Link to Original Source
Beyond the obvious problems with the concept (the cost of goods sold for the coils themselves, the extreme improbability of a kerosene-powered drone built by college students being able to make intercontinental flights, the fact that there's no way in hell the FAA or the State Department would permit such a flight, etc.), there's several big red flags on this that scream "scam:"
This KS is an excellent example of a KS from which you want to stay far, far away. Most of the time, the KS community is pretty wise to these sorts of things, but I suppose the combination of "North Korea," "tesla coils," and submissions to Slashdot will lure people in. Don't be a sucker.
As much as people complain about its occasionally byzantine bureaucracy and its sometimes lapses into small-time corruption (such as giving open terms to the politically powerful), Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (MLGW) serves over 400k subscribers, rapidly fixes outages in a major metropolitan area prone to thunderstorm damage, repeatedly wins awards for reliability of service and water quality, and has a AA bond rating. It offers extremely favorable terms and payment programs for low-income subscribers. Oh, yeah, and it also has .
But hey, municipal utilities can't do anything right, right?
The problem isn't municipal utilities. The problem is poor process and intentional handicapping. When you have neither of these -- for instance, because your municipal utility is run as an independent organization with elected oversight that has actual skin in the game (after all, if you live in the city and use the utility, you have a good reason to not have it suck) -- the results are positive, and there's some great examples of how this works.
While I'm not a lawyer, I would assume that Microsoft would have to keep that promise by the principles of equitable and promissory estoppel. Reliance upon the promise (which has been around for several years now) is reasonable, and so Microsoft attempting to revoke it and sue would immediately cause damage to those who did so. I think an extremely strong argument could be made in court that the promise more or less permanently estops Microsoft from patent actions regarding the
We use SCCM extensively at my office, and yes, it's entirely possible to tell it to reimage every single computer. You just need to target the deployment at "All Systems" and make it mandatory. My guess is that some admin picked the wrong collection, which is fairly easy to do in SCCM 2007 (2012 has Collection folders, which helps with that), and there's no warning messages -- just a summary of "this deployment is going to these devices, click Finish to do it." Of course, most other mass management tools assume that the admins know what they're doing, so they don't have much in the way of guard rails either.
One of the more obnoxious elements of SCCM is that there's no real way to recall a command you send out; clients pick up policy at periodic intervals, and without manual intervention, they'll just grab the policy and do what it says even if you kill the server in question. You can block deployments by taking down distribution points (if the clients can't grab content, they won't run the deployment), but you still have to be fairly quick about it to stop it.
What we do to prevent these sorts of disasters is implement process around the use of the ConfigMgr console and ensure only the people who know how to use it actually use it. To prevent an OS reimaging incident, our OS deployments go through a static set of collections by process and are always optional (requiring a manual touch, either at PXE boot or in the UI) except for a specific set of collections that are segregated in their own folder and have names and descriptions with scary words that make it clear what's going to happen. For instance, in our "Clean Reimage" folder, we have a collection that says, "Windows 7 Reimage (Clean, PXE, Forced)" with a description to the effect of, "*** A computer placed in this collection will be REIMAGED and LOSE ALL LOCAL DATA. Local state is NOT preserved or transferred. ***" If we were a larger IT organization, we'd probably use SCCM's role-based security to limit access to clean reimages to a specific group of people.
If you actually bother to read the Federal Register text, you can see in the second paragraph of the introduction that the JOBS Act, and this subsequent regulatory structure, only applies to crowdfunding where the reward is a security. It specifically explains that this is different from the current model of crowdfunding in the U.S., where the donors receive some "token of value" related to the project, not a share of future financial returns. The SEC isn't trying to regulate the current system, but is trying (as directed by that law) to allow crowdfunding where the donor award is a security; the current regulatory structure, based on the Securities Act, largely makes this sort of model impossible due to the various requirements of public offerings.
So, there's nothing to get up in arms about. This is just a move by the SEC to allow something that isn't currently permissible under U.S. law, not an attempt to "tax Kickstarter" or "regulate Indiegogo" or whatever other nonsense people claim.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?