I understand your point, but it somewhat feeds the point I was aiming for as well: a number of IT people see the telcos as process-bound and slow-moving, and they feel that's not an environment that they want to work in. If that sort of environment is the end result of unionizing, then a lot of IT people (obviously not all, but many) won't want to unionize.
It's obviously a trade-off: if you want the protection a union offers, then some bureaucracy comes with it. But, so far most IT people haven't been willing to make that trade.
That's going to be very dependent on the union. (Devil's always in the details.) Many IT folks still have the free-wheeling "just get out of my way & I'll get this fixed" attitude, and in those cases union interference in their work will not be welcomed.
Basically, a collective bargaining agreement is one thing...having someone outside the organization set the bounds of your job (and set limits on how you can be promoted, or which incompetent f-up can be fired) is quite another. I won't say a union is impossible, but it probably wouldn't be one of the big names.
ICANN reported in August 2009, that prior to implementing excess domain deletion charges, the peak month for domain tastings was over 15 million domain names. After the $0.20 fee was implemented, this dropped to around 2 million domain names per month. As a result of the further increase in charges for excess domain deletions, implemented starting April 2009, the number of domain tastings dropped to below 60 thousand per month.
In short, not only have you mis-understood how many IPs the abusers are using (as others have pointed out), you're also behind the times for what people are doing about that behaviour.
I don't see why the Brits couldn't just fine him up the wazoo and make him work for free while on house-arrest.
They can't do that because the Brits have a treaty with the US that obligates them to hand over crime suspects to the US if requested. (The lopsidedness of that treaty is also an issue here.)
A few quick translations for folks who (like the questioner) haven't been to London before:
A-Z: the street maps of London are a (softcover) book of their own, called the A-Z. You can buy it once you get there. The streets of London can be *very* confusing without an A-Z, so if you're planning to walk around, one of these will be very valuable.
TFL: Tube for London, aka the subway.
Personally, I'd recommend the following: If you have enough space on camera memory sticks to do without the laptop, do so. I spent a month in Europe this past summer, and the only tech I brought with me was a camera and an iPod Touch. The Touch allowed me to check mail/websites/etc and use Skype at various Wifi locations to call whomever I needed to, which realistically was all I needed while on vacation. I also grabbed a multi-country plug adapter that also included a USB power port, and just carried that in my bags (it was quite small). In short, your camera, some extra memory sticks, and a smartphone should be enough to cover what you need...I think the laptop is just extra weight.
Also, if you're going to be in the UK at the winter solstice, go to Stonehenge that day. Yes, it'll be a madhouse, but that's part of the fun.
No, but there is a certain level of irony (or at least amusing superposition) when a security product has security vulnerabilities...after all, getting your company hacked because you put in security controls isn't the way one anticipates these things happening. To use a car analogy, it's as if belting your seatbelt led to *more* people dying.
He probably took it in because they have no budget to buy new ones...the part where it's made clear that he's not the only one using it is pretty telling. People were probably freaking out because it was the only working machine in the office.
No, they should be treated equally: everyone, including criminals, should have to live with the acts of their lives. Monica Lewinsky has to live with her history, so do I (though mine is so far less public), so should these guys.
I would argue that it really doesn't improve society to bury uncomfortable truths. The most healthy way to address a failure/error/f-up/etc, is to publicly and openly acknowledge that "yes, I did that, yes it was dumb and hurtful, no I won't do it again." Hiding from it allows the perpetrator to skip that acknowledgment step, and pretend that it never happened. That's not healthy, and it's not an improvement, because it skips the step where you learn from the mistake.
We teach our kids from a young age to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes, not to hide from them...why should we make an exception to that idea just because it involves a crime? And why would we want to encode that into law?
Me? I'm a bad example. Let's talk instead about Monica Lewinsky. She's a much better example.
Monica Lewinsky never served time and was never even accused of a crime. However, when you google her the first record that comes up will be about her involvement in a sex scandal that nearly brought down a sitting US president. She will carry that fact with her for the rest of her life. In fact, she's had to move out of the US due to her inability to live like a normal human being in the States. Why should convicted criminals have more rights to purge their histories than she does? After all, she wasn't even accused of a crime, never mind convicted.
To quote a comment above, there's a big step between re-integration/redemption and revision. The rest of us have to live with our histories, especially the public parts, why should criminals be exempt from that?
I would imagine that they're doing this off a running average, so a short time below the peak won't do...you'll have to pull your sampled average below the peak.
Except in this case the citizens *asked* the government to perform this service (hence the part about the referendum). This isn't the government "dabbling" in other services. This is a government doing exactly what it's citizens are asking it to.
That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here. They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays
Oh, nonsense. An organization the size of Oracle had to know that a merger like this would attract regulatory scrutiny. Every single news story about this has brought up that regulators would be looking at this one carefully. This shouldn't be a surprise that it's getting attention. Also, anyone who's paid attention to the Microsoft battles with the EU should have been aware they the EU competition regulators are much stricter than the US regulators.
Basically, for Oracle to pull this deal, they had a responsibility (I'll even go so far as to call it a fiduciary duty, since it's apparently costing them lots of money) to be ready for this scrutiny. This story seems to indicate that they weren't.
As has been mentioned above, it's most likely the lawyer took the case pro-bono or on a percentage-of-final-settlement agreement. The author likely spent nothing, but racked up many hours of lawyer costs.
Seriously, though, I grew up playing video games. Renouncing them would be like renouncing a part of my childhood...one that brought me a lot of joy. So I'm really not likely to do that. I suspect (but obviously have no hard evidence) that a lot of the folks here are similar...telling us to "go outside and get a life" is not really the best tactic.
Ye, gods, if ever there was a comment that needs an RTFA, it's yours.
There are two direct quotes in the article that make it clear this is not a vaccine that will ever be made available to the public because it's not effective enough. The story here is that a vaccine with statistically interesting effectiveness is *possible*. We weren't even sure that one was up till now.
Despicable? Seriously? So is WINE despicable when it allows Windows-only apps to run under Linux? How about changing your browser string to get around stupid website IE-only restrictions...is that practice "despicable?"
1) They landed on the X (well, with the X within the space defined by the legs of the craft). In fact, the craft didn't move much horizontally in the last 30 seconds or so...it pretty much hovered over the X for long enough to meet the 180 sec limit.
2) The flames were from the simulated lunar surface that it lit on fire, not the craft itself. If I were them, I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.
3) The contest is run in stages, and there are prizes for being the first (and second) team to finish each stage, so they did in fact claim a prize for being the first to finish stage 2 of the contest. Yes, there is still a stage 3, and there is a separate prize for being the first to finish stage 3.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your point, but it somewhat feeds the point I was aiming for as well: a number of IT people see the telcos as process-bound and slow-moving, and they feel that's not an environment that they want to work in. If that sort of environment is the end result of unionizing, then a lot of IT people (obviously not all, but many) won't want to unionize.
It's obviously a trade-off: if you want the protection a union offers, then some bureaucracy comes with it. But, so far most IT people haven't been willing to make that trade.
That's going to be very dependent on the union. (Devil's always in the details.) Many IT folks still have the free-wheeling "just get out of my way & I'll get this fixed" attitude, and in those cases union interference in their work will not be welcomed.
Basically, a collective bargaining agreement is one thing...having someone outside the organization set the bounds of your job (and set limits on how you can be promoted, or which incompetent f-up can be fired) is quite another. I won't say a union is impossible, but it probably wouldn't be one of the big names.
If you'd read the Domain Tasting wiki article rather that just ranting, you would have found the following:
In short, not only have you mis-understood how many IPs the abusers are using (as others have pointed out), you're also behind the times for what people are doing about that behaviour.
You missed the most likely new rule:
- Not allowed to wear pants.
Arrington: tech blogger/commentator/etc.
TechCrunch: his site:
CrunchPad: Arrington's idea for a cheap, tablet device that used a browser OS to do basic web stuff. He wanted it to cost ~ $200.
FusionGarage: The company Arrington's group partnered with to develop the OS & do some of the hardware integration work.
JooJoo: the name that FusionGarage released the CrunchPad under when they tried to go solo, ditching Arrington.
I don't see why the Brits couldn't just fine him up the wazoo and make him work for free while on house-arrest.
They can't do that because the Brits have a treaty with the US that obligates them to hand over crime suspects to the US if requested. (The lopsidedness of that treaty is also an issue here.)
Gah, early morning brain fail.
A few quick translations for folks who (like the questioner) haven't been to London before:
A-Z: the street maps of London are a (softcover) book of their own, called the A-Z. You can buy it once you get there. The streets of London can be *very* confusing without an A-Z, so if you're planning to walk around, one of these will be very valuable.
TFL: Tube for London, aka the subway.
Personally, I'd recommend the following: If you have enough space on camera memory sticks to do without the laptop, do so. I spent a month in Europe this past summer, and the only tech I brought with me was a camera and an iPod Touch. The Touch allowed me to check mail/websites/etc and use Skype at various Wifi locations to call whomever I needed to, which realistically was all I needed while on vacation. I also grabbed a multi-country plug adapter that also included a USB power port, and just carried that in my bags (it was quite small). In short, your camera, some extra memory sticks, and a smartphone should be enough to cover what you need...I think the laptop is just extra weight.
Also, if you're going to be in the UK at the winter solstice, go to Stonehenge that day. Yes, it'll be a madhouse, but that's part of the fun.
No, but there is a certain level of irony (or at least amusing superposition) when a security product has security vulnerabilities...after all, getting your company hacked because you put in security controls isn't the way one anticipates these things happening. To use a car analogy, it's as if belting your seatbelt led to *more* people dying.
He probably took it in because they have no budget to buy new ones...the part where it's made clear that he's not the only one using it is pretty telling. People were probably freaking out because it was the only working machine in the office.
No, they should be treated equally: everyone, including criminals, should have to live with the acts of their lives. Monica Lewinsky has to live with her history, so do I (though mine is so far less public), so should these guys.
I would argue that it really doesn't improve society to bury uncomfortable truths. The most healthy way to address a failure/error/f-up/etc, is to publicly and openly acknowledge that "yes, I did that, yes it was dumb and hurtful, no I won't do it again." Hiding from it allows the perpetrator to skip that acknowledgment step, and pretend that it never happened. That's not healthy, and it's not an improvement, because it skips the step where you learn from the mistake.
We teach our kids from a young age to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes, not to hide from them...why should we make an exception to that idea just because it involves a crime? And why would we want to encode that into law?
Me? I'm a bad example. Let's talk instead about Monica Lewinsky. She's a much better example.
Monica Lewinsky never served time and was never even accused of a crime. However, when you google her the first record that comes up will be about her involvement in a sex scandal that nearly brought down a sitting US president. She will carry that fact with her for the rest of her life. In fact, she's had to move out of the US due to her inability to live like a normal human being in the States. Why should convicted criminals have more rights to purge their histories than she does? After all, she wasn't even accused of a crime, never mind convicted.
To quote a comment above, there's a big step between re-integration/redemption and revision. The rest of us have to live with our histories, especially the public parts, why should criminals be exempt from that?
Mass = Energy...it evaporates by emitting other forms of energy (light, etc).
I would imagine that they're doing this off a running average, so a short time below the peak won't do...you'll have to pull your sampled average below the peak.
Football? Dude, we didn't leave you...you left us. Your card, turn it in.
Except in this case the citizens *asked* the government to perform this service (hence the part about the referendum). This isn't the government "dabbling" in other services. This is a government doing exactly what it's citizens are asking it to.
Oh, nonsense. An organization the size of Oracle had to know that a merger like this would attract regulatory scrutiny. Every single news story about this has brought up that regulators would be looking at this one carefully. This shouldn't be a surprise that it's getting attention. Also, anyone who's paid attention to the Microsoft battles with the EU should have been aware they the EU competition regulators are much stricter than the US regulators.
Basically, for Oracle to pull this deal, they had a responsibility (I'll even go so far as to call it a fiduciary duty, since it's apparently costing them lots of money) to be ready for this scrutiny. This story seems to indicate that they weren't.
Someone trying to prove a point.
As has been mentioned above, it's most likely the lawyer took the case pro-bono or on a percentage-of-final-settlement agreement. The author likely spent nothing, but racked up many hours of lawyer costs.
Do yourself a favor...just say no to video games
Heretic!
Seriously, though, I grew up playing video games. Renouncing them would be like renouncing a part of my childhood...one that brought me a lot of joy. So I'm really not likely to do that. I suspect (but obviously have no hard evidence) that a lot of the folks here are similar...telling us to "go outside and get a life" is not really the best tactic.
(And let's be honest: I hate hiking.)
Ye, gods, if ever there was a comment that needs an RTFA, it's yours.
There are two direct quotes in the article that make it clear this is not a vaccine that will ever be made available to the public because it's not effective enough. The story here is that a vaccine with statistically interesting effectiveness is *possible*. We weren't even sure that one was up till now.
Despicable? Seriously? So is WINE despicable when it allows Windows-only apps to run under Linux? How about changing your browser string to get around stupid website IE-only restrictions...is that practice "despicable?"
Hyperbole does not help an argument.
Wow...so many things wrong in so few sentences.
1) They landed on the X (well, with the X within the space defined by the legs of the craft). In fact, the craft didn't move much horizontally in the last 30 seconds or so...it pretty much hovered over the X for long enough to meet the 180 sec limit.
2) The flames were from the simulated lunar surface that it lit on fire, not the craft itself. If I were them, I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.
3) The contest is run in stages, and there are prizes for being the first (and second) team to finish each stage, so they did in fact claim a prize for being the first to finish stage 2 of the contest. Yes, there is still a stage 3, and there is a separate prize for being the first to finish stage 3.
No, but they were allowed to assume a spherical truck.
It's the full-disclosure mailing list....be happy it's not in leet.