Bush and Co say that it isn't a "civil war" because the Iraqi army hasn't split on sectarian lines. Of course, there really isn't much of an Iraqi "army" at this point and what there is is never deployed without US "support".
Personally, the deaths of hundreds of civilians every month by opposing groups screams "civil war". Particularly when you see how many police are also being executed.
If the new Iraqi government survives after the US pulls out against the insurgency, would this be a victory?
Right now, the "new Iraqi government" is trying to hide in our "Green Zone".
In order for it to survive, it must be able to exist outside of the US's protection.
In order to do that, it must defeat the insurgency.
So, when we leave, if the insurgency is still alive, then there is little hope that the "new Iraqi government" will survive. A government will be there. But it will be the new, new Iraqi government. And it will not ensure the Rights that we would expect of any modern Democracy.
How many of our troops have to die to install a new Theocracy in the mid-east?
The insurgency is still viable. Not only viable, it is growing.
If the insurgency can outlast our occupation, they have, by definition, "won".
Strategically, there are more factors than just them fighting us. There's also our huge debt and deficit. There's also the price of a gallon of gas.
We are NOT fighting this war to "win". That is obvious because we are not focusing on the strategy that will allow us to remain in Iraq long enough to outlast the insurgency. As a country, we need to start rationing and saving. Just like in WW2.
Instead, we're sending the National Guard to Iraq, and then to the Mexican border. Because we cannot afford to correctly handle either situation.
The insurgency will "win" when we leave. And we will leave before the insurgency dies. Because we will be broke.
Last year, Indian police arrested employees of outsourcing company MphasiS BFL Ltd. for allegedly stealing $350,000 from the accounts of four Citibank customers in the U.S. Though security lapses also occur in the U.S., the incident fanned fears that data theft could stem from inside Indian software firms. In a recent report, researchers at Gartner Inc. predicted these security concerns would have a detrimental effect on providers' ability to capture new business.
It's bad enough when someone in the same country steals. If these guys had been a little bit brighter, they'd never have been caught.
How much do you TRUST a 3rd party to be the keepers of your company's critical data? Because once you've chosen that, you really have no other security options.
Sometimes being stupid and just breed is more efficient than being intelligent.
From an "evolutionary" point of view, the guy who goes through life, drunk, stupid and with no job, leaving a trail of illegitimate kids with moms on welfare is more "advanced" than the monogamous married couple who love art and music and such, but only have fewer children.
Evolution is about how many of your spawn live long enough to spawn.
From what I can see (too much marketing crap), it looks like they have an option in YaST to add an ISV's repository.
So, the ISV builds a package for their module and sets the dependencies and YaST allows you to update the module/kernel without breaking the dependencies.
Not much of an accomplishment at all (if that is all there is to it). Which would explain why they resorted to so much marketing crap in their announcement.
I don't think yelling and screaming will do much now, other than get yourself fast-tracked to the front of "Some List" that you probably don't want to be on at all.
Yelling and screaming won't help much.
But if you're reading this and you have NOT written to your Congress Critter, take 5 minutes and do so right now.
The way I look at it, if you haven't made your voice heard loud enough to get your name on one of the government's "lists", you aren't doing enough to protect your Freedom.
The people signing our Declaration of Independence were knowingly and publicly signing their death warrant if we lost that war.
Stand up and show the government what a real patriot is.
I am saying that what they did was illegal, and violated their oaths.
BULLSHIT!
There is nothing "illegal" about dis-obeying an illegal order. FUCK!!! Didn't we go through that sufficiently back at the Nurnberg Trials?
There is nothing "illegal" about telling someone that you were given an illegal order.
If the order / operation is ILLEGAL then refusing it or revealing it cannot be illegal.
If they leak this information, they should face the consequences.
Get a fucking clue you ass-sucking moron!
Look up the "Witness Protection Program". We have a long history of protecting people who broke illegal oaths to reveal the facts and who didn't want to "face the consequences" that criminals would like to bring down upon them.
Why do you want them to suffer just because the CRIMINALS are part of the GOVERNMENT?
Oh, it's because you don't want them to reveal the lies in the first place, isn't it?
Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it.
Bullshit. "Classified" has NOTHING to do with it.
If I give someone an order to rape some little girl and then I get that order classified they would be wrong to follow the order OR to obey the classification.
There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material.
Yes there are.
So? When the corruption goes to the top then there is nothing wrong with going to the public.
Honestly, people who who security clearance know better than this.
People who have security clearances know that if they do go public, they will face the consequences.
Going public is always an option.
It is the final option.
Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit.
No one is saying that they shouldn't expect that.
What you're saying is that they should NEVER go public.
I'm saying that going public with an illegal order is the LAST resort and does NOT violate any oath.
They are violating their oaths of secrecy.
Again, you are wrong.
When they go public with information about an ILLEGAL operation / order, they have broken no oaths.
Having a contact inside the government isn't something to hide.
You would think so, wouldn't you?
I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.
Makes you wonder, eh?
This is a way to intimidate contacts and discourage entirely legal contact with the press. Perhaps you're forgetting that phone calls have innocent content most of the time and that most relationships have nothing at all wrong in their conduct?
That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents... no problem.
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good... no problem.
If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal... expect an investigation from the FBI, CIA, NSA and a speech from Bush saying that you're a traitor and hurting our troops and our security and helping the terrorists.
From what I've seen of this "debate", it's all about what each group believes is (are) the most important aspect(s) of the kernel.
Oblig auto analogy: If hauling cargo is your primary objective, then you'll probably view motorcycles as badly designed while seeing vans and trucks as "better".
Only time (and code) will show which approach will result in all of the benefits of the other approach without any unacceptable deficiencies.
What I always found interesting about the Star Trek universe was the concept of a 'replicator'. You press a button and speak your order (e.g. Tea, Earl Grey, Hot) and get your order instantiated out of seemingly nothing. What would the consequences of such a device be if we could replicate anything at no cost? Not just information, but physical objects like cars and houses too.
Given that whatever you create CANNOT result in an increase of energy, there would be limits to this "technology".
If it takes 1 gallon of gas to drive this thing to make 2 gallons of gas, well, you can see the problem there.
So this would be self-limiting based upon the energy/matter required to "create" whatever it is that you're creating.
How this changes anything would depend upon how efficient the machine would be and what types of energy/matter it would use.
If you can't tell if you're free or not, are you really free?
So, if I can't piss on the cheese at the local deli, I'm not really "Free", am I?
The GPL is about making the code Free so that anyone can use it and improve it... PROVIDED that they share any changes they've made IF they distribute those changes.
There are other licenses that are more "Free", depending upon your point of view.
While I agree flying off the handle is probably not the best course of action at the moment, railing against the GPL for creating a situation like this where it really is quite difficult to see if there is a violation or not I would think is perfectly acceptable.
Maybe. But then, as soon as any restriction is placed upon any code, you create edge cases. That's nothing new. Which is why we have "expert" lawyers in the field of "intellectual property" law.
Because there are edge cases is no reason to claim that the GPL is evil.
Certainly not when this case rests on one un-identified individual sending one email to one distribution.
Before you go on about how evil the GPL is, why not wait until there is some clarification on the issue.
So far, an un-identified person sent an email to someone distributing a Live CD making certain claims.
As far as I can see, no one has said whether that person has any code of his/her own in that Linux distribution. Nor has anyone who would be able to say one way or the other been quoted.
Personally, I'd wait until Linus or ATI said that this was wrong before going off on how evil the GPL is.
Compose your thoughts clearly and intelligently in a written letter. A hand written letter has the most impact.
Once you've sent that letter, wait 1 week and then call them to follow up on your letter. Make sure you have a copy of your letter in front of you when you call so you can go over the specific points.
Also, considering that an election is coming up, take the time and send letters / make calls to the challengers, too. They want your vote as badly as the incumbents do. And they're usually far more willing to push an item if they think that it will get people to vote them in.
The last step is to grab 5 of your friends who would not have otherwise voted and go vote (make sure to register first, though).
Then you and your bloc can celebrate the return of Democracy with pizza and beer.
I'd be surprised if with all this data retention and spying (both US and EU) there will be single terrorist caught *before* the act.
There won't be. And the simple reason is that there is too much "noise" to sort through to find "terrorists".
But... it is popular with our government because it is "high tech" and doesn't cost as much as real experts doing real research.
All this will do is allow the government to find who you were calling after you've blown yourself up. They hope that that will lead them to someone higher up the chain.
It might.
But it is more dangerous because it can be used to track who your political opponents are calling and what they're saying to each other.
Our ForeFathers were willing to die fighting for their Freedom.
Now, our people are willing to surrender their Freedom for the "protection" offered by the government.
I didn't (couldn't) read the linked article, so I'm just going to comment on the summary.
I was not so fortunate and read comments such as this:
"When the information theft occurred against my company, we discovered that existing state and federal laws protecting consumers from identity theft had been surpassed by the individuals perpetrating the crimes, so I made 'identity theft' my fight," said McIntyre.
Okay, I believe that "When the information theft occurred against my company" can be translated into "When the data was stolen".
I don't have any idea what "existing state and federal laws protecting consumers from identity theft had been surpassed by the individuals perpetrating the crimes" means.
But it seems that "so I made 'identity theft' my fight," means "I pushed for changes in the laws".
Sooooo..... "When the data was stolen...something... I pushed for changes in the laws".
And the FA says nothing about changes to their policy of storing personal information in an un-encrypted format. But now we have some more laws. And laws will stop people from "stealing" identities. Yes. Right.
I wonder why more companies/organizations don't realize this, and any step to educate them is a step in the right direction.
They do realize it.
They just don't care because the current system minimizes their financial losses by transfering those losses to the individual who has his/her identity "stolen".
Making any changes would cost money which reduces profits.
Any changes that improved the situation could be used to find them responsible when/if their new system is defrauded.
So, fixing the system is, from the individual company's point of view, all loss and no gain.
Fuck this "much worse" shit. It doesn't matter if you're better than a hundred repressive totalitarian regimes.
What matters is what your ideals are and how closely you live them.
We supposedly value "justice". But we seem to be living "vigilantism". And there are people who are 100% okay with that.
The only difference between them and any Chinese executives filtering content is where they were born. If they had been born in China instead of the US, they'd be 100% behind their government's actions to stop the democracy movement.
Voting means nothing, and I think 50% of Americans don't vote probably because they realize this.
Voting means everything. If you want change, you vote for the people who will make the change.
Either way the government will end up extorting/stealing my money.
The "government" is not some amorphous entity. It is a collection of individuals that were voted into office (and the people that those people appoint).
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, how do you define "civil war"?
Bush and Co say that it isn't a "civil war" because the Iraqi army hasn't split on sectarian lines. Of course, there really isn't much of an Iraqi "army" at this point and what there is is never deployed without US "support".
Personally, the deaths of hundreds of civilians every month by opposing groups screams "civil war". Particularly when you see how many police are also being executed.
In order for it to survive, it must be able to exist outside of the US's protection.
In order to do that, it must defeat the insurgency.
So, when we leave, if the insurgency is still alive, then there is little hope that the "new Iraqi government" will survive. A government will be there. But it will be the new, new Iraqi government. And it will not ensure the Rights that we would expect of any modern Democracy.
How many of our troops have to die to install a new Theocracy in the mid-east?
The insurgency is still viable. Not only viable, it is growing.
If the insurgency can outlast our occupation, they have, by definition, "won".
Strategically, there are more factors than just them fighting us. There's also our huge debt and deficit. There's also the price of a gallon of gas.
We are NOT fighting this war to "win". That is obvious because we are not focusing on the strategy that will allow us to remain in Iraq long enough to outlast the insurgency. As a country, we need to start rationing and saving. Just like in WW2.
Instead, we're sending the National Guard to Iraq, and then to the Mexican border. Because we cannot afford to correctly handle either situation.
The insurgency will "win" when we leave.
And we will leave before the insurgency dies. Because we will be broke.
How much do you TRUST a 3rd party to be the keepers of your company's critical data? Because once you've chosen that, you really have no other security options.
Evolution is about how many of your spawn live long enough to spawn.
You have two "known" "nutjobs". If you want to know who they're talking to and what they're saying, then get a warrant.
That way, when they both implicate "B", you can immediately get a warrant to find out who "B" is talking to.
Also, you might find out that "C" is a "nutjob", too. Then you can get a warrant for his phone.
All very easy and all very legal under existing laws.
So, YaST now has the ability to include ISV repositories ... and Novell will tell people who sign up with them when the interface changes?
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the "breakthrough" here.
From what I can see (too much marketing crap), it looks like they have an option in YaST to add an ISV's repository.
So, the ISV builds a package for their module and sets the dependencies and YaST allows you to update the module/kernel without breaking the dependencies.
Not much of an accomplishment at all (if that is all there is to it). Which would explain why they resorted to so much marketing crap in their announcement.
But if you're reading this and you have NOT written to your Congress Critter, take 5 minutes and do so right now.
The way I look at it, if you haven't made your voice heard loud enough to get your name on one of the government's "lists", you aren't doing enough to protect your Freedom.
The people signing our Declaration of Independence were knowingly and publicly signing their death warrant if we lost that war.
Stand up and show the government what a real patriot is.
There is nothing "illegal" about dis-obeying an illegal order. FUCK!!! Didn't we go through that sufficiently back at the Nurnberg Trials?
There is nothing "illegal" about telling someone that you were given an illegal order.
If the order / operation is ILLEGAL then refusing it or revealing it cannot be illegal.Get a fucking clue you ass-sucking moron!
Look up the "Witness Protection Program". We have a long history of protecting people who broke illegal oaths to reveal the facts and who didn't want to "face the consequences" that criminals would like to bring down upon them.
Why do you want them to suffer just because the CRIMINALS are part of the GOVERNMENT?
Oh, it's because you don't want them to reveal the lies in the first place, isn't it?
The Press should be the ally of the People.
When the Government considers the Press to be the Enemy, that means that the Government considers an ally of the People to be the Enemy.
That's one step away from considering the People to be the Enemy of the Government.
If I give someone an order to rape some little girl and then I get that order classified they would be wrong to follow the order OR to obey the classification.Yes there are.
So? When the corruption goes to the top then there is nothing wrong with going to the public.People who have security clearances know that if they do go public, they will face the consequences.
Going public is always an option.
It is the final option.No one is saying that they shouldn't expect that.
What you're saying is that they should NEVER go public.
I'm saying that going public with an illegal order is the LAST resort and does NOT violate any oath.Again, you are wrong.
When they go public with information about an ILLEGAL operation / order, they have broken no oaths.
I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.
Makes you wonder, eh?That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good
If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
Of course, having an inside contact at the government is something to hide.
Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
From what I've seen of this "debate", it's all about what each group believes is (are) the most important aspect(s) of the kernel.
Oblig auto analogy:
If hauling cargo is your primary objective, then you'll probably view motorcycles as badly designed while seeing vans and trucks as "better".
Only time (and code) will show which approach will result in all of the benefits of the other approach without any unacceptable deficiencies.
If it takes 1 gallon of gas to drive this thing to make 2 gallons of gas, well, you can see the problem there.
So this would be self-limiting based upon the energy/matter required to "create" whatever it is that you're creating.
How this changes anything would depend upon how efficient the machine would be and what types of energy/matter it would use.
The GPL is about making the code Free so that anyone can use it and improve it
There are other licenses that are more "Free", depending upon your point of view.Maybe. But then, as soon as any restriction is placed upon any code, you create edge cases. That's nothing new. Which is why we have "expert" lawyers in the field of "intellectual property" law.
Because there are edge cases is no reason to claim that the GPL is evil.
Certainly not when this case rests on one un-identified individual sending one email to one distribution.
Before you go on about how evil the GPL is, why not wait until there is some clarification on the issue.
So far, an un-identified person sent an email to someone distributing a Live CD making certain claims.
As far as I can see, no one has said whether that person has any code of his/her own in that Linux distribution. Nor has anyone who would be able to say one way or the other been quoted.
Personally, I'd wait until Linus or ATI said that this was wrong before going off on how evil the GPL is.
Compose your thoughts clearly and intelligently in a written letter. A hand written letter has the most impact.
c .htm
Once you've sent that letter, wait 1 week and then call them to follow up on your letter. Make sure you have a copy of your letter in front of you when you call so you can go over the specific points.
Also, considering that an election is coming up, take the time and send letters / make calls to the challengers, too. They want your vote as badly as the incumbents do. And they're usually far more willing to push an item if they think that it will get people to vote them in.
The last step is to grab 5 of your friends who would not have otherwise voted and go vote (make sure to register first, though).
Then you and your bloc can celebrate the return of Democracy with pizza and beer.
http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/blo
But
All this will do is allow the government to find who you were calling after you've blown yourself up. They hope that that will lead them to someone higher up the chain.
It might.
But it is more dangerous because it can be used to track who your political opponents are calling and what they're saying to each other.
Our ForeFathers were willing to die fighting for their Freedom.
Now, our people are willing to surrender their Freedom for the "protection" offered by the government.
It cannot protect anyone from anything.
All it provides is a statement of beliefs. If you follow those beliefs, then get out and protest the abuses.
In the end, it all comes down to what the people will accept. If you don't want to accept it, then get active working for change.
I don't have any idea what "existing state and federal laws protecting consumers from identity theft had been surpassed by the individuals perpetrating the crimes" means.
But it seems that "so I made 'identity theft' my fight," means "I pushed for changes in the laws".
Sooooo..... "When the data was stolen
And the FA says nothing about changes to their policy of storing personal information in an un-encrypted format. But now we have some more laws. And laws will stop people from "stealing" identities. Yes. Right.
They just don't care because the current system minimizes their financial losses by transfering those losses to the individual who has his/her identity "stolen".
Making any changes would cost money which reduces profits.
Any changes that improved the situation could be used to find them responsible when/if their new system is defrauded.
So, fixing the system is, from the individual company's point of view, all loss and no gain.
Fuck this "much worse" shit. It doesn't matter if you're better than a hundred repressive totalitarian regimes.
What matters is what your ideals are and how closely you live them.
We supposedly value "justice". But we seem to be living "vigilantism". And there are people who are 100% okay with that.
The only difference between them and any Chinese executives filtering content is where they were born. If they had been born in China instead of the US, they'd be 100% behind their government's actions to stop the democracy movement.
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
It's as simple as that.