You'll also have no compelling reason to buy our DRM enabled chips. If you don't buy these, you might not be able to run the latest version of Windows. If you're not running Windows, why would you spend extra dollars for DRM technology you don't need or want?
DRM means all kinds of money for lots of people. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make it ubiquitous. Think of the domino effects. You'll need DRM TV to work with your DRM this and your DRM that. DRM chips up the wazoo. There will be different competing DRM standards. Whoever wins, wins big.
(Unless DRM gets the big boot it deserves.)
If Intel has no (non-DRM) competition, this might just come to pass. OTOH, a chip company with a concience selling a non-DRM alternative could make significant inroads - or at least help keep Intel honest.
If this weren't that bastion of reliability, Slashdot, I'd think this was a joke. What a slap in the face!
Of course MS knew exactly what they were doing when they chose that acronym. Just more evidence, as if any more were necessary, that MS is run by a bunch of shitheads.
The only thing new about p2p is the acronym and the hysteria. How would you describe a bunch of SMTP servers all talking to each other? What's new is the idea that personal computers can be more than clients. Computers that were formerly only described as clients are taking on some of the responsibilities of servers. And yes, the trend will continue.
The change we are witnessing is not the emergence of p2p, it is the disappearance of the client.
I mostly support the EFF. But when they started promoting compulsary licencing, I decided not to support them. Perhaps they should revamp their support structure, such that if you donate money, you can direct it to a specific cause. And in such as way as the causes you *don't* believe don't indirectly benefit (by sharing the same overhead expenses, etc.) I'm not going to waste a penny on an organization that promotes ideas completely contrary to what I believe in.
Has any actually successfully deployed VOIP in a campus setting? (I realize the article is about long-haul backbone stuff, so I'm a little OT.)
If you've been successfull, describe your topology. Do you have trusted end-nodes? I don't. So I need to either VLAN or run a separate physical network, right? Even w/ VLAN, that means separate wires for phone vs. data from the room to the closet. Yes this is conservative. Do you trust you can call the police/fire department etc. on an IP phone on a campus network that just got hosed by Nicha or equal?
Anyway, I really am curious if anyone has a VOIP deployment they'd like to brag about.
Right. Good advice. But things are not so painless and automatic as you present. Should Auto Update automatically reboot (I've never seen a significant MS patch that didn't require a reboot)? How does Auto Update inform the users who are using your server that a reboot is immanent, so as to prevent possible data loss, etc.? Do you trust that all such activity will shut down gracefully, hurting no-one? And as others have mentioned, in MS's history, there have been patches that have caused more problems than they solved. Do you want to the first one on the block to install MS's latest patch? Or would you rather wait a day or two and see what happens to everyone else (leaving yourself exposed in the meanwhile). And just why, exactly, should every damn update require a reboot? Maybe because MS is hell-bent on glomming every bit and byte of technology into the OS itself. No better protection against an anti-trust lawsuit, right? "But your honor, that technology is integral to the operating system! It cannot be removed!" So reboot reboot reboot reboot. For hours and hours and hours. Yeah, what a wonder system Microsoft has concocted.
The lesson here, your protests to the contrary, is "Don't use Windows".
I saw this link on/., and I'm reposting it. Send it to your friends. Stick it to the RIAA. Don't buy their music. How? Click this link.
I will assume full responsibility for taking part in the the decline in CD sales the RIAA bitches about. I haven't purchased a CD from those assholes in years. Fuck you, RIAA.
I really need to learn to suffer fools gladly, but asinine suggestions like this make my blood boil. I don't need port 25? What kind of dinkus statement is that?!
Firewalls are no substitute for application level security anyway. The root of the the problem is unpatched network applications, not open ports. Open ports are the reason you have a network in the first place, for christsake! People who continue using crappy software will continue to get hammered. Someday they, or their vendor, will learn. And people or vendors who don't learn?...I don't feel very sorry for them.
I certainly think an ISP has the right to stop or curtail service for people clearly identified as causing problems. But the fact that we're even discussing pre-emptive censorship is galling.
It doesn't matter how you organize your data. Just make sure you delete all items that haven't been accessed for more than six months and sixty six days.
Remember if you want an answer quick it helps to have an interface that the normal web-citizen can understand.
Yes and no. When I want a computer question answered well and with alacrity, I usually avoid congregations of computer illiterati. On the other hand, when I have a question about non-geek stuff like home maintainance, construction, etc. the best forums are on web boards.
Oh for christsake. Who designed Windows? Microsoft. Windows is insecure. Why? Because Microsoft designed it that way. No? If the insecurities inherent to Windows weren't designed, then they were accidents. Ridiculous.
Microsoft concienciously gave security second billing as part of their overall strategy to build marketshare. And their plan worked. They gave people who don't know anything about computers what they wanted. Microsoft has always known that their operating system and applications could be more secure. But the implementation costs and the inconvenience to the users were considered too detremental to their business plan.
You're absolutely right, design implies intent. Which is why the Washington Post used the word they way they did. If you don't think Microsoft intended for Windows/Office etc. to be insecure, you don't know shit about Microsoft.
You may grant rights as you see fit, as long as you don't demand anything illegal. You can't say, for example, that "you can copy my book as many times as you want if you shoot the president." I'm not saying that the GPL makes any illicit demands, by the way. Just picking a nit. As far as I can see, this is the only way that the GPL could be declared invalid: if its demands overreached legality.
What this means is that the dunderheads at SCO figured out that attacking a behemoth like IBM was maybe not so wise. So instead they're going to try to fry some small fish first. Small organizations without the resources or will to put up a fight. If they can get someone to roll over, then they'll trumpet their victory in an effort to further inflate their share price, dump some stock, and drag this out a little longer.
I think Darl has a/. alter-ego. Yes, that's right, Darl is among us. And poor Darl has been getting bitch-slapped for too long now, and he's just not going to take it anymore. It's another classic case of online flaming spiraling out of control, and into the real world.
No, why don't you elaborate. Specifically, why don't you elaborate how to export user account and authentication information (i.e. userPassword) from AD to OpenLDAP. Or even the reverse: how to push authentication credentials into AD without passing cleartext passwords. And how can I authenticate my Windows logins against OpenLDAP, rather than AD?
Are these just oversights? "Blind spots", as you say? Hardly. It's a deliberate effort to confound interoperability and to compell the use of Active Directory rather than any alternative.
This latest maneuver is what this case has been about from the beginning: an attempt to kill the entire free software movement.
I think you're absolutely right. I've been suspecting the GPL was involved in this for quite a while now, but wasn't audacious enough to comprehend the reason. Like you say, they want to kill free software. As do their sponsors. Even if killing free software kills them in the process.
Why would a company commit suicide like that? For starters, they're dead anyway. So why not gamble on a long shot? What's the gain? The gratitude of the richest people on earth.
It's a hail mary. The best possible result if you do nothing: bankrupcy and ruin. The worst possible result if you fail: a small stock run up... a million dollars in your pocket. The best possible result: "Hi Darl! Congratulations! Would you like to sit in Monkey Boy's lap?!"
Microsoft throwing a few million in the pot is like buying a lottery ticket. You know you're going to lose, but you don't stand a chance of winning if you don't play...
How is giving a few people the right to restrict the rights of many "more free" than abrogating such behaviour? "More freedoms" does not equal "more freedom".
Use a dictionary.
Umm, ok. If you say so. From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: sophist Pronunciation: 'sa-fist Function: noun Etymology: Latin sophista, from Greek sophistEs, literally, expert, wise man, from sophizesthai to become wise, deceive, from sophos clever, wise Date: 1542... 3 : a captious or fallacious reasoner
All in good fun. All in good fun. We're more the same than different, I'm sure.
The OP is looking for some simple tool to help him design a layout. (If his father really is an architect, he could draft the entire design in a fraction of the time this guy is going to take, and will probably revise most of it just so it's buildable.) CAD is the wrong tool for him, he doesn't even know what he's drawing. (Although I'm sure he thinks he does.)
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. If the OP's going to go slow anyway, he may as well be picking up CAD skills along the way. If nothing else, if (s)he really wants to be an architect, the skills might help get a job. We both know there are precious few firms that are going to hire a noob to do design, but they will hire competent drafters. Of course, if you're going to work for dad, that's a different story.
You're right, I totally bagged you as technically illiterate. That was wrong. My apologies. I've brushed up against far too many architectural pretenders in my life, and they bug the shit out of me. Sorry to put you in that camp. That's a horrible thing to do to somebody.
Yes, you have to be skillful for CAD to be useful. I think too many people kick the tires, get frustrated, and give up. Proficiency takes dedication. When you know CAD well, you stop thinking about it. It's just an extension of your thoughts. Until you reach that point, it feels like a hindrance. Which I'm sure you know..
You can sketch in CAD. The biggest problem with CAD sketches is that other people who see them confuse their hard linearity with finality. I've sometimes taken the extra time to push CAD sketches through programs like squiggle just to be sure they have the proper napkin-sketch flavor. (Plot a hidden line drawing of a solid model, push through squiggle, suck into gimp, use some big fat color to do a little highlighting, and put one of those cheezy faux paper backgrounds in to get a decent looking overhead projection image quickly. Nix the faux paper for printing, just use rough paper.)
And yes, I like paper. I could doodle single line house plans on graph paper all day. I just think it's wrong to characterize CAD as a construction document only engineering tool. It's an invaluable design tool, when used competently. I've seen big projects blow up in people's faces because they couldn't manage the intricacies - because they weren't competent with CAD.
Anyway, I think this horse is dead now. I'll stop kicking.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a little dubious when I saw that the whole force appears to be resisted by three small diameter threaded rods like you'd buy at Home Depot.
Very cool anyway.
You'll also have no compelling reason to buy our DRM enabled chips. If you don't buy these, you might not be able to run the latest version of Windows. If you're not running Windows, why would you spend extra dollars for DRM technology you don't need or want?
DRM means all kinds of money for lots of people. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make it ubiquitous. Think of the domino effects. You'll need DRM TV to work with your DRM this and your DRM that. DRM chips up the wazoo. There will be different competing DRM standards. Whoever wins, wins big.
(Unless DRM gets the big boot it deserves.)
If Intel has no (non-DRM) competition, this might just come to pass. OTOH, a chip company with a concience selling a non-DRM alternative could make significant inroads - or at least help keep Intel honest.
If this weren't that bastion of reliability, Slashdot, I'd think this was a joke. What a slap in the face!
Of course MS knew exactly what they were doing when they chose that acronym. Just more evidence, as if any more were necessary, that MS is run by a bunch of shitheads.
You can have all the speech you want, but nobody will ever listen to you.
Did you say something?
The only thing new about p2p is the acronym and the hysteria. How would you describe a bunch of SMTP servers all talking to each other? What's new is the idea that personal computers can be more than clients. Computers that were formerly only described as clients are taking on some of the responsibilities of servers. And yes, the trend will continue.
The change we are witnessing is not the emergence of p2p, it is the disappearance of the client.
I mostly support the EFF. But when they started promoting compulsary licencing, I decided not to support them. Perhaps they should revamp their support structure, such that if you donate money, you can direct it to a specific cause. And in such as way as the causes you *don't* believe don't indirectly benefit (by sharing the same overhead expenses, etc.) I'm not going to waste a penny on an organization that promotes ideas completely contrary to what I believe in.
Has any actually successfully deployed VOIP in a campus setting? (I realize the article is about long-haul backbone stuff, so I'm a little OT.)
If you've been successfull, describe your topology. Do you have trusted end-nodes? I don't. So I need to either VLAN or run a separate physical network, right? Even w/ VLAN, that means separate wires for phone vs. data from the room to the closet. Yes this is conservative. Do you trust you can call the police/fire department etc. on an IP phone on a campus network that just got hosed by Nicha or equal?
Anyway, I really am curious if anyone has a VOIP deployment they'd like to brag about.
PostgreSQL has released their replication technology under an open source licence.
...run MS update.
Right. Good advice. But things are not so painless and automatic as you present. Should Auto Update automatically reboot (I've never seen a significant MS patch that didn't require a reboot)? How does Auto Update inform the users who are using your server that a reboot is immanent, so as to prevent possible data loss, etc.? Do you trust that all such activity will shut down gracefully, hurting no-one? And as others have mentioned, in MS's history, there have been patches that have caused more problems than they solved. Do you want to the first one on the block to install MS's latest patch? Or would you rather wait a day or two and see what happens to everyone else (leaving yourself exposed in the meanwhile). And just why, exactly, should every damn update require a reboot? Maybe because MS is hell-bent on glomming every bit and byte of technology into the OS itself. No better protection against an anti-trust lawsuit, right? "But your honor, that technology is integral to the operating system! It cannot be removed!" So reboot reboot reboot reboot. For hours and hours and hours. Yeah, what a wonder system Microsoft has concocted.
The lesson here, your protests to the contrary, is "Don't use Windows".
Yes. Tell your friends. Tell them to tell their friends.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
I saw this link on /., and I'm reposting it. Send it to your friends. Stick it to the RIAA. Don't buy their music. How? Click this link.
I will assume full responsibility for taking part in the the decline in CD sales the RIAA bitches about. I haven't purchased a CD from those assholes in years. Fuck you, RIAA.
I really need to learn to suffer fools gladly, but asinine suggestions like this make my blood boil. I don't need port 25? What kind of dinkus statement is that?!
...I don't feel very sorry for them.
Firewalls are no substitute for application level security anyway. The root of the the problem is unpatched network applications, not open ports. Open ports are the reason you have a network in the first place, for christsake! People who continue using crappy software will continue to get hammered. Someday they, or their vendor, will learn. And people or vendors who don't learn?
I certainly think an ISP has the right to stop or curtail service for people clearly identified as causing problems. But the fact that we're even discussing pre-emptive censorship is galling.
It doesn't matter how you organize your data. Just make sure you delete all items that haven't been accessed for more than six months and sixty six days.
Remember if you want an answer quick it helps to have an interface that the normal web-citizen can understand.
Yes and no. When I want a computer question answered well and with alacrity, I usually avoid congregations of computer illiterati. On the other hand, when I have a question about non-geek stuff like home maintainance, construction, etc. the best forums are on web boards.
I'm lusting to get one of these to fly around in my back yard: http://www.cybird-shop.com/
Interesting that I ran across this thread immediately after reading this article about idiot bosses at CNN. Their conclusion? Leave.
Oh for christsake. Who designed Windows? Microsoft. Windows is insecure. Why? Because Microsoft designed it that way. No? If the insecurities inherent to Windows weren't designed, then they were accidents. Ridiculous.
Microsoft concienciously gave security second billing as part of their overall strategy to build marketshare. And their plan worked. They gave people who don't know anything about computers what they wanted. Microsoft has always known that their operating system and applications could be more secure. But the implementation costs and the inconvenience to the users were considered too detremental to their business plan.
You're absolutely right, design implies intent. Which is why the Washington Post used the word they way they did. If you don't think Microsoft intended for Windows/Office etc. to be insecure, you don't know shit about Microsoft.
You may grant rights as you see fit, as long as you don't demand anything illegal. You can't say, for example, that "you can copy my book as many times as you want if you shoot the president." I'm not saying that the GPL makes any illicit demands, by the way. Just picking a nit. As far as I can see, this is the only way that the GPL could be declared invalid: if its demands overreached legality.
What this means is that the dunderheads at SCO figured out that attacking a behemoth like IBM was maybe not so wise. So instead they're going to try to fry some small fish first. Small organizations without the resources or will to put up a fight. If they can get someone to roll over, then they'll trumpet their victory in an effort to further inflate their share price, dump some stock, and drag this out a little longer.
I think Darl has a /. alter-ego. Yes, that's right, Darl is among us. And poor Darl has been getting bitch-slapped for too long now, and he's just not going to take it anymore. It's another classic case of online flaming spiraling out of control, and into the real world.
Proprietary crap? Please elaborate.
No, why don't you elaborate. Specifically, why don't you elaborate how to export user account and authentication information (i.e. userPassword) from AD to OpenLDAP. Or even the reverse: how to push authentication credentials into AD without passing cleartext passwords. And how can I authenticate my Windows logins against OpenLDAP, rather than AD?
Are these just oversights? "Blind spots", as you say? Hardly. It's a deliberate effort to confound interoperability and to compell the use of Active Directory rather than any alternative.
Open? Not.
So if you want to SSH, you connect over SSL to it, and then log into a Web application and run the SSH client.
Whaa? Why are you running ssh over a vpn? That sounds like about the most convoluted way of running ssh I've ever heard of.
This latest maneuver is what this case has been about from the beginning: an attempt to kill the entire free software movement.
... a million dollars in your pocket. The best possible result: "Hi Darl! Congratulations! Would you like to sit in Monkey Boy's lap?!"
I think you're absolutely right. I've been suspecting the GPL was involved in this for quite a while now, but wasn't audacious enough to comprehend the reason. Like you say, they want to kill free software. As do their sponsors. Even if killing free software kills them in the process.
Why would a company commit suicide like that? For starters, they're dead anyway. So why not gamble on a long shot? What's the gain? The gratitude of the richest people on earth.
It's a hail mary. The best possible result if you do nothing: bankrupcy and ruin. The worst possible result if you fail: a small stock run up
Microsoft throwing a few million in the pot is like buying a lottery ticket. You know you're going to lose, but you don't stand a chance of winning if you don't play...
So how is the GPL more free?
...
How is giving a few people the right to restrict the rights of many "more free" than abrogating such behaviour? "More freedoms" does not equal "more freedom".
Use a dictionary.
Umm, ok. If you say so. From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: sophist
Pronunciation: 'sa-fist
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin sophista, from Greek sophistEs, literally, expert, wise man, from sophizesthai to become wise, deceive, from sophos clever, wise
Date: 1542
3 : a captious or fallacious reasoner
All in good fun. All in good fun. We're more the same than different, I'm sure.
The OP is looking for some simple tool to help him design a layout. (If his father really is an architect, he could draft the entire design in a fraction of the time this guy is going to take, and will probably revise most of it just so it's buildable.) CAD is the wrong tool for him, he doesn't even know what he's drawing. (Although I'm sure he thinks he does.)
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. If the OP's going to go slow anyway, he may as well be picking up CAD skills along the way. If nothing else, if (s)he really wants to be an architect, the skills might help get a job. We both know there are precious few firms that are going to hire a noob to do design, but they will hire competent drafters. Of course, if you're going to work for dad, that's a different story.
You're right, I totally bagged you as technically illiterate. That was wrong. My apologies. I've brushed up against far too many architectural pretenders in my life, and they bug the shit out of me. Sorry to put you in that camp. That's a horrible thing to do to somebody.
Yes, you have to be skillful for CAD to be useful. I think too many people kick the tires, get frustrated, and give up. Proficiency takes dedication. When you know CAD well, you stop thinking about it. It's just an extension of your thoughts. Until you reach that point, it feels like a hindrance. Which I'm sure you know..
You can sketch in CAD. The biggest problem with CAD sketches is that other people who see them confuse their hard linearity with finality. I've sometimes taken the extra time to push CAD sketches through programs like squiggle just to be sure they have the proper napkin-sketch flavor. (Plot a hidden line drawing of a solid model, push through squiggle, suck into gimp, use some big fat color to do a little highlighting, and put one of those cheezy faux paper backgrounds in to get a decent looking overhead projection image quickly. Nix the faux paper for printing, just use rough paper.)
And yes, I like paper. I could doodle single line house plans on graph paper all day. I just think it's wrong to characterize CAD as a construction document only engineering tool. It's an invaluable design tool, when used competently. I've seen big projects blow up in people's faces because they couldn't manage the intricacies - because they weren't competent with CAD.
Anyway, I think this horse is dead now. I'll stop kicking.