Watch out! More Bush-shit ahead! There is a reason folks in Texas called him "All hat, no cattle".
If he appears to support the space programme, it will be to shuffle a few Billion$ into industries located in states that are expected to support him in 2004. Plus, he can't let the Chinese steal all the "Moonshot headlines".
This administration has done more to undermine resarch, exploration and sound scientific inquiry than any more than 200 years of the Republic. Look what's happening to funds in NIH and NSF!
If Bush praises your programme, lookout for the axe! I will quote from Molly Ivins' latest here:
But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it (AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000, Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high fuel bills." He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.
Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.
Annoying navel-gazing is the number one problem with "Open-Source" journalists, who have a pretty dull beat. The need to inject controversy for the sake of generating interest is as wide-spread as it is childish!
Why we should EVER have to even read the word "Microsoft" in a story about Free Software is unexcusable - lest it be in the context of a specific implementation, such as interoperability or substitution.
I'd re-read Doc Searles 1000 times before one of these fellows once...
I'm pretty familiar with the NIST publications on the subject. I use the NIST standrds as testing guidelines on a near daily basis. I readily attest to the value of these.
CC testing of implementations are not portable to diferent environments, and unless you duplicate the testing platform and environment as spec'ed, you are not running a certified platform.
No one is likely to ever run the spec'ed platform/environment.
It is a benchmark - like any other. Good for selling to the Government markets that have established CC.
CC is restricted to VERY specific implementations.
No deviation is allowed from the exact hardware, software and network configuration that is the certification target. Yes, this includes additional security patches. That would constitute a new platform for certification - at an additional expense of may hundreds of thousands USD.
I suppose that it makes a decent benchmark of sorts. Still, its mainly a diligence measure for getting into Govt purchasing schedules, and has little to do with a practical or useful evaluation of the actual security of an OS.
You really don't undeerstand what happened here do you?
A proprietary back-door hidden in object code and protected by DMCA is the alternative to the proposal of open source voting technology. Die Die Die -bold and ESS have demonstrated this in actuality.
Hiding algorithms does not improve cryptography - and revealing them does not weaken it.
Checkout Backports.org They're new -and looking to add mirrors.
They seem to be focused on testing and integration - with caveats and solutions for problem dependancies.
You're running Debian stable, because you prefer the stable Debian tree. It runs great, there is just one problem: the software is a little bit outdated compared to other distributions. That's where backports come in. Backports are recompiled packages from testing and unstable, so they will run without new libraries (wherever it's possible) on a stable Debian distribution.
It's so confusing to be free! I wish somebody in charge would make all of our hard decisions, then we don't have to do any work. Work is hard! If being free means hard work, you can keep it. I'll keep Microsoft, Fox News and the GOP!
Slashdot Mirror
And cutting the funding and entitlements for healthcare, pensions and educational oppportunities to enlisted and NCO ranks!
The particular office in question was not elected by me. I was part of the +530,000 majority, who voted for Gore.
The coup came from elsewhere!
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn =df12032003.html
If he appears to support the space programme, it will be to shuffle a few Billion$ into industries located in states that are expected to support him in 2004. Plus, he can't let the Chinese steal all the "Moonshot headlines".
This administration has done more to undermine resarch, exploration and sound scientific inquiry than any more than 200 years of the Republic. Look what's happening to funds in NIH and NSF!
If Bush praises your programme, lookout for the axe! I will quote from Molly Ivins' latest here:
Don't be fooled.
Why we should EVER have to even read the word "Microsoft" in a story about Free Software is unexcusable - lest it be in the context of a specific implementation, such as interoperability or substitution.
I'd re-read Doc Searles 1000 times before one of these fellows once...
Ask anbody who paid through the nose to get DITSCAP certification!
It is a step above C1 - no attempt made to secure the platform!
C2 does have fairly strigent requirements regarding the separation of roles and audit history by role/principal.
All of which are guaranteed in a standalone config.
I'm pretty familiar with the NIST publications on the subject. I use the NIST standrds as testing guidelines on a near daily basis. I readily attest to the value of these.
CC testing of implementations are not portable to diferent environments, and unless you duplicate the testing platform and environment as spec'ed, you are not running a certified platform.
No one is likely to ever run the spec'ed platform/environment.
It is a benchmark - like any other. Good for selling to the Government markets that have established CC.
Easy enough to fly your OS in those restrictions...
Remember the Orange Book C2 security for Windows NT? That was only for a standalone box - no net, no modem.
The Rainbow Books were a forerunner to the CC - which represented a harmonizing of the Red/Orange Books with Canadian Govt InfoSec standards.
No deviation is allowed from the exact hardware, software and network configuration that is the certification target. Yes, this includes additional security patches. That would constitute a new platform for certification - at an additional expense of may hundreds of thousands USD.
I suppose that it makes a decent benchmark of sorts. Still, its mainly a diligence measure for getting into Govt purchasing schedules, and has little to do with a practical or useful evaluation of the actual security of an OS.
and I'm forced to fund the shooting of 5-year-old little girls in Iraq.
You selfish little twit.
The site is Slashdotted (tm).
Good job Port80!
A proprietary back-door hidden in object code and protected by DMCA is the alternative to the proposal of open source voting technology. Die Die Die -bold and ESS have demonstrated this in actuality.
Hiding algorithms does not improve cryptography - and revealing them does not weaken it.
But he's using Linux to build his Meda Wall.
Without opening the box, only within certain probability.
Reverence for the Pythons!
Puts me in mind of, "His sandle," "No, his gourd!"
I have, many times, read the pedants on /. lecture about the correct application of the term "irony".
I beleive we now have a most stirling example!
To all of this, I say, "NNNNNNEEeeeeee!"
"When Sweet Polly's in trouble,
I must not be slow.
It's up, up, up, and away I Go!
"Gee, Boss. It's Underdog!"
This is a grat security hole too! At least under some circumstances.
Yeah,
He's one of us, allright!
They're new -and looking to add mirrors.
They seem to be focused on testing and integration - with caveats and solutions for problem dependancies.
You're running Debian stable, because you prefer the stable Debian tree. It runs great, there is just one problem: the software is a little bit outdated compared to other distributions. That's where backports come in. Backports are recompiled packages from testing and unstable, so they will run without new libraries (wherever it's possible) on a stable Debian distribution.
That sonofabitch! I own the air molecules that bastard pulls into his lungs! See what nice colour he's about to turn when I get MY hands on him!
Mod this maniac through the roof! I bet he sings these words to tuneless DRONES on "Hearts of Space!"
;-)
No Sharkey in the Scouring of the Shire?
That's tied right into Sam's vision in Galadriel's mirror...
Boy. I'm a Geek!
to a listening port on my fat disk machine...
It's so confusing to be free! I wish somebody in charge would make all of our hard decisions, then we don't have to do any work. Work is hard! If being free means hard work, you can keep it. I'll keep Microsoft, Fox News and the GOP!