Come on dude he is just a private fresh out of basic training. They are brash and excitable (like you want killers to be) and he made a mistake, probably while home on leave before even reporting to his first unit. That first unit probably has problems with people who use drugs, beat their wives, drive drunk, etc etc. The CO is not going to give two shits.
Maybe I am not understanding something here, but doesn't the article say that Cisco is [b]against[/b] a tiered network? If they stand to gain from a tiered network like you said, why would their self-interest dictate that they they sign an agreement against a tiered network?
The University of Southern California is a state school. It is therefore a government actor and therefore the first amendment applies. Or am I missing something?
... it's the end users who are responsible for this dismal state, IMHO. The article makes the case that despite a growing amount of software designed to protect us, it is not working as well. I would argue that the software and implementations probably ARE working better than they used to. However, as software gets better and easier to use, people spend less time learning how to use it simply because they think that it is better and easier to use than what they used to have. So, firewalls are not configured properly, AV programs are not run frequently with the user paying attention, and of course people install crap thinking their security software will protect them. Then there is the old social engineering problem. And there is nothing that security professionals can do against lazy users. Of course, I am not addressing some of the higher level network-security-in-a-corporate-setting arguments the author makes, but I myself am just an end user, so anything I could say to that would be, well, irrelevant.
... have commented that consumers will drop their ISPs if they throttle network connection, and as such this type of scheme will not work. I disagree. Most people, i think, won't bother with this for the same reason that they still use Windows: They don't care. They don't read the fine print and they don't care. If their ISP tells them that they can only access certain sites (assuming they even notice the difference) then they will just accept that as fact just like they believe it when Microsoft says that "XP is secure," "You have to reboot your computer every couple of days," or "over time, hard drives become fragmented and you need to defrag it." Just like Microsoft does not say "or software fragments hard drives," ISPs will not say "we slow access to some sites;" they will say "some sites are slower than others," and people won't care why. Mark my words: this will become the norm, carriers will find a way to make money from it, and we will all pay, and probably not even notice it.
My favorite quotes from the article: "MSNBC.com is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture"... this says a lot... "Apple officials point to the company's virtually unvarnished security track record"... uh, did you mean UNTARNISHED, retard?... "said Daines, a 29-year-old British chemical engineer who once considered Macs invulnerable to such attacks,"... this makes him a qualified source how?... "He and at least one other person who clicked on the links were infected by what security experts call the first-ever virus for Mac OS X"... wow. Two people infected. What an outbreak... "Tom Ferris said"... Who the fuck is Tom Ferris again?
Yeah, but I prefer www.killsometime.com. Its juvenile, but funny nonetheless. I suppose I could turn of the computer go outside, but I am alergic to natural light.
No, the purpose of a News Organization (AKA News Company) is to make a profit. They make a profit by selling audiences to advertisers. There is very little real information being presented on broadcast news, it is mostly promises of more information at a later time so that you sit through the commercials. News "organizations" don't give a shit if you are being informed as long as you watch.
Google is good because it does what it says it will do: Find stuff.
This is just too much. Too many nifty things making it slow, too many nifty things making it hard to comprehend, too many nifty things that are broken.
KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid! for stupid people like me.
The support is something you have to pay for, and I think one of the keys here is that he wants to save a small school money.
The school is obviously small enough that $1000 for some windows licences is a lot of money.
Besides, Edubuntu is really pretty easy to use and designed specifically for kids.
Just out of curiousity, how is using Ubuntu kowtowing to minorities? I am a white male and I find it is a great drop-in windows replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on dude he is just a private fresh out of basic training. They are brash and excitable (like you want killers to be) and he made a mistake, probably while home on leave before even reporting to his first unit. That first unit probably has problems with people who use drugs, beat their wives, drive drunk, etc etc. The CO is not going to give two shits.
Actually, TPB loses money on this venture. They actually believe in what they are doing.
Sorry I just took another look at the article. I am an idiot. I also can't quite figure out how to post stuff...
Maybe I am not understanding something here, but doesn't the article say that Cisco is [b]against[/b] a tiered network? If they stand to gain from a tiered network like you said, why would their self-interest dictate that they they sign an agreement against a tiered network?
The University of Southern California is a state school. It is therefore a government actor and therefore the first amendment applies. Or am I missing something?
... it's the end users who are responsible for this dismal state, IMHO. The article makes the case that despite a growing amount of software designed to protect us, it is not working as well. I would argue that the software and implementations probably ARE working better than they used to. However, as software gets better and easier to use, people spend less time learning how to use it simply because they think that it is better and easier to use than what they used to have. So, firewalls are not configured properly, AV programs are not run frequently with the user paying attention, and of course people install crap thinking their security software will protect them. Then there is the old social engineering problem. And there is nothing that security professionals can do against lazy users. Of course, I am not addressing some of the higher level network-security-in-a-corporate-setting arguments the author makes, but I myself am just an end user, so anything I could say to that would be, well, irrelevant.
... have commented that consumers will drop their ISPs if they throttle network connection, and as such this type of scheme will not work. I disagree. Most people, i think, won't bother with this for the same reason that they still use Windows: They don't care. They don't read the fine print and they don't care. If their ISP tells them that they can only access certain sites (assuming they even notice the difference) then they will just accept that as fact just like they believe it when Microsoft says that "XP is secure," "You have to reboot your computer every couple of days," or "over time, hard drives become fragmented and you need to defrag it." Just like Microsoft does not say "or software fragments hard drives," ISPs will not say "we slow access to some sites;" they will say "some sites are slower than others," and people won't care why. Mark my words: this will become the norm, carriers will find a way to make money from it, and we will all pay, and probably not even notice it.
My favorite quotes from the article: "MSNBC.com is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture"... this says a lot... "Apple officials point to the company's virtually unvarnished security track record"... uh, did you mean UNTARNISHED, retard?... "said Daines, a 29-year-old British chemical engineer who once considered Macs invulnerable to such attacks,"... this makes him a qualified source how?... "He and at least one other person who clicked on the links were infected by what security experts call the first-ever virus for Mac OS X"... wow. Two people infected. What an outbreak... "Tom Ferris said"... Who the fuck is Tom Ferris again?
Yeah, but I prefer www.killsometime.com. Its juvenile, but funny nonetheless. I suppose I could turn of the computer go outside, but I am alergic to natural light.
This story is something like 48 hours old... the one about the centrifuge is just, well, boring...
Must be a really slow news sunday.
No, the purpose of a News Organization (AKA News Company) is to make a profit. They make a profit by selling audiences to advertisers. There is very little real information being presented on broadcast news, it is mostly promises of more information at a later time so that you sit through the commercials. News "organizations" don't give a shit if you are being informed as long as you watch.
If you want information, read a book.
Um, what the hell are you talking about?
Kids using Linux probably know what knoppix is. Kids using Mac are just screwed.
There's no claim in the synopsis that the DoJ is mentioned in the article.
Google is good because it does what it says it will do: Find stuff. This is just too much. Too many nifty things making it slow, too many nifty things making it hard to comprehend, too many nifty things that are broken. KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid! for stupid people like me.
The support is something you have to pay for, and I think one of the keys here is that he wants to save a small school money. The school is obviously small enough that $1000 for some windows licences is a lot of money. Besides, Edubuntu is really pretty easy to use and designed specifically for kids. Just out of curiousity, how is using Ubuntu kowtowing to minorities? I am a white male and I find it is a great drop-in windows replacement.
One of the derivative products of ubuntu, edubuntu, is geared toward people just like you. Check it out!