Although the parent is modded Funny, I'm not sure it really was intended to be. And, just because you personally don't need disks > 100GB doesn't mean others don't have a need. Having to fill out government forms because you want to edit Junior's First Day Of School on your computer would be ridiculous.
There are plenty of uses for large disks other than pirate stuff and porn; think virtual machines, think video editing, think commercial streaming media and storage (I know of a company streaming ads from ordinary servers - each server has its own 0.5 TB and there are hundreds of servers - not because the servers are slow but because the data is huge). Add in the archive requirements for SOX and its relatives; imaging of all correspondence (even small companies can generate a terabyte in a few months, so imagine IBM's needs).
But if I hear about the number of red, green, blue and yellow cars you saw because it was published in a newspaper, with your blessing, what makes you think you should be able to stop me using those figures?
We won't make it and we can't take the chance that someone else will make it, it will be a success and we will be shown to have made yet another bad decision.
Pretty much. It installs poorly coded filters on the CD drives - if installed in the middle of an IO you could get a blue screen. Mark discussed this in detail.
Much safer to remove during reboot otherwise you'd hear screams of, "The patch BSOD'd my computer!"
Are you suggesting that Microsoft will turn down your money for a support call on a Windows XP BSOD because you have installed Firefox? I doubt it.
I've had MS in both Australia and the US assisting in the resolution of an Exchange issue (to pick your choice of server app) where the servers had non-MS antivirus, non-MS drivers, HW vendor management software, unsigned code... and nary a peep from any of the specialists [sic] they employ about "We won't support it because you've installed non-MS software".
Perhaps you meant to say that MS may require you to help reproduce the problem without the non-MS software installed? And yes they will - but that's normal troubleshooting procedure. Find the minimum product set in which the problem surfaces.
Would you like to troubleshoot a kernel panic on $DISTRO with 50 different apps from 50 different vendors, and not get the product set to a minimum state? Would you prefer any $DISTRO support org to say something like "You've got a program installed from another vendor. Since you're paying by the hour, we'll just work with it as is. You probably shouldn't try to save everyone's time and money - and get your system running faster - by minimising the problem app set." And don't fool yourself - the cost of a support incident is set according to the amount of time estimated to solve the average problem. If you make all support calls take twice as long, your Linux support will be twice as expensive too (as will MS, Oracle, IBM, etc etc etc).
In other news, the asteroid deflected in 2008 by the European Space Agency has been confirmed as hitting Earth in December this year, with an expected impact point near Switzerland.
Surely this means that the local "Baby Bell" will be able to prevent other companies from using the infrastructure, either directly or by pricing them out of the market?
If so... how does this help the consumer? Who lobbied for this? And why was it done? TFA has little detail and the FCC press release seems to be more self-servient than anything else.
Now... if the price they sell broadband at is $29.95/month, but they will only sell line access to the competing ISP at $39.95/month, the ISP cannot compete.
In Australia Tel$tra did just this (briefly) and got a slap on the wrist from our consumer agency, the ACCC. Is there a similar organisation in the US? Is that what the FCC press release is commenting on in the 2nd last para:
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
should develop a framework for consumer protection in the broadband age - a framework that
ensures that consumer protection needs are met by all providers of broadband Internet access
service, regardless of the underlying technology.
Do you honestly believe that "I didn't do it, and I don't know who did it" is going to fly? You can't just say "it wasn't me" -- you have to have some evidence that it wasn't you -- and evidence that it potentially wasn't you isn't enough, you need real evidence that it wasn't you, because the RIAA has evidence that it WAS you, and the court isn't going to take your word for it that it wasn't you...
That's kind of the point of the WAP defense.
Unless I monitor the WAP 24x7, or log all connects/disconnects, I do not know the details of anyone connected to it at any given time.
Because it's behind a NAT device, all those connected PCs share the same public IP address, which must by definition be the IP scanned by the ??AA.
IANAL but I am a tech. You can't prove that a connection to port "X" on shared IP "Y" is machine "Z" unless there is a log of that fact. All I suspect would be required would be logs showing more than one IP connected at the time of the ??AA scan; if the device doesn't log, then you might even be able to get away with showing a screenshot of >2 devices connected, when you have only 1 PC.
Ha! Now I've got you. Instead of purchasing $10 media validated to work in DVHS mode, I'll modify my $500 player!
Let's ignore any fundamental quality, design or implementation differences while we're at it...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid we can't, Exchange has been doing it since the mid 90's as well (way way back in the mists of time with Exchange 4.0). Sorry!
Although the parent is modded Funny, I'm not sure it really was intended to be. And, just because you personally don't need disks > 100GB doesn't mean others don't have a need. Having to fill out government forms because you want to edit Junior's First Day Of School on your computer would be ridiculous.
There are plenty of uses for large disks other than pirate stuff and porn; think virtual machines, think video editing, think commercial streaming media and storage (I know of a company streaming ads from ordinary servers - each server has its own 0.5 TB and there are hundreds of servers - not because the servers are slow but because the data is huge). Add in the archive requirements for SOX and its relatives; imaging of all correspondence (even small companies can generate a terabyte in a few months, so imagine IBM's needs).
That would be called spin.
But if I hear about the number of red, green, blue and yellow cars you saw because it was published in a newspaper, with your blessing, what makes you think you should be able to stop me using those figures?
Even if checksums are verified, where do you think the checksums are stored?
We won't make it and we can't take the chance that someone else will make it, it will be a success and we will be shown to have made yet another bad decision.
If we don't want it no-one can have it.
Pretty much. It installs poorly coded filters on the CD drives - if installed in the middle of an IO you could get a blue screen. Mark discussed this in detail.
Much safer to remove during reboot otherwise you'd hear screams of, "The patch BSOD'd my computer!"
Oh please.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft will turn down your money for a support call on a Windows XP BSOD because you have installed Firefox? I doubt it.
I've had MS in both Australia and the US assisting in the resolution of an Exchange issue (to pick your choice of server app) where the servers had non-MS antivirus, non-MS drivers, HW vendor management software, unsigned code ... and nary a peep from any of the specialists [sic] they employ about "We won't support it because you've installed non-MS software".
Perhaps you meant to say that MS may require you to help reproduce the problem without the non-MS software installed? And yes they will - but that's normal troubleshooting procedure. Find the minimum product set in which the problem surfaces.
Would you like to troubleshoot a kernel panic on $DISTRO with 50 different apps from 50 different vendors, and not get the product set to a minimum state? Would you prefer any $DISTRO support org to say something like "You've got a program installed from another vendor. Since you're paying by the hour, we'll just work with it as is. You probably shouldn't try to save everyone's time and money - and get your system running faster - by minimising the problem app set." And don't fool yourself - the cost of a support incident is set according to the amount of time estimated to solve the average problem. If you make all support calls take twice as long, your Linux support will be twice as expensive too (as will MS, Oracle, IBM, etc etc etc).
Anti-MS FUD is still FUD.
In other news, the asteroid deflected in 2008 by the European Space Agency has been confirmed as hitting Earth in December this year, with an expected impact point near Switzerland.
It's been nice knowing you folks.
I don't understand.
Surely this means that the local "Baby Bell" will be able to prevent other companies from using the infrastructure, either directly or by pricing them out of the market?
If so ... how does this help the consumer? Who lobbied for this? And why was it done? TFA has little detail and the FCC press release seems to be more self-servient than anything else.
Now ... if the price they sell broadband at is $29.95/month, but they will only sell line access to the competing ISP at $39.95/month, the ISP cannot compete.
In Australia Tel$tra did just this (briefly) and got a slap on the wrist from our consumer agency, the ACCC. Is there a similar organisation in the US? Is that what the FCC press release is commenting on in the 2nd last para:
Furthermore, having just tried to order a pair of Itanium 2 servers for a SQL cluster:
These supply issues quickly gathered the chip a new moniker - Unobtanium.
That's kind of the point of the WAP defense.
Unless I monitor the WAP 24x7, or log all connects/disconnects, I do not know the details of anyone connected to it at any given time.
Because it's behind a NAT device, all those connected PCs share the same public IP address, which must by definition be the IP scanned by the ??AA.
IANAL but I am a tech. You can't prove that a connection to port "X" on shared IP "Y" is machine "Z" unless there is a log of that fact. All I suspect would be required would be logs showing more than one IP connected at the time of the ??AA scan; if the device doesn't log, then you might even be able to get away with showing a screenshot of >2 devices connected, when you have only 1 PC.
Ha! Now I've got you. Instead of purchasing $10 media validated to work in DVHS mode, I'll modify my $500 player! Let's ignore any fundamental quality, design or implementation differences while we're at it ...