But yeah, if you are even a small large customer and you have a problem Cisco TAC can be amazing.
Meanwhile, if you are a mid-sized corporation, you get your support requests kicked to the Indians who memorized just enough to pass their CCNAs, and afterwords, know nothing except which script to follow, and even that only works for the simplest of configurations...
but do you dress entirely in hessian sack cloth? No? Then are your clothes strictly utilitarian?
My T-Shirts and Jeans, made in Pakistan / China, are cheaper than a sack... In fact I've been considering the price of coin-operated laundry, and how close we are to the point that buying new clothes every week becomes cheaper than washing them...
Of course we've far since gone past that point when you count full-service laundry, particularly that found in hotels...
Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.
In the western US, there are innumerable areas, many quite heavily populated, which are not incorporated into a city.
So, at the very least, you'd have to do this at the County level... Then you have problems with large counties servicing a couple big cities, and completely ignoring the less densely populated areas, knowing it's cheaper, and they'll get 90% of the people happy, and voting for them again... There are innumerable recognized cases of counties siphoning off tax money from less populated areas, and giving most of it to the large cities.
From this I learned (1) airplanes can not lift off (we will need cramjets before they can) and , (2) you think that "Star Trek" forcefields are a necessary R&D area. Now you say this is totally understood.
1) I, quite obviously, meant no air-breathing jets can reach Earth escape velocity, so any space-plane would need hypersonic engines developed. 2) Electromagnetic shielding of AN ENTIRE SHIP would be highly beneficial to it's human inhabitants, if they don't wish to be entirely confined to an extremely tiny compartment for years at a time... Meanwhile, "radiation hardened computer equipment" already exists, and is well understood.
Yes, I do. We've found out that, at the height of the cold war, the launch codes were unset/all-zeros. That's something I sure as hell should have known...
Do you need to know the weak points of military equipment?
Yes, I do. How many times has the government spent tons of money on projects with massive flaws, which later rendered them useless or required massively expensive fixed? I need to know this information before they are purchased, and before soldiers are deployed to war zones where this weakness may lead to numerous deaths...
See something like the Stryker. It WAS known that it's armor was effective against most everything but RPGs. Then they were sent into a war zone where RPGs were everywhere. The government couldn't hide this, so they rolled out additional armor for these vehicles.
With Humvees, however, there wasn't any explicit public acknowledgment that they were vulnerable, and the armoring process took YEARS, crawling along at a snail's pace until leaders were publicly shamed for it.
Do you need to know about troop movements?
Yes, I do. We declare war on Syria and send the soldiers into Iran, instead? I sure as hell need to know. Massacre in a war zone? I sure need to know who was there, and when.
With all three, this information could be DELAYED by quite a bit, but there's little denying that we DO need to know damn near everything our government is doing.
At the time of Apollo we didn't have mobile computers in any real sense and they had to develop that technology.
Yes, in hindsight it's easy to see what the technologies developed into. but at the time, it wasn't obvious anyone other than NASA would want to spend a billion dollars to get a "mobile computer". Whether the tech developed by NASA will roll into something we will see benefit in, in 20 years, is a pretty open question.
Likely research for space travel is radiation shielding an radiation hardened computer equipment.
That's a pretty well-understood tech already, due to thousands of satellites in various orbits. I don't see a much need for R&D in that area, so I doubt they'll be spending a lot of money on that...
Re:TrueCrypt file named DSC43423.jpg
on
Hollow Spy Coins
·
· Score: 1
think you'd be better off with a TrueCrypt file named DSC13423.jpg stored on an SDHC card loaded inside a point and shoot camera.
It'll take mere seconds for software to discover that there's one file, among the hundreds, which appears to be corrupt, and/or has trailing data (in the stenographic case)...
If you're really going to hide data, you need to do it with minimally-modified pixels inside that image. In which case, you're going to be able to hold very, very little secret data amongst a large number of photos.
You just have to give it to the people that you give binaries to.
Which is exactly what he said... Swap "distributed" with "give" and it's nearly the same sentence.
In practice, this often means community-driven development with people contributing their changes upstream. They do this because it's cheaper than maintaining a fork though, not because the license compels them to.
This is just misleading enough to be untrue... While the GPL doesn't force you to contribute "back" (only "forward", as you've called it), you then can't stop anyone from, themselves, giving it "back", and contributing all changes upstream.
90% of software that is developed is never distributed.
Yes, but the word "distribute" is peppered all over his post. He's clearly talking about distributing it.
You make a good point: the technologies needed for the next step are even less applicable here on Earth that the Apollo technologies were.
Most of the technologies developed for Apollo, at first glance, don't seem like they'd be applicable here on Earth, either. I can't begin to guess whether more advanced tech will or won't find many uses, so I'd love to hear your thought processes which came up deciding they won't. Certainly, a LOT of prediction is required for any such task, and we could all easily end up wrong about what the future holds.
Just reducing the costs of lift-offs will dramatically change the face of our modern world, as the impossible becomes practical... perhaps more than the initial rush to orbit communication satellites did.
After several replies, the only thing I've learned is that your reading comprehension is, apparently, quite poor. Are you a non-native English speaker by chance?
Only if you assume that the initial statement is true.
I was talking about statistics, and judging claims. Not only does it not require "assuming" anything, it is meaningless if you are going to just assume something...
So, basically, you get to pull the "I did not say that card" while I am stuck with being the evil, headless guy who did not even try to value your arguments? Cool.
It's a simple fact that I stated no opinion, while you did, in the same breadth as saying my "arguments" "[miss] the point". You can backpedal as much as you please. I'm not trying to stick you with anything.
Still, my basic point remains: OpenBSD is, in my opinion, not the single most important FLOSS project
That might be valuable to debate, but so far, you haven't provided any reasoning for that assertion, except to say that, statistically, since only one can be the "most", it's unlikely than any given on, in fact, is.
Larger than GNU, Linux and FreeBSD, for example?
Once again, you're talking completely off the subject. I was pointing out the difficulty in comparing different OSS project, and you somehow turn that into me claiming that OpenBSD is the largest...
I will say that, OpenBSD's scope is certainly larger than Linux or all of GNU... Linux just being a kernel (OpenBSD has a kernel, which supports the overwhelming majority of the same things) and GNU being userland and more (which OpenBSD also has).
The funny thing is that you are trying to convince me that your choice (and let's not play games, you _do_ agree with what OP said) is the only right one while all I am saying is "I am not even sure how to judge which the best one is".
A) You're completely and totally wrong in your notion of absolutely everything I have said in this discussion. B) You certainly have no idea of my opinion, and I doubt anyone could hope to judge anything about it from the little I have revealed here. C) You've repeatedly stated your conclusion, so, apparently, you DO in fact, believe you know how to make such a judgment. Claiming you do not, is talking nonsense, and is inherently contradictory... "Gee, I have no idea how to decide who is right, but I do know that you are wrong..."
Which, in turn, means you think the answer is a foregone conclusion, as well.
False logic. Listening to an argument (or even offering some evidence supporting one) does not presuppose a decision, one way or the other (though one MIGHT infer some bias from it). Dismissing arguments, with no attempt to judge their veracity, immediately indicates prejudice (by definition).
Debating the point is moot, but if we assume that we both could err, the statistical chance of "out of n samples, x is the most y" is a lot less than of "out of n samples, x is not the most y".
Yes, you have a statistically better chance of betting against someone, but this is not a bet. We are not operating in lieu of evidence, which substantially improves those odds.
Jokes aside, I am not sure which the most important single piece of FLOSS is or even what scope is the right one and how to weigth the various facts.
Yes, in the very least, it's heavily biased if you include any project which happens to be much larger than others, and/or encompasses many smaller, only partially-related projects...
While true, this argument misses the point that they are not "the most important free software project on the planet".
It doesn't miss the point at all, it's merely more facts to support the claim. Certainly far from undeniable proof, but the fact that you don't care about the relevant facts just indicates you believe the answer to be a foregone conclusion.
You are basically arguing about a different thing than the rest of us.
No, you're simply reading "a different thing than the rest of us."
Well, we already *had* the original ssh, but it was being weakened by the original author's effort to build a company around it. OpenSSH saved it,
SSH1 was cryptographically weak, wasn't remotely as exploit-free, and much more than that, it wasn't being widely adopted... No SSH in Solaris, Cisco routers, etc., until OpenSSH matured, and showed everyone where the future undeniably was.
Perhaps the biggest thing OpenSSH had going for it, was that it was adopted into the OpenBSD base system immediately, and RSH protocols were removed. That definitely got the ball rolling.
Why not develop super efficient engines for various modes of transportation? Why not build great high speed rail that could connect cities at super sonic speeds? Doesn't sound possible? Not really, but neither did putting a man on the moon.
There would be nothing revolutionary about supersonic trains. Larger engines, better aerodynamics, etc. Sure, you'd have something when you were done, but you'd develop next to NOTHING in the process. Electric motors, and aerodynamics are a fairly simple, known quantity, and paying a lot of money for good ones doesn't move the technology forward at all.
Space travel is quite different. There are a million and one things which we don't have good answers for, yet. No airplanes go nearly fast enough for liftoff, so development of hypersonic cramjets seems the next step. Conventional shielding from radiation is impractical due to size and weight, so an electromagnetic forcefield (ala Star Trek) seems a practical necessity for even the shortest interplanetary trip.
None of the three you've listed sound impossible by any stretch. Landing a man on the moon was an incredible accomplishment, in large part due to how quickly it was done, but it was overwhelmingly recognized as POSSIBLE from 1920, on, a single commentator for the NY Times not withstanding...
Just because they created OpenSSH doesn't mean the OS is the most important open source project on the planet.
OpenSSH was a huge improvement in the security of networks the world over, but it's not at all the only thing OpenBSD has contributed to the world.
Certainly, OpenBSD's development of W^X security led to Microsoft doing the same, and Intel/AMD including instructions to make this easier...
OpenBSD's focus on code correctness and licensing has caused them to lead, and have Linux and other BSDs follow... They announced their dropping of Xfree86 in favor of Xorg before anyone else, and very soon after Xfree86 was no longer found on any OSes. Their objections over the performance, code complexity, and licensing of GCC4 led to them pushing alternative compilers forward, and other projects (like FreeBSD) followed suit, pushing hard to move their favored alternative compilers forward.
There's many more, but you'll have to wait for someone else to come up with a list...
See the upgrade guide for upgrading 4.5 to 4.6... it's a 280 line upgrade guide: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade46.html...on RedHat and CentOS, to go from RHEL 5.3 to RHEL 5.4 I did "yum -y update". That's it.
You can just do the OpenBSD upgrade without reading those instructions... as you did with RHEL.
If you'd actually started to read those instructions, you'd have seen they outline basically all feature changes between the previous and current release. See:
scrub in all no-df max-mss 1440
can be replaced with a rule using the new "match" action:
match in all scrub (no-df max-mss 1440)
Did the yum upgrade automatically make all necessary syntax changes in all corner cases in your config files to adapt them for the newest versions of the software? Obviously not... You're left to figure those out yourself. If the new version of iptables uses different options for some obscure option, you're screwed. Oh well, guess you should have read the RHEL 5.4 errata, which happens to be SEVERAL THOUSAND LINES http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Release_Notes/index.html
You are actually claiming that someone can "earn" $50 billion? That is utterly preposterous.
Actually, he claimed that Gates/Buffet earned it by starting immensely successful companies.
If not for the anticompetitive practices of Microsoft, I wouldn't have any problem with how Bill Gates earned his money... The company he happened to own and control, happened to become the most overwhelmingly successful company in all of human history. Sure, it's not exactly a fair distribution of wealth, but it's a perfectly legitimate way to become wealthy. You invest (time and money), and your investment becomes vastly successful. Like any other gamble, sometimes you lose big, sometimes you win big.
These people gamed the system.
Winning money gambling isn't gaming the system... It's playing well within the rules, and just getting lucky.
(frankly your "objection" is little more than an assumption without indication that I would overlook something so obvious).
No. You're implying EMI would be better off with lesser copyright restrictions, when, in fact, they are better off with the current system, no matter how many contract disputes they may have.
I would speculate that one can make money selling copies of public-domain works.
Yes, "one" can. That "one" would absolutely, positively NOT be EMI, or any other major entities. With no barrier to entry, only those with the lowest overhead will make money, and even then, little if anything. In short, the guy in his parent's basement, with a website and credit card processing company, would be the only guy to squeeze a few cents out of the situation, and very little at that.
We are talking IE6 here, it is a decade old by now. Do you still use 10 year old PC's? Do you use 10 year old cars?
WTF?
YES! At my mid-sized company, we continue to use innumerable PCs which are far more than 10 years old. You think IE8 runs on Windows 98?
Incidentally, my PCs at home are also getting close to 10 years old, now: 100MHz firewall/router which consumes all of 7 watts. 1.2GHz Duron as my desktop, which I dare not replace for the immeasurable difficulty in finding a new system that fully supports S3/Suspend mode under FreeBSD/Linux. 1.3GHz Athlon system as my DVR, which has more than enough processing power for everything I do, thanks in part to GPU accelerated video decoding making it plenty fast enough for HDTV.
These systems do their job perfectly, are plenty fast for everything, etc. Why SHOULD I replace them?
And my car? It's going on 20 years, thank you very much. Sure, I have to get smog checks more often, but it's a small price to pay. And don't try bitching about it, it gets over 30MPG easily enough, and always gets a near ideal score on every smog check. Were you planning on paying the $20,000USD to get me a new car, which is more likely than not going to be inferior in many ways, like ease of maintenance, availability of parts, and cost of repairs? And how about my insurance rates?
Pink Floyd is only able to exert this control (and have a judge back them up) because of the strict nature of copyright law, including over songs that are significantly older than many folks participating in this discussion.
This has nothing to do with copyright, and EVERYTHING to do with CONTRACT LAW. EMI signed a contract, in exchange for the right to sell their songs. They broke the terms of that contract, and got sued.
The only way copyright law would have any bearing is if you're suggesting the copyright on these songs should have expired by now. That may be fair, but then, EMI is WORSE OFF, because then ANYONE can sell these same songs, for the mere cost of distribution, and EMI loses out on any chance of making ANY money on them (because someone else will always have it available cheaper).
Our manufacturing per capita consistently places us outside of the top 10.
Oh NO! We're outside the top 10! Clear we "don't have a manufacturing sector" as you've said.
Who's "full of shit", now?
Top bracket under Bush is 35%. Top bracket under Clinton is 39.6%.
That's not even remote what I said. I said Clinton gave them a bigger tax cut. Bush's tax cuts, on TOP of Clintons tax cuts, of course puts Bush's rate lower, because he came after.
And I quote:
"I'm the guy who broke the story and reported on the fact that Bill Clinton gave the super rich, the 400 highest income people in America a big tax cut. They were paying 30 cents out of each dollar of their income to the federal government when he came into the office. When he left, it was down to 22. Bush has lowered it to 17. Now, first of all, notice you're probably paying more than 17 cents. May well be paying more than 22. [...] Clinton gave an eight cent tax cut and Bush only gave them five cents." DAVID CAY JOHNSTON (New York Times) http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/transcript5.html
If you have any other questions about reality, feel free to ask.
Your version of "reality" is about as accurate as Fox News', just swinging to the left.
Try again, without the flagrant ignorance and blinding bias.
When you don't have a manufacturing sector, it's hard to create actual wealth.
True. How fortunate that the US is #1 in manufacturing, and vastly ahead of #2 (Japan) and very far ahead of #3 (China).
When corporate structures have co-opted your government into forcing you to compete with third world wages
That's endlessly debatable... Sure, one guy in the US no longer has a job making T-Shirts, but everyone in the US now pays 1/10th as much for a T-Shirt. In the end, it appears to be more efficient. Of course, it's only in these overwhelming cases that it looks so good. When companies say they can cut $40 million off their operating costs by moving out of the US, employees band together and figure out how to save $35 million, and the company goes ahead and closes down the old plant, anyhow, it's pretty obvious that our priorities have been horribly twisted around.
and shifted the tax burden from the richest to the middle class,
Sad but true. And worse, Bill Clinton signed a larger tax cut for the rich than George Bush ever did... Getting screwed from the rich on both sides, now.
Franklin said democracy would fail when people discovered they could vote themselves money, and pork certainly has been a major issue, but it seems it really becomes unraveled when the rich discover they can legally buy politicians, and legislation, and the courts will stick to the letter of the law, loopholes and all, until it's so entrenched that there's no climbing out of the deep, dark, hole of corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, if you are a mid-sized corporation, you get your support requests kicked to the Indians who memorized just enough to pass their CCNAs, and afterwords, know nothing except which script to follow, and even that only works for the simplest of configurations...
My T-Shirts and Jeans, made in Pakistan / China, are cheaper than a sack... In fact I've been considering the price of coin-operated laundry, and how close we are to the point that buying new clothes every week becomes cheaper than washing them...
Of course we've far since gone past that point when you count full-service laundry, particularly that found in hotels...
In the western US, there are innumerable areas, many quite heavily populated, which are not incorporated into a city.
So, at the very least, you'd have to do this at the County level... Then you have problems with large counties servicing a couple big cities, and completely ignoring the less densely populated areas, knowing it's cheaper, and they'll get 90% of the people happy, and voting for them again... There are innumerable recognized cases of counties siphoning off tax money from less populated areas, and giving most of it to the large cities.
So, I'd say you're screwed either way...
Now you're just acting like an idiot.
1) I, quite obviously, meant no air-breathing jets can reach Earth escape velocity, so any space-plane would need hypersonic engines developed.
2) Electromagnetic shielding of AN ENTIRE SHIP would be highly beneficial to it's human inhabitants, if they don't wish to be entirely confined to an extremely tiny compartment for years at a time... Meanwhile, "radiation hardened computer equipment" already exists, and is well understood.
Yes, I do. We've found out that, at the height of the cold war, the launch codes were unset/all-zeros. That's something I sure as hell should have known...
Yes, I do. How many times has the government spent tons of money on projects with massive flaws, which later rendered them useless or required massively expensive fixed? I need to know this information before they are purchased, and before soldiers are deployed to war zones where this weakness may lead to numerous deaths...
See something like the Stryker. It WAS known that it's armor was effective against most everything but RPGs. Then they were sent into a war zone where RPGs were everywhere. The government couldn't hide this, so they rolled out additional armor for these vehicles.
With Humvees, however, there wasn't any explicit public acknowledgment that they were vulnerable, and the armoring process took YEARS, crawling along at a snail's pace until leaders were publicly shamed for it.
Yes, I do. We declare war on Syria and send the soldiers into Iran, instead? I sure as hell need to know. Massacre in a war zone? I sure need to know who was there, and when.
With all three, this information could be DELAYED by quite a bit, but there's little denying that we DO need to know damn near everything our government is doing.
Yes, in hindsight it's easy to see what the technologies developed into. but at the time, it wasn't obvious anyone other than NASA would want to spend a billion dollars to get a "mobile computer". Whether the tech developed by NASA will roll into something we will see benefit in, in 20 years, is a pretty open question.
That's a pretty well-understood tech already, due to thousands of satellites in various orbits. I don't see a much need for R&D in that area, so I doubt they'll be spending a lot of money on that...
It'll take mere seconds for software to discover that there's one file, among the hundreds, which appears to be corrupt, and/or has trailing data (in the stenographic case)...
If you're really going to hide data, you need to do it with minimally-modified pixels inside that image. In which case, you're going to be able to hold very, very little secret data amongst a large number of photos.
Which is exactly what he said... Swap "distributed" with "give" and it's nearly the same sentence.
This is just misleading enough to be untrue... While the GPL doesn't force you to contribute "back" (only "forward", as you've called it), you then can't stop anyone from, themselves, giving it "back", and contributing all changes upstream.
Yes, but the word "distribute" is peppered all over his post. He's clearly talking about distributing it.
Most of the technologies developed for Apollo, at first glance, don't seem like they'd be applicable here on Earth, either. I can't begin to guess whether more advanced tech will or won't find many uses, so I'd love to hear your thought processes which came up deciding they won't. Certainly, a LOT of prediction is required for any such task, and we could all easily end up wrong about what the future holds.
Just reducing the costs of lift-offs will dramatically change the face of our modern world, as the impossible becomes practical... perhaps more than the initial rush to orbit communication satellites did.
After several replies, the only thing I've learned is that your reading comprehension is, apparently, quite poor. Are you a non-native English speaker by chance?
I was talking about statistics, and judging claims. Not only does it not require "assuming" anything, it is meaningless if you are going to just assume something...
It's a simple fact that I stated no opinion, while you did, in the same breadth as saying my "arguments" "[miss] the point". You can backpedal as much as you please. I'm not trying to stick you with anything.
That might be valuable to debate, but so far, you haven't provided any reasoning for that assertion, except to say that, statistically, since only one can be the "most", it's unlikely than any given on, in fact, is.
Once again, you're talking completely off the subject. I was pointing out the difficulty in comparing different OSS project, and you somehow turn that into me claiming that OpenBSD is the largest...
I will say that, OpenBSD's scope is certainly larger than Linux or all of GNU... Linux just being a kernel (OpenBSD has a kernel, which supports the overwhelming majority of the same things) and GNU being userland and more (which OpenBSD also has).
A) You're completely and totally wrong in your notion of absolutely everything I have said in this discussion.
B) You certainly have no idea of my opinion, and I doubt anyone could hope to judge anything about it from the little I have revealed here.
C) You've repeatedly stated your conclusion, so, apparently, you DO in fact, believe you know how to make such a judgment. Claiming you do not, is talking nonsense, and is inherently contradictory... "Gee, I have no idea how to decide who is right, but I do know that you are wrong..."
False logic. Listening to an argument (or even offering some evidence supporting one) does not presuppose a decision, one way or the other (though one MIGHT infer some bias from it). Dismissing arguments, with no attempt to judge their veracity, immediately indicates prejudice (by definition).
Yes, you have a statistically better chance of betting against someone, but this is not a bet. We are not operating in lieu of evidence, which substantially improves those odds.
Yes, in the very least, it's heavily biased if you include any project which happens to be much larger than others, and/or encompasses many smaller, only partially-related projects...
It doesn't miss the point at all, it's merely more facts to support the claim. Certainly far from undeniable proof, but the fact that you don't care about the relevant facts just indicates you believe the answer to be a foregone conclusion.
No, you're simply reading "a different thing than the rest of us."
SSH1 was cryptographically weak, wasn't remotely as exploit-free, and much more than that, it wasn't being widely adopted... No SSH in Solaris, Cisco routers, etc., until OpenSSH matured, and showed everyone where the future undeniably was.
Perhaps the biggest thing OpenSSH had going for it, was that it was adopted into the OpenBSD base system immediately, and RSH protocols were removed. That definitely got the ball rolling.
There would be nothing revolutionary about supersonic trains. Larger engines, better aerodynamics, etc. Sure, you'd have something when you were done, but you'd develop next to NOTHING in the process. Electric motors, and aerodynamics are a fairly simple, known quantity, and paying a lot of money for good ones doesn't move the technology forward at all.
Space travel is quite different. There are a million and one things which we don't have good answers for, yet. No airplanes go nearly fast enough for liftoff, so development of hypersonic cramjets seems the next step. Conventional shielding from radiation is impractical due to size and weight, so an electromagnetic forcefield (ala Star Trek) seems a practical necessity for even the shortest interplanetary trip.
None of the three you've listed sound impossible by any stretch. Landing a man on the moon was an incredible accomplishment, in large part due to how quickly it was done, but it was overwhelmingly recognized as POSSIBLE from 1920, on, a single commentator for the NY Times not withstanding...
Japan and Germany were allied. Germany encouraged Japan to attack the US.
Iraq had never had any relationship to Afghanistan or Al Qaeda.
OpenSSH was a huge improvement in the security of networks the world over, but it's not at all the only thing OpenBSD has contributed to the world.
Certainly, OpenBSD's development of W^X security led to Microsoft doing the same, and Intel/AMD including instructions to make this easier...
OpenBSD's focus on code correctness and licensing has caused them to lead, and have Linux and other BSDs follow... They announced their dropping of Xfree86 in favor of Xorg before anyone else, and very soon after Xfree86 was no longer found on any OSes. Their objections over the performance, code complexity, and licensing of GCC4 led to them pushing alternative compilers forward, and other projects (like FreeBSD) followed suit, pushing hard to move their favored alternative compilers forward.
There's many more, but you'll have to wait for someone else to come up with a list...
You'll get the CDs BEFORE you can download the ISO. That should be sufficient incentive for those who can't wait to pony up some cash.
You can just do the OpenBSD upgrade without reading those instructions... as you did with RHEL.
If you'd actually started to read those instructions, you'd have seen they outline basically all feature changes between the previous and current release. See:
Did the yum upgrade automatically make all necessary syntax changes in all corner cases in your config files to adapt them for the newest versions of the software? Obviously not... You're left to figure those out yourself. If the new version of iptables uses different options for some obscure option, you're screwed. Oh well, guess you should have read the RHEL 5.4 errata, which happens to be SEVERAL THOUSAND LINES http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Release_Notes/index.html
Actually, he claimed that Gates/Buffet earned it by starting immensely successful companies.
If not for the anticompetitive practices of Microsoft, I wouldn't have any problem with how Bill Gates earned his money... The company he happened to own and control, happened to become the most overwhelmingly successful company in all of human history. Sure, it's not exactly a fair distribution of wealth, but it's a perfectly legitimate way to become wealthy. You invest (time and money), and your investment becomes vastly successful. Like any other gamble, sometimes you lose big, sometimes you win big.
Winning money gambling isn't gaming the system... It's playing well within the rules, and just getting lucky.
No. You're implying EMI would be better off with lesser copyright restrictions, when, in fact, they are better off with the current system, no matter how many contract disputes they may have.
Yes, "one" can. That "one" would absolutely, positively NOT be EMI, or any other major entities. With no barrier to entry, only those with the lowest overhead will make money, and even then, little if anything. In short, the guy in his parent's basement, with a website and credit card processing company, would be the only guy to squeeze a few cents out of the situation, and very little at that.
WTF?
YES! At my mid-sized company, we continue to use innumerable PCs which are far more than 10 years old. You think IE8 runs on Windows 98?
Incidentally, my PCs at home are also getting close to 10 years old, now:
100MHz firewall/router which consumes all of 7 watts.
1.2GHz Duron as my desktop, which I dare not replace for the immeasurable difficulty in finding a new system that fully supports S3/Suspend mode under FreeBSD/Linux.
1.3GHz Athlon system as my DVR, which has more than enough processing power for everything I do, thanks in part to GPU accelerated video decoding making it plenty fast enough for HDTV.
These systems do their job perfectly, are plenty fast for everything, etc. Why SHOULD I replace them?
And my car? It's going on 20 years, thank you very much. Sure, I have to get smog checks more often, but it's a small price to pay. And don't try bitching about it, it gets over 30MPG easily enough, and always gets a near ideal score on every smog check. Were you planning on paying the $20,000USD to get me a new car, which is more likely than not going to be inferior in many ways, like ease of maintenance, availability of parts, and cost of repairs? And how about my insurance rates?
Your comment makes absolutely NO SENSE.
This has nothing to do with copyright, and EVERYTHING to do with CONTRACT LAW. EMI signed a contract, in exchange for the right to sell their songs. They broke the terms of that contract, and got sued.
The only way copyright law would have any bearing is if you're suggesting the copyright on these songs should have expired by now. That may be fair, but then, EMI is WORSE OFF, because then ANYONE can sell these same songs, for the mere cost of distribution, and EMI loses out on any chance of making ANY money on them (because someone else will always have it available cheaper).
Oh NO! We're outside the top 10! Clear we "don't have a manufacturing sector" as you've said.
Who's "full of shit", now?
That's not even remote what I said. I said Clinton gave them a bigger tax cut. Bush's tax cuts, on TOP of Clintons tax cuts, of course puts Bush's rate lower, because he came after.
And I quote:
Your version of "reality" is about as accurate as Fox News', just swinging to the left.
Try again, without the flagrant ignorance and blinding bias.
True. How fortunate that the US is #1 in manufacturing, and vastly ahead of #2 (Japan) and very far ahead of #3 (China).
That's endlessly debatable... Sure, one guy in the US no longer has a job making T-Shirts, but everyone in the US now pays 1/10th as much for a T-Shirt. In the end, it appears to be more efficient. Of course, it's only in these overwhelming cases that it looks so good. When companies say they can cut $40 million off their operating costs by moving out of the US, employees band together and figure out how to save $35 million, and the company goes ahead and closes down the old plant, anyhow, it's pretty obvious that our priorities have been horribly twisted around.
Sad but true. And worse, Bill Clinton signed a larger tax cut for the rich than George Bush ever did... Getting screwed from the rich on both sides, now.
Franklin said democracy would fail when people discovered they could vote themselves money, and pork certainly has been a major issue, but it seems it really becomes unraveled when the rich discover they can legally buy politicians, and legislation, and the courts will stick to the letter of the law, loopholes and all, until it's so entrenched that there's no climbing out of the deep, dark, hole of corruption.
It's also known as aviation fuel, kerosene, home heating oil, etc.