Once upon a time, I worked at a large content organization with the usual large IT infrastructure, supported by a single large firm. Per the requirements of the support contract, these guys were compelled to down the system and install patches as soon as they got their hands on the code. No-notice outages eere the rule. Managers, customers and employees pitched fits until someone finally woke up and explained that the support vendor would be in violation of contract if he didn't move that fast.
So, we changed the contract. Unscheduled downtime projected to last more than 30 minutes required getting permission from several designated management types. Any one of those managers could postpone the maintenance.
This worked because the support contractor always made sure that those designated managers understood the implications of delaying the maintenance.
>>...only the fear of massive loss will result in a peaceful world...
Not quite what I said. The fear of loss -- defeat -- keeps people from waging war, but, once convinced that they won't lose, we wage war with abandon. That's why nuclear weapons prevented full-scale war between the Soviets and the U.S. during the Cold War -- both sides believed that even a victorious use of nuclear weapons would result in losses on their own side equivalent to defeat.
Morality doesn't stand much of a chance in preventing war. Humans are rather adept at shifting their morality to fit their own desires.
War is something people do. Technology produces the tools we use to do what we think needs to be done, including waging war.
War is driven by human motivation, not by technology. Seeking to curb war by limiting innovation in technology will always fail.
Your apparent longing for the days when war was "fun" is a prime example of the problem we face. Why would you think murdering your fellows is fun, rather than completely repugnant?
Absent human intent and use, technology stays on the shelf. Getting on a moral high horse about new weaponry will not stop people from deciding to war on each other, It will only ensure that they use more primitivw weapons.
War won't diappear if we're afraid to use new tools. People will throw rocks at each other if they have nothing else.
Advertising is speech. Telling Google to block certain categories of ads from French audiences is telling Google to restrict free speech. It's giving the commercial interests of certain businesses priority over free speech.
Suppose you ask your librarian for books on Intel, and he only shows you books published by Intel because of a court ruling on trademarks. If a French court expects software to engage in this kind of filtering, why wouldn't a French court apply the same precept to filtering by humans?
Trademark laws aren't insane. It's this court's ruling that's nuts. Why should Google be any more responsible for filtering user queries through a Magic Trademark Filter than your local flesh-and-blood librarian? If I go to my library and ask for references to "markets for rutabagas", should this ruling compel the librarian to only show me references to the company that registered "markets for rutabagas" as a trademark?
Just another reason why I shoulda gone to law school
Well, as an apparent anti-Semite yourself ("I can't stop noticing how much the jews control the American media"), you would know it when you see it, eh?
Dunno about your problems. All I know is that a cursory reading of the 5.1-Release docs will uncover advice to avoid using it in a production environment. Geez, there's still debug code in it.
2. Much of the hardware Linux supports is, in fact, entertainment and media related. Fair enough, but it doesn't interest me.
3. Much of the Linux community seems to spend much of its time talking license politics and trying to play open source as a model for social change. That's boring.
Ummm, so how do you know it's bloated? And, compared to what? Have you measured the code size and memory use and determined what other software can provide the same functionality with fewer bytes?
Or, are you just mouthing something cool you heard some other dweeb say?
Coe in the ports is the same code as in every Linux distribution. What's you problem?
Linux is the same primitive terminal, too, unless you install X and a bunch of applications. The Linux distribution do that automatically, but the BSD's give you a choice.
The applications on BSD and Linux are the same; it's only the packaging that differs.
Is there a right-wing, non-communist dictatorship the United States has NOT supported?.
Probably, but, in any case, each of these were allies against the Soviets. It's an imperfect world, and the enemy of my enemy is my ally.
>> It is true that European powers did not do very much for democracy in the world, but at least, they did not do as much AGAINST it as the US.
You're awareness of history only extends to about the last 5 minutes, eh? The fact that the U.S., and democracy, exist at all is in reaction to the anti-democratic regimes of Europe.
Let's consider the gifts of Europe: the Roman Empire and its attendant follies; the Dark Ages; medieval fiefdoms; absolute monarchies; the notion that a monarch is appointed by god; religous persecution; Marxism; fascism; totalitarianism; racism; Nazism; Auschwitz, Buchenwald, communism...Shall I go on? I, for one, am very happy my ancestors left the place.
It isn't too much of a leap to assume you don't know what you are talking about. Where's your evidence?
I've switched from Linux to FreeBSD. Here's why:
1) It's a community populated by adults, not rabid cheerleading adolescents who get turned on by a fight between OS just like their fathers got turned on by a fight between Camaros and Mustangs.
2) The entire OS is under someone's review and control. In Linux, a few people people worry about the kernel, but, after than, it's up for grabs.
3). No, repeat, no support and configuration nightmares due to arbitrary differences between distributions.
4) A great ports collection that is kept current. (Its imitator, in Gentoo, always broke within the first week or so after I installed the base system.)
The only thing you're doing by not offering code to BSD is depriving BSD users, assuming your code was accepted. (Now, there's a big distinction from Linux: Code isn't accepted into FreeBSD unless it's reviewed and approved. Thanks to the GPL, any yahoo can write something and foist it off on users.)
If someone's GPL's code evers does something really innovative, then it's time to worry about Microsoft copying it.
If nothing else, remember that you have BSD to thank for tcp/ip and, hence, the Internet.
Try reading some history. The U.S. went to war in Europe in 1918 and again in 1941 to prevent Europe from consuming itself in militarism and fascism. The U.S. did not go to war in Europe to fight communism. Indeed, the Soviets were happy to join the Allies in WWII once their erstwhile friends in Berlin attacked.
The point is this: The existence of totalitarian regimes anywhere threatens democratic nations everywhere. Totalitarian states sustain the military power they need to oppress their own people by exaggerating and creating imaginary threats from the U.S. and elsewhere. When they seek to expand their territory, as did Hitler and the Japanese and Italian fascists, democratic states have no choice but to respond. Sadly, many contemporary Europeans don't seem to value democracy any more, placing a higher premium on creature comforts.
You know, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have spent all that money and lost all those lives in the last century trying to save themselves and Europe from the bloodthirsty bastards that Europeans seem so willing to put in power. Europeans couldnt even manage the moral effort to deal with a punk like Milosevic without U.S. prodding, cash, and troops.
U.S. military capabilities in space are part of the price that needs to be paid in a world where any nondemocratic state poses a threat to every democratic nation. For anyone, anywhere, to ignore the reality that democracy in the world today owes its existence to the U.S. and its military umbrella is the epitome of arrogance. Europeans, in particular, need to remember that they'd all be living in Nazi or Stalinist regimes without the willingess of the U.S. to sacrifice lives and money to save them from themselves. (That is, the ones who hadn't been killed off in the camps.)
This has nothing to do with post-911 "paranoia" (which doesn't exist, in any case.)
The U.S., the Russians, the Chinese, and several other nation have had important military and communications assets in orbit for decades. It would be foolish for any military planner not to devise ways to protect their own assets and take out the enemy's.
BTW, the setup to the piece is wrong. This general did not say the next major war will be in space. He said that space will be a battle ground during the next major war.
Slashdot Mirror
You, amigo, obviously know nothing about how classification works. For example, there is no classification level called "Classified".
Politicians can't clasify things.
Once upon a time, I worked at a large content organization with the usual large IT infrastructure, supported by a single large firm. Per the requirements of the support contract, these guys were compelled to down the system and install patches as soon as they got their hands on the code. No-notice outages eere the rule. Managers, customers and employees pitched fits until someone finally woke up and explained that the support vendor would be in violation of contract if he didn't move that fast.
So, we changed the contract. Unscheduled downtime projected to last more than 30 minutes required getting permission from several designated management types. Any one of those managers could postpone the maintenance.
This worked because the support contractor always made sure that those designated managers understood the implications of delaying the maintenance.
>> ...only the fear of massive loss will result in a peaceful world...
Not quite what I said. The fear of loss -- defeat -- keeps people from waging war, but, once convinced that they won't lose, we wage war with abandon. That's why nuclear weapons prevented full-scale war between the Soviets and the U.S. during the Cold War -- both sides believed that even a victorious use of nuclear weapons would result in losses on their own side equivalent to defeat.
Morality doesn't stand much of a chance in preventing war. Humans are rather adept at shifting their morality to fit their own desires.
War is something people do. Technology produces the tools we use to do what we think needs to be done, including waging war.
War is driven by human motivation, not by technology. Seeking to curb war by limiting innovation in technology will always fail.
Your apparent longing for the days when war was "fun" is a prime example of the problem we face. Why would you think murdering your fellows is fun, rather than completely repugnant?
You miss my point. Technology isn't the problem. Our desire to war on each other is. The only thing that keeps us from war is fear of loss.
Absent human intent and use, technology stays on the shelf. Getting on a moral high horse about new weaponry will not stop people from deciding to war on each other, It will only ensure that they use more primitivw weapons.
War won't diappear if we're afraid to use new tools. People will throw rocks at each other if they have nothing else.
Advertising is speech. Telling Google to block certain categories of ads from French audiences is telling Google to restrict free speech. It's giving the commercial interests of certain businesses priority over free speech.
Suppose you ask your librarian for books on Intel, and he only shows you books published by Intel because of a court ruling on trademarks. If a French court expects software to engage in this kind of filtering, why wouldn't a French court apply the same precept to filtering by humans?
Trademark laws aren't insane. It's this court's ruling that's nuts. Why should Google be any more responsible for filtering user queries through a Magic Trademark Filter than your local flesh-and-blood librarian? If I go to my library and ask for references to "markets for rutabagas", should this ruling compel the librarian to only show me references to the company that registered "markets for rutabagas" as a trademark?
Just another reason why I shoulda gone to law school
>> ...Time called it Europe's new Anti-Semitism???
Well, as an apparent anti-Semite yourself ("I can't stop noticing how much the jews control the American media"), you would know it when you see it, eh?
Dunno about your problems. All I know is that a cursory reading of the 5.1-Release docs will uncover advice to avoid using it in a production environment. Geez, there's still debug code in it.
1. It's one post making an assertion.
2. Much of the hardware Linux supports is, in fact, entertainment and media related. Fair enough, but it doesn't interest me.
3. Much of the Linux community seems to spend much of its time talking license politics and trying to play open source as a model for social change. That's boring.
Compared to a Volkswagen, a 747 is also pretty heavy. Doesn't mean the 747 is bloated, just built for a different purpose.
Fluxbox, et al, don't have as much code as Gnome primarily because they don't do as much.
In any case, for most users it just isn't an issue.
And, why do I care what RMS thinks?
...I'm running Gnome 2.4 (bloated as it is)...
Ummm, so how do you know it's bloated? And, compared to what? Have you measured the code size and memory use and determined what other software can provide the same functionality with fewer bytes?
Or, are you just mouthing something cool you heard some other dweeb say?
Coe in the ports is the same code as in every Linux distribution. What's you problem?
Linux is the same primitive terminal, too, unless you install X and a bunch of applications. The Linux distribution do that automatically, but the BSD's give you a choice.
The applications on BSD and Linux are the same; it's only the packaging that differs.
Is there a right-wing, non-communist dictatorship the United States has NOT supported?.
Probably, but, in any case, each of these were allies against the Soviets. It's an imperfect world, and the enemy of my enemy is my ally.
>> It is true that European powers did not do very much for democracy in the world, but at least, they did not do as much AGAINST it as the US.
You're awareness of history only extends to about the last 5 minutes, eh? The fact that the U.S., and democracy, exist at all is in reaction to the anti-democratic regimes of Europe.
Let's consider the gifts of Europe: the Roman Empire and its attendant follies; the Dark Ages; medieval fiefdoms; absolute monarchies; the notion that a monarch is appointed by god; religous persecution; Marxism; fascism; totalitarianism; racism; Nazism; Auschwitz, Buchenwald, communism...Shall I go on? I, for one, am very happy my ancestors left the place.
It isn't too much of a leap to assume you don't know what you are talking about. Where's your evidence?
I've switched from Linux to FreeBSD. Here's why:
1) It's a community populated by adults, not rabid cheerleading adolescents who get turned on by a fight between OS just like their fathers got turned on by a fight between Camaros and Mustangs.
2) The entire OS is under someone's review and control. In Linux, a few people people worry about the kernel, but, after than, it's up for grabs.
3). No, repeat, no support and configuration nightmares due to arbitrary differences between distributions.
4) A great ports collection that is kept current. (Its imitator, in Gentoo, always broke within the first week or so after I installed the base system.)
5. See the first item about adults.
The only thing you're doing by not offering code to BSD is depriving BSD users, assuming your code was accepted. (Now, there's a big distinction from Linux: Code isn't accepted into FreeBSD unless it's reviewed and approved. Thanks to the GPL, any yahoo can write something and foist it off on users.)
If someone's GPL's code evers does something really innovative, then it's time to worry about Microsoft copying it.
If nothing else, remember that you have BSD to thank for tcp/ip and, hence, the Internet.
No one knows what a man page is until someone tells them, even a Unix guru.
Meanwhile, Linux defaults to the command line, too. Xfree86 is identical on both systems.
But, in any case, FreeBSD is blessedly free of the politics that inflict Linux and doesn't care if a Windows user knows what a man page is.
I'm running 4/8 after a similar experience with 5.1.
Remember, if you run 5.1, they warned you might have problems. That's why 4.8 is still recommended for production use.
>> ...Linux is more advanced in a lot of ways.
Right. Like trying to turn a computer into a bad imitation of a cheap sound system, or generating reams of useless verbiage about "world domination".
Try reading some history. The U.S. went to war in Europe in 1918 and again in 1941 to prevent Europe from consuming itself in militarism and fascism. The U.S. did not go to war in Europe to fight communism. Indeed, the Soviets were happy to join the Allies in WWII once their erstwhile friends in Berlin attacked.
The point is this: The existence of totalitarian regimes anywhere threatens democratic nations everywhere. Totalitarian states sustain the military power they need to oppress their own people by exaggerating and creating imaginary threats from the U.S. and elsewhere. When they seek to expand their territory, as did Hitler and the Japanese and Italian fascists, democratic states have no choice but to respond. Sadly, many contemporary Europeans don't seem to value democracy any more, placing a higher premium on creature comforts.
You know, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have spent all that money and lost all those lives in the last century trying to save themselves and Europe from the bloodthirsty bastards that Europeans seem so willing to put in power. Europeans couldnt even manage the moral effort to deal with a punk like Milosevic without U.S. prodding, cash, and troops.
U.S. military capabilities in space are part of the price that needs to be paid in a world where any nondemocratic state poses a threat to every democratic nation. For anyone, anywhere, to ignore the reality that democracy in the world today owes its existence to the U.S. and its military umbrella is the epitome of arrogance. Europeans, in particular, need to remember that they'd all be living in Nazi or Stalinist regimes without the willingess of the U.S. to sacrifice lives and money to save them from themselves. (That is, the ones who hadn't been killed off in the camps.)
This has nothing to do with post-911 "paranoia" (which doesn't exist, in any case.)
The U.S., the Russians, the Chinese, and several other nation have had important military and communications assets in orbit for decades. It would be foolish for any military planner not to devise ways to protect their own assets and take out the enemy's.
BTW, the setup to the piece is wrong. This general did not say the next major war will be in space. He said that space will be a battle ground during the next major war.