the same functionality has existed for years in the *nix world. I simply gave an example that I implemented.
Unfortunately, few people in the Windows world seem to grasp that LDAP has been around for many years in the *nix world, and has all the functionality you would find in Group Policies when linked into PAM on the client side.
For a couple years, I maintained a company-wide network that supported unified "home" directories and unified login/password capabilities between Windows workstations, Linux workstations, and Solaris servers, all tied back to Fedora Directory Server. It was hell to set up, and sweet to watch in action.
Active Directory and Group Policies aren't bad for simple installations, but really turn into a mess quickly depending on your setup. LDAP and *nix systems that support PAM are a snap to set up, work fairly well and took significantly LESS time to get working properly than the Windows side did.
There's a lot of research that goes into setting up either side of the equation. Linux/Unix has been more ready for the "enterprise" desktop than Windows has, though, and that's a cold hard fact.
See Duramax, then STFU. You spew more shit than a 50's 2-stroke diesel with a bad injector. Had GM not gone down the tubes financially, you'd have the newer D-max based engines that are smaller and for use in light trucks and vans out in a year or so.
That's an ignorant thing to imply. Today's diesels are far cleaner and much less smokey than anything we've ever had before. Unless you are some moron turning up the fuel pump for some quick power, you won't see black smoke in normal driving.
Who really thought this was a beta? This is just a marketing trick by Microsoft to get people hyped about a "new" OS release.
This is barely a minor update to Vista.
It may take a spine to start a labor union, but what's the point? So the rest of the spineless jerks can pile on one platform?
I have no faith in people who cannot speak for themselves or stand up for what they believe in outside of a herd.
Rockford, IL. Manufacturing took a massive dump in the 80s, and we're still on the rebound.
Sorry, abuse in IT? Go get different job, or grow a spine. No one in this country is forcing you to work anywhere you don't want to be.
Spare me the crap about the economy. I live in an area that saw 22% unemployment just over twenty years ago, this is still a rebound for us.
I've also been in similar situations with regards to oversight and accountability with regards to secure systems.
I took great pleasure in watching the manager of my department go through every piece of networking equipment and remove my account information the day before I left that company.
Never accept anyone's password for any reason, and never offer your password up for any reason.
Sorry, but I can put an older PCI video card from nVidia or ATI in the same system that currently uses the onboard VIA video chipset, and get much worse performance (obviously, using the same VIA C7 1.5Ghz processor) playing the same YouTube videos.
I did try it, to see if the onboard video was better than what I had lying around in the parts bin.
I deployed a decent array of Mikrotik routers for a wireless ISP running OSPF internally for redundancy between towers (multiple backhauls per tower to route around a tower that may be down), and also dealt with Cisco gear on the same network doing OSPF and BGP.
I'd trust Mikrotik over Cisco any day of the week.
VIA's drivers ARE a work in progress. At least they offer SOMETHING to the Linux world, though.
I do know my way around xorg conf files, and have no qualms compiling bits and pieces from third parties to tack onto my Linux based OS (I've never had problems with ATI cards under Linux either). That being said, when I did have troubles with the newer drivers from VIA, they were quick to respond to my emails, and they were helpful.
VIA fell out of favor with me back when AMD relied on them for the bulk of their motherboard chipsets. After working at a wireless ISP, and using dozens of Mikrotik routers (most of our NIC were powered by VIA chipsets), trying out some VIA C3 and C7 based systems, and reading about the new Nano processor, I think the deserve a shot in the GNU/Linux world.
They may be easier to deal with than Intel, AMD/ATI and nVidia since they are a smaller company as well.
http://linux.via.com.tw/
Get your latest Linux drivers there. I went there to get better drivers for the two VIA systems I own that rely on Chrome drivers, and the newer drivers worked great.
S3's product site is here: http://www.s3graphics.com/en/products/
As an AC previously stated, motherboards with VIA's integrated video use the Chrome drivers.
I bought an Everex laptop that uses Chrome9 drivers, and it doesn't do bad for what it is ($300 laptop running Ubuntu).
My wife's PC is also an Everex system with a VIA integrated video using Chrome drivers. It's the $200 system Wal-Mart was selling a while ago.
Why pay for a video card that costs half as much, or more, than the entire system? Video performance is acceptable for day-to-day use, even playing YouTube videos.
No, they sold you access to the internet as most people would use the service, which includes blocked ports because the average person can't be bothered with a firewall or antivirus.
This applies to all ISPs. You have to investigate the service you are attempting to buy.
So, where does Comcast block you when you browse the web like the average consumer? Most people don't need remote SMTP services, or run a web/email server out of their house.
It's all in the ToS. Worth a read before you buy, and this applies to ALL internet service providers. If you plan on doing anything non-standard with your connection, it's also worth asking before you accept the contract.
Oops. I went the wrong way in moderation. Time to cancel that out.
I agree, this is underrated.
I really have an issue with your #1 statement. I have an office full of 24" iMacs that appear to be dropping like flies, just after their one-year warranty. Power supplies, logic boards, and hard drives (some machines have all three go bad because of the power supply).
The Apple Store near me is absolutely worthless for warranty repair. I now take machines to a non-Apple repair center, and have had much better service.
Two more years until the hardware refresh! I can't wait.