You are correct on the condo board point. But my statement was more of a blanket to explain how absurd it is to make it everyone else's responsibility to handle the people who don't handle their own security.
I think condo boards and homeowners associations are obnoxious and annoying. Who are they to tell me to cut my grass when it gets over 2.4572 inches and then show up with a ruler. Jackasses.
I see how it could push your buttons, however, you could be missing what I mean by "network". The "wireless network" isn't JUST the hardware. The network is the hardware, any software and any costs incurred in the appropriate set up of that hardware. So, as a whole, someone who just "spent all [their] money on the wireless network" and didn't cover all the costs to complete the network didn't do their homework. Many of my clients that are home users have become educated in their purchases before they by them from me or the closest "big box" store.
Hell, with my of my clients, if they tell me they want wireless at home and they purchase all of the equipment I'll set the thing up in their house for FREE because I want them (and everyone else) to be protected. It's nothing to properly set one up. The idea that someone can't spend some time educating themselves on what they're buying is ludicrous to me. It costs nothing to do a little research before you buy.
This is a waste of time and money. People should secure their own networks. If you don't know how then you pay someone to do it for you. If you can't afford it, then how are you able to afford a wireless network. Period.
Why should any government, company or anyone else worry about someone else's network connection security -- unless they're being paid by that party to do so. And in the case of a government (city/state/local/federal) being responsible; don't make ME pay for it.
It does lend some salt to the idea that "a person is intelligent, clever, but people are stupid, panicky." (Bad MIB reference, I know, but fitting nonetheless.) The "uneducated masses" look at a problem differently than the minority on the skirts of an issue. To the few us that saw this thing in the wild and said, "Mmmm, must be nice to be 14 and stupid again," and let it live at that while not being influenced by the "hysteria effect" of the other people reacting differently would explain that quote. People who normally would have thought it through alone were influenced differently by hearing or seeing this information in a group setting.
You have forgotten, though, that since the temperature rise there has also been a large contingent of Pirate Fish found in the more temperate waters of the Northern Carribean.
Unless of course you're trying to cover up this mysterious certainty...
"What's taking Google so long?" asked Alan Yates, Microsoft's general manager for information worker business strategy.
"We've expected this for a long time, and it's nothing new. We've run up against competition that various people have touted as free or Web-based over and over and we're still doing quite well," Yates said, "all Google's base still are belong to us."
'About a year ago, The Sacramento Bee changed online section titles. "Real Estate" became "Homes," "Scene" turned into "Lifestyle," and dining information found in newsprint under "Taste," is online under "Taste/Food."'
This makes perfect sense to me. If someone is searching the web and needs to find an article about "things to do" in Sacremento they might not know that the people from Sacremento refer to what everyone else calls the "Lifestyle" section as "The Scene". I would see the changing of the sections as a way to reach out to a broader audience, not necessarily JUST to fit in with Goodle Adwords. I mean, if you can kill two birds with one stone, then fine, but I think there's more to it. It gets away from the cutesy bullcrap and makes it more relevant to the full audience which is what the web is about, right?
Re:Hmm HDTV Still Cripled...
on
A Look at IPTV
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I see what you're saying here but look at it from a central office perspective. They have bottleneck issues now, what's adding a few TB of video from 500 customers per region going to do to the CO? I have a pretty solid feeling it's going to stifle the abilities of all services. You only have as much bandwidth as the central office's pipe to the rest of the network.
FTFA:
". ..MPEG-2 streams will require almost twice the space (3.5 Mbps for SDTV, 18-20 Mbps for HDTV). .."
That leaves you 0-2MB for anything else per subscriber based on the 20MB next gen ADSL estimates. So an HD customer is going to get degraded quality which defeats the purpose of HD signals or you'll get only one stream which eliminates the ability to use PVR. Am I wrong here and just not seeing something?
Xserv
Hmm HDTV Still Cripled...
on
A Look at IPTV
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This doesn't seem like a good idea. The bandwidth is STILL an issue and it's crippling HDTV signals still. Isn't this kind of a waste of time?
Xserv
But the practical use of this technology seems to evade me. I'm pretty defense minded, but virtually "sniffing" the water for chemicals and currents, etc seems kind of moot. A lot of chemicals are naturally occuring in nature and could probably be miscontrued as something totally different.
It just seems like a waste of project money. Sharks aren't really even considered intelligent, are they? This could explain why they're using them for such a test; less outside factors. But really, can someone explain what you would look for? "Here is my drug-sniffing... shark..."??
I can hear PETA activists screaming already though...
You absolutely have to be kidding me. Craigslist has disclaimer's for that stuff. It's just like the people who were complaining about the fact that, in some markets, charging for listings of rental properties was "unlawful" and "unfair" when it's necessary to keep the people who are abusing the system from doing it.
Broadcast radion in general is purely an annoyance to listen to. Yes, I am an XM radio subscriber. In fact, I have XM at home and in my vehicle. I love it. Why? Well, it's very simple. You don't hear stupid "radio voices". You don't hear all the damn commercials for stuff you don't want from companies who are too cheap to film TV commercials. You can get specialized content and stations that you can't get anywhere else. The stations are added and deleted based on listener support of a station. You can see title and artist of songs and hear a lot more music in the spectrum because they're not driven completely on playlists. They have REAL deejays that do take requests.
Now for those of you with the torches out, cap them please. Don't trip over your 8-tracks while trying to flame me. People try to make tha argument of, "Well, there are still commercials on XM!" Well, that's true, but the "commercials" on the music stations are really lineup notes. They advertise about other special programs on other XM channels. With such a wide variety of stations and content, the average listener would never been able to know what was on. The "ads" are relevent to the listenership of that particular station. You're not going to hear commercials for "XM 66 RAW (Uncensored Hip Hop Station)" on "XM 121 Fox News". It doesn't fit the demographic for that channel. So I would say they do a pretty good job there.
If I hear another "Free FM" radio spot, I might vomit. It really is a sad thing. "Free radio" had no problem running XM's radio spots when XM was getting started [read as, 'taking XM's money while in infancy'] because they never thought it would take off. With the new portable radios that XM is putting out, the Pioneer Inno and the Samsung Helix, XM will actually become portable, aside from the already available XM Delphi MiFi that is kind clunky. Sirius' best offering is a little behind with a potable that's more like a brick than a radio -- so they're a little behind in that department.
Anyway, my.02. Xserv
It very well could be that company. They boast "well-funded" and "veteran programmers". I guess we'll see. The're actively looking for level designers, senior programmers and character developers.
I really depends on what you're designing for. For example, if you're designing an intranet site for a comany, you only need to look at the highest browser that the lowest powered systems within that organizatino can support. To put in in perspective, if you're designing for that organization and the "oldest" OS they have is, say, Windows 2000, then you only need to design to support that OS. Anything predating that you don't have to worry about.
As far as internet sites are concerned, the rule of thumb is generally determined by the people you're trying to appeal to. If you're writing a site that's meant specifically for MAC people, then you write a site tailored to the people who you're writing for. If it's more general information, study the logs of the people who go to the site. ANY major log analyzer will tell you exactly what percentage of anything is connecting to you. Cut the cross section of the people still using crap equipment and software (less than %2 or so) and don't support it. They'll either upgrade or move on. If they don't have the where-with-all to upgrade to something modern, do you really want to deal with supporting their needs as a customer? Do you really want to try to explain to someone running a Pentium-90 with 32MB RAM on Windows 95 that you can't sell them a Radeon X1800 because their computer can't support it? And how much extra man-power will it cost you to do that? I sure wouldn't want to support it -- who would?
I deal with both enterprise class systems and general public systems on a daily basis and I have never seen a case that I could point to Spybot for corruption of any images, anywhere. Ghost in itself, at least the consumer version that the public can buy, has a tendency to corrupt it's own images (which I have seen on preinstalled products from the big computer manufacturers). In fact, one of the first things I tell people to do when they get it preinstalled on their computers is to remove it. The bootup engine is flaky and corrupts, well, everything. The OEM product sucks.
In the enterprise environments, most have stepped away from Symantec products around 2000-2001. I know we went to Trend for all of our antivirus/spam needs. The engine isn't nearly as clunky for mass management as the NAV corporate products. Resources are WAY less on the Trend products as well...
As far as the debate here with Spybot-S&D and how this is all going to play out; I would say that there will most likely be some litigation between the two. Symantec is really skirting libel here and they're using some monopolistic tactics to squeeze the little guy.
Xserv
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct on the condo board point. But my statement was more of a blanket to explain how absurd it is to make it everyone else's responsibility to handle the people who don't handle their own security.
I think condo boards and homeowners associations are obnoxious and annoying. Who are they to tell me to cut my grass when it gets over 2.4572 inches and then show up with a ruler. Jackasses.
*clears throat*
Have a great weekend.
Xserv
Hear, hear!
Cheers,
Xserv
I see how it could push your buttons, however, you could be missing what I mean by "network". The "wireless network" isn't JUST the hardware. The network is the hardware, any software and any costs incurred in the appropriate set up of that hardware. So, as a whole, someone who just "spent all [their] money on the wireless network" and didn't cover all the costs to complete the network didn't do their homework. Many of my clients that are home users have become educated in their purchases before they by them from me or the closest "big box" store.
Hell, with my of my clients, if they tell me they want wireless at home and they purchase all of the equipment I'll set the thing up in their house for FREE because I want them (and everyone else) to be protected. It's nothing to properly set one up. The idea that someone can't spend some time educating themselves on what they're buying is ludicrous to me. It costs nothing to do a little research before you buy.
Xserv
This is a waste of time and money. People should secure their own networks. If you don't know how then you pay someone to do it for you. If you can't afford it, then how are you able to afford a wireless network. Period.
Why should any government, company or anyone else worry about someone else's network connection security -- unless they're being paid by that party to do so. And in the case of a government (city/state/local/federal) being responsible; don't make ME pay for it.
Xserv
Leave it to Slashdot to destroy the server when it's "kicked off".
*claps*
Xserv
It does lend some salt to the idea that "a person is intelligent, clever, but people are stupid, panicky." (Bad MIB reference, I know, but fitting nonetheless.) The "uneducated masses" look at a problem differently than the minority on the skirts of an issue. To the few us that saw this thing in the wild and said, "Mmmm, must be nice to be 14 and stupid again," and let it live at that while not being influenced by the "hysteria effect" of the other people reacting differently would explain that quote. People who normally would have thought it through alone were influenced differently by hearing or seeing this information in a group setting.
*shrugs* Whatever -- slow news day apparently.
Xserv
You go to Federal "Pound-Me-In-The-Ass" Prison for starters...
Xserv
TFA had to do with LiveJournal, not MySpace...
Xserv
You have forgotten, though, that since the temperature rise there has also been a large contingent of Pirate Fish found in the more temperate waters of the Northern Carribean.
Unless of course you're trying to cover up this mysterious certainty...
Xserv
Sign me up. :)
"All your towers are belong to us."
Xserv
At least someone at MS as a sense of humor.
Xserv
Xserv
This bit never gets old to me. :) Good stab!
Xserv
FTFA: That leaves you 0-2MB for anything else per subscriber based on the 20MB next gen ADSL estimates. So an HD customer is going to get degraded quality which defeats the purpose of HD signals or you'll get only one stream which eliminates the ability to use PVR. Am I wrong here and just not seeing something?
Xserv
This doesn't seem like a good idea. The bandwidth is STILL an issue and it's crippling HDTV signals still. Isn't this kind of a waste of time? Xserv
But the practical use of this technology seems to evade me. I'm pretty defense minded, but virtually "sniffing" the water for chemicals and currents, etc seems kind of moot. A lot of chemicals are naturally occuring in nature and could probably be miscontrued as something totally different.
It just seems like a waste of project money. Sharks aren't really even considered intelligent, are they? This could explain why they're using them for such a test; less outside factors. But really, can someone explain what you would look for? "Here is my drug-sniffing... shark..."??
I can hear PETA activists screaming already though...
Xserv
*crickets*
Holy shit.. I've seen it all...
I thought we were heading for a downward spiral when the last Adam Sandler movie came out but damn...
I'm going to go pimp-slap some more ho's on GTA.
X
Actually, I think it's B-A-B-A.... :)
Xserv
You absolutely have to be kidding me. Craigslist has disclaimer's for that stuff. It's just like the people who were complaining about the fact that, in some markets, charging for listings of rental properties was "unlawful" and "unfair" when it's necessary to keep the people who are abusing the system from doing it.
Damn lawyers . . .
Broadcast radion in general is purely an annoyance to listen to. Yes, I am an XM radio subscriber. In fact, I have XM at home and in my vehicle. I love it. Why? Well, it's very simple. You don't hear stupid "radio voices". You don't hear all the damn commercials for stuff you don't want from companies who are too cheap to film TV commercials. You can get specialized content and stations that you can't get anywhere else. The stations are added and deleted based on listener support of a station. You can see title and artist of songs and hear a lot more music in the spectrum because they're not driven completely on playlists. They have REAL deejays that do take requests.
.02.
Now for those of you with the torches out, cap them please. Don't trip over your 8-tracks while trying to flame me. People try to make tha argument of, "Well, there are still commercials on XM!" Well, that's true, but the "commercials" on the music stations are really lineup notes. They advertise about other special programs on other XM channels. With such a wide variety of stations and content, the average listener would never been able to know what was on. The "ads" are relevent to the listenership of that particular station. You're not going to hear commercials for "XM 66 RAW (Uncensored Hip Hop Station)" on "XM 121 Fox News". It doesn't fit the demographic for that channel. So I would say they do a pretty good job there.
If I hear another "Free FM" radio spot, I might vomit. It really is a sad thing. "Free radio" had no problem running XM's radio spots when XM was getting started [read as, 'taking XM's money while in infancy'] because they never thought it would take off. With the new portable radios that XM is putting out, the Pioneer Inno and the Samsung Helix, XM will actually become portable, aside from the already available XM Delphi MiFi that is kind clunky. Sirius' best offering is a little behind with a potable that's more like a brick than a radio -- so they're a little behind in that department. Anyway, my
Xserv
It very well could be that company. They boast "well-funded" and "veteran programmers". I guess we'll see. The're actively looking for level designers, senior programmers and character developers.
Time will tell.
Xserv
I really depends on what you're designing for. For example, if you're designing an intranet site for a comany, you only need to look at the highest browser that the lowest powered systems within that organizatino can support. To put in in perspective, if you're designing for that organization and the "oldest" OS they have is, say, Windows 2000, then you only need to design to support that OS. Anything predating that you don't have to worry about.
As far as internet sites are concerned, the rule of thumb is generally determined by the people you're trying to appeal to. If you're writing a site that's meant specifically for MAC people, then you write a site tailored to the people who you're writing for. If it's more general information, study the logs of the people who go to the site. ANY major log analyzer will tell you exactly what percentage of anything is connecting to you. Cut the cross section of the people still using crap equipment and software (less than %2 or so) and don't support it. They'll either upgrade or move on. If they don't have the where-with-all to upgrade to something modern, do you really want to deal with supporting their needs as a customer? Do you really want to try to explain to someone running a Pentium-90 with 32MB RAM on Windows 95 that you can't sell them a Radeon X1800 because their computer can't support it? And how much extra man-power will it cost you to do that? I sure wouldn't want to support it -- who would?
My $.02,
Xserv
I deal with both enterprise class systems and general public systems on a daily basis and I have never seen a case that I could point to Spybot for corruption of any images, anywhere. Ghost in itself, at least the consumer version that the public can buy, has a tendency to corrupt it's own images (which I have seen on preinstalled products from the big computer manufacturers). In fact, one of the first things I tell people to do when they get it preinstalled on their computers is to remove it. The bootup engine is flaky and corrupts, well, everything. The OEM product sucks. In the enterprise environments, most have stepped away from Symantec products around 2000-2001. I know we went to Trend for all of our antivirus/spam needs. The engine isn't nearly as clunky for mass management as the NAV corporate products. Resources are WAY less on the Trend products as well... As far as the debate here with Spybot-S&D and how this is all going to play out; I would say that there will most likely be some litigation between the two. Symantec is really skirting libel here and they're using some monopolistic tactics to squeeze the little guy. Xserv