So, exactly how does someone without power get a computer working?
That is a good question. My house is gone, the car is flooded, not that there's any gas, my food is gone and the electricity, water and gas utilities will be out for at least a couple weeks. What am I to do? Oh, I guess I could surf the web until my laptop battery runs out. I'm missing the point.
Lawsuits would be more interesting if the suing party had to pay all/most defense fees if they are unable to prove their case in a court of law. It makes no sense for someone to have to spend money to defend themselves against someone who just decides to throw a lawsuit together.
One of our unused IPs sitting outside of our firewall (meaning there's no way for it to work, because there's no ports available on that VLAN) is "Raised Concern" and it's dated last month. Is this some kind of joke website? I cannot take it seriously.
My Firefox seems to increasingly use RAM to the point that it requires a restart at least once per week. Not sure if it's a browser setting or a memory leak, but either way, it does it out of the box and is pretty annoying.
Attributing the delay to timidity, a publicity stunt, or wanting better photographic conditions is just stupid.
Although I could absolutely understand why they would want to delay the landing until better conditions for photographic reasons. I'm sure NASA has thousands of variables they want to monitor and watch during the landing and having high resolution photographs of the shuttle in-flight are probably part of that data. Look how important photography is on take-off? I can only assume it's almost as important on landing.
Your rights end at my router, hubs, server, bandwidth, computers, etc.
Absolutely, we need to make sure this remains fact.
Had it gone the other way, it would have set dangerous presedent.
Without a doubt, had it gone the other way, it would have been setting a TERRIBLE precedent. We need to watch legislation and court decisions to make sure that the packets coming into our networks must pass OUR approval, not that of the source or some old guys from Washington.
The real issue here is that the Bush administration has a history of attempting to make it easier for employers like WalMart to prevent attempts by employees to unionize and demand a fair wage for their work.
Similar to how those automotive worker unions get fair wages at the expense of bankrupting their employer who cannot afford to compete in the market due having to inflate prices in order to cover their bloated employee overhead? What if all the Walmart employees unionized and demanded higher pay? Walmart would cut all of the jobs they have given to seniors and the handicapped, pay the younger employees their higher wages, raise prices, lose market share, and eventually close down several stores due to falling income levels and lose a bunch of local tax dollars for various communities. Oh, and cut even more jobs in the process. Unions are a double edged sword and need to be monitored carefully.
Wow, I sense a bunch of hatred towards corporations. Non-profit corporations absolutely exist, and I can understand their desire for a better legal and tax stance for their own growth. And what's this about a corporation destroying what they've built? Is it believed that a non-profit, public organization is NOT capable of destroying their own product? Best of luck to you, Mozilla Corporation.
Slashdot Mirror
But yeah, it is an ad.
Slashdot becomes a Freshmeat for Windows. Wonderful.
So, exactly how does someone without power get a computer working?
That is a good question. My house is gone, the car is flooded, not that there's any gas, my food is gone and the electricity, water and gas utilities will be out for at least a couple weeks. What am I to do? Oh, I guess I could surf the web until my laptop battery runs out. I'm missing the point.
Lawsuits would be more interesting if the suing party had to pay all/most defense fees if they are unable to prove their case in a court of law. It makes no sense for someone to have to spend money to defend themselves against someone who just decides to throw a lawsuit together.
I actually sent them an email requesting more information on the IP address in question.
One of our unused IPs sitting outside of our firewall (meaning there's no way for it to work, because there's no ports available on that VLAN) is "Raised Concern" and it's dated last month. Is this some kind of joke website? I cannot take it seriously.
My Firefox seems to increasingly use RAM to the point that it requires a restart at least once per week. Not sure if it's a browser setting or a memory leak, but either way, it does it out of the box and is pretty annoying.
You run a lab with Internet access?
You have Internet but do not patch?
And this from a Fortune 500 company?
Attributing the delay to timidity, a publicity stunt, or wanting better photographic conditions is just stupid. Although I could absolutely understand why they would want to delay the landing until better conditions for photographic reasons. I'm sure NASA has thousands of variables they want to monitor and watch during the landing and having high resolution photographs of the shuttle in-flight are probably part of that data. Look how important photography is on take-off? I can only assume it's almost as important on landing.
Your rights end at my router, hubs, server, bandwidth, computers, etc.
Absolutely, we need to make sure this remains fact.
Had it gone the other way, it would have set dangerous presedent.
Without a doubt, had it gone the other way, it would have been setting a TERRIBLE precedent. We need to watch legislation and court decisions to make sure that the packets coming into our networks must pass OUR approval, not that of the source or some old guys from Washington.
The real issue here is that the Bush administration has a history of attempting to make it easier for employers like WalMart to prevent attempts by employees to unionize and demand a fair wage for their work.
Similar to how those automotive worker unions get fair wages at the expense of bankrupting their employer who cannot afford to compete in the market due having to inflate prices in order to cover their bloated employee overhead? What if all the Walmart employees unionized and demanded higher pay? Walmart would cut all of the jobs they have given to seniors and the handicapped, pay the younger employees their higher wages, raise prices, lose market share, and eventually close down several stores due to falling income levels and lose a bunch of local tax dollars for various communities. Oh, and cut even more jobs in the process. Unions are a double edged sword and need to be monitored carefully.
Wow, I sense a bunch of hatred towards corporations. Non-profit corporations absolutely exist, and I can understand their desire for a better legal and tax stance for their own growth. And what's this about a corporation destroying what they've built? Is it believed that a non-profit, public organization is NOT capable of destroying their own product? Best of luck to you, Mozilla Corporation.