Kind of.
(1) You must pay to make such a post
(2) Your report cannot cite specifics that may indicate the author of the illegal complaint (thus in this case, the company could not say "John Doe was found guilty of libel over this post, and here's why")
(3) such posts are reviewed and approved (or not) by ripoffreports. Their criteria is pretty vague.
The site seems hell bent on and built upon the idea of making money off negative publicity, with little concern for counterclaims and positive publicity (possibly because negative publicity attracts more people, and thus is their money maker). But that's all just how they "seem" to operate. Their actual business model may be different in intention, even if the end result doesnt seem to be.
Does the New York Times go back and redact the microfilm version of their paper? Or do they print a correction?
Why jump to erase history? Just because it is easier to do than in the past?
Ah yes... the correction ripoffreports WONT post? That correction? Or the correction that the maligned party must PAY MONEY TO POST? That one? The one that's VERY difficult to actually get on ripoffreports, and gets reviewed to be determined if ripoffreports will allow it? That correction? The correction that cannot cite WHO the loser who broke the law in their initial claim is? That correction?
No, NOT Bingo, or any other idiotic game metaphor you choose to use.
Ripoffreports KNOWINGLY is using ILLEGAL speech to make money. First through the publicity, advertising revenue and membership fees they earn, and secondly (in various cases) through charging companies who have been illegally maligned a FEE to post a correction/counterclaim, etc.
AFAIK, benefiting from illegal actions is not legal. That is what they are doing. There is no free speech protection covering ILLEGAL speech. And there is no free speech protection covering another benefiting from speech they know is ILLEGAL.
It is obviously a principle issue since they talk about the first Amendment and their principle is that they do not remove posts(no qualifications), they stuck to their principles and didn't remove it. The court held that they are true to their word, and certainly did not act in concert or participation with any other party(including court orders, which serves to strengthen their case on appeal in my mind).
That's possibly because of an inadequate understanding of the site. The website owners, by their actions and requirements, create an uneven playing field that favors those who make such inaccurate statements, by making it either costly or impossible for those maligned to post counterstatements or corrections.
While this may also seem a First Amendment win, it's also something that can be perverted into a tool to malign anyone or any company with full knowledge that such statements will not be taken down, and cannot be contested or countered without either (a) lots of difficulty, (b) monetary contributions to the site, or (c) simply cannot do it at all due to the difficulties the site owners create for such actions.
Of course, IANAL, and those who are, and are dealing with this, may have already tried pointing out such issues or found they do not apply - but I'd think they should.
Amazingly wonderful - if only the world would move off Windows. Again, as I've stated before, it's not a matter of how wonderful the technology is. Sadly.
Exactly! That's ALL accomplishable without thin clients. We used (where we didn't have thin client setups) full XP installs that were locked and maintained by "corporate", including updates, patches, etc. The machines would install them (and any new software) at night, restart and be ready the next morning. ALL the client systems were maintained by corporate except in rare instances, at which time, there were only a couple of us at any given store (if even that many) who were granted access to the boxes with sufficient privileges to do anything.
And that's why, thin or thick client, the same security and management aspects can still be done remotely from a central location. Which is yet another selling point AGAINST thin clients when it comes to any business with an IT department who knows how to implement such things.
Using thin clients in an enterprise or small to medium business environment gives you a lot of benefits to the long term bottom line. From a security perspective, you cut the "attack surface" of your network very sharply - from dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of desktops that each need antivirus, security updates, administration, and security monitoring, down to a handful of servers that you can lock down pretty tightly. From a support perspective, you are no longer managing all those desktops, you are now managing a handful of servers.
BULLSHIT From that statement alone I can only surmise that you have never ever worked in IT, the client is ALWAYS part of the equation, a thin client still has firmware and connectivity issues....
I didnt write that - you're responding to the wrong person for that one. As I indicated, he wasn't actually correct, except in theory.
Now, once you've gotten your THICK client computer, running your THIN client setup (wait... is it Windows 7? Is that thin client possible? Or is it "thin" client possible?).
Technically with Windows 7 enterprise you can set up a client to boot from a VHD (I have seen this implemented as this is how Windows deployment services works), and in-fact to use network licenses of software(office etc.) however I've never actually seen this implemented. That said you could in theory go for a medium client? if that is a term? where the software is run locally but is based on network licenses. Personally I wouldn't want to try it, but that's me
Agreed. And thus the problems I tried pointing out. By the time you are done, you're either loading a very big VHD image, or still running the "big stuff" from locally installed copies. And picking the first is painfully slow even on gigabit ethernet. I haven't seen anything like this done (actually deployed that is... tried? yes... Used? No) since the "Windows XP days".
I'm going to call BS partly on this. Most of the business world is using basic productivity software, probably Microsoft Office, with some users needing access to an accounting package or CRM.
This brings us to a point I made earlier about much of this stuff no longer being "thin". Please, oh please, try to run Office 2010 on a true thin client setup. PLEASE. Do try. Now, once you've gotten your THICK client computer, running your THIN client setup (wait... is it Windows 7? Is that thin client possible? Or is it "thin" client possible?). Now explain the added expenditure in new server hardware to support your "thin" client setups.
Then explain why much of the stuff needed to do ancilliary work (ie: surfing the web for whatever reasons; research, visit competitors' sites, visit client sites, visit suppliers sites, etc) just wont work on a true thin (software AND hardware) client setup... oh yeah, because browsers and (ugh) Flash need better hardware. This (all of the above and what else I mention in other posts) is what brings us to the "unsuitability" factor.
It does NOT matter if it's the best technical solution to the task. Those with the expertise to know that are NOT the ones generally in charge of the purse strings.
It makes PERFECT sense from many TECHNICAL standpoints to implement a thin client setup. As far as businesses are concerned, because most are NOT run by tech savvy people, it makes NO sense.
Gotta remember, things work because of the IT department. Hard to convince a non techy person to spend more money - or the same amount of money for "less" when the system already works. Does that now make sense?
Thin clients aren't so much about up front cost as they are about reducing long term support costs. Using thin clients in an enterprise or small to medium business environment gives you a lot of benefits to the long term bottom line. From a security perspective, you cut the "attack surface" of your network very sharply - from dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of desktops that each need antivirus, security updates, administration, and security monitoring, down to a handful of servers that you can lock down pretty tightly.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. But close enough. Anyway, I have covered that all below. *I* am aware of this. *YOU* are aware of this. Most upper management in mid to large business are NOT aware of this, and CANNOT be convinced of this (hence, too numerous places to count that SHOULD be running thin clients do NOT). If the IT department is doing their jobs, NONE of what you mention is a problem to begin with. Hard to sell someone non techy on a solution that they will get "less" on to solve a non-problem (because the IT gang knows what they are doing).
NOT JUST TO YOU - BUT TO EVERYONE:
You ALL forget this is about why thin clients aren't being adopted and aren't suitable. This has NOTHING to do with the accurate technical reasons you all suggest. If you had remembered that when you read my post, perhaps you would have understood the context of it.
For your first paragraph, see my post directly above.
For the second... banks rarely get thin clients - yet pretty much run telnet apps with some specialized drivers for the printers, MICR readers and bill counters. They barely need a thin client. Sadly, they instead run full blown copies of Windows with a telnet window and some web apps.
Sad, isnt it? Perfect client base pushed in the wrong direction.
As for "there aren't suitable thin client options for most businesses" my point is this... Windows 7 is hardly thin client capable on what WAS thin client hardware. Even Citrix WinFrame and such require something decent for such "thin" clients. And while the up front costs are the same (and support costs less), most businesses dont think about such things and look at it the wrong way, as I covered in my last two posts. THAT is what makes it unsuitable.
See my point? It doesn't (or rarely) matter(s) if it's suitable to the TASK. It matters if it's suitable to the CUSTOMER BASE one is targeting it at. And sadly, nowadays, it is not - otherwise banks, insurance companies, numerous chain stores, restaurants, etc; would all be running thin clients. I know I should have clarified further. Hope this does.
Well, I don't know how you did your math, but you sorta screwed up some numbers somewhere along the lines.... Thin clients are cheaper, you need to look at patching, and managing all those machines, warranties, and everything else. Thin clients mean that there is no local profiles, no local domain requirements, a stripped down windows means no patching and if you do you netboot the machine and serve it out over TFTP on a saturday when nobody is around (Including you!) and just do another run later to deal with the exceptions. Your down time on a properly implemented thin client solution is a LOT lower than what your going to end up with using standard desktops, as a CTO though, your going to have to realise that your going to pay higher wages to get the right guys who understand the technologies and can properly administer it
*I* understand all of that. *YOU* understand all of that. **Most of those on Slashdot** understand all of that.
Now... tell me which boss of any decent sized company understands all of that? And which ones see it as a waste of money for the reasons I indicated. I know I should have made that clear above... but I figured we'd all experienced those situations where justifying such expenses/purchases for legitimate reasons get shot down by those in upper management that dont understand squat about technology.
Really, this is so simple. There aren't suitable thin client options for most businesses. And Microsoft is to blame. No, this isn't an anti-Microsoft rant - there's no reason for them to support (or more accurately, PUSH) such a model. It boils down to this: Windows is hardly "thin client" status anymore. Computers are dirt cheap. Buying a thin client machine costs about as much as buying the cheapo level desktop most businesses need (the ones that need more powerful hardware aren't suited for thin clients, eg: CGI and video editing). Microsoft used to (still may?) charge the same license fee for the thin client as they would if it was a full fledged desktop and full OS.
Thus, what's the purpose of spending the same amount of money for a thin client machine that one would for a full fledged desktop and full OS?
It doesn't matter how wonderful the technology behind thin clients is, or how wonderful it gets... it's a waste of money for most scenarios.
And of course, Microsoft's business model is in better shape without thin clients... more support people, more certifications, more money generated. Smarter business approach for them.
People have been hijacking and blowing up planes for decades and nobody's economies collapsed. It's only since it happened over American soil that The Terrorist Fear took over and America started fucking everyone (including themselves) in the ass
Nah... I am pretty sure they only grope you. Unless something has changed recently.
People have been hijacking and blowing up planes for decades and nobody's economies collapsed. It's only since it happened over American soil that The Terrorist Fear took over
Nah... I am pretty sure they only grope you. Unless something has changed recently.
Gee, TSA wasting tax payer money? Who'da thunk Chertoff's big money maker would be a big money waster for the rest of us "little people"?
Doesnt matter anyway... someone at the GAO will be fired, this will be back-burnered or disappear, and in the name of (a false sense of) security, things will continue as usual.
...at least, that's what I'd believe if I thought this whole issue was being blown out of proportion to fund govt contracts with contractors that have nice easy ways in (of which, Chertoff would be just one on the list).
" that only leaves office, which does have a low-cost student edition. Which is still expensive for a student, but not ridiculously so."
Microsoft just recently dumped OGA. Guess why.
--
BMO
Oh please. Because it's being replaced with something else. Plain and simple. Dig DEEP into the GA tools built into Windows 7 and Vista. Look at the neat open hooks for the stuff. And watch and wait to see what happens next.
>knowingly facilitating the violation of such copyright laws
So where does that stop?
-The office stationary supply store that sold Post-It notes for pirate's office to write passwords on?
-The 7-11 that sold Doritos for their webmaster?
-Dell for selling them a laptop?
-Intel for selling a CPU to Dell who sold it onward?
-Google for linking to them?
-And everybody else for linking to Google?
Ummm... what? That is all (well, except Google, but that's an issue I've also discussed - a totally different one, where their recent plans may put their safe harbor in jeopardy (their planned filtering)) totally unrelated. Selling Doritos to their webmasters is NOT making money off handling financial transactions for the actual sales of pirated goods.
Ok, fine. You are now liable for any criminal transactions you don't block.
If you don't like that, you will send my money where I tell you to.
Yes, but this is also similar to a Google story recently, (and a comment I made about the possible dangers of Google proactively filtering content of this nature). For whatever reason, the pressures in this respect seem to be causing a lot of big companies to bow down and make what could be really big mistakes. These mistakes invalidate parts of the DMCA protection by proving the company/companies can filter stuff - but you already allude to that.
Why should mastercard care if they're being used on websites that "host pirated..."? They still get to collect their fees. I thought that was all that mattered nowadays.
Possibly because there are laws that could hold them liable for such actions? Possibly because the **AA are holding those laws over their heads? While IANAL, I would suspect that knowingly facilitating the violation of such copyright laws is not legal. And because Visa/MC make money off it, it's not a civil violation, it would be criminal.
I would estimate the actual number at much higher than 9 out of 10. In my business (restaurant chain) I'm in charge of a approx 100 cameras at a couple dozen locations.
Of the burglaries and robberies that I know of, at least half were inside jobs, with former or current employees to blame. So well over 99% of theft is internal, in my company. Camera positioning definitely reflects that.
That's a generalization - and a bad one. Each industry has different statistics. Each area has different statistics. The combination of industry and area creates different statistics (ie: gas station in a bad neighborhood, compared to a cell phone store in an upper class neighborhood).
When I used to work at CompUSA (as a Tech Manager and MOD), 99% of our theft/robberies was by customers. Only ONE employee fired for theft, and two others where the amount was so negligible that it could be excused as cashier error (under $5).
I'd suspect that, if it's like any of the restaurant chains I have worked in (supervisor, server, etc), most customers/outsiders would never think of robbing a restaurant (in comparison to something like a gas station or such). I know anyone who gives it thought would realize that it would require (a) forcing someone into the office to unlock the safe to get money out, or (b) robbing each server (ya know... the ones who actually hold the money till it goes in the safe?). Not quite like robbing a gas station with an actual register. Now of course, some restaurants are a bit different and dont fit that scenario (Denny's, and other places that have registers).
Regardless, my point is, your statistic is simply applicable only to your particular situation - not to businesses as a whole. For instance, of bank robberies, how many do you think are by employees compared to the number by outsiders?
Statistics are bad enough when they do "apply" - but they are even worse when they are highly inapplicable to the situation as a whole.
And let's not kid ourselves; the reason you have cameras on store clerks is because store clerks steal....
That's an overbroad and relatively incorrect generalization. I know. I (among other things) install these things for a living.
(1) While the area you live in may not run into issues with thieves, many of our clients get robbed once or twice a month. It all depends on the store location.
(2) The "over the register" cameras, IF they are suitable resolution to record stuff like denomination and such, are ALSO there for the store's protection, in the event a customer gives in one denomination and claims it was another "Hey, I gave you a $50, not a $20"
(3) Most of the cams installed in such situations won't record denomination - even if they are high enough quality, many installers do not increase the record resolution on the DVR for the camera over the register... so the picture recorded is not good enough quality. While those are a deterrent to prevent employee theft, you simply forget/neglect the fact that there are often a dozen more cameras in the store that are NOT pointed at the register.
For every camera we install over a store clerk, we install a dozen more pointing towards the potential non-employee thieves. And for each cam over the store clerk, there are 1-4 more pointing at the register area pointed at where customers will be.
Regardless, the point that was trying to be made above is, such things are accepted and commonplace (thus, your point, generalization aside, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand) - yet, recording a public servant when that ps is conducting duty on behalf of the public they serve, is resulting in criminal charges (often felonies) against those recording them. It's an ironic and idiotic situation.
Making it even more funny is watching things like COPS (the TV show), where one can somewhat frequently see cops being abusive, WHILE being recorded. For every 4-5 hours of it I watch, there's generally at least 2 or so incidents where a non-resisting suspect gets kicked and beaten while lying on the floor.
No, not all cops are bad... but they should be able to be held accountable to the same standard and review as anyone else (like the general public walking down the streets of NYC or other big cities with all the "crime cams" installed, or a speeder being pulled over for a ticket and being recorded by the in car cam in the police cruiser). I suspect the incidents of "bad cops" would end up decreasing somewhat, if they could be held to equal review as those others (the general public) who are innocent until proven guilty.
And nagging to the desktop users being held back by the IT department does what? Or do you just not read the posts that you are replying to?
(1) It was meant to be somewhat humorous.
(2) They will hopefully nag MANAGEMENT - you know, the ones who made the bad decision to go with a proprietary solution for something that's supposed to be open standard.
Any decent IT department will want something that is easy to maintain, cross platform, standards compliant, etc. Since the MANAGEMENT will be getting these nag screens, it will hopefully push them to letting the IT team do their job properly.
Though my comment was meant as mostly humor (ummm, didnt the "your computer may explode" part give you any inkling of that?), the fact is, such (sans the humor) warnings in nag screens have helped push MANAGEMENT of certain companies to allowing their IT department to do what's right... "Gee, my IT guys arent just trying to do unneeded work... what they've been telling me is true. Maybe we should invest in replacing this troublesome infrastructure we have."
The Windows Firewall software bundled in Vista and 7 is a very powerful, very complex and highly configurable software firewall. It is just as good as the ones bundled by the likes of Symantec or AVG et. al. if not more. Just because you doesn't know how to use it doesn't mean it is not a valid solution.
Let me fix that for you:
The Windows Firewall bundled with Vista and 7 is far more powerful than the joke of a "firewall" that came with earlier versions of Windows. Though it is highly configurable, VIRTUALLY NO regular user would have a clue on how to configure it. As a matter of fact, it sometimes even tries to block portions of Windows and SHOULD be tweaked or configured. But again, virtually no regular user knows how to do this. This is where a good anti-malware program that knows how to do such things comes in handy. Preferably one (UNLIKE MSE) that allows a more experienced user to override it's choices or actions.
Get it now? Too many of us (NOTE: I say "US" because I too am guilty of this at times) forget that what seems simple, easy and straightforward to us, is beyond rocket science for the regular user. So, as a side note and continued response, I DO know how to use it. That makes it useful for ME, but NOT so useful for the average user who doesn't have a clue what a firewall does, much less how to properly configure it. Do you know how many times I've found a firewall disabled because the user didnt know how to create a rule for their favorite video chat app or their favorite game, and the firewall auto-blocked it? Get it yet?
Stop thinking like the experienced tech savvy user you probably are. For the "avg Joe Computer User", the Windows Firewall is relatively useless WHEN COMPARED TO a solution that actively/proactively/repeatedly is ensuring it is properly configured and running.
probably because heuristic scanning, network traffic inspection and firewall support are HIGHLY overrated features in anti virus software. Heuristics causes far more false positives and generally still fails on a lot of stuff you would expect it to catch. PErsonally I don't want an AV product TOUCHING/INTEGRATING or getting within a nats fart of my firewall. As for network traffic inspection, if the firewall+AV are doing its job in the first place this is a redundant feature. All the other vendors spout all of this crap as they are desperate to differentiate themselves with pointless and over hyped features.
Are you dense? Really, just curious. If people are running MSE because it's free (and let's assume we are discussing v1.x), then they ARENT running a Firewall. You aren't one of the stupid ones who thinks the "Windows Firewall" is a valid solution, do you? Especially on it's own as opposed to at least tied to something else that makes it somewhat useful, do you?
In oddball scenarios, perhaps what you write applies... but how many people spend money on a real firewall, and then look for and choose the WORST mainstream free anti-malware software (MSE) for the rest of their protection?
Now do you see why your response makes NO sense? Nothing personal... but that's why your answer makes you seem real dense. You aren't thinking about it in anything close to a real world situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of.
(1) You must pay to make such a post
(2) Your report cannot cite specifics that may indicate the author of the illegal complaint (thus in this case, the company could not say "John Doe was found guilty of libel over this post, and here's why")
(3) such posts are reviewed and approved (or not) by ripoffreports. Their criteria is pretty vague.
The site seems hell bent on and built upon the idea of making money off negative publicity, with little concern for counterclaims and positive publicity (possibly because negative publicity attracts more people, and thus is their money maker). But that's all just how they "seem" to operate. Their actual business model may be different in intention, even if the end result doesnt seem to be.
Does the New York Times go back and redact the microfilm version of their paper? Or do they print a correction?
Why jump to erase history? Just because it is easier to do than in the past?
Ah yes... the correction ripoffreports WONT post? That correction? Or the correction that the maligned party must PAY MONEY TO POST? That one? The one that's VERY difficult to actually get on ripoffreports, and gets reviewed to be determined if ripoffreports will allow it? That correction? The correction that cannot cite WHO the loser who broke the law in their initial claim is? That correction?
See the problem now?
Bingo.
No, NOT Bingo, or any other idiotic game metaphor you choose to use.
Ripoffreports KNOWINGLY is using ILLEGAL speech to make money. First through the publicity, advertising revenue and membership fees they earn, and secondly (in various cases) through charging companies who have been illegally maligned a FEE to post a correction/counterclaim, etc.
AFAIK, benefiting from illegal actions is not legal. That is what they are doing. There is no free speech protection covering ILLEGAL speech. And there is no free speech protection covering another benefiting from speech they know is ILLEGAL.
It is obviously a principle issue since they talk about the first Amendment and their principle is that they do not remove posts(no qualifications), they stuck to their principles and didn't remove it. The court held that they are true to their word, and certainly did not act in concert or participation with any other party(including court orders, which serves to strengthen their case on appeal in my mind).
That's possibly because of an inadequate understanding of the site. The website owners, by their actions and requirements, create an uneven playing field that favors those who make such inaccurate statements, by making it either costly or impossible for those maligned to post counterstatements or corrections.
While this may also seem a First Amendment win, it's also something that can be perverted into a tool to malign anyone or any company with full knowledge that such statements will not be taken down, and cannot be contested or countered without either (a) lots of difficulty, (b) monetary contributions to the site, or (c) simply cannot do it at all due to the difficulties the site owners create for such actions.
Of course, IANAL, and those who are, and are dealing with this, may have already tried pointing out such issues or found they do not apply - but I'd think they should.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/27/sysadmin_wyse_thin_client/
Cheers!
PS: they Wyse openSUSE friendly ones.
http://www.wyse.com/thincomputing/index.asp
http://www.wyse.com/products/hardware/index.asp
See? This is nice: http://www.wyse.com/products/hardware/thinclients/R50LE/index.asp
Amazingly wonderful - if only the world would move off Windows. Again, as I've stated before, it's not a matter of how wonderful the technology is. Sadly.
Exactly! That's ALL accomplishable without thin clients. We used (where we didn't have thin client setups) full XP installs that were locked and maintained by "corporate", including updates, patches, etc. The machines would install them (and any new software) at night, restart and be ready the next morning. ALL the client systems were maintained by corporate except in rare instances, at which time, there were only a couple of us at any given store (if even that many) who were granted access to the boxes with sufficient privileges to do anything.
And that's why, thin or thick client, the same security and management aspects can still be done remotely from a central location. Which is yet another selling point AGAINST thin clients when it comes to any business with an IT department who knows how to implement such things.
Using thin clients in an enterprise or small to medium business environment gives you a lot of benefits to the long term bottom line. From a security perspective, you cut the "attack surface" of your network very sharply - from dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of desktops that each need antivirus, security updates, administration, and security monitoring, down to a handful of servers that you can lock down pretty tightly. From a support perspective, you are no longer managing all those desktops, you are now managing a handful of servers.
BULLSHIT From that statement alone I can only surmise that you have never ever worked in IT, the client is ALWAYS part of the equation, a thin client still has firmware and connectivity issues....
I didnt write that - you're responding to the wrong person for that one. As I indicated, he wasn't actually correct, except in theory.
Now, once you've gotten your THICK client computer, running your THIN client setup (wait... is it Windows 7? Is that thin client possible? Or is it "thin" client possible?).
Technically with Windows 7 enterprise you can set up a client to boot from a VHD (I have seen this implemented as this is how Windows deployment services works), and in-fact to use network licenses of software(office etc.) however I've never actually seen this implemented. That said you could in theory go for a medium client? if that is a term? where the software is run locally but is based on network licenses. Personally I wouldn't want to try it, but that's me
Agreed. And thus the problems I tried pointing out. By the time you are done, you're either loading a very big VHD image, or still running the "big stuff" from locally installed copies. And picking the first is painfully slow even on gigabit ethernet. I haven't seen anything like this done (actually deployed that is... tried? yes... Used? No) since the "Windows XP days".
I'm going to call BS partly on this. Most of the business world is using basic productivity software, probably Microsoft Office, with some users needing access to an accounting package or CRM.
This brings us to a point I made earlier about much of this stuff no longer being "thin". Please, oh please, try to run Office 2010 on a true thin client setup. PLEASE. Do try. Now, once you've gotten your THICK client computer, running your THIN client setup (wait... is it Windows 7? Is that thin client possible? Or is it "thin" client possible?). Now explain the added expenditure in new server hardware to support your "thin" client setups.
Then explain why much of the stuff needed to do ancilliary work (ie: surfing the web for whatever reasons; research, visit competitors' sites, visit client sites, visit suppliers sites, etc) just wont work on a true thin (software AND hardware) client setup... oh yeah, because browsers and (ugh) Flash need better hardware. This (all of the above and what else I mention in other posts) is what brings us to the "unsuitability" factor.
It does NOT matter if it's the best technical solution to the task. Those with the expertise to know that are NOT the ones generally in charge of the purse strings.
It makes PERFECT sense from many TECHNICAL standpoints to implement a thin client setup. As far as businesses are concerned, because most are NOT run by tech savvy people, it makes NO sense.
Gotta remember, things work because of the IT department. Hard to convince a non techy person to spend more money - or the same amount of money for "less" when the system already works. Does that now make sense?
Thin clients aren't so much about up front cost as they are about reducing long term support costs. Using thin clients in an enterprise or small to medium business environment gives you a lot of benefits to the long term bottom line. From a security perspective, you cut the "attack surface" of your network very sharply - from dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of desktops that each need antivirus, security updates, administration, and security monitoring, down to a handful of servers that you can lock down pretty tightly.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. But close enough. Anyway, I have covered that all below. *I* am aware of this. *YOU* are aware of this. Most upper management in mid to large business are NOT aware of this, and CANNOT be convinced of this (hence, too numerous places to count that SHOULD be running thin clients do NOT). If the IT department is doing their jobs, NONE of what you mention is a problem to begin with. Hard to sell someone non techy on a solution that they will get "less" on to solve a non-problem (because the IT gang knows what they are doing).
NOT JUST TO YOU - BUT TO EVERYONE:
You ALL forget this is about why thin clients aren't being adopted and aren't suitable. This has NOTHING to do with the accurate technical reasons you all suggest. If you had remembered that when you read my post, perhaps you would have understood the context of it.
For your first paragraph, see my post directly above.
For the second... banks rarely get thin clients - yet pretty much run telnet apps with some specialized drivers for the printers, MICR readers and bill counters. They barely need a thin client. Sadly, they instead run full blown copies of Windows with a telnet window and some web apps.
Sad, isnt it? Perfect client base pushed in the wrong direction.
As for "there aren't suitable thin client options for most businesses" my point is this... Windows 7 is hardly thin client capable on what WAS thin client hardware. Even Citrix WinFrame and such require something decent for such "thin" clients. And while the up front costs are the same (and support costs less), most businesses dont think about such things and look at it the wrong way, as I covered in my last two posts. THAT is what makes it unsuitable.
See my point? It doesn't (or rarely) matter(s) if it's suitable to the TASK. It matters if it's suitable to the CUSTOMER BASE one is targeting it at. And sadly, nowadays, it is not - otherwise banks, insurance companies, numerous chain stores, restaurants, etc; would all be running thin clients. I know I should have clarified further. Hope this does.
Well, I don't know how you did your math, but you sorta screwed up some numbers somewhere along the lines.... Thin clients are cheaper, you need to look at patching, and managing all those machines, warranties, and everything else. Thin clients mean that there is no local profiles, no local domain requirements, a stripped down windows means no patching and if you do you netboot the machine and serve it out over TFTP on a saturday when nobody is around (Including you!) and just do another run later to deal with the exceptions. Your down time on a properly implemented thin client solution is a LOT lower than what your going to end up with using standard desktops, as a CTO though, your going to have to realise that your going to pay higher wages to get the right guys who understand the technologies and can properly administer it
*I* understand all of that. *YOU* understand all of that. **Most of those on Slashdot** understand all of that.
Now... tell me which boss of any decent sized company understands all of that? And which ones see it as a waste of money for the reasons I indicated. I know I should have made that clear above... but I figured we'd all experienced those situations where justifying such expenses/purchases for legitimate reasons get shot down by those in upper management that dont understand squat about technology.
Really, this is so simple. There aren't suitable thin client options for most businesses. And Microsoft is to blame. No, this isn't an anti-Microsoft rant - there's no reason for them to support (or more accurately, PUSH) such a model. It boils down to this: Windows is hardly "thin client" status anymore. Computers are dirt cheap. Buying a thin client machine costs about as much as buying the cheapo level desktop most businesses need (the ones that need more powerful hardware aren't suited for thin clients, eg: CGI and video editing). Microsoft used to (still may?) charge the same license fee for the thin client as they would if it was a full fledged desktop and full OS.
Thus, what's the purpose of spending the same amount of money for a thin client machine that one would for a full fledged desktop and full OS?
It doesn't matter how wonderful the technology behind thin clients is, or how wonderful it gets... it's a waste of money for most scenarios.
And of course, Microsoft's business model is in better shape without thin clients... more support people, more certifications, more money generated. Smarter business approach for them.
Bollocks.
People have been hijacking and blowing up planes for decades and nobody's economies collapsed. It's only since it happened over American soil that The Terrorist Fear took over and America started fucking everyone (including themselves) in the ass
Nah... I am pretty sure they only grope you. Unless something has changed recently.
Bollocks.
People have been hijacking and blowing up planes for decades and nobody's economies collapsed. It's only since it happened over American soil that The Terrorist Fear took over
Nah... I am pretty sure they only grope you. Unless something has changed recently.
Gee, TSA wasting tax payer money? Who'da thunk Chertoff's big money maker would be a big money waster for the rest of us "little people"?
Doesnt matter anyway... someone at the GAO will be fired, this will be back-burnered or disappear, and in the name of (a false sense of) security, things will continue as usual.
...at least, that's what I'd believe if I thought this whole issue was being blown out of proportion to fund govt contracts with contractors that have nice easy ways in (of which, Chertoff would be just one on the list).
" that only leaves office, which does have a low-cost student edition. Which is still expensive for a student, but not ridiculously so."
Microsoft just recently dumped OGA. Guess why.
-- BMO
Oh please. Because it's being replaced with something else. Plain and simple. Dig DEEP into the GA tools built into Windows 7 and Vista. Look at the neat open hooks for the stuff. And watch and wait to see what happens next.
1.5 months? $300 feeds me (as a student) for 16 weeks, or closer to 4 months. (spending £12/week on food.)
Ah yes... I remember those days... Ramen Noodles every night... maybe some ketchup to spice things up and make it a little different. ;-)
I imagine they tolerate student piracy so that those students will go on to become professional users and pay for a licence
Adobe offers a student license for a very affordable price. Last I looked it was $300 for a specialized suite of CS5 programs.
WTF, are you insane? My girlfriend (who is a student) will eat for 1 1/2 months on that 300$. Affordable my ass.
Dude, did you forget to add the word "hypothetical" before girlfriend? If not, you've gotta tell the rest of us /. nerds your secret!!!
That aside, very true. I still remember those days (the money->food days).
>knowingly facilitating the violation of such copyright laws
So where does that stop?
-The office stationary supply store that sold Post-It notes for pirate's office to write passwords on? -The 7-11 that sold Doritos for their webmaster? -Dell for selling them a laptop? -Intel for selling a CPU to Dell who sold it onward? -Google for linking to them? -And everybody else for linking to Google?
Ummm... what? That is all (well, except Google, but that's an issue I've also discussed - a totally different one, where their recent plans may put their safe harbor in jeopardy (their planned filtering)) totally unrelated. Selling Doritos to their webmasters is NOT making money off handling financial transactions for the actual sales of pirated goods.
Ok, fine. You are now liable for any criminal transactions you don't block.
If you don't like that, you will send my money where I tell you to.
Yes, but this is also similar to a Google story recently, (and a comment I made about the possible dangers of Google proactively filtering content of this nature). For whatever reason, the pressures in this respect seem to be causing a lot of big companies to bow down and make what could be really big mistakes. These mistakes invalidate parts of the DMCA protection by proving the company/companies can filter stuff - but you already allude to that.
Why should mastercard care if they're being used on websites that "host pirated..."? They still get to collect their fees. I thought that was all that mattered nowadays.
Possibly because there are laws that could hold them liable for such actions? Possibly because the **AA are holding those laws over their heads? While IANAL, I would suspect that knowingly facilitating the violation of such copyright laws is not legal. And because Visa/MC make money off it, it's not a civil violation, it would be criminal.
I would estimate the actual number at much higher than 9 out of 10. In my business (restaurant chain) I'm in charge of a approx 100 cameras at a couple dozen locations.
Of the burglaries and robberies that I know of, at least half were inside jobs, with former or current employees to blame. So well over 99% of theft is internal, in my company. Camera positioning definitely reflects that.
That's a generalization - and a bad one. Each industry has different statistics. Each area has different statistics. The combination of industry and area creates different statistics (ie: gas station in a bad neighborhood, compared to a cell phone store in an upper class neighborhood).
When I used to work at CompUSA (as a Tech Manager and MOD), 99% of our theft/robberies was by customers. Only ONE employee fired for theft, and two others where the amount was so negligible that it could be excused as cashier error (under $5).
I'd suspect that, if it's like any of the restaurant chains I have worked in (supervisor, server, etc), most customers/outsiders would never think of robbing a restaurant (in comparison to something like a gas station or such). I know anyone who gives it thought would realize that it would require (a) forcing someone into the office to unlock the safe to get money out, or (b) robbing each server (ya know... the ones who actually hold the money till it goes in the safe?). Not quite like robbing a gas station with an actual register. Now of course, some restaurants are a bit different and dont fit that scenario (Denny's, and other places that have registers).
Regardless, my point is, your statistic is simply applicable only to your particular situation - not to businesses as a whole. For instance, of bank robberies, how many do you think are by employees compared to the number by outsiders?
Statistics are bad enough when they do "apply" - but they are even worse when they are highly inapplicable to the situation as a whole.
And let's not kid ourselves; the reason you have cameras on store clerks is because store clerks steal....
That's an overbroad and relatively incorrect generalization. I know. I (among other things) install these things for a living.
(1) While the area you live in may not run into issues with thieves, many of our clients get robbed once or twice a month. It all depends on the store location.
(2) The "over the register" cameras, IF they are suitable resolution to record stuff like denomination and such, are ALSO there for the store's protection, in the event a customer gives in one denomination and claims it was another "Hey, I gave you a $50, not a $20"
(3) Most of the cams installed in such situations won't record denomination - even if they are high enough quality, many installers do not increase the record resolution on the DVR for the camera over the register... so the picture recorded is not good enough quality. While those are a deterrent to prevent employee theft, you simply forget/neglect the fact that there are often a dozen more cameras in the store that are NOT pointed at the register.
For every camera we install over a store clerk, we install a dozen more pointing towards the potential non-employee thieves. And for each cam over the store clerk, there are 1-4 more pointing at the register area pointed at where customers will be.
Regardless, the point that was trying to be made above is, such things are accepted and commonplace (thus, your point, generalization aside, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand) - yet, recording a public servant when that ps is conducting duty on behalf of the public they serve, is resulting in criminal charges (often felonies) against those recording them. It's an ironic and idiotic situation.
Making it even more funny is watching things like COPS (the TV show), where one can somewhat frequently see cops being abusive, WHILE being recorded. For every 4-5 hours of it I watch, there's generally at least 2 or so incidents where a non-resisting suspect gets kicked and beaten while lying on the floor.
No, not all cops are bad... but they should be able to be held accountable to the same standard and review as anyone else (like the general public walking down the streets of NYC or other big cities with all the "crime cams" installed, or a speeder being pulled over for a ticket and being recorded by the in car cam in the police cruiser). I suspect the incidents of "bad cops" would end up decreasing somewhat, if they could be held to equal review as those others (the general public) who are innocent until proven guilty.
And nagging to the desktop users being held back by the IT department does what? Or do you just not read the posts that you are replying to?
(1) It was meant to be somewhat humorous.
(2) They will hopefully nag MANAGEMENT - you know, the ones who made the bad decision to go with a proprietary solution for something that's supposed to be open standard.
Any decent IT department will want something that is easy to maintain, cross platform, standards compliant, etc. Since the MANAGEMENT will be getting these nag screens, it will hopefully push them to letting the IT team do their job properly.
Though my comment was meant as mostly humor (ummm, didnt the "your computer may explode" part give you any inkling of that?), the fact is, such (sans the humor) warnings in nag screens have helped push MANAGEMENT of certain companies to allowing their IT department to do what's right... "Gee, my IT guys arent just trying to do unneeded work... what they've been telling me is true. Maybe we should invest in replacing this troublesome infrastructure we have."
I bring it up, because I have seen it happen.
The Windows Firewall software bundled in Vista and 7 is a very powerful, very complex and highly configurable software firewall. It is just as good as the ones bundled by the likes of Symantec or AVG et. al. if not more. Just because you doesn't know how to use it doesn't mean it is not a valid solution.
Let me fix that for you:
The Windows Firewall bundled with Vista and 7 is far more powerful than the joke of a "firewall" that came with earlier versions of Windows. Though it is highly configurable, VIRTUALLY NO regular user would have a clue on how to configure it. As a matter of fact, it sometimes even tries to block portions of Windows and SHOULD be tweaked or configured. But again, virtually no regular user knows how to do this. This is where a good anti-malware program that knows how to do such things comes in handy. Preferably one (UNLIKE MSE) that allows a more experienced user to override it's choices or actions.
Get it now? Too many of us (NOTE: I say "US" because I too am guilty of this at times) forget that what seems simple, easy and straightforward to us, is beyond rocket science for the regular user. So, as a side note and continued response, I DO know how to use it. That makes it useful for ME, but NOT so useful for the average user who doesn't have a clue what a firewall does, much less how to properly configure it. Do you know how many times I've found a firewall disabled because the user didnt know how to create a rule for their favorite video chat app or their favorite game, and the firewall auto-blocked it? Get it yet?
Stop thinking like the experienced tech savvy user you probably are. For the "avg Joe Computer User", the Windows Firewall is relatively useless WHEN COMPARED TO a solution that actively/proactively/repeatedly is ensuring it is properly configured and running.
probably because heuristic scanning, network traffic inspection and firewall support are HIGHLY overrated features in anti virus software. Heuristics causes far more false positives and generally still fails on a lot of stuff you would expect it to catch. PErsonally I don't want an AV product TOUCHING/INTEGRATING or getting within a nats fart of my firewall. As for network traffic inspection, if the firewall+AV are doing its job in the first place this is a redundant feature. All the other vendors spout all of this crap as they are desperate to differentiate themselves with pointless and over hyped features.
Are you dense? Really, just curious. If people are running MSE because it's free (and let's assume we are discussing v1.x), then they ARENT running a Firewall. You aren't one of the stupid ones who thinks the "Windows Firewall" is a valid solution, do you? Especially on it's own as opposed to at least tied to something else that makes it somewhat useful, do you?
In oddball scenarios, perhaps what you write applies... but how many people spend money on a real firewall, and then look for and choose the WORST mainstream free anti-malware software (MSE) for the rest of their protection?
Now do you see why your response makes NO sense? Nothing personal... but that's why your answer makes you seem real dense. You aren't thinking about it in anything close to a real world situation.