This has nothing to do with USA, but with EU. Google has a physical presence (offices with employees) in Ireland, UK and Switzerland, which are all on the list of tax friendly countries. France is pretending that what counts is where the content is delivered (eg: the viewer of the add is in France), but the problem is that the general laws in Europe about delivery of a service tend to make you believe that it depends more on where the servers are located, or eventually where the employees are. So if Google wants they can bring this mater to the European courts, and rightly, IMO.
I sympathise, but this isn't quite the same thing.
How can you be so sure that this time it wont be the same deception and all? I mean, remember the golf of Tonka, North Wood, WMD in Irak (I'm on purpose avoiding adding 9/11 in the list, for discussing the controversy will bring us no where)... The recent USA history is full of false flags. At least I see the same pattern of governmental communication, which rings the alarm bell. So this should absolutely not be an excuse to go on a war with Iran. Peace!
What I don't get are people who act as apologists for Iran purely to try and spite America and ratchet up their distaste of America.
Each time I write about how a disaster has been the foreign affairs handing in USA, there's always someone to write a moronic sentence about how I could be disliking America. It's just like saying someone is a racist because he's complaining about Obama. I don't think that's a scheme that works.
Just because the US has done a lot wrong, doesn't make Iran right by any measure
Right. But what happened with the WMD in Iraq leaves everyone skeptic about Iran's case and USA's bullshit about it.
just last week Hezbollah flew a drone into Israel to gain intel on Israeli military installations, where did that drone come from? who provided the kit and expertise for it's use? that's right, Iran.
How this is or should be any of USA's concern? If what you say is truth, that's a problem between Palestine, Israel and Iran, and that's it.
[iran]They've been oppressing the educated minorities in their society who dared to rise up and call for reform in an extremely brutal manner including torture and rape too so it's not like you can even frame Iran as some poor innocent little nation when you isolate your view of it from external, to internal politics and policies.
That's quite right. But in USA there's guantanamo and torture as well, 3 million (more casual) prisoners, a lot of (open) political corruption, and 2 parties that are for the same extreme financial terrorism which destroyed the world economy. What is your point then? There's evil everywhere no?
Honestly, I think it's silly to think Iran is a good nation
I don't know how does, but certainly not me!
and I'm not convinced it's even sensible to believe Iran doesn't have at least some nuclear ambitions
Of course, because in their eyes it would bring balance on their side, considering that Israel has it. But that doesn't mean they actually run nuclear weapon facilities.
All their tech is bought/designed by Russia and the West anyway so any claims about how the IAEA only wants access to steal their nuclear secrets is completely stupid
Right, it's not like a computer virus could destroy the heavy water equipment... Seriously, why are you so much one sided that you don't see the obvious?
what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program.
No, that's wrong. It attacked the nuclear enrichment facility responsible for producing heavy water. If you didn't know, it's a different set of equipment to produce heavy water for nuclear weapon, the concentration in heavy water has to be an order of magnitude higher. And the equipment Stuxnet attacked (designed by Siemens) is known well enough so this makes no doubts.
If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.
That's really too bad that you got your facts wrong in the first place.
So answer me this very simple question: Who decides who gets nuclear weapons?
Certainly not USA alone.
Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
I am not a president of USA, therefor I cannot answer this question of why it's fine that France, India, China, Russia, North Korea and Israel are allowed, but not Iran. But that's a very good question!
Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me. USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then? Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?
Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.
Only to a certain limit of annoyance, beyond which we install ABP.
Right, I have it too, but it's not enough, some still gets through.
unsolicited advertising annoys people
Do you have an example of an add which is solicited, and which people are pleased with? I don't think such thing exist.
How do you check the weather?
RSS feed displayed on the home of my mobile phone. No advertising here...
How do you look up the location of a store?
OpenStreetMap?:) Of course, it only works that much, after which I agree with you... But if I go on a site to locate a store, then I'm willingly doing it, and there are multiple choices.
We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge. I recommend everyone to install the ghostery pluggin, just to see how far this has gone (eg: so many sites are displaying trackers from 3rd parties).
monotask computer -> MiNT (read: mint is not TOS, on the Atari computer, not the Debian or Ubuntu derivative...) -> Slackware 68k -> RedHat 5.2 68k -> Debian i386 -> Debian amd64
Gnome 3 isn't better than the Desktop Environment that I had in the mid-90s with MiNT and XAES, and one of so many alternative desktops we could choose from.
I don't think TCP port 53 wouldn't be counted. That's used in the DNS protocol for zone transfers, not for DNS requests. And anyway, having a dns0 interface is so much more fun!:)
What a nice, idealistic story you are telling here. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way. In reality:
Actor B has information that nobody has, because he got contacts with the government. That's an insider information that is illegal, but nobody will know, so its fine. Actor B will do HFT with naked short sales. That's illegal too, but last time Goldman Sacks sold for more than 100% of the total market value of a company, nobody said anything, so why not? Anyway, people at the government are his friends, and if there's a problem, the laws can be changed or he can be bailed out.
Actor A is a poor, miss-informed buyer. He would love to do HFT, but he does have to pay huge fees to Actor B when he buys or sell, so he can't. He foolishly thinks he can make money with stocks, like Actor B, and will try to invest in the long run, so he still tries, even though that's an already loss battle, since most of the money is made in HFT.
Well, as you say, it's a philisophical distinction. For us (eg: Debian contributors), any software that discriminates people or groups of people for its license is non-free. The line has to be drawn somewhere. We decided that it each time a software is non-free in some condition, then it's non-free and that's it. And I really like that we think this way.
Exactly. If you want, you can for example burn Debian on a CD, and sell the CDs, if you like. Or sell any of the software that are in the distribution. There's nothing preventing it. Buyers would be a bit silly to buy something freely available, but that's perfectly legal to sell.
Well, it's more easy than this. If you have a "non-commercial use" license, then it's not free software. Remember we have the following freedom (nothing new):
0- Use
1- Studdy and modify
2- Redistribute and share
3- Redistribute modified copies
In the case of non-commercial clause, you loose freedom 2 and 3. In Debian, we all agree to the DFSG: Debian Free Software Guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract which clearly specify that we shouldn't "Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". Such license with a non-commercial clause is discriminating for the freedom 2 and 3 of RMS. We consider this type of license as non-free. Full stop!
You've just confirmed that you never ever forget your password.
I don't forget my *master* password, the one of my partitions. The others, I don't need to remember them, they are stored on my encrypted partition... That's *one* password to remember. I believe everyone is capable of that.
I have just calculated that these numbers are crap. They don't make sense, and they come from nowhere. My dm-crypt device costs me nothing...
- licensing: zero, it's open source
- maintenance: maybe 5 more minutes at setup time?
- device pre-provisioning: WTF?
- device staging: same
- tech time spent on password resets: zero. This is real encryption, there's no such thing available as "password reset", there's only a passphrase which cannot be recovered. If it can, then this means you have zero security
- end-user downtime spent during password resets: zero
- cost associated with re-imaging hard drives: never happened. I use RAID1 BTW.
- end-user downtime associated with initial disk encryption: well, I went have lunch when it was writing random stuff at initialization. No time wasted.
- end-user time spent operating an FDE-enabled computer: WHAT???
Anyway, using an encrypted HDD should be mandatory in every company. That's the very basics of security...
Slashdot Mirror
They're both great cars for different reasons, and they both objectively fit our subjective needs better than the other would.
Both objectively and subjectively, Gnome 3 (without the fall-back / classic mode) sux.
I am also in China. By the way, I just sent an email to my alternate gmail address. It went through just fine.
That's not what the censorship is about. It's about blocking WEB addresses. Like mail.google.com ...
This has nothing to do with USA, but with EU. Google has a physical presence (offices with employees) in Ireland, UK and Switzerland, which are all on the list of tax friendly countries. France is pretending that what counts is where the content is delivered (eg: the viewer of the add is in France), but the problem is that the general laws in Europe about delivery of a service tend to make you believe that it depends more on where the servers are located, or eventually where the employees are. So if Google wants they can bring this mater to the European courts, and rightly, IMO.
I sympathise, but this isn't quite the same thing.
How can you be so sure that this time it wont be the same deception and all? I mean, remember the golf of Tonka, North Wood, WMD in Irak (I'm on purpose avoiding adding 9/11 in the list, for discussing the controversy will bring us no where)... The recent USA history is full of false flags. At least I see the same pattern of governmental communication, which rings the alarm bell. So this should absolutely not be an excuse to go on a war with Iran. Peace!
What I don't get are people who act as apologists for Iran purely to try and spite America and ratchet up their distaste of America.
Each time I write about how a disaster has been the foreign affairs handing in USA, there's always someone to write a moronic sentence about how I could be disliking America. It's just like saying someone is a racist because he's complaining about Obama. I don't think that's a scheme that works.
Just because the US has done a lot wrong, doesn't make Iran right by any measure
Right. But what happened with the WMD in Iraq leaves everyone skeptic about Iran's case and USA's bullshit about it.
just last week Hezbollah flew a drone into Israel to gain intel on Israeli military installations, where did that drone come from? who provided the kit and expertise for it's use? that's right, Iran.
How this is or should be any of USA's concern? If what you say is truth, that's a problem between Palestine, Israel and Iran, and that's it.
[iran]They've been oppressing the educated minorities in their society who dared to rise up and call for reform in an extremely brutal manner including torture and rape too so it's not like you can even frame Iran as some poor innocent little nation when you isolate your view of it from external, to internal politics and policies.
That's quite right. But in USA there's guantanamo and torture as well, 3 million (more casual) prisoners, a lot of (open) political corruption, and 2 parties that are for the same extreme financial terrorism which destroyed the world economy. What is your point then? There's evil everywhere no?
Honestly, I think it's silly to think Iran is a good nation
I don't know how does, but certainly not me!
and I'm not convinced it's even sensible to believe Iran doesn't have at least some nuclear ambitions
Of course, because in their eyes it would bring balance on their side, considering that Israel has it. But that doesn't mean they actually run nuclear weapon facilities.
All their tech is bought/designed by Russia and the West anyway so any claims about how the IAEA only wants access to steal their nuclear secrets is completely stupid
Right, it's not like a computer virus could destroy the heavy water equipment... Seriously, why are you so much one sided that you don't see the obvious?
what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program.
No, that's wrong. It attacked the nuclear enrichment facility responsible for producing heavy water. If you didn't know, it's a different set of equipment to produce heavy water for nuclear weapon, the concentration in heavy water has to be an order of magnitude higher. And the equipment Stuxnet attacked (designed by Siemens) is known well enough so this makes no doubts.
If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.
That's really too bad that you got your facts wrong in the first place.
So answer me this very simple question: Who decides who gets nuclear weapons?
Certainly not USA alone.
Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
I am not a president of USA, therefor I cannot answer this question of why it's fine that France, India, China, Russia, North Korea and Israel are allowed, but not Iran. But that's a very good question!
Right. US "only" invaded Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and probably wants to also go in Syria and Iran. I wonder who's the most --censored--.
Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me. USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then? Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?
Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.
If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...
Only to a certain limit of annoyance, beyond which we install ABP.
Right, I have it too, but it's not enough, some still gets through.
unsolicited advertising annoys people
Do you have an example of an add which is solicited, and which people are pleased with? I don't think such thing exist.
How do you check the weather?
RSS feed displayed on the home of my mobile phone. No advertising here...
How do you look up the location of a store?
OpenStreetMap? :) Of course, it only works that much, after which I agree with you... But if I go on a site to locate a store, then I'm willingly doing it, and there are multiple choices.
We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge. I recommend everyone to install the ghostery pluggin, just to see how far this has gone (eg: so many sites are displaying trackers from 3rd parties).
monotask computer -> MiNT (read: mint is not TOS, on the Atari computer, not the Debian or Ubuntu derivative...) -> Slackware 68k -> RedHat 5.2 68k -> Debian i386 -> Debian amd64
Gnome 3 isn't better than the Desktop Environment that I had in the mid-90s with MiNT and XAES, and one of so many alternative desktops we could choose from.
Why proposing stupid alternatives to the words "anonymous coward" an innovation?
Why proposing stupid alternatives to the words "anonymous coward" an innovation? I'd like to understand...
I don't think TCP port 53 wouldn't be counted. That's used in the DNS protocol for zone transfers, not for DNS requests. And anyway, having a dns0 interface is so much more fun! :)
What a nice, idealistic story you are telling here. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way. In reality:
Actor B has information that nobody has, because he got contacts with the government. That's an insider information that is illegal, but nobody will know, so its fine. Actor B will do HFT with naked short sales. That's illegal too, but last time Goldman Sacks sold for more than 100% of the total market value of a company, nobody said anything, so why not? Anyway, people at the government are his friends, and if there's a problem, the laws can be changed or he can be bailed out.
Actor A is a poor, miss-informed buyer. He would love to do HFT, but he does have to pay huge fees to Actor B when he buys or sell, so he can't. He foolishly thinks he can make money with stocks, like Actor B, and will try to invest in the long run, so he still tries, even though that's an already loss battle, since most of the money is made in HFT.
My answer to this is very simple: more than once a day is too fast, and it should be forbidden.
Well, as you say, it's a philisophical distinction. For us (eg: Debian contributors), any software that discriminates people or groups of people for its license is non-free. The line has to be drawn somewhere. We decided that it each time a software is non-free in some condition, then it's non-free and that's it. And I really like that we think this way.
Don't over generalize. Some of it is, some of it isn't, depending on the authors and their involvement.
Exactly. If you want, you can for example burn Debian on a CD, and sell the CDs, if you like. Or sell any of the software that are in the distribution. There's nothing preventing it. Buyers would be a bit silly to buy something freely available, but that's perfectly legal to sell.
Well, it's more easy than this. If you have a "non-commercial use" license, then it's not free software. Remember we have the following freedom (nothing new):
0- Use
1- Studdy and modify
2- Redistribute and share
3- Redistribute modified copies
In the case of non-commercial clause, you loose freedom 2 and 3. In Debian, we all agree to the DFSG: Debian Free Software Guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract which clearly specify that we shouldn't "Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". Such license with a non-commercial clause is discriminating for the freedom 2 and 3 of RMS. We consider this type of license as non-free. Full stop!
It's self-discrediting, it doesn't even need my help. Have you even read TFA? It's really laughable. Some of the % wont even have a meaning.
You've just confirmed that you never ever forget your password.
I don't forget my *master* password, the one of my partitions. The others, I don't need to remember them, they are stored on my encrypted partition... That's *one* password to remember. I believe everyone is capable of that.
I have just calculated that these numbers are crap. They don't make sense, and they come from nowhere. My dm-crypt device costs me nothing...
- licensing: zero, it's open source
- maintenance: maybe 5 more minutes at setup time?
- device pre-provisioning: WTF?
- device staging: same
- tech time spent on password resets: zero. This is real encryption, there's no such thing available as "password reset", there's only a passphrase which cannot be recovered. If it can, then this means you have zero security
- end-user downtime spent during password resets: zero
- cost associated with re-imaging hard drives: never happened. I use RAID1 BTW.
- end-user downtime associated with initial disk encryption: well, I went have lunch when it was writing random stuff at initialization. No time wasted.
- end-user time spent operating an FDE-enabled computer: WHAT???
Anyway, using an encrypted HDD should be mandatory in every company. That's the very basics of security...