From that standpoint the licensing should be based on users, not the CPU. What if the multiple CPU's the 1000 person company were 4 1 GHz CPU's and the CPU the 100 person company had was a 4 GHz. They could just as easily spend less on a single CPU license and serve just as many users. In this case the smaller company ends up with a better deal just by having better hardware.
I don't see how it is. Just because something might crash does not make it insecure, to my knowledge. That's what stability and security are always discussed separately.
What we should really be worried about is the software that all this will run on, not the API used..NET has yet to be proven insecure by any means, but all the software pieces the application is going to run on are well known to have security issues. Maybe we should ask for this to be ran on Linux with Postgre instead of Server 2003 and MS SQL 2000 (slammer worm victim).
That says nothing about security. Not sure how you inferred your statement from such a small text. The article does suggest that.NET 2.0 is too new to be labeled as stable enough for something as important as an OS core..NET itself is not insecure, rather it is software it runs on top that is insecure.
Quit your complaining and upgrade to.NET. You probably tell your customers to do the same when it's upgrade time, just in a much nicer manner. VB6 is nothing special anymore, get over it.
Point taken.
I should have stated that the process of extracting the usable fuel from the spent is very inefficient and not that the reactors themselves are inefficient.
First I'll cite an example from the university I work at. We bought a better connection based on the sole reason that we get so much spam the website was loading slowly. The option of having our email outsourced was looked at, but in the end it was still cheaper to just get a better connection. Are the spammers covering the new cost incurred because their actions? Haha, yea right.
There was just an article today about how big the market for spyware removal had become. It is well known that some spam sites install their crap when you visit their site, or if the person is using OE or even Outlook 2000 the stuff installs straight from the e-mail. Again, are they forking over some of their profits to cover the costs for this?
An eye for an eye is perfectly legit in this case since our governments are so slow to do anything worthwhile about the problem. In America we have the right to bear arms and form a militia (under certain circumstances) so what's wrong with us bearing different arms, our bandwidth and computers, and forming a different type of militia to get rid of our enemies?
Too bad breeder reactors are terribly inefficient compared to the full-blown nuclear reactors. Yes it's good we try to get the most out of all the fuel we have, but the costs involved with the breeder reactors make them a terrible solution.
I 2nd that notion. Works wonders and has a ton of plugins to expand it beyond the default options and abilities of a PIX, IMO. Adding a segment costs less than $50 since all you need is another NIC. Easy web based admin and reporting makes it a breeze to config and monitor. No problem with P2P apps either, once you know the port(s) needed.
Here is what I received back from my senator. Obviously it is scripted, but it's a little more info.
"Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts about federal copyright laws. I appreciate having Kansans' views on this issue.
Rapid advancements in technology allow us to make near-perfect recordings of digital media, such as CDs and DVDs, which can be easily distributed via file sharing to computers and MP3 players. The core of the legal and legislative issue is the fair use doctrine, which allows consumers to transfer personal copies of their music and videos to other devices. However, manufacturers and the entertainment industry are concerned that sharing files circumvents copyright law.
Updating copyright law has a big impact, not only on consumers of music and movies, but also on artists and creators. While Congress must be careful not to infringe upon the fair use of consumers to legally copy digital media, we also cannot allow individuals to profit from illegally copied media. Furthermore, we need to ensure that any efforts to alter copyright law do not have the unintended consequence of inhibiting research into software and other technologies.
I appreciate knowing your opposition to S. 2560, the INDUCE Act. The INDUCE Act, makes it illegal to intentionally aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement. The bill is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. With a small window of time for Congress to act on priority legislation, including reforming the intelligence community, it is unlikely the Senate will turn to S. 2560 this year. However, I will keep your concerns in mind should hearings be held on copyright law and the fair use doctrine. I also appreciate knowing of your opposition to S. 2237, the PIRATE Act. It passed the Senate earlier this year, but the House has not acted on it. This bill would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil charges against copyright violators who exceed the fair use doctrine.
Slashdot Mirror
From that standpoint the licensing should be based on users, not the CPU. What if the multiple CPU's the 1000 person company were 4 1 GHz CPU's and the CPU the 100 person company had was a 4 GHz. They could just as easily spend less on a single CPU license and serve just as many users. In this case the smaller company ends up with a better deal just by having better hardware.
I don't see how it is. Just because something might crash does not make it insecure, to my knowledge. That's what stability and security are always discussed separately.
What we should really be worried about is the software that all this will run on, not the API used. .NET has yet to be proven insecure by any means, but all the software pieces the application is going to run on are well known to have security issues. Maybe we should ask for this to be ran on Linux with Postgre instead of Server 2003 and MS SQL 2000 (slammer worm victim).
That says nothing about security. Not sure how you inferred your statement from such a small text. The article does suggest that .NET 2.0 is too new to be labeled as stable enough for something as important as an OS core. .NET itself is not insecure, rather it is software it runs on top that is insecure.
Quit your complaining and upgrade to .NET. You probably tell your customers to do the same when it's upgrade time, just in a much nicer manner. VB6 is nothing special anymore, get over it.
Point taken. I should have stated that the process of extracting the usable fuel from the spent is very inefficient and not that the reactors themselves are inefficient.
First I'll cite an example from the university I work at. We bought a better connection based on the sole reason that we get so much spam the website was loading slowly. The option of having our email outsourced was looked at, but in the end it was still cheaper to just get a better connection. Are the spammers covering the new cost incurred because their actions? Haha, yea right.
There was just an article today about how big the market for spyware removal had become. It is well known that some spam sites install their crap when you visit their site, or if the person is using OE or even Outlook 2000 the stuff installs straight from the e-mail. Again, are they forking over some of their profits to cover the costs for this?
An eye for an eye is perfectly legit in this case since our governments are so slow to do anything worthwhile about the problem. In America we have the right to bear arms and form a militia (under certain circumstances) so what's wrong with us bearing different arms, our bandwidth and computers, and forming a different type of militia to get rid of our enemies?
Too bad breeder reactors are terribly inefficient compared to the full-blown nuclear reactors. Yes it's good we try to get the most out of all the fuel we have, but the costs involved with the breeder reactors make them a terrible solution.
I 2nd that notion. Works wonders and has a ton of plugins to expand it beyond the default options and abilities of a PIX, IMO. Adding a segment costs less than $50 since all you need is another NIC. Easy web based admin and reporting makes it a breeze to config and monitor. No problem with P2P apps either, once you know the port(s) needed.
Here is what I received back from my senator. Obviously it is scripted, but it's a little more info.
"Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts about federal copyright laws. I appreciate having Kansans' views on this issue.
Rapid advancements in technology allow us to make near-perfect recordings of digital media, such as CDs and DVDs, which can be easily distributed via file sharing to computers and MP3 players. The core of the legal and legislative issue is the fair use doctrine, which allows consumers to transfer personal copies of their music and videos to other devices. However, manufacturers and the entertainment industry are concerned that sharing files circumvents copyright law.
Updating copyright law has a big impact, not only on consumers of music and movies, but also on artists and creators. While Congress must be careful not to infringe upon the fair use of consumers to legally copy digital media, we also cannot allow individuals to profit from illegally copied media. Furthermore, we need to ensure that any efforts to alter copyright law do not have the unintended consequence of inhibiting research into software and other technologies.
I appreciate knowing your opposition to S. 2560, the INDUCE Act. The INDUCE Act, makes it illegal to intentionally aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement. The bill is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. With a small window of time for Congress to act on priority legislation, including reforming the intelligence community, it is unlikely the Senate will turn to S. 2560 this year. However, I will keep your concerns in mind should hearings be held on copyright law and the fair use doctrine. I also appreciate knowing of your opposition to S. 2237, the PIRATE Act. It passed the Senate earlier this year, but the House has not acted on it. This bill would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil charges against copyright violators who exceed the fair use doctrine.
With every best wish,
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts"
And I bet you never closed a pop while using IE also.