0.9.4 runs nice, fast as hell, stable on my PIV 1.6 256mb ram, under Linux Mandrake 8.1. Haven't used it on windows though... The really odd thing about this system though, overall, is its faster under linux overall, but it boots far faster under Windows. Odd.
"There's a PC at thinkgeek for $999 it uses a 1ghz processor, has 256mb ram, has cdrw, 20gig hd. It has all ports. It's small too, 6" square. "
Your joking right? Except for the size... My PC utterly annihilates that things capabilities, I paid 840. PIV 1.6, 256MB, 80gig, CDRW, DVD, all ports... 17 inch monitor... Granted mine is as big as a normal PC(that is waht it is of course) but I'm sorry... why pay that much for something so small?
An Emerson CD/MP3 player. A little portable unit that is only slightly larger than a standard portable CD player, has line out to connect to external speakers/stereo systems, reads Mp3s from a CD and handles subdirectories quite well, programmable playback sequence, all the standard functions of portable CD players. It may not have all the cool features of the mentioned box, but at 85 bucks you get a good solid hand held CD/Mp3 player that can be plugged into the wall with the included AC adapter, and plugged into your stereo system with the line out jack. Far better price/performance ratio than just about any Mp3 player, and more than enough for the average persons needs. It even comes with decent(though not outstanging) headphones, a first in all the portable cd player purchases I've made. For general use, I wouldn't recommend a different model Mp3 or portable CD player. Especially if you have a CD burner... its wonderful. Only failing is it chews through batteries pretty quickly, especially when playing Mp3s. Even so, the versatility it offers over a normal flash memory Mp3 player, or a portable CD player, and plug in the wall stay put units, makes it WELL worth the 85 dollars US I paid for it at my local Kmart(MILFORD IS STAYING OPEN!!!! YAYYY!!!!)
I agree... I normally buy my Mandrake distros, 6.0 though 7.2, d/led 8.0 it didn't work at all(at least it didn't fry my hard drive like RH 5.2) and 8.1 works beautifully... The one gripe I have is it installs way too much stuff by default. I don't need 6 web browsers. Konqueror, mozilla, lynx should be the defaults and the rest on the CD if I want to try thm. Same with all the office garbage...
Still, it installs easily, supported all my hardware(partly because HP is fairly linux friendly, you can get linux preinstalled on their servers and higher end desktops for business use) and still has all the little bits and text files you can configure. I probably will sign up for the user club later today after I deposit my check...
"If a nation is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers for a cause, then perhaps it should not be involved in the first place."
Perhaps true, however, a nations soldiers are valuable. If a war can be won without sacrificing them, then we should try to do so.
With that said, nuclear weapons should be a last resort. The one time they were used in warfare, the casualties caused by those two bombs were far less than even optimistic casualty estimates... In a situation like that, their use is acceptable if not desirable.
I honestly think the US should leave first strike as an option, and develop nuclear weapons for everythign from erasing cities to taking out bunkers. The more willing we appear to use them and the more variety we have in our arsenal to deal with specific situations, the less likely someone will do something to piss us off. We might not win friends among our target list, but we will likely not have to worry about large scale attacks as much. Noone gos to war if they don't think they at least have a chance of winning. Even Al-Quaeda would not have attacked if destruction of the cause was seen as a possible outcome. They like martyrdom only if there is someone left to inspire. Apparent or actual greater willingness to use nukes will deter more wars.
When the final strategy is done, a firm line needs to be drawn as to when to deploy. I would personally like to see these situations as nuclear responses:
1) Use of WMD against the US. A few anthrax letters in the mail are one thing, justifying a severe though non nuclear response, but if someone cropdusts NYC with large amounts of anthrax, enough to severely stress or overwhelm emergency response and health care... Nuke them.
2) Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened or another nation is close to conquering parts of our territory, repel them by all means necesary, including nuclear weapons.
3) Attacks such as the WTC attack. I'm sorry... That justified a nuclear detonation right above wherever Bin Ladens most likely hideout was at the time.
4) To counter new weapons that do not exist currently, and the US has no capability to otherwise counter. If, say, China develops an orbital bombardment laser and the only thing we have to deter its use is nuclear weapons, then nuke them if they use it.
5) Killing annoying actors while saving the world:)(Armageddon if you didn't catch my reference)
I am not sure how many of you have looked into getting a clearance. There are some serious ethical choices that you need to make in order to get one. Some of these include: 1. Restricted travel.
Not exactly... this depends on your position and agency, and exactly what info you have access to. Most of the time, it just means you have to report to your unit/companies security manager for a briefing and debriefing prior to departure and on return.
2. Not being able to associate freely with non US citizens.
Somewhat accurate. You must report initial contact to your security manager, who will then give guidelines on further reporting. I was able to converse freely with a girl in Sarajevo when NATO was bombing there a couple years ago, and I held a Top Secret clearance with SCI access(the highest clearance you can know about without having... strong rumours of higher clearances abound). My guidelines were simple- As long as she didn't pump me for info about battle plans and the like, no need for further reporting on the contact.
3. (probably the most important for the academic types). Depending on what clearence you get and from which agency anything that you go to publish will have to be peer reviewed by people in the intelligence community before it can be published.
YEs this is true... But, so far as I understand the regs at least in the Department of the Nany, its only if the work involves information you worked on while holding the clearance.
Which means I've broken that rule, oh only about two or three times or more every time slashdot has posted something about US Intelligence...
THe reason that this is important is that the intelligence agencies can not just talk to any Tom, DIck or Harry about somethings. Many of the academic leaders can not justify the restrictions on personal freedom, so they choose not to work in the intelligence community.
THis is irrelevant. All they have to do is pull a professor of arabian studies or some such in to brief their analysts. The analysts may bitch about having to sanitize(remove classified information from) the briefing area, but it doesn't require giving the professor a clearance.
ACtually, Saddam Husseins recent historical romance was very popular in the US Intelligence community for the insights it provided into how the man thinks.
CNN certainly is the best civilian intelligence agency next to Stratfor, but the latters primary customer is the US government.
Clancy is a smart man, and understands how the military works. His book Marine, was one of the best books explaining how Marines think and fight from a non marine. There were a few humorous misunderstandings, but for someone who hasn't gone through several years of training and service with the US MArines, was surprisingly accurate. I'm not surprised that he gets things right in his fiction...
Open source in the context of intelligence information has nothing to do with open source in the context of software. In the context of intelligence, open source is simply information that other governments and organizations don't try to keep secret.
An example- The US military is constantly preparing for a potential war in Korea. This involves updating our intelligence picture of the korean peninsula. WE use closed sources(classified sattelites, spy planes, Jame Bond type ops) and open sources(New reports, public speeches, publicly availabble maps, etc... even books). Open source intelligence is simply that information about a potential issue that is publicly available.
I remember 5 years ago sitting in the Navy/Marine Corps Intelligence training center as a young PFC(Private First Class) and having drilled into our head that we must look at open sources to develop a full intelligence picture. Even our closing practical app exercise included simulated CNN and reuters news bits for us to analyze. Exercises I was involved with when in the fleet included those. On 9/11, our intelligence officers first orders included one to keep the TV on and tuned to CNN and MSNBC 24/7 for the forseeable future.
As for not translating korean stuff, well I remember these were unclassfied, if you can ever track down some of the north korean radio transcripts, they are worth a laguh and a look into the North Korean mindset.
While open source intelligence may not get the attention it deserves at the highest levels, it isn't as badly neglected as this article seems to think.
I'm not sure how detailed I can legally get on this point, so I'll be general. Some of this reluctance to use false sources may be due to false alarms such things have caused in the past. Some of our enemies will manipulate the open sources in an attempt to cause us to react to a perceived threat. It worked for us in WWII with the whole landing at Calais deal, and worked against us recently in the middle east(thats the bit I can't be more specific on).
I hear you there- Linux is Linux, it isn't just the kernel. Its the Linux Kernel, all those GNU utilities, X, KDE and/or GNOME ion many cases, dozens of utilities, packages, kernel modules, etc from people entirely unconencted to RMS or Linus Torvalds... Linux is the whole package. You could theoretically take the Linux kernel and replace all the GNU software with entirely different programs, and still make it compatible with the other Liux distros. Since its compatible, and effectively the same OS, does that one need to be called GNU/Linux too?? Granted, theres no reason to do such a project, but it is entirely possible to build a Linux version that is entirely free of GNU software. THats the big hole in RMS' arguments about the GNU/Linux name.
These prices are insanely low by normal standards. While we'd all prefer that it stay free forever, we don't have that option. Slashdot has three options:
1) BLow off the advertisers, get fired by Andover, and Slashdot loses all independence when the current crew is replaced.
2) Blow off the advertisers, be forced to buy back Slashdot, and slashdot is stuck on a far lesser net connection and hardware(less reliability and speed) or folds entirely.
3) Accept the ads.
Thankfully, Slashdot managed to do (3) while still giving us options to avoid the ads, at an extremely low price.
Good points- The general advice shouldn't be buy the PC that best suits your needs, but to buy the absolute best machine you can afford. You get a better, more reliable machine and you won't have to have it repaired/upgraded anywhere near as soon as you will a bargain bin PC. If all you can afford is bargain bin, thats one thing. But if you have the 1000-1500 to spend on a PC, SPEND IT. You won't be sorry. Dont ignore a PCs cost... but don't look only at that. And only buy from big names unless you know what you are doing or have the advice of someone who does, smaller companies can have great deals and solid systems, but they don't have the same risks as big companies do if they flood the market with cheapo components.
Keep in mind that many people use their computing needs as a baseline, that they will not purchase anything less than that. Whenever I look at a new system or an upgrade, I buy the best I can possibly afford- If I pay 50% more than I need to, for something I can keep using twice as long, in the end I save money and trouble by not replacing/upgrading as often. Thats how everyone in my family buys PCs, thats why my mom has lasted three years and with some heavy cleanup of the HD could last probably another 6 months to a year easily...
I purchased a 1.6Ghz PIV box yesterday? Do I need it? Not by a longshot. Right now I could never hope to come close to maxing out my capabilities. But three years from now, I will need something like this. If I had bought a 500Mhz system(around what I consider my bare minimum) yesterday instead, I'd spend less than half what I spent on this... but I guarantee you in 6 months I'd be upgrading. THen after a minimal upgrade, 6 months more I'd upgrade again, within a year I'd probably have spent more than the 840 I spent on this one.
I look to the future- I buy the best I can afford, it saves money in the long run.
As PCs get cheaper, if Microsofts high price becomes an obstacle to market domination then they will lower it. They only charge that much because they can. Bill Gates will do what he must to stay on top, if that means lowering the Windows price, he will. Then, he gets legions of sheep buying computers for the first time because the most important man in the world was nice enough to lower prices for them.
ESR is a smart man, I'm sure. But Bill Gates- I honestly do not believe he is after money. He just wants his software running everything in the world. I don't think he actually wants domination, but he wants a piece of every pie just to have it. If it got to the point where to keep the windows dominance he had to subsidize Windows out of pocket for a while, I am convinced he would do so.
1) Design should serve the function of the site. Whatever the sites mission is, make sure each element furthers that mission, and does not detract from it.
More specifically-
2) Do not overuse graphics. Graphics should be of lowest quality and smallest size possible while still preserving clarity. This saves alot of time displaying the page.
3) Use a text font large enough to read, in a color that contrasts well with the background. Your viewers should not have to select the text or override the websites color scheme to read your text. Most websurfers don't know to do either and even those that do, don't want to be bothered and will surf to your competitors.
4) Don't do in JavaScript what can be done in HTML. Don't do in Java what can be done in JavaScript. Don't do ANYTHING that requires a plug in unless it is necesary(not just nice) to the mission of the site. Actaully- DOn't do anything in anything other than W3C standard HTML unless you need to. And keep those uses of non standard code to an absolute minimum.
With all that said, if you can do an adequate page in standard HTML, but have an idea for an absolute knockout site with fancy gizmos, I'd recommend do both. Have a basic standard HTML screen as people enter the site, with a special effects heavy version and a basic HTML version. Provide links on that page to any fonts/plugins/etc they need to view the full version of the site. That way, you get the people who are impressed by the fancy shit and the people that don't have time to be bothered by a slow website.
Heres a few leadership/management tips I learned in the Marines:
1- Stick up for your subordinates
2- Listen to what they have to say, but be willing to go against their advice if needed. Be flexible but make sure they know you are boss.
3- Before you change things, make sure you understand why its being done the way it is, and what you intend to get out of the change.
4- Give them an end state, not a procedure. This allows them the freedom to come up with unique solutions to problems, while ensuring the end product is what you need. Only put the bare minimum restriction necesary to ensure compatibility and legality.
5- If someone willfully fucks up be firm but fair in your response. If they fuck up because they try something new that doesn't work, accept that progress sometimes means finding out what doesn't work as much as finding out what does. In all cases of correcting mistakes/misconduct, try to help both the company and the individual worker in your actions.
6- Constantly be on the lookout for ways of improving your managerial skills and understanding of your workers jobs.
7- Be honest with your superiors and juniors, whether its good news or bad.
8- Whenever possible, don't chew someone out or denigrate someone in front of their subordinates. Take them aside privately if such action is required. Of course, if its an immediate safety issue disregard this if necesary.
9- Never set a standard for them that you cannot or will not hold yourself to. Encourage them to go higher than you can/will go, but never require it.
10- Treat them with respect, and work to earn respect in return.
Leadership in any capacity is an honor- don't fuck it up.
George E Worroll Jr, Cpl/USMC IRR(for a few more days anyways)
Hell I knew 5 years ago the value of open source intelligence. Simply put the United States intelligence network would not function without open source information.
Think about it. Who hit the beaches of Somalia first? Not the Marines, CNN, who somehow got ahold of classified operational information and knew the location and time before most of the Marines did(that pissed off alot of the Marines there).
In the wake of 9/11, the first thing my intelligence officer did was set up a TV and turn on CNN. For that whole week that tv was running 24/7 on either CNN or MSNBC.
Open Source intelligence is nothing new... this article makes it seem revolutionary. Its not.
Re:Porn protected, political speech not.
on
Star Ballz Trumps Lucas
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Any victory, however small, is good.
No argument there. But again, this decision is a small step in the right direction.
Some of these monitoring actions I may have done on me anyways(comes with my former job as a Military Intelligence analyst) but they aren't nearly as widespread as people think... While the government has decreased the amount of evidence it demands before a search, that hasn't been entirely removed.
And anyways... the real problem isn't the government. Its the people that roll over like sheep and take it. Don't preach about government abuses here, don't preach it to the government, preach it to the masses. Granted we need a larger margin than most people think to elect a president, but there are the people to do it. Get the average person involved. That is our only hope. If most people in this country think that these invasions of privacy and rights are a good idea, then by the preamble to the constitution the government has a duty to implement them, as its what the people want.
Remember, the masses still hold the power to change the government. The only way to stop things before they get worse is to open their minds and get the masses to use the power they have, before they are convinced to give it up.
Its become patently obvious that Steve Case wants AOL to become an operating system in its own right. So this isn't entirely a surprise to me.
On the other hand... While AOL may be able to get Linux accepted more widely, it could bring problems. I don't mind the newbies, they may be frustrating, but we need them all the same. The problem is they may start equating AOL and Linux. Its bad enough equating the web with the net, Red Hat with Linux... but AOL with Linux??? That could be a problem. AOL, if they release a Linux distro, may cripple many of the advantages of Linux. Killing the license advantages would be difficult to impossible, but their distro will probably make installing another ISP difficult to impossible, make AOL the default player and editor for everything... I don't like that. AOL 7.0 has a media player that sets itself as defauly. I put a CD in my moms pc, AOL loaded.
If AOL does buy red hat, and leaves red hat more or less alone to develop linux, and only uses linux itself to build devices like webpads and such it shouldn't be a problem. And if AOL takes the opportunity to create an AOL for Linux, that could get us more users, and an opportunity to enlighten literally MILLIONS of sheep who stick with windows just cause of AOL.
Overall, I'm neutral... I can see this helping and hurting the Linux world.
About liberty vs security- we must accept some restrictions on our freedoms for the vital ones to flourish. For example, for our freedom of speech to make a difference, violent acts against ones person must be banned. The question is, where do we balance this?
Also, the intelligence community MUST be given a free enough hand to investigate leads and research potential threats. Greater cooperation between our national inteligence agencies such as the CIA, NRO, NSA, etc. and the civilian law enforcement could facilitate more and faster data sharing which could detect these attacks soon enough to stop them. Right now the foreign intelligence community of the United States is severely restricted on collecting intelligence inside US borders, and can't at all if there is no apparent foreign connection. US Intelligence needs not just more money but looser guidelines on what we can do.
RIAA may be able to pull off controls, taxes, etc on new hardware and software. However, I have sitting on my desktop machine all the hardware and software to copy copyrighted CDs, burn Mp3s, burn Mp3s to CD audio, etx... RIAA might make future technology more expensive or difficult to use, but the base of installed technology and software is simply so large there will be no way to stop it. Even those nifty methods of introducing noise, simple way to get around that- run a line from the sound output to the mike port on your sound card(you need a full duplex card for this, or a second computer) play one CD out, and record a.wav from the mic, then encode it as Mp3.
RIAA can't stop the spread of digital music. No matter what they do they will fail, whether you support them or not you must realize this. What they can do, if they just had the balls to take a chance, is look for ways to use the digital music revolution to their advantage. IF they don't, in time the spread of digital music will undercut their business model and they will fall from their position, business limping along at best.
Slashdot Mirror
0.9.4 runs nice, fast as hell, stable on my PIV 1.6 256mb ram, under Linux Mandrake 8.1. Haven't used it on windows though... The really odd thing about this system though, overall, is its faster under linux overall, but it boots far faster under Windows. Odd.
"There's a PC at thinkgeek for $999 it uses a 1ghz processor, has 256mb ram, has cdrw, 20gig hd. It has all ports. It's small too, 6" square. "
Your joking right? Except for the size... My PC utterly annihilates that things capabilities, I paid 840. PIV 1.6, 256MB, 80gig, CDRW, DVD, all ports... 17 inch monitor... Granted mine is as big as a normal PC(that is waht it is of course) but I'm sorry... why pay that much for something so small?
An Emerson CD/MP3 player. A little portable unit that is only slightly larger than a standard portable CD player, has line out to connect to external speakers/stereo systems, reads Mp3s from a CD and handles subdirectories quite well, programmable playback sequence, all the standard functions of portable CD players. It may not have all the cool features of the mentioned box, but at 85 bucks you get a good solid hand held CD/Mp3 player that can be plugged into the wall with the included AC adapter, and plugged into your stereo system with the line out jack. Far better price/performance ratio than just about any Mp3 player, and more than enough for the average persons needs. It even comes with decent(though not outstanging) headphones, a first in all the portable cd player purchases I've made. For general use, I wouldn't recommend a different model Mp3 or portable CD player. Especially if you have a CD burner... its wonderful. Only failing is it chews through batteries pretty quickly, especially when playing Mp3s. Even so, the versatility it offers over a normal flash memory Mp3 player, or a portable CD player, and plug in the wall stay put units, makes it WELL worth the 85 dollars US I paid for it at my local Kmart(MILFORD IS STAYING OPEN!!!! YAYYY!!!!)
I agree... I normally buy my Mandrake distros, 6.0 though 7.2, d/led 8.0 it didn't work at all(at least it didn't fry my hard drive like RH 5.2) and 8.1 works beautifully... The one gripe I have is it installs way too much stuff by default. I don't need 6 web browsers. Konqueror, mozilla, lynx should be the defaults and the rest on the CD if I want to try thm. Same with all the office garbage...
Still, it installs easily, supported all my hardware(partly because HP is fairly linux friendly, you can get linux preinstalled on their servers and higher end desktops for business use) and still has all the little bits and text files you can configure. I probably will sign up for the user club later today after I deposit my check...
"If a nation is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers for a cause, then perhaps it should not be involved in the first place."
Perhaps true, however, a nations soldiers are valuable. If a war can be won without sacrificing them, then we should try to do so.
With that said, nuclear weapons should be a last resort. The one time they were used in warfare, the casualties caused by those two bombs were far less than even optimistic casualty estimates... In a situation like that, their use is acceptable if not desirable.
I honestly think the US should leave first strike as an option, and develop nuclear weapons for everythign from erasing cities to taking out bunkers. The more willing we appear to use them and the more variety we have in our arsenal to deal with specific situations, the less likely someone will do something to piss us off. We might not win friends among our target list, but we will likely not have to worry about large scale attacks as much. Noone gos to war if they don't think they at least have a chance of winning. Even Al-Quaeda would not have attacked if destruction of the cause was seen as a possible outcome. They like martyrdom only if there is someone left to inspire. Apparent or actual greater willingness to use nukes will deter more wars.
When the final strategy is done, a firm line needs to be drawn as to when to deploy. I would personally like to see these situations as nuclear responses:
1) Use of WMD against the US. A few anthrax letters in the mail are one thing, justifying a severe though non nuclear response, but if someone cropdusts NYC with large amounts of anthrax, enough to severely stress or overwhelm emergency response and health care... Nuke them.
2) Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened or another nation is close to conquering parts of our territory, repel them by all means necesary, including nuclear weapons.
3) Attacks such as the WTC attack. I'm sorry... That justified a nuclear detonation right above wherever Bin Ladens most likely hideout was at the time.
4) To counter new weapons that do not exist currently, and the US has no capability to otherwise counter. If, say, China develops an orbital bombardment laser and the only thing we have to deter its use is nuclear weapons, then nuke them if they use it.
5) Killing annoying actors while saving the world:)(Armageddon if you didn't catch my reference)
I am not sure how many of you have looked into getting a clearance. There are some serious ethical choices that you need to make in order to get one. Some of these include:
1. Restricted travel.
Not exactly... this depends on your position and agency, and exactly what info you have access to. Most of the time, it just means you have to report to your unit/companies security manager for a briefing and debriefing prior to departure and on return.
2. Not being able to associate freely with non US citizens.
Somewhat accurate. You must report initial contact to your security manager, who will then give guidelines on further reporting. I was able to converse freely with a girl in Sarajevo when NATO was bombing there a couple years ago, and I held a Top Secret clearance with SCI access(the highest clearance you can know about without having... strong rumours of higher clearances abound). My guidelines were simple- As long as she didn't pump me for info about battle plans and the like, no need for further reporting on the contact.
3. (probably the most important for the academic types). Depending on what clearence you get and from which agency anything that you go to publish will have to be peer reviewed by people in the intelligence community before it can be published.
YEs this is true... But, so far as I understand the regs at least in the Department of the Nany, its only if the work involves information you worked on while holding the clearance.
Which means I've broken that rule, oh only about two or three times or more every time slashdot has posted something about US Intelligence...
THe reason that this is important is that the intelligence agencies can not just talk to any Tom, DIck or Harry about somethings. Many of the academic leaders can not justify the restrictions on personal freedom, so they choose not to work in the intelligence community.
THis is irrelevant. All they have to do is pull a professor of arabian studies or some such in to brief their analysts. The analysts may bitch about having to sanitize(remove classified information from) the briefing area, but it doesn't require giving the professor a clearance.
ACtually, Saddam Husseins recent historical romance was very popular in the US Intelligence community for the insights it provided into how the man thinks.
CNN certainly is the best civilian intelligence agency next to Stratfor, but the latters primary customer is the US government.
Clancy is a smart man, and understands how the military works. His book Marine, was one of the best books explaining how Marines think and fight from a non marine. There were a few humorous misunderstandings, but for someone who hasn't gone through several years of training and service with the US MArines, was surprisingly accurate. I'm not surprised that he gets things right in his fiction...
Open source in the context of intelligence information has nothing to do with open source in the context of software. In the context of intelligence, open source is simply information that other governments and organizations don't try to keep secret.
An example- The US military is constantly preparing for a potential war in Korea. This involves updating our intelligence picture of the korean peninsula. WE use closed sources(classified sattelites, spy planes, Jame Bond type ops) and open sources(New reports, public speeches, publicly availabble maps, etc... even books). Open source intelligence is simply that information about a potential issue that is publicly available.
I remember 5 years ago sitting in the Navy/Marine Corps Intelligence training center as a young PFC(Private First Class) and having drilled into our head that we must look at open sources to develop a full intelligence picture. Even our closing practical app exercise included simulated CNN and reuters news bits for us to analyze. Exercises I was involved with when in the fleet included those. On 9/11, our intelligence officers first orders included one to keep the TV on and tuned to CNN and MSNBC 24/7 for the forseeable future.
As for not translating korean stuff, well I remember these were unclassfied, if you can ever track down some of the north korean radio transcripts, they are worth a laguh and a look into the North Korean mindset.
While open source intelligence may not get the attention it deserves at the highest levels, it isn't as badly neglected as this article seems to think.
I'm not sure how detailed I can legally get on this point, so I'll be general. Some of this reluctance to use false sources may be due to false alarms such things have caused in the past. Some of our enemies will manipulate the open sources in an attempt to cause us to react to a perceived threat. It worked for us in WWII with the whole landing at Calais deal, and worked against us recently in the middle east(thats the bit I can't be more specific on).
This guy has balls of titanium to say something like that here.
I hear you there- Linux is Linux, it isn't just the kernel. Its the Linux Kernel, all those GNU utilities, X, KDE and/or GNOME ion many cases, dozens of utilities, packages, kernel modules, etc from people entirely unconencted to RMS or Linus Torvalds... Linux is the whole package. You could theoretically take the Linux kernel and replace all the GNU software with entirely different programs, and still make it compatible with the other Liux distros. Since its compatible, and effectively the same OS, does that one need to be called GNU/Linux too?? Granted, theres no reason to do such a project, but it is entirely possible to build a Linux version that is entirely free of GNU software. THats the big hole in RMS' arguments about the GNU/Linux name.
These prices are insanely low by normal standards. While we'd all prefer that it stay free forever, we don't have that option. Slashdot has three options:
1) BLow off the advertisers, get fired by Andover, and Slashdot loses all independence when the current crew is replaced.
2) Blow off the advertisers, be forced to buy back Slashdot, and slashdot is stuck on a far lesser net connection and hardware(less reliability and speed) or folds entirely.
3) Accept the ads.
Thankfully, Slashdot managed to do (3) while still giving us options to avoid the ads, at an extremely low price.
Good points- The general advice shouldn't be buy the PC that best suits your needs, but to buy the absolute best machine you can afford. You get a better, more reliable machine and you won't have to have it repaired/upgraded anywhere near as soon as you will a bargain bin PC. If all you can afford is bargain bin, thats one thing. But if you have the 1000-1500 to spend on a PC, SPEND IT. You won't be sorry. Dont ignore a PCs cost... but don't look only at that. And only buy from big names unless you know what you are doing or have the advice of someone who does, smaller companies can have great deals and solid systems, but they don't have the same risks as big companies do if they flood the market with cheapo components.
Keep in mind that many people use their computing needs as a baseline, that they will not purchase anything less than that. Whenever I look at a new system or an upgrade, I buy the best I can possibly afford- If I pay 50% more than I need to, for something I can keep using twice as long, in the end I save money and trouble by not replacing/upgrading as often. Thats how everyone in my family buys PCs, thats why my mom has lasted three years and with some heavy cleanup of the HD could last probably another 6 months to a year easily...
I purchased a 1.6Ghz PIV box yesterday? Do I need it? Not by a longshot. Right now I could never hope to come close to maxing out my capabilities. But three years from now, I will need something like this. If I had bought a 500Mhz system(around what I consider my bare minimum) yesterday instead, I'd spend less than half what I spent on this... but I guarantee you in 6 months I'd be upgrading. THen after a minimal upgrade, 6 months more I'd upgrade again, within a year I'd probably have spent more than the 840 I spent on this one.
I look to the future- I buy the best I can afford, it saves money in the long run.
As PCs get cheaper, if Microsofts high price becomes an obstacle to market domination then they will lower it. They only charge that much because they can. Bill Gates will do what he must to stay on top, if that means lowering the Windows price, he will. Then, he gets legions of sheep buying computers for the first time because the most important man in the world was nice enough to lower prices for them.
ESR is a smart man, I'm sure. But Bill Gates- I honestly do not believe he is after money. He just wants his software running everything in the world. I don't think he actually wants domination, but he wants a piece of every pie just to have it. If it got to the point where to keep the windows dominance he had to subsidize Windows out of pocket for a while, I am convinced he would do so.
1) Design should serve the function of the site. Whatever the sites mission is, make sure each element furthers that mission, and does not detract from it.
More specifically-
2) Do not overuse graphics. Graphics should be of lowest quality and smallest size possible while still preserving clarity. This saves alot of time displaying the page.
3) Use a text font large enough to read, in a color that contrasts well with the background. Your viewers should not have to select the text or override the websites color scheme to read your text. Most websurfers don't know to do either and even those that do, don't want to be bothered and will surf to your competitors.
4) Don't do in JavaScript what can be done in HTML. Don't do in Java what can be done in JavaScript. Don't do ANYTHING that requires a plug in unless it is necesary(not just nice) to the mission of the site. Actaully- DOn't do anything in anything other than W3C standard HTML unless you need to. And keep those uses of non standard code to an absolute minimum.
With all that said, if you can do an adequate page in standard HTML, but have an idea for an absolute knockout site with fancy gizmos, I'd recommend do both. Have a basic standard HTML screen as people enter the site, with a special effects heavy version and a basic HTML version. Provide links on that page to any fonts/plugins/etc they need to view the full version of the site. That way, you get the people who are impressed by the fancy shit and the people that don't have time to be bothered by a slow website.
Heres a few leadership/management tips I learned in the Marines:
1- Stick up for your subordinates
2- Listen to what they have to say, but be willing to go against their advice if needed. Be flexible but make sure they know you are boss.
3- Before you change things, make sure you understand why its being done the way it is, and what you intend to get out of the change.
4- Give them an end state, not a procedure. This allows them the freedom to come up with unique solutions to problems, while ensuring the end product is what you need. Only put the bare minimum restriction necesary to ensure compatibility and legality.
5- If someone willfully fucks up be firm but fair in your response. If they fuck up because they try something new that doesn't work, accept that progress sometimes means finding out what doesn't work as much as finding out what does. In all cases of correcting mistakes/misconduct, try to help both the company and the individual worker in your actions.
6- Constantly be on the lookout for ways of improving your managerial skills and understanding of your workers jobs.
7- Be honest with your superiors and juniors, whether its good news or bad.
8- Whenever possible, don't chew someone out or denigrate someone in front of their subordinates. Take them aside privately if such action is required. Of course, if its an immediate safety issue disregard this if necesary.
9- Never set a standard for them that you cannot or will not hold yourself to. Encourage them to go higher than you can/will go, but never require it.
10- Treat them with respect, and work to earn respect in return.
Leadership in any capacity is an honor- don't fuck it up.
George E Worroll Jr, Cpl/USMC IRR(for a few more days anyways)
Hell I knew 5 years ago the value of open source intelligence. Simply put the United States intelligence network would not function without open source information.
Think about it. Who hit the beaches of Somalia first? Not the Marines, CNN, who somehow got ahold of classified operational information and knew the location and time before most of the Marines did(that pissed off alot of the Marines there).
In the wake of 9/11, the first thing my intelligence officer did was set up a TV and turn on CNN. For that whole week that tv was running 24/7 on either CNN or MSNBC.
Open Source intelligence is nothing new... this article makes it seem revolutionary. Its not.
Any victory, however small, is good.
No argument there. But again, this decision is a small step in the right direction.
Some of these monitoring actions I may have done on me anyways(comes with my former job as a Military Intelligence analyst) but they aren't nearly as widespread as people think... While the government has decreased the amount of evidence it demands before a search, that hasn't been entirely removed.
And anyways... the real problem isn't the government. Its the people that roll over like sheep and take it. Don't preach about government abuses here, don't preach it to the government, preach it to the masses. Granted we need a larger margin than most people think to elect a president, but there are the people to do it. Get the average person involved. That is our only hope. If most people in this country think that these invasions of privacy and rights are a good idea, then by the preamble to the constitution the government has a duty to implement them, as its what the people want.
Remember, the masses still hold the power to change the government. The only way to stop things before they get worse is to open their minds and get the masses to use the power they have, before they are convinced to give it up.
Sailor Moon as Princess Leia..
Finally- someone decides for the people.
How much you want to bet that this judge never rises over her current position?
Its become patently obvious that Steve Case wants AOL to become an operating system in its own right. So this isn't entirely a surprise to me.
On the other hand... While AOL may be able to get Linux accepted more widely, it could bring problems. I don't mind the newbies, they may be frustrating, but we need them all the same. The problem is they may start equating AOL and Linux. Its bad enough equating the web with the net, Red Hat with Linux... but AOL with Linux??? That could be a problem. AOL, if they release a Linux distro, may cripple many of the advantages of Linux. Killing the license advantages would be difficult to impossible, but their distro will probably make installing another ISP difficult to impossible, make AOL the default player and editor for everything... I don't like that. AOL 7.0 has a media player that sets itself as defauly. I put a CD in my moms pc, AOL loaded.
If AOL does buy red hat, and leaves red hat more or less alone to develop linux, and only uses linux itself to build devices like webpads and such it shouldn't be a problem. And if AOL takes the opportunity to create an AOL for Linux, that could get us more users, and an opportunity to enlighten literally MILLIONS of sheep who stick with windows just cause of AOL.
Overall, I'm neutral... I can see this helping and hurting the Linux world.
About liberty vs security- we must accept some restrictions on our freedoms for the vital ones to flourish. For example, for our freedom of speech to make a difference, violent acts against ones person must be banned. The question is, where do we balance this?
Also, the intelligence community MUST be given a free enough hand to investigate leads and research potential threats. Greater cooperation between our national inteligence agencies such as the CIA, NRO, NSA, etc. and the civilian law enforcement could facilitate more and faster data sharing which could detect these attacks soon enough to stop them. Right now the foreign intelligence community of the United States is severely restricted on collecting intelligence inside US borders, and can't at all if there is no apparent foreign connection. US Intelligence needs not just more money but looser guidelines on what we can do.
RIAA may be able to pull off controls, taxes, etc on new hardware and software. However, I have sitting on my desktop machine all the hardware and software to copy copyrighted CDs, burn Mp3s, burn Mp3s to CD audio, etx... RIAA might make future technology more expensive or difficult to use, but the base of installed technology and software is simply so large there will be no way to stop it. Even those nifty methods of introducing noise, simple way to get around that- run a line from the sound output to the mike port on your sound card(you need a full duplex card for this, or a second computer) play one CD out, and record a .wav from the mic, then encode it as Mp3.
RIAA can't stop the spread of digital music. No matter what they do they will fail, whether you support them or not you must realize this. What they can do, if they just had the balls to take a chance, is look for ways to use the digital music revolution to their advantage. IF they don't, in time the spread of digital music will undercut their business model and they will fall from their position, business limping along at best.