A requirement to pass those skills on an annual basis (license renewal time?) would be HIGHLY beneficial, make our roads safer, and increase much needed revenue to the public transportation system.
. I completely disagree with *any* part of vehicle licensing fees going to public transit. If they made riders of public transit pay for the exact cost of their trip, maybe cheaper and more effective public transit would be constructed.
Actually, I wasn't suggesting that we use license renewal fees to pay for public transit. I was saying that a large percent of the population will FAIL their drivers renewal exam, and be forced to pay for public transit.
They already said that the designer of this device has worked on speech detection devices as well.
So? As many others have pointed out, this is a completely pointless observation.
BTW, this is, of course, the point where you lost all credibility.
Acutally, no, that is just where you decided my arguement wasn't a direction you wanted to go with. Its a "jumpstart" law - get one law passed so its easier to get similar, but more restrictive laws past at a later date. If we came right out and said, "We want to do complete, unrestricted background checks on you, your library checkouts, and completely violate your fourth amendment rights - sign here x________" that would have never beed passed. BUT, being buried on the likes of the PATRIOT bill, PATRIOT 2, the entire idea of "Homeland Security", etc, it made it. Because it wasn't all there on one bill - several things made it possible, all in little bites.
The American people should be up in arms over systems like this, and the red light and speed cameras as well. It encourages abuse of the system and promotes lazy and dishonest law enforcement.
Can you cite a single example of "abuse" of red light cameras or photo radar? And, no, the fines don't count. I've *never* heard of those devices used for any purpose other than what they were designed and marketed for... to catch red-light runners/speeders so they can be fined (I happen to believe they don't actually *deter* anything, but that's a separate issue).
Thats funny. You yourself said its not abused, but then you contradict yourself and say it doesn't do any good. Thats not a seperate issue - that is the definition of abuse! If its not detering, its not saving lives, its only making it easiser for jurisdictions to make a buck, then its abuse. Plain and simple.
Nice... This is the same government that wants to increase its revenue with speed and red-light cameras,
That I will agree with, unfortunately. Of course, considering this system isn't being put into place to increase revenue (since no fines will be generated, as far as I know), the comparison isn't a very good one.
The comparsion is there, just your still thinking of money as the root of government ambition. What if the government (as stated in my original post) wanted to use a system like that to learn political alliances? A lot of blackmail could be done, knowing where powerfully policical allies and enemies are. A lot of public humiliation could be had (think more blackmail) knowing an important government official or business owner was caught soliticiting a prostitute. Yeah, its already illegal to do that - but that doesn't mean you're going to get caught - but if you're easdropping on everyone, those things don't go unnoticed.
Abuse potential is very high for a system like that. I wish more people could simply open their eyes and see that.
Teens have a lot of problems with understanding what a car can and cannot do. They've probably never slammed on the brakes to see how slowly their car stops. They've certainly never been on a skidpad. They have no idea what ABS is for (neither do most adults; it's directional stability, NOT 'stopping as fast as possible'). They've never been taught when to steer around obstacles and when to brake for them, and certianly have never been asked to put into practice avoidance skills.
I think the driving "skills" test that states make you take to get your license is laughable. I've always thought that they should require a defensive skills test in order to maintain a license, not just get one. That would elimate most of the old people on the road, but thats not necessarily a bad thing - (/RANT ON) the only "stupid" accident I've been involved with is when an old woman failed yeild to a stop light, failed to see me, the on coming car with the right away, and even after I tried to avoid her by changing THREE lanes over, still swiped the backend of my car because it took her THREE lanes to turn that monsterous beast she was driving (a Delta-98, which, BTW, was a car I had when I was first driving, and didn't have NEAR the problems turing like she did)(/RANT OFF)
Back on topic though - a defensable driving skills test is needed. The "parallel parking test" the BMV gives you, and your ability to stop at a stop light are not all that is required to drive a car - avoiding a semi-truck tire on a dark interstate at 75mph is a lot more critical than parallel parking. Driving in heavy traffic aroun Atlanta at excessive speeds (ie: keeping up with everyone else) is critical. Avoiding pedestrians, dogs, and other things that jump in front of you unexpectedly is critical.The list goes on...
A requirement to pass those skills on an annual basis (license renewal time?) would be HIGHLY beneficial, make our roads safer, and increase much needed revenue to the public transportation system.
This sounds like a perfect solution for those parents who have let the TV babysit their kids for years. They rely on content filters to monitor the kids internet usage and only gauge what the kids listen to and watch based upon the current rating system. Now they don't even have to ask where the kids are going. This sounds like another tool for un-involved, distant and lazy parents to pretend like they care about their kids, but it only sends the message that "we don't trust you". What happened to talking and communicating to kids, teaching them right from wrong and then trusting them to do the right thing.
Exactly. Not to mention at least you and me are both alive, and we didn't grow up with cell phones, gps tracking, and instrusive monitoring. I was outside when I was a kid, playing with other kids outside without gameboys, PSPs, or any other technical piece of equipment. Occassionally we'd pretend to be special-ops and carry a walkie-talkie! with us.
The only thing we'd be sure to take with us each time we left the house was our imagination.
When we were old enough for cars, we'd be out at the movies, or the 24hr diner with friends. Our parents couldn't listen to our conversation, nor could they see how long we sat at the diner before we left for a cruise. We survived. Our parents survived. Heck, our parents were happy they were alone for a while (and having a chance to do those "parent things" parents do when their kids are sleeping and can't hear them).
And there you go, knocking it down. Well done, but you failed to actually make a point.
Actually, I think what the original poster was trying to say is that once a system like that is in place, its uses may "vary" a little from its intital "sold to the public as" message.
They already said that the designer of this device has worked on speech detection devices as well. Who's to say that after this system is installed, a nice happy firmware upgrade is done, and now the system listens for key words such as: murder, shoot, kill, government, president, etc etc...
The American people should be up in arms over systems like this, and the red light and speed cameras as well. It encourages abuse of the system and promotes lazy and dishonest law enforcement.
And do we need an example of dishonest and lazy law enforcement: In the mid 1970s, three women were raped, sodomized and beaten in their home for 14 hours, regardless of the repeated phone calls made to police by the women any chance they got. What did the police department have to say about this: Warren v District of Columbia: "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services such as police protection to any particular individual".
Nice... This is the same government that wants to increase its revenue with speed and red-light cameras, and prevent you from defending yourself with firearms.
The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs.
That is our anti-american media hard at work. The same media that ignored the fact that 30 some republican transport vans' tires were slashed on election day (covered on foxnews), and also failed to state exactly by how much a colossal victory Bush won the election. They shrug it off as only 3%. Thats MILLIONS of people. Also, the largest popular vote received, etc, etc.
Our media cares nothing for news, only ratings. And somehow being anti-american is a high rating grabber lately.
8 disk RAID-5? You have a lot more guts than I do!
Maybe raid5+1 or maybe four 4-disk raid5s stuck together in an append or raid0. Or maybe raid6, if anyone ever releases a product that makes it easier to manage.
We have (counting on fingers) 8 storage array cabinets very similar to IBM's - they're Infortrend devices. All of these units are either 12 disk or 16 disk devices. And we break them in half. So, we have one global spare for each cabinet, and an array of:
6 RAID-5 and 5 RAID-5 drives (1 spare)
8 RAID-5 and 7 RAID-5 with one spare.
No problems.These things have proven to be VERY reliable.
* This is, BTW, the most compelling argument I've seen against Bush thus far. As an Atheist, that much God-stuff in the White House is scary shit. But then...Kerry has done nothing to suggest he's any different.
I'm not going to discuss anymore about Bush vs. Kerry with you... But what I wanted to say was this: Religion dictates a moral standard. If our President feels obligated to live within a moral standard of "not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc", because of his religion, then so much the better. Religion gives a person focus, and if it helps keep a politician on a more honorable path, so much the better.
The problem with the Bush administration's approach is that they basically were looking, from day 1, for a way to justify attacking Iraq.
Lets get something out of the way.. I hear all you bloody liberals saying, "Bush wanted nothing more than to attack Iraq"... Ok. Tell me, in liberal thinking, why Bush was so hell bent on invading that worthless piece of shit country?
You keep claiming that we Republicans do nothing more than repeat what our politicians tell us to. It would seem that you liberals do exactly the same - and your ideas don't even make sense!
We didn't attack Iraq until after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. And we pulled our inspectors out of Iraq because Saddam was denying us access to areas that needed inspection. If that doesn't tell us something is fishy, we must have a plugged up nose.
But yeah, you liberals are right. Lets just keep talking with a dictator that kills his own populace for pleasure - maybe we can convince him to let us in those secret bases. Its a damn good thing you liberals weren't around for the Revolutionary War. Perhaps we could have chatted with the Brittish over tea about our differences on relgion, the king, and taxes?
The way I interperted "global test" was more along the lines of carefully thinking out our actions and basically putting ourselves in the rest of the world's shoes. "How will the Arab world react if we do X? What if we do Y? And what about the Chinese?" The Global Test is more of an abstract concept than a strictly defined set of rules. Sure, for things that don't require immediate action, we should most definately get the input of foreign leaders
Its well known that Kerry is a UN supporter. When he says Global Test - he means asking the UN permission and obeying their decision.
The UN is a body of appointed officials acting on behalf of the world governments. Not to mention their sessions are closed to all but a few non-government-organizations. Its scary enough that OUR politicans are as slimey as they are - do you want to trust someone else's politicians to appoint someone to make our rules?
Practically every posting under this article is bashing Bush one way or another. We finally get a president in the white house that isn't getting his wang sucked off by an intern, and is actually DOING something to make our world safer, and we sound like whinny babies. Disagree with the way he got rid of Saddam. Poke fun at him for not being a great public speaker (are you any better?). Disagree with his stance towards the UN's gun control agenda. But you know what? I'd rather have a president who's honest, rather than one who lies about infidelity. One who's trying to make our world SAFER for us to live in. One who isn't changing his mind every minute on where we should be. Who can read the reports from Flordia, Ohio, and other states that actually bothered to track their crime rates before and after they inacted a concealled weapons permit law, and were able to statistically show that an armed city is a safer city. Not one who wants nothing more than to bow to UN pressure to restrict our right to defend our lives.
You don't close your eyes, put your hands behind your back and let a bully take a swing at you. Will you be the one cowering and whimpering in isle 11 as another madman with a gun bought illegally causually kills innocent after innocent, while someone else in the store capable of killing him could, if only his right to defend his life and others wasn't denied him by corrupt and misguided politicians!
WE (Americans) are the most greedy, selfish people people in the world. Everyone is bitching about our gas prices, our taxes, how the world views us... How many lives did we save by getting rid of Saddam? How many people weren't forced to drink gasoline and then get shot for amusement? How many didn't have electrical wires fry off their genitals? How many didn't end up in a mass grave after being tourtured and raped repeatedly? Oh, wait, you're an American and your gas prices are higher - so you don't give a shit. You people make me sick.
You allow your 8 year old to wander off by herself? FFS what kind of a parent are you?
The same kind of parent you had, and your parents had. And look, you're still alive..
And don't give me the "there's more perverts in the world today" nonsense. We're just more aware of the perverts due to the internet. The number hasn't changed.
Certainly tracking a person's every financial transaction is far more dangerous to democracy - (Did you order those movie tickets to Farienheit 9/11 by phone? The government has a record! Did you donate to the Green Party, or the Natural Law Party, or The Libertarian Party? Who you vote for might be secret ballot, but the government knows who you donated to! Did you fly out and rent a hotel to participate in a protest? The government knows! Pay by credit card for your web server? Don't think your controversial political web blog can't be traced to you!).
You make very good points about why we should fear a cashless society, and fight it.
Privacy and anoniminity is what has ensured democracy.
Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.
Try thinking for a change. It works for me.
I think he was doing a good job of thinking. If we all had access to the cameras, and good points like yours and his are both argued, then it'll never happen. There's too much risk for abuse if everyone has access to it, and there's too much risk for privacy invasion if only the "law" has access to it.
For the past decade, activists and nongovernmental organizations all over the globe have taken up video cameras to document injustices in their countries, sometimes risking their lives to bring human rights abuses to light.
Thats all great and peachy, but we're not putting these cameras into sweat shops... We're putting them on the street. Refer to my post here, where I make mention of the Rodney King beatings. They had filmed Rodney getting out of his car, and swinging at the cops. The cops overreacted, but it was not a race crime that the media led us to believe. It wasn't until well after the police were charged for a hate crime that the truth came out....
My point: That was on tape. And it didn't matter. This does nothing for my "safety" and "security" other than allowing to government more of an opportunity to see when I don't do exactly what I should be doing, 100% of the time. And when my actions aren't aligned correctly with whatever agenda someone has, they'll look as bad as the powers that be can manipulate them to look.
Industry observers see it both ways, indicating that while IT pros may have less opportunity for extra pay, no company is going to risk losing a good tech worker over a few overtime hours and will make up for any losses if necessary.
Thats a bunch of bull. Maybe a small IT shop won't risk it, but large corporations with 50 > software drones in their employ will gladly get rid of some higer paid employees (who are getting OT), so they can shift market demand to younger programmers willing to work for less wage because they have large education loans to pay off, and are happy to just have a job.
It only seems to apply to images the government buys. Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data. If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.
Noo. Way!!! Slashdot readers not reading the article and jumping to conclusions? Perhaps we need a "Jumping to Conclusions Mat"?
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
The tech industry is also obsessed with high performance chips that have power consumption through the roof (most of it waste, of course).
During the winter, I put the second CPU into my fileserver.... A nice, toasty AMD MP CPU - those suckers get hot! When you live in the cold north, the faster cpu, the better!
With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all, only the ones that are really relevent - where a crime or suspicious behaviour has already been reported. After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?
At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.
I see a few problems with this: 1) Famous person / politician seen going to a strip club. 2) Easy way to profile someone's interests and use it to monetary advantage 3) Easy way to leave out key parts of a video during a crime
Number three is a big one. Lets take the Rodney King beating here in the states. What was shown on TV, and to the court was Rodney getting beat by a few cops. What no one got to see until after the verdict was Rodney getting out of the car and trying to fight the cops. Yeah, the cops didn't need to beat him repeatedly, but it wasn't a race crime - it was, "Another lowlife trying to fight the police, and they were sick of it" scenario. The entire racist beating was an angle used to get those cops busted for acting out of line. And after they end up getting punished did we learn the truth of the matter...
After Rodney, that is, ended up with a 1 Million settlement, some truck driver in LA is now brain damaged from real racists hitting him in the head with a brick (and a camera caught that, with them pulling the trucker out of his truck, smashing in his head, and laughing about it... Not much happened to them), and a bunch of looting and property damange took place.
Yeah, trust what you see. When the government, or especially the media shows it to you and calls it truth.
And, btw, I believe London leads the "First World (civilized) Countries" in violent crimes. Perhaps the British government should spend more time repealing anti-gun laws than installing cameras. Take Sweden for example.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
In the scenario you mentioned, it forces the spammer to use machines that's within the ISP's control. If the spam bearing your domain is originating from some random computer in China, there's not a whole lot you can do. But if the spam has to originate from one of your customer's computers and has to be sent via one of your SMTP servers, then you can look at the logs on your SMTP server, figure out the infected customer, and take appropriate action.
Yes, I believe the original poster failed to realize the important: Big corporations have logs, lawyers, and the law on their side. It benefits everyone when yahoo, msn, etc go after spammers that they can actually trace and arrest.
You may have heard of this document called The Constitution. See, it turns out that it trumps all other laws in the land...
It does now does it? Then why can't I carry a gun in Washington DC?
To quote from the constitution: 2nd Amendment A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Hmm, the "Right of the people". Well, the liberals in this world want you to believe "the people" doesn't mean us, it means the militia. So, by their reasoning: 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and articularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Ok... "the people" was used again. So, we're not allowed to search or seize the papers of the militia, correct? And only them? 9th Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Hmm. There's "the people" again, in the same document. Apparently our founding fatheres were all for protecting the privacy and rights of the militia. Oh, and while we're at it, how bout for fun we take a snippet from the 17th amendment (its rather long). 17th Amendment
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Wow, our elected officials are only in office due to votes from our military!?!?! I always thought the voting booths looked rather cheap, now I know why - they're fake!
If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Well, which is it? If you're going to spew FUD, at least make up your mind which story you're going to tell.
I'm sorry, I'm mixing my timeline with my story. Our current barrage of tests didn't include reiserfs for consideration because we had lost data in the past on reiserfs v3.
To me, having to restore a critical server from tape because of a fs glitch is reason to ditch that fs. The hardware it was on, it is still going strong on, now with ext3.
Whenever a file would be created on that mount point that exceeded 4G,... We never had a problem like that was the ext's
No, you had a different problem... namely that the ext2 and ext3 file systems don't support files that big
I'd love to give you access to my server so you can login and see for yourself that ext3 does support files greater than 4G. Infact, MOST of our servers store very large data sets in single files, some upwards of 500G without fault.
No, my reference was that XFS had problems when creating a file bigger than 4G. Please read my rant before you rant back, and check you facts.
Slashdot Mirror
A requirement to pass those skills on an annual basis (license renewal time?) would be HIGHLY beneficial, make our roads safer, and increase much needed revenue to the public transportation system.
. I completely disagree with *any* part of vehicle licensing fees going to public transit. If they made riders of public transit pay for the exact cost of their trip, maybe cheaper and more effective public transit would be constructed.
Actually, I wasn't suggesting that we use license renewal fees to pay for public transit. I was saying that a large percent of the population will FAIL their drivers renewal exam, and be forced to pay for public transit.
They already said that the designer of this device has worked on speech detection devices as well.
So? As many others have pointed out, this is a completely pointless observation.
BTW, this is, of course, the point where you lost all credibility.
Acutally, no, that is just where you decided my arguement wasn't a direction you wanted to go with. Its a "jumpstart" law - get one law passed so its easier to get similar, but more restrictive laws past at a later date. If we came right out and said, "We want to do complete, unrestricted background checks on you, your library checkouts, and completely violate your fourth amendment rights - sign here x________" that would have never beed passed. BUT, being buried on the likes of the PATRIOT bill, PATRIOT 2, the entire idea of "Homeland Security", etc, it made it. Because it wasn't all there on one bill - several things made it possible, all in little bites.
The American people should be up in arms over systems like this, and the red light and speed cameras as well. It encourages abuse of the system and promotes lazy and dishonest law enforcement.
Can you cite a single example of "abuse" of red light cameras or photo radar? And, no, the fines don't count. I've *never* heard of those devices used for any purpose other than what they were designed and marketed for... to catch red-light runners/speeders so they can be fined (I happen to believe they don't actually *deter* anything, but that's a separate issue).
Thats funny. You yourself said its not abused, but then you contradict yourself and say it doesn't do any good. Thats not a seperate issue - that is the definition of abuse! If its not detering, its not saving lives, its only making it easiser for jurisdictions to make a buck, then its abuse. Plain and simple.
Nice... This is the same government that wants to increase its revenue with speed and red-light cameras,
That I will agree with, unfortunately. Of course, considering this system isn't being put into place to increase revenue (since no fines will be generated, as far as I know), the comparison isn't a very good one.
The comparsion is there, just your still thinking of money as the root of government ambition. What if the government (as stated in my original post) wanted to use a system like that to learn political alliances? A lot of blackmail could be done, knowing where powerfully policical allies and enemies are. A lot of public humiliation could be had (think more blackmail) knowing an important government official or business owner was caught soliticiting a prostitute. Yeah, its already illegal to do that - but that doesn't mean you're going to get caught - but if you're easdropping on everyone, those things don't go unnoticed.
Abuse potential is very high for a system like that. I wish more people could simply open their eyes and see that.
Teens have a lot of problems with understanding what a car can and cannot do. They've probably never slammed on the brakes to see how slowly their car stops. They've certainly never been on a skidpad. They have no idea what ABS is for (neither do most adults; it's directional stability, NOT 'stopping as fast as possible'). They've never been taught when to steer around obstacles and when to brake for them, and certianly have never been asked to put into practice avoidance skills.
I think the driving "skills" test that states make you take to get your license is laughable. I've always thought that they should require a defensive skills test in order to maintain a license, not just get one. That would elimate most of the old people on the road, but thats not necessarily a bad thing - (/RANT ON) the only "stupid" accident I've been involved with is when an old woman failed yeild to a stop light, failed to see me, the on coming car with the right away, and even after I tried to avoid her by changing THREE lanes over, still swiped the backend of my car because it took her THREE lanes to turn that monsterous beast she was driving (a Delta-98, which, BTW, was a car I had when I was first driving, and didn't have NEAR the problems turing like she did)(/RANT OFF)
Back on topic though - a defensable driving skills test is needed. The "parallel parking test" the BMV gives you, and your ability to stop at a stop light are not all that is required to drive a car - avoiding a semi-truck tire on a dark interstate at 75mph is a lot more critical than parallel parking. Driving in heavy traffic aroun Atlanta at excessive speeds (ie: keeping up with everyone else) is critical. Avoiding pedestrians, dogs, and other things that jump in front of you unexpectedly is critical.The list goes on...
A requirement to pass those skills on an annual basis (license renewal time?) would be HIGHLY beneficial, make our roads safer, and increase much needed revenue to the public transportation system.
This sounds like a perfect solution for those parents who have let the TV babysit their kids for years. They rely on content filters to monitor the kids internet usage and only gauge what the kids listen to and watch based upon the current rating system. Now they don't even have to ask where the kids are going. This sounds like another tool for un-involved, distant and lazy parents to pretend like they care about their kids, but it only sends the message that "we don't trust you". What happened to talking and communicating to kids, teaching them right from wrong and then trusting them to do the right thing.
Exactly. Not to mention at least you and me are both alive, and we didn't grow up with cell phones, gps tracking, and instrusive monitoring.
I was outside when I was a kid, playing with other kids outside without gameboys, PSPs, or any other technical piece of equipment. Occassionally we'd pretend to be special-ops and carry a walkie-talkie! with us.
The only thing we'd be sure to take with us each time we left the house was our imagination.
When we were old enough for cars, we'd be out at the movies, or the 24hr diner with friends. Our parents couldn't listen to our conversation, nor could they see how long we sat at the diner before we left for a cruise. We survived. Our parents survived. Heck, our parents were happy they were alone for a while (and having a chance to do those "parent things" parents do when their kids are sleeping and can't hear them).
We survived. What about the rest of you?
And there you go, knocking it down. Well done, but you failed to actually make a point.
Actually, I think what the original poster was trying to say is that once a system like that is in place, its uses may "vary" a little from its intital "sold to the public as" message.
They already said that the designer of this device has worked on speech detection devices as well. Who's to say that after this system is installed, a nice happy firmware upgrade is done, and now the system listens for key words such as: murder, shoot, kill, government, president, etc etc...
The American people should be up in arms over systems like this, and the red light and speed cameras as well. It encourages abuse of the system and promotes lazy and dishonest law enforcement.
And do we need an example of dishonest and lazy law enforcement: In the mid 1970s, three women were raped, sodomized and beaten in their home for 14 hours, regardless of the repeated phone calls made to police by the women any chance they got. What did the police department have to say about this: Warren v District of Columbia: "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services such as police protection to any particular individual".
Nice... This is the same government that wants to increase its revenue with speed and red-light cameras, and prevent you from defending yourself with firearms.
The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs.
That is our anti-american media hard at work. The same media that ignored the fact that 30 some republican transport vans' tires were slashed on election day (covered on foxnews), and also failed to state exactly by how much a colossal victory Bush won the election. They shrug it off as only 3%. Thats MILLIONS of people. Also, the largest popular vote received, etc, etc.
Our media cares nothing for news, only ratings. And somehow being anti-american is a high rating grabber lately.
8 disk RAID-5? You have a lot more guts than I do!
Maybe raid5+1 or maybe four 4-disk raid5s stuck together in an append or raid0. Or maybe raid6, if anyone ever releases a product that makes it easier to manage.
We have (counting on fingers) 8 storage array cabinets very similar to IBM's - they're Infortrend devices. All of these units are either 12 disk or 16 disk devices. And we break them in half. So, we have one global spare for each cabinet, and an array of:
6 RAID-5 and 5 RAID-5 drives (1 spare)
8 RAID-5 and 7 RAID-5 with one spare.
No problems.These things have proven to be VERY reliable.
* This is, BTW, the most compelling argument I've seen against Bush thus far. As an Atheist, that much God-stuff in the White House is scary shit. But then...Kerry has done nothing to suggest he's any different.
I'm not going to discuss anymore about Bush vs. Kerry with you... But what I wanted to say was this: Religion dictates a moral standard. If our President feels obligated to live within a moral standard of "not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc", because of his religion, then so much the better. Religion gives a person focus, and if it helps keep a politician on a more honorable path, so much the better.
The problem with the Bush administration's approach is that they basically were looking, from day 1, for a way to justify attacking Iraq.
Lets get something out of the way.. I hear all you bloody liberals saying, "Bush wanted nothing more than to attack Iraq"... Ok. Tell me, in liberal thinking, why Bush was so hell bent on invading that worthless piece of shit country?
You keep claiming that we Republicans do nothing more than repeat what our politicians tell us to. It would seem that you liberals do exactly the same - and your ideas don't even make sense!
We didn't attack Iraq until after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. And we pulled our inspectors out of Iraq because Saddam was denying us access to areas that needed inspection . If that doesn't tell us something is fishy, we must have a plugged up nose.
But yeah, you liberals are right. Lets just keep talking with a dictator that kills his own populace for pleasure - maybe we can convince him to let us in those secret bases. Its a damn good thing you liberals weren't around for the Revolutionary War. Perhaps we could have chatted with the Brittish over tea about our differences on relgion, the king, and taxes?
The way I interperted "global test" was more along the lines of carefully thinking out our actions and basically putting ourselves in the rest of the world's shoes. "How will the Arab world react if we do X? What if we do Y? And what about the Chinese?" The Global Test is more of an abstract concept than a strictly defined set of rules. Sure, for things that don't require immediate action, we should most definately get the input of foreign leaders
Its well known that Kerry is a UN supporter. When he says Global Test - he means asking the UN permission and obeying their decision.
The UN is a body of appointed officials acting on behalf of the world governments. Not to mention their sessions are closed to all but a few non-government-organizations. Its scary enough that OUR politicans are as slimey as they are - do you want to trust someone else's politicians to appoint someone to make our rules?
Practically every posting under this article is bashing Bush one way or another. We finally get a president in the white house that isn't getting his wang sucked off by an intern, and is actually DOING something to make our world safer, and we sound like whinny babies. Disagree with the way he got rid of Saddam. Poke fun at him for not being a great public speaker (are you any better?). Disagree with his stance towards the UN's gun control agenda. But you know what? I'd rather have a president who's honest, rather than one who lies about infidelity. One who's trying to make our world SAFER for us to live in. One who isn't changing his mind every minute on where we should be. Who can read the reports from Flordia, Ohio, and other states that actually bothered to track their crime rates before and after they inacted a concealled weapons permit law, and were able to statistically show that an armed city is a safer city. Not one who wants nothing more than to bow to UN pressure to restrict our right to defend our lives.
You don't close your eyes, put your hands behind your back and let a bully take a swing at you. Will you be the one cowering and whimpering in isle 11 as another madman with a gun bought illegally causually kills innocent after innocent, while someone else in the store capable of killing him could, if only his right to defend his life and others wasn't denied him by corrupt and misguided politicians!
WE (Americans) are the most greedy, selfish people people in the world. Everyone is bitching about our gas prices, our taxes, how the world views us... How many lives did we save by getting rid of Saddam? How many people weren't forced to drink gasoline and then get shot for amusement? How many didn't have electrical wires fry off their genitals? How many didn't end up in a mass grave after being tourtured and raped repeatedly? Oh, wait, you're an American and your gas prices are higher - so you don't give a shit. You people make me sick.
You allow your 8 year old to wander off by herself? FFS what kind of a parent are you?
The same kind of parent you had, and your parents had. And look, you're still alive..
And don't give me the "there's more perverts in the world today" nonsense. We're just more aware of the perverts due to the internet. The number hasn't changed.
I'm not an IPv6 wiz... In fact, I know little about it, as I'm not concerned about moving towards it (like most of the internet, we don't care)..
5 6
Either way, the current 4 billion addresses is taken from: 2^32, which yields: 4,294,967,296 (yeah yeah, subnets not withstanding).
IPv6 should have 2^128 available addresses to use, which yeilds: 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,4
The article says enough for every person on the planet to have 10. There are 6 billion people on this planet. So....
6,000,000,000 x 10 =
60,000,000,000
Hmm... I'm not even sure what you'd call that number above, but its a lot more than 60 billion.
Certainly tracking a person's every financial transaction is far more dangerous to democracy - (Did you order those movie tickets to Farienheit 9/11 by phone? The government has a record! Did you donate to the Green Party, or the Natural Law Party, or The Libertarian Party? Who you vote for might be secret ballot, but the government knows who you donated to! Did you fly out and rent a hotel to participate in a protest? The government knows! Pay by credit card for your web server? Don't think your controversial political web blog can't be traced to you!).
You make very good points about why we should fear a cashless society, and fight it.
Privacy and anoniminity is what has ensured democracy.
Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.
Try thinking for a change. It works for me.
I think he was doing a good job of thinking. If we all had access to the cameras, and good points like yours and his are both argued, then it'll never happen. There's too much risk for abuse if everyone has access to it, and there's too much risk for privacy invasion if only the "law" has access to it.
For the past decade, activists and nongovernmental organizations all over the globe have taken up video cameras to document injustices in their countries, sometimes risking their lives to bring human rights abuses to light.
Thats all great and peachy, but we're not putting these cameras into sweat shops... We're putting them on the street. Refer to my post here, where I make mention of the Rodney King beatings. They had filmed Rodney getting out of his car, and swinging at the cops. The cops overreacted, but it was not a race crime that the media led us to believe. It wasn't until well after the police were charged for a hate crime that the truth came out....
My point: That was on tape. And it didn't matter. This does nothing for my "safety" and "security" other than allowing to government more of an opportunity to see when I don't do exactly what I should be doing, 100% of the time. And when my actions aren't aligned correctly with whatever agenda someone has, they'll look as bad as the powers that be can manipulate them to look.
Industry observers see it both ways, indicating that while IT pros may have less opportunity for extra pay, no company is going to risk losing a good tech worker over a few overtime hours and will make up for any losses if necessary.
Thats a bunch of bull. Maybe a small IT shop won't risk it, but large corporations with 50 > software drones in their employ will gladly get rid of some higer paid employees (who are getting OT), so they can shift market demand to younger programmers willing to work for less wage because they have large education loans to pay off, and are happy to just have a job.
It only seems to apply to images the government buys. Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data. If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.
Noo. Way!!! Slashdot readers not reading the article and jumping to conclusions? Perhaps we need a "Jumping to Conclusions Mat"?
The tech industry is also obsessed with high performance chips that have power consumption through the roof (most of it waste, of course).
During the winter, I put the second CPU into my fileserver.... A nice, toasty AMD MP CPU - those suckers get hot! When you live in the cold north, the faster cpu, the better!
With so many cameras, I doubt there is the manpower or the interest for someone to look at them all, only the ones that are really relevent - where a crime or suspicious behaviour has already been reported. After this the cameras are simply pointing out the facts of the situation, and are we really that afraid of facts and consequences of our actions (if those actions are illegal or suspicious)?
At the moment I feel that I trust the British government enough that this is an acceptable situation, look at the impact the congestion charges (and enforcement cameras) have had on London traffic for example.
I see a few problems with this:
1) Famous person / politician seen going to a strip club.
2) Easy way to profile someone's interests and use it to monetary advantage
3) Easy way to leave out key parts of a video during a crime
Number three is a big one. Lets take the Rodney King beating here in the states. What was shown on TV, and to the court was Rodney getting beat by a few cops. What no one got to see until after the verdict was Rodney getting out of the car and trying to fight the cops. Yeah, the cops didn't need to beat him repeatedly, but it wasn't a race crime - it was, "Another lowlife trying to fight the police, and they were sick of it" scenario. The entire racist beating was an angle used to get those cops busted for acting out of line. And after they end up getting punished did we learn the truth of the matter...
After Rodney, that is, ended up with a 1 Million settlement, some truck driver in LA is now brain damaged from real racists hitting him in the head with a brick (and a camera caught that, with them pulling the trucker out of his truck, smashing in his head, and laughing about it... Not much happened to them), and a bunch of looting and property damange took place.
Yeah, trust what you see. When the government, or especially the media shows it to you and calls it truth.
And, btw, I believe London leads the "First World (civilized) Countries" in violent crimes. Perhaps the British government should spend more time repealing anti-gun laws than installing cameras. Take Sweden for example.
--
If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
In the scenario you mentioned, it forces the spammer to use machines that's within the ISP's control. If the spam bearing your domain is originating from some random computer in China, there's not a whole lot you can do. But if the spam has to originate from one of your customer's computers and has to be sent via one of your SMTP servers, then you can look at the logs on your SMTP server, figure out the infected customer, and take appropriate action.
Yes, I believe the original poster failed to realize the important: Big corporations have logs, lawyers, and the law on their side. It benefits everyone when yahoo, msn, etc go after spammers that they can actually trace and arrest.
You may have heard of this document called The Constitution. See, it turns out that it trumps all other laws in the land...
It does now does it? Then why can't I carry a gun in Washington DC?
To quote from the constitution:
2nd Amendment
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Hmm, the "Right of the people". Well, the liberals in this world want you to believe "the people" doesn't mean us, it means the militia. So, by their reasoning:
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and articularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Ok... "the people" was used again. So, we're not allowed to search or seize the papers of the militia, correct? And only them?
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Hmm. There's "the people" again, in the same document. Apparently our founding fatheres were all for protecting the privacy and rights of the militia. Oh, and while we're at it, how bout for fun we take a snippet from the 17th amendment (its rather long).
17th Amendment
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Wow, our elected officials are only in office due to votes from our military!?!?! I always thought the voting booths looked rather cheap, now I know why - they're fake!
If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
I don't think I could have said it any better. That was great!
We didn't consider reiserfs.
...
We've lost data with both reiserfs and XFS.
Well, which is it? If you're going to spew FUD, at least make up your mind which story you're going to tell.
I'm sorry, I'm mixing my timeline with my story.
Our current barrage of tests didn't include reiserfs for consideration because we had lost data in the past on reiserfs v3.
To me, having to restore a critical server from tape because of a fs glitch is reason to ditch that fs. The hardware it was on, it is still going strong on, now with ext3.
Whenever a file would be created on that mount point that exceeded 4G,... We never had a problem like that was the ext's
No, you had a different problem... namely that the ext2 and ext3 file systems don't support files that big
I'd love to give you access to my server so you can login and see for yourself that ext3 does support files greater than 4G. Infact, MOST of our servers store very large data sets in single files, some upwards of 500G without fault.
No, my reference was that XFS had problems when creating a file bigger than 4G. Please read my rant before you rant back, and check you facts.