I see lots of "oh, it's easily defeatable" blah blah blah here.
Naturally, if one bothers to go out an look at the legislation and motivation behind this, one would find it's no different than the serial number stamp on firearms. You can't get a conviction based on micro-stamped brass at a crime scene, any more than you can get a conviction just on finding the murder weapon (complete with intact serial number stamped on the frame) at the scene. One still has to place the gun in an offender's hand (in either instance).
It's an aid to crime solving, in the same way serial numbers on the gun itself are an aid. It gives the police investigation a good place to start looking, nothing more, nothing less. It's not evidence that the owner committed the crime; one still has to prove that the owner fired the gun in question, just like you have to do with gun frame serial numbers . For the purpose it is intended to serve, microstamping the firing pin is a very good idea, and has roughly the same utility as gun frame serial numbers do. As such, it's actually a great investigative aid, given that brass is much more likely to be left at a crime scene than a gun itself, and that criminals are highly unlikely to be able to gather all expended brass, which means that at least some of the brass almost certainly comes from the weapon used in the crime.
Certainly there are ways to subvert this, but they're not much more likely than filing the serial number off a gun, and we all know how many guns used in crimes have them filed off (hint: not many). Gun crimes (like the vast majority of all crimes) are not well-planned by super-level-headed big brain geniuses that think of all possible outcomes, then coolly remember to execute everything flawlessly. Crime is sloppy by nature, with gun crimes even more so, so the utility of this goes up with the amount of sloppiness of the criminal. Hell, even "professional" mob hits are notoriously unprofessional.
I don't know where you get the idea that the US keeps it's "first strike" nukes in Europe.
The US long ago (20+ years) removed the IRBM and GLCM from Europe, as part of IRNFT in 1988. Since then, the US nuclear presence in Europe has been limited to gravity bombs (which, most certainly, AREN'T first strike weapons). And, we're not even sure that the US still keeps those bombs active, as the US firmly refuses to "confirm or deny" their presence.
The US's current first-strike capable weapons are the Trident II D5 missiles on the Ohio class subs, and the Minuteman III ICBMs in the central US. Neither of which are anywhere near Europe or the proposed missile defense system.
Because, for a "meritocracy", there's a whole lots of sexist bullshit going on in tech, and I'm not just talking about management.
Part of the reason that women aren't more prevalent in tech, is that as soon as it becomes known that a female is present in a discussion (on-line, or in-person), the tone of the discussion changes radically. Women have a much harder time getting people to accept their ideas, even controlling for level of experience. And, you can't tell me inexperienced females come up with stupider ideas than inexperienced males (if anything, I think it's the opposite, 'cause at least most women I know bother to listen for a bit before making a comment, where most young males just shoot off their mouth at the first opportunity).
No more are the comments about the technical correctness of ideas being discussed - nope, suddenly there's snide sexual innuendos that slide in. Women are being "bitches" if they fight for their ideas, but, hey, if I (a guy) strongly advocate my idea, that's just fine. And, that's just the start of it. I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar. Not to mention the fact that during such discussions, I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win". It's annoying, to say the least, and I can understand why many women avoid tech - it's not fun to be constantly harassed or belittled simply due to being the only woman in the room.
The primary problem here is not just a small minority of males being the jerk, but that the majority of males present give them a pass on it, and don't call them on their crap. That's just aiding and abetting the problem. DON'T GIVE THE JERKS A FREE PASS. Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.
Tech is supposed to be about quality of ideas, not personal attacks. Don't be an enabler.
Pretty much everyone has known for quite awhile how to make super-hard concrete. Both the USA and USSR used it to make missile silo covers in the 1950s, and improvements on that recipe gave us silos able to withstand 2000 psi in the 70s. The recipes aren't difficult for UHPC - it's really a quality-control issue with just a little tinkering to get the recipe and pour right.
The new interesting concretes are not for hardness, but flexibility. Only a moron would use quartz for this kind of application - synthetic fibers in the mix seem to be the way to go, with some change in the types and geometrics of gravel used as the aggregate (including replacing it with funky star-cut composites). To earthquake resistance, you don't want a more rigid (and hard) concrete, you want one which will flex without cracking.
I don't doubt that Iran has been using the super-hard stuff for various military facilities, though I doubt they've got the good quality-control needed to have the 2000 psi stuff done right. Still, 500 psi stuff (5x better than 'average') is Good Enough for most things. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get into the more advanced flex-crete business, though I seriously doubt they've got the materials science industry to make serious headway on that.
And, the primary problem with Iran having a bomb isn't having them use it on Israel. Or the Saudis, or anyone else. Nope, Iran itself wouldn't actually use it one anyone; rather, it's the decent probability that they might just "loan" or "lose" one to one of the myriad of truly crazy real terrorist organizations they sponsor. Those people will use it on someone. That's been the big issue with the Pakistani nukes for two decades - not so much that Pakistan might nuke someone (even India), but that the lax controls the Pakistanis have on their nukes might result in one or more of them going walkabout. That risk is even bigger with Iran, and something I don't think can be tolerated.
That said, the current path of sanctions and diplomacy to get the Iranian leadership on-board with IAEA inspections again and giving up the weaponization programs (which are in low-gear, not overdrive) seems to be working fine. There's no need to bomb anyone at this point. We're a couple of years away from really having to do that, at the worst-case scenario. So the Israelis need to just shut their mouths again, and recognize that the USA and Israel's best interest (not to mention the Saudis, Turks, and most of the region's) interests are all aligned here with making sure that Iran doesn't actually get the bomb.
They were re-classifed as TR-1(x) models in the mid-80s.
The U-2 is not longer a "traditional" spy-plane (i.e. photoreconnaissance of fixed points of interest). It had all the high-res photography equipment replaced with side-band IR and wide-angle low-light cameras. Bascially, they turned it from a "oooh, look at that neat weapons complex" single-frame photographer into a massive photo Hoover (or Vax, for our Brit friends).
Turns out, the U-2 is massively useful here: incredibly high service ceiling, newer semi-stealth improvements in materials, and a batshit crazy loiter time. It outlived the SR-71 because it turns out point-recon is better done by LEO satellites, and the SR-71 can't loiter. Or go slow enough to photograph a wide area well.
I'm kinda surprised that the Global Hawks are more expensive than the TR-1, though, given that the TR-1 now required non-trivial maintenance, and human costs to fly. Then again, this is 1950s technology, and the B-52 shows that if you can figure out where it works, well, high-tech doesn't always mean better mission success.
Now, if only they'd cancel those stupid Littoral Combat Ship programs (yeah, we're building 2 production versions, cause we couldn't decide which sucked less), we could look at some significant savings...
"Technology", in the sense of basic principles, is certainly neutral. However, specific assemblages of technology - from a car, to a gun, to a spoon, or a computer program, certainly aren't neutral. they have good points and bad points, which are determined by their intended or designed use, their practical or common use, and their potential or possible use. How we allow for the use of given assemblies of technologies depends entirely on how we view the social cost-benefit equation of the assembled tool.
Many people want to ban certain tools based on their potential usage, which is either irrational or irresponsible (or displays a hidden agenda unrelated to the merits of the tool).
However, it is equally dishonest to judge a tool merely on its proclaimed intended usage.
As a society, we must look at the whole picture, and hopefully, error on the side of permissiveness. That does not mean that we should be shy about outlawing things whose negative potential and common usage significantly outweigh any benefit that is intended or common usage provides. Like everything else, it's a balancing act.
In this case, the judge did just that, much to the *IAA (or Spanish equivalent's) disappointment.
No, I'm not a child anymore. I learned that taking things from others is wrong. That much of the crap people do in their younger days is naive, misplaced, stupid, or dangerous. I don't scream at authority just because my friends say it's cool. Growing up is learning why the rules exist, and figuring out how to fix the rules that are broken, not flaunting the rules just because they're the rules.
Oh, and by the way - notice how I never said the current laws are correct in all respects. They're not perfect. But, I still haven't seen a coherent argument that what the OP did was ethical or moral to begin with. And I'm tired of people saying "but I didn't mean to be bad". Sure. And how am I, the victim, to sort out the people who didn't mean to be bad from those who did? Innocent intent is only a defense if you can't reasonably foresee the consequences of your actions.
There's a world of difference between helping people who either (a) ask for the help, or (b) drop in your lap by no volition of your own, and "helping" people by sticking your nose in their business - whether or not that "help" is useful is immaterial, you stuck you nose in where it had no right to be.
Bottom line: even white hat hacking without permission of the target is the same as vigilante-ism. You're taking the law into your own hands, and it doesn't matter if you sometimes help society. The practice itself is a bad idea.
I never claimed Phreaking was legal, moral, or ethical. It wasn't (certain Hollywood films notwithstanding).
The major difference is that now, the community as a whole should know better - that is, our community has the ethical standards to say it's bad, and not encourage people to do that kind of behavior. That's exactly what I'm doing. If it's a bit harsh, then so be it. Kids seldom change their behavior in response gentle admonishment for things they don't see as wrong - that is, for behavior they know to be wrong, being gentle is very effective, while for behavior that they perceive as OK (but isn't), the "tisk-tisk" approach is completely ineffective.
We also only have the OP's side of things - how do we know they aren't doing something internally to resolve the problem? We also don't know exactly what he did as far as the hack itself goes, so there's no basis for assuming that it didn't cause any damage. That whole unknown is why the event should never have happened in the first place, which is why I'm being harsh. The hack itself shouldn't have happened. Period. End of discussion. This is not "back in the day" - this is now, and the comparison isn't valid anymore. Times have changed, and I'm holding the OP to current standards, not two-decade-plus old ones. That's not hypocritical, as I can easily recognize the 80s behavior was no better. He doesn't get a pass just because other people used to do it.
My point about his friends was that he's clearly with a bunch of folks who think it's OK to hack. And, give him positive reinforcement to hack. It's unlikely that he's going to be able to change the group dynamic, so his own best interests are to find another group that isn't a bad influence.
This is no different than getting a kid out of any other bad circle of peers; people seldom recognize the damage their peer group is doing to them, and abandoning that peer group, while drastic, is usually the only way to stop the behavior. There's too much pressure to relapse, otherwise.
He's still free to explore his talent, but he needs to find another group that will encourage him to do it in a more constructive manner.
I see no compelling ethical, moral, or legal defense for what he did. He's a criminal, and not in the kind of "causal" criminal sense of someone jaywalking. Nope, he explicitly went out and hacked someone else's system.
Now, I'm willing to maybe (and, that's a very big maybe) accept that it might have been discovered by a malformed URL typed in. If so, that's a different story, as there that's accidental, with no intent. But the OP's statement sounds exactly like he was doing something with intent to hack (even if that hack was URL manipulation), in which case, he's back on the hook for being a criminal. Period.
I'm old enough to have started out in the 80s, with the heyday of Phreaking. So I know all about "misbehaving". However, those times are long, long gone. The Internet has grown up, and the behavior we expect of people must also. This kind of behavior simply isn't acceptable anymore, and has been clearly criminalized. I can't see any compelling moral or ethical argument that outweighs the counters in terms of social good (that is, any moral or ethical argument in favor of this kind of behavior is outweighed by better moral and ethical arguments against it).
As a community, we have a social responsibility to educate the new (potential) members, and that includes social pressure to conform to basic standards of ethics. What was possibly acceptable 20 years ago isn't acceptable anymore, and people need to recognize that. Times change, and hacking/cracking has very strict boundaries if it is to be ethical. This guy has crossed all those, and need to be told in a very strong way that he's wrong, since he clearly doesn't recognize that is was wrong.
I don't care if you're not doing it for money (though, you sound like you might do it for fame). It's wrong.
The company didn't ask you to do a security audit. It's not a public organization where you can claim some sort of "ownership" or such. It's a Private Place. They're responsible for their own security, not some random passerby. You have no business doing what you did, and that's it. If they blow security, they're on the hook for the consequences. We have very well established methods for doing that kind of reinforcement.
Dress it up how you want to, you're still a criminal - legally, morally, and ethically, it's none of your business, you shouldn't have done it in the first place, and quit doing it in general. Grow the Fuck Up.
Just drop it, period, and go find something else do spend your energies on. And, find another crowd of people to hang out with - those ones you're in with now aren't a good influence (obviously).
Please. Public Pension systems are one of the last bastions of Good left in this country. And, I'm not talking about the pension system itself, I'm talking about some very, very responsible fund managers who run them (not just CALPers, but most state's public pension systems). These folks are paid significantly less than equivalent ones on Wall Street, and they put in a huge effort to get good returns for their funds. Part of that effort is to be more pro-active than a typical Wall Streeter, and not just game the system, but FIX the system.
So, you're strategy is "cut and run"? Where? Oh, to another company where the culture sucks so bad because the stockholders are sheep. The pension funds are right - they have to fight, since there's no where to move their money that isn't in some way corrupted by the current international "corporate culture standard".
There have been some major efforts by public pension systems (just in the past year, I can remember efforts from Louisiana, Wisconsin, New York, and even South Carolina) to reform the way companies are run. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with maximizing the pension's ROI - after all, that $100 million the board just paid the CEO comes right out of stockholder's pockets. Public pension systems are at the forefront of the reform movement, and it's all in very much self interest.
In the Murdoch's case, fighting to oust them can only HELP the ROI - NewsCorp is incurring massive losses (legal, circulation, etc.) directly due to the Murdoch-installed culture. Replace that culture with a more sane one, and the ROI goes back up.
It's not politics, folks, it's money. Pure self-interest, just it happens to be wielded for Good this time.
Umm... you do know that the reference OpenJDK is 99% of the Oracle JDK? If it makes it into the OpenJDK, it goes into the Oracle JDK? That both will always run the same code?
Actually, I'd argue that JDK 8 isn't that important right now. People are still adjusting to JDK 7, and fixing the issues with JDK 7 should have a higher priority than doing all new stuff for JDK 8. Especially since there are very few features slated for 8 that are of broad immediate appeal. Honestly, I was never a believer than less than 2 years between major JDK releases was a good idea. It takes at least a couple of years for vendors to move to the new JDK, and stabilization of a release takes awhile (as the user base of the JDK is enormous, and there's no substitute for real-world running of apps to shake out bugs in the JDK).
JDK 7 was released 2 months ago. Focusing on making that a better product, rather than jump right into spending all their effort on a future release is, IMHO, the more responsible use of limited resources.
Of course, nothing is preventing community work on OpenJDK 8.
Please. The Oracle (formerly Sun) JVM is not "full of holes". And, Oracle does patch them - what do you think all those Update release are for? Oh, you wanted a patch for just that specific fix into a given (random) Update release, did you? Do you have any experience in managing such a project as the JVM? Point patches are a massive headache to manage - so much so, that while I was at Oracle (in the very JVM group you disparage), we couldn't find a reasonable way to manage point patches well on even the paying customers. And, I worked with a bunch of folks far smarter than the average programmer.
I was in the Sun JVM group for over 7 years (2004-2011). In that time, there were only 3 "critical" exploits published for the JVM, and less than a dozen for the entire JDK. There were more than that for "serious" bugs/problems, but those weren't security breaches (which, were, by definition, an exploit). I should know, I was the Gatekeeper for the JVM.
Newer versions (i.e. 4.1.2 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 ) do certainly break a non-trivial number of older apps, and require fixes. Updates to a given release (i.e. 6u10 -> 6u20) do very occasionally break something if you jump a large number of Update releases; however, most of the cases we found in such breakage of apps was the developer's fault in either using an undocumented "feature", a feature which was marked "obsolete", or one which was marked as "unsupported". If you stuck to the documented API of supported features, well, it wasn't absolutely 100% bug-free upgradable, but then again, nothing is, and the JDK has an outstanding track record in that regard.
That's not to say that there aren't problems in both the JVM and JDK. It's just that you obviously don't know what you're talking about in the real world. Don't take my word for it: Google "Sun JVM security (hole OR flaw)" there are a very few links (maybe 2) to flaws in the past 5 years, a bundle of links to stories around 2004-2005 (which are all about the same set of bugs), and then practically everything else is at least 10 years old. Guess what? ALL of those have been fixed, relatively quickly, too.
Best Practices aren't just an abstract outline of how to solve a problem, they also incorporate some level of practical detail as to how to go about solving the problem. Best Practices don't necessarily (or should) include implementation details, but they must be at least aware of how the implementation differences impact the choice of solutions and methodologies.
In my case, I help run the development build system for Oracle's JDK and the associated OpenJDK project. We have Linux, Solaris, Windows, and Mac to deal with, across multiple CPU architectures. While the conceptual design of the system started out being simple, we've found that the quirks of each OS require a rather significantly different approach to solving the same problem on each platform. What works on Solaris doesn't work well under Windows, et al. This kind of thing is common in multi-platform environments, where the most efficient method of doing someone on one platform can be severely sub-optimal other places.
Back to the Question: my answer is that you should likely give up on the techniques you found worked well under *nix. You want to use the Native Windows tools. Powershell and a native Python implementation work very well for basic stuff, but you'll likely want to crack open a copy of Visual Studio and actually do some.Net development for anything rather complex. I've particularly found that several common assumptions under *nix aren't true in Windows (e.g. process manipulation/management is very different), and you really need to move into the Windows mindset to get a good design and implementation going.
As pointed out elsewhere, humans have only recently moved from a tribal, very-small-scale society to a larger-scale anonymous one. In terms of biology, we haven't had anywhere near enough time to make this change (maybe 100 generations at best).
Altruism to others inside your tribe is a very good thing, as it reaps significant rewards. You are very likely to gain status, which means more/better food and mating chances, and even if the person helped wasn't directly related to you, the odds that they were at least a 3rd or 4th cousin were darned good. Remember that in a village of 200 people, virtually everyone shares at least one great-great grandparent.
This generalizes to societies of any size: in a society which promoted altruism, by helping someone in your society, you greatly increase the odds that you yourself will be helped altruistically. E.g. If my society promotes the idea that a bystander should apply first aid to a stabbing victim, rather than wait for the EMTs, then the likelihood that you will survive a stabbing is significantly better than a society which discourages bystander altruism. This alone should insure the survival of altruism as at least a significant minority trait.
In addition, in modern society, we compete on memetic as well as genetic survival. So, helping those in your local "friend" circles promoted memetic survival.
If we ever plan to go to Mars (or other extra-Earth area destination), we need to ship the vast majority of consumables ahead of time. In essence, we need KwikiMart outlets in space.
More to the point: consumables and human space travel have very different criteria:
Consumables:
Can sustain much higher G forces, which means they have a much higher list of launch and propulsion options available
Most (excepting food) have a much higher tolerance for radiation and acceptable temperature ranges.
Don't really need to consume much of anything on their own - they tend to be inert, and need very little (or no) upkeep.
Honestly, if we expect to get somewhere, we need to be throwing out these large blobs of food/fuel/equipment in minimal containment vessels, with cheap, slow propulsion systems (i.e. very low mass/thrust ratio). Scatter a dozen along the path to Mars, and a dozen in Mars orbit, launching stuff a year or more before the humans plan to go. Then just build a SMALL crew vessel, with just enough storage space to get it between pit stops along the way, but with kick-ass engines.
Manned vessels are expensive. Make them just big enough for the humans. Put the consumables in the space equivalent of a refrigerator, and let the human vessel dock with the frig every week or so to pick up supplies.
ObCarAnalogy: build a race car and make frequent pit stops. Don't build a Semi with sleeper cab, 1,000L gas tanks, and a double trailer filled with food.
Only in the sense of a surplus = more money taken in right now then going out the door. The "Social Security has a surplus" idea totally ignores future commitments made. If you're an accountant (and, I'd hope that good accounting is a part of government, even though I know better), your balance sheet includes any accumulated liabilities in any calculation. And, future SS liabilities are skyrocketing, while future projected revenue is plummeting, presuming we don't change anything.
We'll have to means-test SS. Probably severely (as in, cut off payments to anyone making over $50k). And do a bunch of other things to fix it in the long run. And the sooner we do it (while we still have a "surplus"), the less drastic action we have to take.
I expect us to fix Medicare/Medicaid with a National Health system sometime around 2030, right after we become so desperate that it's bankrupting the country (as in, probably right about the time we either default on the debt, or avoid that only by the skin of our teeth) that even the most blind right-wing nutjob recognizes that NH is the only solution, and health insurance should never be run by private, for-profit entities (and, that malpractice suits are the absolutely wrong way to handle medical mistakes).
Note: I have some experience with this, as I worked in my rural PA hometown Democrat Party's office while in college, and had contacts with both the local congresscritter and our national one...
Most "outside" opportunities that a congresscritter (CC from now on) has for making money are strictly proscribed by ethical and/or legal rules. They're not allowed to take advantage of their high social status in the way that you would think. In addition, their spouse is held to pretty much the same standard, so there's no opportunity for extra income there.
About the only outside income they can make is from a book or media appearances. Book deals are by far the best option for extra cash, but you'd have to be someone already in the media limelight to get it - a hard-working normal CC isn't going to get a book deal. It's only the asshat media-whoring one who will. Media appearance fees for the standard CC also aren't common - they're going to be doing practically all of them for free, for the exposure, and very, very, very few of them are able to charge for an appearance.
So what, you say. $175k is a good salary, right? Well, not so much. Many expenses that a CC incurs being a CC aren't reimbursed by the government. To start with, they generally have to maintain TWO residences - at a minimum, a costly apartment in DC, plus a house in their district. Even a basic apartment in DC suitable for a CC isn't going to be under $30k per year. Personal travel for the CC is covered, but not any family. So, any trips to DC by the family are on you, not the gov't. The CC can get discount meals at the Congressional cafeteria, but since most business is conducted in the restaurants of DC, figure they have to eat out every night in at least a upper-mid-level place. $50/dinner. That's a $10k/year food bill. Cost of living in DC is pretty darned high (6th in the nation, I believe). Plus, since a CC is away from home for vast amounts of time, figure the family has to put up significant child-care costs that they wouldn't normally incur if the CC was working in their hometown. And, a myriad of small thing like that that add up to really large expenses.
They're also not allowed to take "freebies" that you and I would normally just accept. Can't take a paid-for dinner from a friend. Can't take discounts for a lot of stuff - in most cases, they can only accept "available to the public" discounts and prices. Even an ordinary person often gets favors and freebies from their friends - you would be surprised at how much it costs if you were a CC and had to declare (and pay) for all these ordinary freebies. Sure, there are some nice perks to being a CC. But, there are also a whole lot of extra expenses that ordinary citizens don't have, and there's really no opportunity to make extra money to cover them - they're pretty much stuck with their CC salary as their only income.
After they've retired/been kicked out, there's more opportunity to cash in, but while they're in office, there's very little legal/ethical way to make additional cash that isn't normally available to an ordinary citizen of their income bracket.
I'm not saying $175k is poverty-level, but, it's really, really, not that much, given their significant expenses. Overall, I'd estimate that a CC's real salary is closer to $100k, after taking into account costs associated with being a CC. Given that a CC is supposed to be a reasonably senior-level management executive, that's not much. Moreover, the CC's salary ISN'T adjusted by district. So, how fair is it to someone serving San Francisco to be paid the same as someone serving rural PA? The cost of living in one is 3-4x the other (middle class in my PA hometown is $50k/family of 4. Middle class in downtown SF for a family of 4 - $150k).
It's not the sole reason, but the relatively low pay of a CC is one of the major reasons why you see a preponderance of millionaires in Congress - you have to be rich to run, not that you get rich after winning.
Normally, I'm pretty OK with a lot of EU regulatory concepts (their banking rules a notable exception). But, if this is a common idea of EU regulators, I'm going to have to rethink my support of them...
This "principle" breaks one of the foundations of modern law - that you should be held responsible for you own actions, and not actions of others which you neither had controller over, nor knowledge of (which is one of the big reasons I hate the "felony murder" laws here in the US). The "principle" of which you speak isn't a good one, and I'm fine with being rabidly opposed to it. Just because it may be bad for Big Business, doesn't make it right, or even good for anyone else.
I'm not excessively worried, though. The laws don't fit the "consumer protection" mold, and pretty obviously overstep Constitutionally-set boundaries - they regulate interstate commerce (which is a federal area), and also likely are to be looked at as attempting to set Copyright and national import standards, neither which are allowable by states. That is, these type of laws most likely would have to be passed at the Federal level to be Constitutional. Given the potential enormous impact on large manufacturers, you can be sure that if they actually get passed, they'll be some Big Corp with Deep Pockets funding a challenge in US Federal courts.
Yes, you can't use the free download version for any production use. It's really annoying, and severely limits the usefulness of S11 Express.
However, note that if you have an Oracle Premium Support contract (all Oracle Support is Premium;-), then you have an entitlement to use S11 Express in a production environment, and receive normal support for it, just like you have an RTU and Support for Oracle Linux and Oracle Solaris 10 via the same contract.
This is just an FYI - I'm not commenting on the utility or "goodness" of S11Express.
Actually, that was an open question for quite some time after the Constitution was adopted.
However, Madison v Marbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) definitely settled this dispute, in that the US Constitution is considered the highest law, and the Supreme Court the final arbiter of that law, with the power to declare void any such law which conflicts with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Section 1, Clause 2) has also been interpreted to give the Constitution (and thus federal law) supremacy over state law.
The Supreme Court's power to declare sections of laws void has never been under dispute, even before Madison v Marbury - indeed, it is fundamental to "judging". It is needed to resolve conflicts between two laws, for in the case of two laws providing conflicting directions, we must have someone decide which is to be followed, and which to be ignored (declared void).
No, you idiot, the purpose of Free Speech is NOT TO SAY WHATEVER YOUR WANT.
Take a look at any serious 1st Amendment scholar. Or, for the hell of it, Madison, Jefferson, or Adams (or some of the other Founding Fathers) writings.
The purpose of Free Speech is to promote the open discussion of ideas, mainly of a political nature. Which means that speech has to be judged on societal worth - that speech which contributes to the stated goal (discussion of political ideas), no matter how trivially, should be encouraged. That speech which is harmful to the stated goal should be prohibited. There is no inherent absolute right to ANYTHING, let alone to say what you want with no consequence.
Slashdot Mirror
I see lots of "oh, it's easily defeatable" blah blah blah here.
Naturally, if one bothers to go out an look at the legislation and motivation behind this, one would find it's no different than the serial number stamp on firearms. You can't get a conviction based on micro-stamped brass at a crime scene, any more than you can get a conviction just on finding the murder weapon (complete with intact serial number stamped on the frame) at the scene. One still has to place the gun in an offender's hand (in either instance).
It's an aid to crime solving, in the same way serial numbers on the gun itself are an aid. It gives the police investigation a good place to start looking, nothing more, nothing less. It's not evidence that the owner committed the crime; one still has to prove that the owner fired the gun in question, just like you have to do with gun frame serial numbers . For the purpose it is intended to serve, microstamping the firing pin is a very good idea, and has roughly the same utility as gun frame serial numbers do. As such, it's actually a great investigative aid, given that brass is much more likely to be left at a crime scene than a gun itself, and that criminals are highly unlikely to be able to gather all expended brass, which means that at least some of the brass almost certainly comes from the weapon used in the crime.
Certainly there are ways to subvert this, but they're not much more likely than filing the serial number off a gun, and we all know how many guns used in crimes have them filed off (hint: not many). Gun crimes (like the vast majority of all crimes) are not well-planned by super-level-headed big brain geniuses that think of all possible outcomes, then coolly remember to execute everything flawlessly. Crime is sloppy by nature, with gun crimes even more so, so the utility of this goes up with the amount of sloppiness of the criminal. Hell, even "professional" mob hits are notoriously unprofessional.
Get a grip, people.
-Erik
I don't know where you get the idea that the US keeps it's "first strike" nukes in Europe.
The US long ago (20+ years) removed the IRBM and GLCM from Europe, as part of IRNFT in 1988. Since then, the US nuclear presence in Europe has been limited to gravity bombs (which, most certainly, AREN'T first strike weapons). And, we're not even sure that the US still keeps those bombs active, as the US firmly refuses to "confirm or deny" their presence.
The US's current first-strike capable weapons are the Trident II D5 missiles on the Ohio class subs, and the Minuteman III ICBMs in the central US. Neither of which are anywhere near Europe or the proposed missile defense system.
-Erik
Because, for a "meritocracy", there's a whole lots of sexist bullshit going on in tech, and I'm not just talking about management.
Part of the reason that women aren't more prevalent in tech, is that as soon as it becomes known that a female is present in a discussion (on-line, or in-person), the tone of the discussion changes radically. Women have a much harder time getting people to accept their ideas, even controlling for level of experience. And, you can't tell me inexperienced females come up with stupider ideas than inexperienced males (if anything, I think it's the opposite, 'cause at least most women I know bother to listen for a bit before making a comment, where most young males just shoot off their mouth at the first opportunity).
No more are the comments about the technical correctness of ideas being discussed - nope, suddenly there's snide sexual innuendos that slide in. Women are being "bitches" if they fight for their ideas, but, hey, if I (a guy) strongly advocate my idea, that's just fine. And, that's just the start of it. I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar. Not to mention the fact that during such discussions, I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win". It's annoying, to say the least, and I can understand why many women avoid tech - it's not fun to be constantly harassed or belittled simply due to being the only woman in the room.
The primary problem here is not just a small minority of males being the jerk, but that the majority of males present give them a pass on it, and don't call them on their crap. That's just aiding and abetting the problem. DON'T GIVE THE JERKS A FREE PASS. Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.
Tech is supposed to be about quality of ideas, not personal attacks. Don't be an enabler.
-Erik
Pretty much everyone has known for quite awhile how to make super-hard concrete. Both the USA and USSR used it to make missile silo covers in the 1950s, and improvements on that recipe gave us silos able to withstand 2000 psi in the 70s. The recipes aren't difficult for UHPC - it's really a quality-control issue with just a little tinkering to get the recipe and pour right.
The new interesting concretes are not for hardness, but flexibility. Only a moron would use quartz for this kind of application - synthetic fibers in the mix seem to be the way to go, with some change in the types and geometrics of gravel used as the aggregate (including replacing it with funky star-cut composites). To earthquake resistance, you don't want a more rigid (and hard) concrete, you want one which will flex without cracking.
I don't doubt that Iran has been using the super-hard stuff for various military facilities, though I doubt they've got the good quality-control needed to have the 2000 psi stuff done right. Still, 500 psi stuff (5x better than 'average') is Good Enough for most things. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get into the more advanced flex-crete business, though I seriously doubt they've got the materials science industry to make serious headway on that.
And, the primary problem with Iran having a bomb isn't having them use it on Israel. Or the Saudis, or anyone else. Nope, Iran itself wouldn't actually use it one anyone; rather, it's the decent probability that they might just "loan" or "lose" one to one of the myriad of truly crazy real terrorist organizations they sponsor. Those people will use it on someone. That's been the big issue with the Pakistani nukes for two decades - not so much that Pakistan might nuke someone (even India), but that the lax controls the Pakistanis have on their nukes might result in one or more of them going walkabout. That risk is even bigger with Iran, and something I don't think can be tolerated.
That said, the current path of sanctions and diplomacy to get the Iranian leadership on-board with IAEA inspections again and giving up the weaponization programs (which are in low-gear, not overdrive) seems to be working fine. There's no need to bomb anyone at this point. We're a couple of years away from really having to do that, at the worst-case scenario. So the Israelis need to just shut their mouths again, and recognize that the USA and Israel's best interest (not to mention the Saudis, Turks, and most of the region's) interests are all aligned here with making sure that Iran doesn't actually get the bomb.
-Erik
They were re-classifed as TR-1(x) models in the mid-80s.
The U-2 is not longer a "traditional" spy-plane (i.e. photoreconnaissance of fixed points of interest). It had all the high-res photography equipment replaced with side-band IR and wide-angle low-light cameras. Bascially, they turned it from a "oooh, look at that neat weapons complex" single-frame photographer into a massive photo Hoover (or Vax, for our Brit friends).
Turns out, the U-2 is massively useful here: incredibly high service ceiling, newer semi-stealth improvements in materials, and a batshit crazy loiter time. It outlived the SR-71 because it turns out point-recon is better done by LEO satellites, and the SR-71 can't loiter. Or go slow enough to photograph a wide area well.
I'm kinda surprised that the Global Hawks are more expensive than the TR-1, though, given that the TR-1 now required non-trivial maintenance, and human costs to fly. Then again, this is 1950s technology, and the B-52 shows that if you can figure out where it works, well, high-tech doesn't always mean better mission success.
Now, if only they'd cancel those stupid Littoral Combat Ship programs (yeah, we're building 2 production versions, cause we couldn't decide which sucked less), we could look at some significant savings...
-Erik
"Technology", in the sense of basic principles, is certainly neutral. However, specific assemblages of technology - from a car, to a gun, to a spoon, or a computer program, certainly aren't neutral. they have good points and bad points, which are determined by their intended or designed use, their practical or common use, and their potential or possible use. How we allow for the use of given assemblies of technologies depends entirely on how we view the social cost-benefit equation of the assembled tool.
Many people want to ban certain tools based on their potential usage, which is either irrational or irresponsible (or displays a hidden agenda unrelated to the merits of the tool).
However, it is equally dishonest to judge a tool merely on its proclaimed intended usage.
As a society, we must look at the whole picture, and hopefully, error on the side of permissiveness. That does not mean that we should be shy about outlawing things whose negative potential and common usage significantly outweigh any benefit that is intended or common usage provides. Like everything else, it's a balancing act.
In this case, the judge did just that, much to the *IAA (or Spanish equivalent's) disappointment.
-Erik
No, I'm not a child anymore. I learned that taking things from others is wrong. That much of the crap people do in their younger days is naive, misplaced, stupid, or dangerous. I don't scream at authority just because my friends say it's cool. Growing up is learning why the rules exist, and figuring out how to fix the rules that are broken, not flaunting the rules just because they're the rules.
Oh, and by the way - notice how I never said the current laws are correct in all respects. They're not perfect. But, I still haven't seen a coherent argument that what the OP did was ethical or moral to begin with. And I'm tired of people saying "but I didn't mean to be bad". Sure. And how am I, the victim, to sort out the people who didn't mean to be bad from those who did? Innocent intent is only a defense if you can't reasonably foresee the consequences of your actions.
There's a world of difference between helping people who either (a) ask for the help, or (b) drop in your lap by no volition of your own, and "helping" people by sticking your nose in their business - whether or not that "help" is useful is immaterial, you stuck you nose in where it had no right to be.
Bottom line: even white hat hacking without permission of the target is the same as vigilante-ism. You're taking the law into your own hands, and it doesn't matter if you sometimes help society. The practice itself is a bad idea.
-Erik
And, you just made my case for me.
I never claimed Phreaking was legal, moral, or ethical. It wasn't (certain Hollywood films notwithstanding).
The major difference is that now, the community as a whole should know better - that is, our community has the ethical standards to say it's bad, and not encourage people to do that kind of behavior. That's exactly what I'm doing. If it's a bit harsh, then so be it. Kids seldom change their behavior in response gentle admonishment for things they don't see as wrong - that is, for behavior they know to be wrong, being gentle is very effective, while for behavior that they perceive as OK (but isn't), the "tisk-tisk" approach is completely ineffective.
We also only have the OP's side of things - how do we know they aren't doing something internally to resolve the problem? We also don't know exactly what he did as far as the hack itself goes, so there's no basis for assuming that it didn't cause any damage. That whole unknown is why the event should never have happened in the first place, which is why I'm being harsh. The hack itself shouldn't have happened. Period. End of discussion. This is not "back in the day" - this is now, and the comparison isn't valid anymore. Times have changed, and I'm holding the OP to current standards, not two-decade-plus old ones. That's not hypocritical, as I can easily recognize the 80s behavior was no better. He doesn't get a pass just because other people used to do it.
-Erik
My point about his friends was that he's clearly with a bunch of folks who think it's OK to hack. And, give him positive reinforcement to hack. It's unlikely that he's going to be able to change the group dynamic, so his own best interests are to find another group that isn't a bad influence.
This is no different than getting a kid out of any other bad circle of peers; people seldom recognize the damage their peer group is doing to them, and abandoning that peer group, while drastic, is usually the only way to stop the behavior. There's too much pressure to relapse, otherwise.
He's still free to explore his talent, but he needs to find another group that will encourage him to do it in a more constructive manner.
-Erik
I see no compelling ethical, moral, or legal defense for what he did. He's a criminal, and not in the kind of "causal" criminal sense of someone jaywalking. Nope, he explicitly went out and hacked someone else's system.
Now, I'm willing to maybe (and, that's a very big maybe) accept that it might have been discovered by a malformed URL typed in. If so, that's a different story, as there that's accidental, with no intent. But the OP's statement sounds exactly like he was doing something with intent to hack (even if that hack was URL manipulation), in which case, he's back on the hook for being a criminal. Period.
I'm old enough to have started out in the 80s, with the heyday of Phreaking. So I know all about "misbehaving". However, those times are long, long gone. The Internet has grown up, and the behavior we expect of people must also. This kind of behavior simply isn't acceptable anymore, and has been clearly criminalized. I can't see any compelling moral or ethical argument that outweighs the counters in terms of social good (that is, any moral or ethical argument in favor of this kind of behavior is outweighed by better moral and ethical arguments against it).
As a community, we have a social responsibility to educate the new (potential) members, and that includes social pressure to conform to basic standards of ethics. What was possibly acceptable 20 years ago isn't acceptable anymore, and people need to recognize that. Times change, and hacking/cracking has very strict boundaries if it is to be ethical. This guy has crossed all those, and need to be told in a very strong way that he's wrong, since he clearly doesn't recognize that is was wrong.
-Erik
First off, QUIT FUCKING TRESSPASSING.
I don't care if you're not doing it for money (though, you sound like you might do it for fame). It's wrong.
The company didn't ask you to do a security audit. It's not a public organization where you can claim some sort of "ownership" or such. It's a Private Place. They're responsible for their own security, not some random passerby. You have no business doing what you did, and that's it. If they blow security, they're on the hook for the consequences. We have very well established methods for doing that kind of reinforcement.
Dress it up how you want to, you're still a criminal - legally, morally, and ethically, it's none of your business, you shouldn't have done it in the first place, and quit doing it in general. Grow the Fuck Up.
Just drop it, period, and go find something else do spend your energies on. And, find another crowd of people to hang out with - those ones you're in with now aren't a good influence (obviously).
-Erik
Please. Public Pension systems are one of the last bastions of Good left in this country. And, I'm not talking about the pension system itself, I'm talking about some very, very responsible fund managers who run them (not just CALPers, but most state's public pension systems). These folks are paid significantly less than equivalent ones on Wall Street, and they put in a huge effort to get good returns for their funds. Part of that effort is to be more pro-active than a typical Wall Streeter, and not just game the system, but FIX the system.
So, you're strategy is "cut and run"? Where? Oh, to another company where the culture sucks so bad because the stockholders are sheep. The pension funds are right - they have to fight, since there's no where to move their money that isn't in some way corrupted by the current international "corporate culture standard".
There have been some major efforts by public pension systems (just in the past year, I can remember efforts from Louisiana, Wisconsin, New York, and even South Carolina) to reform the way companies are run. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with maximizing the pension's ROI - after all, that $100 million the board just paid the CEO comes right out of stockholder's pockets. Public pension systems are at the forefront of the reform movement, and it's all in very much self interest.
In the Murdoch's case, fighting to oust them can only HELP the ROI - NewsCorp is incurring massive losses (legal, circulation, etc.) directly due to the Murdoch-installed culture. Replace that culture with a more sane one, and the ROI goes back up.
It's not politics, folks, it's money. Pure self-interest, just it happens to be wielded for Good this time.
-Erik
Umm... you do know that the reference OpenJDK is 99% of the Oracle JDK? If it makes it into the OpenJDK, it goes into the Oracle JDK? That both will always run the same code?
Actually, I'd argue that JDK 8 isn't that important right now. People are still adjusting to JDK 7, and fixing the issues with JDK 7 should have a higher priority than doing all new stuff for JDK 8. Especially since there are very few features slated for 8 that are of broad immediate appeal. Honestly, I was never a believer than less than 2 years between major JDK releases was a good idea. It takes at least a couple of years for vendors to move to the new JDK, and stabilization of a release takes awhile (as the user base of the JDK is enormous, and there's no substitute for real-world running of apps to shake out bugs in the JDK).
JDK 7 was released 2 months ago. Focusing on making that a better product, rather than jump right into spending all their effort on a future release is, IMHO, the more responsible use of limited resources.
Of course, nothing is preventing community work on OpenJDK 8.
-Erik
Please. The Oracle (formerly Sun) JVM is not "full of holes". And, Oracle does patch them - what do you think all those Update release are for? Oh, you wanted a patch for just that specific fix into a given (random) Update release, did you? Do you have any experience in managing such a project as the JVM? Point patches are a massive headache to manage - so much so, that while I was at Oracle (in the very JVM group you disparage), we couldn't find a reasonable way to manage point patches well on even the paying customers. And, I worked with a bunch of folks far smarter than the average programmer.
I was in the Sun JVM group for over 7 years (2004-2011). In that time, there were only 3 "critical" exploits published for the JVM, and less than a dozen for the entire JDK. There were more than that for "serious" bugs/problems, but those weren't security breaches (which, were, by definition, an exploit). I should know, I was the Gatekeeper for the JVM.
Newer versions (i.e. 4.1.2 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 ) do certainly break a non-trivial number of older apps, and require fixes. Updates to a given release (i.e. 6u10 -> 6u20) do very occasionally break something if you jump a large number of Update releases; however, most of the cases we found in such breakage of apps was the developer's fault in either using an undocumented "feature", a feature which was marked "obsolete", or one which was marked as "unsupported". If you stuck to the documented API of supported features, well, it wasn't absolutely 100% bug-free upgradable, but then again, nothing is, and the JDK has an outstanding track record in that regard.
That's not to say that there aren't problems in both the JVM and JDK. It's just that you obviously don't know what you're talking about in the real world. Don't take my word for it: Google "Sun JVM security (hole OR flaw)" there are a very few links (maybe 2) to flaws in the past 5 years, a bundle of links to stories around 2004-2005 (which are all about the same set of bugs), and then practically everything else is at least 10 years old. Guess what? ALL of those have been fixed, relatively quickly, too.
-Erik
Best Practices aren't just an abstract outline of how to solve a problem, they also incorporate some level of practical detail as to how to go about solving the problem. Best Practices don't necessarily (or should) include implementation details, but they must be at least aware of how the implementation differences impact the choice of solutions and methodologies.
In my case, I help run the development build system for Oracle's JDK and the associated OpenJDK project. We have Linux, Solaris, Windows, and Mac to deal with, across multiple CPU architectures. While the conceptual design of the system started out being simple, we've found that the quirks of each OS require a rather significantly different approach to solving the same problem on each platform. What works on Solaris doesn't work well under Windows, et al. This kind of thing is common in multi-platform environments, where the most efficient method of doing someone on one platform can be severely sub-optimal other places.
Back to the Question: my answer is that you should likely give up on the techniques you found worked well under *nix. You want to use the Native Windows tools. Powershell and a native Python implementation work very well for basic stuff, but you'll likely want to crack open a copy of Visual Studio and actually do some .Net development for anything rather complex. I've particularly found that several common assumptions under *nix aren't true in Windows (e.g. process manipulation/management is very different), and you really need to move into the Windows mindset to get a good design and implementation going.
As pointed out elsewhere, humans have only recently moved from a tribal, very-small-scale society to a larger-scale anonymous one. In terms of biology, we haven't had anywhere near enough time to make this change (maybe 100 generations at best).
Altruism to others inside your tribe is a very good thing, as it reaps significant rewards. You are very likely to gain status, which means more/better food and mating chances, and even if the person helped wasn't directly related to you, the odds that they were at least a 3rd or 4th cousin were darned good. Remember that in a village of 200 people, virtually everyone shares at least one great-great grandparent.
This generalizes to societies of any size: in a society which promoted altruism, by helping someone in your society, you greatly increase the odds that you yourself will be helped altruistically. E.g. If my society promotes the idea that a bystander should apply first aid to a stabbing victim, rather than wait for the EMTs, then the likelihood that you will survive a stabbing is significantly better than a society which discourages bystander altruism. This alone should insure the survival of altruism as at least a significant minority trait.
In addition, in modern society, we compete on memetic as well as genetic survival. So, helping those in your local "friend" circles promoted memetic survival.
If we ever plan to go to Mars (or other extra-Earth area destination), we need to ship the vast majority of consumables ahead of time. In essence, we need KwikiMart outlets in space.
More to the point: consumables and human space travel have very different criteria: Consumables:
Honestly, if we expect to get somewhere, we need to be throwing out these large blobs of food/fuel/equipment in minimal containment vessels, with cheap, slow propulsion systems (i.e. very low mass/thrust ratio). Scatter a dozen along the path to Mars, and a dozen in Mars orbit, launching stuff a year or more before the humans plan to go. Then just build a SMALL crew vessel, with just enough storage space to get it between pit stops along the way, but with kick-ass engines.
Manned vessels are expensive. Make them just big enough for the humans. Put the consumables in the space equivalent of a refrigerator, and let the human vessel dock with the frig every week or so to pick up supplies.
ObCarAnalogy: build a race car and make frequent pit stops. Don't build a Semi with sleeper cab, 1,000L gas tanks, and a double trailer filled with food.
-Erik
Only in the sense of a surplus = more money taken in right now then going out the door. The "Social Security has a surplus" idea totally ignores future commitments made. If you're an accountant (and, I'd hope that good accounting is a part of government, even though I know better), your balance sheet includes any accumulated liabilities in any calculation. And, future SS liabilities are skyrocketing, while future projected revenue is plummeting, presuming we don't change anything.
We'll have to means-test SS. Probably severely (as in, cut off payments to anyone making over $50k). And do a bunch of other things to fix it in the long run. And the sooner we do it (while we still have a "surplus"), the less drastic action we have to take.
I expect us to fix Medicare/Medicaid with a National Health system sometime around 2030, right after we become so desperate that it's bankrupting the country (as in, probably right about the time we either default on the debt, or avoid that only by the skin of our teeth) that even the most blind right-wing nutjob recognizes that NH is the only solution, and health insurance should never be run by private, for-profit entities (and, that malpractice suits are the absolutely wrong way to handle medical mistakes).
-Erik
Note: I have some experience with this, as I worked in my rural PA hometown Democrat Party's office while in college, and had contacts with both the local congresscritter and our national one...
Most "outside" opportunities that a congresscritter (CC from now on) has for making money are strictly proscribed by ethical and/or legal rules. They're not allowed to take advantage of their high social status in the way that you would think. In addition, their spouse is held to pretty much the same standard, so there's no opportunity for extra income there.
About the only outside income they can make is from a book or media appearances. Book deals are by far the best option for extra cash, but you'd have to be someone already in the media limelight to get it - a hard-working normal CC isn't going to get a book deal. It's only the asshat media-whoring one who will. Media appearance fees for the standard CC also aren't common - they're going to be doing practically all of them for free, for the exposure, and very, very, very few of them are able to charge for an appearance.
So what, you say. $175k is a good salary, right? Well, not so much. Many expenses that a CC incurs being a CC aren't reimbursed by the government. To start with, they generally have to maintain TWO residences - at a minimum, a costly apartment in DC, plus a house in their district. Even a basic apartment in DC suitable for a CC isn't going to be under $30k per year. Personal travel for the CC is covered, but not any family. So, any trips to DC by the family are on you, not the gov't. The CC can get discount meals at the Congressional cafeteria, but since most business is conducted in the restaurants of DC, figure they have to eat out every night in at least a upper-mid-level place. $50/dinner. That's a $10k/year food bill. Cost of living in DC is pretty darned high (6th in the nation, I believe). Plus, since a CC is away from home for vast amounts of time, figure the family has to put up significant child-care costs that they wouldn't normally incur if the CC was working in their hometown. And, a myriad of small thing like that that add up to really large expenses.
They're also not allowed to take "freebies" that you and I would normally just accept. Can't take a paid-for dinner from a friend. Can't take discounts for a lot of stuff - in most cases, they can only accept "available to the public" discounts and prices. Even an ordinary person often gets favors and freebies from their friends - you would be surprised at how much it costs if you were a CC and had to declare (and pay) for all these ordinary freebies. Sure, there are some nice perks to being a CC. But, there are also a whole lot of extra expenses that ordinary citizens don't have, and there's really no opportunity to make extra money to cover them - they're pretty much stuck with their CC salary as their only income.
After they've retired/been kicked out, there's more opportunity to cash in, but while they're in office, there's very little legal/ethical way to make additional cash that isn't normally available to an ordinary citizen of their income bracket.
I'm not saying $175k is poverty-level, but, it's really, really, not that much, given their significant expenses. Overall, I'd estimate that a CC's real salary is closer to $100k, after taking into account costs associated with being a CC. Given that a CC is supposed to be a reasonably senior-level management executive, that's not much. Moreover, the CC's salary ISN'T adjusted by district. So, how fair is it to someone serving San Francisco to be paid the same as someone serving rural PA? The cost of living in one is 3-4x the other (middle class in my PA hometown is $50k/family of 4. Middle class in downtown SF for a family of 4 - $150k).
It's not the sole reason, but the relatively low pay of a CC is one of the major reasons why you see a preponderance of millionaires in Congress - you have to be rich to run, not that you get rich after winning.
-Erik
Normally, I'm pretty OK with a lot of EU regulatory concepts (their banking rules a notable exception). But, if this is a common idea of EU regulators, I'm going to have to rethink my support of them...
This "principle" breaks one of the foundations of modern law - that you should be held responsible for you own actions, and not actions of others which you neither had controller over, nor knowledge of (which is one of the big reasons I hate the "felony murder" laws here in the US). The "principle" of which you speak isn't a good one, and I'm fine with being rabidly opposed to it. Just because it may be bad for Big Business, doesn't make it right, or even good for anyone else.
I'm not excessively worried, though. The laws don't fit the "consumer protection" mold, and pretty obviously overstep Constitutionally-set boundaries - they regulate interstate commerce (which is a federal area), and also likely are to be looked at as attempting to set Copyright and national import standards, neither which are allowable by states. That is, these type of laws most likely would have to be passed at the Federal level to be Constitutional. Given the potential enormous impact on large manufacturers, you can be sure that if they actually get passed, they'll be some Big Corp with Deep Pockets funding a challenge in US Federal courts.
No. BrandZ is dead, and support for it has been removed, in favor of VirtualBox as the preferred method of supporting Linux-on-Solaris.
Yes, you can't use the free download version for any production use. It's really annoying, and severely limits the usefulness of S11 Express.
However, note that if you have an Oracle Premium Support contract (all Oracle Support is Premium ;-), then you have an entitlement to use S11 Express in a production environment, and receive normal support for it, just like you have an RTU and Support for Oracle Linux and Oracle Solaris 10 via the same contract.
This is just an FYI - I'm not commenting on the utility or "goodness" of S11Express.
-Erik
Actually, that was an open question for quite some time after the Constitution was adopted.
However, Madison v Marbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) definitely settled this dispute, in that the US Constitution is considered the highest law, and the Supreme Court the final arbiter of that law, with the power to declare void any such law which conflicts with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Section 1, Clause 2) has also been interpreted to give the Constitution (and thus federal law) supremacy over state law.
The Supreme Court's power to declare sections of laws void has never been under dispute, even before Madison v Marbury - indeed, it is fundamental to "judging". It is needed to resolve conflicts between two laws, for in the case of two laws providing conflicting directions, we must have someone decide which is to be followed, and which to be ignored (declared void).
-Erik
No, you idiot, the purpose of Free Speech is NOT TO SAY WHATEVER YOUR WANT.
Take a look at any serious 1st Amendment scholar. Or, for the hell of it, Madison, Jefferson, or Adams (or some of the other Founding Fathers) writings.
The purpose of Free Speech is to promote the open discussion of ideas, mainly of a political nature. Which means that speech has to be judged on societal worth - that speech which contributes to the stated goal (discussion of political ideas), no matter how trivially, should be encouraged. That speech which is harmful to the stated goal should be prohibited. There is no inherent absolute right to ANYTHING, let alone to say what you want with no consequence.
-Erik