Ironic really. At it's inception, microsoft got in on the paradigm transition from mainframe to desktop computing, albeit not through any real innovation or offering of value. IBM and mainframes are still around and arguably profitable, but not relevant in terms of what drives current trends of innovation - at that point new and interesting directions started coming from the desktop computing world. Think of every thing you do on a desktop computer now, and it's likely something that didn't arise from the IBM/Mainframe computing world. Now things like google glass, new distribution models like hadoop, hyperscale computing, and "cloud" computing (yes I held my nose when typing the "C" word) are arising in a sense from the budding influence of the mobile computing world.
So now the paradigm is shifting to mobile, and MS has missed the boat in almost every definable way. But like IBM, they'll stay around and still be profitable, but they just won't be relevant in terms of new directions in the information landscape. The apple didn't fall far from the tree, no pun intended.
Mint has actually done a pretty good job of making Gnome3 work very much like Gnome2. You can run it with a UI called Cinnamon, that's even more like Gnome2.
However, Mint puts their own google search in the browser so when you use the browser's search field, it uses Mint's google search. Still, that beats adware built into the desktop.
If neither Mint nor Amazon/Unity/Ubuntu works and Gnome 3 sucks, try Lubuntu.
Turns out the patent has nothing to do with "things X-Plane has done for decades".
Kind of and kind of not. The patent the troll is claiming has been infringed on is for things others have done for decades - remote license checking:
Section 107 of the patent, which they claim I violated, contains: “107. code for verifying the license data stored on the licensing medium by communicating with a registration authority having verification data.”
The article goes on to point out a few others that have been doing this for decades. HP Openview has been doing it for as long as it has existed. I'm sure scores of others not listed have as well. Honestly, it's been a common practice for decades to be certain.
This is just another example of how software patenting is bad for the industry. Trolls can get patents on nearly anything, then file a lawsuit that while doomed by prior art will cost the victim a lot to show that prior art. Which the Patent office should have found before granting the patent in the first place.
Interestingly, if not ironic, the Preview application lets you annotate PDFs freely, regardless of any 'digital publishing' rights limitations like the adobe reader does. That's the chief reason I use OSX. Its the easiest and best PDF reader/annotator available, and I have a lot of books in PDF format, and I'm still converting the.chm and other ebooks to PDF for just that reason.
If you're using Apple products, that means that you're looking at the world through a very bent straw, and Apple is doing the bending.
No not really. I'm not comfortable with the show "appstore" thing, and if it get's to be draconian I'll dump OSX, but that statement isn't true, unless you really want it to be.
Cisco warranties are strange creature indeed. In order to get a bug fix on warrantied products, you must have a TAC login. In order to have a TAC login, you must have a smartnet contract. Technically, the warranty is a temporary smartnet contract (I've searched their database using the serial # of new equipment under warranty but not smartnet net, not found it, then called cisco and they pull a smartnet contract number up)
Its really messed up, but what it boils down to is that if you want to get a bug fix and you don't have smartnet, you must go through the reseller you bought from - which is not good because it means without any smartnet you are vulnerable to the next thing that arises. No smartnet, no security, warranty notwithstanding.
Of course, if you do have a TAC login, you can get warrantied equipment added to your userid, but its a manual process and annoying at best. You still need a TAC ID from another smartnet contract though.
That because cisco has leveraged hardware extensively for just that purpose. It's rare for CPU to get involved in forwarding a frame or packet on a cisco router or switch. That's in part why they're so expensive - its all done in ASICS, and even the memory is hard-wired for bitmasking searches.
What bothers me most about this isn't that childs was found guilty, but what he was found guilty of. Yeah he's guilty of not handing over passwords when asked. Yeah he's guilty of manuvering to avoid giving control of the network at every turn, when clearly he was being asked to do so.
I mean, really if his supervisors crashed the network, I would think that once he gives them passwords they become directly responsible for damages. Particularly since cisco routers and switches can be set up log log admin activity, in come cases command by command, to a remote syslog server, so if something did go wrong, the guilty userid can be determined with no question. So yeah, Childs is guilty. But of a DOS?
By stretching the definition of what a DOS is, the instructions from the judge and the ruling here places anyone in charge of anything that could be thought of as a computer service of any kind at considerably more risk, and unnecessarily so. This outcome provides no useful legal precedent due to its stretch of definitions.
It would seem that if you define privileged access as a computer service, then denying the passwords would sort constitute a 'denial of service to an authorized user'. However, the language regarding "performs acts which are reasonably necessary to the performance of his or her work assignment" is relevant too.
Giving privileged access to core network equipment to unqualified persons is more than highly dis-recommended and its best practices to avoid this in all situations. In other words, it is reasonable not to give privileged access to people known not to have the qualifications to make changes. I don't know if the fiberWAN was carrying critical services like VoIP for example, but if it was, granting privileged access to anyone who might attempt to make changes could easily, if not likely, cause severe outages. Perhaps in that case, childs' granting of access resulting in outages might not be his fault, but the fault of whoever might try making changes. Maybe. At this point its not clear that network engineers have that protection, and this decision may burden the profession itself with a liability that confers no benefit to either admins or users.
Many Cisco commands take effect immediately, and in many cases access can be lost and widespread outages can easily result from a change that nobody, including cisco, would reasonably expect to cause an outage. Granted, childs painted himself into a bad corner at every opportunity (and in a way, his profession as well), and while he's clearly guilty of withholding information that didn't belong to him, for the question of denial of service to have been decide the way it has conspicuous negative side effects for the entire profession.
Its clear the law was written for those instances when deliberate malicious activity denies access, but this decision so broadens what malicious is such that for professionals managing critical services like networks carrying 911 traffic, a battery of lawyers will be required before anything can be done at all (which is actually not far from the case now - I know network admins who insist on legal waivers from customers for VoIP networks due to 911 liability issues). This obscures what malicious is in a profession already hard for anyone outside the specialty to understand in the first place. Court rulings should clarify such definitions for the precedent set to actually be constructive. This precedent isn't useful at all, and has tremendous potential for abuse.
Yes, childs is partly to blame, but he shares that with the city and the way the court chose to apply this ordinance. Really, nobody won here, but everybody managed to lose.
And the lessons will be learned by you and forgotten by your children.
Lessons are forgotten even faster than you propose. We're in Vietnam all over again, only so brief a time later, and preparing for another once that is done.
People do not make these mistakes for a lack of memory, but for a lack of insight. Many people believe war solves problems, when in fact it doesn't - it creates them. That's why we declare war on drugs to solve drug addiction. Ask yourself, did declaring war solve that problem? Its as if people believe that only by declaring war can they motivate themselves to take action to improve things, yet war is not about improving things, but destroying them and attacking truth, the first casualty in any war. Now we declare "war on terror", while the overwhelming failure of war to solve problems sits at our very feet in the glaring present.
I've not taken notice that unions are very active in engineering fields like mechanics, chemical, civil, electronics, and so forth. While the need to present some kind of voice for common needs exists, there may be a reason that unions aren't typically found in those areas.
That's strange. Fortunately, we can click on "View as HTML" in the Google cache and see it. However, even though the Google search results indicate that He Kexin is listed in the spreadsheet, when you view Google's cached version, her name no longer appears.
Slashdot Mirror
File/music/movie sharing/listening/watching. Mix and match as needed.
Ironic really. At it's inception, microsoft got in on the paradigm transition from mainframe to desktop computing, albeit not through any real innovation or offering of value. IBM and mainframes are still around and arguably profitable, but not relevant in terms of what drives current trends of innovation - at that point new and interesting directions started coming from the desktop computing world. Think of every thing you do on a desktop computer now, and it's likely something that didn't arise from the IBM/Mainframe computing world. Now things like google glass, new distribution models like hadoop, hyperscale computing, and "cloud" computing (yes I held my nose when typing the "C" word) are arising in a sense from the budding influence of the mobile computing world.
So now the paradigm is shifting to mobile, and MS has missed the boat in almost every definable way. But like IBM, they'll stay around and still be profitable, but they just won't be relevant in terms of new directions in the information landscape. The apple didn't fall far from the tree, no pun intended.
Why the sudden shift in the numbering scheme to version 3? Isn't consistency more useful than sentiment?
Mint has actually done a pretty good job of making Gnome3 work very much like Gnome2. You can run it with a UI called Cinnamon, that's even more like Gnome2.
However, Mint puts their own google search in the browser so when you use the browser's search field, it uses Mint's google search. Still, that beats adware built into the desktop.
If neither Mint nor Amazon/Unity/Ubuntu works and Gnome 3 sucks, try Lubuntu.
Turns out the patent has nothing to do with "things X-Plane has done for decades".
Kind of and kind of not. The patent the troll is claiming has been infringed on is for things others have done for decades - remote license checking:
Section 107 of the patent, which they claim I violated, contains: “107. code for verifying the license data stored on the licensing medium by communicating with a registration authority having verification data.”
The article goes on to point out a few others that have been doing this for decades. HP Openview has been doing it for as long as it has existed. I'm sure scores of others not listed have as well. Honestly, it's been a common practice for decades to be certain.
This is just another example of how software patenting is bad for the industry. Trolls can get patents on nearly anything, then file a lawsuit that while doomed by prior art will cost the victim a lot to show that prior art. Which the Patent office should have found before granting the patent in the first place.
If you're using Apple products, that means that you're looking at the world through a very bent straw, and Apple is doing the bending.
No not really. I'm not comfortable with the show "appstore" thing, and if it get's to be draconian I'll dump OSX, but that statement isn't true, unless you really want it to be.
Seeing as how ms has lost the most valuable member of their creative team, they must be getting desperate.
Which portion of the linux kernal supposedly infringes? Does prior ary mean anything here?
Because if he had a cisco login id, he didn't break in.
just like the ad...
Were they really broken into? Or did he download bugfixed IOS images for redistribution to his customers with cisco gear?
Cisco warranties are strange creature indeed. In order to get a bug fix on warrantied products, you must have a TAC login. In order to have a TAC login, you must have a smartnet contract. Technically, the warranty is a temporary smartnet contract (I've searched their database using the serial # of new equipment under warranty but not smartnet net, not found it, then called cisco and they pull a smartnet contract number up)
Its really messed up, but what it boils down to is that if you want to get a bug fix and you don't have smartnet, you must go through the reseller you bought from - which is not good because it means without any smartnet you are vulnerable to the next thing that arises. No smartnet, no security, warranty notwithstanding.
Of course, if you do have a TAC login, you can get warrantied equipment added to your userid, but its a manual process and annoying at best. You still need a TAC ID from another smartnet contract though.
That because cisco has leveraged hardware extensively for just that purpose. It's rare for CPU to get involved in forwarding a frame or packet on a cisco router or switch. That's in part why they're so expensive - its all done in ASICS, and even the memory is hard-wired for bitmasking searches.
My first thought was that it was a comic featuring superman melting a bankster with his heat vision....
What bothers me most about this isn't that childs was found guilty, but what he was found guilty of. Yeah he's guilty of not handing over passwords when asked. Yeah he's guilty of manuvering to avoid giving control of the network at every turn, when clearly he was being asked to do so.
I mean, really if his supervisors crashed the network, I would think that once he gives them passwords they become directly responsible for damages. Particularly since cisco routers and switches can be set up log log admin activity, in come cases command by command, to a remote syslog server, so if something did go wrong, the guilty userid can be determined with no question. So yeah, Childs is guilty. But of a DOS? By stretching the definition of what a DOS is, the instructions from the judge and the ruling here places anyone in charge of anything that could be thought of as a computer service of any kind at considerably more risk, and unnecessarily so. This outcome provides no useful legal precedent due to its stretch of definitions.
It would seem that if you define privileged access as a computer service, then denying the passwords would sort constitute a 'denial of service to an authorized user'. However, the language regarding "performs acts which are reasonably necessary to the performance of his or her work assignment" is relevant too.
Giving privileged access to core network equipment to unqualified persons is more than highly dis-recommended and its best practices to avoid this in all situations. In other words, it is reasonable not to give privileged access to people known not to have the qualifications to make changes. I don't know if the fiberWAN was carrying critical services like VoIP for example, but if it was, granting privileged access to anyone who might attempt to make changes could easily, if not likely, cause severe outages. Perhaps in that case, childs' granting of access resulting in outages might not be his fault, but the fault of whoever might try making changes. Maybe. At this point its not clear that network engineers have that protection, and this decision may burden the profession itself with a liability that confers no benefit to either admins or users.
Many Cisco commands take effect immediately, and in many cases access can be lost and widespread outages can easily result from a change that nobody, including cisco, would reasonably expect to cause an outage. Granted, childs painted himself into a bad corner at every opportunity (and in a way, his profession as well), and while he's clearly guilty of withholding information that didn't belong to him, for the question of denial of service to have been decide the way it has conspicuous negative side effects for the entire profession.
Its clear the law was written for those instances when deliberate malicious activity denies access, but this decision so broadens what malicious is such that for professionals managing critical services like networks carrying 911 traffic, a battery of lawyers will be required before anything can be done at all (which is actually not far from the case now - I know network admins who insist on legal waivers from customers for VoIP networks due to 911 liability issues). This obscures what malicious is in a profession already hard for anyone outside the specialty to understand in the first place. Court rulings should clarify such definitions for the precedent set to actually be constructive. This precedent isn't useful at all, and has tremendous potential for abuse.
Yes, childs is partly to blame, but he shares that with the city and the way the court chose to apply this ordinance. Really, nobody won here, but everybody managed to lose.
Did BPL ever solve the problem of getting through step-down transformers without the need for some kind of bypass?
Well, if anyone tries to patent the exploding laptop, Dell or Apple will be able to demonstrate prior art.
Correct.
Just how do they plan to grab a domain outside the US?
More accurately, easily frightened people tend to become republicans. That doesn't mean republicans are cowards. No scientist said that - honest.
Lessons are forgotten even faster than you propose. We're in Vietnam all over again, only so brief a time later, and preparing for another once that is done.
People do not make these mistakes for a lack of memory, but for a lack of insight. Many people believe war solves problems, when in fact it doesn't - it creates them. That's why we declare war on drugs to solve drug addiction. Ask yourself, did declaring war solve that problem? Its as if people believe that only by declaring war can they motivate themselves to take action to improve things, yet war is not about improving things, but destroying them and attacking truth, the first casualty in any war. Now we declare "war on terror", while the overwhelming failure of war to solve problems sits at our very feet in the glaring present.
I've not taken notice that unions are very active in engineering fields like mechanics, chemical, civil, electronics, and so forth. While the need to present some kind of voice for common needs exists, there may be a reason that unions aren't typically found in those areas.
So much for don't be evil...
All jobs needs to do is sneeze and then buy stock.