I don't think there were that many close races. Guelph, which seemed to be sort of an epicenter of ill deeds, was still won handily by a Liberal. To unseat the Tories would mean having to vacate the results of eleven or twelve seats (depending on where the Speaker came from). I think I'd heard there might be four or five ridings where there was trouble reported and where there sufficiently tight races to lead to questions about the result, which still gives the Tories a majority. So I don't think, per se, the majority is illegitimate.
You're right on one level. It's unlikely that that many people knew about this. You don't want it widely known, even among the campaign ranks, because someone with a conscience might just say "fuck it" and call Elections Canada. And you certainly don't let the highest echelons, particularly the leader, because if there ever could be a line drawn between the act of fraud and the leader, it would likely lead to catastrophic damage to the party, both legally and electorally.
That being said, the political parties have asked for this. By exempting themselves from do-not-call lists and privacy rules, by allowing such lists to be compiled in the first place (and it sure isn't just the Tories, all the major parties do it, in Canada, the States, Britain and probably everywhere else), the law of eventualities tells you that someone somewhere at some point is going to decide that it's a nuclear option and they're going to see some tight races (and there were some very tight races, particularly in Ontario) and are going to decide to use it.
The fact of the matter is that the compiling of these lists should be strictly controlled. The law should require that voters be able to request their names be removed entire, that every access be logged and stored and those logs be made available to Elections Canada upon request, and that falsifications of such logs be a serious offense even in and of itself. These lists should carry such substantial legal burdens that parties may simple reconsider the entire notion of compiling them, but if they do, then at least the electorate can be confident that any future abuses can be more easily traced. And if the party itself is not taking good care of its voter list, then the party can be fined as well.
As well, political parties should put themselves under the same do-not-call regimens that any other marketing organization (this goes for charities as well, there should be no exemptions at all, and the same fines for anyone). This would be a demonstration of good faith on their part. It won't prevent such a stunt happening again, but at least the very act of robocalling someone who had put themselves on a do-not-call list could lead to sanctions, and voters would have a way of at least partially protecting themselves in the future.
Anyone who's been doping python for more than a couple of months has cut off their testicles, wears a yellow jump suit and patiently coding and waiting for the mothership.
Yes, in the real world you have to sometimes dip your toes in a lower level to optimize. But I'm not deriding that notion, I'm deriding the apologetic for Python issues.
That applies to Server 2008/Windows 7 RDP (maybe Vista, not sure about that). The versions found in Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003 are not nearly as secure.
I can't imagine anyone with any important data leaving an X session port open balls-to-the-walls to the Internet, so why on Earth would anyone let RDP, particularly the rather weakly-protected pre-Server 2008 variants, run basically naked like that (not that I would allow a Server 2008 Terminal Server or any other RDP service from a newer OS be visible to the outside world).
We have a Windows Terminal Server plus a few workstations that people can remote into, but they have to come in on our VPN. I closed that channel years ago when I looked on one of our DC security logs and saw a stunning number of dictionary attacks against the Terminal Server.
Most of the estimates I've read suggest that any attempt by Iran to close the Strait would pretty much lead to the obliteration of their navy, airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities in about a week. Libya's airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities was quickly dispatched, and most of the campaign was spent offering air support to the rebels.
Yes, Iran has lots of theoretical soldiers, mainly poorly equipped Basij, but what good does a fanatic with a rifle do against a bomber or an aircraft carrier a hundred miles off the coast. If the objective is to limit or eliminate Iran's capability of projecting its force into the Strait or the Gulf in general, and not having to actually invade or support any kind of hostilities on the ground, it would be very easy.
The elected government of Iran (the President and the Parliament) govern essentially at the whim of the Supreme Leader (it's probably more complicated than that, the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard seem to have considerable influence). The Supreme Leader can strike anyone off the ballot, so what you largely end up with is somewhere between the Soviet pseudo-democracy and a full democracy; some independence except on key issues like foreign affairs.
I wouldn't exactly call it choosing a government when who can appear on a ballot is restricted by a guy who claims that he's doing what God wants.
Having gone through a nasty lawsuit (utterly unrelated to software licenses), the one thing that I learned, if nothing else, is that you do not leave any such letter unreplied. You should respond, because if it ever does end up in a court of law, you will want to show you did your due diligence. Since licensing agreements with guys like Microsoft and Adobe do have language around giving them or their agents the power to check that you are complying with the agreement, simply tossing such a letter in the trash, even if you don't have a spot of their software on the premises, is inviting trouble. If you're a business, you should have a lawyer anyways, and when it comes to legal, or even legal-sounding threats, that's his department.
I imagine BSA will not pursue very many people if they find they're likely going to have to deal with a lawyer right from the start.
I've told the story here before but about three or four years ago the company I was working for went through a SAM review. So far as we could tell, it was because the company had bought out a previous organization, including software licenses, and then we had decided not to renew the very expensive Software Assurance agreement.
I get this very pleasant email from a Microsoft business partner telling me that they were going to conduct the audit, with a spreadsheet for me to fill out. I did my thing, even working with the reseller who had sold the previous company most of the licenses, got it all tickety-boo, and then the fun began. The guy kept coming back with more requests for clarification, with more issues, and finally, as this dragged on to three weeks, I finally lost my cool and sent the guy an angry email, CCed to the reseller, telling him that as far as I was concerned we were in full compliance, we had shown we had licenses for everything, and that this process was going to wrap up now.
A few days later, the guy sent me an email saying that 5 CALs on one of our Server 2003 installs wasn't a proper match, and to bring us into compliance I would have to convert them from user CALs to device CALs. I sent an email back saying "Sure thing" and that was that. Never did convert them to device CALs either, fucking assholes. So far as I could tell, the whole process was designed to try to trip me up so that I would have to buy more licenses of something... anything. I'm sure the business partner would get a cut from that. My boss felt like sending the company a bill for the time wasted.
No response at all is dangerous. A better response is "We are not in violation of any licenses. Please direct all further correspondence to our attorney. Find his contact information attached."
There are nails in the coffin, and then there's the coffin being doused in gasoline, lit on fire, pissed on, dropped from 30,000 feet with lit sticks of dynamite inside.
You understand, I hope, that neutrinos by and large simply pass through matter. Millions are passing through my body as I type this, and virtually none of them will interact with the atoms in my body. To detect neutrinos requires pretty large and sophisticated detectors, and even with these you're only getting a very small fraction of the total neutrinos. This means that to send a message, you're going to have to an absolutely astonishing amount of redundancy, orders of magnitude greater than anything necessary for a normal circuit. In fact, I suspect the amount of redundancy required and the sheer difficulty of actually encoding and decoding an information-bearing neutrino beam is going to make 30 to 40 bps an improbably high speed.
Of course, this is because by the "Obama" phase, it becomes clear just how much the "Bush" phase fucked things up. Note that simpering halfwits will attribute this to the "Obama" phase, but they're morons and normally can be safely ignored.
With fantastical speeds of 30 or 40bps. I imagine you have to have one helluva lot of neutrinos being pushed out for any detector to even catch a small fraction of them.
You still don't get the population densities. Not even perhaps the most sedentary hunter-gatherer groups out there like the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, ever had that high a population density. To create a truly large-scale stratified society means you have to make the land push out a lot of f---ing calories, a lot more than even the most plentiful land on its own will manage. It means developing agriculture, which can, per acre of land, push out more calories than even the most prosperous hunter-gatherer groups could hope. There's a reason that literacy only developed independently among urban societies with full agricultural capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there were that many close races. Guelph, which seemed to be sort of an epicenter of ill deeds, was still won handily by a Liberal. To unseat the Tories would mean having to vacate the results of eleven or twelve seats (depending on where the Speaker came from). I think I'd heard there might be four or five ridings where there was trouble reported and where there sufficiently tight races to lead to questions about the result, which still gives the Tories a majority. So I don't think, per se, the majority is illegitimate.
You're right on one level. It's unlikely that that many people knew about this. You don't want it widely known, even among the campaign ranks, because someone with a conscience might just say "fuck it" and call Elections Canada. And you certainly don't let the highest echelons, particularly the leader, because if there ever could be a line drawn between the act of fraud and the leader, it would likely lead to catastrophic damage to the party, both legally and electorally.
That being said, the political parties have asked for this. By exempting themselves from do-not-call lists and privacy rules, by allowing such lists to be compiled in the first place (and it sure isn't just the Tories, all the major parties do it, in Canada, the States, Britain and probably everywhere else), the law of eventualities tells you that someone somewhere at some point is going to decide that it's a nuclear option and they're going to see some tight races (and there were some very tight races, particularly in Ontario) and are going to decide to use it.
The fact of the matter is that the compiling of these lists should be strictly controlled. The law should require that voters be able to request their names be removed entire, that every access be logged and stored and those logs be made available to Elections Canada upon request, and that falsifications of such logs be a serious offense even in and of itself. These lists should carry such substantial legal burdens that parties may simple reconsider the entire notion of compiling them, but if they do, then at least the electorate can be confident that any future abuses can be more easily traced. And if the party itself is not taking good care of its voter list, then the party can be fined as well.
As well, political parties should put themselves under the same do-not-call regimens that any other marketing organization (this goes for charities as well, there should be no exemptions at all, and the same fines for anyone). This would be a demonstration of good faith on their part. It won't prevent such a stunt happening again, but at least the very act of robocalling someone who had put themselves on a do-not-call list could lead to sanctions, and voters would have a way of at least partially protecting themselves in the future.
Like rational intelligent statesmen?
Anyone who's been doping python for more than a couple of months has cut off their testicles, wears a yellow jump suit and patiently coding and waiting for the mothership.
Should just go back to raiding pic-i-nic baskets...
And why the hell not?!?!?!?!
Yes, in the real world you have to sometimes dip your toes in a lower level to optimize. But I'm not deriding that notion, I'm deriding the apologetic for Python issues.
As the GP pointed out, if you're skilled enough to write optimized code in C/C++, why fuck around with Python at all?
No fucking kidding. "Python isn't slow, especially when you rewrite the Python function causing the problem in C..." WTF do these people come from?
That applies to Server 2008/Windows 7 RDP (maybe Vista, not sure about that). The versions found in Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003 are not nearly as secure.
I can't imagine anyone with any important data leaving an X session port open balls-to-the-walls to the Internet, so why on Earth would anyone let RDP, particularly the rather weakly-protected pre-Server 2008 variants, run basically naked like that (not that I would allow a Server 2008 Terminal Server or any other RDP service from a newer OS be visible to the outside world).
We have a Windows Terminal Server plus a few workstations that people can remote into, but they have to come in on our VPN. I closed that channel years ago when I looked on one of our DC security logs and saw a stunning number of dictionary attacks against the Terminal Server.
Most of the estimates I've read suggest that any attempt by Iran to close the Strait would pretty much lead to the obliteration of their navy, airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities in about a week. Libya's airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities was quickly dispatched, and most of the campaign was spent offering air support to the rebels.
Yes, Iran has lots of theoretical soldiers, mainly poorly equipped Basij, but what good does a fanatic with a rifle do against a bomber or an aircraft carrier a hundred miles off the coast. If the objective is to limit or eliminate Iran's capability of projecting its force into the Strait or the Gulf in general, and not having to actually invade or support any kind of hostilities on the ground, it would be very easy.
The elected government of Iran (the President and the Parliament) govern essentially at the whim of the Supreme Leader (it's probably more complicated than that, the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard seem to have considerable influence). The Supreme Leader can strike anyone off the ballot, so what you largely end up with is somewhere between the Soviet pseudo-democracy and a full democracy; some independence except on key issues like foreign affairs.
I wouldn't exactly call it choosing a government when who can appear on a ballot is restricted by a guy who claims that he's doing what God wants.
If you go through a needless review because an ex-employee lied, then I'm assuming there are all sorts of delightful civil remedies available to you.
Then they'll be even less likely to want to fuck with you if you state the matter will be dealt with via your attorney.
Having gone through a nasty lawsuit (utterly unrelated to software licenses), the one thing that I learned, if nothing else, is that you do not leave any such letter unreplied. You should respond, because if it ever does end up in a court of law, you will want to show you did your due diligence. Since licensing agreements with guys like Microsoft and Adobe do have language around giving them or their agents the power to check that you are complying with the agreement, simply tossing such a letter in the trash, even if you don't have a spot of their software on the premises, is inviting trouble. If you're a business, you should have a lawyer anyways, and when it comes to legal, or even legal-sounding threats, that's his department.
I imagine BSA will not pursue very many people if they find they're likely going to have to deal with a lawyer right from the start.
I've told the story here before but about three or four years ago the company I was working for went through a SAM review. So far as we could tell, it was because the company had bought out a previous organization, including software licenses, and then we had decided not to renew the very expensive Software Assurance agreement.
I get this very pleasant email from a Microsoft business partner telling me that they were going to conduct the audit, with a spreadsheet for me to fill out. I did my thing, even working with the reseller who had sold the previous company most of the licenses, got it all tickety-boo, and then the fun began. The guy kept coming back with more requests for clarification, with more issues, and finally, as this dragged on to three weeks, I finally lost my cool and sent the guy an angry email, CCed to the reseller, telling him that as far as I was concerned we were in full compliance, we had shown we had licenses for everything, and that this process was going to wrap up now.
A few days later, the guy sent me an email saying that 5 CALs on one of our Server 2003 installs wasn't a proper match, and to bring us into compliance I would have to convert them from user CALs to device CALs. I sent an email back saying "Sure thing" and that was that. Never did convert them to device CALs either, fucking assholes. So far as I could tell, the whole process was designed to try to trip me up so that I would have to buy more licenses of something... anything. I'm sure the business partner would get a cut from that. My boss felt like sending the company a bill for the time wasted.
That is until you're sued into the poor house for breaking the NDA you signed.
No response at all is dangerous. A better response is "We are not in violation of any licenses. Please direct all further correspondence to our attorney. Find his contact information attached."
I have a feeling in most cases it will end there.
There are nails in the coffin, and then there's the coffin being doused in gasoline, lit on fire, pissed on, dropped from 30,000 feet with lit sticks of dynamite inside.
I was more thinking who they're going to sue over this. Perhaps God, with the God Apollo and the FCC named as co-defendants.
You understand, I hope, that neutrinos by and large simply pass through matter. Millions are passing through my body as I type this, and virtually none of them will interact with the atoms in my body. To detect neutrinos requires pretty large and sophisticated detectors, and even with these you're only getting a very small fraction of the total neutrinos. This means that to send a message, you're going to have to an absolutely astonishing amount of redundancy, orders of magnitude greater than anything necessary for a normal circuit. In fact, I suspect the amount of redundancy required and the sheer difficulty of actually encoding and decoding an information-bearing neutrino beam is going to make 30 to 40 bps an improbably high speed.
Of course, this is because by the "Obama" phase, it becomes clear just how much the "Bush" phase fucked things up. Note that simpering halfwits will attribute this to the "Obama" phase, but they're morons and normally can be safely ignored.
With fantastical speeds of 30 or 40bps. I imagine you have to have one helluva lot of neutrinos being pushed out for any detector to even catch a small fraction of them.
You still don't get the population densities. Not even perhaps the most sedentary hunter-gatherer groups out there like the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, ever had that high a population density. To create a truly large-scale stratified society means you have to make the land push out a lot of f---ing calories, a lot more than even the most plentiful land on its own will manage. It means developing agriculture, which can, per acre of land, push out more calories than even the most prosperous hunter-gatherer groups could hope. There's a reason that literacy only developed independently among urban societies with full agricultural capabilities.