The scary thing is that if you are a windows user, what's the stop M$ from requiring any updates and patches to come through this new P2P system, thus making it almost mandatory to install it on your system if you ever want to update your OS. Microsoft doesn't want to compete, they want to force.
Yeah totally.. Like now they make their patches and updates come down over this newfangled TCP/IP thing.. And you HAVE to install it to get updates!! OMG what is the world coming to?
Let's get a grip here. It's a new protocol, that's all. From the sound of it the tech behind it is kind of interesting, I hope it's not patent encumbered so BitTorrent can implement it.
My entire point in the very first post I wrote in the thread poked fun at the people who carry signs equating Bush with Hitler. If you don't take issue with that, why are you even replying?
All I'm arguing for is a little PERSPECTIVE. I never said there was no problem, that's you putting words in my mouth yet AGAIN. Throughout history there's been a lot of tyranny, and even today there are many, many countries that oppress their citizens much, much more than just by making them go protest in a fenced in area. Equating that with the worst mass murderers in history is completely ridiculous. Is it bad that the government makes protesters go in a fenced in area? Hell yes. Is it anything remotely worth being compared to Hitler's crimes? Absolutely not. I don't define "suppressing dissent" as making people protest in a designated area, I define it as "cutting their fucking tongues out". That isn't happening, and if it ever does, you can bet I'll be taking up arms against the government.
As for it not being about security, how many of those sign wielding morons do you think would like to take a shot at Bush? Someone threw a live grenade at his podium a few weeks ago. Don't be so quick to assume.
You aren't, by chance, one of those college students who read one book by Chomsky and thinks that everything he says is the revealed truth, are you?
I'm not saying ANY of that stuff you're putting in my mouth, Mr. strawman argument. The only thing I'm saying is that Bush is no Hitler. I'm *very much* in favor of free speech, and I don't think any protestors should be put in cages.
But to say that since some protestors are temporarily put in cages for security purposes during an event then therefore Bush is equivalent to Hitler is to engage in simple minded hyperbole that trivializes the millions of defenseless people systematically killed by Hitler and his goons.
That kind of talk doesn't reach anyone beyond the "OMG WTF NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crowd. If you want people to come around to your point of view it's counterproductive to spread the "Bush = Hitler" meme. People just tune it out, and think you're a whacko. In your case though, maybe they're right.
Unless, of course, Bush is anywhere nearby. Then they are locked in cages which are labeled "free speech zones". Of course that inconvenient fact gets in the way of your shilling.
And then they take the cages, and put them on trains and take the protestors to Gitmo where they're locked away forever and tortured right? Right?
What? They just let them GO?!? I doubt that if Hitler had his political enemies conveniently locked up in a cage he'd just let them go. Our US protestors for the most part willingly go in the cage, since they KNOW they'll be let out. Now what was your point again?
FYI: If I'm a shill for the establishment, so are you. It's just a different establishment.
i mean even the US censors stuff even though they say they don't..
If the US Government censored people talking shit about it, this very website would have been shut down years ago.
Reminds me of the people marching with signs reading "BUSH = HITLER". The very fact they can march in public holding that sign and nothing happens to them proves that it isn't true.
With FC3, you can choose "Warn", which logs violations but doesn't actually stop anything from happening.
In SELinux this is called permissive mode. You can run either policy type in permissive mode, which will log denials to the system log but not actually block the access. It's meant for developing new policy and troubleshooting policy problems. The normal SELinux mode is enforcing mode, which will actually enforce the policy rules.
I haven't installed FC4 yet, so I don't know what it defaults to. setenforce 0 at a root prompt should put the system in permissive mode though, assuming you're in the sysadm_r role.
SELinux option during installation is Enabled or Disabled, no halfway house as in FC3.
You have the choice of running SELinux under either the targeted policy of the strict policy. I think targeted is what you are referring to as the "halfway house".
Targeted only confines certain daemons like Apache and BIND in SELinux domains, the rest of the system runs in an unconfined domain.
Yeah, I know, I was kind of just being a wiseass with the "weatherman can't even tell me the weather in two weeks" comment..:)
But seriously, trying to predict the climate in a hundred years by extrapolating from the amount of pollutants we emit right now with current technology is pretty ludicrous. The one thing I can tell you for sure about a hundred years from now is that you can't predict it by assuming it'll be anything like today.
If a hundred years ago someone had wondered what the biggest environmental crisis would be in a hundred years from then, and they extrapolated from the pollutants emitted by the predominant available technology, they'd be wondering how the hell we would dispose of all the vast piles of manure our horse fueled economy produces.
That's why Apple will make sure OS X only runs on a Mac - because MS will immediately drop Office for OS X if they do anything else - and at that point, the platform will quickly die as a commercially viable platform.
Ah, but a Mac running on X86 in two years may be able to run the Windows version of MS Office under Wine with very reasonable speed. Not to mention the improvements to Open Office by then.. Two years is a long time in this biz. The MS Office monopoly could be hurting by then.
Yes, thanks for justifying tyranny based on your personal preferences. Why is it that every time I slam the TV licence fee someone tries to rebut by telling me they think it's a good deal for them personally?
What if it was money taken from you for a purpose you didn't agree with? Would you still be so sanguine about it? Shouldn't the people who don't think it's a good deal be able to opt out, if they promise not to watch the BBC?
And the BBC is not run by the government, the BBC collects the licence fee itself.
Does the BBC put you in a BBC owned prison if you refuse to pay the licence fee? How would they enforce such a thing without the government's help and consent?
Yeah, you know, I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think. That would totally rock.
ROFL.. Dude, you're hilarious. So Europe *could* outcompete most other industrialized countries, you just *choose* not to.
Well, pigs can fly out of my butt. There's no reason why they couldn't. I just choose not to demonstrate this.
On a serious note, read some demographic statistics about Europe's aging population and tell me that story again. Is your population of 65 year olds going to start working 80 hour weeks to keep up with the rest of the world?
A limit on the number of hours worked is a limit on the number of hours worked. If my number is off, it doesn't change the fact that you have laws that tell people they aren't allowed to work hard, and bust their ass to get ahead, by their own choice. You think that's a good thing? How exactly do you reconcile that with personal liberty and freedom?
A lot of the commentary I've been reading on the EU Constitution rejection says the No votes were vastly driven by those who believed the proposed Constitution was TOO free market oriented.
And before you talk about the supposed "corporate-driven slave-worker culture" you keep hearing about, you might want to visit the US and see for yourself. I honestly don't think those of you in Europe get a very clear picture of what the US is like, beyond what you're told to believe.
I breathlessly await an explanation as to why we should be unhappy with the government about our working conditions.
When an (American|Chinese|Indian) company with workers who put in those 50-60 hours a week takes all of your business and your company closes down and you're out of a job entirely you'll be unhappy.
Of course, maybe you won't be, since you'll get European style unemployment. As long as somebody's still working to pay for it that is. It's a Ponzi scheme, and a house of cards. It won't be pretty when it all falls down.
Slashdot Mirror
The scary thing is that if you are a windows user, what's the stop M$ from requiring any updates and patches to come through this new P2P system, thus making it almost mandatory to install it on your system if you ever want to update your OS. Microsoft doesn't want to compete, they want to force.
Yeah totally.. Like now they make their patches and updates come down over this newfangled TCP/IP thing.. And you HAVE to install it to get updates!! OMG what is the world coming to?
Let's get a grip here. It's a new protocol, that's all. From the sound of it the tech behind it is kind of interesting, I hope it's not patent encumbered so BitTorrent can implement it.
My entire point in the very first post I wrote in the thread poked fun at the people who carry signs equating Bush with Hitler. If you don't take issue with that, why are you even replying?
All I'm arguing for is a little PERSPECTIVE. I never said there was no problem, that's you putting words in my mouth yet AGAIN. Throughout history there's been a lot of tyranny, and even today there are many, many countries that oppress their citizens much, much more than just by making them go protest in a fenced in area. Equating that with the worst mass murderers in history is completely ridiculous. Is it bad that the government makes protesters go in a fenced in area? Hell yes. Is it anything remotely worth being compared to Hitler's crimes? Absolutely not. I don't define "suppressing dissent" as making people protest in a designated area, I define it as "cutting their fucking tongues out". That isn't happening, and if it ever does, you can bet I'll be taking up arms against the government.
As for it not being about security, how many of those sign wielding morons do you think would like to take a shot at Bush? Someone threw a live grenade at his podium a few weeks ago. Don't be so quick to assume.
You aren't, by chance, one of those college students who read one book by Chomsky and thinks that everything he says is the revealed truth, are you?
I'm not saying ANY of that stuff you're putting in my mouth, Mr. strawman argument. The only thing I'm saying is that Bush is no Hitler. I'm *very much* in favor of free speech, and I don't think any protestors should be put in cages.
But to say that since some protestors are temporarily put in cages for security purposes during an event then therefore Bush is equivalent to Hitler is to engage in simple minded hyperbole that trivializes the millions of defenseless people systematically killed by Hitler and his goons.
That kind of talk doesn't reach anyone beyond the "OMG WTF NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crowd. If you want people to come around to your point of view it's counterproductive to spread the "Bush = Hitler" meme. People just tune it out, and think you're a whacko. In your case though, maybe they're right.
Unless, of course, Bush is anywhere nearby. Then they are locked in cages which are labeled "free speech zones". Of course that inconvenient fact gets in the way of your shilling.
And then they take the cages, and put them on trains and take the protestors to Gitmo where they're locked away forever and tortured right? Right?
What? They just let them GO?!? I doubt that if Hitler had his political enemies conveniently locked up in a cage he'd just let them go. Our US protestors for the most part willingly go in the cage, since they KNOW they'll be let out. Now what was your point again?
FYI: If I'm a shill for the establishment, so are you. It's just a different establishment.
Also, try putting DRM on a VHS tape...
:)
It's not technically DRM, but would you consider Macrovision to be "Analog Rights Management"?
i mean even the US censors stuff even though they say they don't..
If the US Government censored people talking shit about it, this very website would have been shut down years ago.
Reminds me of the people marching with signs reading "BUSH = HITLER". The very fact they can march in public holding that sign and nothing happens to them proves that it isn't true.
"On this site in 1989, nothing happened." - Tianenmen Square plaque
With FC3, you can choose "Warn", which logs violations but doesn't actually stop anything from happening.
In SELinux this is called permissive mode. You can run either policy type in permissive mode, which will log denials to the system log but not actually block the access. It's meant for developing new policy and troubleshooting policy problems. The normal SELinux mode is enforcing mode, which will actually enforce the policy rules.
I haven't installed FC4 yet, so I don't know what it defaults to. setenforce 0 at a root prompt should put the system in permissive mode though, assuming you're in the sysadm_r role.
SELinux option during installation is Enabled or Disabled, no halfway house as in FC3.
You have the choice of running SELinux under either the targeted policy of the strict policy. I think targeted is what you are referring to as the "halfway house".
Targeted only confines certain daemons like Apache and BIND in SELinux domains, the rest of the system runs in an unconfined domain.
Yeah, I know, I was kind of just being a wiseass with the "weatherman can't even tell me the weather in two weeks" comment.. :)
But seriously, trying to predict the climate in a hundred years by extrapolating from the amount of pollutants we emit right now with current technology is pretty ludicrous. The one thing I can tell you for sure about a hundred years from now is that you can't predict it by assuming it'll be anything like today.
If a hundred years ago someone had wondered what the biggest environmental crisis would be in a hundred years from then, and they extrapolated from the pollutants emitted by the predominant available technology, they'd be wondering how the hell we would dispose of all the vast piles of manure our horse fueled economy produces.
Environmentalists want to tell us how to behave now because their theories show climate change over a 100 year span.
Meteorologists using the most advanced technology available can't even reliably tell us what the weather will be like in two weeks.
Creationists call their nonsense a "theory" as well. But at least they don't expect us to destroy the world economy over their beliefs.
There's really very little difference between radical environmentalists and religious fundamentalists.
Both want to control what everyone else does and thinks based on their own unreasonable and unprovable beliefs. "The end of the world is nigh" indeed.
That's why Apple will make sure OS X only runs on a Mac - because MS will immediately drop Office for OS X if they do anything else - and at that point, the platform will quickly die as a commercially viable platform.
Ah, but a Mac running on X86 in two years may be able to run the Windows version of MS Office under Wine with very reasonable speed. Not to mention the improvements to Open Office by then.. Two years is a long time in this biz. The MS Office monopoly could be hurting by then.
I prefer the saying "Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn."
;)
But you know, things are weird lately. Apple moves to Intel, Dvorak was right about something, Debian Sarge was released..
If Duke Nukem Forever comes out in the next couple of days, I'll KNOW it was all just a dream..
Earth to tinfoil hat brigade: Just because the US Government says something, doesn't automatically make it not true.
Read a little about what happens in N. Korea, from the people who have escaped. It'll make your skin crawl.
Yes, thanks for justifying tyranny based on your personal preferences. Why is it that every time I slam the TV licence fee someone tries to rebut by telling me they think it's a good deal for them personally?
What if it was money taken from you for a purpose you didn't agree with? Would you still be so sanguine about it? Shouldn't the people who don't think it's a good deal be able to opt out, if they promise not to watch the BBC?
Anyway, I'd happily pay twice that not to watch Fox.
Did Fox ever demand your money without asking your consent, just because you own a TV? And then get the government to collect it for them?
What is the difference between my saying they "can't", and you saying they "could, but won't"?
Either way, it ain't happening.
And the BBC is not run by the government, the BBC collects the licence fee itself.
Does the BBC put you in a BBC owned prison if you refuse to pay the licence fee? How would they enforce such a thing without the government's help and consent?
Yeah, you know, I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think. That would totally rock.
ROFL.. Dude, you're hilarious. So Europe *could* outcompete most other industrialized countries, you just *choose* not to.
Well, pigs can fly out of my butt. There's no reason why they couldn't. I just choose not to demonstrate this.
On a serious note, read some demographic statistics about Europe's aging population and tell me that story again. Is your population of 65 year olds going to start working 80 hour weeks to keep up with the rest of the world?
Funny, I usually classify someone as a fool if they ever use the term 'gaming rig' in a non-ironic way.
:)
I know, right?? When will these people learn?
The proper term is "Wintendo".
A limit on the number of hours worked is a limit on the number of hours worked. If my number is off, it doesn't change the fact that you have laws that tell people they aren't allowed to work hard, and bust their ass to get ahead, by their own choice. You think that's a good thing? How exactly do you reconcile that with personal liberty and freedom?
A lot of the commentary I've been reading on the EU Constitution rejection says the No votes were vastly driven by those who believed the proposed Constitution was TOO free market oriented.
And before you talk about the supposed "corporate-driven slave-worker culture" you keep hearing about, you might want to visit the US and see for yourself. I honestly don't think those of you in Europe get a very clear picture of what the US is like, beyond what you're told to believe.
I breathlessly await an explanation as to why we should be unhappy with the government about our working conditions.
When an (American|Chinese|Indian) company with workers who put in those 50-60 hours a week takes all of your business and your company closes down and you're out of a job entirely you'll be unhappy.
Of course, maybe you won't be, since you'll get European style unemployment. As long as somebody's still working to pay for it that is. It's a Ponzi scheme, and a house of cards. It won't be pretty when it all falls down.
How about letting the market take care of something for once?
We're talking about Europe though, land of the government enforced 35 hour work week. They never met a regulation they didn't like.
I think that a lot of Europe thinks capitalism and free markets are a fad.