The difference is that in the last 50+ years, the U.S. has used it's nuclear arsenal exactly twice, and those during a time of war.
Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination. Absent IAEA verification of the peaceful nature of their nuclear program, Iran has no justification to be pointing fingers. Iran with nuclear power is scary. Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about.
There was this interesting post by a slashdotter regarding the "doomsday device" Russia built. He claimed that the only reason peace maintaned between Russia (Soviet) and the US the last century was due to the insane arsenals at both sides. Both parties had the power to annihilate eachother, and most of the Earth, thus both knew that a move to strike would mean certain suicide. If you think that Irans leaders are suicide bombers you are just plain ignorant. The suicide bombers of the middle east are the equivalent to the US retarded rednecks, which incidently tend to have arsenals of weapons themselves. Sadly the sensationalistic and severly biased media (not morally biased, even worse: financially biased) manages to brainwash the majority. I'm not saying that Iran "has a right" to gain nuclear weapons, but don't give me that bullshit about the US being some knights in shining armor, and don't even dare to downplay the fact that US is the only country to have dropped nuclear bombs, for if you do I hope to god that you get to experience that one day, and then we'll see how you objective you are about it.
What's even more funny is that there is no single answer that isn't a serious one. If it was slashdot however... let's just say the first answer would involve a man whos rectum is severly dialated.
You're right, however these are, in comparison to the US, mere directives. Just look at the link you provided and notice all the exceptions.
Special arrangement on entry for Croatia
The Western Balkan states
Temporary reintroduction of internal border controls
Customs control
Norway, Iceland and Switzerland
Sweden and Finland
And now frankly I'm tired of copy pasting, but the list goes on. However I stand corrected in one claim, and that was "there are no common rules", which you clearly have proven there are. Still obviously there are far more non-common rules, and this makes all the difference.
Free software licenses? You mean copyright licenses like the GPL, which the FSF website says "assures the copyright over the software?" I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?
Very easy. In proprietary cases I benefit nothing from it. In FOSS cases I do benefit from it, in terms of me being a part of the public and that something was taken from the public. What? Are you going to point at me for not fighting other peoples battles? No? Didn't think so.
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this one - EU Airports abuse people anytime they want without any remorse or pretense of politeness.
Wait YOU call bullshit on this and then proceed claiming that you know the procedures of all EUs countries airports? There is no way in hell you know this. The EU is not one country and there is no "standard procedure" thorughout EU as there is in the US, so don't generalise like that because it makes you sound like an ignorant idiot. And FYI I have never been told to fill out a piece of paper promising that I'm not smuggling snails into the country anywhere else than when I had to TRANSIT through the US. The whole experience was so ridiculous I swear I felt a micro stroke somewhere in my frontal lobe. I'm with the AC parent, transiting through the US fucking sucks horse dick, and you can whip out your biggest patriotic flag without changing that simple fact.
"He said anyone coming across could be a terrorist, drug dealer or someone trying to carry or take information out of the country by hiding it in a smaller device."
Why not just FTP it. Or hide a microSD card inside a cake? It should bake okay, the chip inside gets put under higher temps than the inside of cupcake when they place them on a PCB. The plastic on a uSD might melt a little, but I suspect the information will still be there.
There seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece. A headline regarding mass-awareness of a certain avian variety.
Sorry, the simple fact is there is no need for another desktop OS. Windows and Mac are fine. I don't know why people think Linux will _ever_ make headway in that space when there's no conceivable way it ever will.
Instead, how about focusing on being a workstation OS and a server OS?
Mr. RightSaidFred99, I think it's time for a big dose of, as Mr. Shuttleworth himself so elaborately expressed, shut the fuck up.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
(rest of section 3 omitted since it's irrelevant here)
Empahsis mine.
Basically, edu4 could have either distribute the source with the binaries or accompany the binaries with a written offer to distribute the source to any third parties. (I suppose they technically could have done both and still be in compliance, but that seems rather redundant)
Sorry I presumed that people would understand that if you don't want the source the distributer can't force it upon you. I didn't feel the need to clarify this simple logic.
I think their worry is that if it becomes popular and IE gets hacked because of the plugin, IE could get blamed for it... just like Firefox gets blamed(wrongly) for faults in the extensions.
Exactly! And Google is playing it smart. You know that when this happens Google is going to point back to MS and offer the more secure way, the Google Chrome way*. Google would be playing on peoples stupidity, something that MS has played on since the dawn of Win95. What goes for me as a consumer, I don't really give a shit. Let the companies rip eachother apart and offer me lower prices and better products, instead of this monopoly. Yes I said monopoly, anybody care to play a game of semantics?
They make a valid point. IE has holes. Chrome has holes. IE with a Chrome plugin can be exploited by both vectors. There should be no debate over the fact that IE+Chrome is less secure than IE without Chrome. That is distracting from the real question, however, which is whether IE without Chrome is less secure than Chrome without IE.
That's irrelevant. My point is that taking MS as a valid source of information about this is plain idiocy. Their best interest is to keep Google away from IE, and they will do it no matter if they lie or tell you the truth. So you have no way of telling either. Find an independent 3rd party that is keen to stick to facts, instead of marketing schemes, and you'll have the truth.
Why do you think they're wrong? In a comment above you, someone pointed out that now you're vulnerable to any Chrome vulnerabilities as well as any IE vulnerabilities. worse, you're also exposing yourself to any vulnerabilities in the plugin architecture that you might not be vulnerable to if you were just running IE.
That's not to say that the Chrome plugin is a bad idea--but many times when you add complexity to a system, you reduce security.
I didn't say they were. My point is that MS is the worst source of information for this because no matter if they are right or wrong, their best interest is to keep Google away from IE. You want facts? Don't listen to the guy with enough motives to lie.
Not according to the GPL. If you distribute GPL software to anyone, then you must extend the offer of source code to all third parties.
Wrong. Look people it's fucking simple, if you distribute GPL, you bring along the source. You have no obligation to distribute it to anybody else than those you distributed the software to. Meaning if A buys software from B, B must give source to A, C has no way of demanding the source from either. How is this difficult?
It sucks to see the GPL being used to shut down an organization that dedicates itself to something noble like adult education. Then again, what did they have to gain by NOT publishing their changes and removing the copyright info?
You're the kind of guy who sees a good and innocent side of genocide, aren't you?
Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure
Of course they do! Disregard the fact that they provide no evidence at all, and that they use this:
Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts.
as an argument to prove their point (???), but really, this is Googles way of taking over the MS userbase as explained here, and MS knows it. If Google wave becomes a hit, people will remember this move as the first important joust won by Google. IE with its crippled javascript hopes to prevent the popularity of Google wave by using scorched earth policy.
Explain how you are forced by Apple to use only the one store for your music purchases.
Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure I said expose. But no, you're probably right, I sure hope there was some way we could go back in time and replay the event, or if it was written down somehow.
Freeware != Open Source. Open Source is just that, the source is open to view and interprete. Freeware can be closed source and distributed for free under various licensing. The confusing part is many open source projects are released free of charge, and therefore open source and also be freeware (but doesnt have to be).
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that in the last 50+ years, the U.S. has used it's nuclear arsenal exactly twice, and those during a time of war.
Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination. Absent IAEA verification of the peaceful nature of their nuclear program, Iran has no justification to be pointing fingers. Iran with nuclear power is scary. Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about.
There was this interesting post by a slashdotter regarding the "doomsday device" Russia built. He claimed that the only reason peace maintaned between Russia (Soviet) and the US the last century was due to the insane arsenals at both sides. Both parties had the power to annihilate eachother, and most of the Earth, thus both knew that a move to strike would mean certain suicide. If you think that Irans leaders are suicide bombers you are just plain ignorant. The suicide bombers of the middle east are the equivalent to the US retarded rednecks, which incidently tend to have arsenals of weapons themselves. Sadly the sensationalistic and severly biased media (not morally biased, even worse: financially biased) manages to brainwash the majority. I'm not saying that Iran "has a right" to gain nuclear weapons, but don't give me that bullshit about the US being some knights in shining armor, and don't even dare to downplay the fact that US is the only country to have dropped nuclear bombs, for if you do I hope to god that you get to experience that one day, and then we'll see how you objective you are about it.
Ok, I just wrote a lengthy reply, and then by accident hit "refresh", and all the text was gone :-(
You're welcome.
Ok, so on this site bursting with intelligent, educated folk...
You lost me at "Ok".
It is good to know that the parenting forum is asking the most important questions.
What's even more funny is that there is no single answer that isn't a serious one. If it was slashdot however... let's just say the first answer would involve a man whos rectum is severly dialated.
The mods at Stack Overflow know what they're talking about.
Fixed it for ya.
Aren't ants and worms ultimately -- well bugs?
Special arrangement on entry for Croatia
The Western Balkan states
Temporary reintroduction of internal border controls
Customs control
Norway, Iceland and Switzerland
Sweden and Finland
And now frankly I'm tired of copy pasting, but the list goes on. However I stand corrected in one claim, and that was "there are no common rules", which you clearly have proven there are. Still obviously there are far more non-common rules, and this makes all the difference.
Free software licenses? You mean copyright licenses like the GPL, which the FSF website says "assures the copyright over the software?" I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?
Very easy. In proprietary cases I benefit nothing from it. In FOSS cases I do benefit from it, in terms of me being a part of the public and that something was taken from the public. What? Are you going to point at me for not fighting other peoples battles? No? Didn't think so.
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this one - EU Airports abuse people anytime they want without any remorse or pretense of politeness.
Wait YOU call bullshit on this and then proceed claiming that you know the procedures of all EUs countries airports? There is no way in hell you know this. The EU is not one country and there is no "standard procedure" thorughout EU as there is in the US, so don't generalise like that because it makes you sound like an ignorant idiot. And FYI I have never been told to fill out a piece of paper promising that I'm not smuggling snails into the country anywhere else than when I had to TRANSIT through the US. The whole experience was so ridiculous I swear I felt a micro stroke somewhere in my frontal lobe. I'm with the AC parent, transiting through the US fucking sucks horse dick, and you can whip out your biggest patriotic flag without changing that simple fact.
I wonder what they'll do when they search my 'unusable' Linux laptop.
See you in 30 days.
FTFA: CBP is authorized to keep an item or person in question for up to 30 days, although generally this is only if the subject is put into custody.
You see it's that "generally" part that frightens me the most. Who were these other poor people?
"He said anyone coming across could be a terrorist, drug dealer or someone trying to carry or take information out of the country by hiding it in a smaller device."
Why not just FTP it. Or hide a microSD card inside a cake? It should bake okay, the chip inside gets put under higher temps than the inside of cupcake when they place them on a PCB. The plastic on a uSD might melt a little, but I suspect the information will still be there.
There seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece. A headline regarding mass-awareness of a certain avian variety.
Idaho is famous for it's potatoes.
Ever since I began reading Maddox articles I can't think of Idaho without this in mind.
Sorry, the simple fact is there is no need for another desktop OS. Windows and Mac are fine. I don't know why people think Linux will _ever_ make headway in that space when there's no conceivable way it ever will.
Instead, how about focusing on being a workstation OS and a server OS?
Mr. RightSaidFred99, I think it's time for a big dose of, as Mr. Shuttleworth himself so elaborately expressed, shut the fuck up.
You're both almost right.
Empahsis mine.
Basically, edu4 could have either distribute the source with the binaries or accompany the binaries with a written offer to distribute the source to any third parties. (I suppose they technically could have done both and still be in compliance, but that seems rather redundant)
Sorry I presumed that people would understand that if you don't want the source the distributer can't force it upon you. I didn't feel the need to clarify this simple logic.
Don't sweat it mate. Welcome to Slashdot, haven of fanboys, the corporate lobbyists "volunteers". ;-)
Apparently you've never watched old movies. Seriously, color is a recent invention.
If you mean color presume you mean discovery, and if you mean invention I presume you mean color TV. And I hope your world isn't your TV young man.
I... don't recall the world ever being black and white. I'm pretty sure what you're doing is called "oversimplifying".
Formerly known as not successful.
I... don't recall the world ever being black and white. I'm pretty sure what you're doing is called "oversimplifying".
I think their worry is that if it becomes popular and IE gets hacked because of the plugin, IE could get blamed for it... just like Firefox gets blamed(wrongly) for faults in the extensions.
Exactly! And Google is playing it smart. You know that when this happens Google is going to point back to MS and offer the more secure way, the Google Chrome way*. Google would be playing on peoples stupidity, something that MS has played on since the dawn of Win95. What goes for me as a consumer, I don't really give a shit. Let the companies rip eachother apart and offer me lower prices and better products, instead of this monopoly. Yes I said monopoly, anybody care to play a game of semantics?
* Future Chrome slogan, not my actual opinion.
They make a valid point. IE has holes. Chrome has holes. IE with a Chrome plugin can be exploited by both vectors. There should be no debate over the fact that IE+Chrome is less secure than IE without Chrome. That is distracting from the real question, however, which is whether IE without Chrome is less secure than Chrome without IE.
That's irrelevant. My point is that taking MS as a valid source of information about this is plain idiocy. Their best interest is to keep Google away from IE, and they will do it no matter if they lie or tell you the truth. So you have no way of telling either. Find an independent 3rd party that is keen to stick to facts, instead of marketing schemes, and you'll have the truth.
Why do you think they're wrong? In a comment above you, someone pointed out that now you're vulnerable to any Chrome vulnerabilities as well as any IE vulnerabilities. worse, you're also exposing yourself to any vulnerabilities in the plugin architecture that you might not be vulnerable to if you were just running IE.
That's not to say that the Chrome plugin is a bad idea--but many times when you add complexity to a system, you reduce security.
I didn't say they were. My point is that MS is the worst source of information for this because no matter if they are right or wrong, their best interest is to keep Google away from IE. You want facts? Don't listen to the guy with enough motives to lie.
No, not to all, only to their clients.
Not according to the GPL. If you distribute GPL software to anyone, then you must extend the offer of source code to all third parties.
Wrong. Look people it's fucking simple, if you distribute GPL, you bring along the source. You have no obligation to distribute it to anybody else than those you distributed the software to. Meaning if A buys software from B, B must give source to A, C has no way of demanding the source from either. How is this difficult?
It sucks to see the GPL being used to shut down an organization that dedicates itself to something noble like adult education. Then again, what did they have to gain by NOT publishing their changes and removing the copyright info?
You're the kind of guy who sees a good and innocent side of genocide, aren't you?
Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure
Of course they do! Disregard the fact that they provide no evidence at all, and that they use this:
Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts.
as an argument to prove their point (???), but really, this is Googles way of taking over the MS userbase as explained here, and MS knows it. If Google wave becomes a hit, people will remember this move as the first important joust won by Google. IE with its crippled javascript hopes to prevent the popularity of Google wave by using scorched earth policy.
Explain how you are forced by Apple to use only the one store for your music purchases.
Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure I said expose. But no, you're probably right, I sure hope there was some way we could go back in time and replay the event, or if it was written down somehow.
Freeware != Open Source. Open Source is just that, the source is open to view and interprete. Freeware can be closed source and distributed for free under various licensing. The confusing part is many open source projects are released free of charge, and therefore open source and also be freeware (but doesnt have to be).
Thank you for that very irrelevant lecture, now here's some relevant lecture for you.