while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
In a business where competition is rife and there is a near zero cost barrier for your customers to defect to the competition, customer and user satisfaction are essential to your profits. Lets hope the MBA's don't get control and cause Google to lose sight of this.
So you do not feel that calling the apache video "Collateral Murder" as editorializing?
In a manner of speaking it is editorializing. The difference here is that they present the raw material and let you form your own opinion. The MSM does nothing of the sort. They typically present only the versions and sides of a story that support the editorial slant they are pushing. That's how I'd define Yellow Journalism. At worse I'd think of one as honest editorializing and the other dishonest. I was able to watch that video and form my own opinion of what happened. My opinion was tempered by four years in the Infantry and extensive reading of history. Most people don't have that background. Was the title sensationalist? In my opinion yes. But most people don't have the range of knowledge and experiences to put the actions in that video into context and to those people what happened in that video would appear to be what the title proclaimed. From that perspective the title is more an accurate headline rather than editorializing.
That is the big danger. It is very hard to see bias that you share.
No, the danger is not taking into account your own biases and the possible perspectives of others when judging them. Funny how you seem to have somehow read my mind and determined my biases. Just for the record I in no way thought what occurred in that video was murder by even the loosest definition of the word. It was an unfortunate incident that is all to common in the confusing and stressful conditions that occur in combat situations. It's extremely difficult for people that have not experienced it to put situations like that into a proper context. That's why it's called seeing the elephant. A good example, read about the early days of the Korean War. MacArthur should have been shot for the training level of the troops he was sending into combat.
And if they offered to let the Pentagon redact the document that would be easy. They would redact it all.
Numerous sources, including Pentagon sources, acknowledged that wikileaks contacted the Pentagon for input into redacting information that might identify or endanger informants or agents. From my reading on the situation that's been pretty well established. Obviously wikileaks wouldn't have tolerated the Pentagon overreaching those bounds in redacting information. But they were given a chance and by refusing, in my mind, that puts them as much to blame as wikileaks.
At the same time, I very strongly feel that the service wikileaks provides is absolutely essential to maintaining a free society. No I don't think everything should be public information. With my military background and historical knowledge I recognize that secrets are essential also. The problem lies in that power corrupts. It's a simple fact of human nature. The idea that if someone sees what you're doing is corrupt and/or wrong morally they have an outlet to make it public goes a long way in tempering actions.
Refusing to take a phone call because he's too busy? Doing what, giving interviews?
Ummm...no. I'm guessing trying to redact the documents they're bitching about. Basically he's saying "We're doing the best we can with the resources we have. You wanna help, well I'll let you know how you can help. I don't have time to spend on meetings discussing the situation." I can't blame him a bit. I'd scoff at the "And we're gonna keep having these meetings until we find out why no one's getting any work done" offer too.
They made their best effort in redacting the documents. They offered to let the Pentagon help in redacting the documents. What more do you want them to do?
There "journalistic integrity" is right up there with the best of yellow journalism of the late 1800s yearly 1900s. Those that get offended by that statement and defend them don't realize that it is simply because they agree with the agenda of Wikileaks and that they are convinced that what they are trying to deal with a "bigger problem" aka that the ends justify the means.
Hmmm...in my mind you've got Wikileaks and the MSM (main stream media) organizations reversed here. The MSM organizations have shifted to producing the best of what's historically been known as yellow journalism. They print sensationalized crap that has been poorly research with almost zero fact checking simple because they think that's the way to get people to look. In most cases it's simple press releases from the main players in the story. As an example, stories about file sharing and digital piracy read like press releases from the RIAA with absolutely no challenge of even the most blatantly false propaganda they spew. The MSM also tends more and more strongly to having an editorial slant in what they're producing as news stories.
I really don't see an "agenda" for wikileaks. Nor are they a journalistic organization in the traditional sense. They're providing a function that the MSM use to provide. It's a secure place for people to distribute secret information about things that they feel are wrong. Wikileaks publishes the raw material. They don't report on it or editorialize. They simple make it public and let others do the that. In my mind that's a very important function. That is the purpose of a free press. It helps keeps those in power accountability for their actions. They make an effort to publish the material in a manner that doesn't directly harm anyone. In this case they offered to let the fricking Pentagon redact the documents but the idiots refused. Who's fault is that? I find it hard to blame wikileaks.
most burglars agree the one truly effective deterrent that makes them go some place else, is a big dog.
Had an alarm. What a pain in the ass. Can't count the number of false alarms. Most seemed to happen at 3 or 4 in the morning. There was no way to get back to sleep after all that adrenalin was pumping.
Now I have 2 Dobermans. Sweetest dogs you'd ever meet. They like barking at people outside the house or fence though. Everyone in the neighborhood is terrified of them. I have signs on my fence with a profile of a doberman head that say "I can make it to the fence in 4.2 seconds. Can you?" That and a doggy door, MUCH better than any alarm system.
It's a belief that life is precious. Yes, a mugger's life is more important than your wallet.
That's the straw man argument right there. This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the the relative value of a wallet or a life. This argument comes from people who have never been placed in a situation where they are threatened and there is no way to discern the actual level of threat. Let's see...someone is holding a weapon threatening you. That is irrational behavior and there are no societal rules defining expectations for actions in this situation. Somehow idiots like you seem to think not only that the person being threatened should be able to think and act perfectly rationally but that they should be able to somehow read the mind of the person threatening them and know exactly what and how they are thinking. That ain't the way it works. How the hell are you supposed to discern whether you're going to get shot after you hand over your wallet? When facing an irrational threat your brain generally stops rational (rightfully so) thought and starts survival thought. The situation was perpetrated by the one doing the threatening. Pretty much any results are the responsibility of person the initiating the threat. Now when a cop points his gun at you there are societal rules governing the actions in that situation and they include that if you take certain actions the cop isn't going to shoot you. That isn't the case when a non-cop threatens you.
Even if you do defend yourself against an attacker, it's still something of a tragedy that you were forced to kill another human being. If it were the case that this was actually a person who has no harmful intent, and simply a cop being a little too twitchy, I'd consider it an even greater tragedy.
I agree it's a tragedy. But it's one solely perpetrated and the exclusive responsibility of the one initiating the threat. Part of the tragedy (I dare say the worse part) is that the victim has to live with the fact that they killed someone. This is double so in the case where a cop gets killed acting like a maniac as this one was. And twitchy cops are a VERY bad thing. If you're a twitchy cop who stops acting rationally under a little stress you REALLY need to think about a change in profressions. And I did say a little stress. The cop in this case was at no time under any form of threat.
Do you think your employer should have a camera on you at all times, in order to make sure that you are behaving?
My job doesn't include the authority to perpetrate violence on people simple because I think it's appropriate. With extraordinary authority should come extraordinary responsibility and the level of authority has been rapidly going up while the level of responsibility has been rapidly going down. As they always claim when the government wants to restrict our freedoms, if you're not doing anything wrong then what are you worried about?
The data that flows there is mine, and no one elses.
It's kind of like putting a note on your front door and then suing anyone who read it because the note was your's and no one else's. The note may be your's but if you broadcast it to the general public you have no recourse should anyone serendipitously collect the information in the note.
Why don't we simply get rid of textbooks? With the internet primary source material is -very- easy to find...
No it isn't. With history there is no primary source. Every historical document has some political element in it even if it is unintentional. Even 2 eyewitnesses to an event will have their recollections of the event twisted by what they expected to see. The human brain is a tricky thing.
History is never about indisputable facts. At it's best it's collecting as many views of an event as possible, attempting to weed out the highly unlikely or patently imposable and sifting the rest to come up with what most likely happened. Hans Delbruck is an example of history done well.
Hmmm...I don't recall mentioning myself anywhere in any of those posts. I was just comparing the situations and remarking on the similarities. This battle is just starting though. We haven't even really reached the "tea party" (no reference to the recently established political movement) stage as of yet. Hopefully the democratic processes set forth by the sacrifices of the ones who created them will allow it to never reach the stage of marching and dieing. Oh, and I'm not fat and I did my 4 years in the Infantry. How about you? I do love Cheetos though. Puffs, not the really crunchy ones.
The people who do open source are decidedly not like the founders of this country, whose primary beef was taxation without representation and the continued stationing of British troops here--in people's homes no less.
I think it's far more similar than you give credit (Microsoft Tax). Proprietary code, formats and protocols encumbered with anti-capitalist monopolist IP protections versus open code, open formats and open protocols that allow capitalist competition based on products meeting consumer needs. The incumbents in the tech industry, just like those in the content creation industry, are trying to use anti-capitalist IP laws to control the industries so they don't have to compete in the new technologies that are making their old products and ways of doing business obsolete. And in creating those laws the government sure as hell isn't representing the people.
Open Source is not the problem. Adversity to change (which is irrelevant) is not the problem. Marketing is not the problem. Attitudes like yours which create fictitious problems for the sole purpose of spewing at them - THAT is the problem. It is the ONLY problem. Everything else was fixed years ago.
Thanks for the laugh. I need one this morning. All that and your conclusion is that I'm the problem for...what was the reason again? Fictitious problems? Adversity to change and marketing are fictitious problems? Yeah, better wait till we're on the same planet at least.
snip long rant nit picking issues with various open source projects
You know, no one said open source was perfect. Even including the issues you mention every one of those open source projects offer products that are better than any closed source offerings. Not arguable better but for the most part excepted as better by everyone but a few zealots.
And Linux does run the world. The number of people who run critical systems on MS products is small and dwindling rapidly. Every heard of a router running Windows? As to commercial Unixes, They're hanging on only as long as there isn't funding to shift off of them.
The only reason Windows is still here is because people are use to it and most people are very adverse to change. That and Microsoft spends outrageous sums on marketing. And games which is the only thing MS Windows is really usable for. Desktop Linux has been more intuitive and easier to use than MS Windows since about the second or third version on Ubuntu came out.
The open source browsers will either have to get on board with h.264 or risk losing the majority of their users, and we'll see a return to the bad old days of IE dominating the web.
I think you missed my point. While I agree with your premise above I disagree with your conclusion. Yes the other browsers, including the open ones like Firefox and Chrome, will have to support h.264. But they'll also support the other free alternatives. New startups tend to operate on a shoe string budget until they get popular enough for funding. So they'll tend towards using free codecs. If one of these start to get popular even more people will be switching off IE. It's not like the bad old days where MS had the power to attempt to fragment the web into MS only or everyone else. MS doesn't control h.264 and can't keep it secret and change it at a whim so no one else can support it. That's what they attempted originally with IE. In this case any browser is free to implement the only standard MS is going to support but they can support other unencumbered standards that are much cheaper to use. It will just take one web site that uses ogg to get popular and IE's numbers start dropping faster. Once IE's numbers drop low enough Google can switch youtube to ogg and MS will have to adapt or die. Either way I only see this as a plus in that IE's numbers will drop.
This means that as HTML5 gets rolled out, it *will*have*patent*problems* for anyone who wants to do 'Free' video and doesn't want to convince their users to download a different browser.
And this is a bad thing? Anything that convinces people to get off IE is good in my mind. Let's see. I can use IE and only most web sights will work or I can use Firefox or Chrome and they all will. Sounds like a good move on Microsoft's part to me. That is if you want to see Microsoft's control fall further.
He was informed of this and refused to grant them access to the network. Whether he felt they were incompetent or not, he had no authorization under any policy or law to do this. Therefore he was preventing those individuals from doing their jobs.
You can pluck at semantics all day long, it doesn't undo the fact that other people were assigned by management to take over the running of the network and he actively denied them the access needed to do this.
You seem to be the one plucking at semantics. At no time were any services disrupted by his actions. There are no semantics there. It's a simple fact. He refused to turn over the passwords to people he had no knowledge as to whether they were authorized to have those passwords. Evidently you don't work in security. That is something you DO NOT do. Lets see, your getting fired from your job. So you give out the keys to the kingdom to anyone and everyone who asks for them? That seems a more prosecutable offense than refusing to provide them except to someone you KNOW is authorized to have them. Say he gives the passwords to this room full of people because they claim they're authorized to have them and one of them logs on and takes down a network whether intentionally or through incompetence. Gee, you think the city would have been ok with that? Do you know what social engineering is? There was no emergency. Everything was functioning fine. Therefore you follow good security practices and wait to give the passwords to someone you KNOW is authorized to have them. There may have not been a written or formal policy stating such but there is still a loosely defined set of good practices for security. And giving out passwords willy nilly doesn't fit into them anywhere. Basically what happened here is a man is being sent to jail for following good security practices and trying to protect the very systems he's being sent to jail for supposedly disrupting. Good security REQUIRES a fairly high level of paranoia.
in the process he prevented city personnel from accessing data they needed to do their jobs.
From everything I've read about the case this simple isn't true. From what I've read at no time were any network services disrupted. It was just that no one could access the equipment to make changes.
Only problem is that this is a radar jammer. According to the vid, the missiles will have sat guidance.
I'm pretty sure any anti-ship missile is going to have to have radar terminal guidance. Any kind of satellite guidance wouldn't be realtime enough to hit a moving target.
It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
And it's simpletons like you who end up designing trivial to hack systems like MS Windows. It, by no means, is simple problem. There's conflicts, routers that don't implement the standards perfectly, idiots writing the configs or scripts...all which end up opening security holes in your system.
Oh, that's right. It's because every *nix head doesn't think about the real end user, just what's "most powerful" in terms of features. Design solely for the power users and administrators, and you miss 95% of the market - what Linux has excelled at for many, many years.
No, us *nix heads actually think through complex problems rather than implement some half ass solution that leaves users worse off while giving them a false sense of security. And, at least with Linux, every aspect of installation and configuration is simpler, easier and more intuitive than it is with any Microsoft product. The only problem is that it's different and you may have to spend 5 minutes figuring it out.
They're investigating this but not that pretty much every appointee to the Justice Department formerly worked for the entertainment industry in one form or another?
The US mindset is inherently skewed towards the body (military might) over the mind (diplomacy).
Put in a historical context I'd say this statement is so far skewed as to pretty much discredit the rest of your statement. Never in the history of mankind has any organization even approaching the level of power of the United States been more skewed towards diplomacy than the United States. And as time goes on it continues to move more and more in that direction.
This is the problem with "education". What's considered "educated" is extremely subjective and easily influenced by the agenda of the educator.
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
Not if this case holds up. Lets see...60x1.5...add in even more cases, probably 1000's...I'd say that licensing fee goes up at least an order of magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those problems could be handled in a variety of ways with a competant HR department.
Isn't that an oxymoron, even if it was spelled correctly.
while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
In a business where competition is rife and there is a near zero cost barrier for your customers to defect to the competition, customer and user satisfaction are essential to your profits. Lets hope the MBA's don't get control and cause Google to lose sight of this.
So you do not feel that calling the apache video "Collateral Murder" as editorializing?
In a manner of speaking it is editorializing. The difference here is that they present the raw material and let you form your own opinion. The MSM does nothing of the sort. They typically present only the versions and sides of a story that support the editorial slant they are pushing. That's how I'd define Yellow Journalism. At worse I'd think of one as honest editorializing and the other dishonest. I was able to watch that video and form my own opinion of what happened. My opinion was tempered by four years in the Infantry and extensive reading of history. Most people don't have that background. Was the title sensationalist? In my opinion yes. But most people don't have the range of knowledge and experiences to put the actions in that video into context and to those people what happened in that video would appear to be what the title proclaimed. From that perspective the title is more an accurate headline rather than editorializing.
That is the big danger. It is very hard to see bias that you share.
No, the danger is not taking into account your own biases and the possible perspectives of others when judging them. Funny how you seem to have somehow read my mind and determined my biases. Just for the record I in no way thought what occurred in that video was murder by even the loosest definition of the word. It was an unfortunate incident that is all to common in the confusing and stressful conditions that occur in combat situations. It's extremely difficult for people that have not experienced it to put situations like that into a proper context. That's why it's called seeing the elephant. A good example, read about the early days of the Korean War. MacArthur should have been shot for the training level of the troops he was sending into combat.
And if they offered to let the Pentagon redact the document that would be easy. They would redact it all.
Numerous sources, including Pentagon sources, acknowledged that wikileaks contacted the Pentagon for input into redacting information that might identify or endanger informants or agents. From my reading on the situation that's been pretty well established. Obviously wikileaks wouldn't have tolerated the Pentagon overreaching those bounds in redacting information. But they were given a chance and by refusing, in my mind, that puts them as much to blame as wikileaks.
At the same time, I very strongly feel that the service wikileaks provides is absolutely essential to maintaining a free society. No I don't think everything should be public information. With my military background and historical knowledge I recognize that secrets are essential also. The problem lies in that power corrupts. It's a simple fact of human nature. The idea that if someone sees what you're doing is corrupt and/or wrong morally they have an outlet to make it public goes a long way in tempering actions.
Refusing to take a phone call because he's too busy? Doing what, giving interviews?
Ummm...no. I'm guessing trying to redact the documents they're bitching about. Basically he's saying "We're doing the best we can with the resources we have. You wanna help, well I'll let you know how you can help. I don't have time to spend on meetings discussing the situation." I can't blame him a bit. I'd scoff at the "And we're gonna keep having these meetings until we find out why no one's getting any work done" offer too.
They made their best effort in redacting the documents. They offered to let the Pentagon help in redacting the documents. What more do you want them to do?
There "journalistic integrity" is right up there with the best of yellow journalism of the late 1800s yearly 1900s. Those that get offended by that statement and defend them don't realize that it is simply because they agree with the agenda of Wikileaks and that they are convinced that what they are trying to deal with a "bigger problem" aka that the ends justify the means.
Hmmm...in my mind you've got Wikileaks and the MSM (main stream media) organizations reversed here. The MSM organizations have shifted to producing the best of what's historically been known as yellow journalism. They print sensationalized crap that has been poorly research with almost zero fact checking simple because they think that's the way to get people to look. In most cases it's simple press releases from the main players in the story. As an example, stories about file sharing and digital piracy read like press releases from the RIAA with absolutely no challenge of even the most blatantly false propaganda they spew. The MSM also tends more and more strongly to having an editorial slant in what they're producing as news stories.
I really don't see an "agenda" for wikileaks. Nor are they a journalistic organization in the traditional sense. They're providing a function that the MSM use to provide. It's a secure place for people to distribute secret information about things that they feel are wrong. Wikileaks publishes the raw material. They don't report on it or editorialize. They simple make it public and let others do the that. In my mind that's a very important function. That is the purpose of a free press. It helps keeps those in power accountability for their actions. They make an effort to publish the material in a manner that doesn't directly harm anyone. In this case they offered to let the fricking Pentagon redact the documents but the idiots refused. Who's fault is that? I find it hard to blame wikileaks.
most burglars agree the one truly effective deterrent that makes them go some place else, is a big dog.
Had an alarm. What a pain in the ass. Can't count the number of false alarms. Most seemed to happen at 3 or 4 in the morning. There was no way to get back to sleep after all that adrenalin was pumping.
Now I have 2 Dobermans. Sweetest dogs you'd ever meet. They like barking at people outside the house or fence though. Everyone in the neighborhood is terrified of them. I have signs on my fence with a profile of a doberman head that say "I can make it to the fence in 4.2 seconds. Can you?" That and a doggy door, MUCH better than any alarm system.
It's a belief that life is precious. Yes, a mugger's life is more important than your wallet.
That's the straw man argument right there. This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the the relative value of a wallet or a life. This argument comes from people who have never been placed in a situation where they are threatened and there is no way to discern the actual level of threat. Let's see...someone is holding a weapon threatening you. That is irrational behavior and there are no societal rules defining expectations for actions in this situation. Somehow idiots like you seem to think not only that the person being threatened should be able to think and act perfectly rationally but that they should be able to somehow read the mind of the person threatening them and know exactly what and how they are thinking. That ain't the way it works. How the hell are you supposed to discern whether you're going to get shot after you hand over your wallet? When facing an irrational threat your brain generally stops rational (rightfully so) thought and starts survival thought. The situation was perpetrated by the one doing the threatening. Pretty much any results are the responsibility of person the initiating the threat. Now when a cop points his gun at you there are societal rules governing the actions in that situation and they include that if you take certain actions the cop isn't going to shoot you. That isn't the case when a non-cop threatens you.
Even if you do defend yourself against an attacker, it's still something of a tragedy that you were forced to kill another human being. If it were the case that this was actually a person who has no harmful intent, and simply a cop being a little too twitchy, I'd consider it an even greater tragedy.
I agree it's a tragedy. But it's one solely perpetrated and the exclusive responsibility of the one initiating the threat. Part of the tragedy (I dare say the worse part) is that the victim has to live with the fact that they killed someone. This is double so in the case where a cop gets killed acting like a maniac as this one was. And twitchy cops are a VERY bad thing. If you're a twitchy cop who stops acting rationally under a little stress you REALLY need to think about a change in profressions. And I did say a little stress. The cop in this case was at no time under any form of threat.
Do you think your employer should have a camera on you at all times, in order to make sure that you are behaving?
My job doesn't include the authority to perpetrate violence on people simple because I think it's appropriate. With extraordinary authority should come extraordinary responsibility and the level of authority has been rapidly going up while the level of responsibility has been rapidly going down. As they always claim when the government wants to restrict our freedoms, if you're not doing anything wrong then what are you worried about?
The data that flows there is mine, and no one elses.
It's kind of like putting a note on your front door and then suing anyone who read it because the note was your's and no one else's. The note may be your's but if you broadcast it to the general public you have no recourse should anyone serendipitously collect the information in the note.
Why don't we simply get rid of textbooks? With the internet primary source material is -very- easy to find...
No it isn't. With history there is no primary source. Every historical document has some political element in it even if it is unintentional. Even 2 eyewitnesses to an event will have their recollections of the event twisted by what they expected to see. The human brain is a tricky thing.
History is never about indisputable facts. At it's best it's collecting as many views of an event as possible, attempting to weed out the highly unlikely or patently imposable and sifting the rest to come up with what most likely happened. Hans Delbruck is an example of history done well.
Get over yourself dude.
Hmmm...I don't recall mentioning myself anywhere in any of those posts. I was just comparing the situations and remarking on the similarities. This battle is just starting though. We haven't even really reached the "tea party" (no reference to the recently established political movement) stage as of yet. Hopefully the democratic processes set forth by the sacrifices of the ones who created them will allow it to never reach the stage of marching and dieing. Oh, and I'm not fat and I did my 4 years in the Infantry. How about you? I do love Cheetos though. Puffs, not the really crunchy ones.
The people who do open source are decidedly not like the founders of this country, whose primary beef was taxation without representation and the continued stationing of British troops here--in people's homes no less.
I think it's far more similar than you give credit (Microsoft Tax). Proprietary code, formats and protocols encumbered with anti-capitalist monopolist IP protections versus open code, open formats and open protocols that allow capitalist competition based on products meeting consumer needs. The incumbents in the tech industry, just like those in the content creation industry, are trying to use anti-capitalist IP laws to control the industries so they don't have to compete in the new technologies that are making their old products and ways of doing business obsolete. And in creating those laws the government sure as hell isn't representing the people.
A bunch of anti-royalist terrorists.
More like a bunch of anti-Corporatist terrorists. At least if you ask MS or some of the other Corporations that are ruling this country.
Why don't we have a government coding office? We have a government printing office. Why don't we have a strategic software reserve?
We do. It's called open source. And it's run by a militia just like the one that started this country.
Open Source is not the problem. Adversity to change (which is irrelevant) is not the problem. Marketing is not the problem. Attitudes like yours which create fictitious problems for the sole purpose of spewing at them - THAT is the problem. It is the ONLY problem. Everything else was fixed years ago.
Thanks for the laugh. I need one this morning. All that and your conclusion is that I'm the problem for...what was the reason again? Fictitious problems? Adversity to change and marketing are fictitious problems? Yeah, better wait till we're on the same planet at least.
snip long rant nit picking issues with various open source projects
You know, no one said open source was perfect. Even including the issues you mention every one of those open source projects offer products that are better than any closed source offerings. Not arguable better but for the most part excepted as better by everyone but a few zealots.
And Linux does run the world. The number of people who run critical systems on MS products is small and dwindling rapidly. Every heard of a router running Windows? As to commercial Unixes, They're hanging on only as long as there isn't funding to shift off of them.
The only reason Windows is still here is because people are use to it and most people are very adverse to change. That and Microsoft spends outrageous sums on marketing. And games which is the only thing MS Windows is really usable for. Desktop Linux has been more intuitive and easier to use than MS Windows since about the second or third version on Ubuntu came out.
The open source browsers will either have to get on board with h.264 or risk losing the majority of their users, and we'll see a return to the bad old days of IE dominating the web.
I think you missed my point. While I agree with your premise above I disagree with your conclusion. Yes the other browsers, including the open ones like Firefox and Chrome, will have to support h.264. But they'll also support the other free alternatives. New startups tend to operate on a shoe string budget until they get popular enough for funding. So they'll tend towards using free codecs. If one of these start to get popular even more people will be switching off IE. It's not like the bad old days where MS had the power to attempt to fragment the web into MS only or everyone else. MS doesn't control h.264 and can't keep it secret and change it at a whim so no one else can support it. That's what they attempted originally with IE. In this case any browser is free to implement the only standard MS is going to support but they can support other unencumbered standards that are much cheaper to use. It will just take one web site that uses ogg to get popular and IE's numbers start dropping faster. Once IE's numbers drop low enough Google can switch youtube to ogg and MS will have to adapt or die. Either way I only see this as a plus in that IE's numbers will drop.
You are right, but at the same time you are completely ignoring the elephant in the room. Microsoft is putting HTML5 and *only* h.264 into IE9.
It's not so much an elephant anymore. More like a large dog or a small horse.
This means that as HTML5 gets rolled out, it *will*have*patent*problems* for anyone who wants to do 'Free' video and doesn't want to convince their users to download a different browser.
And this is a bad thing? Anything that convinces people to get off IE is good in my mind. Let's see. I can use IE and only most web sights will work or I can use Firefox or Chrome and they all will. Sounds like a good move on Microsoft's part to me. That is if you want to see Microsoft's control fall further.
He was informed of this and refused to grant them access to the network. Whether he felt they were incompetent or not, he had no authorization under any policy or law to do this. Therefore he was preventing those individuals from doing their jobs.
You can pluck at semantics all day long, it doesn't undo the fact that other people were assigned by management to take over the running of the network and he actively denied them the access needed to do this.
You seem to be the one plucking at semantics. At no time were any services disrupted by his actions. There are no semantics there. It's a simple fact. He refused to turn over the passwords to people he had no knowledge as to whether they were authorized to have those passwords. Evidently you don't work in security. That is something you DO NOT do. Lets see, your getting fired from your job. So you give out the keys to the kingdom to anyone and everyone who asks for them? That seems a more prosecutable offense than refusing to provide them except to someone you KNOW is authorized to have them. Say he gives the passwords to this room full of people because they claim they're authorized to have them and one of them logs on and takes down a network whether intentionally or through incompetence. Gee, you think the city would have been ok with that? Do you know what social engineering is? There was no emergency. Everything was functioning fine. Therefore you follow good security practices and wait to give the passwords to someone you KNOW is authorized to have them. There may have not been a written or formal policy stating such but there is still a loosely defined set of good practices for security. And giving out passwords willy nilly doesn't fit into them anywhere. Basically what happened here is a man is being sent to jail for following good security practices and trying to protect the very systems he's being sent to jail for supposedly disrupting. Good security REQUIRES a fairly high level of paranoia.
in the process he prevented city personnel from accessing data they needed to do their jobs.
From everything I've read about the case this simple isn't true. From what I've read at no time were any network services disrupted. It was just that no one could access the equipment to make changes.
Only problem is that this is a radar jammer. According to the vid, the missiles will have sat guidance.
I'm pretty sure any anti-ship missile is going to have to have radar terminal guidance. Any kind of satellite guidance wouldn't be realtime enough to hit a moving target.
It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
And it's simpletons like you who end up designing trivial to hack systems like MS Windows. It, by no means, is simple problem. There's conflicts, routers that don't implement the standards perfectly, idiots writing the configs or scripts...all which end up opening security holes in your system.
Oh, that's right. It's because every *nix head doesn't think about the real end user, just what's "most powerful" in terms of features. Design solely for the power users and administrators, and you miss 95% of the market - what Linux has excelled at for many, many years.
No, us *nix heads actually think through complex problems rather than implement some half ass solution that leaves users worse off while giving them a false sense of security. And, at least with Linux, every aspect of installation and configuration is simpler, easier and more intuitive than it is with any Microsoft product. The only problem is that it's different and you may have to spend 5 minutes figuring it out.
They're investigating this but not that pretty much every appointee to the Justice Department formerly worked for the entertainment industry in one form or another?
The US mindset is inherently skewed towards the body (military might) over the mind (diplomacy).
Put in a historical context I'd say this statement is so far skewed as to pretty much discredit the rest of your statement. Never in the history of mankind has any organization even approaching the level of power of the United States been more skewed towards diplomacy than the United States. And as time goes on it continues to move more and more in that direction.
This is the problem with "education". What's considered "educated" is extremely subjective and easily influenced by the agenda of the educator.
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
Not if this case holds up. Lets see...60x1.5...add in even more cases, probably 1000's...I'd say that licensing fee goes up at least an order of magnitude.