downloaded content you have in your possession, you can still be charged with a crime if it does not come in a pre-approved container.
Citation please.
You cannot move your downloaded content from one container to another container, this is also illegal.
Citation please. Pretty sure timeshifting and format shifting has been legal for a very long time now.
Admission that you have downloaded content, or a suspicion that you may be in possession of downloaded content, legally or not, is grounds to search your person for it.
Legal grounds for search? Citation please-- not an anecdote, but an actual ruling saying this is legal, preferably.
After being on slashdot for long enough, the hyperbole starts to get old. The whole "corporate citizen" meme is stupid, and just makes you look like you have nothing worthwhile to say.
The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials./quote. Please explain specifically how that was violated. Everyone here wants to be super vague; some concretes would be nice for those of us still in the dark about what conspiracy was uncovered.
Did they lie to reporters? Yes, and that sucks, and Im kind of ashamed that it happened. Is this a warcrime, the end of the world, 1984, or even unexpected? No, not really. Its also not illegal, for the record.
Until a couple of years ago, they were the only ones with anything comparable to vMotion. They are among just one or two others these days with Storage motion (moving where the physical data for a VM is stored, while that VM is on). They are (AFAIK) currently the only ones with anything like DRS (dynamically migrating VMs between hosts based on load), and certainly the only ones with anything like DPM (dynamically consolidating VMs based on load to save power-- during non peak, migrate everything to one server). From what Ive seen and heard, their networking (dvSwitch and normal vSwitches) are rock solid and best-in-class-- even Hyper-V and Xen guys tend to agree on this.
You can criticize lots of things about VMWare / ESXi, but they are able to get away with their ridiculous vRAM entitlements for a reason-- because they really are at the top of the heap for 99% of features. Its why when you look at competitor marketing, they always focus on value, not features-- because in most cases they are striving for parity, not dominance.
"Ordinary" and "HP Printers" dont belong in the same sentence. Despite the many ways they attempt to ruin printing, HP has made some amazingly robust printers in their day. Ive seen many 10+ year old LaserJet 4s still going strong, and I think they deserve some credit even if they do make the worst drivers ever.
versus the craptastic RAID controllers shipping on IBMs
As opposed to the craptastic PERC RAID controllers? It wasnt too long ago that Dell tried to have all their latest H700 controllers refuse to recognize any non-dell drives. They have since relented, but thats not something quickly forgotten. Also worth remembering that their RAID performance tends to be less than impressive.
From brief looking around there, the prices are horribly out of whack. Heres their idea of a sub-$500 laptop: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/pd/Dell-Vostro-1440/productID.249116600/vip.true Thats a Gen-1 Core processor and a 320GB drive, no USB3, and Windows Home. Pretty sure I could go elsewhere and for $500 get a Gen2 core, USB3 slots, and Windows 7 pro; last year I did basically as much, except $50 cheaper and sans the Pro edition.
If you want a deal, buy the laptop normally and reinstall windows yourself. Youll thank me later.
And in China-- specifically Shanghai-- getting a license plate costs ~$10k IIRC. I believe car itself tends to be a bit more expensive than it would be in the US.
Imagine if politicians and other public servants would be monitored 24/7.
Nothing good would EVER get done, and the two sides would be even more polarized than they are now. Noone could ever reach across the aisle, because they would immediately be labeled a traitor and kicked out @ next election.
It sounds great in theory, but it just doesnt work in practice. How well would you work with 3 cameras and a supervisor in your cubicle at all times?
Selling a proprietary virtualization empire is, in the long run, about as likely to succeed as writing a text editor
You mean like Microsoft Office, which at its core has a glorified text editor that is one of the cores of Microsoft's profitability? Or how about an OS (for anyone whos read "In the Beginning was the Command Line")?
If VMware can keep up innovation, and can fix some of its licensing issues, I dont see why they could not have a long future in selling a "virtualization empire".
If you think the average Zimbabwean hears anything but the spun version that Mugabe hands them, you are seriously out of it. There IS no free journalism in the country, except that which is spoon fed to them by one of the worst kinds of government.
Maybe sanctions are what Mugabe needs, in the best interests of Zimbabwe-- but do you think after Mugabe gets done with the story its going to be something the average person there will appreciate, when theyre told that Tsvingerai is in favor of millions starving (regardless of the truth of it)? Of course not.
and he doesn't need much of a reason to arrest/beat up/kill his opponents.
Which makes GIVING him a reason through leaked diplomatic wires a particularly bad idea.
There are really good reasons some of that stuff isnt public knowledge; even if we lay specifics aside, people can say things one-on-one that get misinterpreted when there are millions watching, and damaging the expectation of privacy in diplomatic talks does noone any good.
Ive heard the case made (by Trent Lott, but agreed to by one of his former Democratic colleagues) that one of the best AND worst things to happen to modern politics is the presence of a camera at every congressional session, for this very reason.
Youre not going to like this, but your demands would make it impossible to win any fight with any military entity, ever. All they would need to do is mingle with civilians, and your demands for zero casualties would make them de-facto unbeatable.
So it is your opinion that the soldiers knew that the men were civilians? Why then do they act throughout the dialogue as if he is a potential threat? If they were doing it as a show, why then was there a coverup-- there is no point to pretending if you do not think you have an audience.
Im sorry, to all appearances the soldiers thought that the men were threats, and honestly did dehumanize their targets-- but then, it was an embattled war zone, and that is a reality of such situations. But it does not appear from an objective viewing or a rational evaluation that you can claim that the men intentionally used a helicopter to take out known civilian targets; considering the kind of approval apparently needed to fire a missle (which tend to be rather expensive), it stretches the imagination quite a bit.
I have bad news for you, if you think that soldiers regularly fight battles without trying to dehumanize them. If they had been correct in their identification, their actions would probably have not been noteworthy at all; the issue is that they misidentified the targets.
. ..in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath.
To date, and by recent google searches, I have been unable to figure out what crimes / abuses are being referred to, unless they are the "collateral murder" video-- which on actually watching the thing is pretty underwhelming except as a record of a friendly fire incident. So if there is more of substance, please do enlighten me.
If there isnt, then a lot of this "manning is a hero" talk kind of falls flat.
And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?
6. Linux is secure. You don't have to worry about viruses, spyware, etc. You spend your time using your computer as opposed to fixing your computer.
Baloney, and double baloney.
Viruses can come on practically any OS, by their very open nature-- they will run whatever code is allowed to run. Further, there is a lot to suggest that stock configs of Win7 are MORE secure than stock configs of the latest *buntu or mint or whatever, due to the substantial hardening that occured over the last few years (between requiring driver sigs, blocking attempts to patch the kernel, strong ASLR, sandboxing capabilities, etc). The Google Chrome team basically remarked as much when asked why they dont do sandboxing in Linux-- because Linux doesnt really have the mechanism to do it, except for an apparently little used function that had some issue or other that was an obstacle (dont remember full details).
More to the point, 90% of malware drivebys occur through an exploitable browser plugin-- like Java, or Flash, or a PDF reader installed as a browser plugin. And hey, guess what, all of those have cross platform equivalents. And hey guess what, theres basically no substantial barrier preventing a Flash exploit in IceWeasel from infecting a debian box, other than the lower Debian marketshare in terms of web browsing. And hey, guess what, there are plenty of PoCs out there for infecting ANY box running a browser with a bad plugin.
So how bout we tone down the ridiculous assertions of superior linux security and "virus free" environment. I have no problem with most of the rest of your points-- though on the usability point I happen to prefer Win7's GUI above any of the other OS GUIs that Ive tried.
I truly believe Linux would come out on top.
Being a fan of Linux is fine, but I think you underestimate a lot of Win7's strenghts. It really is a good OS; I dont think there needs to be a "you should use this or that OS" comparison, because at this point theyre all so close in a lot of areas that it comes down to preference. I happen to hate OSX GUI and its pricetag, but Im not going to try terribly hard to convince someone else not to use it. All said and done, OSX IS a fine OS, as is modern linux.
It sounnds from the article like Neil himself shared parent's view...as do I honetsly. He did some great things, but it seems an injustice to put all of the credit in his lap when there were several other people on the mission with him.
There's another guy who shot Representitive Giffords
...who, by all accounts was either independent, or far left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Views_on_politics...even though the media attempted to paint this as some right-wing conspiracy. Not only did he apparently dislike Bush, he was also pretty anti-religion; and apparently his anger at Giffords wasnt her affiliation, but that she was "fake".
And the rest of your post, listing off random anecdotes, is some bizarre attempt to place the blame for EVERY right-leaning criminal's actions onto our lap. If I were to do the same, you might have to answer for Stalin and the Killing Fields-- or even the recent shooting of a guard outside of the Family Research Center by someone with leftist leanings; but we commonly refer to that particular tactic as the "Association fallacy".
When a guy with hundreds of millions of dollars starts inflicting his opinions on millions of others
What exactly do you mean by "inflicting"? It is a personally held opnion that has no functional impact on the running of his store.
Answer this plainly-- does he or does he not have a right to disapprove of homosexuality?
When a guy with millions of dollars starts to use that money and power to influence national politics so he can make his opinion the law of the land
Speech like that makes it sound like you have a box where you put money in and out pops certain laws. What actually happens is people use their money for advertising and lobbying, which fundamentally are expressions of free speech and one of our most protected rights.
You read Deuteronomy? Leviticus? Are you familiar with the laws of Moses? You can't cherry pick. I'll follow this law but not that. If your children disrespect you, you must kill them.
That is a shallow and uninformed, out of context reading. Im not about to go into a full explanation for WHY those particulars are no longer relevant; the short answer is "some of the stuff in Leviticus is of a moral nature, and some is of a ritual / only-applicable-to-Israel nature. The long answer is, use google, this question has been answered a zillion times.
bigoted
Bigotry by definition requires mistreatment of a particular class. That has not happened; Dan Cathy (and myself) simply see homosexuality as not much different than sex outside of marriage, or adultery. Like with either of those, Im not going to mistreat you because you have sex outside of marriage, but Im not going to approve of those actions either. Its not bigotry, and this charged language is part of the problem honestly.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
And yet, when Dan Cathy states a personal opinion that, while he will respect and treat all people, that he disapproves of certain behavior-- the left immediately DEMANDS that his opinion be changed. This isnt a case of "he mistreated some people"-- it was entirely his opnion-- but that doesnt matter. He has to condone certain behavior, and approve of it.
That may be, but it seems distinctly anti-right, which is perhaps what I should have said. See the hatred that comes out whenever the article is on something republican. See the hatred in this very thread.
Slashdot Mirror
downloaded content you have in your possession, you can still be charged with a crime if it does not come in a pre-approved container.
Citation please.
You cannot move your downloaded content from one container to another container, this is also illegal.
Citation please. Pretty sure timeshifting and format shifting has been legal for a very long time now.
Admission that you have downloaded content, or a suspicion that you may be in possession of downloaded content, legally or not, is grounds to search your person for it.
Legal grounds for search? Citation please-- not an anecdote, but an actual ruling saying this is legal, preferably.
After being on slashdot for long enough, the hyperbole starts to get old. The whole "corporate citizen" meme is stupid, and just makes you look like you have nothing worthwhile to say.
From the very article you linked:
The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials./quote.
Please explain specifically how that was violated. Everyone here wants to be super vague; some concretes would be nice for those of us still in the dark about what conspiracy was uncovered.
Did they lie to reporters? Yes, and that sucks, and Im kind of ashamed that it happened. Is this a warcrime, the end of the world, 1984, or even unexpected? No, not really. Its also not illegal, for the record.
Not so bad if you're the one guy who won, but what are the odds.
I mean, when you're VMWare and youve been at the top of the virtualization pack for over a decade now, Id be feeling pretty confident.
Until a couple of years ago, they were the only ones with anything comparable to vMotion. They are among just one or two others these days with Storage motion (moving where the physical data for a VM is stored, while that VM is on). They are (AFAIK) currently the only ones with anything like DRS (dynamically migrating VMs between hosts based on load), and certainly the only ones with anything like DPM (dynamically consolidating VMs based on load to save power-- during non peak, migrate everything to one server). From what Ive seen and heard, their networking (dvSwitch and normal vSwitches) are rock solid and best-in-class-- even Hyper-V and Xen guys tend to agree on this.
You can criticize lots of things about VMWare / ESXi, but they are able to get away with their ridiculous vRAM entitlements for a reason-- because they really are at the top of the heap for 99% of features. Its why when you look at competitor marketing, they always focus on value, not features-- because in most cases they are striving for parity, not dominance.
"Ordinary" and "HP Printers" dont belong in the same sentence. Despite the many ways they attempt to ruin printing, HP has made some amazingly robust printers in their day. Ive seen many 10+ year old LaserJet 4s still going strong, and I think they deserve some credit even if they do make the worst drivers ever.
versus the craptastic RAID controllers shipping on IBMs
As opposed to the craptastic PERC RAID controllers? It wasnt too long ago that Dell tried to have all their latest H700 controllers refuse to recognize any non-dell drives. They have since relented, but thats not something quickly forgotten. Also worth remembering that their RAID performance tends to be less than impressive.
From brief looking around there, the prices are horribly out of whack. Heres their idea of a sub-$500 laptop:
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/pd/Dell-Vostro-1440/productID.249116600/vip.true
Thats a Gen-1 Core processor and a 320GB drive, no USB3, and Windows Home. Pretty sure I could go elsewhere and for $500 get a Gen2 core, USB3 slots, and Windows 7 pro; last year I did basically as much, except $50 cheaper and sans the Pro edition.
If you want a deal, buy the laptop normally and reinstall windows yourself. Youll thank me later.
Nevertheless, you could probably give the amount in USD and we would immediately see that you do not live in abject poverty.
And in China-- specifically Shanghai-- getting a license plate costs ~$10k IIRC. I believe car itself tends to be a bit more expensive than it would be in the US.
Imagine if politicians and other public servants would be monitored 24/7.
Nothing good would EVER get done, and the two sides would be even more polarized than they are now. Noone could ever reach across the aisle, because they would immediately be labeled a traitor and kicked out @ next election.
It sounds great in theory, but it just doesnt work in practice. How well would you work with 3 cameras and a supervisor in your cubicle at all times?
Selling a proprietary virtualization empire is, in the long run, about as likely to succeed as writing a text editor
You mean like Microsoft Office, which at its core has a glorified text editor that is one of the cores of Microsoft's profitability? Or how about an OS (for anyone whos read "In the Beginning was the Command Line")?
If VMware can keep up innovation, and can fix some of its licensing issues, I dont see why they could not have a long future in selling a "virtualization empire".
If you think the average Zimbabwean hears anything but the spun version that Mugabe hands them, you are seriously out of it. There IS no free journalism in the country, except that which is spoon fed to them by one of the worst kinds of government.
Maybe sanctions are what Mugabe needs, in the best interests of Zimbabwe-- but do you think after Mugabe gets done with the story its going to be something the average person there will appreciate, when theyre told that Tsvingerai is in favor of millions starving (regardless of the truth of it)? Of course not.
and he doesn't need much of a reason to arrest/beat up/kill his opponents.
Which makes GIVING him a reason through leaked diplomatic wires a particularly bad idea.
There are really good reasons some of that stuff isnt public knowledge; even if we lay specifics aside, people can say things one-on-one that get misinterpreted when there are millions watching, and damaging the expectation of privacy in diplomatic talks does noone any good.
Ive heard the case made (by Trent Lott, but agreed to by one of his former Democratic colleagues) that one of the best AND worst things to happen to modern politics is the presence of a camera at every congressional session, for this very reason.
Youre not going to like this, but your demands would make it impossible to win any fight with any military entity, ever. All they would need to do is mingle with civilians, and your demands for zero casualties would make them de-facto unbeatable.
So it is your opinion that the soldiers knew that the men were civilians? Why then do they act throughout the dialogue as if he is a potential threat? If they were doing it as a show, why then was there a coverup-- there is no point to pretending if you do not think you have an audience.
Im sorry, to all appearances the soldiers thought that the men were threats, and honestly did dehumanize their targets-- but then, it was an embattled war zone, and that is a reality of such situations. But it does not appear from an objective viewing or a rational evaluation that you can claim that the men intentionally used a helicopter to take out known civilian targets; considering the kind of approval apparently needed to fire a missle (which tend to be rather expensive), it stretches the imagination quite a bit.
Bradley manning is not only a citizen and a resident, he is a member of the armed forces-- hence why this is being handled in military courts.
I have bad news for you, if you think that soldiers regularly fight battles without trying to dehumanize them. If they had been correct in their identification, their actions would probably have not been noteworthy at all; the issue is that they misidentified the targets.
. . .in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath.
To date, and by recent google searches, I have been unable to figure out what crimes / abuses are being referred to, unless they are the "collateral murder" video-- which on actually watching the thing is pretty underwhelming except as a record of a friendly fire incident. So if there is more of substance, please do enlighten me.
If there isnt, then a lot of this "manning is a hero" talk kind of falls flat.
And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Tsvangirai#2011_investigations_over_WikiLeaks_disclosures
Morgan Tsvangerai might have a comment on that. But I suppose if youre a huge fan of Mugabe remaining in control of Zimbabwe, its not a problem.
This isnt all fun and games; releasing diplomatic cables can have huge and unfortunate consequences.
Thats true, but while we're on that subject: Woudl you like to join the MIcrosoft Customer Experience Improvement Program?
6. Linux is secure. You don't have to worry about viruses, spyware, etc. You spend your time using your computer as opposed to fixing your computer.
Baloney, and double baloney.
Viruses can come on practically any OS, by their very open nature-- they will run whatever code is allowed to run. Further, there is a lot to suggest that stock configs of Win7 are MORE secure than stock configs of the latest *buntu or mint or whatever, due to the substantial hardening that occured over the last few years (between requiring driver sigs, blocking attempts to patch the kernel, strong ASLR, sandboxing capabilities, etc). The Google Chrome team basically remarked as much when asked why they dont do sandboxing in Linux-- because Linux doesnt really have the mechanism to do it, except for an apparently little used function that had some issue or other that was an obstacle (dont remember full details).
More to the point, 90% of malware drivebys occur through an exploitable browser plugin-- like Java, or Flash, or a PDF reader installed as a browser plugin. And hey, guess what, all of those have cross platform equivalents. And hey guess what, theres basically no substantial barrier preventing a Flash exploit in IceWeasel from infecting a debian box, other than the lower Debian marketshare in terms of web browsing. And hey, guess what, there are plenty of PoCs out there for infecting ANY box running a browser with a bad plugin.
So how bout we tone down the ridiculous assertions of superior linux security and "virus free" environment. I have no problem with most of the rest of your points-- though on the usability point I happen to prefer Win7's GUI above any of the other OS GUIs that Ive tried.
I truly believe Linux would come out on top.
Being a fan of Linux is fine, but I think you underestimate a lot of Win7's strenghts. It really is a good OS; I dont think there needs to be a "you should use this or that OS" comparison, because at this point theyre all so close in a lot of areas that it comes down to preference. I happen to hate OSX GUI and its pricetag, but Im not going to try terribly hard to convince someone else not to use it. All said and done, OSX IS a fine OS, as is modern linux.
It sounnds from the article like Neil himself shared parent's view...as do I honetsly. He did some great things, but it seems an injustice to put all of the credit in his lap when there were several other people on the mission with him.
This is all dishonest in the extreme.
There's another guy who shot Representitive Giffords
...who, by all accounts was either independent, or far left: ...even though the media attempted to paint this as some right-wing conspiracy. Not only did he apparently dislike Bush, he was also pretty anti-religion; and apparently his anger at Giffords wasnt her affiliation, but that she was "fake".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Views_on_politics
And the rest of your post, listing off random anecdotes, is some bizarre attempt to place the blame for EVERY right-leaning criminal's actions onto our lap. If I were to do the same, you might have to answer for Stalin and the Killing Fields-- or even the recent shooting of a guard outside of the Family Research Center by someone with leftist leanings; but we commonly refer to that particular tactic as the "Association fallacy".
When a guy with hundreds of millions of dollars starts inflicting his opinions on millions of others
What exactly do you mean by "inflicting"? It is a personally held opnion that has no functional impact on the running of his store.
Answer this plainly-- does he or does he not have a right to disapprove of homosexuality?
When a guy with millions of dollars starts to use that money and power to influence national politics so he can make his opinion the law of the land
Speech like that makes it sound like you have a box where you put money in and out pops certain laws. What actually happens is people use their money for advertising and lobbying, which fundamentally are expressions of free speech and one of our most protected rights.
You read Deuteronomy? Leviticus? Are you familiar with the laws of Moses? You can't cherry pick. I'll follow this law but not that. If your children disrespect you, you must kill them.
That is a shallow and uninformed, out of context reading. Im not about to go into a full explanation for WHY those particulars are no longer relevant; the short answer is "some of the stuff in Leviticus is of a moral nature, and some is of a ritual / only-applicable-to-Israel nature. The long answer is, use google, this question has been answered a zillion times.
bigoted
Bigotry by definition requires mistreatment of a particular class. That has not happened; Dan Cathy (and myself) simply see homosexuality as not much different than sex outside of marriage, or adultery. Like with either of those, Im not going to mistreat you because you have sex outside of marriage, but Im not going to approve of those actions either. Its not bigotry, and this charged language is part of the problem honestly.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
And yet, when Dan Cathy states a personal opinion that, while he will respect and treat all people, that he disapproves of certain behavior-- the left immediately DEMANDS that his opinion be changed. This isnt a case of "he mistreated some people"-- it was entirely his opnion-- but that doesnt matter. He has to condone certain behavior, and approve of it.
Totally not the same thing, right?
That may be, but it seems distinctly anti-right, which is perhaps what I should have said. See the hatred that comes out whenever the article is on something republican. See the hatred in this very thread.